cs2532aa@unm-cvax.UUCP (03/17/85)
Dear net.games and net.micro.apple readers: What follows is a copy of a letter that I sent yesterday to Roe Adams, late of Softalk, and now National Editor of Electronic Games magazine. It is in response to an article in the March issue of that magazine. I have posted it here because I think that it is of general interest to the net, and even to people in Great Britain. (How about that?) I also posted it here because I'd like to see a discussion of this topic started here, and I figured that this would be a great way to start one. Please, if you have flames about this article, MAIL them to me. Feel free to post useful discussion to net.micro.apple. I do not believe that net.micro is interested. Please note that I may quote your personal mail to me in followup postings, but I will not use your name unless you state that I am allowed to do so in your letter. And now that that's over, heeeere we go . . . ---------- . . . As per the request at the end of the article in the March 1985 issue called "Menace of the Software Pirates," I am sending you this letter to let you know how I feel about piracy. I never expected the article to come out in favor of piracy, but I expected it to be accurate, straightforward, and relevant. Unfortunately, it was none of these things. I have a number of general and specific complaints about the article, and I will outline them here, presented with excerpts from the original article for clarity's sake. > The advent of disk duplicators has created a new category of computer thief, > the software mugger. I have never, repeat, NEVER heard this term 'software mugger' used before. Is it the habit of your magazine to invent silly new buzzwords to make something old and commonplace sound new and interesting? The pirates I know who do nothing but copy things using Essential Data Duplicator or Copy ][ Plus are still called the same thing: pirates. 'Software mugger', indeed! I am proud to say that I have NEVER mugged a piece of software, or even a human being. > Ironically, in their lust to obtain the newest software, the vast horde of > muggers frequently scare software publishers out of the business. "Frequently"? I have yet to hear of ONE COMPANY that went out of business and blamed software piracy. Perhaps I missed something . . . but even assuming that I did, "frequently" brings forth visions of several software publishers folding monthly, screaming "the pirates did it to us!" to the bitter end. Has this ever happened? I don't think so. > The British software industry presents a frightening example. Think for > a moment about all those fantastic British software programs you've enjoyed > over the years. What, you say you can't think of any? That's because > piracy has flourished unchecked in the U.K., and no company wants to spend > time and money creating an innovative program knowing full well that the > better it turns out, the greater the likelihood that the vultures will > rip it off. Granted, piracy in Great Britain is as big as or bigger than it is over here. But the conclusion that the lack of British software available over here is because of piracy is the biggest pile of rubbish I have seen in a great while. The main "problems" are these: o The British use a totally different group of machines from we Americans. The popular machines over there are the TI 99/4A, the BBC micro, the Oric-1, the Dragon, the Sharp MZ-80A, the ZX-81 (known as the Timex/Sinclair 1000 over here), and the Spectrum (the short-lived Timex/Sinclair 2061). There is some crossover . . . a few C-64's and Ataris, and maybe you can find an Apple if you're lucky, but for the most part, micros that are popular in Britain are either defunct over here or were never even available in the first place. Therefore, there's not much of a market over here for already developed British software. But what about the 64 and the Atari, you ask? Well, that brings up the other problem . . . o The British DON'T BUY DISK DRIVES. They consider them a waste of money, and from what I've seen there, they are quite satisfied with their cassette tape drives. (That may give them a speed advantage over the disk-drive equipped American user of the C-64 :-) Games that take advantage of the disk drive (which Americans use almost exclusively nowadays) are never even developed, so how could they be sold over here? And it's virtually impossible to sell tape- based games on this side of the Atlantic in quantities that would warrant importing from England. The lack of British software available over here is a nonissue. > When it doesn't kill off titles altogether, mass piracy at the very least > tacks dollars onto the price of software as the producers pay off the high > cost of increasingly sophisticated copy protection. They are wasting their money. I know almost as many people who refuse to buy copy-protected software as I know software pirates. Jerry Pournelle, in his BYTE column "Chaos Manor", has gone over this many times, and in a manner much more convincing than anything I could say here. > Penguin Software . . . has attempted to deal with mugging and piracy in a > different manner. Penguin, in an altruistic bit of company policy, doesn't > even bother protecting their applications software, including instead an > extraordinarily fair replacement policy. I would hardly consider this policy "altruistic". This should be standard policy for EVERY company. And why, pray tell, are they so generous with their applications software, while they insist on protecting their entertain- ment software to the hilt? I have seen just as many pirated copies of "The Complete Graphics System" as I have seen of "Transylvania". In my opinion, people who invest in entertainment software have the same right to back-up their disks as people who invest in applications. > As a final incentive to stop illegal disk duplication, Penguin has done as > much as anyone to keep the lid on their software prices. $35 for a graphic adventure is "keeping a lid on their software prices? Give me a break! > Of course, the muggers' use of high prices as a rationale for illegal > copying is, at best, a red herring. As a rationale, perhaps I can agree. The only rationale I have ever found necessary for piracy is the fact that you get free software. That's a pretty good rationale. But the threat of piracy still doesn't justify the outrageous pricing policies going on today on ALL kinds of software, be it entertainment or applications. If Borland International can sell "Turbo Pascal", which is generally recognized as one of the best Pascal compilers on the market, for $70, what does that make the company that charges almost as much for a simple adventure game? Many words come to mind, none of them suitable for a family magazine. > Moreover, the mugger is more responsible than the company for the high price > of software. Not only by stealing programs, but by sharing with friends, the > retail marketplace is diminished. The fewer paying customers there are, the > higher prices remain. That most pirates would have bought the software they pirate in the first place is a fallacious assumption. Where would pirates with thousands upon thousands of (retail) dollars worth of software have gotten the money for it? People who would ordinarily buy software still buy it, those who wouldn't buy software anyway, pirate it. As I pointed out before, I haven't heard of any software companies going out of business and blaming the pirates. (And I am of the opinion that piracy has probably kept several floppy disk manufacturers in the black!) > . . . one particular group stands out as being culpable [for high software > prices]: the producers of disk-duplication software. > In homes all over America, otherwise-honest adults and adolescents are > stealing the products of other people's creative labor. They are doing this > not for kicks or as a statement of dissatisfaction with the state of software > prices, they are doing it because it's so incredibly easy! Software pirates rarely use programs like Copy ][ Plus or Locksmith 5.0 anymore -- the programs simply aren't necessary. Thanks to current modem technology and that small handful of pirates who can remove the copy protection from virtually any program in a matter of hours, practically any ware you like is available over the phone lines from any one of literally hundreds of software-oriented computer bulletin boards across the country. Once the copy-protection is removed, all you need to copy the disk is the program COPYA, which comes with every Apple sold. As an example, Activision's "Ghostbusters" and Penguin's "Sword of Kadash" are considered "old wares" by most pirates, even though the games aren't even available yet (for the Apple) in most parts of the country. Most pirates have copies of games before ads for the games even appear, without ever having to boot a single "dupe disk". And what about legitimate owners of protected software? Few companies sell programs with backup copies. Fewer still replace a damaged disk for $5 or less. Remember, current copyright law allows the legitimate owner to make a backup copy of the original disk. > EG'S 4 POINTS . . . how the industry should address the question of piracy > and mugging. The following are our suggestions: > > 1) The computer industry must use all its influence and power in an effort > to have all copy-duplication software banned. No one has a legitimate > use for a dupe disk, any more than they do for a machine capable of > duplicating currency. As long as there are dupe disks, it will be so > easy to steal software that great numbers of people will be unable to > resist. So, making backups isn't a legitimate use for a dupe disk? Tell that to the manager whose "Accounts Recievable" program disk has just been wiped out by a stray cup of coffee. Hey, as long as there are cassette decks, it'll be so easy for folks to tape albums for their friends that great numbers of people will be unable to resist . . . better ban them, too . . . and as long as there are cars able to go faster than 55 miles per hours, lots of folks will be tempted to break the speed limit . . . This suggestion reeks of Big-Brotherism, and I am totally appalled that you would suggest the banning of ANY kind of software. > 2) Newspapers, magazines, or any other medium carrying ads for dupe disks, > pirated software, or other piratical devices must be boycotted. This > also applies to bulletin boards and even user groups through which > pirated software is produced. In the first place, you've described just about every computer-oriented magazine on the racks, secondly, virtually nobody is going to boycott a magazine just because it has ads for Back-It-Up III, and thirdly, just who do you think are MEMBERS of user groups that distribute pirated software? Innocent little old ladies from Pasadena? > 3) The software industry must set standards in the matter of warranties. > Guidelines must be agreed upon so that defective software can be > returned in a manner equitable to both the manufacturer and consumer. Agreed! The days of "The manufacturer of this product doesn't warranty it to do jack-poo, and accepts no liability in any way, shape, or form for any damages that result from any use of this product no matter what happens" have got to end. (This has nothing to do with piracy, though, so what's it doing here?) > 4) Finally the computer industry must get it together . . . Piracy is > a question so crucial to the entire eco-structure of te computer > universe that it can not be settled by having each company seek out > a separate peace. Just what the heck does this paragraph mean? Are you suggesting that software companies sign treaties with pirates to prevent the pirates from copying their software? Please clarify . . . I honestly don't have any idea what you're talking about. At any rate, this concludes my list of complaints about the article and opinions on the subject in general. I hope that this letter will be of some help to you. ---------- .rne. ----- Real World . . Ernie Longmire / 311 Don St. SE / Los Lunas, NM 87031-9405 UUCP . . . . . {{purdue,cmcl2,ihnp4}!lanl,ucbvax}!unmvax!unm-cvax!cs2532aa ----- "Actually, God's a very nice person . . . his first name is Bill and he lives somewhere in Canoga Park . . ." - Johnny Vomit
band@ccivax.UUCP (Bill Anderson) (03/20/85)
*** Two Comments on Software Piracy and a Response *** ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Date: 1 Feb 85 08:11:21 GMT Somebody tell me: Is it that much more expensive to develop a program as it is to develop (write songs for) an album, hire musicians, cut the thing, design album jackets, distribute it an what-not? Of course, you don't need to offer software support for an album, but still. Record albums and illegal cassette copies, books and copyright-violating xerox copies, even movies and VCR copies coexist reasonably happily. Whatinthehell is the matter with software? Russell Reid ===================================================== Date: 17 Mar 85 08:33:25 GMT > Of course, the muggers' use of high prices as a rationale for illegal > copying is, at best, a red herring. As a rationale, perhaps I can agree. The only rationale I have ever found necessary for piracy is the fact that you get free software. That's a pretty good rationale. But the threat of piracy still doesn't justify the outrageous pricing policies going on today on ALL kinds of software, be it entertainment or applications. If Borland International can sell "Turbo Pascal", which is generally recognized as one of the best Pascal compilers on the market, for $70, what does that make the company that charges almost as much for a simple adventure game? Ernie Longmire / 311 Don St. SE / Los Lunas, NM 87031-9405 UUCP : {{purdue,cmcl2,ihnp4}!lanl,ucbvax}!unmvax!unm-cvax!cs2532aa ===================================================== 1985.3.19 To answer Russell Reid, nothing is the matter with software. The fact that "record albums and illegal cassette copies ... coexist reasonably happily" does not change the fact that the copies are illegal. Copyright violation is stealing. And stealing is not acceptable! Period. The question is Why is software any different? To answer Ernie Longmire, the company that charges a high price for an adventure game is called an entrepreneur. No one is forcing you to buy it, and if the company cannot make money, it will go out of business. "Stolen software is free" is not a rationale for stealing, it is a rationalization for making stealing a legitimate practice. The question here is What makes stealing all right? The answer, as above, is nothing. The increase in stealing of microprocessor software will probably lead to two unhappy results: more expensive software, and more difficult procedures for backup and general personal use. The end result is a more rigid environment all round. Bill Anderson ...!{ucbvax!allegra | decvax}!rochester!ccivax!band -- Bill Anderson ...!{ {ucbvax | decvax}!allegra!rlgvax }!ccivax!band
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (03/21/85)
[..........]
Of similar interest, here is a letter found in the mail section of
Unix World, Oct. 84:
Gentlemen:
The feature article "Software Security and the Pin-Striped Pirate," in
the March/April 1984 isisue of UNIX/WORLD was well thought out and
useful. Unfortunately when Mr. Auditore cam to economic analysis,
he merely parroted vendors' claims, which have all teh sophistication
and economic insight of a sales representative calculating the commission.
A more thorough analysis is needed.
One may easily observe: (a) Unsupported (pilfered) copies of commercial
software represent a competeitive force (arguably an unfair one) to
keep prices down. If Context, Lotus, Microsoft, and Sorcim all
announced the withdrawl of their spreadsheet products from the
market and a recall of all copies previously sold, would VisiCorp
respond by selling VisiCalc at $50? (b) The widespread use of unsupported
(including pilfered) software is indicative of how highly the marketplace
values the support currently offered by vendors. One can compare this
to the proliferation of "no-frills" stock brokers, "you-bag-it" grocery
stores, and "self-serve" gas stations. (This should not be taken as
equating the legal status of any of these to pilfered software.)
Only as it becomes uneconomic to pilfer software will it cease.
Do moral preachments and draconian threats have a good track record?
From a sociological perspective, most people whom I have observed
as having any appreciable quantity of unsupported (including pilfered)
software generally have vast heaps of it and never use more than
even a small portion. Others use pilfered software as a result
(they say) of bad experiences with the deplorable quality of software
which they legitimately purchased. Paying several hundred dollars
for a highly touted product to discover that a far less expensive
has far greater functionality can reduce one's good will toward all
manufacturers. One could also easily claim that no company with more
than 10 employees should even pretend that it supports the microcomputer
user (MicroAm and GerundiveStar). I should also note a most
penetrating and provocative analysis of copyright at the end of
"Sony Versus Universal Studies: So What?" in PC Tech Journal, 1:8
( May 1984) pp. 197-201.
Thank you,
Ross Parlette, Bldg. 0010
computer systems specialist
United Technologies Chemical Systems
P.O. Box 50015
San Jose, CA 95150-0015
(408) 779-9121
Authors response:
The perception that software theft is a positive competitive market
force is similar to thinking that shoplifting from a department store
is helping to keep prices down. Major retail outlets allocate 2-3
percent of the sales total to "lost" merchandise. Clearly they don't
accept 2-3 percent less profit. To insure that this percentage does not
hit their bottom line, it is added into the price of all products being
sold. The software business is much the same. Instead of Mr. Parlette's
utopia, where software pirates are keeping software prices down, what we
have is the rest of us supporting these Brooks Brothers buccaneers by
having the losses attributed to piracy added to the price of our
legitimate purchases.
Regarding the value of vendor-offered support, it is important to remember
that the software vendor decides what the product is and how much he thinks
it's worth. If you don't agree with the vendor's valuation, you don't
have to buy it. But one of the options upon disagreement of valuation is
not the right to steal it. Certainly a case can be made for "no-frills"
software, similar to a self-serve gas station, but remember, you still
pay for the gas.
Software piracy is just as much a crime as is shoplifting a pair of
Calvin Klein jeans from Macy's. However, because of our inability to
fully comprehend the concept of intellectual property, there is no
social stigma attatched to the rape and pillage of a software program.
Instead the hackers that rip us all off are condescended to: "My, how
bright! Isn't that clever?" Indeed. Just as clever as the people
who engineered the Brinks robbery or the thugs who robbed the local
7-11 store.
- Steve Auditore
Keith Doyle
# {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
P.S. I wonder how Steve figures you can know whether or not you agree
with the vendor's valuation of his software if you haven't ALREADY
bought it.
Personally, what I object to most, is the fact that if I upgrade my
computer system to new and better hardware, I have to throw my old
software away. After you've bought that same spreadsheet or compiler
or whatever enough times, you really begin to wonder what you're getting
for your money.jim@randvax.UUCP (Jim Gillogly) (03/22/85)
In article <296@unm-cvax.UUCP> cs2532aa@unm-cvax.UUCP (Foobar Baz Bletchquux) writes: >> Ironically, in their lust to obtain the newest software, the vast horde of >> muggers frequently scare software publishers out of the business. > >"Frequently"? I have yet to hear of ONE COMPANY that went out of business and >blamed software piracy. Here's one for you: Ray Livingstone (Livingstone Logic Labs) left the Heath market because his drivers were getting pirated and passed around in Heath Users' Groups. It was reported in BUSS and H-SCOOP a couple of years ago. It was a shame, because he was one of the most competent H89 hardware hackers around. While of course not all pirates and users of pirated software would have bought the programs, certainly SOME of them (probably the ones who use the program as part of their daily repertoire) would have. And yes, I'm prejudiced because I'm trying to make a living off of selling my software - and it's not copy protected. Sigh. -- Jim Gillogly {decvax, vortex}!randvax!jim jim@rand-unix.arpa
bart@reed.UUCP (Bart Massey) (03/23/85)
> Dear net.games and net.micro.apple readers: > > What follows is a copy of a letter that I sent yesterday to Roe Adams, late > of Softalk, and now National Editor of Electronic Games magazine. Amen. This is a better statement of my feelings on the subject than I could have made myself... Bart Massey ...tektronix!reed!bart
jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) (03/26/85)
Rather than demeaning ourselves & destroying our personal integrity by stealing the stuff, let's find a positive solutions to the challenge. I like the one practiced by Borlund. They saw a market & filled it with a product that does its job at a price anyone can afford. >Of similar interest, here is a letter found in the mail section of >Unix World, Oct. 84: > >...vendors' claims ... have all the sophistication >and economic insight of a sales representative calculating a commission. >A more thorough analysis is needed. You bet it is, & the combined smarts of the people who created the system (that's us, folks) can find creative solutions to anything we want to find solutions for. If we don't, it's just because we don't choose to. >...Only as it becomes uneconomic to pilfer software will it cease. >Do moral preachments and draconian threats have a good track record?... This is the real cruncher. We have no business trying to stop people from doing whatever they choose to do, but we can make it easier to buy than to steal. >Others use pilfered software as a result >(they say) of bad experiences with the deplorable quality of software >which they legitimately purchased. Paying several hundred dollars >for a highly touted product to discover that a far less expensive >has far greater functionality can reduce one's good will toward all >manufacturers. Clearly, the answer here is to encourage software vendors to price their products competitively & to offer user support. How do we do that? With our pocketbooks. Buy only from companies that support us. Another powerful tool is reverse engineering. If the only companies that offer a product price it too high, that leaves a market slot for someone else to take advantage of (a la Borlund). >Authors response: > >...what we have is the rest of us supporting these Brooks Brothers >buccaneers by having the losses attributed to piracy added to the >price of our legitimate purchases. This is only half the cost & it is far too high. The rest of the cost is loss of our own self-esteem (that's right, you are too inadequate to ever be able to get that software honestly. You had to steal it. Even if you had the money, you aren't worth having it honestly; you don't deserve to have it.) >Regarding the value of vendor-offered support, it is important to remember >that the software vendor decides what the product is and how much he thinks >it's worth. If you don't agree with the vendor's valuation, you don't >have to buy it. But one of the options upon disagreement of valuation is >not the right to steal it. Certainly a case can be made for "no-frills" >software, similar to a self-serve gas station, but remember, you still >pay for the gas. An example of a positive solution here is the myriad of companies offerring dBase classes & pre-processors. The same solution is available to all other software markets. >Software piracy is just as much a crime as is shoplifting a pair of >Calvin Klein jeans from Macy's. However, because of our inability to >fully comprehend the concept of intellectual property, there is no >social stigma attatched to the rape and pillage of a software program. >Instead the hackers that rip us all off are condescended to: "My, how >bright! Isn't that clever?" Indeed. Just as clever as the people >who engineered the Brinks robbery or the thugs who robbed the local >7-11 store. > >- Steve Auditore Steve hits the nail right on the head; the highest cost of software piracy is the destructive effects of our attitudes about it. In article <485@cadovax.UUCP> keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) writes: >P.S. I wonder how Steve figures you can know whether or not you agree >with the vendor's valuation of his software if you haven't ALREADY >bought it. I agree with Keith's complaint about valuation, so let's encourage (by shopping at) stores that offer in-store (& at-home) testing of software packages. >Personally, what I object to most, is the fact that if I upgrade my >computer system to new and better hardware, I have to throw my old >software away. After you've bought that same spreadsheet or compiler >or whatever enough times, you really begin to wonder what you're getting >for your money. I agree with Keith's complaint about upgrading our computer systems, so let's encourage companies to develop upgrade & enhancement policies that will let us return our existing software for the comparable product for our new system. Realize that the company will have to charge an upgrade fee. Be willing to pay it while we encourage the company to keep it reasonable. Sorry for rambling on so long, but this seems important enough to warrant it. -- Blessed Be, Jeff Hull {decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,scdrdcf,ucbvax} 13817 Yukon Ave. trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jhull Hawthorne, CA 90250
ijdavis@watdaisy.UUCP (Ian Davis) (03/27/85)
As a games user and as author and distributer of Bridge and Cribbage for the IBM PC some comments on piracy.. 1) The sale of copy protected diskettes should be outlawed. In the case of games such as Zork II the cost of replacements now exceeds my original purchase price. Worse the turn around time on replacements would be bad enough even if Infocom wasn't inclined to send back bad diskettes claiming that nothing was wrong with them.. I sent back a letter including the "Dead Parrot Sketch" and described in vivid detail the scratch across the disk and the inability of the platten to rotate within its jacket but this I suspect only invited longer delays. I have also purchased for $100 a macro assembler that was copy protected. Since it took over 3 months to obtain this product I subsequently decided that developing software on the atari with such liabilities would be suicidal... 2) Piracy is a problem but copy protecting diskettes is not going to defend companies from those individuals who could hurt sales via pirating software (actually for individuals read companies). So why copy protect diskettes. 3) My own solution to this problem is I think sufficient, and I would be interested to know if others agree. Firstly, the distributer rather than the user should be considered guilty of piracy... Frankly, who is not going to use what they are given, and who is to say that the user necessarily knows that the item is pirated. So (using sophisticated software protection) put an identifying serial number on each diskette, and add to the copyright, a notice offering a reward to information leading to the conviction of copyright violaters and include a telephone number. Distributers cannot assume that distributed software stays in the hands of trusted friends, and so this becomes a real threat and liability to them. It only remains to ensure that courts provide strong protection for developers, and in particular make it worth the developers while to prosecute any and all violations... In Datamation one gross case of video piracy resulted in a 10 year jail term!!
tdn@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA (Thomas Newton) (03/29/85)
I agree that the sale of copy-protected disks should be outlawed. I have both
an Apple Macintosh and a pair of Ataris (one 800, one 800XL). One thing that
I like to do with software that I have purchased is to make a backup copy for
my daily use and put the original copy away. On the Mac, it is fairly easy to
modify certain aspects of a program using the Resource Editor, and I sometimes
take advantage of this capability. Needless to say, it isn't a very good idea
to experiment on original disks.
Most of the software that I have for my Atari is not copy-protected, with the
exception of two Electronics Arts games (Pinball Construction Set and Worms),
the Atari Macro-Assembler, and Atari Microsoft BASIC. Atari Microsoft BASIC
has a lot of commands (TRS-80 Disk BASIC + some), but I don't use it often
since it leaves very little free memory. I stopped using Pinball Construction
Set after I lost some of my DATA files by moving them from one disk to another
(the files probably contained absolute sector numbers or other such garbage).
A piece of software that is useful is the Atari Macro Assembler. I removed
the copy-protection on my working copy using instructions that I found in old
info-atari archives, and now I don't need to worry about losing my original.
I also don't need to listen to the horrible crunching sound that the 810 drive
makes when it hits a bad sector (it sounds like the head is biting the dust).
I have bought exactly five copy-protected programs for my Mac: Macintosh
Pascal, Seastalker, Hitchhiker's Guide, Microsoft WORD, and Sargon III. I
only bought four of these programs because I had a reasonable expectation
of being able to circumvent the copy-protection. This assumption turned
out to be true in three of the four cases; Hitchhiker's Guide has much better
protection than the other Infocom game. I bought Macintosh Pascal despite
the copy-protection, but I now regret that decision. (Macintosh Pascal has
the most nasty copy-protection scheme of which I have ever heard, other than
the "Killer Prolok" scheme which will actually try to damage your computer).
Recently, I faced the choice of which C compiler to buy for my Mac. There are
basically three that seem to be worth considering: Aztec C, Consular C, and
Megamax C. Aztec C is copy-protected, Consular C is copy-protected (but you
can get an unprotected version for $25 more), and Megamax C is not protected.
Guess which one I bought. I am now the owner of a copy of Megamax C version
2.0, and my checking account is $188 poorer. (If I had paid list price, it
would have been $299 poorer, but the Computer Store gets stuff at a discount).
And finally, before anyone flames me to say that "it's fine to advocate an
end to copy-protection, but you're not getting hurt": I did write a couple
of programs for the Atari 400/800 which were sold through the Atari Program
Exchange (now defunct). Neither one was copy-protected, and both came with
source code. (I wasn't the only person to follow this practice; one of the
nice things about the Atari 800 is that you can get full source listings of
the entire operating system, disk operating system, and BASIC. Compared to
the "operating system" on many other low-cost computers, the Atari 400/800
operating system is very comprehensive). I don't think it's right to screw
the people who purchase your program, even if it would make a pirate's life
somewhat harder.
-- Thomas Newton
Thomas.Newton@cmu-cs-spice.ARPAijdavis@watdaisy.UUCP (Ian Davis) (04/04/85)
I read in a current medical journal (my wife is a doctor) that someone had come up with a clever solution to piracy... They give out software for free, and urge that it be distributed.. The rider is that the software contains a header notice inviting all users to contribute to the development of additional software (if they liked the product) by making a charitable donation to the developers of the software... Frankly, I strongly suspect that most receivers of under-the-counter software would be glad to contribute to the developers but don't have any reasonable way of doing it. However, most people hate parting with cash too.... Overall, this seems like a risky venture but probably no riskier than any other distribution method. As said earlier I market bridge and cribbage software for the P.C. and my advertising is current over $1,000 for 7 small lines in the blue book of P.C. for 6 issues.. That alone has put me out of business since sales are at around 100 copies. If anyone likes the above copy-protection idea send mail to me.. I don't read net.games as much as I should.... all work and no play...
rbt@sftig.UUCP (R.Thomas) (04/08/85)
> I read in a current medical journal (my wife is a doctor) that someone > had come up with a clever solution to piracy... They give out software for > free, and urge that it be distributed.. The rider is that the software > contains a header notice inviting all users to contribute to the development > of additional software (if they liked the product) by making a charitable > donation to the developers of the software... > Frankly, I strongly suspect that most receivers of under-the-counter software > would be glad to contribute to the developers but don't have any reasonable > way of doing it. However, most people hate parting with cash too.... > Overall, this seems like a risky venture but probably no riskier than any other > distribution method. As said earlier I market bridge and cribbage software > for the P.C. and my advertising is current over $1,000 for 7 small lines in > the blue book of P.C. for 6 issues.. That alone has put me out of business > since sales are at around 100 copies. > If anyone likes the above copy-protection idea send mail to me.. > I don't read net.games as much as I should.... all work and no play... To: watmath!watdaisy!ijdavis Subject: Re: Software Piracy In-reply-to: your article <7171@watdaisy.UUCP> The distribution technique you describe is sometimes called 'share-ware' and I have seen a few things distributed that way. I like the idea very much. Usually, the appeal for contributions includes a promise of some kind of support for those who send in their money. To further sweeten the pot, I have heard of at a variation on the 'support' theme in which you send in your money along with a copy of the diskette you are using. The author will send it back with the 'latest' version and a 'unique serial number' electronically encoded. (A time and date stamp would do fine for a serial number). The person who owns the serial number on the disk you sent in then gets a cut from your contribution. Anybody you give a copy of your own diskette to who sends in his contribution will wind up paying you a 'sales commission' just like you paid the person who owned the copy you sent in. The beauty of this scheme is that pirates make *no* money from it. They actually wind up *helping* the authors and legitimate users to get their fair share by providing the widest possible distribution. The biggest problem (assuming that you have a quality product, that will sell itself to anyone who gets to play with it for a while.) is getting a wide enough initial distribution. Net.sources doesn't seem to be the ideal method (very likely flames from people on the net about commercial use of the medium, etc.) Maybe a short note in net.general and net.wanted describing the 'product' and offering to send a (free) copy of your shareware for evaluation to people who mail you a stamped self addressed floppy. The users on other bulletin board systems may not be so touchy as the netnews folks. Maybe the 'private' BBS's are the right way to get something like this started. Rick Thomas ihnp4!attunix!rbt