I'm gonna way in on this conversation, after now having read the first 15 pages, browsed the next 5 pages, and skimmed the rest. I think I understand where azorni is going, and I can see clearly that none of you are grasping the concept he's trying to put forward. What is a program? Its just one giant number thats n bits long in base 2 (n being the total number of bits that represents the program in question). Theres no cost at all except a negligible electricity cost in duplicating this long number. That cost isn't even necessarily passed along to the original developer! So what gives this really long number value? Well, in certain contexts, the program it represents may offer some functionality that is desirable. The other contexts being on unsupported platforms. On those platforms, that long number doesn't mean ****. Bridges provide a desirable function that reduces time or effort in crossing a natural obstacle. Cars are tangible products that reduce time and effort in transporting things. If you sell a car, you deprive its previous user of the use of that functionality. Certainly a developer's time and knowledge is worth good money. Also, the fruits of his labor is worth money. However, the real question is whether the fruit of his labor is the code, or the functionality. Granted they are inseparably tied together. That doesn't satisfy the philospher in me though. Maybe somebody can build off this. By the way, the problem isn't necessarily limited to Software. Consider this post, and the future of recipe makers. With the ability to arbitrarily create any food we want, where will that leave professional chefs and their creations?