david@ms.uky.edu (David Herron -- Resident E-mail Hack) (01/19/88)
Pardon the wide distribution, but 1) this is one of those sweeping
subjects that affects everyone, and 2) it doesn't cost the net anything
extra to cross post. If you follow up, please make sure and include
all the newsgroups in the follow-up ... I don't read most of the
newsgroups listed above.
Anyway ... in comp.sys.amiga right now we've got this discussion
going on about the evils of software piracy. It started (I think)
in a discussion about a particular virus that's hit the Amiga world
and propogates itself into the boot blocks of disks. But that's
not important right now.
There have been a number of statements on both sides of the issue
about copying software. It's easy to do and gives people free
software; it's evil and raises software costs; keeps companies from
investing efforts and money into a product; ad nauseum. I'm sure
you've heard the arguments before.
But really ... what is the BEST solution? This problem exists
in a greater context than just computer software. It exists
in the music industry, movies, books, databases, and so forth.
The point is that this technology we've been building has
made it ridiculously easy to make duplicates of things. The
technology has even become good enough that we can now make
duplicates that are as good as the originals. And going further
(beyond what I want to cover right now) we can even muck with
our duplicate and add in new things or change what's there.
Such a context destroys the assumptions which surrounded the
design of our patent/copyright law. Namely that the difficulty
in making duplicates of things behooved would-be publishers
to obtain the help of the author before doing the publishing.
Regardless of how you feel about yourselves ... you may be very
upright moral people and would never think about violating
intellectual property rights ... there are people out in the
world who feel differently about these things. It's their
computer and they don't want to give control over it to
some other program/they don't see the point of paying $100
for a floppy disk/they like getting away with whatever they
can possibly get away with/whatever.
This is a subject which comes up repeatadly. There is no
solution within the current rules of patent/copyright law
because there is no possible enforcement. (And don't tell
me about copy protection schemes ... I have never seen one
which did not leave as good a product afterwards ... i.e.
you either have a more difficult product to use, or it's
buggier ... This even applies to other media, books printed
in blue so they can't be xerox'd, vhs tapes with macrovision
encoding that makes the picture a little bit worse and doesn't
even work in all vhs players, the proposed copy protection
for DAT tapes that'd take out a notch from the audio spectrum
needlessly, ad nauseum)
Please ... I plea for one of two things.
Either 1) you shut up 'cause the subject has already been haggled
out in many newsgroups already nobody has come up with
a satisfactory solution.
2) You come up with something original to add.
People who are interested in where I'm coming from read:
The various writings of Richard Stallman about the Free Software
Foundation.
The July '85 issue of Whole Earth Review. It's the one with
the picture on the front of 3 flying saucers flying through
downtown San Francisco, and has a couple of articles about
digital retouching of photography. The article raises most
of the points I'm thinking about right now.
A book by Stewart Brand called _The_Media_Lab_. You'll find
it in your local book sellers ... it's non fiction, black cover,
a white light holography on the front cover. The book is
about the MIT Media Lab and the work they're doing with making
a new media and re-designing how people live with technology
and so forth. It's also made me really want to work in the
media lab for awhile ... :-)
I don't see how the current system can continue functioning
for very long. Some new sort of software (and other intellectual
property) distribution system will have to be constructed
before very long. Possibly as part of the coming economic
crash which will likely be here after the elections?
Shareware was a good idea in this regard.
--
<---- David Herron -- The E-Mail guy <david@ms.uky.edu>
<---- or: {rutgers,uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!david, david@UKMA.BITNET
<----
<---- It takes more than a good memory to have good memories.jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) (01/20/88)
Ok, I'll come up with something original. The problem is capitalism. I hope this doesn't make me sound like a dogmatic Marxist (I am neither), but I still feel that capitalism is the problem: people want money back in return for their efforts, and aren't satisfied with fame or esteem or whatever else. Now, that is reasonable if you make 'hardware': a knife is a knife even if you don't want to share it. But, it doesn't work for ideas. If I write a beautiful song, but I don't sing it (or, preferrably, let others sing it:-) in public, I might as well not have written it in the first place. It's value is in publication. The same is true for books, philosophies, ideas and (to a certain extent) software. In this case, I mean the type of software that everyone copies: games, utilities, all the nifty stuff that you would probably not buy otherwise. It is probably different for a tailored account program for a big firm (but who would want to copy that). I think the GNU people are on the right track: give the software away free, so that people become to know and love it, and if you want to make money you charge for other things: support, documentation, training, etc. -- Jack Jansen, jack@cwi.nl (or jack@mcvax.uucp) The shell is my oyster.
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (01/21/88)
In article <174@piring.cwi.nl>, jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) writes: > > I hope this doesn't make me sound like a dogmatic Marxist (I am neither), > but I still feel that capitalism is the problem: people want money back in > return for their efforts, and aren't satisfied with fame or esteem or whatever > else. Hard to buy a house with esteem or fame...same goes for lunch. You can't eat money... > Now, that is reasonable if you make 'hardware': a knife is a knife even if > you don't want to share it. But, it doesn't work for ideas.... > In this case, I mean the type of software that everyone copies: > games, utilities, all the nifty stuff that you would probably not buy > otherwise. Nope. Software is not an idea any more than a knife. You can have and idea about "knife", but the application of that idea, involving resource (materials, energy, tools, skill,...) is all tied up in producing the knife. A program (game, utility, demo, whatever) needs not only the initial concept (idea), but the programmer's tools for development, hardware to run said tools, time, ... This doesn't cover overhead such as shelter, food, and whatnot. Who's going to suport me while I'm producing this thing, whatever it is? (Usually, I work full-time for someone else and do it in my spare time. Whatever *that* is.) > It is probably different for a tailored account program for a big > firm (but who would want to copy that). Why? (Not about copying it!! :} ) > I think the GNU people are on the right track: give the software away free, > so that people become to know and love it, and if you want to make money > you charge for other things: support, documentation, training, etc. People seem to value something more-or-less in proportion to what it cost them (in money, time effort, whatever). Note the general treatment of shareware: People get it for free (or for minimal effort) and very seldom do those who keep and use it ever pay *anything* for it. Which, besides being unfair, is dishonest. The GNU people (particularly Mr. Stallman) might not continue with their idealistic ways if they had no other source of income beside the software that they're working on. (Who's paying their bills?) Is TANSTAAFL false? (Seems to work most everywhere else, except in politics.) On the other hand, as a technical writer, I think that charging lots for documentation is a pretty nifty idea...as long as I get my cut. (Comes the revolution, comrade...!) But who needs much documentation, support, training, etc. for "Defender of the Crown"? If such were really needed and used, do you have any idea of the size and cost of a really useful support organization? (Hint: >>More than what is currently needed to write, package, market and distribute the product as it currently stands.) Nice-sounding idea, except that software is more than just an idea...
mcb@oddjob.UChicago.EDU (He Who Passes Through Locked Doors) (01/21/88)
In article <174@piring.cwi.nl> jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) writes: >I hope this doesn't make me sound like a dogmatic Marxist (I am neither), >but I still feel that capitalism is the problem: people want money back in >return for their efforts, and aren't satisfied with fame or esteem or whatever >else. Very nice in principle, but: 1) Do you have any idea how much work goes into even things like games and utilities? (10 man years for Falcon, God knows how much for something like MPW). 2) Have you ever tried to buy groceries with fame or esteem or whatever? Writing good software is a full-time profession. People not only won't, but CAN'T do it if you don't pay them to. Most people don't need support for things like games and utilities- the only way to make money writing this kind of software is to sell the software. Copyright laws exist to allow people who write such software to make a living doing so. If the laws didn't exist, neither would the software. -Matt -- Matt Bamberger "You think that because you understand _one_, 1005 E. 60th St., #346 you understand _two_, because one and one Chicago, IL 60637 makes two. But you must also understand 312-753-2261 _and_." -Sufi Master
chekmate@athena.mit.edu (Adam Kao) (01/21/88)
In article <14257@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> mcb@oddjob.uchicago.edu.UUCP (He Who Passes Through Locked Doors) writes: >In article <174@piring.cwi.nl> jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) writes: >> . >> . >> . > . > . > . > -Matt > Please, please, please, let the Net Gods smile and get this out of these newsgroups. This is an extremely complex issue and you can't do justice to it by saying "Programmers gotta eat" (who said they couldn't?). There are a million things I want to say but I can't say them unless we move this discussion to alt.flame because that's exactly what this is turning into. Adam
speegle@im4u.UUCP (Greg Speegle) (01/21/88)
I'm new to this discussion so this maybe an old answer, but I think that
part of the problem is the cost of the software. Suppose someone wants the
new hot shot program "Foo Bars Baz", but doesn't feel like it is worth
$50,$100, or $500, so he waits and hopes the price will come down. Then
someone he knows offers to copy it for him. What does he do? He wants the
software, would really rather buy it, but here it is free and easy.
The odds are very high that he will have it copied and go on. Now what
would have happened if the software had originally cost only $10? The
person would have probably bought it when he first saw it. I have no
idea if any software product could turn a profit at $10 a pop, but the
high prices of software are a contributing factor. For example, nobody
ever copies something out of a $3 paperback, but many $50 textbooks
have parts copied out of them all the time. I feel like most people are
basically honest (Were did I get the rose colored glasses? :-) ) and
will buy things and pay the appropriate price, if the price is what
they consider to be reasonable.
Of course, even if I'm right, I don't know a good solution. I hope
that software houses aren't making obscene profits on their stuff,
so I would think that lowering the price would be almost impossible.
Oh well, at least this can be food for thought.
Greg Speegle
--
{seismo,ihnp4,pyramid}!ut-sally!speegle speegle@sally.utexas.educramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (01/22/88)
> > Ok, I'll come up with something original. > The problem is capitalism. > > I hope this doesn't make me sound like a dogmatic Marxist (I am neither), > but I still feel that capitalism is the problem: people want money back in > return for their efforts, and aren't satisfied with fame or esteem or whatever > else. Odd, isn't it? Some people actually want to pay the rent, and save for their retirement, and go on vacation occasionally. A company I used to work for had a General Manager who told us one day that working in Engineering was different from Marketing or Sales because there was "psychic income" from being creative. Alas, stores don't accept "psychic income" in exchange for tangible goods. > Now, that is reasonable if you make 'hardware': a knife is a knife even if > you don't want to share it. But, it doesn't work for ideas. If I write a > beautiful song, but I don't sing it (or, preferrably, let others sing it:-) > in public, I might as well not have written it in the first place. It's value > is in publication. Huh? If your motivation is fame or esteem, very true. But most people are motivated by a desire to live a more comfortable life -- not to be center stage. > The same is true for books, philosophies, ideas and (to a certain extent) > software. In this case, I mean the type of software that everyone copies: > games, utilities, all the nifty stuff that you would probably not buy > otherwise. It is probably different for a tailored account program for a big > firm (but who would want to copy that). Wrong. The stuff that gets pirated include word processors, spreadsheets, data base managers -- that's why there's a major industry producing books about the more popular software products that replicate the content of the manuals -- frequently with no other additions. > I think the GNU people are on the right track: give the software away free, > so that people become to know and love it, and if you want to make money > you charge for other things: support, documentation, training, etc. > > Jack Jansen, jack@cwi.nl (or jack@mcvax.uucp) But if esteem and fame are enough for software, why not support, documentation and training? What makes software different from these other categories of human endeavor? Clayton E. Cramer
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (01/22/88)
In article <174@piring.cwi.nl> jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) writes: >I hope this doesn't make me sound like a dogmatic Marxist (I am neither), >but I still feel that capitalism is the problem: people want money back in >return for their efforts, and aren't satisfied with fame or esteem or whatever >else. Wanting money back in return for efforts, and/or not being satisfied with fame or esteem, has nothing to do with capitalism. This belongs in the realm of psychology. Capitalism has more to do with whether it's legal to obtain money in return for one's efforts. The GNU project fits perfectly in a capitalistic system, as does shareware and public domain software, as does commercial software. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi
mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (01/22/88)
In article <14257@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> mcb@oddjob.uchicago.edu.UUCP (He Who Passes Through Locked Doors) writes:
<Copyright laws exist to allow people
<who write such software to make a living doing so. If the laws didn't exist,
<neither would the software.
Matt, I don't know what drugs you've been doing, but you should stop.
It's causing you to overlook some important facts. Let's look at the
tools I use, from the ground up:
OS - it was written by a couple of people working for a company that
was forbidden *by law* from either selling or supporting it. Further
enhancement was done by a seperate group that has been giving it away
for the cost of time & materials, and may be required to do so by law
(4BSD).
Editors - two of the four I use come gratis with the above OS. The
other two are available to anyone for the asking (ed, ex, GNU Emacs
and microGNUEmacs).
Languages - one comes gratis with the above OS; one I had to pay for;
two were free for the asking (C on 4BSD & a PC, CScheme & T).
The software that manages the bbs-like system your message & this
reply appear on is free. The software I use to access that is free.
Free software is available to talk on the networks it travels over for
a wide variety of hardware.
Further, some of the best programmers I know (people who write working
device drivers without having hardware to test them on) don't write
software for a living. They maintain software for some group that
needs it to get their work done - and are allowed to give away their
changes and improvements to that software, and any tools they write to
make their job easier.
No, copyright law - or lack thereof - isn't why software gets written.
It gets written because people need it, or because they want it. All
the copyright laws really do is restrict the distribution of the
software once it gets written.
<mike
--
Take a magic carpet to the olden days Mike Meyer
To a mythical land where everybody lays mwm@berkeley.edu
Around in the clouds in a happy daze ucbvax!mwm
In Kizmiaz ... Kizmiaz mwm@ucbjade.BITNETvxp6840@ritcv.UUCP (-Vitas P.-) (01/22/88)
With all the problems with pirating software I wonder why do some people still make commercial programs? I can understand utilities and productivity software can make money because people need them, and their docs; And with the typically inflated prices, they still can make money. As for games, I don't understand why anyone would put in the effort if they know it will be pirated. I think back when computers were new, people loved it when a new game comes out. If it was good, people loved it more. Being unsophisticated people didn't even think of copying programs. But later, the market was inundated with games and copy utilities came out at the same time. Nobody could hope to buy every game, and not all of them were good. Face it, most games aren't worth the money to buy them. But some were good and got lost in the crowd. I personally tried a lot of games, but the few in my collection keeps me happy. But enough of my thoughts, I still don't understand why new games still come out, even if they are worth the price, few people will actually buy them. Comments welcome. -Vitas P.- ...!rochester!ritcv!vxp6840
mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (01/22/88)
In article <1861@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
<What makes software different from these other categories of human endeavor?
That laws making it illegal to give your friends copies are
unenforceable. Note that I'm using "software" in the generic sense of
"intellectual property you put on a medium that makes your hardware
usefull" - computer programs, movies, music, and probably other things
that I've missed.
When producers of the software start seeing adding something that
makes the product inferior as a *good* thing, it's time for a reality
check.
For computer programs, we have software protection in various flavors.
For movies, we have macrovision. And they're talking about raping
compact disks by putting a 3KHz (I think I've got the number right)
tone on them to disable DATs. What's wrong with this picture?
<mike
--
Tell me how d'you get to be Mike Meyer
As beautiful as that? mwm@berkeley.edu
How did you get your mind ucbvax!mwm
To tilt like your hat? mwm@ucbjade.BITNETchekmate@athena.mit.edu (Adam Kao) (01/22/88)
Consider what might have happened if Jesus Christ had copyrighted his message. Adam
Ram-Ashwin@cs.yale.edu (Ashwin Ram) (01/22/88)
In article <6650@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: > > [description of some great free software] > > No, copyright law - or lack thereof - isn't why software gets written. > It gets written because people need it, or because they want it. All > the copyright laws really do is restrict the distribution of the > software once it gets written. I think it's encouraging to see that some of the BEST software is free. I don't mean specialized applications software (e.g., CAD/CAM software), but rather general tools and programming environment software that everyone needs to do anything at all on their machines. Mike already mentioned a great operating system and the best editor [my opinion] in the world (GNU Emacs); I could add -- - one of the best word processing systems (TeX) - one of the best state-of-the-art languages (T/Scheme) and lots of other public domain software that we all use. I don't know if I agree that copyright laws restrict the distribution of software though. The GNU distribution is governed by those same laws, and those laws have helped to ensure that the distribution remains free and easily accessible to everyone (without random people making money off it). -- Ashwin Ram -- ARPA: Ram-Ashwin@cs.yale.edu UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,harvard,cmcl2,...}!yale!Ram-Ashwin BITNET: Ram@yalecs
braner@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (braner) (01/23/88)
In article <1861@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >Wrong. The stuff that gets pirated include word processors, spreadsheets, >data base managers -- that's why there's a major industry producing books >about the more popular software products that replicate the content of the >manuals -- frequently with no other additions. - that proves the original point: if the software is out there people can make money on selling documentation. And who will pay the programmers' rent? The company that plans to sell the books! Or perhaps the company that plans to sell the hardware! Apple corp. is giving Hypercard away (almost) even though it must have taken a staggering amount of work to create. Why? To enhance the Mac's usefulness image ---> more HW sales. Other options: a tax on blank disks could provide funds for public SW writing efforts (a la Berkeley, MIT). The overnight reductions of SW prices by 50% or even 75%, a common occurence in the industry when competition hits, proves that some high-priced SW _is_ overpriced and over-enriching the publishers. Most of the retail price of SW goes to the retailer, distributer, advertisers, etc.---NOT the authors. Since computers are so good at copying, leaving the distribution to the users would save most of the resources and therefore would make us all (_on_the_average_) better off. - Moshe Braner
lawrence@bbn.COM (Gabriel Lawrence) (01/23/88)
In article <111@ritcv.UUCP> vxp6840@ritcv.UUCP (-Vitas P.-) writes: > I personally tried a lot of games, but the few in my collection >keep me happy. > But enough of my thoughts, I still don't understand why new games >still come out, even if they are worth the price, few people will actually >buy them. > > Comments welcome. Since you asked... I'm afraid, I'll have to disagree with you. In the latest MacWorld (Feb. '88) Charlie Jackson of Silicon Beach Software fame mentions that sales of "Dark Castle" (an unprotected 'arcade-style' game) have reached approx. 30,000. Those are impressive sales figures for any one piece of software, game or not. From a personal standpoint, I certainly do hope that new, innovative games continue to emerge. I enjoy playing them on occasion (when I actually have some spare time!) and find that if it's well done, I'm more than happy to pay the $20-35.00 it might cost. =Gabe Lawrence= =BBN Communications= > >-Vitas P.- ...!rochester!ritcv!vxp6840
alang@masscomp.UUCP (Alan Groupe) (01/23/88)
jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) writes: > > But, it doesn't work for ideas. >The same is true for books, philosophies, ideas and (to a certain extent) ^^^^^ >software. . . . >I think the GNU people are on the right track: give the software away free, >so that people become to know and love it, and if you want to make money >you charge for other things: support, documentation, training, etc. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
parker@epiwrl.EPI.COM (Alan Parker) (01/23/88)
In article <6650@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >Matt, I don't know what drugs you've been doing, but you should stop. >It's causing you to overlook some important facts. Let's look at the >tools I use, from the ground up: > >OS - it was written by a couple of people working for a company that >was forbidden *by law* from either selling or supporting it. Further >enhancement was done by a seperate group that has been giving it away >for the cost of time & materials, and may be required to do so by law >(4BSD). It was written by a couble of very smart people in a research lab many years ago. It was shared at nearly no cost to Universities for many years. But it was always property of a private company and today is one of their major products. Where in the world did you get the idea that BSD Unix is free? UCB, in effect, gives away their modifications to Unix, but only to those with a source license from AT&T. For other than Universities, that costs big money. If you don't have a source license, you can buy a legal binary of BSD Unix for thousands of dollars. (10 or 12 I think). > >Editors - two of the four I use come gratis with the above OS. The >other two are available to anyone for the asking (ed, ex, GNU Emacs >and microGNUEmacs). Nothing came gratis with the OS. They are simply part of the package. You seem to imply that since they weren't priced individually that they are somehow public domain. GNU emacs and microemacs are public domain (essentially), but not ed and ex (unless you are talking about different ones than I am). > >Languages - one comes gratis with the above OS; one I had to pay for; >two were free for the asking (C on 4BSD & a PC, CScheme & T). Again, nothing comes gratis with the OS, its just part of the package. (Oh, with one exception, I guess the "user contributed" stuff than comes with the BSD tapes could be called gratis, but C certainly isn't part of that.) C in BSD is most certainly not *free*. It is based on AT&T code. If you are running Unix, using the AT&T C compiler and you didn't pay somebody for it, then you've got a bogus system. I grant, that it might look free, if you buy a Unix box that has Unix bundled with it; but its certainly part of the cost and your vendor sends a check to AT&T for each one sold. (Note that some vendors have written their own C compiler for use on their Unix boxes, instead of using the AT&T code, eg. Masscomp did this, but I assure you they don't consider it "shareware".) > >The software that manages the bbs-like system your message & this >reply appear on is free. The software I use to access that is free. >Free software is available to talk on the networks it travels over for >a wide variety of hardware. > >Further, some of the best programmers I know (people who write working >device drivers without having hardware to test them on) don't write >software for a living. They maintain software for some group that >needs it to get their work done - and are allowed to give away their >changes and improvements to that software, and any tools they write to >make their job easier. > >No, copyright law - or lack thereof - isn't why software gets written. >It gets written because people need it, or because they want it. All >the copyright laws really do is restrict the distribution of the >software once it gets written. Most software is written, because its a legitimate way to earn a living and to build a business. Sun didn't write Suntools to be nice guys; they wrote it to make the systems they sell more attractive. Try taking their code, and making minor changes for your AT and see what they do. They don't charge extra for it when you buy a Sun, but they don't call it free, and that doesn't make it up for grabs.
garth@swatsun.uucp (Garth Snyder) (01/23/88)
> In article <174@piring.cwi.nl jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) writes: > Ok, I'll come up with something original. The problem is capitalism. Well, no, not really. People own their labor and their time, and within reason they can use these assets however they wish, whether it's writing software, growing wheat, or just goofing off. This is not a 'problem' but a kind of basic human right. You might just as well say that the 'problem' is the failure of software to just magically appear from nowhere without anyone having to do any work. People want money back in return for their efforts, and aren't satisfied with fame or esteem or whatever else. Now, that is reasonable if you make 'hardware': a knife is a knife even if you don't want to share it. But, it doesn't work for ideas. If I write a beautiful song, but I don't sing it (or, preferrably, let others sing it) in public, I might as well not have written it in the first place. It's value is in publication. The same is true for books, philosophies, ideas and (to a certain extent) software. There is little difference between hardware and software as far as their reason for existence is concerned. A knife is simply a tool; there is not much you can do with it unless you have something you want to slice up. Likewise, a word processor does you no good unless you have something to write. Your word processor might be so well designed that it reminds you of a beautiful, harmonious song, but its quality doesn't alter the fact that it is simply a word processor. A finely crafted and perfectly balanced piece of kitchen cutlery is still a knife. Your conclusion that something's publication is necessary for it to be valuable is just simply wrong. A diamond is valuable even before it is mined; a house can be a warm and stimulating environment even if no one but the owners ever enter it. Suppose that I write a very specialized program and sell it to a few specific businesses whose needs it fits completely. Is it then valueless? -------------------- Garth Snyder UUCP: {seismo!bpa,rutgers!liberty}!swatsun!garth Swarthmore College ARPA: garth@boulder.colorado.edu Swarthmore, PA 19081 ALSO: {hao,nbires}!boulder!garth --------------------
mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (01/23/88)
In article <1950@epiwrl.EPI.COM> parker@epiwrl.EPI.COM (Alan Parker) writes:
<It was written by a couble of very smart people in a research lab many
<years ago. It was shared at nearly no cost to Universities for many
<years. But it was always property of a private company and
<today is one of their major products.
That doesn't negate that it was illegel for that company to sell the
OS when it was written. They "shared it at nearly no cost" because the
judge that decided they could sell "refuse of internal work" also
ruled they couldn't make a profit on it. It wasn't until the company
was dismembered that it could be treated as a legit product.
<>Further
<>enhancement was done by a seperate group that has been giving it away
<>for the cost of time & materials, and may be required to do so by law
<>(4BSD).
<
<Where in the world did you get the idea that BSD Unix is free? UCB,
<in effect, gives away their modifications to Unix, but only to those
<with a source license from AT&T.
Sorry - ambigious antecedents on "it". I was referring to those
enhancements, modulo licenses on the original source. But there are
large pieces of code that *aren't* covered by any license other than
the Berkeley ones. Work is underway to sort out what can and can't be
given away - and parts of that OS are already in the "can be given
away" state.
<Nothing came gratis with the OS.
True - there are people obnoxious enough to seperate out the C
compiler & editors. Most of them seem to be failing (or have already
failed) in the computer market.
AT&T doesn't charge extra for giving someone the editor with Unix -
last time I looked, the only thing you had to give someone when you
sold them Unix was /etc/init & /unix. No shell required. Since then,
they've started doing "validations." I would be surprised if at least
one shell weren't required, and wouldn't be surprised if an editor (or
two) weren't required. Whether the result is "gratis with the OS" or
"part of the package" is word games.
<You seem to imply that since they weren't priced individually that they
<are somehow public domain. GNU emacs and microemacs are public domain
<(essentially), but not ed and ex (unless you are talking about different
<ones than I am).
No, you implied it. I said they came at no extra charge ("gratis")
with the OS. You have to have a license for the OS. That license
covers all the things I mentioned. On the other hand, microGNUemacs is
mostly public domain - some of the machine-specific files have
copyrights still held by their authers. I don't know about microemacs.
GNU is *not* public domain, and the copyrights are held very tightly
by the FSF. Just to prevent people from selling it for money.
<C in BSD is most certainly not *free*.
C in BSD is free from BSD, once you've dealt with the legalities of
getting the rest of the system - "gratis with the OS." Of course, the
legalities probably won't involve any large telecom companies for the
next release, as CSRG is working on switching from PCC to the GNU C
compiler.
<If you are running Unix, using the AT&T C compiler and you
<didn't pay somebody for it, then you've got a bogus system. I grant,
<that it might look free, if you buy a Unix box that has Unix bundled
<with it; but its certainly part of the cost and your vendor sends a
<check to AT&T for each one sold.
No, the vendor does *not* send a check to AT&T for each C compiler
sold. Not unless they've radically changed their licensing since I
last dealt with them. The vendor sends a check for each Unix system
sold, and can't give (or sell) a C compiler to anyone that didn't buy
a Unix from them.
<Most software is written, because its a legitimate way to earn a living
<and to build a business. Sun didn't write Suntools to be nice guys;
<they wrote it to make the systems they sell more attractive.
<Try taking their code, and making minor changes for your AT and see what
<they do. They don't charge extra for it when you buy a Sun, but they
<don't call it free, and that doesn't make it up for grabs.
Suntools makes Suns more attractive? Giggle. What a laugh. And I don't
deal with obsolete hardware - unless it's noticably faster than
anything else I can get my hands on. Things using intel processors
prior to the '386 are always in the first category, and never in the
second.
I agree, *some* sotware is written specifically to be sold. Probably
even most (but not all) of the software being sold. But most software?
I doubt it. I claim that most software is written because it was
needed to get some job done. What becomes of it after that depends on
lots of things. I suspect that *most* software is written by the
government, and people doing work for the government. Most of that is
public domain modulo licenses that cover whatever was started with.
For instance, I worked on a C compiler for an obscure machine you
probably never heard of. You can have the front end (if you can find a
copy somewhere) for nothing, *if* you have a license for v7 Unix. The
back end doesn't have that restriction - you're welcome to a back end
that swallows pcc-produced trees and generates QM/C code if you want
it. You can even get the QM/C simulator I wrote - either the one in C,
or the one in QM/1 nanocode. You just have to find someone who's still
got a copy.
<mike
--
Kiss me with your mouth. Mike Meyer
Your love is better than wine. mwm@berkeley.edu
But wine is all I have. ucbvax!mwm
Will your love ever be mine? mwm@ucbjade.BITNETbishop@skat.usc.edu (Brian Bishop) (01/23/88)
In article <39450@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >Is TANSTAAFL false? (Seems to work most everywhere else, except ^^^^^^^^^ Man, WHAT DOES THAT STAND FOR? I always saw it on the check-out registers at K-Mart. I won't even say what my speculations were.... > >Nice-sounding idea, except that software is more than just an >idea... brian bishop ---> bishop@usc-ecl.ARPA (uscvax,sdcvdef,engvax,scgvaxd,smeagol) ---> usc-skat!bishop.UUCP "You will be required to do wrong no matter where you go. It is the basic condition of life, to be required to violate your own identity. At some time, every creature that lives must do so. It is the ultimate shadow, the defeat of creation; this is the curse at work, the curse that feeds on all life. Everywhere in the universe." - Wilbur Mercer, founder of Mercerism have a nice day fnord.
lharris@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Leonard Harris) (01/23/88)
I think one of the main problems of copying software is the attitude of the software companies. If they implemented a 30 day money back system so proper evaluation of software could be made, then I think sales would fall (if it is a crappy piece of software) or the number of legit sales would increase (it it is good and usefull). Take for example microsoft C, or Wordperfect for the atari - both are full of bugs, both don't have return policies - but how do you find out that the software is bad without spending $400 on it? Wordprocessors are another point - what to buy - microsoft word or wordperfect. No matter how many reviews you read it boils down to personal choice - again you have to buy both packages with no return to see which one you prefer. With some packages you can get limited demo disks but they still don't model a real application. In Canada it is now a criminal offence to copy software - I think the law should be ammended to allow proper evaluation of software with a reasonable return period. Enough said - things will never change anyway ... /Leonard
cramer@optilink.UUCP (01/24/88)
> In article <1861@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > <What makes software different from these other categories of human endeavor? > > That laws making it illegal to give your friends copies are > unenforceable. Note that I'm using "software" in the generic sense of > "intellectual property you put on a medium that makes your hardware > usefull" - computer programs, movies, music, and probably other things > that I've missed. "Uneforceable" without a police state, yes. How enforceable a law is, is a function of what abuses people are willing to tolerate. No one would accept no-knock warrants and warrantless searches to stop software piracy. (Though most people would tolerate it stop drug dealers or terrorists.) The enforceability of a law says nothing about the morality of the action that law prohibits. (Of course, talking about right and wrong with the well educated crowd on USENET is a complete waste of time). > > When producers of the software start seeing adding something that > makes the product inferior as a *good* thing, it's time for a reality > check. Maybe not a good thing -- maybe something they need to put in, since by your claim, stopping software piracy through law is impractical. I would prefer copy protection go away. But if the only alternative to use of the legal system is copy protection, I think we are going to see it around on high-end packages for a long time. (It of course being impossible to get software users to stop stealing the stuff). > For computer programs, we have software protection in various flavors. > For movies, we have macrovision. And they're talking about raping > compact disks by putting a 3KHz (I think I've got the number right) > tone on them to disable DATs. What's wrong with this picture? > > <mike Nothing is wrong with it -- there's just too many people out there who believe that stealing intellectual property is a right. Consequently, you can expect these sort of damn nuisances. Clayton E. Cramer
fwp@unccvax.UUCP (Rick Pasotto) (01/25/88)
in article <6424@oberon.USC.EDU+, bishop@skat.usc.edu (Brian Bishop) says: + Keywords: technology changes things + + In article <39450@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: +>Is TANSTAAFL false? (Seems to work most everywhere else, except + ^^^^^^^^^ + Man, WHAT DOES THAT STAND FOR? I always saw it on the check-out registers + at K-Mart. I won't even say what my speculations were.... + + brian bishop ---> bishop@usc-ecl.ARPA + (uscvax,sdcvdef,engvax,scgvaxd,smeagol) ---> usc-skat!bishop.UUCP + + have a nice day fnord. There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch -+ TANSTAAFL not quite the same as Thank You For Shopping At K-Mart -+ TYFSAK I first encountered TANSTAAFL in Heinlein's _The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress_, don't know if this is the origin or not. Rick Pasotto mcnc!unccvax!fwp
jholbach@wright.EDU (Jim Holbach) (01/25/88)
in article <21754@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>, Ram-Ashwin@cs.yale.edu (Ashwin Ram) says: > > In article <6650@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >> >> No, copyright law - or lack thereof - isn't why software gets written. >> It gets written because people need it, or because they want it. All >> the copyright laws really do is restrict the distribution of the >> software once it gets written. > > I don't know if I agree that copyright laws restrict the distribution of > software though. The GNU distribution is governed by those same laws, and > those laws have helped to ensure that the distribution remains free and > easily accessible to everyone (without random people making money off it). Copyright laws don't restrict the distribution of software - they merely allow the author to decide if he/she will impose any restrictions on the distribution so as to protect the investment made in developing the software. It's interesting to me that the same copyright laws are invoked (and rightfully so) by the shareware developer who wants to protect his/her good name as by the commercial software developer who wants to protect a merely :-) economic investment. I am amazed at how much discussion the topic of copying still generates though. It's like a discussion of shop-lifting with some arguing that it's okay because the store is charging too much and others saying that it's okay because the house detective is asleep and doesn't care anyway. It still comes down to theft (yes, Virginia, theft is still wrong whether or not you get caught....) I don't have a problem with copy protected programs either because I don't buy them and I encourage others to do the same. And obviously a lot more people feel the same since the use of copy protection is on the decline. It's *amazing* how that evil capitalist market-place :-) responds to the desires of the buyer rather than the seller when there's enough competition.
mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (01/25/88)
In article <1874@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
<"Uneforceable" without a police state, yes. How enforceable a law is,
<is a function of what abuses people are willing to tolerate. No one would
<accept no-knock warrants and warrantless searches to stop software piracy.
<(Though most people would tolerate it stop drug dealers or terrorists.)
I'm not willing to grant that a police state can enforce a law against
software piracy - except by going to the extreme of making it illegal
to own a computer. You should check out how the Polish resistance
movement is making use of computers.
<The enforceability of a law says nothing about the morality of the action
<that law prohibits. (Of course, talking about right and wrong with the
<well educated crowd on USENET is a complete waste of time).
Likewise, the existence of a law says nothing about the morality of the
action that law prohibits, either.
<Nothing is wrong with [copy protection] -- there's just too many people
<out there who believe that stealing intellectual property is a right.
<Consequently, you can expect these sort of damn nuisances.
No, there is something wrong with it. The law is set up to try and
turn an oxymoron (intellectual property) into a reality. As usual,
when a law tries to change reality, it gets ignored. Expecting
anything else is silly.
BTW - I *don't* condone stealing software. While it's not immoral, it
*is* unfair and dishonest. You should play by the rules until you
manage to get them changed.
<mike
--
I went down to the hiring fair, Mike Meyer
For to sell my labor. mwm@berkeley.edu
I noticed a maid in the very next row, ucbvax!mwm
I hoped she'd be my neighbor. mwm@ucbjade.BITNETcramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (01/26/88)
> In article <1861@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > > >Wrong. The stuff that gets pirated include word processors, spreadsheets, > >data base managers -- that's why there's a major industry producing books > >about the more popular software products that replicate the content of the > >manuals -- frequently with no other additions. > > - that proves the original point: if the software is out there people can > make money on selling documentation. And who will pay the programmers' > rent? The company that plans to sell the books! Or perhaps the company Who doesn't have to pay the author of the program at all. You still haven't come up with a method that incentivizes writing software. > that plans to sell the hardware! Apple corp. is giving Hypercard away > (almost) even though it must have taken a staggering amount of work to > create. Why? To enhance the Mac's usefulness image ---> more HW sales. > Other options: a tax on blank disks could provide funds for public SW > writing efforts (a la Berkeley, MIT). And who will get the money from that tax on blank disks? Everyone writing software? No. Software developers who are big enough for the government to consider them "software developers". People with the right credentials: previous products, degrees in computer science. Sounds like a great way to stifle software startups. > The overnight reductions of SW prices by 50% or even 75%, a common > occurence in the industry when competition hits, proves that some > high-priced SW _is_ overpriced and over-enriching the publishers. Most of > the retail price of SW goes to the retailer, distributer, advertisers, > etc.---NOT the authors. Since computers are so good at copying, leaving > the distribution to the users would save most of the resources and therefore > would make us all (_on_the_average_) better off. > > - Moshe Braner If someone is willing to pay exorbitant amounts of money for software, it's not overpriced -- just expensive. There is nothing wrong with profit -- it provides incentive not only for a company like Lotus to build 1-2-3, but for someone like Borland to build Quattro. If software development gave a 4% profit, who would write it? You'd put the money in the bank and get a guaranteed 5.25% return. Clayton E. Cramer
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (01/26/88)
> In article <1874@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > <"Uneforceable" without a police state, yes. How enforceable a law is, > <is a function of what abuses people are willing to tolerate. No one would > <accept no-knock warrants and warrantless searches to stop software piracy. > <(Though most people would tolerate it stop drug dealers or terrorists.) > > I'm not willing to grant that a police state can enforce a law against > software piracy - except by going to the extreme of making it illegal > to own a computer. You should check out how the Polish resistance > movement is making use of computers. Come now, you are either short on imagination, or don't know much about police states. The Software Piracy Police go door to door, entering without warning, turning on your PC, and searching the disk for software. When they find copyrighted programs, they look for a manual with a valid license agreement for that software. If you don't have it, and the manufacturer can't find evidence of being a registered owner, they format your disk, and, depending how fiercely this police state chooses to enforce the law, executes you on the Chief Ed Davis portable gallows. I think this would strongly discourage software piracy, don't you? I think it might well end it, even. > <The enforceability of a law says nothing about the morality of the action > <that law prohibits. (Of course, talking about right and wrong with the > <well educated crowd on USENET is a complete waste of time). > > Likewise, the existence of a law says nothing about the morality of the > action that law prohibits, either. My argument is not with the morality of the law -- my argument is concerning the morality of software piracy. > <Nothing is wrong with [copy protection] -- there's just too many people > <out there who believe that stealing intellectual property is a right. > <Consequently, you can expect these sort of damn nuisances. > > No, there is something wrong with it. The law is set up to try and > turn an oxymoron (intellectual property) into a reality. As usual, > when a law tries to change reality, it gets ignored. Expecting > anything else is silly. Aha! We finally get down to the crux of the difference of opinion. I view "intellectual property" as a valid position; you view it as an oxymoron. Here we must argue the nature of rights -- and doubtless the divergence will become more extreme. > BTW - I *don't* condone stealing software. While it's not immoral, it > *is* unfair and dishonest. You should play by the rules until you > manage to get them changed. > > <mike Does this mean if the law is changed, and we no longer recognize intellectual property (which would include copyrights of all sorts), that you will then feel it is OK? Clayton E. Cramer
palarson@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Paul Larson) (01/26/88)
In article <229@wright.EDU>, jholbach@wright.EDU (Jim Holbach) writes: > I don't have a problem with copy protected programs either > because I don't buy them and I encourage others to do the same. Ditto! > And obviously a lot more people feel the same since the use of copy > protection is on the decline. It's *amazing* how that evil capitalist > market-place :-) responds to the desires of the buyer rather than the seller > when there's enough competition. Just one problem: is there enough competition? It seems to me that Microsoft could stomp on almost anyone simply by flooding the market. Johan Larson
tower@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) (01/26/88)
In article <39450@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: ... |The GNU people (particularly Mr. Stallman) might not continue with |their idealistic ways if they had no other source of income beside |the software that they're working on. A poster who doesn't the facts. RMS (Mr. Stallman) has made his living as a consultant since he started the GNU project. He has always required all work that he does to be freely redistributable, and takes a copy of the work he performs as a consultant with him when he is done with an assingment. Note also that more and more of the consulting that he is paid for is GNU related. Proof of concept?!?!!!! enjoy -len PS: People who are concerned with this issue of software copying, should study RMS' GNU Manifesto. It was published in the March 1985 issue of Dr. Dobbs, is file etc/GNU in the GNU Emacs distribution [ C-h C-c C-x C-v GNU RET ], and as a last resort is available via e-mail from: ucbvax!prep.ai.mit.edu!gnu the Project GNU e-mail inquiry address.
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (01/26/88)
In article <6668@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris (Mike Meyer) writes: > In article <1950@epiwrl.EPI.COM> parker@epiwrl.EPI.COM (Alan Parker) writes: > >>You seem to imply that since they weren't priced individually that they >>are somehow public domain. GNU emacs and microemacs are public domain >>(essentially), but not ed and ex (unless you are talking about different >>ones than I am). > > No, you implied it. I said they came at no extra charge ("gratis") > with the OS. You have to have a license for the OS. That license I bought a BMW K100RT two years ago to commute to work on. (Rain or shine, I'd still recommend one.) I didn't pay extra for pistons, brakes, or fairing...they weren't "gratis" either. But at least they didn't cost extra.) They were part of the package. > Suntools makes Suns more attractive? Giggle. What a laugh. And I don't > deal with obsolete hardware - unless it's noticably faster than > anything else I can get my hands on. Things using intel processors > prior to the '386 are always in the first category, and never in the > second. That's nice. Who pays for the hardware you work on? At home, at least, I pays my money and takes my chances. At work I use what they give me. seh
mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (01/26/88)
In article <39921@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: <In article <6650@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: <> In article <14257@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> mcb@oddjob.uchicago.edu.UUCP (He Who Passes Through Locked Doors) writes: <> Matt, I don't know what drugs you've been doing, but you should stop. < <A kind, generous remark...guaranteed to make the other person more <certain to carefully consider your argument. :} Sorry 'bout that. I should have added the smiley - or better yet, not said it. But I'd just spent a long, nasty day working on the latest version of some free software. <> It's causing you to overlook some important facts. Let's look at the <> tools I use, from the ground up: < [ List of programming tools that cost Mr. Meyers nothing. < Apparently mostly GNE-related software. Fine, the stuff < works. ] Allow me to correct two spelling errors. 1) My name is Meyer. I'm not plural. 2) It's GNU, not GNE. And one misconception - most of it wasn't from the Free Software Foundation. <> Further, some of the best programmers I know (people who write working <> device drivers without having hardware to test them on) don't write <> software for a living. They maintain software for some group that <> needs it to get their work done - and are allowed to give away their <> changes and improvements to that software, and any tools they write to <> make their job easier. < <How do they pay their rent? Buy groceries? Please reread the above paragraph. The answer is there - "they maintain software for some group that needs it to get their work done." Neither they, nor the group paying them needs to sell the software to make a living. So they give away much of it. As a concrete example, I used to work for a petrochemicals consulting firm. There attitude was that any software I wrote in order to do my job could be given away, so long as it didn't contain company proprietary information. That information was expertise in doing 2 and 3d gas flow simulations - which very few people aside from our competition would be interested in. No problem. I gave away the accounting package I did for them, as well as systems utilities and other stuff. I even gave kernel bug patchs back to the vendor we bought the OS from. The company paid me for doing these things, and made a living that in part involved using these things as tools. Other examples abound. Most work done for the federal government must be placed in the public domain. Most work done at state universities can be gotten for materials & labor. A fair selection of companies behave as the one I described above. <It's very nice that there are some usable programming tools available that <you can get for little or nothing. TANSTAAFL. (There Ain't No Such Thing <As A Free Lunch...) Somebody had to pay for this, just not you. (If I <remember correctly, that somebody is a University that supports this <development. Farther down the line, particularly where state schools <are engaged in supporting such work, the taxpayers pay for it. True. And for the companies that give away software, the customer winds up paying for it. The point is that in many cases, it doesn't matter. You said it yourself: <No...it gets written because there is a need (real or perceived) for <the software, and because if someone is willing to pay for this soft- <ware, someone else is willing to spend the time and energy to write <and distribute it. With the expectation that their effort will be <repayed in the future (along with their mortgage, rent, groceries, <medical bills, schooling, ...) In many cases, that repayment *does not* involve selling the software involved. It involves using it. I claim that that's the majority of the cases. You just have to know where to go to get the software (legally, of course). <> No, copyright law - or lack thereof - isn't why software gets written. <> It gets written because people need it, or because they want it. All <> the copyright laws really do is restrict the distribution of the <> software once it gets written. < <Copyright law exists (originally for printed material, later expanded <to include software) *NOT* to restrict distribution, but to protect <the producer's livelihood. I didn't say why it exists - I said what it actually does. You're right as to why it came into existence, but that has nothing to do with what it actually does (intent vs. reality). <In a scholastic setting, this sort of <thing is called plagiarism and, so I recollect, is frowned on. You've confused two issues. The copyright laws do more than prevent plagiarism. Plagiarism is the act of passing off something else as the product of your own work. That is frowned upon, and people doing that (even if they don't make an financial gain thereby) are <list all adjectives that have come up in this conversation so far>. Copyright laws prevent you from giving something to someone else even though you say who actually produced it. In a scholastic setting, this is called "quoting", or a "reference," and is (to a limited extend) encouraged. <mike -- Come all you rolling minstrels, Mike Meyer And together we will try, mwm@berkeley.edu To rouse the spirit of the air, ucbvax!mwm And move the rolling sky. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
howard@cpocd2.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) (01/27/88)
In article <39450@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >Software is not an idea any more than a knife. Really? Try making a backup copy of your knife, or sending it over a phone line. INFORMATION AND MATTER OBEY DIFFERENT PHYSICAL LAWS. We are a long way from having legislation which deals realistically with the nature of information, and still allows its creators to earn a living. Pretending bits and atoms are the same is not going to help. >The GNU people (particularly Mr. Stallman) might not continue with >their idealistic ways if they had no other source of income beside >the software that they're working on. (Who's paying their bills?) >Is TANSTAAFL false? (Seems to work most everywhere else, except >in politics.) My understanding was that the FSF makes most of its money from SUPPORT for the otherwise free software. There are quite a few companies who think this a reasonable deal. Also, FSF sells EMACS manuals and such. Obviuosly, companies which don't bother to support their products can't make any money this way - they would much rather stick the customers with the software and forget about them. -- Howard A. Landman {oliveb,hplabs}!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard howard%cpocd2.intel.com@RELAY.CS.NET One hand clapping sounds a lot like two hands clapping, only quieter.
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (01/28/88)
> In article <229@wright.EDU>, jholbach@wright.EDU (Jim Holbach) writes: > > I don't have a problem with copy protected programs either > > because I don't buy them and I encourage others to do the same. > Ditto! > > And obviously a lot more people feel the same since the use of copy > > protection is on the decline. It's *amazing* how that evil capitalist > > market-place :-) responds to the desires of the buyer rather than the seller > > when there's enough competition. > Just one problem: is there enough competition? > It seems to me that Microsoft could stomp on almost anyone simply by > flooding the market. > > Johan Larson Yeah, but they would have to flood the market with well-written, bug-free software. This will not happen in our lifetime. And I use Microsoft Word, C5.0, Microsoft Assembler, PC-DOS, and Windows. Clayton E. Cramer
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (01/28/88)
In article <886@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> olsen@ll-xn.UUCP (Jim Olsen) writes: >If I copy a program which I would never pay for, the copyright holder >loses nothing, since he wouldn't get any money from me anyway. In such >a situation, the copying is illegal, but I would not consider it immoral. This is exactly one of the cases in which "registering" with the copyright office makes a difference. If you do NOT register your work with the copyright office, you can only collect "actual" damages, which in the above case is $0. If you register your work with the copyright office WITHIN 3 MONTHS from publication you can ask for "statutory" damages, which are decided in court and have NO set limit. While I know of no case in which an individual has been sued for illegaling copying software (but I might be wrong), several authors/publishers have gotten large court awards for "company-sponsored illegal copying". In all these cases the 3-month registration clause was essential in getting the large awards. -- Marco
rjk107@pawl4.pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (01/28/88)
In article <6693@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >When a law tries to change reality, it gets ignored. Expecting >anything else is silly. > You got that right... >BTW - I *don't* condone stealing software. While it's not immoral, it >*is* unfair and dishonest. You should play by the rules until you >manage to get them changed. > I condone "stealing" any software that's copy-protected. Any software of mine will never be copy protected simply because it's fruitless to protect software- basically, if it is runnable, it's copyable. And if it's protected, it's an open invitation to try and break the protection. Maybe someday when I choose my life's career, my opinions on piracy will change. But my opinion of copy-protection never will. It's simply detrimental to the end user and merely a fun challenge to hackers. But I must admit, I learned a hell of a lot about programming by learning to crack software. So maybe it's not such a bad thing after all. :)
john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert) (01/28/88)
In article <6650@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: > >No, copyright law - or lack thereof - isn't why software gets written. >It gets written because people need it, or because they want it. All >the copyright laws really do is restrict the distribution of the >software once it gets written. > That's one way to look at it. While I agree that software would still get written even without such laws, I percieve the laws as giving those who create software a legal means to recover compensation when it is righfully due them. All this, I guess is based on a fundamental premise... should someone who develops a software package (be it an individual or a company), have the right to charge others for the right to use the package? If the answer is yes, then the laws make sense in the context I mentioned above. If the answer is no, then I do believe there would be less software available, because many people could not afford to do this in their spare time, and many excellent minds are developed through the full-time process of software development. This is not the ONLY way we progress, and software would still exist, I just think it is a good thing that folks can make a living doing it too. John Gilbert -- John Gilbert !trwrb!felix!john
pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) (01/29/88)
In article <886@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> olsen@ll-xn.UUCP (Jim Olsen) writes: >In article <229@wright.EDU> jholbach@wright.EDU (Jim Holbach) writes: >> I am amazed at how much discussion the topic of copying >>still generates though... It still comes down to theft... > >Unauthorized copying is not theft: it is infringement of a statutory >monopoly. You may think that unauthorized copying is a bad as theft, >but you confuse yourself when you say it _is_ theft. The two crimes >are quite distinct; this is why people treat them differently. > >If I copy a program which I would never pay for, the copyright holder >loses nothing, since he wouldn't get any money from me anyway. In such >a situation, the copying is illegal, but I would not consider it immoral. I rather strongly disagree with your point of view. You are assuming that the only 'value' involved here is the cost of physical items. If I extend your reason to the general case, you are saying: If I obtain a copy of something that is owned by somebody else, I have done nothing wrong. It may be illegal, but it is not wrong, since what I have done has no affect on the owner of the thing. I have not stolen any*thing*. This assertion is false. Making a copy of something *can* affect the owner! And you are stealing some*thing*, even though the thing being stolen is not physical. To make it obvious, consider the case where there is a small class of people that can and will pay for X, and a much larger class of people who cannot affort to pay for X or are unwilling to pay for it. If everyone in the larger class of people makes a copy of X (where X is 'intangible property'), what might the results be? - The value of a copy of X may decrease as far as willing purchasers is concerned. Copies of X are rarely of identical quality to the original. (Examples: For software, the documentation is rarely copied at the same quality. Art: a photograph of a painting just isn't the same!) - The more copies of X that exist, the less a single copy of X is valued. Simple supply and demand economics, if nothing else. - The rightful owner of X may have to deal with endless inquiries about X from people who have never paid for it. Even simply saying "no, I won't explain" costs something, especially if it must be said a million times! - The owner of X has the moral right to say 'you may not have X if you will not pay for it, because sales of X are my livelihood'. If you are unwilling to pay for X, you should be able to live without it. If you can't live without X, it is worth more than $0.00 to you, and you should be willing to pay for it! Just because you would like X's owner to be altruistic and give you a copy does not place any moral compunction (sp?) on X's owner to do so, nor does it give you the right to *take* a copy. When you make a copy of something that the owner does not want copied, you are stealing: - The owner's right to control the distribution and use of X - The owner's right to make a living from the distribution and use of X There are many positions that can be held wherein such property rights are given over to some other party (the State, the People). But in all cases, the original creator must be *paid* in some way for the transfer of these rights. If this is not done, society is left without all forms of professional intellectual creation vocation. This would be rather serious! Here's a short list of people who earn their keep by investing time and/or $$$ in the creation of intellectual property. To the extent they lose control over that property, they will find it hard to make enough profit to stay in business. *MORALLY*, they have the right to their wages, just like you do for the time *you* put in at work! - The obvious: songwriters, authors, artists, programmers, etc. - Money market-watchers (contents of newsletters) - Market research firms (contents of research reports) - Product testing companies (test reports) - Architects (blueprints, building designs, etc) - Professional cooks (recipes in cookbooks, etc) - etc. That's enough from this guy's keyboard for now. Pete -- OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014 OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete ___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746
kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu (Kent Paul Dolan) (01/29/88)
In article <1891@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> In article <229@wright.EDU>, jholbach@wright.EDU (Jim Holbach) writes: >> > I don't have a problem with copy protected programs either >> > because I don't buy them and I encourage others to do the same. >> Ditto! >> > And obviously a lot more people feel the same since the use of copy >> > protection is on the decline. It's *amazing* how that evil capitalist >> > market-place :-) responds to the desires of the buyer rather than the seller >> > when there's enough competition. >> Just one problem: is there enough competition? >> It seems to me that Microsoft could stomp on almost anyone simply by >> flooding the market. >> >> Johan Larson > >Yeah, but they would have to flood the market with well-written, bug-free >software. This will not happen in our lifetime. > >And I use Microsoft Word, C5.0, Microsoft Assembler, PC-DOS, and Windows. > >Clayton E. Cramer They would have to ENTER the market with ..., which from the evidence will also not happen in our lifetime. The only company whose job ad in misc.jobs.offered I ever answered with "I wouldn't want my good name (such as it is) sullied by the association." [The best way to not feed inews insertion counter is to yank the code and recompile inews. We did.] Kent, the man from xanth.
stewartw@neptune.UUCP (Stewart Winter ) (01/29/88)
In article <1988Jan23.124134.16121@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> lharris@gpu.utcs.UUCP (Leonard Harris) writes: >In Canada it is now a criminal offence to copy software - I think the law >should be ammended to allow proper evaluation of software with a reasonable >return period. It was my understanding that the same things applied to software as any copyrighted matter in that it is legal to copy something for home study. This is what allows you to copy some pages from an encyclopedia in a library. You should, therefore, be allowed to evaluate software legally. ---------------- ------------------- Stewart Winter P.O. Box 9707 Cognos Incorporated 3755 Riverside Dr. VOICE: (613) 738-1440 FAX: (613) 738-0002 Ottawa, Ontario UUCP: decvax!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!neptune!stewartw CANADA K1G 3Z4
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (01/30/88)
Consider the following analogies:
I own a rare postage stamp. It is the only stamp of its kind known
to exist, and its value is a strong function of its rarity. If you now
discover another instance of my stamp, the value of my copy goes down.
I own another rare postage stamp, but not as rare as the first one;
there is another known instance of that stamp, which you own. There is a
fire in your home and your copy of the stamp is destroyed. The value of my
copy goes up because its rarity has just increased.
Perhaps the analogy between the stamps and making copies of
software is a bit strained, but the point is clear; the value of something
I own can decrease simply because it becomes more common and easy to get,
without anything actually happening to my copy or copies.
--
Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016oconnor@sunray.steinmetz (Dennis M. O'Connor) (01/30/88)
An article by olsen@ll-xn.UUCP (Jim Olsen) says: <In article <229@wright.EDU< jholbach@wright.EDU (Jim Holbach) writes: << I am amazed at how much discussion the topic of copying <<still generates though... It still comes down to theft... < <Unauthorized copying is not theft: it is infringement of a statutory <monopoly. You may think that unauthorized copying is a bad as theft, <but you confuse yourself when you say it _is_ theft. The two crimes <are quite distinct; this is why people treat them differently. Sorry, it is a form of theft. As shall be demonstrated. <If I copy a program which I would never pay for, the copyright holder <loses nothing, since he wouldn't get any money from me anyway. "If I illegally tap into the cable TV lines but would never subscribe to cable TV, the cable company loses nothing, since they wouldn't get any mony from me anyway." Let's say you use this logic. What you have committed is called "theft of services". You will be fined and/or jailed when you are caught. Software provides its user with a service, just like cable TV or a time-share system. The fact that you only pay once for the service ( as opposed to monthly as with Cable, or as-used with time-share ) does not change that basic fact. > In such a situation, the copying is illegal, but I would not > consider it immoral. "Immoral" is a value judgement. It is certainly unethical. And it SHOULD ( and is ) illegal for very good reasons. Although their is dissent about whether some things should be written into law or not, there are other things about which their is no doubt about whether they should be illegal. The criteria by which these must-be-illegal things may be recognized is simple : Would the society ( as the members of the society perceive it ) become untenable if they were not ? By this reasoning murder must certainly be illegal : few of us would be willing or able to live in a society where indiscriminate manslaughter was legal. Theft, extortion, kidnapping, enslavement, torture, rape, assault : try to imagine a society where any of these is legal. Would you try to raise a family in such a society ? Or even live ? To modern Americans, theft-of-services meets this fundamental criteria. Without theft-of-services being illegal, there would be no cable or network TV, no time-share systems, no telephone network, no Consumer Reports, no garbage collection, no mail office, no public transportation. In a purely socialist society, perhaps theft-of-services need not be a crime. But in a capatilist one, it has to be. Even the process of invention is only a service : infringing on a patent is really the theft of the inventor's services. Read some of Ben Franklin's writings on the need for a Patent Office if you need further enlightening. -- Dennis O'Connor oconnor@sungoddess.steinmetz.UUCP ?? ARPA: OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa "If I have an "s" in my name, am I a PHIL-OSS-IF-FER?"
cjp@antique.UUCP (Charles Poirier) (01/30/88)
In article <886@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> olsen@ll-xn.UUCP (Jim Olsen) writes: >If I copy a program which I would never pay for, the copyright holder >loses nothing, since he wouldn't get any money from me anyway. In such >a situation, the copying is illegal, but I would not consider it immoral. "Never" is a long, long time. How does the average Joe Pirate *know* that he would never pay for it? If the answer is "Because I know I'm going to steal it," you've got classic circular reasoning. If it's something you want, and if stealing it was not a moral alternative to you, you might eventually find the means to purchase it. But once you steal it then Hey! I was right, I'm *not* going to buy this sucker, heh heh heh! The other rationalization I love to hate is "I never use 90% of the software I pirate anyway." Why not? Is it because all of the free time Joe Pirate can allocate to computers is spent playing with the *other* 10% of his stolen goods? He's certainly culpable for the ones he does use. It's like blowing up the Old Folks' Home (no offense, you old folks out there) and claiming in his defense that most of those people would have died anyway. This quarterly piracy flame is brought to you by - -- Charles Poirier (decvax,ihnp4,attmail)!vax135!cjp "Docking complete... Docking complete... Docking complete..."
c60b-at@buddy.Berkeley.EDU (John Kawakami -0^0-) (01/30/88)
In article <3125@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: > Perhaps the analogy between the stamps and making copies of >software is a bit strained, but the point is clear; the value of something >I own can decrease simply because it becomes more common and easy to get, >without anything actually happening to my copy or copies. Aha! But suppose there were only 3 or four copies of X C-compiler out. It would have very little value. This is because software is not archival. With any luck, it gets better and better, and eventually, old packages will become obsolete, replaced by better programs. If a game is pirated, it's intrinsic value does not go down. BUT its market value plummets, endagering the well being of the publisher/writers. Nuff said... John Kawakami (c60b-at@buddy.Berkeley.edu)
mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (01/30/88)
[Followups have been pointed to comp.sys.misc.]
In article <160@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann)
demonstrates the common fallacy of thinking that anything you can do
can be turned into a right:
< - The owner's right to control the distribution and use of X
< - The owner's right to make a living from the distribution and use of X
The first of these isn't a right, but it is legally granted privilege.
I happen to think the laws in this case are wrong.
The second isn't a right, or anything else. The law grants you the
right to _try_ to make a living distributing X. It doesn't say whether
you'll succeed.
< - The owner of X has the moral right to say 'you may not have X if you
< will not pay for it, because sales of X are my livelihood'.
Of course the owner has the right to say that. But that doesn't mean
he has the right to actually prevent you from obtaining a copy from
another source. Currently, he can *legally* prevent you from doing so.
That doesn't mean he's behaving morally in doing so.
<There are many positions that can be held wherein such property rights are
<given over to some other party (the State, the People). But in all cases, the
<original creator must be *paid* in some way for the transfer of these rights.
Oh, yeah, like RMS got paid for GNU emacs, right?
<If this is not done, society is left without all forms of professional
<intellectual creation vocation. This would be rather serious!
I don't think it would be nearly as bad as you think. Let's look at
the list of people you think we'd loose:
< - The obvious: songwriters, authors, artists, programmers, etc.
< - Money market-watchers (contents of newsletters)
< - Market research firms (contents of research reports)
< - Product testing companies (test reports)
< - Architects (blueprints, building designs, etc)
< - Professional cooks (recipes in cookbooks, etc)
You didn't break things down into nice categories, so I'm going to re-arrange
things:
- artists, including songwriters, authers (fiction), and others
Many of these people don't expect to make a living on the artwork they
do. How many artists do you know of whose works are now selling for
fortunes scraped by for most of their life, and died penniless?
- toolsmiths: programmers, architects, research firms & product testing
Except for programmers, most of these don't make money on sales of
multitudes of copies. They make money by contracting out to right the
original product, and then just hand the report (and copyrights) over
to whoever paid them to produce it. Many programmers work on the same
scheme.
- Howto book (cookbooks, etc), and similar mass market people.
These people will have more problems. But currently, the cost of
copying a book is more than the cost of the paperback. People trying
to sell overpriced hard & tradebacks would probably loose sales. But
that doesn't kill the works of the authers, only restricts the format
they can publish in slightly. And there'll still be a market for
hardbacks & tradebacks in the presence of paperbacks & slightly more
expensive copying. After all, there is now.
- money market watchers
These people tend to sell to a small, select audience by subscription
(overpriced, at that). Adding a license agreement to the affet that
you recieve the newsletter under the condition that you not give it to
anyone else is a minor matter.
Basically, the only thing lack of a copyright law kills is things
produced explicitly in hopes of making money by selling lots of copies
of something. My reasons for claiming why a minority of software
written fills that bill have already been posted. I believe the same
about everything else, with the possible exception of mass-market
books. And loss of coypright laws won't hurt mass-market paperbacks
worth noticing.
On the other hand, copyright laws tend to restrict the free flow of
information. This causes duplicated work, lost work, and numerous
other things generally considered bad for society.
<mike
--
He was your reason for living Mike Meyer
So you once said mwm@berkeley.edu
Now your reason for living ucbvax!mwm
Has left you half dead mwm@ucbjade.BITNETpeter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (01/31/88)
In article <174@piring.cwi.nl>, jack@cwi.nl (Jack Jansen) writes: > Ok, I'll come up with something original. > The problem is capitalism. Where have I heard this before? > I hope this doesn't make me sound like a dogmatic Marxist (I am neither), > but I still feel that capitalism is the problem: people want money back in > return for their efforts, and aren't satisfied with fame or esteem or whatever > else. Sure they are. People want capital back. Capital is usually considered money, but really it's anything that you value or can trade for something you value. Money is a handy token for capital, but fame, self esteem, a nicer place to live, and good sex are just as appropriate. Physical plant is also capital (something even the Soviets have to deal with... when they pretend it isn't we get things like Chernobyl)... but I'm digressing. People who don't understand capitalism are condemned to reinvent it -- poorly. -- -- a clone of Peter (have you hugged your wolf today) da Silva `-_-' -- normally ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter U -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
roger_warren_tang@cup.portal.com (01/31/88)
My only thought on Mr. Meyer's postings is that he doesn't know too many artists; if he said what he said to them, he'd be finding himself on his back.
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (01/31/88)
in article <6526@oberon.USC.EDU>, papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) says: > In article <886@xn.LL.MIT.EDU> olsen@ll-xn.UUCP (Jim Olsen) writes: >>If I copy a program which I would never pay for, the copyright holder >>loses nothing, since he wouldn't get any money from me anyway. In such >>a situation, the copying is illegal, but I would not consider it immoral. > > This is exactly one of the cases in which "registering" with the > copyright office makes a difference. If you do NOT register your work > with the copyright office, you can only collect "actual" damages, which > in the above case is $0. If you register your work with the copyright > office WITHIN 3 MONTHS from publication you can ask for "statutory" > damages, which are decided in court and have NO set limit. About 6 months ago, I looked at the appropriate part of the U.S. Code. "actual" damages apparently are based upon how much the publisher would have recieved by actually selling the copyrighted material. Statutory damages DO have a set limit: $10,000 per occurance, with a $50,000 cap for blatant offenses. Or some such numbers. Note that these are a PER INCIDENT fine (there is a minimum fine, also). If you have a company that made 1,000 copies of Lotus 1-2-3, that company may be liable for $10,000,000 in fines (as vs. the $500,000 they'd be assessed in "actual" damages). Also note that there are two routes: Civil (you file suite against the infringer), and criminal (a U.S. prosecuter asks for indictment). There's also other assorted goodies that the judge can order: Siezure of all involved equipment and goods, for example. Conclusion: The copyright law may be one of the laughs of the century, but if someone finds a big offender, we're talking big bucks. Caveats: My photocopies of the relevant sections are buried in boxes from when we moved, so you're spared the long & gory details. Needless to say, REGISTER the program, if you want to protect the various rights associated with copyright... -- Eric Lee Green elg@usl.CSNET Asimov Cocktail,n., A verbal bomb {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg detonated by the mention of any Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 subject, resulting in an explosion Lafayette, LA 70509 of at least 5,000 words.
bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) (02/02/88)
In article <9371@steinmetz.steinmetz.UUCP>, oconnor@sunray.steinmetz (Dennis M. O'Connor) writes: > An article by olsen@ll-xn.UUCP (Jim Olsen) says: > <Unauthorized copying is not theft: ... > Sorry, it is a form of theft. As shall be demonstrated. > ... I have a hard time taking the "there is no such thing as intellectual property" people seriously, because of one simple observation: Before the days of personal computers and software for them, I don't _ever_ recall hearing _serious_ discussions about whether intellectual property (as in copyrights for books, records, etc; or patents for objects/processes) _existed_ - though I do recall discussion about how long such things ought to run and what was covered by them. It is therefore hard for me to believe that this "philosophy" is motivated by anything more than rationalization. This is not necessarily an opinion, just an observation. Bruce C. Wright
nelson@sun2.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (02/02/88)
In article <2003@rti.UUCP> bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) writes: [...] >Before the days of personal computers and software for them, I don't _ever_ >recall hearing _serious_ discussions about whether intellectual property >(as in copyrights for books, records, etc; or patents for objects/processes) >_existed_ - though I do recall discussion about how long such things ought to >run and what was covered by them. [...] It's hard to do useful work with books (write a list of numbers in a book and put @sum(a1..a7) at the bottom of them :-), records, etc., and it's similarly hard to copy them. It's easy to do useful work with computer software, and it's similarly easy to copy them. -- -russ AT&T: (315)268-6591 BITNET: NELSON@CLUTX Internet: nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu GEnie: BH01 Compu$erve: 70441,205
rjk107@pawl12.pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (02/03/88)
In article <2003@rti.UUCP> bcw@rti.UUCP (Bruce Wright) writes: >Before the days of personal computers and software for them, I don't _ever_ >recall hearing _serious_ discussions about whether intellectual property >(as in copyrights for books, records, etc; or patents for objects/processes) >_existed_ - though I do recall discussion about how long such things ought to >run and what was covered by them. There have been arguments about copyrights on music ever since the advent of cassette tape, and there are also arguments (though fewer, owing to the increased difficulty) over copying from books without the author's permission. The only thing to really compare software piracy to is record piracy. But with me, it's all pretty moot because honestly, I really don't give a damn about morals. ------------Robert J. Kudla - Pseudo-Freshman Extraordinaire------------- Screw the disclaimers- flame at will!! Itt@RPITSMTS.BITNET I've seen all good people turn their heads FU7Z%mts@itsgw.rpi.edu each day so satisfied I'm on my way. (C.Squire) kudla@pawl.rpi.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------
FATQW@USU.BITNET (02/05/88)
Hey, you guys, remember what this discussion came from? The SCA VIRUS!!
I can just see the author of SCA, sitting in his chair in Switzerland,
reading Usenet, his face glowing with delight at how much disruption his
virus has caused.
Hey, guys, cut it out!
Bryan Ford (FATQW@USU.BITNET)jay@splut.UUCP (Jay Maynard) (02/10/88)
In article <6693@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: > In article <1874@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > <Nothing is wrong with [copy protection] -- there's just too many people > <out there who believe that stealing intellectual property is a right. > > No, there is something wrong with it. The law is set up to try and > turn an oxymoron (intellectual property) into a reality. As usual, > when a law tries to change reality, it gets ignored. Expecting > anything else is silly. The law is set up to recognize the reality of intellectual property. Without such recognition, there's no way to protect those who create any work of creativity - be it a painting, a novel, or a spreadsheet program - from those who would rip it off and claim it as their own. Laws are only ignored by the unlawful. It may be silly to expect that people obey the law, but I still hope... > BTW - I *don't* condone stealing software. You've sure spent a lot of net.bits arguing for it, though... > While it's not immoral, it > *is* unfair and dishonest. I'd argue that it is immoral, just like other forms of theft, but trying to argue that point with you is pointless, since you don't see it as property to be stolen. > You should play by the rules until you > manage to get them changed. Tell that to the crowd on alt.drugs. -- Jay Maynard, K5ZC (@WB5BBW)...>splut!< | GEnie: JAYMAYNARD CI$: 71036,1603 uucp: {uunet!nuchat,academ!uhnix1,{ihnp4,bellcore,killer}!tness1}!splut!jay Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. The opinions herein are shared by none of my cats, much less anyone else.
CCUCARD%indsvax1.bitnet@uicvm.uic.edu (Paul Cardwell) (03/12/90)
AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA
All,
Does anyone out there have any ideas on programs that
they would like to see on the Amiga computer?
Like: Utility, Word Processing, Dos ... etc...
SEND ALL REPLIES BY MAIL OR ON AMIGA-RELAY.
Thanks,
Paul.
AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA AMIGA