Chuck.Arelei@f31.n343.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chuck Arelei) (06/10/90)
"The best way to prevent illegal software piracy is to lower the softwares' prices, you hear me out there? Mr. Adobe & Mr. Letraset?" I welcome any remarks and comments of my statement, put it in my mail box, or let's talk it out loud in the public. Chuck Arelei -- Chuck Arelei via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!343!31!Chuck.Arelei INET: Chuck.Arelei@f31.n343.z1.FIDONET.ORG
tonyg@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Tony Gedge) (06/12/90)
Chuck.Arelei@f31.n343.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chuck Arelei) writes: >"The best way to prevent illegal software piracy is to lower the >softwares' prices, you hear me out there? Mr. Adobe & Mr. Letraset?" And, for the shareware scene, find an easier way of paying the shareware fees. It can be very hard to pay them if you aren't in the same country as the shareware author. Tony Gedge. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Computer Science Department, | tonyg@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au | | University of Queensland, Australia.| "cc stands for Cryptic Crossword" | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
erci18@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) (06/12/90)
In article <56447.2673B586@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Chuck.Arelei@f31.n343.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chuck Arelei) writes: >"The best way to prevent illegal software piracy is to lower the >softwares' prices, you hear me out there? Mr. Adobe & Mr. Letraset?" Actually I think the best way is to legalise 'piracy'. It's unstoppable anyway and chasing people who copy software is a waste of everbody's time and effort. Tony -- Tony Cunningham, Edinburgh University Computing Service. erci18@castle.ed.ac.uk Yuppies think I'm a wino 'cos I seem to have no class, Girls think I'm perverted 'cos I watch them as they pass.
mbrown@osf.org (Mark Brown) (06/12/90)
Chuck.Arelei@f31.n343.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chuck Arelei) writes: >"The best way to prevent illegal software piracy is to lower the >softwares' prices, you hear me out there? Mr. Adobe & Mr. Letraset?" "The best way to reduce car radio thefts is to lower car radio prices, do you hear me Mr. Blaupunkt & Mr. Alpine?" Mark Brown IBM AWD / OSF | Even old New York, was once New Amsterdam The Good mbrown@osf.org | Why they changed it, I can't say The Bad uunet!osf!mbrown| People just liked it better that way... The Ugly (617) 621-8981 | -They Might Be Giants
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (06/12/90)
In article <3914@moondance.cs.uq.oz.au> tonyg@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: >Chuck.Arelei@f31.n343.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chuck Arelei) writes: > >And, for the shareware scene, find an easier way of paying the shareware >fees. It can be very hard to pay them if you aren't in the same country >as the shareware author. What's the matter with an international money order in US dollars? I have recieved two payments that way. (The author of MaxAppleZoom in Finland asks for cash... I wonder if he has ever considered the chances of cash actually making it through the international mail!) -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu ][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions?
russ@convex.COM (Russell Donnan) (06/12/90)
In article <9243@paperboy.OSF.ORG> mbrown@osf.org (Mark Brown) writes: >Chuck.Arelei@f31.n343.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chuck Arelei) writes: >>"The best way to prevent illegal software piracy is to lower the >>softwares' prices, you hear me out there? Mr. Adobe & Mr. Letraset?" > >"The best way to reduce car radio thefts is to lower car radio prices, >do you hear me Mr. Blaupunkt & Mr. Alpine?" While it is true that theives only steal things of value. It's also true that consumers only buy things of value. I refuse to be convinced that stealing software lowers the price. Software companies are not producing products for their health! The only way to lower the prices is through competition. Mark, do you think you can write and market ATM cheaper than Adobe can? Then do it! Telling them that people are going to steal from them unless they lower their price is absurd. Stealing anything is a crime. Adobe, Letraset, Blaupunkt, and Alpine are in business to make money. They set the prices of their products at market value, or they die, just like everyone else. Theft has nothing to do with it. -Russ (Just fanning the flames...) -- Russ Donnan, (214) 497-4778, russ@convex.com Convex Computer Corporation, 3000 Waterview Parkway, Richardson, TX -"To capture the essence of an opinion takes but one lawyer."
ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (C. Irby)) (06/12/90)
In article <1990Jun12.160915.5685@portia.Stanford.EDU>, jinx@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dane Spearing) writes: > In article <56447.2673B586@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Chuck.Arelei@f31.n343.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chuck Arelei) writes: >>"The best way to prevent illegal software piracy is to lower the >>softwares' prices, you hear me out there? Mr. Adobe & Mr. Letraset?" >> >>I welcome any remarks and comments of my statement, put it in my mail >>box, or let's talk it out loud in the public. >> > > I agree completely! However, it's already been done! I think everyone > will agree that the most prolific software piracy occurs on college > campuses. To combat this, Microsoft, Claris, and other companies have > offered academic pricing on their most popular software. For example, > here at Stanford, you can purchase Microsoft Word 4.0 (new, with all > documentation) for $75. Compare this with the cheapest mail-order > houses at around $250. The only difference in the product is that it > comes in a box that says "Academic Package" on it. No difference in > documentation or the program itself. I'd call these pretty low prices! > > Uhhh... They don't do that to combat piracy. They sell their stuff for that price for the same reason that Apple and IBM sell computers for low $$$- to penetrate the market. See, sooner or later many of those college students will graduate, and when they do, they might get to make the choice of what kind of software and hardware their company buys... so they choose the computer they used in college. And the software they know how to use. Piracy? Free is still cheaper than $75, and an aftermarket manual is $20... C Irby
jinx@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dane Spearing) (06/12/90)
In article <56447.2673B586@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Chuck.Arelei@f31.n343.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chuck Arelei) writes: >"The best way to prevent illegal software piracy is to lower the >softwares' prices, you hear me out there? Mr. Adobe & Mr. Letraset?" > >I welcome any remarks and comments of my statement, put it in my mail >box, or let's talk it out loud in the public. > I agree completely! However, it's already been done! I think everyone will agree that the most prolific software piracy occurs on college campuses. To combat this, Microsoft, Claris, and other companies have offered academic pricing on their most popular software. For example, here at Stanford, you can purchase Microsoft Word 4.0 (new, with all documentation) for $75. Compare this with the cheapest mail-order houses at around $250. The only difference in the product is that it comes in a box that says "Academic Package" on it. No difference in documentation or the program itself. I'd call these pretty low prices! +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------------+ |Dane Spearing | | |INTERNET: dane@pangea.stanford.edu | #include <disclaim.h> | | or jinx@portia.stanford.edu | | +-----------------------------------+-------------------------------------+
ching@pepsi.amd.com (Mike Ching) (06/12/90)
In article <56447.2673B586@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Chuck.Arelei@f31.n343.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chuck Arelei) writes: >"The best way to prevent illegal software piracy is to lower the >softwares' prices, you hear me out there? Mr. Adobe & Mr. Letraset?" The only way to stop piracy is to convince people that theft is wrong regardless of low probability of punishment. Mike Ching
fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (06/12/90)
In article <56447.2673B586@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG>, Chuck.Arelei@f31.n343.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chuck Arelei) writes: > "The best way to prevent illegal software piracy is to lower the > softwares' prices, you hear me out there? Mr. Adobe & Mr. Letraset?" This explains why shareware authors rake in so much cash. Perhaps it explains why, for instance, there is so little piracy of of Commodore 64 games, or Apple// software... Pirates don't seem to need much encouragement to steal software or accept it from others. Price doesn't seem to be much of a factor. > I welcome any remarks and comments of my statement, put it in my mail > box, or let's talk it out loud in the public. One should be careful of what one asks for...one might get it. ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) (06/13/90)
In fact, the best way to eliminate software piracy is to give software away. Yep, that is the ticket. Quit all of this nasty charging for software!! What, you have children to feed and house payments to make? What a shame, but if you give your software away, you will not have any piracy... Excuse my sarcasm, but I am a little tired of people who have never had to meet the development costs of a software project telling us that we should price software in a particular way. If you can't afford the software, then do without it. There are many things in this world that I would like, but cannot afford. I do without them. -- Jordan Mattson UUCP: jordan@apple.apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. CSNET: jordan@apple.CSNET Development Tools Product Management AppleLink: Mattson1 20525 Mariani Avenue, MS 27S Cupertino, CA 95014 408-974-4601 "Joy is the serious business of heaven." C.S. Lewis
lim@iris.ucdavis.edu (Lloyd Lim) (06/13/90)
In article <4666@castle.ed.ac.uk> erci18@castle.ed.ac.uk (A J Cunningham) writes: > Actually I think the best way is to legalise 'piracy'. It's >unstoppable anyway and chasing people who copy software is a waste of >everbody's time and effort. > Tony Oh yes, I whole-heartedly agree! My software took me a year to develop and since I'm a one-man company, I don't have much overhead. I just have to feed and clothe myself and pay rent. I was charging $200 a copy instead of the $30,000 site licenses my nearest competitor charges. (Absolutely true.) But what the heck, this is the ideal solution to stop piracy! Starting tommorrow, anyone who wants a copy of my program can get it for free! +++ Lloyd Lim Internet: lim@iris.ucdavis.edu (128.120.57.20) Compuserve: 72647,660 US Mail: 146 Lysle Leach Hall, U.C. Davis, Davis, CA 95616
ccocswr@prism.gatech.EDU (Winston Rast (Micro- coop)) (06/13/90)
You are also correct in stating your comments about development costs. The expenses to develop a product must be passed on to the consumer although I would much rather they not be but I have little choice and I understand their high price. Take PageMaker 4.0 for example. It will list at $795. I'm sure that one will be pirated to a great extent but Aldus can't help it really. It's just their development costs getting in the way. By the way, PM 4.0 will go for $199 here at GA Tech. GREAT PRICE!! I'm getting one! Take care, Winston -- |- Winston Rast (Micro- coop) Georgia Institute of Technology -| | ccocswr@prism.gatech.edu Atlanta, Georgia 30332 | | | |- "Guilt is SUCH a great weapon!" -- Bull (Night Court) -|
thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Thom Gillespie) (06/13/90)
I'm not replying to any particular reply to Chuck.Arelei's original posting but I have some thoughts: 1) It seems like software piracy is here to stay, part of the culture 2) Can anyone document a particular company which has gone out of business because of software piracy as opposed to bad documentation, service, product etc? I imagine that microsoft, lotus, and claris are at the top of the pirated companies -- their products are good 3) In the recent Whole Earth Quarterly David Bryne is asked about music piracy, what does he think of it? He says, "He views piracy as advertising" They steal his music -- and the distributor looses -- and they pay to come to his concerts because they listen to his advertising all day long ... good advertising for a good product. 4) In the Media lab Stuart Brand suggests that in the future we won't buy Microsoft Word so much as subscribe to it -- good service coming on a regular basis with a good update policy. Wasn't this what made Red Ryder a success? The most interesting suggestion in the entire discussion was by A J Cunningham, "legalize piracy." Now there is any idea worth discussing instead of the old bromides which don't fit digital media. Can you do it? How? What type of changes will have to happen in our heads for this to work? --Thom Gillespie
philip@Pescadero.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (06/13/90)
In article <137121@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>, fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: > In article <56447.2673B586@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG>, Chuck.Arelei@f31.n343.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chuck Arelei) writes: > > "The best way to prevent illegal software piracy is to lower the > > softwares' prices, you hear me out there? Mr. Adobe & Mr. Letraset?" > > This explains why shareware authors rake in so much cash. > > Perhaps it explains why, for instance, there is so little piracy of > of Commodore 64 games, or Apple// software... > > Pirates don't seem to need much encouragement to steal software or > accept it from others. Price doesn't seem to be much of a factor. > > > I welcome any remarks and comments of my statement, put it in my mail > > box, or let's talk it out loud in the public. > > One should be careful of what one asks for...one might get it. The problem is not limited to software - think of photocopying books, or copying music. The temptation to do so is proportional to the lack of necessity of the original materials + ease of copying. Software happens to be at the "easiest" end of the copying scale, especially if you don't need the manuals. So what's the problem? We have a concept called "copyright", which is based on the obsolete notion that media are hard to copy. What's needed instead is a notion of the service you are buying (e.g., technical support, easy access to upgrades), which should be unbundled from the distribution/media costs. Wouldn't it be much easier to sell software if anyone could copy it free of charge (hard to prevent, much more efficient than sending 50000 copies to the dealers, then finding a bug), but had to pay for tech support (which everyone has to pay for now, whether they need it or not)? One negative: if tech support is the main commodity being sold, there's some incentive to make things more complicated than they need to be. However, "support" doesn't have to be restricted to hand-holding, but can include professional advice. Imagine this: pick up the latest copy of PageMaker free of charge off the network. Discover having the software doesn't give you design skills you previously lacked. Phone Aldus's support number and subscribe to their expert advice service (maybe an e-mail mailing list). Positive outcomes: no more piracy, no more spending good money on software that doesn't work for you. Lots of potential for alternative sources of advice/support on a popular product (I'd expect the developers to get their act together fastest, but not be the cheapest). Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
mldemsey@cs.arizona.edu (Matthew L. Demsey) (06/13/90)
or at least slow it down, SoftPC is on to a good idea with their installation which seems to be very CPU specific - in that a SoftPC installed on one IIcx doesn't work on another IIcx with the exact same hardware. If companies were to take this a step further and make the installer only capable of doing its job a set number of times, then this would further deter the piracy. Of course, piracy could just occur with the copying of the original installtion software, but the taking of programs off of servers or any situation of the like... just some thoughts... Loki(mldemsey@caslon.cs.arizona.edu)
siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (06/13/90)
In article <41882@apple.Apple.COM> jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) writes: > > In fact, the best way to eliminate software piracy is to give software away. >Yep, that is the ticket. Quit all of this nasty charging for software!! > What, you have children to feed and house payments to make? What a shame, >but if you give your software away, you will not have any piracy... Boy, you've got it easy. Try being a young single man in Massachusetts who has to make car insurance payments. :-( > Excuse my sarcasm, but I am a little tired of people who have never had >to meet the development costs of a software project telling us that we >should price software in a particular way. > If you can't afford the software, then do without it. There are many >things in this world that I would like, but cannot afford. I do without >them. I know, and I agree. I can't afford a nice new car to replace my beat-up 1979 Oldsmobile, so I think I'll steal the car that I'd like to buy (but that I can't afford). :-) R. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer Symantec Corporation, Language Products Group Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel "It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) (06/13/90)
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >In article <3914@moondance.cs.uq.oz.au> tonyg@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: >>Chuck.Arelei@f31.n343.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chuck Arelei) writes: >> >>And, for the shareware scene, find an easier way of paying the shareware >>fees. It can be very hard to pay them if you aren't in the same country >>as the shareware author. >What's the matter with an international money order in US dollars? >I have recieved two payments that way. >(The author of MaxAppleZoom in Finland asks for cash... I wonder if he >has ever considered the chances of cash actually making it through >the international mail!) >-- >Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu Quite good. CSI design group asks for "some cash" for their exelent wizards fire game. I send them just that, and it made it all the way there and back again! (The address seems to be no longer valid) Klaus Kristiansen .
tag@symbas.UUCP (Arne Gisvold) (06/13/90)
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >What's the matter with an international money order in US dollars? The money order will cost me >25 USD in bankcharges! Is that a good enough reason? Regards Tor-Arne-- ! Tor-Arne Gisvold - Symbiotic Computer Systems A/S ! adress : Sandgt. 2 , N7001 Trondheim, Norway ! UUCP : ...mcsun!nuug!symbas.UUCP!tag or tag@symbas.uucp ! phone: +47-7-515544 FAX : +47-7-532027 AppleLink : NOR0038-- ! Tor-Arne Gisvold - Symbiotic Computer Systems A/S ! adress : Sandgt. 2 , N7001 Trondheim, Norway ! UUCP : ...mcsun!nuug!symbas.UUCP!tag or tag@symbas.uucp ! phone: +47-7-515544 FAX : +47-7-532027 AppleLink : NOR0038
cbm@well.sf.ca.us (Chris Muir) (06/13/90)
In Article <1990Jun12.134137.21997@eng.umd.edu> russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: -What's the matter with an international money order in US dollars? -I have recieved two payments that way. -(The author of MaxAppleZoom in Finland asks for cash... I wonder if he -has ever considered the chances of cash actually making it through -the international mail!) I sent the MaxAppleZoom guy (in Belguim) cash. I got a confirmation postcard back in about three weeks. On the postcard he says: "Financial feedback from the U.S. - the country with the largest potential user base - has been even lower than expected. It looks like people are reluctant to send money by air mail, fearing that I might not get it. In my opinion, not sending any money is also a quite secure way to ensure that I do not get any payments... The postal service has been refined for more than 100 years and the service provided nowadays is, if rather slow, extremely reliable" -- __________________________________________________________________________ Chris Muir | "There is no language in our cbm@well.sf.ca.us | lungs to tell the world just {hplabs,pacbell,ucbvax,apple}!well!cbm | how we feel" - A. Partridge
mbrown@osf.org (Mark Brown) (06/13/90)
| ||"The best way to prevent illegal software piracy is to lower the | ||softwares' prices, you hear me out there? Mr. Adobe & Mr. Letraset?" | | | |"The best way to reduce car radio thefts is to lower car radio prices, | |do you hear me Mr. Blaupunkt & Mr. Alpine?" | | stealing software lowers the price. Software companies are not producing | products for their health! The only way to lower the prices is through | competition. Mark, do you think you can write and market ATM cheaper | than Adobe can? Then do it! Telling them that people are going to steal Russ, try reading my (somewhat terse) reply again, only this time, turn your "sarcasm detector" up to "high"... I think you missed my point, somewhat. ;-) Mark Brown IBM AWD / OSF | Even old New York, was once New Amsterdam The Good mbrown@osf.org | Why they changed it, I can't say The Bad uunet!osf!mbrown| People just liked it better that way... The Ugly (617) 621-8981 | -They Might Be Giants Mark Brown IBM AWD / OSF | Even old New York, was once New Amsterdam The Good mbrown@osf.org | Why they changed it, I can't say The Bad uunet!osf!mbrown| People just liked it better that way... The Ugly (617) 621-8981 | -They Might Be Giants
hemstree@handel.CS.Colostate.Edu (charles he hemstreet) (06/13/90)
In article <26913.26750102@vaxb.acs.unt.edu> ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (C. Irby)) writes: Path: ccncsu!boulder!ncar!asuvax!cs.utexas.edu!ntvaxb!ac08 From: ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (C. Irby)) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Date: 12 Jun 90 14:49:38 GMT References: <56447.2673B586@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> <1990Jun12.160915.5685@portia.Stanford.EDU> Lines: 38 In article <1990Jun12.160915.5685@portia.Stanford.EDU>, jinx@portia.Stanford.EDU (Dane Spearing) writes: > In article <56447.2673B586@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Chuck.Arelei@f31.n343.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chuck Arelei) writes: [misc stuff deleted] > here at Stanford, you can purchase Microsoft Word 4.0 (new, with all > documentation) for $75. Compare this with the cheapest mail-order > houses at around $250. The only difference in the product is that it > comes in a box that says "Academic Package" on it. No difference in > documentation or the program itself. I'd call these pretty low prices! > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Uhhh... Don't think that's totally correct. I checked into it quite a bit before I bought my academic version MS Word 4.0. There are some things you don't get with the academic version. (Templates, some documentation, etc.) I still like my academic version just as much if not better then the $250 package! :-) Just a little FYI. Chip -- !===========================================================================! ! Charles H. Hemstreet IV !internet: hemstree@handel.cs.Colostate.Edu ! ! Colorado State University ! "stay out of trouble!" -RoboCop ! !===========================================================================!
jamesth@microsoft.UUCP (James THIELE) (06/13/90)
In article <36990@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Thom Gillespie) writes: > >I'm not replying to any particular reply to Chuck.Arelei's original posting but >I have some thoughts: > > 4) In the Media lab Stuart Brand suggests that in the future we won't buy > Microsoft Word so much as subscribe to it -- good service coming on a regular > basis with a good update policy. Wasn't this what made Red Ryder a success? Now here is an excellent idea that I've liked for a long time. It has advantages to both the buyer and seller. For example, the buyer can cancel the subscription if the product fails to live up to expectations. The seller gets a steady revenue flow. The buyer and seller both benefit when new machines/operating systems come out because there is a mechanism in place to support upgrades (currently the buyer feels cheated because he can't run on the new machine - the seller feels put upon because he is expected to fix it). There are other possible advantages in my mind, such as getting out of the "batch" upgrade rut, where a new Excel/PageMaker/etc. only comes out every year or two. If there were subscribers the vendors would want to keep up the flow of new goodies to keep them happy. Enough on the advantages, who'll suggest what's wrong with the idea? > --Thom Gillespie James Thiele -- microsoft!jamesth Standard Disclaimer + I'm a developer, not a marketer
rww@demon.siemens.com (Richard W West) (06/13/90)
- I know, and I agree. I can't afford a nice new car to replace my
-beat-up 1979 Oldsmobile, so I think I'll steal the car that I'd like
-to buy (but that I can't afford).
Try taking things into perspective. Programs are much easier to
reproduce (and therefore copy) without the knowledge of ANYONE. An auto
theft does draw some attention to the thief.
Hearing all of this stuff about development costs is a bunch of BS.
Companies, when distributing a program INCLUDE in the price their 100%
profit. Remember, as with any item, a certain amount of profit is
included in the price of the items. Computer software, as with most
commercial items, work on selling one item retail for the cost (to them)
for two. The main reasons the prices stay high are:
1. The companys have to cover for the profits lost through piracy
2. They feel that they will make the most profit from the item at that
specific price. Believe me, they do their research into what the
best price for them is.
-Rich West
Siemens Corporate Research and Development Laboratories
Princeton, New Jersey
Internet: rww@demon.siemens.com
Disclaimer: These are my opinions. They may be yours, they may be the
companies, but, then again, maybe not.russ@convex.COM (Russell Donnan) (06/14/90)
In article <9338@paperboy.OSF.ORG> mbrown@osf.org (Mark Brown) writes: Russ, try reading my (somewhat terse) reply again, only this time, turn >your "sarcasm detector" up to "high"... I think you missed my point, >somewhat. ;-) Oops! I meant that to go to the ORIGINAL poster. Many appologies -> Mark. -- Russ Donnan, (214) 497-4778, russ@convex.com Convex Computer Corporation, 3000 Waterview Parkway, Richardson, TX -"To capture the essence of an opinion takes but one lawyer."
urlichs@smurf.sub.org (Matthias Urlichs) (06/14/90)
In comp.sys.mac, article <1990Jun12.134137.21997@eng.umd.edu>, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: < In article <3914@moondance.cs.uq.oz.au> tonyg@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au writes: < >Chuck.Arelei@f31.n343.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chuck Arelei) writes: < > < >And, for the shareware scene, find an easier way of paying the shareware < >fees. It can be very hard to pay them if you aren't in the same country < >as the shareware author. < < What's the matter with an international money order in US dollars? < I have recieved two payments that way. The matter is that some banks in Europe want real money for cashing such a beast. Mine wants about $5 per US check. Money orders are worse because you actually have to go to the bank to get one, which lowers the chance that people like you and me actually pay up. < (The author of MaxAppleZoom in Finland asks for cash... I wonder if he < has ever considered the chances of cash actually making it through < the international mail!) Pretty good, provided that it's not visible from outside. -- Matthias Urlichs -- urlichs@smurf.sub.org -- urlichs@smurf.ira.uka.de Humboldtstrasse 7 - 7500 Karlsruhe 1 - FRG -- +49+721+621127(Voice)/621227(PEP)
news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News) (06/14/90)
In article <36990@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Thom Gillespie) writes: > 1) It seems like software piracy is here to stay, part of the culture Insofar as the culture is based on the technology, and the technology allows one to very easily duplicate large amounts of software very quickly, you're right. Software is almost unique in this regard; in what other field of industry can a technical item, which cost many man-years to produce and has a value in the thousands of dollars, be stolen with such impunity, without even affecting the original buyer? That's one of the reasons piracy is such a dubious crime; you can copy someone's software without their even knowing it! It isn't stealing from the person from whose software the copy was made; it's stealing from the company who invested their time and money in the product, in the hopes you would repay them. I used to pirate software by the truckload back on my Apple ][ in high school, but now that I'm going to work for Autodesk, things seem a bit different.... >3) In the recent Whole Earth Quarterly David Bryne is asked about music >piracy, what does he think of it? He says, "He views piracy as advertising" >They steal his music -- and the distributor looses -- and they pay to come to >his concerts because they listen to his advertising all day long ... good >advertising for a good product. What does this have to do with software piracy? There are no "concerts" in the software world; if David Byrne had to make his living off of recorded music alone, and if EVERYONE who listened to his music had a dubbing DAT player that could copy whole albums in seconds, I think he'd change his tune pretty quickly. Comparing audio piracy to software piracy is bogus, both because audio copies degrade whereas software copies are perfect, and because EVERY computer user has what's needed to copy ANY piece of software, in a very short time, as opposed to audio listeners who only sometimes have the necessary equipment, and who need to wait 45 minutes to tape an album. >4) In the Media lab Stuart Brand suggests that in the future we won't buy >Microsoft Word so much as subscribe to it -- good service coming on a regular >basis with a good update policy. Wasn't this what made Red Ryder a success? Two more problems with this: most companies now are trying to make their products as easy to use as possible, and investing a LOT of time and money in their attempts to do so. According to this suggestion, they should be trying to make them as DIFFICULT as possible, so _all_ users will have to come to them for support. That would be bad! Second, I am unaware that Red Ryder _was_ a great success. The current version is no longer share- ware, is it? Isn't it no longer called Red Ryder? I wonder why the change? I don't think the service idea is viable. The best hope I can see, beyond measures such as hardware locks and CPU numbers, is the gradual evolution of a nationwide distributed network, from which all software is accessible. The network would charge you for the time spent running particular programs, and credit the programs' authors. This scheme resembles the automated royalty mechanisms Ted Nelson suggested for hypertext networks--after all, why write for a living on such a network if there's no way to receive royal- ties? Interestingly, in this scheme, all packages would become shareware: you could try any number of commercial software packages, for very little cost, any length of time, and with access to all the latest updates as soon as they become available; and when you find the one you like best, you simply use that one. I can think of no better way to make the best software earn the most money. Software evolution would speed up dramatically.... For an interesting discussion of the industry's contradictory attitudes towards copy protection, check out the book _The Autodesk File_, by John Walker, New Riders Publishing, ISBN 0-934035-63-6. Among with other bits and pieces relating to Autodesk's growth, it has a description of the time Autodesk started shipping a hardware lock device with AutoCAD, and the reaction thereto. >The most interesting suggestion in the entire discussion was by A J >Cunningham, "legalize piracy." Now there is any idea worth discussing instead >of the old bromides which don't fit digital media. Can you do it? How? What >type of changes will have to happen in our heads for this to work? I don't buy it. There is no conceptual difference between a piece of soft- ware and any other item in a free market; people invest their time in things so that other people will buy those things, and other people buy the things because they think the things are worth the price. Software simply happens to be much easier to steal than any other commodity I'm aware of. The one argument which I heard a lot in high school is, "Well, I don't have the money, and I _can't_ buy the thing, so what difference does it make if I steal it?" Over and above the immediate absurdity of this (I can't afford a Ferrari, but I don't go out and steal one), I see a question of priorities here. When, after all, _do_ you have the money? The question is whether you feel you can spare it. If you are inclined towards piracy, you may well decide you need the money more for other things, and copy the software while claiming, and to some extent believing, you don't have what it takes to buy it. If you felt guiltier about pirating it, you might well _find_ the money. Academic discounts take care of the one major case where this doesn't hold; college students _don't_ have hundreds of dollars to blow on software, but if you need th peackage badly enough, you should be willing to pay for it. After all, if it doesn't pay for itself, why are you buying it? People who still claim "well, it just costs too much and I'm not going to pay it, so there!" are just common thieves. Just because you're paying $1000 for nothing but a disk and a manual in a box doesn't mean that disk and that manual aren't genuinely worth $1000! > --Thom Gillespie Rob Jellinghaus | "Next time you see a lie being spread or a jellinghaus-robert@CS.Yale.EDU | bad decision being made out of sheer ignor- ROBERTJ@{yalecs,yalevm}.BITNET | ance, pause, and think of hypertext." {everyone}!decvax!yale!robertj | -- K. Eric Drexler, _Engines of Creation_
rjohnson@seas.gwu.edu (Ray Johnson) (06/14/90)
In watching this thread there is on argument I haven't seen brought up on the side of piracy. Many people copy so many programs that they could never really use them all. After all does someone who has Word, MacWrite, WordPerfect and WriteNow use all of these progams to write thier papers on? So what do they do with all of these programs that are just filling up space? Some people have told me in the past that they are just 'shopping' so to speak. By copying the software they can learn to use various programs completly and therefore have a better basis for determining what to purchase. It is hard to compare software by looking on the back of shrink wrapped boxes and read reviews written by someone whos opinion may mean nothing to you. These same people often then buy the product so that they can have company suport and instant access to upgrades and bug fixes. I think the ideal would be for the companies to produce demo versions of thier products that do something like print thier logo on the output. Some companies do this now and this is enough to sastifiy many would be piraters. Furthermore, I don't think its the hacker that copies everything he sees that causes the most problems. It's the companies (or sometimes governments) that copy programs for use by thier entire company that cause the most problems. It is this case that we are talking about million dollar losses expecially in instances where it is encouraged by forign governments or top managment. -- Ray Johnson Internet: rjohnson@gwusun.gwu.edu Phone: (202)994-6853 The George Washington University
pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) (06/14/90)
In article <55192@microsoft.UUCP> jamesth@microsoft.UUCP (James THIELE) writes: >In article <36990@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Thom Gillespie) writes: >> >>I'm not replying to any particular reply to Chuck.Arelei's original posting but >>I have some thoughts: >> >> 4) In the Media lab Stuart Brand suggests that in the future we won't buy >> Microsoft Word so much as subscribe to it -- good service coming on a regular >> basis with a good update policy. Wasn't this what made Red Ryder a success? > >Enough on the advantages, who'll suggest what's wrong with the idea? > I think it's great idea- reminds of the one where doctors only get their fee if they make you well- (but too bad if you're terminal ;-) ). The weak link might be all the "information workers" out there and book publishers who would poach or headhunt the best support people from the software companies and bring out fat volumes that provide much of the support that you would otherwise pay the software company for. I imagine that under the proposed scheme software upgrades should also be PD/free otherwise the motivation for piracy raises its head again. The real issue we are grappling with here is the nature of information- its transportability and reproducability. When information is copied an ethereal thing called intellectual effort etc has been stolen and that's hard to track down or even determine that it's happened. What happened to the old proposal for taxing the copying media itself, placing it in a pool and coming up with (who knows what!) scheme to fairly distribute it to software developers? Perry Morrison
brendan@claris.com (Brendan McCarthy) (06/14/90)
I'm not trying to pick on anyone in particular, but some opinions have been expressed here that compell me to respond... Thom Gillespie (thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu) writes: > 1) It seems like software piracy is here to stay, part of the culture This is an invalid argument. One cannot justify immoral behaviour just because it is widespread in a culture. Try to apply this argument to behaviour like murder to see how incorrect it is. It is rationalisation, plain and simple. Piracy is theft. Too people many people are ignorant of this, others choose to ignore it. I think part of the problem is that people confuse the media (disks, manuals, etc.) with the software itself. When you pay for software, you are not primarily paying for the cost of material goods, but rather for the development effort of the software. Somehow, people seem to equate the ease of duplicat- ing these material goods with the difficulty of creating quality software. > 2) Can anyone document a particular company which has gone out of business because of software piracy as opposed to bad documentation, service, pro duc etc? I imagine that microsoft, lotus, and claris are at the top of the pirated companies -- their products are good I don't know of any companies that have gone out of business, but I do know that 20% - 50% (depending on the location) of Claris software being used is pirated. The amount of revenue lost to piracy certainly cuts into R&D bugets, etc, and eventually affects the software's market price. I'll paraphrase one of the previous posters who said, "The way to end piracy is to lower software prices." My response is, the way to lower software prices is to end piracy... > 3) In the recent Whole Earth Quarterly David Bryne is asked about music piracy, what does he think of it? He says, "He views piracy as advertisi ng They steal his music -- and the distributor looses -- and they pay to come to his concerts because they listen to his advertising all day long good advertising for a good product. Maybe so, but the software industry and the music industry are very different. For example, the ONLY way a software company generates income is by selling software... there are no concerts to subsidize them. Once again, Thom, this isn't meant to be an attack on you at all. There were just too many fallacious ideas expressed for me to hold my ire any longer. As a software engineer, the software piracy harms me directly. A quality piece of software is the result of tens of thousands of man-hours of labor, by several dozen people over a long period of time. It costs tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars just to develop the software. This does not include production cost, the cost of writing manuals, marketing expenses, etc. It's important for customers to realize this. Anyway, that's enought of a rant for now. Brendan : Brendan McCarthy : UUCP: brendan@claris.com : InterNet: {ames,apple,portal,sun,voder}!claris!brendan : :
thornley@cs.umn.edu (David H. Thornley) (06/14/90)
In article <10402@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccocswr@prism.gatech.EDU (Winston Rast (Micro- coop)) writes: >You are also correct in stating your comments about development costs. The >expenses to develop a product must be passed on to the consumer although I >would much rather they not be but I have little choice and I understand their >high price. Take PageMaker 4.0 for example. It will list at $795. I'm sure >that one will be pirated to a great extent but Aldus can't help it really. >It's just their development costs getting in the way. By the way, PM 4.0 will >go for $199 here at GA Tech. GREAT PRICE!! I'm getting one! >Take care, >Winston This is probably the most prevalent economic fallacy today. Aldus does not have to price PM 4.0 at $795 because it cost a lot to develop; that is a sunk cost and has nothing to do with unit cost. They price their products at the point where they think they will get the most profit. They may have to set the satisfactory profit line at a high level because of earlier development costs, but that is a different matter. To price a product, consider the unit costs (documentation, packaging, etc.), draw up a price vs. sales curve (estimated, of course), subtract variable costs from the price, and pick the best point on the curve. Expensive development requires a lot of profit to be worthwhile, and may contribute to raising the price (by requiring more expensive documentation or by raising demand at high price levels), and a company will be willing to spend a lot on development only if they have some confidence of recouping these costs, but these influences are indirect. In the example above, if each package shipped cost Aldus $100, and ten times as many people would buy it at $199 rather than $795, they would be fools to charge the higher price. By having as good a product as they can, they hope that they can sell a lot at $795, so that maybe only four times as many people would buy at $199. And, since they figured they could sell a *lot* of PM at $795, they figured they had lots of money to spend on making a good product. DHT > > > >-- >|- Winston Rast (Micro- coop) Georgia Institute of Technology -| >| ccocswr@prism.gatech.edu Atlanta, Georgia 30332 | >| | >|- "Guilt is SUCH a great weapon!" -- Bull (Night Court) -|
knoll@well.sf.ca.us (John Knoll) (06/14/90)
Did it occur to anyone that if there were less piracy, software prices could come down. Software prices are set to balance development cost against sales.
peterm@dna.lth.se (Peter M|ller) (06/14/90)
I hope I don't offend anyone out there by this, but I must say that you people don't know the TRUE meaning of the word "expensive software". Someone said that PageMaker 4.0 costs $795 in the US, how does a standard price tag of $1 800 grab you? When did you last paid $170 for a not-so-thrilling DA? How about $ 4 760 *Student Price* for a SE/30? How about *no* student prices at all for software (i.e. $715 for MS Word 4.0 - for a student)? OK, this may be a weak excuse for software piracy, but the price policy here is *insane*! Apple, do you hear me??? OK, Multi-Stupid may not get so much cash by selling Word for $75, but the sure get good-will! With that price (for a student) I would buy it today! Peter Moller Lund Institute of Technology - Sweden
ralph@computing-maths.cardiff.ac.uk (Ralph Martin) (06/14/90)
Whats wrong with International Money Orders is that they are expensive (often nearly as much as the shareware fee), and a hastle to obtain (compared with writing a check or using a credit card). I've had 1 (one) person (well company) in the US honest enough to pay me for some shareware I wrote. While I can't say for definite I would have had more if making the payment had been easier, I strongly suspect this may be the case, taking into account the number of UK payments I've had (no, I don't think people in the UK are more honest in general!) Ralph
mrys@ethz.UUCP (Michael Rys) (06/14/90)
1. It may be that you can get software for a few dollars with student rates in the US of A, but in Europe the student rates correspond to the common market prices in the US (e.g., I can get MS Word 4.0 student rate here for ~650 sfr. (english version) or ~1000 sfr. (german version). This is probably more than ordering in the US from one of those mailorder places. It looks the same for other software (not only MS). It is also the same for hardware (e.g., student rate IIcx 8600sfr., student NeXT (US ~6500$) 16000sfr.!!!). As long as the prices are that exorbitant (the normal prices are 10% to 30% more!), I hardly can afford to buy a computer, not speaking about Software... 2. Re shopping piracy: I would really like to see cheap (or better free) print (look at) only versions of the most programs. If I receive a WriteNow document from somebody, how can I look at it without opening or printing it? In this respect Unsit and their like in the PD/SW domain are great. Just my .02$ opinion... Michael +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | Michael Rys, V. Conzett Str. 34; CH-8004 Zuerich; Switzerland | | UUCP: mrys@ethz.UUCP or EAN: mrys@ifi.ethz.ch | | mrys@bernina.UUCP IPSANet: mrys@ipsaint | | Voice: +41 1 242 35 87 | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ -- Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darueber muss man schweigen. -- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus logico-philosophicus
wcarroll@encore.com (Mr. New Dad) (06/14/90)
From article <18500@well.sf.ca.us>, by knoll@well.sf.ca.us (John Knoll): > > Did it occur to anyone that if there were less piracy, software prices > could come down. Software prices are set to balance development cost > against sales. As has been pointed before, software prices are set to balance PROFIT goals, not development cost. Less piracy would likely reduce retail costs, but if Microsoft can still get $400 for a copy-protected Word, they will still charge that. -- William R. Carroll (Encore Computer Corp., Ft. Lauderdale FL) wcarroll@encore.com uunet!gould!wcarroll "Dan Quayle gives underachievers a bad name." -- Bart Simpson
kmagel@plains.UUCP (ken magel) (06/14/90)
One explanation for the enormous amount of software piracy which seems to go on is that the victim in any piracy is some faceless, probably large and assumed to be dishonest or malacious, company rather than an individual whom the theif might know or at least have seen. The person from whom the software is taken loses nothing - his or her copy is just as useful as it was before the theft.
mart@csri.toronto.edu (Mart Molle) (06/15/90)
Brendan McCarthy (brendan@claris.com), responding to earlier comments, writes: [on people finding it easy to rationalize piracy:] >I think part of the problem is that people confuse the media (disks, manuals, >etc.) with the software itself. When you pay for software, you are not >primarily paying for the cost of material goods, but rather for the development >effort of the software. Somehow, people seem to equate the ease of duplicat- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >ing these material goods with the difficulty of creating quality software. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [on music piracy as "good advertising", and its analogy with software piracy:] >Maybe so, but the software industry and the music industry are very different. >For example, the ONLY way a software company generates income is by selling >software... there are no concerts to subsidize them. > >As a software engineer, the software piracy harms me directly. A quality >piece of software is the result of tens of thousands of man-hours of labor, >by several dozen people over a long period of time. It costs tens to hundreds ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >of thousands of dollars just to develop the software. This does not include ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >production cost, the cost of writing manuals, marketing expenses, etc. >It's important for customers to realize this. An issue that has not come up yet in this discussion is people's [lack of] understanding of value-for-money EVEN WHEN THEY DO UNDERSTAND that they are paying for software development and not just production costs. I know of people with some programming experience whose attitude is essentially: ``I could have written a program in X days on my machine having Y percent of the functionality of this package, so a price of Z is a ripoff to gouge the suits who don't know any better.'' Obviously, the above rationalization is flawed because it ignores the fact that writing the first kludgy prototype is only a small step along the way to a saleable product. However, let's see what the response by a hypothetical `man on the street' might be to the highlighted text: ``OK, so Ford spent 5 *billion* dollars to develop the Taurus/Sable, and is now selling copies at about $15K each. Thus, a back of the envelope calculation for determining the "fair" price for a piece of software that cost .5 million to develop comes out to around $1.50. That's not enough to cover the production costs, but I guess it means the price of software should be set at little more than production costs. So why do they charge hundreds of times more???'' Well, at the present time, software is different from automobiles, hit songs, and just about everything else the hypothetical man on the street is familiar with. They must charge a lot more because they can't expect to sell millions of copies without a lot of additional work in updating the product. There aren't that many potential customers for a given piece of software (yet), because there isn't a long term universal standard for the interface to the hardware platform. Imagine if cars ran on rails instead of pavement, and every year they added some new segments of track with yet another incompatible guage (spacing). Or imagine if the musician who enjoys his "good advertising" had to do a new arrangement (and re-record) his hit song every time Sony came up with a new cassette deck or CD player. I dare say that automobile makers and musicians would be forced to alter their price structure in the direction of software houses. I guess the bottom line is that we should not expect commodity prices on software until we stop innovating on the hardware side, and run out of good ideas for evolving the software. I'm sure not looking forward to this... Mart L. Molle Computer Systems Research Institute University of Toronto Toronto, Canada M5S 1A4. (416)978-4928
mldemsey@cs.arizona.edu (Matthew L. Demsey) (06/15/90)
Yes, I sympathize with software engineers who work and sweat over a good piece of software. But somewhere down the line some bastard in the bueracracy gets a hold of it and jacks the price up far beyond the cost to make/cost to pay engineeres salary. I defy anyone to justify they $750+ software costs of PM 4.0, etc. (in terms of paying the engineers technical writers, and printing fees, marketing,etc.) As with any active example forms of capitalism - someones pocket is becoming filled by others work. Apple, I would say, is a very good example of this. Even the student discounts are in no-way discounts, (2 meg upgrade for $600+, the least severe of these). I am 100% sure that if the means of creating the Mac II motherboard were easily available to the general 'hackers', the Mac II's would be quickly and efficiently pirated; this is theft, but it is also a statment to Apple saying 'Hey, there's no way you can justify the outrageous CPU prices... and we're doing something about it.' Apple realizes their overpricing, but has assured their monopoly by copyrighting their motherboard... Everyone is socialistic until they begin making real money... anyway. Loki
tonyrich@titanic.cs.wisc.edu (Anthony Rich) (06/15/90)
These are all open to further discussion and clarification, of course.
Don't get me wrong: I am definitely NOT promoting piracy here! I'm just
summarizing the arguments I've noted so far: both FOR, AGAINST, and
OTHER. Add/delete/change as you see fit.
Arguments put forth as possible justifications of piracy:
---------------------------------------------------------
1. Piracy is OK if the software is overpriced (in particular,
high overseas pricing was noted).
2. Piracy is OK if the price is OK but you still can't afford the product,
if you want or need it badly. (This is like #1, but overpriced relative
to one's PERSONAL budget, not necessarily overpriced in the marketplace).
3. Piracy is OK if the software producer is a large and faceless company.
3a: Piracy is OK if it only affects strangers or people one doesn't like
or people who seem less moral than oneself.
3b: Piracy is OK if the financial loss due to a single act of piracy
is small relative to a large company's income.
4. Piracy is OK if the probability of being punished for it is low.
5. Piracy is OK because the original is not removed, just copied.
6. Piracy is OK if it is fast and easy to do. It's not OK if it's slow
and cumbersome, like copying a book on a copy machine.
Arguments put forth as possible condemnations of piracy:
--------------------------------------------------------
1. Piracy is not OK because it is theft. It is economic theft (loss of
sales), not physical theft (loss of a diskette, say), but it's still theft.
2. Piracy is not OK because it increases software costs. (Although if
all piracy stopped, prices might not decrease; developers might use the
additional profits for other purposes).
Arguments for legalizing piracy:
--------------------------------
1. Software should be free.
Pro: Software is access to information, and there are precedents
for the concept of free information availability (public
libraries, directory assistance).
Con: Developers should be compensated directly for their efforts.
Con: People should pay for products they need and use. Software
is no different in that respect.
2. Copying should be free; instead, people should compensate developers
for documentation and technical support.
Pro: Moves software cost away from acquisition and toward effective
use.
Con: Financially motivates the design of difficult-to-use software.
Con: Motivates the piracy of documentation and technical support.
3. Copying should be free; instead, people should pay considerably more
for copying media.
Pro: Moves the cost away from initial acquisition and penalizes
copying.
Con: Too indirect; doesn't compensate developers directly or in
proportion to the product.
Con: Penalizes non-piracy copying (of private data, for example).
--
-----------------------------------------
| EMAIL: tonyrich@titanic.cs.wisc.edu |
| Disclaimer: I speak only for myself. |
-----------------------------------------fiddler@concertina.Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (06/15/90)
In article <10592@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, tonyrich@titanic.cs.wisc.edu (Anthony Rich) writes: > Don't get me wrong: I am definitely NOT promoting piracy here! I'm just > summarizing the arguments I've noted so far: both FOR, AGAINST, and > OTHER. Add/delete/change as you see fit. > [...] > Arguments for legalizing piracy: > -------------------------------- > > 1. Software should be free. > > Pro: Software is access to information, and there are precedents > for the concept of free information availability (public > libraries, directory assistance). Bad analogy: neither public libraries nor directory assistance are free. While you may not pay up front for each use of either of them, there was some cost for setting up and maintaining them. In the case of libraries, the cost is usually covered by local taxes... you might not pay to get in, but it's because they already got your money. Even if you're not talking benefit of what you paid for. (The fines are a side benefit, of sorts. :} ) Starting up a new public library is pretty expensive, btw. Once the initial building and book acquisition costs are covered, running the operation isn't so bad. Imagine if librarians were paid well. (In the case of private libraries, the cost is coughed up by some individual or corporation, etc. Wonder where *they* got the money for it?) In the case of directory assistance, the cost is covered by other phone company income. (Although some phone systems do charge directly these days.) You're still paying for it, you just don't see the charge on your monthly bill. ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
derek@leah.Albany.Edu (Derek L. / MacLover) (06/15/90)
In article <1990Jun14.070422.17363@lth.se> peterm@dna.lth.se (Peter M|ller) writes: >I hope I don't offend anyone out there by this, but I must say that you people >don't know the TRUE meaning of the word "expensive software". Someone said >that PageMaker 4.0 costs $795 in the US, how does a standard price tag of >$1 800 grab you? When did you last paid $170 for a not-so-thrilling DA? How >about $ 4 760 *Student Price* for a SE/30? How about *no* student prices at >all for software (i.e. $715 for MS Word 4.0 - for a student)? OK, this may >be a weak excuse for software piracy, but the price policy here is *insane*! My god, at those prices, wouldn't it be more cost-effective to fly to the U.S. and buy a bunch of products in bulk -- say, for you and a bunch of friends -- and bring them back home? I'm not speaking solely of software here, it applies to hardware just as much. >Peter Moller >Lund Institute of Technology - Sweden . . Derek L. -- BITnet: derek@albnyvms | Macintosh Guru / Monty Python fanatic -| InterNet: derek@uacsc1.albany.edu |Consultant & Student Asst.@ SUNY-Albany ---}------------------------------------) <><><>(Why would my boss care?)<><><> -| Fencers love to touch! |"Cinderella man/ Hang on to your plans"
peterm@dna.lth.se (Peter M|ller) (06/15/90)
In article <3174@leah.Albany.Edu> derek@leah.albany.edu.UUCP (Derek L. / MacLover) writes: > > My god, at those prices, wouldn't it be more cost-effective to fly >to the U.S. and buy a bunch of products in bulk -- say, for you and a bunch >of friends -- and bring them back home? I'm not speaking solely of software >here, it applies to hardware just as much. > > Derek L. > Me, my (also) poor friends and a lot of small companies does that. I bougth my 62 MB hardy for $1100 (total cost: s/h + taxes etc.) from USA. For the same amount of $$ I could buy a 20 MB hardy *student price* here in Sweden. To be honest, I'm afraid that the big companies dont care about the prices, and that's why Apple and the gang can keep the high prices. But it's a good ground for growing software piracy! Peter Moller Lund Institute of Technology - Sweden
mas@ulysses.att.com (Michael A. Schoen) (06/15/90)
Look, lets settle this once and for all. Software prices are not related (directly) to development costs. The are NOT DIRECTLY RELATED. Prices are set at the highest price they can make the most profit on. When development starts, the company makes an estimate of the ideal price and development costs - if the costs are estimated to be more than the optimum price, the product is never made. THis is the only relation between costs and the final price. Software is no different than any other business. Ford prices its cars to make the most money. A Mustang does not cost Ford 15K to make, but they figure at that price they will make the most money. Should we all go out now and steal Fords for trying to make a profit. I think not. So don't steal software. If you don't have the money to buy commercial software, use shareware/ freeware. At least for the Mac, the quality of such programs is fairly high. Michael A. Schoen AT&T Bell Laboratories <-- provided for identification only mas@ulysses.att.com
mbrown@osf.org (Mark Brown) (06/15/90)
In article <331@caslon.cs.arizona.edu>, mldemsey@cs.arizona.edu (Matthew L. Demsey) writes: > Mac II motherboard were easily available to the general 'hackers', the > Mac II's would be quickly and efficiently pirated; this is theft, but > it is also a statment to Apple saying 'Hey, there's no way you can justify > the outrageous CPU prices... and we're doing something about it.' Apple > realizes their overpricing, but has assured their monopoly by copyrighting > their motherboard... BZZZZZT! You lose. Thieves don't make statements, they steal. If you want to make a statement to Apple that their prices are too high..... DON"T BUY THE PRODUCT! and tell their salesfolks why. Mark Brown IBM AWD / OSF | Even old New York, was once New Amsterdam The Good mbrown@osf.org | Why they changed it, I can't say The Bad uunet!osf!mbrown| People just liked it better that way... The Ugly (617) 621-8981 | -They Might Be Giants
d88-jwa@nada.kth.se (Jon W{tte) (06/16/90)
Asbestos suit on.
99% of the piracy I know of isn't harming the companies producing
the programs. Why ? Because he who copies, either takes a copy,
or doesn't use the program AT ALL. (Financial reasons, if you say
so)
Rather, I know of a company (I haven't worked there) that uses
pirated software to try it out, and if they decide they want it,
they buy it. Also, someone using a neat, pirated program might
inspire someone else to actually buy it. And, lastly, people with
poor finances (mostly kids) tend to group together and buy one
copy to share - if they couldn't, they wouldn't buy a single copy
Jon W{tte, Stockholm, Sweden, h+@nada.kth.sephilip@Kermit.Stanford.EDU (Philip Machanick) (06/16/90)
In article <3174@leah.Albany.Edu>, derek@leah.Albany.Edu (Derek L. / MacLover) writes: > In article <1990Jun14.070422.17363@lth.se> peterm@dna.lth.se (Peter M|ller) > writes: > >I hope I don't offend anyone out there by this, but I must say that you people > >don't know the TRUE meaning of the word "expensive software". Someone said > >that PageMaker 4.0 costs $795 in the US, how does a standard price tag of > >$1 800 grab you? When did you last paid $170 for a not-so-thrilling DA? How > >about $ 4 760 *Student Price* for a SE/30? How about *no* student prices at > >all for software (i.e. $715 for MS Word 4.0 - for a student)? OK, this may > >be a weak excuse for software piracy, but the price policy here is *insane*! > > > My god, at those prices, wouldn't it be more cost-effective to fly > to the U.S. and buy a bunch of products in bulk -- say, for you and a bunch > of friends -- and bring them back home? I'm not speaking solely of software > here, it applies to hardware just as much. > Well, a lot of mail order places will sell overseas (including some not authorized by Apple, but which sell Apple products). However, a lot of software companies don't allow their dealers to export. I wonder why? Of course, this doesn't stop you from asking a friendly person in the US to buy something for you... Philip Machanick philip@pescadero.stanford.edu
roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (06/18/90)
In Chuck.Arelei@f31.n343.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Chuck Arelei) writes: > "The best way to prevent illegal software piracy is to lower the > softwares' prices, you hear me out there? Mr. Adobe & Mr. Letraset?" In my experience, piracy and price have little relation. In general, people who don't have any compunction about pirating software are just as happy pirating a $400 program as they are pirating a $100 one. This is, of course, a broad generalization, and I'm sure for every example I can find to back up my assertion, you can find a counterexample. My gut feeling is that one good way to cut down on pirating is to require the use of an installer program which personalizes the original copy on the distribution diskette so that "registered to foo" is boldly displayed on the startup screen on every copy made. It won't actually prevent anybody from making pirate copies, but it is a subtle reminder. At least in a campus (industial or academic) setting, it will make it easier for tech support people to spot pirate copies when providing on-location help. Of course, to do this requires that you insert your original disk in your machine with the write-protect tab in the "writable" position, which is clearly not desirable, leaving you with a dilema that I don't know the answer to. Another thing which would make it easier for large sites to prevent internal pirating (i.e. a situation where administration/management is desirious of obeying the copyright rules but individials are not) would be to have sensible site-license agreements. To take a case in point, we probably have about 15 or so Macs in our organization, with probably another 10 or so in employee's homes. I would guess that for typical popular programs (say MS-Word, Cricket Graph, or Dreams) at least half the copies are hot. Management has expressed a (perhaps reluctant) willingness to negotiate site licenses with the suppliers of these programs, but in all cases, site licenses are either unavailable, or the cost is so prohibitive as to make it totally out of the question. Sometimes there are, for example, quantity 10 discounts which are attractive compared to quantity 1 list prices, but worse than quantity 1 pricing from MacConnection. Faced with economics like that, management declines to negotiate a site license, and individuals continue to make pirate copies (40% off at MacConnection may be a good deal, but 100% in the next office is even better). -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy "Arcane? Did you say arcane? It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"
amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet (06/27/90)
In article <1990Jun26.161427.3417@Neon.Stanford.EDU>, kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) writes: > > No, it doesn't, ...a Shrink-Wrap license is a statement of what YOU want ME > to do, but I don't necessarily agree to it -- regardless of the wording. If > you don't want me to open the package, have someone at the store get my > agreement in writing. Otherwise -- good luck. Read my lips. If you can't, > there was no Verbal agreement. I liscense agreement, in most cases, appears where the diskettes are contained. This means that you can open the package, read the manauls, check out the mailing stuff inside, etc, as you like. Once open the package that contains the diskettes, then you have agreed to the terms of the liscense. REad the entire manual if you like to make sure the software will do what you are looking for it to do. If it doesn't, send the package back and get your money back. > >>As for the the addition of the liscense agreement which is "concealed" beyond > >>The copyright laws only protect the code for the software, not the sale and >>profit made from it, which is what liscening agreements are for. > > Sure it is. Thats why the agreement says such things as (from Apple's): > "Apple makes no warranty or representation, either express or implied, with > respect to software, its quality, performance, merchantability, or fitness > for a particular purpose. As a result, this software is sold 'as is', and > you the purchaser are assuming the entire risk as to its quality and > performance."... The next time you go see a movie, and you don't like it, go to the register and demand your money back. > > I'll be happy to adhere to shrink-wrap licenses, just as soon as the software > makers will be willing to stand behind their products. If I buy a compiler, > say, and I invest a lot of time and money bringing up a system and then find > that the compiler generates buggy code -- my SOLE recourse under the current > agreements is to get a refund of the purchase price of the software. I want > software companies to have more responsibility for making it work right! Completely agreed. Look, I am not trying to preach the alimghty word of Liscense Argeements. I understand. I'm a die hard user. We intend to stand behind our product. But in order to do so, we have to make sure that we don't fail in the business world. We believe in our products. I know some companies do not. (I've spoken to many a employee at those companies who just give a s**t.) That's a fine line to walk. People do the best they can sometimes. > >>You may talk to our lawyer (who writes our software agreements) in court if you >>would like to test the system. > > I'm not afraid of your lawyer. And you'll have to bring the action, and > win the case -- or pay MY court costs (and the lawyers I use are not cheap) I forgot the smiley on that on. It was intended to be humorous. Let me throw this at you: I can see your argument against liscense agreements. If you have a system that will work for *all* companies to A) Protect their software from piracy, B) Keep their profit margins in the positive, C) Protect the users from poor software, but also from deceiving companies, and D) Is simple, clean and efficient, then I'd be more than willing to try it. However, think about this: If a software companiy sells package "A" @ $495, and the package is pirated a hundred times, that's already a $49,500 loss for the company. Compound over time to a year or two (let's say that the package is pirated four hundred times, one hundred for every business quarter) the loss becomes $198,000. That's quite a chunk. Some software companies need that money. They could advertise more, hire moer emplotyees to help their customers, etc. Again, the software companies are not in a business like fastfood, where the money contiually rolls in. Users are the toughest people on this planet to please, and the software that is out there has survived some of the toughest critism this planet has seen. I'm am all for a new system, if you like. Givbe me the system, the numbers, the cost, the employees it will require, the machines, the advertising costs, the insurance costs, the lawyer fees, etc., and then put those figures against the time it will take to implement the system, make it work for the company and the user, and show me that it will keep the profit margins at the highest level possible. I'll be the first one to implement it. Andrei Herasimchuk Marketing Director Specular Int'l Standard Disclaimer as always.
binder@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Tim Binder) (06/29/90)
In article <9665.2687d72d@amherst.bitnet> amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet writes: >In article <1990Jun26.161427.3417@Neon.Stanford.EDU>, kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) writes: >> [some text deleted...] >>>profit made from it, which is what liscening agreements are for. >> >> Sure it is. Thats why the agreement says such things as (from Apple's): >> "Apple makes no warranty or representation, either express or implied, with >> respect to software, its quality, performance, merchantability, or fitness >> for a particular purpose. As a result, this software is sold 'as is', and >> you the purchaser are assuming the entire risk as to its quality and >> performance."... > >The next time you go see a movie, and you don't like it, go to the register and >demand your money back. The next time I go to a movie advertising Michael J. Fox and Christopher Lloyd as stars, which doesn't actually contain them, I will ask for my money back. AND I will get it. The problem here is that software companies have gone to the extreme, with disclaimers that basically say "This software is not guaranteed to do anything, including that which we advertised it would." This is too much. I understand companies trying to protect themselves [more deletions...] > >However, think about this: If a software companiy sells package "A" @ $495, >and the package is pirated a hundred times, that's already a $49,500 loss for >the company. Compound over time to a year or two (let's say that the package >is pirated four hundred times, one hundred for every business quarter) the loss >becomes $198,000. That's quite a chunk. Some software companies need that >money. They could advertise more, hire moer emplotyees to help their >customers, etc. I am getting really tired of this fallacy that piracy causes actual financial LOSSES to a company. Taking some figures, strictly for example, since I do not know actual sales figures for any particular product: Say 2,000 copies of the package above are sold, and the package cost $500,000 to develop, including all costs. My accounting makes this 2,000 x $495 $990,000 development costs -500,000 --------- net profit $490,000 Now, using the above logic, another 2,000 copies are pirated: -2,000 x $495 -990,000 -------- ($500,000) loss Which says to me the company lost $0.5 million in the sales period we are looking at. Any accountant will tell you they made almost $0.5 million, not lost it. YES, the company probably DID suffer from decreased revenues due to piracy, but it did not "lose" money. > >Andrei Herasimchuk >Marketing Director >Specular Int'l > >Standard Disclaimer as always. Please note that I am not trying to condone piracy; it's just that seeing faulty logic destroy a good cause (reducing piracy), I could not let this continue without comment. Tim Binder |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Timothy Mark Binder | At any time, at any place, our snipers can drop | | Computing Coordinator | you at a moment's notice. Have a nice day. | | Van Pelt College House |-------------------------------------------------| | University of Pennsylvania | Disclaimer: Nobody tells this university | | (Yes, I'm only a student here.) | what to think, least of all us students. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
omh@cs.brown.edu (Owen M. Hartnett) (06/29/90)
In article <9665.2687d72d@amherst.bitnet> amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet writes: >In article <1990Jun26.161427.3417@Neon.Stanford.EDU>, kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) writes: >> > >I liscense agreement, in most cases, appears where the diskettes are contained. >This means that you can open the package, read the manauls, check out the >mailing stuff inside, etc, as you like. Once open the package that contains >the diskettes, then you have agreed to the terms of the liscense. REad the >entire manual if you like to make sure the software will do what you are >looking for it to do. If it doesn't, send the package back and get your money >back. > We know what you're writing in these license agreements, what we're saying is that they're *not valid*. No shrinkwrap agreement has ever been tested in court and a company would be committing fiscal suicide to rely on one. I'm not saying that people should go out and copy your software, I'm saying that there is *no* contract between two parties. Suppose your license agreement said that if I broke the seal, title to my house passes to you. If I break the seal, do you own my house? A company could put any wording it likes in this so-called agreement, and, according to you, it would be valid. How about if the seal arrives broken in transit? or missing? How could you prove someone broke the seal? Is there no agreement if the seal is intact but the envelope with the disks has been slit open at the bottom? Sorry, but I'm a software developer, too, with products on the open market, and I don't believe any of these shrinkwrap agreements are going to pass muster. >>>You may talk to our lawyer (who writes our software agreements) in court if you >>>would like to test the system. >> >> I'm not afraid of your lawyer. And you'll have to bring the action, and >> win the case -- or pay MY court costs (and the lawyers I use are not cheap) > >I forgot the smiley on that on. It was intended to be humorous. > This is probably the worst of all. These lawyers are trying to create this new kind of contract law and, worst of all, are not using legislation. They're just putting all these license agreements out there and hoping that if there's enough of them out there, it will become de facto law. This increases the chances of litigation and puts more of the software developers bucks in the lawyer's pockets. Where do you want to spend your money - on a good research programmer or a lawyer? >Let me throw this at you: I can see your argument against liscense agreements. >If you have a system that will work for *all* companies to A) Protect their >software from piracy, B) Keep their profit margins in the positive, C) Protect >the users from poor software, but also from deceiving companies, and D) Is >simple, clean and efficient, then I'd be more than willing to try it. I don't think that your license agreement will accomplish A,B,C or D, and if you try to enforce it, could result in a negative B. >However, think about this: If a software companiy sells package "A" @ $495, >and the package is pirated a hundred times, that's already a $49,500 loss for >the company. Compound over time to a year or two (let's say that the package >is pirated four hundred times, one hundred for every business quarter) the loss >becomes $198,000. That's quite a chunk. Some software companies need that >money. They could advertise more, hire moer emplotyees to help their >customers, etc. If it's legal protection you want, then the copyright law has it. Shrink- wrap licenses have done very little (if anything) to stop pirating that is not covered under copyright protection already. >I'm am all for a new system, if you like. Givbe me the system, the numbers, >the cost, the employees it will require, the machines, the advertising costs, >the insurance costs, the lawyer fees, etc., and then put those figures against >the time it will take to implement the system, make it work for the company and >the user, and show me that it will keep the profit margins at the highest level >possible. I'll be the first one to implement it. Well, you can probably save on packaging costs by leaving out those expensive shrinkwrap seals and you'll have the same amount of protection and will probably not be likely to take on the costs of a shrinkwrap litigation case. -Owen Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: software piracy Summary: Expires: References: <9446@hubcap.clemson.edu> <43793@brunix.UUCP> <9658.26861a4c@amherst.bitnet> <1990Jun26.161427.3417@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <9665.2687d72d@amherst.bitnet> Sender: Reply-To: omh@cs.brown.edu (Owen M. Hartnett) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science Keywords: Owen Hartnett omh@cs.brown.edu.CSNET Brown University Computer Science omh@cs.brown.edu uunet!brunix!omh "Don't wait up for me tonight because I won't be home for a month."
landman@hanami.Eng.Sun.COM (Howard A. Landman x61391) (06/30/90)
Since this newsgroup is going away soon, followups to comp.sys.mac.misc. In article <42218@apple.Apple.COM> jordan@Apple.COM (Jordan Mattson) writes: > Seriously now, when are people going to learn that laws are - often - a >codification of morality. It is wrong to take things that do not belong to >you --- that is why we have laws against it. Unfortunately, laws are also - often - a codification of fear, jealousy, bigotry, misinformation, hypocrisy, and the interests of those who have large amounts of wealth and want more. There is no necessary relationship between what is moral and what is legal. Personally, I will "learn that laws are ... a codification of morality" when it's true. No sooner. Also, just as a mental exercise, you might try *proving* rigorously that copying software is "taking" anything at all. It's not all that easy! Further, copyright and patent law is EXPLICITLY based on social good, NOT on morality or individual rights. The reason the state offers this protection is to benefit society by encouraging the creation of new works and processes. If someone came up with a better way to do that, all of today's protections might be discarded. So any argument against software piracy which is based on copyright or patent law, should address issues of social good only and not attempt to bludgeon people with specious moral rhetoric. I don't approve of piracy, but it's sickening to see that computer professionals can't even agree on basic facts. How can we expect the rest of society to understand? A thought experiment: You invent an intelligent robot. You would like to educate it. However, under current copyright law, your robot is forbidden to: - Read books, magazines, or newspapers - Watch movies or television - Look at a computer screen with a protected interface - Examine the source or binary code of copyrighted programs - View most works of art - Access most online computerized databases and so on. Why? Because the robot makes copies of all these things in its memory banks when perceiving them. Now explain to the robot why depriving it in this way is fair, moral, and of benefit to society. -- Howard A. Landman landman@eng.sun.com -or- sun!landman
amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet (06/30/90)
In article <26575@netnews.upenn.edu>, binder@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Tim Binder) writes: >>The next time you go see a movie, and you don't like it, go to the register and >>demand your money back. > > The next time I go to a movie advertising Michael J. Fox and Christopher > Lloyd as stars, which doesn't actually contain them, I will ask for my money > back. AND I will get it. Just as I am sure that the next time you purchase Microsoft Word and inside the box is actually Microsoft Excel, then I'm sure you'll get your money back. > The problem here is that software companies have gone to the extreme, with > disclaimers that basically say "This software is not guaranteed to do > anything, including that which we advertised it would." This is too much. > I understand companies trying to protect themselves > > [more deletions...] >> >>However, think about this: If a software companiy sells package "A" @ $495, >>and the package is pirated a hundred times, that's already a $49,500 loss for >>the company. Compound over time to a year or two (let's say that the package >>is pirated four hundred times, one hundred for every business quarter) the loss >>becomes $198,000. That's quite a chunk. Some software companies need that >>money. They could advertise more, hire moer emplotyees to help their >>customers, etc. > > I am getting really tired of this fallacy that piracy causes actual > financial LOSSES to a company. Taking some figures, strictly for example, > since I do not know actual sales figures for any particular product: > > Say 2,000 copies of the package above are sold, and the package cost > $500,000 to develop, including all costs. My accounting makes this > > 2,000 x $495 $990,000 > development costs -500,000 > --------- > net profit $490,000 > > Now, using the above logic, another 2,000 copies are pirated: > > -2,000 x $495 -990,000 > -------- > ($500,000) loss > > Which says to me the company lost $0.5 million in the sales period we are > looking at. Any accountant will tell you they made almost $0.5 million, not > lost it. > > YES, the company probably DID suffer from decreased revenues due to piracy, > but it did not "lose" money. Any potential profit that does not enter our company account is lost money. Any money that goes into our competitor's account is lost money. On the books, it is not a negative figure, agreed. But when you think like that, you are striving for a status quo company. And as to your figures, please include advertising costs, for whatever publications you choose, as well as an advertising schedule and budget. Also include salaries for Tech Support staff as well as managerial staff. Then include salaries for accountants and lawyers. Then include rent, phone bills, electric, office supplies and materials costs. On top of that include insurance costs, stolen property, fire, act of God. Then also include traveling expenses to give demos to users groups and corporation... Okay. I'll stop. I don't want to get into a detailed debate over this. You can say whatever you like. (And I understand you are not condoning software piracy.) We, the software companies have to do something about these issues. I'm looking for reasonable solutions. Honestly. I'm not hearing any with any substance yet. Most software companies are lucky if they sell 2,000 copies. Tech support kills about 70% of all new start-up software companies. Advertising kills the other. We all cannot make the PageMakers and Words of the world, and trying to reinvent the wheel is a bold a courageous attempt. I applaud companies like Quark who challenge and gain ground. So look, here's an idea I had today while thinking it over. We include a liscene agrrement in the software package, let's say the first page of the manual. There is no seal "to be broken" on the diskettes. On the registration card, however, where you would sign to return to us it would say: I have read the Liscense Agreement, and understand the terms of the agreement. [Then some more text essentially saying that by signing the reg card, you have agreed to the terms and will adhere to them.] That should cut out any legal ground. You have then signed a contract. If you don't like the terms, don't sign the card, recieve no tech support or info on bugs and upgrades and no monthly newsletter. You are high and dry as far as the company who manufactuers the prodcut is concerned. > Please note that I am not trying to condone piracy; it's just that seeing > faulty logic destroy a good cause (reducing piracy), I could not let this > continue without comment. > > Tim Binder The faulty logic is a matter of perspective, I think. Mine comes from creating a profitable company. Profit loss in my book does not constitue a profitable company. ________________________ Andrei Herasimchuk Disclaimer: Marketing Director These are my opinions. Please Specular Int'l don't repeat them to my boss 'cause he hears them everyday already! bitnet: amherasimchu@amherst snail: P.O. Box 888, Amherst, MA 01004-0888 413.256.3166
amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet (06/30/90)
In article <44174@brunix.UUCP>, omh@cs.brown.edu (Owen M. Hartnett) writes: > We know what you're writing in these license agreements, what we're saying > is > that they're *not valid*. No shrinkwrap agreement has ever been tested > in court and a company would be committing fiscal suicide to rely on one. > I'm not saying that people should go out and copy your software, I'm saying > that there is *no* contract between two parties. Suppose your license > agreement said that if I broke the seal, title to my house passes to you. > If I break the seal, do you own my house? A company could put any wording > it likes in this so-called agreement, and, according to you, it would be > valid. How about if the seal arrives broken in transit? or missing? > How could you prove someone broke the seal? Is there no agreement if the > seal is intact but the envelope with the disks has been slit open at the > bottom? Sorry, but I'm a software developer, too, with products on the > open market, and I don't believe any of these shrinkwrap agreements > are going to pass muster. Understood. I have posted a suggestion to that in a followup. (Which happens to be *before* this post.) >>Let me throw this at you: I can see your argument against liscense agreements. >>If you have a system that will work for *all* companies to A) Protect their >>software from piracy, B) Keep their profit margins in the positive, C) Protect >>the users from poor software, but also from deceiving companies, and D) Is >>simple, clean and efficient, then I'd be more than willing to try it. > > I don't think that your license agreement will accomplish A,B,C or D, and > if you try to enforce it, could result in a negative B. Owen, I said I understood. I asked for a system, not an evaluation you already covered. I was sincerely asking for a better system. That was not a sarcastic remark. >>I'm am all for a new system, if you like. Givbe me the system, the numbers, >>the cost, the employees it will require, the machines, the advertising costs, >>the insurance costs, the lawyer fees, etc., and then put those figures against >>the time it will take to implement the system, make it work for the company and >>the user, and show me that it will keep the profit margins at the highest level >>possible. I'll be the first one to implement it. > > Well, you can probably save on packaging costs by leaving out those > expensive shrinkwrap seals and you'll have the same amount of protection > and will probably not be likely to take on the costs of a shrinkwrap > litigation case. Packaging costs are figured into the pricing strategy of the package. That's an extremely minor figure. It amounts to money that the company isn't even spending, so it doesn't even scratch the surface of the problem. > -Owen ________________________ Andrei Herasimchuk Disclaimer: Marketing Director These are my opinions. Please Specular Int'l don't repeat them to my boss 'cause he hears them everyday already! bitnet: amherasimchu@amherst snail: P.O. Box 888, Amherst, MA 01004-0888 413.256.3166
jtn@potomac.ads.com (John T. Nelson) (07/02/90)
>Basing your argument on property ownership is weak; first you >have to convince me that when I spend $250 for Word, or >Persuasion, etc., that it does not then become my property, >license agreements notwithstanding. I understand that the >companies claim that it is not my property; but in every other >sense the stuff belongs to me: The singal instantiation of that software is your property to do with as you wish, however since you own only that particular instantiation you are not allowed to transfer copies of it to anyone else. And since it is a licence you have purchased, I guess one could argue that you only possess the right to use the software but still do not own it. If I go out and buy a collection of Beatles tunes on sheet music, I own only the paper that the music is printed on and the use of the music however I clearly cannot sell or claim ownership over the music itself. >if you steal it, I am the victim of theft, not the company If someone steals your copy of Microsoft Word then you could legitimetly claim that someone stole *your* single copy of Word and thus are deprived of the use of it. You are not entitled to reimbursment for the entire development and marketing costs for Microsoft Word in total. >if it is destroyed, my insurance considers it my property >if I die, it is part of my estate Only that one copy. >Having bought the software, why (from the propertarian >viewpoint) should I not be free to do whatever i want with it, >including making copies? Easy question. Since the pattern of bits is what you have purchased and the creation of that particular pattern is a process which is patented by Microsoft (for example) you cannot "make a copy" without infringing on *their* property. Property in music and software is different from tangible property like hammers and nails. The abstraction itself (not the physical medium) is the property. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ORGANIZATION: Advanced Decision Systems GEOGRAPHIC: Arlington, VA UUCP: kzin!speaker@mimsy.umd.edu INTERNET: jtn@potomac.ads.com SPOKEN: Yo... John! PHONE: (703) 243-1611 PROJECT: The Conrail Locomotive/Harpsichord Fusion Program =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (07/03/90)
In article <8879@potomac.ads.com> jtn@potomac.UUCP (John T. Nelson) writes: > >Easy question. Since the pattern of bits is what you have purchased >and the creation of that particular pattern is a process which is >patented by Microsoft (for example) you cannot "make a copy" without >infringing on *their* property. Property in music and software is >different from tangible property like hammers and nails. There is no patent on software. The Copyright Act permits a user to make copies both as necessary to run (i.e. the copying of the software from disk to memory) and for archival purposes. The 'shrink wrap' licenses which attempt to restrict both are what is being complained about. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu ][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions? Hey! Bush has NO LIPS!
kdb@macaw.intercon.com (Kurt Baumann) (07/03/90)
In article <1990Jul2.175034.29488@eng.umd.edu>, russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: > There is no patent on software. Not true. There are patents on software. Apple, AT&T, amoung others hold patents on particular bits of software. I don't know what if any patents are held by MicroSoft, but it is possible to patent software under certain circumstances. Perhaps a legal type would like to clarify? --
landman@hanami.Eng.Sun.COM (Howard A. Landman x61391) (07/03/90)
I wrote: >>Obviously, Dane has never been to Taiwan ... a friend of mine In article <37266@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> thom@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Thom Gillespie) writes: >Oh great another one of these 'a friend of a friend' story. Nothing like fact >in a serious discussion -- maybe a little racism too Howard?? Hmm? Gee, dewey.soe.berkeley.edu used to be such a friendly machine, too. *Sigh* Thom, your posting had no almost content other than slander, innuendo, and the expression of your own naivete. It's one thing to ask for substantiation of a story. It's quite another to call someone maybe a racist because they tell you something negative about a foreign country that you have trouble believing. It is you who are making unsubstantiated allegations, not I. The friend's name is Alan Scarff, and his program was BPS-IGO. The story was corroborated by another friend who accompanied him on said search. In fact, I think a version of the story may have been published in Computer Go. I have been to Taiwan and seen some evidence of the conditions to which I allude. I posted the story because it was humorous and illustrated the utter disdain for software copyright that is widespread in some sectors of the Taiwanese economy (and other parts of the world), and because I thought it was important to understand that in the context of the ongoing piracy discussion. Now, what's YOUR basis for discussing software piracy in Taiwan? I'm probably not qualified to judge my own racism (but then neither are you!). You should ask my many Chinese colleagues and Go friends about that, or maybe my Tai Chi teacher. :-) -- Howard A. Landman landman@eng.sun.com -or- sun!landman
gerhard@cs.arizona.edu (Gerhard Mehldau) (07/03/90)
In article <268FB564.638E@intercon.com>, kdb@macaw.intercon.com (Kurt Baumann) writes: > Not true. There are patents on software. Apple, AT&T, amoung others hold > patents on particular bits of software. > > I don't know what if any patents are held by MicroSoft, but it is possible > to patent software under certain circumstances. Perhaps a legal type would > like to clarify? I'm not a legal type, but I do recall an article by Paul Goodman (?) in the most recent APDAlog (Summer 90), which covers this subject, and it states that software *is* patentable under certain circumstances. For more details, see the article itself. - Gerhard -- -> Gerhard Mehldau Dept. of Computer Science internet: gerhard@cs.arizona.edu University of Arizona uucp: {cmcl2,noao,uunet}!arizona!gerhard Tucson, AZ 85721, U.S.A. at&t: +1 (602) 621-4632
briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Brian D Diehm) (07/03/90)
>In article <8879@potomac.ads.com> jtn@potomac.UUCP (John T. Nelson) writes: > >There is no patent on software. Wrong. -- -Brian Diehm Tektronix, Inc. (503) 627-3437 briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM P.O. Box 500, M/S 47-780 Beaverton, OR 97077 (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply)
landman@hanami.Eng.Sun.COM (Howard A. Landman x61391) (07/05/90)
In article <8879@potomac.ads.com> jtn@potomac.UUCP (John T. Nelson) writes: >Since the pattern of bits is what you have purchased >and the creation of that particular pattern is a process which is >patented by Microsoft (for example) you cannot "make a copy" without >infringing on *their* property. False. It is well established that users have a right to make backup copies of their programs EVEN WHEN THOSE PROGRAMS ARE COPY PROTECTED AND IT REQUIRES BREAKING THE COPY PROTECTION TO DO SO. Any provision of a license agreement which pretends to deny you this right is null and void. (This is one reason why most license agreements specify that their clauses are "separable", i.e., that voiding one clause doesn't void the whole agreement. They KNOW that some of the clauses are "mere cant". :-) -- Howard A. Landman landman@eng.sun.com -or- sun!landman