cjp@vax135.UUCP (Charles Poirier) (07/07/87)
From time to time I hear a rather strange argument. It goes thus: "If software worked better, if it cost less, if one could get better value for one's money, there would be less piracy." For example (and let me state, I am NOT accusing this author of piracy): In article <593@madvax.UUCP> richc@madvax.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: > I HATE ALL COPY PROTECTION OF ANY KIND! > >Lets find a way of protecting the vested interests of the programmers >and still not burden the user with kludges to prevent illegal copies. Fine idea, but I don't think the suggested solution will be effective: >If the software that is being sold was of better quality I think their >would be less stealing of software. I've seen better public domain >software, than some of the stuff being sold. This kind of argument assumes pirates are ethical Darwinists. Their noble motivation is to weed out the baddies who overcharge for rotten code by refusing to pay them for it. I just don't understand the logic of this. Pirates are thieves. Typical, smirking, self-centered thieves. Thieves are not motivated by social ideology. They are motivated by getting something valuable at the expense of others, preferably without getting caught. Oh sure, all thieves have some thin excuse with which to salve their self-image. The point is, pirates are not going to suddenly stop stealing if you make the booty more valuable. All that will change is the brand of salve. Cheers, -- Charles Poirier (decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,attmail)!vax135!cjp "Docking complete... Docking complete... Docking complete..."
robinson@renoir.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (07/07/87)
In article <1813@vax135.UUCP> cjp@vax135.UUCP (Charles Poirier) writes: >This kind of argument assumes pirates are ethical Darwinists. Their >noble motivation is to weed out the baddies who overcharge for rotten >code by refusing to pay them for it. I don't know. I don't think "this kind of argument" assumes anything of the sort. In my experience, there are basically three kinds of software pirates. The first kind is the neurotic compulsive mega-pirate, responsible for 90% of pirating in general, but who has a limited impact on the marketplace because they don't use 97% of the stuff they pirate, and certainly wouldn't pay anything for it if they had to. The second kind is the determined, informed, ruthless pirate who buys a computer system with the expectation that they will never pay for any software, even the useful, worthwhile stuff. Copy protection and software quality are moot issues with these people, because they are never going to pay for anything, no matter how good or cheap, and are always going to get what they want--they go through Prolok protection like tissue paper. The third type of pirate I have encountered is the personal or small business user on a budget who knows piracy is wrong, but who simply can't afford the $600-$1000 it costs just for a simple commercial word processing and spreadsheet setup. These are the people who made Turbo-Pascal an overnight sensation, the people most deterred by copy protection, and the people most influenced by quality and value for their money. But then again, these observations are based on personal experience, and as such, completely invalid in an issue typified by argumentation like the following: >I just don't understand the logic of this. Pirates are thieves. >Typical, smirking, self-centered thieves. Thieves are not motivated by >social ideology. > Charles Poirier (decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,attmail)!vax135!cjp ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Robinson USENET: ucbvax!ernie!robinson ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu
cjp@vax135.UUCP (Charles Poirier) (07/08/87)
In article <19632@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> robinson@renoir.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Michael Robinson) writes: <In article <1813@vax135.UUCP> cjp@vax135.UUCP (Charles Poirier) writes: <>This kind of argument assumes pirates are ethical Darwinists. Their <>noble motivation is to weed out the baddies who overcharge for rotten <>code by refusing to pay them for it. < <I don't know. I don't think "this kind of argument" assumes anything of <the sort. In my experience, there are basically three kinds of software <pirates. I was thinking only of the first two kinds in my posting. <The first kind is the neurotic compulsive mega-pirate, <responsible for 90% of pirating in general, but who has a limited impact <on the marketplace because they don't use 97% of the stuff they pirate, <and certainly wouldn't pay anything for it if they had to. The second <kind is the determined, informed, ruthless pirate who buys a computer <system with the expectation that they will never pay for any software, .... Well, but doesn't the first kind often serve as a clearing house for all his type-two friends? I think, though they are fewer in number, each type-one has at least as much impact as a type-two. type-two. <The third type of pirate I have encountered is the personal or small <business user on a budget who knows piracy is wrong, but who simply can't <afford the $600-$1000 it costs just for a simple commercial word processing <and spreadsheet setup. These are the people who made Turbo-Pascal an <overnight sensation, the people most deterred by copy protection, and <the people most influenced by quality and value for their money. I hope I'm not nit-picking, but in reading the above, it occurs to me that "pirate" is equated to the phrase "the people". Pirates made Turbo-Pascal sell? Pirates are the people most influenced by quality and value? (As to "deterred by copy protection" - I assume you mean "prevented from making copies" -- I am missing the point of this bit.) Almost all users are personal or small businesses on a budget, but only a subset of them (small, I hope) are pirates. I'd say it is the *paying* customers who are most sensitive to quality and value. Being willing to steal allows one to be less picky. <But then again, these observations are based on personal experience, and <as such, completely invalid in an issue typified by argumentation like the <following: < <>I just don't understand the logic of this. Pirates are thieves. <>Typical, smirking, self-centered thieves. Thieves are not motivated by <>social ideology. < <> Charles Poirier (decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,attmail)!vax135!cjp <------------------------------------------------------------------------------ <Mike Robinson USENET: ucbvax!ernie!robinson < ARPA: robinson@ernie.berkeley.edu No, I accept your experience. I don't know any type-three pirates myself; evidently you know of many. My above statement is true of the pirates I've known. It is aimed with proper venom only at types one and two. Perhaps there are, as you say, sufficient numbers of souls sufficiently tormented at the thought of their theft to allow products of quality and value to emend their ways. For some, this will be true. For others, once having made the decision, however reluctantly, that piracy is a valid option, why pirate the programs with the worst quality (value having become moot)? For these people, better quality software (given that they rate it as "indispensible" but too expensive) is *more* likely to be pirated. This is why I don't understand why people blame piracy on buggy software. I could understand blaming it on high prices though. I used to think Amiga software was uniformly too expensive, comparing it to similar products for other machines. This was before I considered how much the smaller number of Amiga customers has to affect the price. I now just accept that pricing is a nasty, messy business and hope that the Amiga starts to catch afire soon. -- Charles Poirier (decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,attmail)!vax135!cjp "Docking complete... Docking complete... Docking complete..."
scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) (07/10/87)
In article <1813@vax135.UUCP> cjp@vax135.UUCP (Charles Poirier) writes: >I just don't understand the logic of this. Pirates are thieves. >Typical, smirking, self-centered thieves. Thieves are not motivated by >social ideology. They are motivated by getting something valuable at >the expense of others, preferably without getting caught. Oh sure, all >thieves have some thin excuse with which to salve their self-image. Thinking like this is what keeps this whole issue of software makers vs pirates alive. The software companies have to make the pirates look real bad so they don't look bad when they put traps into their software. Or give us less for our money "We would have done more, but we had to stop and put in the copy protection". The fact of the matter is that Pirates ARE thieves, but they are NOT criminals. They are ordinary humans, they don't slink around smirking or being self centered. They are no worse than all the people who drive 65 in a 55 zone. It just goes back to human nature, and a key to that nature is: "Don't make a rule that people won't obey". Humans only take to rule by two means: 1. When it makes sense, everyone will agree you shouldn't stand up and yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. 2. When forced by threat of violence/force. Don't pay your taxes and the IRS will come by and take it anyway. For alot of people item 1 doesn't apply for all sorts of reasons. Like maybe they were burned before... And there haven't been any people subjected to #2 that everyone can see as a good reason. So, either we hang someone for pirating software or the software firms have got to make it make sense to people to obey the law. Or the people have got to change the law. After all, software isn't "real", everyone understands a horse thief. People grok the concept that if you steal the horse the person owning the horse will be deprived. But as we all know, copying a disk doesn't mean instant deprivation to the owner of the software. Cable TV is the same, people can't see that they are "stealing" anything. And people always have the option of saying "It isn't against the law! We've had enough!" Users can be made to understand that pirating software DOES hurt people, just like if they went and stole a person's horse. BUT software companies have got to realize that users are not around just for them to take advantage of. Scott Turner -- UUCP-stick: stride!l5comp!scotty | If you want to injure my goldfish just make UUCP-auto: scotty@l5comp.UUCP | sure I don't run up a vet bill. GEnie: JST | "The bombs drop in 5 minutes" R. Reagan Disclaimer? I own L5 Computing. Isn't that enough?
michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) (07/10/87)
In article <1813@vax135.UUCP> cjp@vax135.UUCP (Charles Poirier) writes: >From time to time I hear a rather strange argument. It goes thus: >"If software worked better, if it cost less, if one could get better >value for one's money, there would be less piracy." How about, "If they respected me, I'd respect them. If there was a game that was actually worth the inflated price, then I'd buy it. If there was a game that was priced according to its worth, not according to what the company thinks it should be at to recover their costs, then I'd buy it." That last part is pure economics, nothing special. >For example (and let me state, I am NOT accusing this author of piracy): > >In article <593@madvax.UUCP> richc@madvax.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: ... > >Fine idea, but I don't think the suggested solution will be effective: > >>If the software that is being sold was of better quality I think their >>would be less stealing of software. I've seen better public domain >>software, than some of the stuff being sold. > >This kind of argument assumes pirates are ethical Darwinists. Their >noble motivation is to weed out the baddies who overcharge for rotten >code by refusing to pay them for it. And whats wrong with that? Personally, thats exactly my opinion (I boycott software that doesn't play by the rules.) Consider this: Last wednesday, at a user meeting, someone demo'd an adventure thats the sequel to "The Pawn" (I don't remember the name). It was very well done, had all the things I wanted, could run from a hard disk, etc. Then I asked if you could exit the game. I tried it. Amiga-nm did nothing (a cli was active). Quitting did not put you back where you came from, it required you to reboot. It didn't even bother to reboot for you. Sorry, I don't buy non-multitasking stuff. There is no reason that it could not have saved the stuff intuition needs before tromping over it, and then restore it before quitting. Remember, this is their second game (at least). They've done this before. They should have learned by now how to restore intuition, or else how to get their stuff to work with intuition. The point is, I was willing to pay cash for that game, right then and there. At least, until I discovered that this reboot problem. I was also willing to buy Alien Fires, until I discovered that it was copy protected. As far as "I've seen better PD than the commercial stuff", why should I pay when I can get better for free? >I just don't understand the logic of this. Pirates are thieves. >Typical, smirking, self-centered thieves. Thieves are not motivated by >social ideology. They are motivated by getting something valuable at >the expense of others, preferably without getting caught. Oh sure, all >thieves have some thin excuse with which to salve their self-image. Hmm, well, consider this: Way back when, I had a model one. (My parents have it now; still makes a good word processor). Some time ago, I calculated how much I had spent on software, and the value of the software I had. I had been a fairly active pirate. I found that the totals roughly balanced. In other words, my pirating had enabled my to stay even, nothing more. I personally find pirating to be a matter of respect. I have no respect any more for EA. I'd pirate anything they make in a minute if I thought they made anything worth the disk it would take up. Marble Madness was the biggest disapointment I can think of. Dpaint one is beaten hands down by Images (Which I bought). The only other reason to pirate is to try a program out before you buy it. I've done this; it led to my buying (yes, buying) the Manx Commercial system and Gizmoz. I almost bought Facc on wednesday; but the person was sold out (he was a dealer, opening a new store in the area, and trying to get customers). I haven't pirated a copy, because I have too much respect for Perry and ASDG. But I can't find a place that has it in stock, either. On the other hand, I've formatted my ACS, returned a skyfox that I got for a birthday present (0 to mach 4 in 4 seconds, in a "realistic" game? What are you, a pile of jello?), formatted lattice. Ok, maybe I'm in the minority. But my .signature still stands. -- : Michael Gersten seismo!scgvaxd!stb!michael : Copy protection? Just say Pirate! (if its worth pirating)
richc@madvax.UUCP (Rich Commins) (07/15/87)
In article <1813@vax135.UUCP>, cjp@vax135.UUCP (Charles Poirier) writes: > For example (and let me state, I am NOT accusing this author of piracy): > > In article <593@madvax.UUCP> richc@madvax.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: > > I HATE ALL COPY PROTECTION OF ANY KIND! > > >If the software that is being sold was of better quality I think their > >would be less stealing of software. I've seen better public domain > >software, than some of the stuff being sold. > > This kind of argument assumes pirates are ethical Darwinists. Their > noble motivation is to weed out the baddies who overcharge for rotten > code by refusing to pay them for it. > > I just don't understand the logic of this. Pirates are thieves. > Typical, smirking, self-centered thieves. Thieves are not motivated by > social ideology. They are motivated by getting something valuable at > the expense of others, preferably without getting caught. Oh sure, all > thieves have some thin excuse with which to salve their self-image. I'm not justifing the motives of thieves and pirates, but tring to point out that there is no protection for software consumers from the thieves that sell shoddy and or broken software to an unsuspecting buyer. Has anyone bought software, tried the program and found that it didn't work or perform as expected, and try to return it for credit? No way! The software vendors have learned to live with the pirates and theives by raising the price and lowering the quality of their software to compensate for the lost revenue and thus is indirectly encouraging the act. The higher the price, the more salve to justify their deeds and the more others are persuaded into piracy. I feel shareware is a step in the right direction to break this catch 22. Shareware does require that honest people who use the software pay the price the author requests, but if the software is useless he just doesn't send in the money. This is not the perfect solution to the problem, but is a start to solving the software/pirate problem. Let get together and fix the problem and stop fixing the blame. -- -- Rich Commins (415)939-2400 \ /\ Varian Instruments, 2700 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 \/--\ {ptsfa,lll-crg,zehntel,dual,amd,fortune,ista,rtech,csi,normac}varian!richc
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (07/15/87)
Many times in the discussion of programs and pirating this statement (in one
form or another) appears :
"I copied program FOO because it wasn't worth X dollars."
When someone says this to me, I ask them the following question :
A) Could you write this program yourself ?
If the answer is "No" then already you have exposed the lie, since there
would have been no other way in the world to get this program except from
the person who wrote it, then you are at their mercy as far as price goes.
If you think it is to much, you can convince a friend who can program to
do it for you instead, which comes to ...
If the answer is "Yes" then why don't you write it? Which usually is
answered "I don't have a week to figure out how to write the damn thing."
Which I counter with how much do you make in a week? That is what it's
worth should be. If you are continuing from #1 above then ask your friend
how much they will charge you for the service. That becomes the relative
worth.
Relative worth is a difficult and complicated issue, think about the time
invested in a product (even if it appears insufficent) and consider what
that time is worth to you. It is much easier to just pirate it but theives
are like that.
--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.cjp@vax135.UUCP (Charles Poirier) (07/15/87)
In article <1637@stb.UUCP> michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) writes: >In article <1813@vax135.UUCP> cjp@vax135.UUCP (Charles Poirier) writes: >>Fine idea, but I don't think the suggested solution will be effective: >>In article <593@madvax.UUCP> richc@madvax.UUCP (Rich Commins) writes: >>>If the software that is being sold was of better quality I think their >>>would be less stealing of software. I've seen better public domain >>>software, than some of the stuff being sold. >> >>This kind of argument assumes pirates are ethical Darwinists. Their >>noble motivation is to weed out the baddies who overcharge for rotten >>code by refusing to pay them for it. > >And whats wrong with that? Personally, thats exactly my opinion (I boycott >software that doesn't play by the rules.) Boycotting is fine! Certainly, it is the right and duty of a responsible consumer to not buy what you don't like. But I was clearly referring to piracy. I had thought that most piracy was in the "take anything you can get" spirit. Apparently many of the pirates and pirate apologists on this net think otherwise. I'm not completely convinced it isn't mostly self-image salve, but perhaps I've underestimated the revenge motive for piracy. In that light it strikes me as an even more immature thing to do. >As far as "I've seen better PD than the commercial stuff", why should I pay >when I can get better for free? Fine if that satisfies you. But it seems that pirates let that slip over into "Why should I pay *for anything* when I can get *some* good things free?" I ask, why should you pirate at all if PD stuff is sufficient? >>I just don't understand the logic of this. Pirates are thieves. > >good word processor). Some time ago, I calculated how much I had spent on >software, and the value of the software I had. I had been a fairly active >pirate. I found that the totals roughly balanced. >In other words, my pirating had enabled my to stay even, nothing more. "Stay even"; really! Salve, salve. "Value" meaning what it's "worth" rather than than what you paid I guess. Do you truly believe it's ok to steal things from people if you won't meet their price? I'd like you pirates to think about this. Suppose it were you trying to sell? Different people value things differently, but this is never justification for theft. >I personally find pirating to be a matter of respect. I have no respect any >more for EA. I'd pirate anything they make in a minute if I thought they >made anything worth the disk it would take up. Marble Madness was the This is thin salve indeed. You would punish EA by pirating if they *improved* their products to a quality you approve of. This is exactly what I was getting at in my "ethical Darwinism" barb. Sure, you are happy to boycott what you don't like, but when the quality improves, do you pay? (flame warning) NO! you PUNISH! (flame off). Too much stick, not enough carrot. It's not ethical, and it doesn't promote higher quality or lower prices. >: Michael Gersten seismo!scgvaxd!stb!michael >: Copy protection? Just say Pirate! (if its worth pirating) -- Charles Poirier (decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,attmail)!vax135!cjp "Docking complete... Docking complete... Docking complete..."
michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) (07/17/87)
In article <1823@vax135.UUCP> cjp@vax135.UUCP (Charles Poirier) writes: >In article <1637@stb.UUCP> michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) writes: >"Stay even"; really! Salve, salve. "Value" meaning what it's >"worth" rather than than what you paid I guess. Do you truly believe >it's ok to steal things from people if you won't meet their price? I'd >like you pirates to think about this. Suppose it were you trying to >sell? Different people value things differently, but this is never >justification for theft. Exactly. "Value" is defined as "worth to the user". "Price" is "what they want". >>I personally find pirating to be a matter of respect. I have no respect any >>more for EA. I'd pirate anything they make in a minute if I thought they >>made anything worth the disk it would take up. Marble Madness was the > >This is thin salve indeed. You would punish EA by pirating if they >*improved* their products to a quality you approve of. This is exactly >what I was getting at in my "ethical Darwinism" barb. Sure, you are happy >to boycott what you don't like, but when the quality improves, do you >pay? (flame warning) NO! you PUNISH! (flame off). Too much stick, >not enough carrot. It's not ethical, and it doesn't promote higher quality >or lower prices. Ok, let me explain: Right now, the value (defined as meaning to me) of marble maddness is less than the value of a disk. That may change as I finish working about 30 or so fish disks and get another 20 blanks. So, I don't buy. If the value were a bit higher (say, $5) I still wouldn't buy, but I would pirate. If the value were as high as the price, then I'd buy. By improving quality, they cannot lose a sale. They can gain one, however. Start with the 6 items I listed. So far for the Amiga, I've bought (not received as presents) the Manx commercial system, Ageis Animator/images, a couple of Infocoms, the rrd, Gizmoz, probably a few others. I've never even tried to pirate Facc because I know what its worth. On the other hand, I can't buy it because every time I try it's sold out. > Charles Poirier (decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,attmail)!vax135!cjp > > "Docking complete... Docking complete... Docking complete..." -- : Michael Gersten seismo!scgvaxd!stb!michael : Copy protection? Just say Pirate! (if its worth pirating)
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (07/18/87)
in article <606@madvax.UUCP>, richc@madvax.UUCP (Rich Commins) says: > I'm not justifing the motives of thieves and pirates, but tring to point > out that there is no protection for software consumers from the > thieves that sell shoddy and or broken software to an unsuspecting buyer. > Has anyone bought software, tried the program and found that it didn't work > or perform as expected, and try to return it for credit? No way! I often borrow a program from a friend before I buy it. For example, C-Power 128... I was afraid it was going to be a useless toy. Well, it IS a toy, but it's FAR from useless... so I bought it. Of course, according to The Great Net God, I'm a sneaking smirking pirate, because I got a copy of Abacus's BASIC-64 and promptly erased it because it sux royally. It's nice knowing a software dealer personally... those guys are the master of shrink-wrapping! You wouldn't believe how much of the software in the typical computer store has been opened, copied, and then re-wrapped.... > I feel shareware is a step in the right direction to break this catch 22. > Shareware does require that honest people who use the software pay the > price the author requests, but if the software is useless he just doesn't > send in the money. This is not the perfect solution to the problem, but is > a start to solving the software/pirate problem. Sad truth: Shareware is an ABYSYMAL failure. Even when the program is used a lot (like Perry's recoverable RAM disk), you will find VERY few people sending in any money. For example, the author of one program for the C-64, called "LYNX", which was VERY widely used (it was the fastest file archiving program for the C-64, because it took advantage of the linked-list nature of CBM DOS).... he got $44. That's IT. Or the Gary Label Maker. I use it to make up very fancy disk labels, with Print Shop graphics, oodles of fonts, etc.... John Gary has gotten lots of mail, from places as far away as Australia and New Zealand (which he enjoys answering), but he's spent more on replying to his mail, than he's recieved in donations! (he can't help it, he's just one of those vanishing breed of "nice guy" who would be aghast at the crudity of not answering his mail). Any scheme which which makes the user take an extra step in order to pay the author is doomed to failure. Let's face it, people are lazy. They'll see that $15 request on LYNX, and say "hmm, maybe I ought to send that in" and that's as far as it gets... -- Eric Green elg%usl.CSNET Ron Headrest: A President {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg for the Electronic Age! Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 BBS phone #: 318-984-3854 300/1200 baud
kfried@misdevelop.UUCP (Ken Fried) (08/07/87)
> The point is, I was willing to pay cash for that game, right then and there. > At least, until I discovered that this reboot problem. I was also willing to > buy Alien Fires, until I discovered that it was copy protected.