palarson@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Paul Larson) (01/18/88)
Lately, several people on this newsgroup have been discussing software piracy, how it hurts developers, and how it harms the Amiga community (and, by extrapolation, the microcomputer community in general.) Several wierd and wonderful methods of copy protection(such as serial numbers, dongles, and sentinel-viruses) and counterattacks (such as frying a pirate's hard disk) have been proposed. As one who plans his carreer in the computer field, I can sympathise with these complaints, but I feel it is time to hear a consumer's mpoint of view. If you, as developers, wherather of hardware or software, plan to implement such draconian measures as mentioned above, you should also be scheaming to monopolize the microcomputer market to a greater extent than IBM currently controls the mainframe market. The reason is simple: copy protection is unpopular among consumers. Consider, for instance, the fact that microcomputer magazines now state whether a reviewed program is copy protected or not. It's very simple: if you copyprotect your programs, you will lose customers and revenue. Personally, I refuse to buy copyprotected software. The only exception to this statement is the case where the copyprotection on a product is extremely simple, such as the presence of invisible files (the Mac has them, I am not familiar with the Amiga file system.) Purchasing the shrink-wrapped version of a product gives me several things which I feel are necesary: documentation, technical support, and future updates. Despite the superb interfaces of modern programs, I couldn't live without the manual, if only because it teaches me the advanced commands and features of a product. Technical support is convenient; it's nice to know someone is proepared ot listen and respond when you holler for help. Finally, updates, which are usually provided at a nominal cost, are necessary since I realize that no product can be rock solid when it is released. I rely on the products I buy for my computer to get work done, and thus I would not consider pirating, which eliminates the three factors listed above. Anyhow, with the awakening of the business market to the wonders of the computer, more and more software companies are swinging around to cater to this relatively wealthy sector. This sector, to my knowledge, does not deal in software piracy to the extent of the early hobbyist community. The early ideal of computer hobbyists was the freedom of information, whereas the business community realizes that services must be paid for. The business community has always been wealthier than the hobbyist community, and thus has little need for software piracy. Consider, for example, the exhorbitant prices of such products as Pagemaker and Word 3.0 for the Mac, and the fact that people actually buy them despite these prices. It seems to me that developers, many of whom are already busily cashing in on the need for business applications, might find better use for their time than screaming at the hobbyist community, to whom the developers are catering less and less every day. Johan Larson These are my opinions; I welcome your corrections, if you find them flawed, and your comments if you find them distasteful.