ewhac@well.UUCP (Leo L. Schwab) (07/08/87)
[ ~re{_p(?lace~r )tyou~r #?^Hmo{_dem~r ]
In article <761@aurora.UUCP> barry@aurora.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes:
> I will tolerate copy-protection on game software, but it's still
>an utter waste of time for the vendors. The only effective counter to
>piracy I know of, is to make the extras that accompany the program as
>valuable as the executable - good, useful manuals, and vendor support.
>And if a game's so simple that manuals and support are unnecessary, the
>price should be too low to make piracy attractive anyway.
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Have you checked the price of blank disks lately?
Saturation point has been reached on this subject. I will now
attempt to illustrate this fact through >>satire<<.
--------
POINT:
Copy-protection must be supported. It is a necessary practice that
must be engaged in to protect the huge profits of massive software companies
such as ours, so that we can continue to support our highly-paid legal staff
to sue our competition out of business.
Developers who make their livelyhoods writing computer software must
have their efforts protected. The fact that these people couldn't survive
in a truly competetive market makes it necessary for us to copy-protect
their work, and thereby artificially tilt the financial scales in their
favor.
Users are stupid. They will buy anything that comes in a pretty
package, copy-protected or not. By copy-protecting the software, we prevent
the casual, generally honest, but not-to-be-trusted user from making backup
copies of his/her software, or from putting it onto a hard disk, or from
running it out of a RAM disk. By systematically inconveniencing the user,
we can create the illusion of added value; that this software is something
that *must* be protected, that it is actually valuable and worth far more
that the $500 we charged you for it.
Think about it. Our stuff sells for $500, and comes on one disk. A
disk that can be duplicated in two minutes for less than two dollars. Of
course we copy-protect it!
Besides, users don't really *need* to backup their software. You
see, our software is so wonderful that people are willing to go through the
extra pain and agony that we impose on them through copy-protection. They
need our software so desperately that the inconvenience of looking up a word
in our 845-page manual (which may or may not be up to date), or the
consternation of a disk drive making highly unusual noises is minor compared
to how much easier we make their lives with our software.
We wish to emphasize that it's *our* software, not yours. It says
so in the licensing agreement. Therefore, since it's our property, we can
do anything to it we like, and categorically deny you the right to do
whatever we feel like categorically denying you the right to do.
In conclusion, copy-protection is good for us, and good for you,
because it keeps you honest, and you'd like to be known as an honest person,
wouldn't you?
--------
COUNTERPOINT:
Copy-protection sucks major hose. It is an unfair hassle thrust
upon us by uncaring and insensitive software companies who fail to see the
value in letting friends of an owner of a program evaluate copies before
buying the program themselves.
We appreciate the plight of the software developer, but copy-
protecting his work does not protect him, it hurts him.. It prevents his
work from getting the widest possible distribution. Without wide
distribution, his work, no matter how good, would never be known in as many
places as it could, and he/she would not become as famous.
In general, we are experienced computer users. Being totally deviod
of any moral scruples, we have no compunction against freely copying and
distributing programs. This is our form of backup. If my house were to
burn down, my major software investment, if it were copy-protected, would be
lost. No so with our method. I just walk over to my friend's house and
recover my software from the backups I left at his place. He may even have
updated my backups for me.
Some copy-protection schemes actually can cause damage to computer
equipment. Disk drives in particular. By manuipulating the disk heads in
ways they were not designed, the software vendor is deliberately shortening
the life of my disk drive. I strive to remove all such copy-protection from
my software. My friends appreciate this service that I provide for them,
saying that it has prolonged the life of their computers considerably.
Some protection schemes require you to look up a word in the manual.
This is especially aggrevating, as it forces us to spend an extra two
minutes looking up a word in the manual. Do you know how hard it is to read
a third-generation Xerox copy of a manual? It also forces us to make copies
of the manual, which is a royal b*tch to do, especially a $.10 a page.
Jeez, at that price, we may as well go out and *buy* the bloody thing.
Most commercial software is sh*t. It's priced at least ten times
higher than what any reasonable person would pay for it, and is usually
riddled with bugs as to make the program unbearable to use. We should know;
we use these programs every day, and never cease to be appalled by the lack
of craftsmanship that goes into these programs. We would never buy these
packages for our own use, nor would we recommend them to our friends.
Copy-protection only serves to highlight these shortcomings, and it shows
that the publisher is more interested in making a profit than making a
quality product.
And what about those stupid licensing agreements? If it's not ours
to begin with, what the hell do we care?
To conclude, copy-protection is an unfair inconvenience, a menace,
and a waste of time and computer resources. We'll continue to fight this
abberation wherever it appears.
--------
There. Now that we've fairly and completely covered both sides of
the issue......
CAN WE PLEASE MOVE ON TO SOMETHING ELSE!!? HUH? CAN WE? PLEASE!?
P.S: There *may* have been a net imbalance in the satirized point/
counterpoint arguments, which *may* be a result of my personal
position on copy-protection, which is that I'm not crazy about it.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape ihnp4!ptsfa -\
\_ -_ Bike shrunk by popular demand, dual ---> !{well,unicom}!ewhac
O----^o But it's still the only way to fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack")
"Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctor