halam@umnd-cpe-cola.d.umn.edu (haseen alam) (03/13/90)
Hi to all,
I have a few questions. Some shareware (SW) programs are really neat
and are worth their price. But at times I run accross programs that in
my own opinion are a little over priced. Also there are some that I do
not have an everyday use for, but they might come in handy at times.
Well now comes all the questions.
1) If I think a program is over priced, then what price should I pay for
it? Should I pay what I think is right? Should I stop using the
program? Should I pay whatever the authors ask for? or Should I try
to contact the author and explain why and how much I think is
justified?
This also brings up aother question.
2) How would you determine wheather a SW product is over priced? I do
not know if there is any standard for this. But I generally use the
following check list and assign dollar values to each to come up with
what I consider to be the right SW fee for that product.
-- does it work on my Mac?
-- does it do whatever it is supposed to do?
-- what kind of a product is it? (cdev/init/game/utility/DA ... etc.)
-- is it user friendly?
-- is it MultiFinder friendly?
-- does it conflict with anything?
-- how useful is it to me?
-- is it in color?
-- how often do I use it?
-- does it come with documentation?
-- does it have on-line help?
-- are there known bugs and incompatibility problems?
-- what is the current version? generally later versions have bug
fixes, and increased features.
-- how is it rated by other users? (mostly on the net and magazines)
-- DO I LIKE IT?
This also means if you assign dollar values between $0.0 and $2.0 for
each of the 15 criteria above, then and SW product above $30 is over
priced. And as a student I feel $2.0 is the most I can afford per
criteria.
3) Is there a time limit on the SW fee? If I come accross a program
which was last updated two or more years back, do I still have to pay
the fee?
4) If the SW (or even commertial) program is not supported by the author
(or company), am I still obligated to pay for it?
5) If a company goes bankrupt or out of business, is it illegal to get
copies of their product?
I guess that sould be enough to get some replies. I am asking these
questions for two reasons. First of all, I do not know the answers and
would like to know them. Secondly, I am beginning to program on the
Mac, and someday I might have something out. I would like to know my
rights as an author, the price that I should expect for my product (if
any?), and some legal rights!! Anyway some more people may benefit from
this too. Thanks in advance to all.
Haseen.
email: halam@umnd-cpe-cola.d.umn.edu
halam@ub.d.umn.edu
PS: It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.meldal@ithink.Stanford.EDU (Sigurd Meldal) (03/15/90)
In article <3262@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> halam@umnd-cpe-cola.d.umn.edu (Haseen Alam) writes: >I have a few questions. Some shareware (SW) programs are really neat > ... >1) If I think a program is over priced, then what price should I pay for > it? Should I pay what I think is right? Should I stop using the > program? Should I pay whatever the authors ask for? or Should I try > to contact the author and explain why and how much I think is > justified? Let me make my major point first: Using shareware without paying is (morally, at least) theft, and on a par with shoplifting. From that premise follows the answers to most of the questions above, namely: You should either pay what the seller asks for, try to negotiate a lower price, or not buy (i.e. throw away the shareware software). It is the SELLER's option to accept a lower price, not the buyer's. If the seller does not, then you should quit using the program, or pay the asked-for price. >This also brings up aother question. > >2) How would you determine wheather a SW product is over priced? Your list is interesting, and does not apply to shareware alone. Shareware is a distribution method, and does not intrinsically imply anything about the price/performance ratio of a product, nor establish an upper cap on its price. The ultimate test for whether a product is overpriced or not is - is it worth the price to YOU? If it is not, then do not buy it (i.e. throw it away if it is shareware). >3) Is there a time limit on the SW fee? If I come accross a program > which was last updated two or more years back, do I still have to pay > the fee? No cap. If it is too old to be useful, don't buy it. If it is useful, it is so regardless of age - software does not rot nor wear out. >4) If the SW (or even commertial) program is not supported by the author > (or company), am I still obligated to pay for it? Yes. But you may decide not to buy it, because lack of support does not make it worth the asked-for price. I have never written shareware (nor commercial Mac software) myself, so all of the above is written as a frequent customer of shareware. I am happily using very good products distributed by people who put their trust in the decency of the Macintosh user populace. I know a lot of shareware authors quit distributing their software because people will not pay, even for software they use daily. Please pay for the shareware you use. Ranting off. Best regards, -- Sigurd Meldal SDA + I am not a legal professional, nor do I have the slightest clue what the LEGAL rights of shareware authors or users are. The above is only my opinion on how a decent person is morally obliged to behave. -- Hard mail: ERL 456 | Internet: meldal@anna.stanford.edu Computer Systems Lab.| Stanford University | BitNet: meldal%anna.stanford.edu@forsythe.bitnet Stanford CA 94305 | Uucp: ...decwrl!glacier!shasta!anna!meldal USA | phone: +1 415 723 6027 fax: +1 415 725 7398
rmh@apple.com (Rick Holzgrafe) (03/15/90)
In article <3262@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU> halam@umnd-cpe-cola.d.umn.edu (haseen alam) writes: > I have a few questions. Some shareware (SW) programs are really neat > and are worth their price. But at times I run accross programs that in > my own opinion are a little over priced. I suspect everyone's going to get their two cents in on this. Here's mine. Fair warning: what follows are ethical, not technical, opinions! :-) > 1) If I think a program is over priced, then what price should I pay for > it? Some products specifically say "$XX, or whatever you think it's worth". For any others, pay the asking price or do without. This rule applies to ANY property offered for sale: the owner decides the price he'll sell at, not the buyer. > 2) How would you determine wheather a SW product is over priced? If you'd rather have the money than the product, it's overpriced. At least with shareware you can make this decision *after* trying the product. > 3) Is there a time limit on the SW fee? No. If you're willing to pay the fee to have the product, and your check mailed to the author doesn't return marked "Addressee Unknown", then you have to pay. > 4) If the SW (or even commertial) program is not supported by the author > (or company), am I still obligated to pay for it? Yes. You can elect not to use an unsupported product if the lack of support concerns you, but if you use it then you must pay. Can you see a common thread in my answers? The rule is very simple: If a product's worth the asking price to you, pay the fee; if not, don't use the product. It's a boolean question, to be answered "yes" or "no". All the other issues you raised -- compatibility, support, age, version, bugs, documentation, color, and the rest -- are not criteria for forcing the fee down; they're criteria for deciding "yes" or "no". You should treat a shareware product the same way you'd treat any other product: commercial software, cars, food, TV sets. You can't walk into a dealer's shop and say "Here's $45 for a Sony 27-inch color TV - I want one and that's what I think it's worth, so give me one." (Maybe I'm wrong. If so, can you please tell me where that shop is? :-) > 5) If a company goes bankrupt or out of business, is it illegal to get > copies of their product? Well, there you've got me. I don't know. Any lawyers out there? There's more to this issue, such as the moral obligations of shareware *authors*, but I'll keep this short (quit snickering out there) and to the point (I said, QUIT SNICKERING :-) and stop here. > Haseen. > email: halam@umnd-cpe-cola.d.umn.edu > halam@ub.d.umn.edu ========================================================================== Rick Holzgrafe | {sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual}!apple!rmh Software Engineer | AppleLink HOLZGRAFE1 rmh@apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. | "All opinions expressed are mine, and do 20525 Mariani Ave. MS: 67-B | not necessarily represent those of my Cupertino, CA 95014 | employer, Apple Computer Inc."
vschonau@aqua.ucs.indiana.edu (03/15/90)
In article <7194@goofy.Apple.COM>, rmh@apple.com (Rick Holzgrafe) writes... [..stuff deleted..] >Some products specifically say "$XX, or whatever you think it's worth". >For any others, pay the asking price or do without. This rule applies to >ANY property offered for sale: the owner decides the price he'll sell at, >not the buyer. Some authors say: anything accepted, but official registration starts at $xx...feel free to pay more. I like these best. Part of the reason Shareware is out there is the outrageous price-level of commercial software. When people can NOT afford to get the commercial software ---> piracy. This is a problem for students (yes, poor students). Solution for students: use shareware...but....if you pay in full for all the shareware you use....you loose a fortune again. My point: If I would be marketing a shareware product, I would have the following rule: any amount above (for example) $10 is enough for a license to use the product. Then, when one is prepared to pay let's say $20 or $30, I can include the newest version, and maybe even a nice manual. >> 2) How would you determine wheather a SW product is over priced? >If you'd rather have the money than the product, it's overpriced. At least >with shareware you can make this decision *after* trying the product. I agree. But I think there are too many shareware-writers out there who expect people to pay $30 for buggy products. [..more stuff deleted..] > >> 5) If a company goes bankrupt or out of business, is it illegal to get >> copies of their product? >Well, there you've got me. I don't know. Any lawyers out there? I would assume not. Although it depends who is the owner of the copyright: the company or the author......if the latter, there go your $$. ..Vincent + Vincent Schonau .. Exchange Student from Holland at I.U....what a world. + + Bitnet: vschonau@iubacs Internet: vschonau@amber.ucs.indiana.edu + + : sl198004@silver.ucs.indiana.edu + + Opinions? Who needs opinions? Ask someone else! +
bhclg@garnet.berkeley.edu (03/15/90)
It seems to me that a good argument could be made that a shareware fee is nothing more than an offer to sell. You as abuyer have the option of paying the price or negotiating a lower price. If you don't think the shareware is worth the requested fee, you should write to the author and offer what you think it is worth. Anyone who thinks that authors should simply get what they ask must not be aware of the fundamentals of business economics. Very few companies get their "list" price for a product. A product is only worth what the market says it is worth. If you want to use other factors to identify the value of a product, that is only relevant for your choice of what to offer the shareware's author. As for whether it is illegal to get copies of a product that was published by a now-defunct business: it is still probably illegal. Keep in mind that even if the company owned the product, someone else owned the company. If the company goes out of business, the owner's still retain ownership of the rights to the product. If the company goes into bankruptcy, the owner's or the creditors may end up owning the rights. The rights to software don't simply disappear if a company folds. Since I'm not a lawyer, this could all be wrong, but it is how I would approach dealing with your questions. Bruce McNamara bhclg@garnet.berkeley.edu
rand@merrimack.edu (03/15/90)
In article <3262@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU>, halam@umnd-cpe-cola.d.umn.edu (haseen alam) writes: > 3) Is there a time limit on the SW fee? If I come accross a program > which was last updated two or more years back, do I still have to pay > the fee? ^^^^^^^ > > 4) If the SW (or even commertial) program is not supported by the author > (or company), am I still obligated to pay for it? >[...] > Mac, and someday I might have something out. I would like to know my > rights as an author, the price that I should expect for my product (if > any?), and some legal rights!! > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ When Shareware started making the rounds I asked my legal man about the issues surrounding it. He said, "They have no legal recourse to MAKE you pay for it. Once you give something away you can't then force people to pay for it. Morally? That's a different question." Rand P. Hall UUCP: {uunet,wang,ulowell}!samsung!hubdub!rand Merrimack College CSNET: rand@merrimack.edu N. Andover, MA "Carrying a spare is negative thinking" -- Norris Weldon
freek@fwi.uva.nl (Freek Wiedijk) (03/16/90)
In article <52@ithink.stanford.edu> meldal@ithink.Stanford.EDU (Sigurd Meldal) writes: >it is so regardless of age - software does not rot nor wear out. PLEASE, tell that to my floppies... -- Freek "the Pistol Major" Wiedijk Path: uunet!fwi.uva.nl!freek #P:+/ = #+/P?*+/ = i<<*+/P?*+/ = +/i<<**P?*+/ = +/(i<<*P?)*+/ = +/+/(i<<*P?)**
lippin@jell-o.berkeley.edu (The Apathist) (03/16/90)
Recently meldal@ithink.Stanford.EDU (Sigurd Meldal) wrote: >Let me make my major point first: Using shareware without paying is >(morally, at least) theft, and on a par with shoplifting. If this were true, then, to an ethical person, shareware would differ from commercial software only in that it is distributed over public networks and bulletin boards. I would then consider the distribution to be an unreasonable abuse of these services. Using a piece of shareware is like going to see Shakespeare in the park -- its creators have appropriated public resources to bring you their product, and this appropriation is acceptable since they are providing a public service: a free product. However, as with Shakespeare in the park, one must realize that it is unreasonable for many shareware authors to continue to produce significant quantities of high-quality software without reimbursement. Thus, one may drop a bill into the extended hat to encourage similar activities in the future. If there's a sign next to the hat saying "A five dollar donation is requested," then that should be taken as a measure of how much it will take to keep the enterprise going. But there's nothing wrong with dropping in any other amount, or even nothing at all. --Tom Lippincott lippin@math.berkeley.edu "This is not a rental car; this is privately owned." --David Byrne, "True Stories"
rmh@apple.com (Rick Holzgrafe) (03/17/90)
In article <18810.25ff5444@merrimack.edu> rand@merrimack.edu writes: > When Shareware started making the rounds I asked my legal man about the > issues surrounding it. He said, "They have no legal recourse to MAKE you > pay for it. Once you give something away you can't then force people to > pay for it. Morally? That's a different question." In article <1990Mar16.025655.23368@agate.berkeley.edu> lippin@jell-o.berkeley.edu (The Apathist) writes: > Using a piece of shareware is like going to see Shakespeare in the > park -- its creators have appropriated public resources to bring you > their product, and this appropriation is acceptable since they are > providing a public service: a free product. I have to disagree with both opinions. Shareware is not "given away" simply because its distribution is informal. The way you got your copy is irrelevant. If it is copyrighted, it is owned by the person who holds the copyright. If it further contains a clear statement of the terms of use or purchase, you are bound to those terms. (I know that merchandise mailed to you without your request is yours to keep, and you aren't required to pay for it. But BBS or user group library distribution is not "mailed to you" individually, any more than a newspaper in a vending machine on your corner is.) Nor is shareware like "Shakespeare in the park". Such productions are explicitly free, and the hat is explicitly for *donations*, not admission fees. Please, people, the legal fine print isn't (or shouldn't be) at issue. Here's the important distinction: someone has worked hard to produce a worthy product, owns the result, and offers it *for sale*, not "for free but we accept tips". To use the product against that person's wishes or without his or her knowledge is theft. I expect it would be difficult to enforce the law upon shareware pirates, and I'm sure it isn't worth the effort to try. But that doesn't excuse the piracy. ========================================================================== Rick Holzgrafe | {sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual}!apple!rmh Software Engineer | AppleLink HOLZGRAFE1 rmh@apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. | "All opinions expressed are mine, and do 20525 Mariani Ave. MS: 67-B | not necessarily represent those of my Cupertino, CA 95014 | employer, Apple Computer Inc."
meldal@anna.stanford.edu (Sigurd Meldal) (03/17/90)
In article <1990Mar16.025655.23368@agate.berkeley.edu> lippin@jell-o.berkeley.edu (The Apathist) writes: > Recently meldal@ithink.Stanford.EDU (Sigurd Meldal) wrote: > > >Let me make my major point first: Using shareware without paying is > >(morally, at least) theft, and on a par with shoplifting. > > If this were true, then, to an ethical person, shareware would differ > from commercial software only in that it is distributed over public > networks and bulletin boards. I would then consider the distribution > to be an unreasonable abuse of these services. Whether it is unreasonable or not is up to the organizations making the networks available. However, all shareware I have seen is quite clear on the point of payment: If you continue to use the product after trying it out, the price is xx$. Some networks charge for the distribution (e.g. the commercial bboards, or the shareware disk sellers), others do not charge in a way traceable to a particular distribution (e.g. the internet) > Using a piece of shareware is like going to see Shakespeare in the > park -- its creators have appropriated public resources to bring you > their product, and this appropriation is acceptable since they are > providing a public service: a free product. The analogy with a park is misleading as stated, since it is ambiguous. Some events done in public areas are freely open, some with donations requested, and others are open only to a paying audience. The fact that a performance is on public ground does not by itself indicate a particular means of remuneration. Or should transportation by trucks be free since trucks use public land (the roads) and provide a public service? -- Sigurd
jprice@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price) (03/19/90)
In article <7236@goofy.Apple.COM>, rmh@apple.com (Rick Holzgrafe) writes: >Please, people, the legal fine print isn't (or shouldn't be) at issue. Perhaps it shouldn't be, but that was the way the original question was phrased. >Here's the important distinction: someone has worked hard to produce a >worthy product, owns the result, and offers it *for sale*, not "for free >but we accept tips". To use the product against that person's wishes or >without his or her knowledge is theft. Morally, yes. Ethically, yes. Legally, (probably) no. Here's an opinion I haven't seen... I don't support shareware fees because I have to. I don't do it because God (or the Woz...:) will strike me down from the heavens if I don't. I don't do it for that good feeling I get because I'm "supporting the system". I do it for a very simple reason: registration. This is a very important reason, because *if* you are a registered user of a shareware program, the author will notify you of bug fixes, corrections, and improvements. Suppose there's a bug in a shareware program that causes it to format your hard disk. If you're registered, the author will then send you a copy of the fix. I like that. It helps me sleep at night. Furthermore, it's worth the $5 or $10 or $15 or whatever the guy wants. As far as using the software without paying for it, I may not be breaking any laws, but then I have to supply the bug fixes myself, either by looking all over the different archives for it, or writing the fix myself. I'd rather have the author do it. Again, this service is worth the shareware fee. Just my 2 cents. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- John Price | Internet: price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu 5-145 Knudsen Hall | BITNET: price@uclaph UCLA Dept. of Physics | DECnet: uclapp::jprice Los Angeles, CA 90024-1547 | YellNet: 213-825-2259 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where there is no solution, there is no problem.
lippin@ronzoni.berkeley.edu (The Apathist) (03/21/90)
Recently meldal@anna.stanford.edu (Sigurd Meldal) wrote: >However, all shareware I have seen is quite clear on the point of >payment: If you continue to use the product after trying it out, the >price is xx$. If you read this message, go jump in a lake. The drier among you have realized that one is not obliged to obey every command on finds on usenet. My slaving over a hot workstation (for minutes on end!) to create and send this posting doesn't allow me to lay conditions on those that I send it to. [For those who came in late: I'm not arguing that one should not pay shareware fees. I'm simply unwilling to consider failure to pay a form of thievery. Please pay shareware authors. And the better street musicians. And definitely subscribe to public television.] [Also, I'm arguing the ethical point, not the legal one. My opinion on the legal point is that one is not required to pay for shareware under US law. However, this opinion is of little value, as I'm not trained in legal matters.] In any case, I think my major point is made: the ethics of shareware are non-trivial. (It is largely due to such considerations that I've only written free and commercial software.) I suggest that we agree to disagree. --Tom Lippincott lippin@math.berkeley.edu "Hume's watershed reversal is systematically delineated and enunciated by the marxist philosophy."
kassover@pisces.crd.ge.com (David Kassover) (03/22/90)
In article <629@cica.cica.indiana.edu> vschonau@aqua.ucs.indiana.edu writes: ... >>> 5) If a company goes bankrupt or out of business, is it illegal to get >>> copies of their product? >>Well, there you've got me. I don't know. Any lawyers out there? > >I would assume not. Although it depends who is the owner of the copyright: >the company or the author......if the latter, there go your $$. > A copyright does not expire upon the expiration of the owner. If the copyright was owned by a company, then it is included in the assets of the company when the company is liquidated. *Somebody* or some other company now owns the copyright. Ownership of a copyright does not imply an obligation to publish, or republish. It also does not imply an obligation to enforce it. Caveat emptor. Now, some authors enter into a software escrow arrangement, whereby if certain conditions obtain, the escrowed software (usually some form of machine readable source code) becomes the property of the license purchaser. Generally speaking, such property rights *DO NOT* include the right to redistribute the software and derivative works. The purpose of these agreements is to allow the licensee some peace of mind with respect to support. By the way, they're expensive to set up (especially the first one, when you have no boilerplate), and generally cost the licensee a bundle "for the insult". Needless to say, I doubt any shareware author or licensee would be interested.
kassover@pisces.crd.ge.com (David Kassover) (03/22/90)
In article <531@fwi.uva.nl> freek@fwi.uva.nl (Freek Wiedijk) writes: >In article <52@ithink.stanford.edu> meldal@ithink.Stanford.EDU >(Sigurd Meldal) writes: >>it is so regardless of age - software does not rot nor wear out. > >PLEASE, tell that to my floppies... It`s your floppies that are loosing their oxide, not the software. Or perhaps you have the same problem that I do? I purchased some software long ago (in the days of Thin, Thick, and Fat Macs) which will not run on the machines I have now, except for the Plus which we keep around for sentimental reasons... 8-)