hzink@pro-nucleus.cts.com (Harry Zink) (05/28/89)
Network Comment: to #1097 by pnet01!crash!cunyvm.cuny.edu!SEWALL%UCONNVM.BITNET
Never thought this discussion would stretch out that far, but I guess that's
how ideological discussions go...
Anyway, a couple of points were made by Don Elton and Murph Sewall, which I
would like to comment on.
Concerning International sales and availability: Of course you have sold your
program, TIC, all over the world Don, because it is a shareware package, and
available on every single information service and BBS around (there has yet to
be a BBS that doesn't have TIC in the transfer section). That is how I found
out about TIC originally. You neglect the fact that the distribution of your
program is not subject to localized distributors and/or local mores/customs.
Using that as an argument against the lack of international availability of
software is rather moot. In fact, you supported my earlier argument about
'acquiring' the program first, and only purchasing it once its usefulness has
been established. After all, how do you think all these people who did buy
the program found out about it - that's right! They had a copy of it, played
with it, liked it and sent in the money to get the legit copy (that's how it
was with me). This means that they used a copy they have acquired through
whatever channels for evaluation first, before purchasing the actual program.
If we were to replace TIC with a commercial package in this example, suddenly
the act of previewing is termed piracy and scoffed at by you. (Note: In this
argument, I am assuming that the preview of the package will lead to a
purchase - I know that it is not always so). So, as much as I respect your
work and your opinion, I have to disagree with your evaluation of the
situation. The problem does not lie so much in the impossibility to acquire
the package (like I said earlier, mail order houses will gladly send the
programs overseas) but in the problem of potentially buying a 'dud' - as there
are many out there. If you do buy the program overseas from a mail order
house in the US, returning it is nearly impossible. Local distributors
usually are not very active, and like I said earlier, sometimes certain
programs are just not even allowed to be sold in a country. Unfortunately you
have not addressed the issue clearly Don, merely told us about your
experiences with your own product (which, as I pointed out, is a completely
different matter to commercial software).
Murph mentions that we should trust magazine reviews. This kind of made me
chuckle. The magazines I read were A+ (R.I.P.), Computer Shopper, maybe
Incider (when I have nothing better to do). All of these are great in
eulogizing the programs of the publishers that advertize in their pages.
There have been some pretty horrible software packages out for the GS, all of
which have received reviews ranging from 'Good' to 'Excellent' in these
magazine. So, if we had trusted these reviews, we would have ended up being
shafted nonetheless. The worst case of pseudo-reviews I have seen so far has
been by some character called P. Chien who seems to think that anything ever
made for the Apple is the current seventh plane of bliss (irregardless of the
worthlessness of the product). I have come to regard his recommendations as
seals of non-worth of any product. Unfortunately, you can't trust magazine
reviews all the time.
Murph also mentions word of mouth (namely this newsgroup). Unfortunately, how
many average consumers have access to it? Very few, I suppose. Sure word of
mouth will help in user groups and the likes, but it protects very few of
those who read a review and purchase the program through mail order. It
protects to an even lesser degree those living abroad, as the magazines are
either late or unavailable.
What it really boils down to (in my book), is a matter of civil
responsibility. We should support software companies that produce high
quality products at reasonable prices (emphasis on reasonable prices - I do
not believe in paying 3-400 bucks for a word processor). We should most
definitely do our best to warn the public and our fellow men (and women) about
software that doesn't deserve that designation.
One last question concerning the issue of 'software collecting'. It is true
that the majority of pirates collects without use, thus, since he never would
hve bought the programs to start with, nor does he use them, WHO GETS HURT.
The way I see it, nobody really gets hurt or looses money. On the contrary,
since this same pirate is able to show these programs to others, who might
decided that this is something they need, a sale could be generated through
this practice, if we are dealing with reasonably responsible people. Once
again, in this specific example, I would like to ask WHO GET'S HURT?
I still have somehwhere in this house several boxes with a couple of hundred
programs (several ones of which I did purchase because the programs were
useful and I use them) which I used to use to demonstrate programs to people
who were interested in some program or another. Through this practice I have
generated quite a few sales for the publishers of the good programs -
converseley I have 'saved' quite a few people form shoddy products.
+
UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-sol!pro-nucleus!hzink
Proline: hzink@pro-nucleus
+delton@pro-carolina.UUCP (System Administrator) (05/28/89)
Network Comment: to #3131 by obsolete!pro-angmar!pro-nucleus!hzink
The argument's been made that people wouldn't pirate if software were
reasonably priced. The pirates I know, some of whom are friends and relatives
of mine, would pirate if the software cost only a nickle. The fact that they
can have something for free, no matter how reasonably priced it could be
bought for, and the fact that they are 99.9% sure they can't be caught and
held accountable for what they generally know as wrong but rationalize away as
many on this group have done is why they pirate. i.e. why pay for what you
can get free? The only thing that will change this practice would be
swift-sure punishment of those involved and that isn't going to happen and
that's why computers and computer software will never meet their potential in
this world as few of us are crazy enough to think that software development
might be profitable. Sure there are some (including myself) who can make a
little money writing software but there would be far more packages available
to choose from if a publisher could be sure that every copy of his package in
use, even in regular use, were paid for.
UUCP: [ sdcsvax nosc ] !crash!pro-carolina!delton
ARPA: crash!pro-carolina!delton@nosc.mil
INET: delton@pro-carolina.cts.com
Pro-Carolina: 803-776-3936 (300-2400 baud, login as 'register')
US Mail: 3207 Berkeley Forest Drive, Columbia, SC 29209-4111aash@ms.uky.edu (aash) (05/29/89)
In article <8905281624.AA01502@obsolete.UUCP> delton@pro-carolina.UUCP writes: >The argument's been made that people wouldn't pirate if software were >reasonably priced. The pirates I know, some of whom are friends and relatives >of mine, would pirate if the software cost only a nickle. The fact that they >can have something for free, no matter how reasonably priced it could be >bought for, and the fact that they are 99.9% sure they can't be caught and >held accountable for what they generally know as wrong but rationalize away as >many on this group have done is why they pirate. i.e. why pay for what you >can get free? With all this piracy discussion, I must admit that I do have a few copies of things I didn't exactly buy. But one question: If I wouldn't have bought it anyway, who is losing? I had a copy of Karateka (or something) and thought it was some of the worst garbage and it wasn't worth the disk it was taking so I have it marked as a blank disk. What if I had paid $40 for it? I would be very upset. I don't buy cars without checking them out; I don't buy magazines without flipping through them. So what is the loss? I would buy the nice packages I have seen like Copy II+ and other things, provided they remain reasonably priced, and continued support of these programs make them worth the money. If I had never seen a pirated copy of many things, I would never have known they existed. So is business lost or gained? It is gained if it was worth the money to begin with. If it wasn't worth the money they won't have suckered the money out of me. Is that what this is about? There are fortunes to be made off of suckers, but I don't feel that software buying should be a blind process. aash -- aash@ms.uky.edu, aash@ukma.bitnet |"It's important to me that you know you | (FTP archive at 128.163.128.6) | are free, 'cause I never want to make | {backbone|rutgers|uunet}!ukma!aash | you change for me." -Todd |
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (05/29/89)
>Murph mentions that we should trust magazine reviews. I said they were a source of information (your friends' opinions aren't all winners either :-) I haven't tried Publish-IT on my //c 'cause I gather from reading the (generally favorable) review in the Big Red's SCARLETT that the thing is slower than (the proverbial) molassas on a 1 MHz Apple (sometimes you have to know how to interpret reviewers). > ...(irregardless I don't spell very well, and I often haven't the time to proofread carefully, but I don't often use words that are famous for not existing :-) > Unfortunately, you can't trust magazine >reviews all the time. It wouldn't hurt if you (and most of the rest of us) wrote the editors a note saying we don't plan to renew subscriptions to magazines that regard their reviews as promotion of advertisers. Then again, a review you KNOW is likely to be overly favorable (so you know to discount most of its plaudits) is better than no clue at all. >Murph also mentions word of mouth (namely this newsgroup). This is but one example. LOTS of Apple hobbiests have access to local bbs's - which often forward opinions obtained here, on AppleLink PE (I'm out in the boondocks without convenient access to AppleLink PE - which I wouldn't care to buy anyway since I spend quite enough time on this list - but I get copies of opinions expressed on APE both here and on my Club's bbs), Genie, Compu$erve, etc. > ...Sure word of >mouth will help in user groups and the likes, but it protects very few of >those who read a review and purchase the program through mail order. It You dash out and order right after you read a review? That's gullible, and the gullible ALWAYS spend more than the cautious (something about "A fool and his money..."). Once burned by relying on a magazine review ought to be sufficient for anyone to learn not to rely on a single source. >protects to an even lesser degree those living abroad, as the magazines are >either late or unavailable. Haste makes waste (wait until the magazines arrive -- unlike eggs and ice cream, software on disks won't spoil on the shelf). If software is so hard to come buy, where do the originals that are pirated come from? If those abroad have the resources to learn about and acquire pirated software, they have the wherewithal to buy the real McCoys. >What it really boils down to (in my book), is a matter of civil >responsibility. We should support software companies that produce high >quality products at reasonable prices (emphasis on reasonable prices - I do >not believe in paying 3-400 bucks for a word processor). We should most You don't have to pay $300 for a word processor. There's FrEDwriter for the Apple 2, PC-Write (shareware $75) for MS-DOS, and I'd guess something of that sort for the Mac, Amiga, and so forth. ONLY the seller gets to decide what's "reasonable" (if you don't agree don't pay, but there's no need to steal). >definitely do our best to warn the public and our fellow men (and women) about >software that doesn't deserve that designation. That you can do, should do. Don't be surprised if droves of "fools" DO think Word Perfect's worth the price (Word Perfect sells 5.0 to anyone with a college or university student or faculty ID for only $135 which I find exceedingly reasonable of them) *not intended to be a plug, just a particularly good 'for instance'* >One last question concerning the issue of 'software collecting'. It is true >that the majority of pirates collects without use, thus, since he never would >have bought the programs to start with, nor does he use them, WHO GETS HURT. You and I do mostly 'cause the pirate doesn't just "exhibit" the software and tell whichever friends say "gee that's neat" that they should bo buy a copy. The pirate GIVES them a copy and THEY (who otherwise would have bought it) use it! (making software generally less available and more expensive for the rest of us. > ...Through this practice I have >generated quite a few sales for the publishers of the good programs - You have sales receipts I suppose? Murph Sewall Vaporware? ---> [Gary Larson returns 1/1/90] Prof. of Marketing Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {psuvax1 or mcvax }!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] (203) 486-5246 [FAX] (203) 486-2489 [PHONE] 41 49N 72 15W [ICBM] -+- I don't speak for my employer, though I frequently wish that I could (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited)
Kreme@cup.portal.com (Lewis Kreme Butler) (05/30/89)
Murph -- There is a consistant fallicy running through all of your posts that I think needs to be corrected. You assume that every person who gets a pirated ware would have bought it if it weren't available as a pirated ware. This is rediculous. The only thing I have that I use that I haven't paid for (yet) is ProSel, and that is only because I am reformatting my HDs, and want to wait until I get the new ROM to order the latest PreSel. I am using Proterm right this second, but that is because my purchase of Talk is Cheap is pending... [I can't stand ProTERM, and don't think it is worth a third of the price Greg is charging]. I HAVE lots of things I have bought, including Gauntlet //e (you thought gs version was bad! :) and Thecder //e (horrid). I would NEVER, EVER buy these. NEVER! I don't even use them now (I looked at them when they were first out). However, I did just go out and BUY a copy of PIRATES, which I have been playing for about a monthand a half on the pirated ware. And I will actually continue to use the Pirated version since it is superior to the original (no custom ProDOS format). But you think the fact that I have Thexder //e and Gauntlet //e is stealing? It can't be taking money away from the companyu, since I would never (EVER) buy either of these pieces of garbage. Just because a pirate has a ware does not mean that he would have bought it for $50 if he couldn't get it free. ------ Note: Ever notice how 99.9% of all pirates are Male? Wonder why.... ------
shawn@pnet51.cts.com (Shawn Stanley) (06/02/89)
Kreme@cup.portal.com (Lewis Kreme Butler) writes: >Note: Ever notice how 99.9% of all pirates are Male? Wonder why.... You could say the same thing about many computer-related activities. UUCP: {uunet!rosevax, amdahl!bungia, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!shawn INET: shawn@pnet51.cts.com
Kreme@cup.portal.com (Lewis Kreme Butler) (06/06/89)
I wrote: >>Note: Ever notice how 99.9% of all pirates are Male? Wonder why.... Shawn wrote: >You could say the same thing about many computer-related activities. No, my whole point is that there are plenty of women on services like Portal, are wuite a few on most of the BBS's I call, and there are quite a lot spread around USENET in general, SUre, they are a minority, but certainly not 0.1%, while among pirates, I have yet to meet ONE female pirate or hacker. I think this is a tad odd. There must be a reason, No? -Kreme
csbrkaac@ariel.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) (06/07/89)
Kreme@cup.portal.com (Lewis Kreme Butler) writes: > . . . among pirates, I have yet to meet ONE female pirate or hacker. Must be a bad sample size. The proportions of Female Computer Person to Female Pirate/Hacker are, in my experience, about the same as the ratios for men. In fact, the biggest pirate I know is a female friend of mine. (Just to ruin the statistics completely, she's in her mid-forties. :-) I think the more well-traveled female pirates & hackers don't usually make much of a point of making their genders known. Seeing the "locals" discover a new female user on a pirate board is like watching pirhanas in a feeding frenzy . . . Lazlo (csbrkaac@ariel.unm.edu) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "If you love your fun -- Die for it!"
jbazyar@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Jawaid Bazyar) (06/07/89)
In article <19150@cup.portal.com> Kreme@cup.portal.com (Lewis Kreme Butler) writes: >I wrote: >>>Note: Ever notice how 99.9% of all pirates are Male? Wonder why.... > >Shawn wrote: >>You could say the same thing about many computer-related activities. > >No, my whole point is that there are plenty of women on services like Portal, >are wuite a few on most of the BBS's I call, and there are quite a lot spread >around USENET in general, SUre, they are a minority, but certainly not >0.1%, while among pirates, I have yet to meet ONE female pirate or hacker. > >I think this is a tad odd. There must be a reason, No? > >-Kreme There are females in ComputerDom? Where? I wish they'd show themselves! I suppose it's the same reason that most criminals are male, that most everything crazy, stupid, or just plain out of the blue is done by males. Must be the hormones. Maybe another thing is that women are having enough trouble breaking cultural conditioning (or whatever keeps them out of math and science) that they're not worried about slicing into assembly programs at 3am...yeah, that must be it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jawaid Bazyar "What's this about C Shells making jbazyar@jolnet.orpk.il.us ocean noises?..." jb10320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEWALL@UCONNVM.BITNET (Murph Sewall) (06/07/89)
>0.1%, while among pirates, I have yet to meet ONE female pirate or hacker. > >I think this is a tad odd. There must be a reason, No? Maturity? Better things to do with their time? Common sense? Sense of fair play? Golden Rule? All of the above? While there are women's prisons, as a proportion of the general population, women are far less prone to criminal behavior, especially violent crime. Perhaps, I'm just a romantic -- how can one really discern the gender of "Mr. Xerox" or the "Hackers' Allliance"?? Murph Sewall Vaporware? ---> [Gary Larson returns 1/1/90] Prof. of Marketing Sewall@UConnVM.BITNET Business School sewall%uconnvm.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu [INTERNET] U of Connecticut {psuvax1 or mcvax }!UCONNVM.BITNET!SEWALL [UUCP] (203) 486-5246 [FAX] (203) 486-2489 [PHONE] 41 49N 72 15W [ICBM] -+- I don't speak for my employer, though I frequently wish that I could (subject to change without notice; void where prohibited)
shawn@pnet51.cts.com (Shawn Stanley) (06/07/89)
Kreme@cup.portal.com (Lewis Kreme Butler) writes: >I wrote: >>>Note: Ever notice how 99.9% of all pirates are Male? Wonder why.... > >Shawn wrote: >>You could say the same thing about many computer-related activities. > >No, my whole point is that there are plenty of women on services like Portal, >are wuite a few on most of the BBS's I call, and there are quite a lot spread >around USENET in general, SUre, they are a minority, but certainly not >0.1%, while among pirates, I have yet to meet ONE female pirate or hacker. > >I think this is a tad odd. There must be a reason, No? Of all computer users (outside work applications): o Most are male. o Most of the programmers are male. o Most are not pirates. But it looks like you're trying to imply that males are prone to piracy, while females are not. If you ignore the fact that there are fewer females than males using or programming computers outside work applications, then it's pretty easy to leap to a conclusion like that. But it doesn't make sense to ignore that fact, since that's a major reason. I won't go so far as to say that what you seem to be implying is false, but I'm not as ready as you are to say that if there were an equal number of females that none of them would be pirating. UUCP: {uunet!rosevax, amdahl!bungia, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!shawn INET: shawn@pnet51.cts.com
tmurphy@wpi.wpi.edu (Tom [Chris] Murphy) (06/08/89)
In article <19150@cup.portal.com> Kreme@cup.portal.com (Lewis Kreme Butler) writes: >0.1%, while among pirates, I have yet to meet ONE female pirate or hacker. > >I think this is a tad odd. There must be a reason, No? > Perhaps women are just more honest? Thomas C. Murphy Worcester Polytechnic Institute CAD Lab Internet: tmurphy@wpi.wpi.edu tmurphy@zaphod.wpi.edu BITNET: TMURPHY@WPI BIX: tmurphy CompuServe: 73766,130
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (06/09/89)
In article <889@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US> jbazyar@jolnet.UUCP (Jawaid Bazyar) writes: >There are females in ComputerDom? Where? ... Come on now, we don't need this cultural stereotyping in the Apple II newgroup. There are many females involved in the field of computing, although not overall as high a proportion as in the general population. There have been posters to this very newsgroup whose names indicate that they're probably female. What does it MATTER. Back to work!
) (06/09/89)
>I think the more well-traveled female pirates & hackers don't usually >make much of a point of making their genders known. Seeing the >"locals" discover a new female user on a pirate board is like watching >pirhanas in a feeding frenzy . . . Somehow that seems a little familiar... I can only assume it is this way everywhere. Actually, it's quite hilarious watching so many unscrupulous men war on each other over a female they have never seen, met, nor know the name of... I guess that's what scares them away, huh? Jason Hughes 8^) +-------------------------------- = --------------------------------+ ! Jason Hughes : ! ! ProLine: panther@pro-lep : "Nobody knows...(hic)...the ! ! Postal: 5812 Abilene Trails : Tribbles I've seen...(hic)" ! ! Austin, TX 78749 : ! +-------------------------------- = --------------------------------+