joel@decwrl.UUCP (Joel McCormack) (03/20/85)
I have very strong feelings about software piracy. The widespread tacit
approval of piracy, as evidenced by the number of people I know who own stolen
software, simply infuriates me. I don't like shoddy journalism either, and
understand why Ernie Longmire criticizes many points of the article in
Electronic Games. But he too, is guilty of making incorrect and irrelevant
accusations, and in doing so is propagating typical pirate justifications for
their behavior.
Here is my letter to all of you with stolen software:
Dear Software Pirate,
I ran Volition Systems for awhile. We sold Modula-2 for the Apple II,
IBM PC, and Sage II and IV. None of our software was copy-protected:
we figured there are honest people and dishonest people, and
copy-protection has little to do with the classification.
I got quite a bit of insight into what it takes to develop, sell, and support
software for the masses. It isn't easy. I'd like to discuss a few myths
that you people are always telling each other and us (I presume to assuage
the guilt that must hit you now and again).
MYTH #1: Software is overpriced
--------------------------------
Our prices were nowhere near what you would consider reasonable. The
cheapest anyone ever got our system, special discounts and everything,
was $245 for a single copy.
I did not get rich doing this. I am now working as a programmer for
DEC, instead of a capitalist exploiter of the masses, and make nearly
twice what I did at Volition.
But, perhaps we should have sold it for $70/copy like Borland - after
all, they have done quite well.
Not as many people want to buy Modula-2 as Pascal, sorry. Also, we
hadn't the capital to ramp up production to sell stuff as cheaply, nor
could we afford the hefty ad budget Borland has. We would have had to
settle for the level of after-purchase support most software purchasers
have come to expect, rather than the excellent support we wanted to
provide.
We did do some experiments with price reduction. Knocking prices down
about 25-40% did, indeed, result in increased business. It barely
increased total revenues. It did increase phone support, etc. It
can be argued that the price reductions didn't pay off. It is almost
certain that further reductions would have been death. We sold a lot
of systems, we were making a profit, but were nowhere near paying off the
development costs incurred.
Frankly, I shouldn't have to give a shit about what you, personally,
think is a fair price. I'm no flaming capitalist, but I must admit
that, with few exceptions, price should be related closely to
maximizing profit (assuming social costs of production, like pollution,
have been factored in), and related distantly, if at all, to cost of
development and production.
I can (and will) lower my prices in response to (or to scare off potential)
competition, but why lower them (and lower profits) because some guy on the
street who has no experience with running a company (which I assume describes
you) thinks you are ripping me off? If you think my software is horribly
overpriced, why, there's a marketing niche for you to fill. YOU find out
what it takes to develop what I'm selling, then let's see what YOU price it
at. And don't complain if I change my pricing to put you out of business.
What should matter is this: can I keep my company healthy charging the prices
I do? If you think my price is too high, fine, don't buy it; obviously other
people find it valuable enough that I don't have to worry about people like
you. I should ask myself "If I raised (or lowered) prices by $25, how many
less (or more) people would buy my product? Does it change my net profit?"
I shouldn't have to ask myself "Well, if I raise my price $25, how many more
would-be customers would steal rather than buy?" Hardware manufacturers
don't have to take this into account, why should I?
And aside from your obvious willingness to commit theft, I have some severe
doubts about your honesty. Most software pirates I've seen are pathetic liars
when it comes to words vs. actions. "I would've bought it if it was
reasonably priced" is the constant cry of the accused pirate. Yet I know
pirates who don't own a single piece of purchased software, save that which
came with the machine. Surely, not ALL software is that overpriced? Most of
you people wouldn't buy software unless it was priced slightly higher than a
blank disk, and then it would be only to save on the hassle of copying.
MYTH #2: If I can't back up software, I have the right to steal it
------------------------------------------------------------------
No, that header really doesn't make much sense to me, either. I don't know
why so many pirate arguments complain about lack of backup capabilities in a
product. Obviously YOU don't have any problems copying disks. Just get the
Locksmith parameters from a friend, or work them out yourself.
(And, well, since you went to all that trouble figuring it out, why not run a
few copies off for those guys that gave you Zaxxon and PFSFile last week? I
mean, hey, think how cool people will think you are at your next Software
Ripoff Club meeting if you bring in copies of stuff they couldn't break.)
Again the analogy to hard, physical products. If my car breaks down, even
under warranty, about the only thing I can do is take it in to get fixed.
Some companies have better warranties than others, and may give me a loaner.
I may take this into account when buying a car. But I have no right to steal
a car just because I don't like the company's policy on repairs.
If you don't like the way a software product comes, due to backups,
licensing, packaging, or because it runs about as fast as a snail in a coma,
don't buy it. If enough people share your views, the company will go out of
business or change its policies.
MYTH #3: I wouldn't buy it anyway, so I'm not hurting anyone
------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure you think I have no right to come into your house to take items
which you aren't using, just as I think you have no right to copy software
you "weren't going to buy anyway." In both cases neither of us is hurt,
right?
Suppose there was some magic way to stop illegal copying of software
overnight. Legitimate purchasers could make backups for themselves,
could even loan their software to friends (thus depriving the owner of
the use of the software until it was returned). What would the
computer software industry be like in this ideal world?
Software pirates would have a hell of a lot less software than they own
now. They WOULD own more purchased software than they do now. Estimates of
pirated copies range from 5 to 10 times legal copies. Now, I know you just
told me you wouldn't have bought any of the software you swiped, but are you
really going to do without ANY of it? Assume that legal volume goes up maybe
100%.
Prices would be lower, some perhaps down to 60% of current prices, others
only 10%; huge jumps down to the prices pirates think "justifiable" would
probably not happen. SOME companies that were marginal would be put on a
more solid footing; SOME more good software would make it to the marketplace
in quantity. Most software companies run a 5 to 30% return; even a 50%
increase in sales is going to affect them pretty heavily.
So enough with your lines about "Oh, c'mon, I'm not putting anyone out of
business" or "I'm not the one keeping prices high." You are not the only
cause when a software company goes out of business, but your decisions DO
have a significant impact.
In Summary
----------
Software pirates are pirates. They steal. No amount of argument changes
that. Theft is theft, and bullshit is bullshit, and every argument I've seen
to justify piracy falls in the latter catagory. No law gives you no right to
decide what constitutes a "fair" price or licensing policy, no matter how
well you have justified it "morally" in your pointy little head.
When it comes down to my final opinion, the financial condition of software
producers, publishers, and pirates don't concern me nearly as much as the
moral question, and the number of people who take the question so lightly.
To steal or not to steal.
Some of you think it's okay. To you, let me wish you the worst of
luck. I hope you work your ass off on something that means a lot to
you, only to have it ripped off when you've finished. It probably
won't teach you anything, but at least you'll have gotten what you
deserve.
To those who don't steal software, let me commend you. It is
frustrating to watch friends build enormous libraries of software thru
illegal means, while yours grows slowly. I suspect your concern for
fairness extends beyond the purchase of software, and am glad there are
people like you in the world.
- Joel McCormack {ihnp4 decvax ucbvax allegra}!decwrl!joel
joel@decwrl.arpa
--
- Joel McCormack {ihnp4 decvax ucbvax allegra}!decwrl!joel
joel@decwrl.arpabob@sdcsvax.UUCP (Robert Hofkin) (03/22/85)
Two tangential issues, explaining SOME piracy, but NOT justifying it: (1) Many pirates are just packrats. They don't use the stuff half the stuff they have , but keep it around "just in case." Sure, they'd have to buy programs they *DO* use, but as the cost goes up, the perceived benefit must increase as well. (2) A significant amount of software does not do the job as advertised. Maybe it's buggy, has size limitations, undecipherable, or the ads lie. I am much less inclined to buy *ANY* package over $50 unless I have strong reasons to believe it will work in my situation. Few vendors will accept a return on the grounds that "it didn't do what I wanted." Perhaps some piracy starts as a test-drive. It certainly takes great moral strength to then pay for something you've gotten for free.
elwell@osu-eddie.UUCP (Clayton M. Elwell) (03/22/85)
I applaud Joel's article. I would like to offer a few thoughts of my own, some of which may duplicate Joel's. If so, my apologies in advance. I was introduced to computers in high school, with all that implies. I learned assembly language on the Apple ][ and IBM PC by "breaking" (i.e. removing) the copy-protection on a wide variety of software. I did not then own a computer of my own, but my friends thought what I did was wonderful. Later on, two things happened: 1) Congress passed the Computer Software Copyright Act. 2) I started thinking about what I was actually doing. This was prompted by my entry into the field as a person trying to *sell* programs to make (at least part of) a living. It's amazing the perspective you gain when it's YOUR program being copied. I have had to discontinue at least one product because of outright theft. We're not talking living-room copying after the computer club meeting; we're talking taking someone else's program, changing it slightly, and selling it to the same market for a ridiculous price. It hurts, in more ways than one. I have heard many excuses for pirating software; one of my friends is an avid "collector". Most of the disks he has have been used exactly once (to "make sure it works"). Here are some that Joel didn't mention: "It's only a video game..." Most video games worth playing (and thus pirating) are the most sophisticated pieces of software on the market. There's a lot more programming expertise in, say, "Wizardry" than there is in an average accounting system. Think about it: real-time graphics, keeping track of input from multiple sources, etc. Especially on the Apple, getting graphics good enough to give your program an edge in the market is like squeezing blood from a turnip, and gives new meaning to the word "optimization". Every compiler designer should be forced to write a commercially successful video game. But I digress... "No one will ever know it was me..." Possibly so. Would you steal a book (or photocopy the whole thing) for the same reason? Maybe so, but probably not. The fundamental problem with software piracy is that, while being theft of intellectual property, it bears a very strong resemblence to making backups, which is a very good idea indeed. Pirating doesn't "feel" like a crime. There is, however, no fine line here. It is very simple. Let's say you have a copy of a piece of software. If you own an original through legal means (like buying it), it's a backup. If not, it is a pirated copy. Think about it, and pretend for a moment that it's YOUR software being pirated. --Clayton Elwell
cdshaw@watrose.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (03/22/85)
Although the article I'm replying to was well-reasoned and contained a lack of emotionality that other posters should emulate (hint, hint), it seems to me that there are two questions going unanswered (for me, at least): 1) Does pirating occur to such (or any) degree on larger (non-micro) systems, or with systems owned by companies doing a reputable business ? I don't think so. For the mainframe case, it matters a lot that the soft- ware works. I suspect any random user can log on & complain about software not working, and expect to get a response of "we'll fix it", as opposed to "it's a bootleg, so forget it!". If one does get the "bootleg" response, a large system would quickly lose customers / be reported. In any case, the thought of a system manager going out & swapping f77 for rogue (or whatever) at the nearby hacker meet seems ludicrous. The same kind of propriety probably forces businesses to buy micro software as opposed to pirating it. I think that this situation is more likely to cause pirating than the mainframe case, though. 2) Why doesn't the book industry die due to the ease of photocopying ? I think there are at least 3 reasons : 1) Photocopying is harder than disk duplication. 2) Books are nice in their own form, while a binder fulla photos is not so pleasant. 3) Buying a dozen copies of a book doesn't cost 12 * $600, more like 12 * $40, or $7200 vs $480. Now admittedly, it may be hard to sell a little bit of software for $40 per copy and make a profit, due to disk costs, etc... but I think that more than $10 for production costs is silly. (I don't know the hard facts on software prod'n though). In fact, I have a war game published by a large general-software publisher, and they sell public domain games for $7.95 for about 8 or so atari games, $5.95 for p.d. PC software, and $3.95 for Apple stuff. They aren't a charity, so they make some money at this, I'm sure. Basically, the costs for software are not the cost of copying and distribution, but in the large front-end cost of creating the program to start with. It is a mistake, I think, to go into the software business by starting a company, writing one program, then go beating the streets with your one software product in the hopes of making a million. Imagine what would happen if you tried to do the same thing in the book business. You would NOT get away with writing your book, starting a publishing firm, and then going bookstore to bookstore to get orders of 50 copies here, 30 copies there at $299 each!!!! For starters, no bank/whatever would finance you. A lot of people think that getting into the software game is the same as starting a company. I disagree. It is the same as getting into the book-writing business. First, you write a rough draught, take it to publishers, get their interest, then you polish & edit, and hopefully, they publish you. You then sit back & collect 15% royalty and live like a king (or peasant, depending on sales :-). If your program is going to sell, it will have a MUCH better chance in the hands of an ok publisher than it does in your hands. Why ? Because selling software & writing software are not mutually inclusive. The world's best hacker probably doesn't know sh*t about how to mail- proof diskettes, and he probably doesn't know how to manage a company, either. So why take the risk ? Now that I have really dug myself in deep, I'll try to get to the point. One thing that people miss is that software always needs documentation. I used to bootleg programs on my Apple, but I soon stopped when I realized that I was filling up perfectly good disks with programs I'd never use and that I had no idea how to use properly in the first place. It soon hit me that I would have to rip off documentation, as well. So now I have only half my disks with useless crap on them, plus a bookshelf full of various binders with documentation that doesn't match the software & isn't complete, all in lousy photocopy. The good software publisher also sends a good book along with the disk, and to me, it's the book that you really need. The software is probably useless without the documentation, anyway. If you're a really determined thief, you'll steal both the software and the disk. On the other hand, such theives are not so prevalent, since there's no challenge to photocopying, just work. And since you're paying $40-60 for a book, do you think a looseleaf binder with lousy photocopies of a badly-organized manual is acceptable ? Not likely. More likely you want to pay $40-60 for a well-bound paperback, at the very least, and a hardcover as a bonus !! What is needed in the software biz is the realization that happens to all booming but maturing businesses. There will be no more of the old days, and not quite so many young pioneers in the biz that there used to be. From now on (+ 2-4 years) there will be no more one- product software houses that make a small killing. Just as there will be no more huge 1-product car companies, or huge 1-product mainframe makers. There will only be the Borland's of this world, who will make either a large killing or die in the price competition. This isn't say that software writing won't be done anymore, just not the same way. Prices will come down due to real competition, and pirating will stop because there is no more need of it. I welcome any comment on this, but please, no emotionalism, Thank-you Chris Shaw University of Waterloo
fek@wuphys.UUCP (Frank Kramer) (03/22/85)
One myth you forgot about is the one that says "Well geewhiz, I mean things like books and records and movies aren't copy-protected and those folks manage to get rich. The same should apply to software." This is one of the rationales that people like Jerry Pournelle use to argue with software developers. The difference here is quantitative (you know, numbers and stuff) rather than qualitative (motherhood, patriotism, solar energy for the masses). How many people can read? How many can get to a theater? How many have access to a record player? Now..... how many people have computers? Every business in the world that plans on being here for more than a couple of days has to have information on the market for which his products are intended. He needs to apply this information in his overall retailing strategy. And this includes the price he must charge for those products. Right now *ALL* computer software is distributed to a vertical market because, let's face it, the average consumer does *NOT* own a computer. That's all, Frank wuphys!fek
ugthomas@sunybcs.UUCP ( Timothy Thomas) (03/23/85)
Every (just about) computer owner has some sort of pirated software. There
is just no way you are going to stop piracy; mainly because of the quality
of the software out there. There is a lot ( A LOT!! ) of very poorly
written software out there, and I dont think the price is justifiable
for the quality of the software you get.
(now before I resume, I know what some anti-pirates out there are saying.
It is because of the piracy that software manufacturers dont live up to
the quality for the money. But I will go on about that later.)
Who wants to pay hundreds of dollars for something which could probably
have been written by some high-school student working on the micros in
his intro to C.S. course. I think many programs out there are of this
quality.
Many people believe that the so called 'software muggers', more commonly
known as pirates; are putting software companies out of business. I dont
believe this to be true either. All of the software I have which was
mugged, I never use. I mainly have it as a 'collection'. I believe this
to be true for the majority of the software pirates. The people who are
really into software piracy just do it for kicks; to see how much software
they can get. BUT NONE OF THEM WOULD HAVE BOUGHT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!
They dont use it, just have it as a collection. I dont see how bootleg
copies of a program which would have never been bought could possibly
hurt anybody.
Just look at companies like borland int. They put out one of the best
pascal compilers on the market; I bought (yes, i buy software) mine for
only $30 from a mail order company.
Now, if quality like this exists for this very nominal fee; why cant
other software manufactures do the same (except for special purpose
software packages; which are not pirated -at least not to use- anyways.
These specially developed packages usually need to have the support
to use it efficiently. These are the only kind of packages which are
justifiable to have a higher cost.)
Smaller companies, which can not afford to do this, simply will have
to fold. If the software was good enough, it would be bought; even
by the most dedicated pirates. In order for software to live; THERE
MUST BE SUPPORT. Nobody in their right mind will buy a software
package if the support is not good enough. Support usually means that
the company will be there at some later date, and in order for the
company to be there, they must sell a lot of their software, at a good
price.
Another reason for much of the software piracy is for comparison. Lets
say you want to buy a word processor. The best way to see which one you
like the best is to try them all out for a while (a while being longer
than the amount of time you can test it while in the store). Usually the
only way to do this is to try out bootleg copies of the software. After
deciding which one is best; many times the 'mugger' will go out and buy
the one he/she/it likes the best. Sometimes the software piracy which
is 'so rampant' out there helps companies (but only GOOD ones).
Until prices go down, and quality goes up; software piracy will never
cease. I liked the example previously pointed out about records.
Althought more records are sold than any single piece of software; I dont
think software development costs exceed those of a record cost. Prices
can always come down some.
--
...Tim Thomas
...{burdvax, rocksvax, bbncca, decvax, dual, rocksanne, watmath}!sunybcs!ugthomas
Remember......
Only you can prevent software piracy.dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (03/26/85)
Thanks to an agreement with Borland, Turbo Pascal is sold on this campus
for a ridiculously low price (about $30 or less, which is WAY below the
already modest price of this package). Result? Students are stealing
copies. I've become so hardnosed I won't help anyone who doesn't have a
manual. What does this say about the widely-heard theory that piracy
exists because software is low-quality or overpriced? (Aside: students
have told me that their instructors have told them not to bother buying
the package! I find it amusing that universities are way behind the
business community in standards of ethics...)
--
D Gary Grady
Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706
(919) 684-3695
USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgarytsc2597@acf4.UUCP (Sam Chin) (03/28/85)
<<>>
Students should *not* be expected to buy software even if it is $30 a copy
(the price of a typical book) for the simple reason that not all students
have PC's. It should not be assumed that students taking classes which
involve PC use own PC's. How would you like to spend $30 for a book you
cannot read after a semester. Universities should buy multiple copies of
software and loan them out to the students (or restrict their use within a
central PC area). A licence for the VAX PASCAL compiler would probably run
the university $10000 and the VAX ADA compiler, $25000. With $10000, you
could buy 333 copies of Turbo Pascal at $30. and reuse them for later
semesters.
Sam Chin
allegra!cmcl2!acf4!tsc2597
tsc2597.acf4@nyumurlocker@watdcsu.UUCP (murlocker) (03/31/85)
> > Students should *not* be expected to buy software even if it is $30 a copy > (the price of a typical book) for the simple reason that not all students > have PC's... > Universities should buy multiple copies of software and loan them out > to the students (or restrict their use within a central PC area). I agree, students shouldn't *have* to, but that's no justification of piracy, period! The fact that a university professor could encourage such behaviour in students adds insult to injury. mark
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (04/03/85)
> In any case, the thought of a system manager going out & swapping f77 for > rogue (or whatever) at the nearby hacker meet seems ludicrous. It does? I've seen it happen. A copy of the super-rogue source is probably worth f77 source (at least) on the open market. -- cmcl2!rocky2!cubsvax -\ vax135!timeinc -> !phri!roy (Roy Smith, System Administrator) allegra -/ The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of the Public Health Research Institute.