greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (01/07/90)
In article <15398@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us> writes: > >Of course. I've never seen any shareware that claims you have a legal >obligation to pay; the claimed obligation is moral. And since I, like >you, do not agree with this obligation, I would gleefully use newsclip >and not pay if I felt the slightest need for it. As a shareware author, allow me to be the first to tell you that your attitude sucks? The reason I come out with shareware is because of the honest people in the world -- they send in the bucks that allow me to continue to develop software. There are people like Larry Wall who opt to produce freeware - and that's great. The net owes their thanks to Larry and those like him. Some of my stuff, though, does have a price tag on it. My free stuff you can use without paying for. But, you're obliged, ethically, to pay for the shareware. Don't like it, then don't it. That's pretty simple. But, if you're going to proclaim you're dishonest, unethical and willing to use another's intellectual property without paying for it (that's called theft), then please do the shareware authors of the world a favor? Keep your ethics, or lack thereof, to yourself? It disgusts those of us who *do* rely on the honest and ethical people of the world.. Ross -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
jef@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) (01/08/90)
In the referenced message, greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) wrote: }As a shareware author, allow me to be the first to tell you that your }attitude sucks? The feeling is quite mutual, I assure you. } The reason I come out with shareware is because of the }honest people in the world -- they send in the bucks that allow me to }continue to develop software. Ignoring the worthless moralizing, this is incorrect, due to being an incomplete statement. I'll complete it for you. The vast majority of the support you receive for your software is in the form of the free distribution you have come to depend on, exploit, and ignore. But it's not really free -- nothing is. Real people are paying real money to distribute your software. The fact that you choose to ignore this support in order to look better in the eyes of those you are trying to dupe only makes you into a scum, it does not make the support stop existing. } There are people like Larry Wall who opt }to produce freeware - and that's great. The net owes their thanks to }Larry and those like him. You're welcome. However, I don't produce free software for thanks. I produce it for me. }Some of my stuff, though, does have a price tag on it. My free stuff you }can use without paying for. But, you're obliged, ethically, to pay for }the shareware. No, I'm not obliged to pay, ethically, morally, legally, or in any other way. And if I had the desire to use any of your software (extremely doubtful), I wouldn't pay. } Don't like it, then don't it. That's pretty simple. All right, I won't it, just as soon as you tell me what not itting is. }But, if you're going to proclaim you're dishonest, unethical and willing }to use another's intellectual property without paying for it (that's }called theft), then please do the shareware authors of the world a favor? Not at all. As has already been pointed out, it's not theft. Neither is is dishonest (obviously) or unethical (by definition). What I'm proclaiming is that *you*, and other shareware authors, are dishonest, unethical, and willing to use another's physical property without paying for it. And I think you are fairly scummy for the dishonesty and lack of ethics, but the use of other people's property is fine, since it is with their permission. }Keep your ethics, or lack thereof, to yourself? It disgusts those of us }who *do* rely on the honest and ethical people of the world.. Again, likewise. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!jef "Freedom is still the most radical idea of all." -- Nathaniel Branden
woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) (01/08/90)
In article <1134@utoday.UUCP> greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > [....] The reason I come out with shareware is because of the > honest people in the world -- they send in the bucks that allow me to > continue to develop software. > > Some of my stuff, though, does have a price tag on it. My free stuff you > can use without paying for. But, you're obliged, ethically, to pay for > the shareware. Don't like it, then don't it. That's pretty simple. > [....] There are only two reasons which will entice me to pay for shareware. One is if the money I spend is going towards providing me service and support. Ongoing development, and/or supporting your hacking habit, :-) is only part of service and support. The other reason is if I am making a *direct* profit from the use of your shareware, then I'll gladly share that profit. Ethics are very slippery things. I consider myself to have a good, concise, and coherent set of morals and ethics. However, I do not feel obliged in any way to pay for shareware unless I am either making a good profit directly from its use, or unless I require good support. I don't feel very obligated to pay for anything someone builds and offers to the world on terms they have little or no hope of enforcing. If you truely wish to receive payment for your efforts, then make it a condition of the offer. Don't publish your work in a free and widely distributed manner, then hope people will re-imburse you. Remember, even the "shrink-wrap" license is considered by many to be un-enforcable, and shareware can have similar characteristics. I subscribe to a philosophy which might be compared somewhat to that of Richard Stallman: I don't believe I should have to pay for intellectual property, unless the "owner" is forces me to go through the motions of purchasing a license or commercial copy. If you give your intellectual property to me, and then ask me to pay for it if I use it, you'll probably be left alone in the dust. I believe knowledge, both in the direct form, and in some cases the implementation (eg. algorithms and programmes) should be freely, and easily, available. It's too bad electronic representation of information has changed one of the fundamental concepts used over the centuries in managing knowledge and information. In the end I believe it is for the better. If I were a communist, or even more socialist than I already am, I might support a tax on electronic data media, similar to what musicians are advocating for cassette tapes (not that I think the musicians are communists!). However, I believe there are far better ways to manage the problem. Meanwhile, I will continue to enjoy the use of "free" software distributed over mediums such as USENET. I will also contribute when and where I can. I extend my gratitude and heartfelt thanks to those who do the same. -- Greg A. Woods woods@{robohack,gate,tmsoft,ontmoh,utgpu,gpu.utcs.Toronto.EDU,utorgpu.BITNET} +1 416 443-1734 [h] +1 416 595-5425 [w] VE3-TCP Toronto, Ontario; CANADA
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/09/90)
Jef, I'm afraid your analysis of shareware is both simplistic and
deceptive.
You're right about one thing: you are under no legal or ethical
obligation to pay for software that arrives through broadcast
channels such as Usenet, Bulletin Board systems, and publicly
redistributable disk libraries. However, it is in your self-
interest to do so, since it provides an incentive for people who
write the programs you use to improve on them. You may also find
them more likely to support you with little problems if they have
a check from you in their bank account.
So, don't worry. I'm not calling you scum. I just think you're a
little short-sighted.
As for your diatribe against shareware authors, though, it's a
bit out of line. Any transaction that provides percieved value to
both sides is ethically and morally sound. And that includes
receiving a shareware package over a public channel.
--
_--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/ \ Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>
\_.--._/
v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'perry@key.COM (Perry The Cynic) (01/09/90)
[If you're not interested in ethics or moral positions at all, skip this.] woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes: > There are only two reasons which will entice me to pay for shareware. > One is if the money I spend is going towards providing me service and > support. Ongoing development, and/or supporting your hacking habit, :-) > is only part of service and support. The other reason is if I am > making a *direct* profit from the use of your shareware, then I'll > gladly share that profit. > Ethics are very slippery things. I consider myself to have a good, > concise, and coherent set of morals and ethics. However, I do not > feel obliged in any way to pay for shareware unless I am either making > a good profit directly from its use, or unless I require good > support. I don't feel very obligated to pay for anything someone > builds and offers to the world on terms they have little or no hope of > enforcing. If you truely wish to receive payment for your efforts, > then make it a condition of the offer. Don't publish your work in a > free and widely distributed manner, then hope people will re-imburse > you. Remember, even the "shrink-wrap" license is considered by many > to be un-enforcable, and shareware can have similar characteristics. Frankly, these arguments sound very much like "it's OK to use shareware for free because I can get away with it", and "I'll only pay if I can't get away with using it for free". I hope I misunderstand your posting, but that's how it sounds to me. Please also note that most shareware comes with a contract that obligates you to pay if you use the software after a certain trial period. These contracts may be unenforceable, but then the enforce- ability of a contract nowadays is mainly related to the salary of the lawyers involved, not to any state of moral appropriateness. Certainly the alleged unenforceability of a contract does not free you from your ethical (moral) duties. > I subscribe to a philosophy which might be compared somewhat to that > of Richard Stallman: I don't believe I should have to pay for > intellectual property, unless the "owner" is forces me to go through > the motions of purchasing a license or commercial copy. If you give > your intellectual property to me, and then ask me to pay for it if I > use it, you'll probably be left alone in the dust. I believe > knowledge, both in the direct form, and in some cases the > implementation (eg. algorithms and programmes) should be freely, and > easily, available. ... I agree with you that in most cases, knowledge should be freely and easily available. I also agree that it is *good* for programs to be freely available. I appreciate Stallman's ideas, if not always the way he implements them. Note that Stallman does not advocate the use of others' programs without their approval. However, I *do* believe that the notion of *intellectual property* is valid, insofar as it represents work and effort expended. That is, if a person (or company) expends serious effort to create something (be it research data or program implementations), they have a moral (and legal) right to sell it. It is your right not to buy it. It is not your right to use it for free, taking the work expended by its creator for granted (and for free). It reminds me of plucking fruits from a tree someone else has carefully nurtured, claiming that that other has no right to complain because he neglected to put barbed wire around the tree. If that philosophy prevails, the world will be a maze of barbed wire compounds, with untended trees in between. > ... It's too bad electronic representation of > information has changed one of the fundamental concepts used over the > centuries in managing knowledge and information. In the end I believe > it is for the better. If I were a communist, or even more socialist > than I already am, I might support a tax on electronic data media, > similar to what musicians are advocating for cassette tapes (not that > I think the musicians are communists!). However, I believe there are > far better ways to manage the problem. I don't understand this at all. Would you mind explaining your point to me by mail? > Meanwhile, I will continue to enjoy the use of "free" software > distributed over mediums such as USENET. I will also contribute when > and where I can. I extend my gratitude and heartfelt thanks to those > who do the same. > -- > Greg A. Woods So do I. On the other hand, I recognize that you can't make a living from publishing free software. If all software were free, few people would be in any position to write major programs. Remember that most authors of "free" software, Usenet and otherwise, make their living writing software "for pay". For me, it all comes down to the principle of "value for value". One should expect to give and receive commensurate value for value given, whether it be manual labor, physical services, or intellectual work. You can give your creation away, hoping for emotional gains (appreciation, approval by your peers, a Feeling Of Rightousness, or whatever) in return, but you have no right to obligate others to do the same. Claiming to make "no profit" from something you took doesn't cut it; if it were worthless, you wouldn't use it in the first place. And yes, notions of value vary between people. If someone's idea of proper value is unacceptable to me, I may not agree to an exchange. I will not take his part, and refuse to give what he clearly expected to receive in return. By my ethical standards, that would be Theft, and that has nothing to do with laws and lawyers. For me, there is no moral justification for taking the fruits of someone else's labor without compensation. Sorry for getting a bit preachy towards the end here. -- perry P.S.: Don't you (Greg) think it's a little bit questionable to post something to comp.sources.d (only), and then try to send any follow-ups off to alt.flame? It's like saying "my posting rightfully belongs here, but anything you may say in reply is only a flame". Comp.sources.d may not be the right place for this discussion, but alt.flame is hardly it, either. I didn't flame you, and I expect to be taken as seriously as you expect to be taken in turn. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Perry The Cynic (Peter Kiehtreiber) perry@arkon.key.com ** What good signature isn't taken yet? ** ...!pacbell!key!perry
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (01/09/90)
In article <15410@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us> writes: > >>Ignoring the worthless moralizing, this is incorrect, due to being an >>incomplete statement. I'll complete it for you. The vast majority of >>the support you receive for your software is in the form of the free >>distribution you have come to depend on, exploit, and ignore. But it's >>not really free -- nothing is. Actually, the vast majority of my registrations come people who have purchased a disk containing one of my products from a disk distributor who has asked my permission to distribute my product on a disk that he or she sells and makes a profit from. The real world may be different than you imagine. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (01/09/90)
In article <1990Jan8.043811.23794@robohack.UUCP> woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes: > >There are only two reasons which will entice me to pay for shareware. >One is if the money I spend is going towards providing me service and >support. Ongoing development, and/or supporting your hacking habit, :-) >is only part of service and support. The other reason is if I am >making a *direct* profit from the use of your shareware, then I'll >gladly share that profit. Well, just to give you an example of what happens, Greg: one of my DOS products is an anti-virus product called FLU_SHOT+. It has to be updated on a regular basis to provide protection against some of the viruses that, alas, are making the circuit. I have to provide support to people who can't quite get it working for some reason or another, or have a virus and don;t know what the heck to do with it. I came out with the product for a total of $10 (plus shipping and handling). That is, alas, not enough to pay for some of my costs, including a full time support person. She costs me about $400/wk. Telephone, overhead, electricity, the works, well, they cost me a lot, too. From my commercial products, I know, roughly, how many people will call for support based on a percentage of total sales. Applying that to shareware allowed me to come up with the low price I have: I assume that 90% of the registered users out there only want upgrade support, and not the type of support that costs me real bucks. Unfortuneately this is not true. A much higher of my registered users seek support than i had expected. Yet, this is a simplier product, conceptually, than my commercial offerings. How can this be? Well, ther eare a bunch of potential reasons, but one of them is that only those requiring support opt to register. That those who need no support do not register. That gives me a substantially smaller cash pool. And, alas, means that I must raise my prices shortly: Laura, my assistant, needs a raise, my telephone costs just went up, etc. If more people registered their usage of the product, as I could reasonably expect, then I could keep my prices lower. For two years I've been battling the attitude that "Hey! I'll forget that shareware is 'try before you buy' and use it as 'try before you steal'.", hoping that the economics of the situation would somehow work things out. Attitudes such as the one that prompted me to post have caused two things: one, a price increase in the shareware version. And, that the super-deluxe version of the code will only be available commercially -- and only for a much higher price (actually, I end up making more on the shareware version, per sale, than on the 10x priced commercial version, but software publishing is a really weird field!). As for what Mr. Stallman has to say, well, let's not get started on FSF. I make my living, everyday, my selling my intellectual property. Stallman does not propose a reasonable alternative for that. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
jef@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) (01/10/90)
In the referenced message, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) wrote: } You may also find }them more likely to support you with little problems if they have }a check from you in their bank account. I provide my own support. Note that this implies another of my little rules: I never depend on software that I don't have source for. This lets out 99% of shareware right off. This is also the only reason I bothered to comment on newsclip. }As for your diatribe against shareware authors, though, it's a }bit out of line. Any transaction that provides percieved value to }both sides is ethically and morally sound. And that includes }receiving a shareware package over a public channel. I said much the same thing, Peter. Better polish your glasses. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!jef Do not remove this line under penalty of law.
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (01/10/90)
In article <1361@key.COM> perry@arkon.key.COM (Perry The Cynic) writes: >[If you're not interested in ethics or moral positions at all, skip this.] > >woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes: >> There are only two reasons which will entice me to pay for shareware. >> One is if the money I spend is going towards providing me service and >> support. Ongoing development, and/or supporting your hacking habit, :-) >> is only part of service and support. The other reason is if I am >> making a *direct* profit from the use of your shareware, then I'll >> gladly share that profit. >Frankly, these arguments sound very much like "it's OK to use shareware for >free because I can get away with it", and "I'll only pay if I can't get away >with using it for free". I hope I misunderstand your posting, but that's >how it sounds to me. Please also note that most shareware comes with a >contract that obligates you to pay if you use the software after a certain >trial period. These contracts may be unenforceable, but then the enforce- >ability of a contract nowadays is mainly related to the salary of the lawyers >involved, not to any state of moral appropriateness. Certainly the alleged >unenforceability of a contract does not free you from your ethical (moral) >duties. Actually, it does. I believe the proper legal term is 'contract of adhesion'; these are considered unenforcable. (pardon me if I got this wrong; I'm no lawyer, but I do pay them occasionally :-) There is also the not-so-trite matter of distribution cost. If a Shareware distributor posts to Usenet, he/she has used everyone's resources to effect distribution. It is quite within reason that the owner of a system could consider it a fair deal -- "you used my system to distribute the software (and I paid for the transport and storage), and I'll use your software". A good analogy is a package which shows up at your door through the post office with an invoice enclosed (and $1.50 in postage due!). If you didn't order it (and I certainly didn't order any of the shareware on the net!) then you are free to keep the product, and have >no obligation to pay the bill<. This is true whether the product which is in the box is a fifteen cent candy bar, a $1,000 VCR, or $15,000 in Kruggerands. Before everyone goes off and hits the "F" (for flame) key, let me state my position. I've published Shareware before. Through Usenet even. I don't recall ever receiving a contribution for any of the work posted to Usenet, although I have seen it used at many sites. I >have< received money for followup purchases of "improved" products -- which I did not put out as Shareware. My experience goes back before I was on the net; to 1981 in fact. Do I have a right to complain? Perhaps. I can make noise that I was robbed, or whatever. It doesn't change anything. The point is that few if any people who get software off the net (or CI$, or wherever) fork up for the shareware contributions. Those who post Shareware (Brad and myself included; read his note at the front of Part01!) are quite aware of this, and post the shareware anyway. Asking for a donation if you find software useful seems ok to me. Sending diskettes off with shareware on them (at the request of the prospective customer) and requiring those users to either cease using the code or pay for it at some point is ok too. Saying "pay me $50 if you use this, or you're pond-sucking scum", while pushing the code down the recipient's throat at their expense somehow seems different. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (01/10/90)
In article <N7..ACxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Jef, I'm afraid your analysis of shareware is both simplistic and >deceptive. IN YOUR HUMBLE OPINION. >You're right about one thing: you are under no legal or ethical >obligation to pay for software that arrives through broadcast >channels such as Usenet, Bulletin Board systems, and publicly >redistributable disk libraries. However, it is in your self- >interest to do so, since it provides an incentive for people who >write the programs you use to improve on them. You may also find >them more likely to support you with little problems if they have >a check from you in their bank account. This is not an unquestionable truth. There is some shareware which might be worth money. There is much shareware that is not worth money, and being forced to transport some program which falls far short of being a commercial offering should be a criminal act, in the full legal sense of the word criminal. I prefer to argue that providing =free= software on the net encourages other programmers to do likewise, which directly benefits us all by increasing the amount of free software which is available for use on our systems. >So, don't worry. I'm not calling you scum. I just think you're a >little short-sighted. No, Jef doesn't share =your= vision. This is not "USENET According to Peter da Silva". >As for your diatribe against shareware authors, though, it's a >bit out of line. Any transaction that provides percieved value to >both sides is ethically and morally sound. And that includes >receiving a shareware package over a public channel. It's only perceived value, and at a cost which the site owner was =coerced= to pay. The owner of the site didn't have the option to not pay for Brad's Shareware offering, that's the issue. Shareware belongs in biz.sources, pure and simple. Ultimately the value of a piece of software is the number of dollars someone is willing to pay for it. If shareware authors aren't receiving money for their programs it only means one thing. The software isn't worth a dime. And I'd prefer they didn't cost me money by posting it and begging for money. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (01/10/90)
Wait a minute, there's really two issues here, and this venomous personal flaming is OUT OF LINE on both of them. What side of the bed did you guys get up on???! :-) In no particular order - Issue 1: Should shareware be distributed on Usenet? My own opinion on this is no, because while shareware is definitely an *alternative* commercial channel, and maybe a good one, it *is* a commercial channel and as such shouldn't piggyback on the core Usenet distribution. On biz.* it would be fine, or shareware authors could start their own new share.* distribution. Issue 2: Is shareware an abomination per se? Weird religious wars over intellectual property concepts seem like a waste of bandwidth here. Should users feel obligated to pay for shareware they get and use? This is a nuanced question. Nobody's legally obligated, that seems certain (even if the software prints YOU ARE LEGALLY OBLIGATED in 43 point type); the moral obligation only comes if you think that a *voluntary compliance* commercial channel deserves encouragement. All shareware authors can do is jawbone, more or less vigorously (or hold out a carrot like a printed manual); from a pragmatic standpoint they seem to expect anywhere from 2 to 20 percent compliance. These issues have been debated to death on commercial nets and BBS's where shareware is more prevalent. It's not discussed much in comp.* because of Issue 1 -- net consensus seems to discourage posting shareware to the core distribution. It's fun to watch grizzled net.debate veterans sharpen their knives over an unfamiliar topic, but personal attacks? Yeccchh, as MAD sez. -- "UNIX should be used :: Tom Neff <tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET> or as an adjective." -- AT&T :: ...uunet!bfmny0!tneff (UUCP only)
fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) (01/11/90)
There are two sides to shareware that are very similar to the two sides of
why you need to lock your car. I have a product that is almost ready for
the DOS world that I am seriously considering distributing as shareware.
That decision isn't made yet but here are my thoughts.
I originally wrote the program for my own use. (It is a smart dictionary
that translates Spanish words into English, conjugates verbs and knows how
to un-conjugate a verb form to get back to an infinitive.) I wrote it
because I want to learn more Spanish and this, for me, is a good learning
tool.
Along the way I got interested in marketing it because it is useful to
others. But, the difference between something that I use and a package
with documentation that will run on every DOS system in the world is
significant. In fact, it was written on a UNIX system and I have no
interest in DOS at all for my use. So, at this point I have invested
hundreds of hours in the part of the program that is of no use to me.
In other words, I have an investment -- both time and money -- in making
it a commercial product.
Now, I would like the see the maximum number of people use the product.
I also believe that people should have a chance to try something before
they buy it. Shareware satisfies both of these criteria. A dial-up demo
would satisfy the second. The big difference is that to make this work
with a method other than shareware I need to spend thousands of dollars in
marketing. I would rather put that money into the product itself. I
appreciate the fact that if I use the BBS route to distribute the product
that I am taking advantage of investment on the part of others. But I
offer a better deal because of the money I save.
Other alternative are to distribute crippled products. This seems like a
real waste. People don't get the real product and yet I take advantage of
the free distribution channels to advertize the product.
I have send out beta versions of the program and asked in the questionaire
what people though of shareware vs. commercial distribution. The answers
came back about 50% in favor of each. I also notice that the newest
version of PC-File is not shareware.
I would like to encourage further discussion -- I really do want to pick
the answer that is best for the product and the users.
--
Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549, Seattle, WA 98155 (206)FOR-UNIX
uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fyl or attmail!ssc!fyl (206)527-3385bl@infovax.UUCP (Bj|rn Larsson) (01/11/90)
In article <15436@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us> writes: >In the referenced message, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) wrote: >} You may also find >}them more likely to support you with little problems if they have >}a check from you in their bank account. > >I provide my own support. Note that this implies another of my little ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Would not this support also include writing your own programs then? I usually don't get into things like this, but I can't resist. I have posted a few software packages to UseNet. I chose to put them in the public domain. For me, who have my income elsewhere, who wrote my stuff basically because I needed it myself, and who believe in sharing, that was natural. I never intended to get anything back except maybe the gratitude of others. And I have gotten that, which feels good. But for shareware writers, who try to make a living on what they write, it is quite understandable that they want something back for it. I think that shareware writers provide, at a big risk, something that many of us can benefit from, at a low cost, and they even let us TRY before we buy. That should be respected. What makes me most upset is your blatant attitude that could be expressed as 'if someone is dumb enough to make it possible for me to grab it, of course I do'. I am no saint myself, but I have some concience. Your argumentation makes me sick. I don't remember seing any shareware packages published by Jef Poskanzer. Of course I may be wrong about that but if he publishes one, he might not enjoy his own ideas so much... Bjorn Larsson ====================== InfoVox = Speech Technology ======================= Bjorn Larsson, INFOVOX AB : ...seismo!mcvax!kth!sunic!infovax!bl Box 2503 : bl@infovox.se S-171 02 Solna, Sweden : Phone (+46) 8 735 80 90 -- ====================== InfoVox = Speech Technology ======================= Bjorn Larsson, INFOVOX AB : ...seismo!mcvax!kth!sunic!infovax!bl Box 2503 : bl@infovox.se S-171 02 Solna, Sweden : Phone (+46) 8 735 80 90
ewiles@netxdev.DHL.COM (Edwin Wiles) (01/11/90)
Most of the arguments I have seen against paying for posted shareware center
around the theme that "since my site has paid for transportation of this
software without being asked to, then I have the right to use this software
without paying for it either".
I don't think it works that way. I am not a lawyer, and maybe the laws
have changed, but the last time I had cause to look something like this up it
was explained as follows:
Presume Farmer Bill has a cow which gets loose in Farmer George's
corn crop. The cow eats some of the corn. George, being somewhat
upset at loosing a part of his livelyhood, asks Bill to pay for the
corn lost; Bill refuses. George decides to keep the cow in lieu of
payment by Farmer Bill.
According to my last understanding of the law, George MUST return
the cow to Bill, or face legal action.
Translated:
Bill writes a program which he posts as shareware to Usenet News.
This uses some of George's resources, which he is upset about paying
for. Without even asking Bill, he keeps the sharware in payment for
the cost of the resources.
Similarly, George MUST "return" the shareware, he is not permitted
to keep the program in lieu of payment for damages perceived..
In both cases, property is retained in lieu of payment for damages perceived.
In both cases, George is WRONG to do so, and must "return" the property. In
the case of "shareware", George is permitted to "return" the property by
deleting all of his copies of it.
IF the shareware is properly copyrighted, and contains a reasonable license
which states the terms under which you may use it, including what you are
requested to pay for it. Then I believe that you are legally, and perhaps
morally, obligated to pay the fee requested for its use, or you must remove it
forthwith!
If you're that worried about the transport costs that YOUR system incurred, you
MIGHT be able to calculate and deduct the transport costs YOUR system incurred.
Which (unless you call long distance) will probably come to something less than
25 cents. You CANNOT deduct transport costs for the entire network, as you did
not PAY the entire network's transport costs; and your calculations had better
have hard facts to back them up.
If the author accepts your payment, by cashing the check, then you're free.
However, the author has the right to refuse that payment and insist that you
pay in full. In which case you would have to bill separately for your costs.
Is it really worth a quarter to get less than a quarter back?
On the side of the putative purchasers of shareware, I can see that they might
feel they were being 'done out'. But using shareware without paying for it is
rather like picking pencils out of a blind man's cup without paying for it.
Neither the author of the software, nor the blind man, is likely to be able to
do much about legal retaliation; but it still isn't "right". Now don't start
with that argument about pencils being property and software not being property.
Both ARE property, albeit different, and stealing is ILLEGAL.
Now, I have sharware, and I've paid for that which I felt was truly usefull.
The one that comes to mind now is "Whap!", a set of programs for quick and
efficient navigation of Compu$erve forums. I used it for quite a while, and
finally decided that I was going to keep using CI$ and Whap!, so I paid for it.
Other shareware I have eventually come to the conclusion that I would never
want to use again, so I've deleted it.
There's still more shareware that is waiting for me to come to a decision.
The main reason for hanging onto such shareware is that I generally use it so
seldom that I haven't decided whether it's really worth it. Eventually, I'll
decide that it is, or isn't, and handle it accordingly.
FOR THE AUTHORS....
You have a problem getting people to pay for the software you write.
You have to ask yourself WHY they're not paying. The answer COULD be that
the software simply isn't "good enough", or that they don't have enough
incentive even if it is "good enough".
So, how do you encourage them?
If you're SURE the software is well written, easy to use, and USEFULL, then
you can make it "irritating" in some minor fashion. "Whap!" is an excelent
example of this. The authors put a "delay" function into the product, such
that when you switched functions, it posted a screen (red on black) asking
you to pay for the software. When you did pay for it, your copy of the
software was "registered", which removed the irritating delay. The authors
made a nearly fully functional program available, so that you could get the
full feeling of the software, while making it only mildly irritating to use.
If you're not so sure of the quality of your work, then don't make it even
more irritating to use, offer updates! Or better yet, if the product is
large enough to justify it, offer a professionally printed manual! (In
addition to the update.)
Yes, this will probably raise the price, and you may incur some costs,
but you have to offer the user some REASON to pay for the software, beyond
the software itself! You won't get much money otherwise, since there are
far too many people who have "exceptionally flexible" morals.
Enjoy!
"Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?" | Edwin Wiles
Schedule: (n.) An ever changing nightmare. | NetExpress, Inc.
...!{hadron,sundc,pyrdc,uunet}!netxcom!ewiles | 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300
ewiles@iad-nxe.global-mis.DHL.COM | Vienna, VA 22182troeger@ttidca.TTI.COM (Jeff Troeger) (01/11/90)
In article <2719@netxcom.DHL.COM> ewiles@netxdev.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: > Presume Farmer Bill has a cow which gets loose in Farmer George's > corn crop. The cow eats some of the corn. George, being somewhat > upset at loosing a part of his livelyhood, asks Bill to pay for the > corn lost; Bill refuses. George decides to keep the cow in lieu of > payment by Farmer Bill. > According to my last understanding of the law, George MUST return > the cow to Bill, or face legal action. >Translated: > Bill writes a program which he posts as shareware to Usenet News. > This uses some of George's resources, which he is upset about paying > for. Without even asking Bill, he keeps the sharware in payment for > the cost of the resources. > Similarly, George MUST "return" the shareware, he is not permitted > to keep the program in lieu of payment for damages perceived.. You are comparing apples with oranges here Edwin, In the first case, Farmer Bills cow is a lifeform that runs pretty much on its own. You could say that the cow got into Farmer Georges field by accident. (Farmer Bill did not conciously let the cow into Farmer Georges field) If Bill writes a shareware program and posts it to USENET, that would be similar to Farmer Bill opening the gate and letting the cow into the field. The two actions are noticeably different, and I think that in the latter case the courts would look at it entirely different. -- Jeff Troeger - Citicorp (+) TTI "Of all the things I've lost, 3100 Ocean Park Bl. I miss my mind the most" Santa Monica, Ca. 90405 (213) 450-9111 x3153 Path: {retix|philabs|csun|psivax}!ttidca!troeger or troeger@ttidca.tti.com
dhw@itivax.iti.org (David H. West) (01/12/90)
#include <not_a_lawyer.disclaimer> In article <2719@netxcom.DHL.COM> ewiles@netxdev.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: [example involving keeping a trespassing cow] >In both cases, property is retained in lieu of payment for damages perceived. [and later:] >But using shareware without paying for it is >rather like picking pencils out of a blind man's cup without paying for it. Bad examples. Retaining a physical object denies use of it to others. Not so with copied information. If the author wanted use to be contingent upon payment, s/he should not cause the automatic distribution of tens of thousands of unsolicited copies at others' expense. Unlike the cited blind man, shareware authors are not forced into this way of making a living. I am not arguing against paying shareware authors, but I'm also not going to spend any time feeling sorry for those who complain that they broadcast their work, and were not rewarded by people who never asked to receive the work in the first place. Probably the cost of the human time spent on skimming the headers exceeds the cost of net transport for this stuff. Much of it is probably useful to someone, but most of it is probably useless to any specific person. -David West dhw@iti.org
olsen@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Jim Olsen) (01/12/90)
Are shareware users obliged to pay the authors? Legally: no. Morally: yes, in a way. Legally, shareware 'licenses' aren't worth the (virtual) paper they're written on. Copyright doesn't include the right to control the use of a legally-made copy of a program, so the user needs no 'license', and needn't pay for one. For the moral obligation, we in the U.S. have a close parallel to shareware: Public Television. Public TV subsists primarily on voluntary contributions. It uses, without paying for them, highly valuable sections of the radio spectrum to broadcast its programs and its appeals for money. Even those who think Public TV is worthless are compelled to let them use this valuable public resource. Are Public TV viewers morally obliged to contribute? I submit that this is equivalent the question: 'Are shareware users morally obliged to pay the authors?' If no one pays, the product will die out (if you think that would be a good thing, don't pay!). If other people pay and you don't, but you still use the new programs they finance, you are freeloading. Freeloading is not as bad as theft, but it's not nice.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/12/90)
> The owner of the site didn't have the > option to not pay for Brad's Shareware offering, that's the > issue. Shareware belongs in biz.sources, pure and simple. OK, that's fine. I wasn't addressing the case of Brad's offering (which, as Jef notes, you are under no obligation to pay twice for). I was responding to what I perceived as an overall attack on the concept of shareware in general, whether it be distributed on Usenet or not; guiltware or not; etc... > Ultimately the value of a piece of software is the number of > dollars someone is willing to pay for it. Succinct and to the point. > If shareware authors > aren't receiving money for their programs it only means one > thing. The software isn't worth a dime. And I'd prefer they > didn't cost me money by posting it and begging for money. As a shareware author who *is* recieving money for his programs, I'm at a loss to understand the point you're making here. It's too early to reach a verdict on Brad's program. Maybe he'll be able to retire on the contributions... -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/12/90)
> IF the shareware is properly copyrighted, and contains a reasonable license > which states the terms under which you may use it, including what you are > requested to pay for it. Then I believe that you are legally, and perhaps > morally, obligated to pay the fee requested for its use, or you must remove it > forthwith! This is one type of shareware. Personally, I don't care for it. The law is too slippery and in practical terms it can backfire. The more common shareware (and what I publish) is "guiltware": it depends on the users good will. Which is all you really *can* depend on, whatever legal games you may play. -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'
jef@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) (01/12/90)
In the referenced message, bl@infovax.UUCP (Bj|rn Larsson) wrote: }In article <15436@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us> writes: }>I provide my own support. } }Would not this support also include writing your own programs then? Heh heh. "He don't know me vewy well, do he?" }I don't remember seing any shareware packages published by Jef Poskanzer. Yep, you're right, no shareware. All of the dozens of software packages I have released over the past 20 years have been free. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!jef Parental guidance suggested.
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (01/13/90)
In article <4781@itivax.iti.org> dhw@itivax.UUCP (David H. West) writes: > >I am not arguing against paying shareware authors, but I'm also not >going to spend any time feeling sorry for those who complain that >they broadcast their work, and were not rewarded by people who never >asked to receive the work in the first place. > If you take a look at the stuff coming across the net, very little shareware is actually posted. A lot is available via SIMTEL20, naturally, but the commercial services and the BBS services offer more shareware than the various networks. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
ewiles@netxdev.DHL.COM (Edwin Wiles) (01/13/90)
In article <4781@itivax.iti.org> dhw@itivax.UUCP (David H. West) writes: >#include <not_a_lawyer.disclaimer> > >In article <2719@netxcom.DHL.COM> ewiles@netxdev.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: >>In both cases, property is retained in lieu of payment for damages perceived. > >Bad examples. Retaining a physical object denies use of it to >others. Not so with copied information. Perhaps they are not the best examples possible, but your above argument is IMHO a slightly concealed argument that software is not property, and it is therefore OK to make a copy of it to do with as you wish. It's still stealing property. >If the author wanted use >to be contingent upon payment, s/he should not cause the automatic >distribution of tens of thousands of unsolicited copies at others' >expense. The whole point of shareware is that the distribution method not be outrageously expensive. Expensive distribution forces higher prices for software by require a MUCH greater initial investment in the software before you can even hope to get a reasonable return. Electronic distribution, without the requirement that you pay for the product, unless you keep a copy of it, is the most inexpensive means of distribution. NOTE! The cost to any ONE site, which is all any ONE person can complain about, is quite small. Granted, the cost to the community at large is higher, but YOU (speaking generally) do not bear that larger cost! You don't like paying a few cents for distribution of shareware? Then bill the author! But I think it would cost you FAR more to bill the author than you would obtain in *reasonable* fees for distribution. NOTICE! Commercial outfits (like UUNET, CI$, etc.) CANNOT charge for the distribution, as they already recoup their costs from the sites which they are transmitting to. (Weellll, maybe the could try, but they'd have a rough time in court. Besides, they make more money the more they have to carry! I would think they would be in favor of shareware. IMHO! IMHO! IMHO! ) >Unlike the cited blind man, shareware authors are not >forced into this way of making a living. Are you sure of that? A shareware author could just as easily be in a wheelchair in such a condition that holding down a regular job is impossible. Such a situation could also reduce his income to the point where commercial distribution would be impossible. Not saying they are, just that assuming they aren't does not make it true. (Doesn't make it untrue either!) >I am not arguing against paying shareware authors, but I'm also not >going to spend any time feeling sorry for those who complain that >they broadcast their work, and were not rewarded by people who never >asked to receive the work in the first place. I wouldn't argue about it either, and I wouldn't feel sorry for them if the people who received it never used it either, but if you USE their work, then you SHOULD pay for it. What apparently started this was someone posting a complaint about being "forced" to carry shareware, and then the authors having the gall to ask for/expect payment, so they were going to use it without paying for it, and post a note here rubbing the shareware author's nose in it. I'm not going to feel sorry for THEM either! As I said previously, about the only thing you could legitimately do would be to deduct the *reasonable* distribution costs that YOUR site encountered in obtaining the software. >Probably the cost of the human time spent on skimming the headers >exceeds the cost of net transport for this stuff. Much of it is >probably useful to someone, but most of it is probably useless to any >specific person. That's the way with ALL software. It's just that this way, the cost is low enough that there is NO REASON not to pay for it if you are going to use it. You even get to test it out first! Surely that opportunity is worth the few cents you paid to get it on your system! And if this particular piece of shareware is of no use to you, it may be so for someone else. Just as YOU might one day find a truly useful piece of shareware some day, THEY are waiting for you to pass THIS one on! "Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?" | Edwin Wiles Schedule: (n.) An ever changing nightmare. | NetExpress, Inc. ...!{hadron,sundc,pyrdc,uunet}!netxcom!ewiles | 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300 ewiles@iad-nxe.global-mis.DHL.COM | Vienna, VA 22182
pete@tcom.stc.co.uk (Peter Kendell) (01/13/90)
As I started this debate, I'd like to add a few thoughts and maybe clarify
my original posting.
- It's a pity this had to degenerate to name-calling. Perhaps it was
inevitable, given that it's an ethical/moral issue.
- It seems to be clear that (mostly) people don't pay shareware fees.
(someone once posted a package with a request for a picture
postcard from anyone who used it - cute).
- Someone suggested that the actual cost per kilobyte of USENET postings
was low, as most traffic was carried over the internet or by UUCP over
local connections. This may well be true in the USA (although it ignores
the overheads involved. Think of all that disk space and cpu time. It
all comes out of capital depreciation and maintenance costs) but it
is not true for the rest of the world. Despite the privatisation of
British Telecom ( :-) ), local calls still cost money here and, I
believe, in other European countries. And there's the transatlantic
shipping cost.
- I mentioned Larry Wall and the FSF as providers of good software for
free. The question, why don't these guys impose charges?, was
rhetorical, but thanks anyway Larry.
- I have posted software myself, in a minor sort of way. I would not
have done so had I not had the example of others to follow.
- I mentioned British law. I'm not a lawyer, just a consumer who knows
his rights, but I should have said *English* law. I've no idea what
the situation is in Scotland.
- I shall not be using newsclip - it's safe in its shrinkwrap.
- It's possible to say that I'm not *forced* to take any newsgroup,
and so it's up to me whether I collect material from my newsfeed.
True, but unhelpful when material I don't want appears in a newsgroup
that I do want. Does the net need alt.shareware? Or should newsclip
have been announced in comp.newprod rather than being posted?
- And lastly. Where did the term shareware come from? What is being
shared (that isn't being shared by PD distribution)? Is it too late
for me to put an ad in the Times - "Make me rich - send me ten pounds"?
Cheers,
Petermjm@foster.avid.oz (Mike McBain) (01/13/90)
In article <2719@netxcom.DHL.COM>, ewiles@netxdev.DHL.COM (Edwin Wiles) writes: > [much deleted] > > FOR THE AUTHORS.... > > You have a problem getting people to pay for the software you write. > > If you're SURE the software is well written, easy to use, and USEFUL, then > you can make it "irritating" in some minor fashion. > [suggestions of intentional minor dysfunctionality deleted] > > If you're not so sure of the quality of your work, then don't make it even > more irritating to use, offer updates! Or better yet, if the product is > large enough to justify it, offer a professionally printed manual! (In > addition to the update.) > > Yes, this will probably raise the price, and you may incur some costs, > but you have to offer the user some REASON to pay for the software, beyond > the software itself! You won't get much money otherwise, since there are > far too many people who have "exceptionally flexible" morals. > I think there are some flaws in the `shareware ethos', in that goods are proffered, then the provider complains when so few pay. But I think Edwin is on to something worthwhile here. The company I work for consults with a number of small companies. Some of them have obtained pirated (commercial) software. Management's attitude here is that our staff will not work with or use any software which is known to be pirated. The usual way we find out that the software is not legitimate is by asking the magic question `What does the manual say?' If they say `We haven't got one', we start to ask why. Our company president is even more vociferous than this; he'd like us not to work on any system that we know has pirate software on it. I think the reality, as opposed to the desired result, is that an enormous number of people use shareware without paying for it. It makes good sense to pay registration fees if there is a material benefit. The most obvious one is a good, instructive manual. Perhaps it is the fact that so few shareware authors seem to bother looking for that `added value' option which results in the angst we're currently seeing. I have seen some good shareware, but almost never with decent documentation. I've seen some god-awful stuff too, also without manuals. Perhaps it is just that shareware authors don't see documentation as important. But they will continue to pay the price for those beliefs. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike McBain, ACSnet: mjm@foster.avid.oz Avid Systems Pty Ltd, Tel: +61 3 534 2293 FAX: +61 3 534 0153 St Kilda, Australia 3182 UUCP: {hplabs,uunet}!munnari!foster.avid.oz!mjm D
caf@omen.UUCP (WA7KGX) (01/14/90)
In article <8939@ttidca.TTI.COM> troeger@ttidcb.tti.com (Jeff Troeger) writes:
:If Bill writes a shareware program and posts it to USENET, that would be
How many authors post their own shareware programs to Usenet?
Are many of these postings to groups other than comp.binaries.*?
"Most of these vi experts know what they do from
studying the source code, not by reading the
manual." -- Ray Swartz
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf
Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ
Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software"
17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD Portland OR 97231 503-621-3406
TeleGodzilla:621-3746 FAX:621-3735 CIS:70007,2304 Genie:CAFgreenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (01/14/90)
In article <633@foster.avid.oz> mjm@foster.avid.oz (Mike McBain) writes: > >.... It makes good sense >to pay registration fees if there is a material benefit. The most >obvious one is a good, instructive manual. Perhaps it is the fact that so few >shareware authors seem to bother looking for that `added value' option >which results in the angst we're currently seeing. I have seen some good >shareware, but almost never with decent documentation. I've seen some >god-awful stuff too, also without manuals. Perhaps it is just >that shareware authors don't see documentation as important. But they will >continue to pay the price for those beliefs. On the other hand, most shareware products that are making it in the market place have exceptionally good manuals, and they're included in the distribution package that goes across the BBS circuit. Registering often will bring a *printed* manual - a printed version of the one already being distributed. One of the things you might want to contiue looking for in a search for decent shareware is shareware that meets certain standards. A good place to start looking would be for the Association of Shareware Professionals "stamp of approval". The ASP makes sure that the package provides a benefit, it not just a demo but is a fully functional product (not crippled in anyway), that registration brings some benefits to the person sending in the bucks, and that it is, specifically, not beggarware ("your karma will haunt you forever...."). There is a lot of crud out there labeling itself as shareware without really doing what is required to become a success. The ASP has about 200 members right now, from the multi-millioniarres like Jim Button to the fledging author who opted to start off the right way and is still trying to make ends meet in a part time business. Shareware is slowly turning into a viable alternative source for very high quality products. The only way it will work is if people are honest and ethical in their dealings with the shareware author and with themself. My own major shareware product is an anti-virus product, for example: if you use the product, then you believe yourself at risk for "catching" a computer virus. Using my product gives some peace of mind or people would not use it. Is the value of "peace of mind" worth the asking price of $10? To some, yes. To others, it might be, but they can't be bothered to send a check in for $10. To others, they believe that I programmed the code for their benefit as a freee service and that they don;t have to pay. They're wrong, obviously, and people like that caused me to stick code in the product that causes a little trigger screen to advice them when they're using the code for more than 30 days without paying for it. It does not cause the code to cease working, but, instead, reminds them of their obligations. The second week of each month brings with it very high registration rates. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
rfinch@caldwr.UUCP (Ralph Finch) (01/14/90)
In article <633@foster.avid.oz>, mjm@foster.avid.oz (Mike McBain) writes: > In article <2719@netxcom.DHL.COM>, ewiles@netxdev.DHL.COM (Edwin Wiles) writes: } } [much deleted] } } } } FOR THE AUTHORS.... } } } } You have a problem getting people to pay for the software you write. } } } } If you're SURE the software is well written, easy to use, and USEFUL, then } } you can make it "irritating" in some minor fashion. } } [suggestions of intentional minor dysfunctionality deleted] } } } } If you're not so sure of the quality of your work, then don't make it even } } more irritating to use, offer updates! Or better yet, if the product is } } large enough to justify it, offer a professionally printed manual! (In } } addition to the update.) } } } } Yes, this will probably raise the price, and you may incur some costs, } } but you have to offer the user some REASON to pay for the software, beyond } } the software itself! You won't get much money otherwise, since there are } } far too many people who have "exceptionally flexible" morals. } } } } I think there are some flaws in the `shareware ethos', in that goods are } proffered, then the provider complains when so few pay. But I think Edwin } is on to something worthwhile here. I agree. This reminds me of downtown traffic lights which are timed to, say, 35 mph, and the speed limit is posted to 30 mph. The law says one thing, your natural inclinations say another. Laws like that are frustrating, at the very least. Even if it is illegal to use shareware without paying for it, it's frustrating. Shareware authors, IMHO, should not try to encourage payment through legal or moral arguments, because it is simply too tempting to ignore the arguments and use the stuff anyway, even if your conscience complains. Better to offer a material incentive to pay, such as a nice manual or non-crippled version of the program. Have any shareware authors noticed any difference in the returns between the two approaches (moral persuasion vs. material incentive)? My 2 cents worth, -- Ralph Finch The opinions expressed herein are mine... rfinch@water.ca.gov ...ucbvax!ucdavis!caldwr!rfinch 916-445-0088
michael@stb.uucp (Michael Gersten) (01/14/90)
In article <1990Jan8.043811.23794@robohack.UUCP> woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes: >If you truely wish to receive payment for your efforts, >then make it a condition of the offer. Don't publish your work in a >free and widely distributed manner, then hope people will re-imburse >you. > >I subscribe to a philosophy which might be compared somewhat to that >of Richard Stallman: I don't believe I should have to pay for >intellectual property, unless the "owner" is forces me to go through >the motions of purchasing a license or commercial copy. If you give >your intellectual property to me, and then ask me to pay for it if I >use it, you'll probably be left alone in the dust. <Sigh.> Yet another case of voting nasty in Prisoner's Dilemma. Don't trust the other person. Try to take advantage of him in every way. Remember, they really are out to get you, so its not paranoia. Consider that this person is offering a simple, easy way to preview what he has to sell. Sort of a trial before buying. If you like it, you can buy it. If not, just remove it. Simple. No problem. You are saying that this is foolish, and that anyone offering a trial before purchase deserves to be taken for everything that they can. Why did you steal that car? It wasn't stealing--he let me test drive it. Right. To you, possession is 10/10'ths of the law--you possess the copy, therefore it's yours. Sorry, that don't work. Intellectual property should be treated the same as physical property -- it is property. If I spend $50 to make something, I should be able to get $75 when I sell it. Physical or not. The only question is did it really cost me $50 to make it if it wasn't physical. Uncle Sam, in the form of tax law, says yes, the cost of production includes all the supporting equipment/machines used to make X even if they are not in the final product X. And I Truly belive that you are mis-stating Stallman's philosophy here-- or at least I really hope so. If that is truly how he feels/belives, I can't support him anymore. Michael -- Michael denwa!stb!michael anes.ucla.edu!stb!michael "The 80's: Ten years that came in a row."
evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) (01/14/90)
In article <2793@netxcom.DHL.COM> ewiles@netxdev.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: > Perhaps they are not the best examples possible, but your above > argument is IMHO a slightly concealed argument that software is > not property, and it is therefore OK to make a copy of it to do > with as you wish. It's still stealing property. You just can't claim theft, when: a) The recipient did not request the item; b) You do not make any attempts to control its distribution; c) The other person's use does not deprive YOU of your enjoyment of it; Before you start gratuitously using terms like theft, remember that in many jurisdictions, you are allowed to refuse payment for, and *keep and use*, unsolicited material, regardless of how it got to you. > The whole point of shareware is that the distribution method not > be outrageously expensive. True. It's a tradeoff. As an author, you know that your product will cost *you* more if you have to go through conventional channels, and that fewer people will pay the higher price you will then have to charge. If you go the shareware route, your costs are lower, but you are counting on nothing more than the goodwill of your users, that they share your ideas of the product's value, and the righteousness of support the author by following instructions to send money. What we have seen in this thread is the voice of those users who do not share these ideas. As a shareware author, you have no recourse to their actions, except to either attempt to change their minds or move on. I guess there's also a need to make sure that more people don't hear (and subscribe to) these views. Using guilt, threats, or unenforcable legalese, to me, is the easiest way to get people's backs up and *ensure* you won't get a cent from them. > Expensive distribution forces higher > prices for software by require a MUCH greater initial investment > in the software before you can even hope to get a reasonable return. No. As an author, you can broadcast *information* about your product, then allow people to mail you orders to send them disks or dial directly into their computer to upload it. While this makes the direct cost of your product slightly more expensive, and deprives users of the ability to demonstrate your product, it gives you much greater control on its distribution, without the "MUCH greater initial investment" claimed. I am not saying this method is preferable to shareware, just that there are other choices available to a software author. Choosing to go the shareware route is easier and cheaper for the author, but takes control of the product completely out of the author's hand. That approach has its benefits and drawbacks, like any other option. > Electronic distribution, without the requirement that you pay for > the product, unless you keep a copy of it, is the most inexpensive > means of distribution. *Only to the author.* It can be more expensive to the recipient and sites along the way with no interest in it. > NOTE! The cost to any ONE site, which is > all any ONE person can complain about, is quite small. Granted, > the cost to the community at large is higher, but YOU (speaking > generally) do not bear that larger cost! But I *am* part of the community, and I share the community-wide costs in addition to those I bear personally. How can you state that people have no responsibility to their greater community, especially on a network which dpends so much on goodwill and co-operation as Usenet? This divide-and-conquer approach certainly won't win any converts to your sid of the argument... > You don't like paying a few cents for distribution of shareware? > Then bill the author! But I think it would cost you FAR more to > bill the author than you would obtain in *reasonable* fees for > distribution. I have an implicit agreement with my Usenet neighbours (upstream and downstream) that I neither pay nor charge for newsfeeds (beyond what Ma Bell gets). I have no such agreement with the shareware author. Therefore, by the above scenario, my only ability to recoup costs is from the account holders on this system (who did not ask for the shareware to be transmitted to this system) or the author (who did make such a request by posting it.) (Speculation: if sites carrying shareware started charging shareware authors, and courts upheld even a few of the charges as legitimate, what would that do to shareware's benefit of lower costs to the author?) > NOTICE! Commercial outfits (like UUNET, CI$, etc.) > CANNOT charge for the distribution, as they already recoup their > costs from the sites which they are transmitting to. (Weellll, > maybe the could try, but they'd have a rough time in court. Court has nothing to do with it. CI$ will charge as much as their customers are willing to pay. UUNET will charge what *they* think is reasonable. > As I said previously, about the only thing you could legitimately > do would be to deduct the *reasonable* distribution costs that YOUR > site encountered in obtaining the software. And if I bear part of the cost of distribution but don't use the shareware, are you saying I have a right to bill the author a reasonable amount for transmission and storage costs? I can live with that, but I somehow doubt that Brad, Ross and other shareware authors will be enthused with the idea. -- The three stages of man: | Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software 1 - Believes in Santa Claus | Located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario 2 - Doesn't believe in Santa | evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan 3 - Is Santa Claus | (416) 452-0504
ewiles@netxdev.DHL.COM (Edwin Wiles) (01/16/90)
evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) writes: > ewiles@netxdev.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: > > Perhaps they are not the best examples possible, but your above > > argument is IMHO a slightly concealed argument that software is > > not property, and it is therefore OK to make a copy of it to do > > with as you wish. It's still stealing property. > >You just can't claim theft, when: >a) The recipient did not request the item; >b) You do not make any attempts to control its distribution; >c) The other person's use does not deprive YOU of your enjoyment of it; I debate point (a) further down... On point (b): The author HAS made an attempt to control it's distribution by putting an appropriate and correct copyright notice on the product, and stating the rules under which it can be distributed. Until such notices are tested in court (unlikely, since shareware authors are not known for having deep pockets to pay for lawyers with), it is both prudent and proper to consider them binding. NOTE: Many if not most shareware notices in current use are neither appropriate nor correct, thus invalidating them. However, the INTENT is clear enough that one should feel morally obligated to abide by the intent, if not legally so bound. On point (c), this is again simply a veiled argument that software is in some fashion not property, and is therefore "fair game" to 'steal'. >Before you start gratuitously using terms like theft, remember that in >many jurisdictions, you are allowed to refuse payment for, and *keep and >use*, unsolicited material, regardless of how it got to you. Here we get into an argument about what is "unsolicited", which will no doubt keep some future lawyers quite busy for quite some time. However, I will attempt to debate this as follows (this also applies to point (a) above): Your arguments are based on the usual concept of "mail", in which I will agree that what you receive "unsolicited" is indeed yours to do with as you wish without payment to the sender. HOWEVER, Usenet News is not "mail", it is rather a "broadcast" medium. By analogy, consider the broadcasts of the National Football League in the U.S.A. Each such broadcast, at some point in it, contains a statement that you cannot rebroadcast, or otherwise use it without permission to do so. I have no doubt that such a statement is legally binding, and should I break it, I would find myself in court on the "sharp end of the stick". Notice that I did not "request" that broadcast, I merely had a receptor tuned to recieve it. It is still not mine to do with as I wish. Comparatively, I did not request the article containing the software in question, I merely had "a newsgroup set to receive it". Since the article(s) in question contain a copyright notice, with appropriate clauses regarding its use and distribution, I am likewise bound to those terms. >If you go the shareware route, your costs are lower, but you are counting >on nothing more than the goodwill of your users, that they share your ideas >of the product's value, and the righteousness of support the author by >following instructions to send money. Incorrect. You are indeed counting on the goodwill of your users, but IMHO you are legally entitled to have your users pay you the fee requested if they do indeed keep and use the software in question. If they do not pay the fee, then they may NOT use the software. The only reason that "goodwill" comes into play is that it seems most people find that software, since it is so easy to copy and use, is not property in some sense. It is indeed property and using it without paying for it is indeed theft, unless the creator has placed it in public domain. A shareware author who places an appropriate and correct copyright notice on his work, with appropriate and correct clauses regarding distribution and expected fees for use, has NOT placed his software in the public domain. Even though it has been transmitted by a broadcast medium. Consider, Walt Disney Co. broadcasts "Sleeping Beauty"; is "Sleeping Beauty" then in the public domain? Go ask Walt, I expect the answer will be a resounding NO! And the courts will back them up if needed. The main difference between Walt Disney Co. and a shareware author is their ability to pay for lawyers to enforce their copyrights. >As a shareware author, you have no recourse to their actions, Only because shareware authors are not rich. >Using guilt, threats, or unenforcable legalese, to me, is the easiest >way to get people's backs up and *ensure* you won't get a cent from them. "Unenforcable legalese" is only unenforceable when it is either badly written, or in direct contravention of the existing laws, or when the author has no money to enforce them. If the copyright is written correctly it is indeed legally enforceable, but the usual shareware author can't because he can't afford to. Not because it's "unenforceable legalese", but because he can't come up with the money to do so! I hope sooner or later some big company with lotsa cash decides to put this to the test. Find some shmuck who's received their shareware, failed to pay for it, while still using it beyond the limits set forth in the copyright notice, and nail him to the legal wall. I suspect that this is the only thing which will convince people who "want what they want, when they want it, and figure that that makes it legal". >Choosing to go the >shareware route is easier and cheaper for the author, but takes control >of the product completely out of the author's hand. As stated above, when the copyright is appropriately and correctly written the control is NOT taken out of the author's hands, except by those who figure that since the odds of them getting caught are so slim that they can therefore do as they wish with the software. > > [...Electronic distribution being much cheaper...] > [...for the author only...] >It can be more expensive to the recipient and sites along the way with no >interest in it. > > [...statement that the only costs you can complain about are your own...] > >But I *am* part of the community, and I share the community-wide costs >in addition to those I bear personally. How can you state that people >have no responsibility to their greater community, especially on a >network which dpends so much on goodwill and co-operation as Usenet? Very well. Instead of stealing from shareware authors because (generically, I'm not accusing ANYONE) you think you can get away with it, help the community to come to a viable alternative. Suggested: A) Create comp.shareware.sources, and comp.shareware.binaries, with the proviso that although they are logically part of one of the major topics they are not among the "required" set. This is already done by Gene Spafford (forgive me if I've misspelled your name), via his "checkgroups" message, for a number of "internet gateway" groups which do not appear in the checkgroups message but which ARE under the major topic of "comp.". (I know, I've been helping our "news" Site Admin to keep our 'active' file reasonably complete.) B) Make it against the 'rules' (such as we have in this anarchy of a network) for shareware to be posted to any other group(s). C) To make it easier on the comunity to 1) figure out who to send software to, and 2) to parse out those pieces which they desire from the 'shareware' groups. Allow them to send their software to the exisiting moderators for the various sources/binaries groups. Who can then determine that the software is shareware, and post it to the appropriate "comp.shareware" group with the subject line modified to indicate whether it's for "amiga", "ibm", "unix", or etc... The above scenario would allow those of us who desire shareware be posted, even when it's of no use to us personally, to continue to receive it. While those who are incensed over shareware postings to keep them off of their machines by not recieving those groups. And yet we who desire it, can still easily separate out those packages which are of interest to us from the mass of those which are not. >> You don't like paying a few cents for distribution of shareware? >> Then bill the author! But I think it would cost you FAR more to >> bill the author than you would obtain in *reasonable* fees for >> distribution. > >I have an implicit agreement with my Usenet neighbours (upstream and >downstream) that I neither pay nor charge for newsfeeds (beyond what Ma >Bell gets). I have no such agreement with the shareware author. >Therefore, by the above scenario, my only ability to recoup costs is >from the account holders on this system (who did not ask for the >shareware to be transmitted to this system) or the author (who did make >such a request by posting it.) > >(Speculation: if sites carrying shareware started charging shareware >authors, and courts upheld even a few of the charges as legitimate, what >would that do to shareware's benefit of lower costs to the author?) Go ahead! Bill the authors, if you so desire! I still believe that the majority of sites would expend FAR more money attempting to recoup distribution costs than the costs themselves, thus it is more cost effective to NOT bill the author. You speak of "community" above, have you not considered the overall costs to the "community" if you do charge the authors? Your speculation above about rising costs of shareware to cover distribution fees is quite to the point. If sufficient sites started charging for distribution of shareware the cost would indeed go up, and the "community" as a whole would suffer far more from excessive software costs than you would recoup for distribution of that software. >> NOTICE! Commercial outfits (like UUNET, CI$, etc.) >> CANNOT charge for the distribution, as they already recoup their >> costs from the sites which they are transmitting to. (Weellll, >> maybe the could try, but they'd have a rough time in court. > >Court has nothing to do with it. CI$ will charge as much as their >customers are willing to pay. UUNET will charge what *they* think is >reasonable. The point being that UUNET does not, and probably cannot, charge the author for distribution of shareware because they already recoup all their costs from the fees normally charged to their users. >> As I said previously, about the only thing you could legitimately >> do would be to deduct the *reasonable* distribution costs that YOUR >> site encountered in obtaining the software. > >And if I bear part of the cost of distribution but don't use the >shareware, are you saying I have a right to bill the author a reasonable >amount for transmission and storage costs? I can live with that, but I >somehow doubt that Brad, Ross and other shareware authors will be enthused >with the idea. I do so believe that you have the right to charge the shareware author a reasonable fee for transport. HOWEVER, I believe that the cost to recoup those fees from the shareware author would be FAR more than the fees themselves! Thus it is more economical to NOT attempt to charge for transport, etc... Instead, write those costs off as a BENEFIT to the "community" you mention above! You're benefiting the community as a whole by helping to keep shareware software fees low! You're probably right that Brad, etc.. would not be enthused over the idea. But they ARE making use of your resources to conduct an enterprise which although it may not actually be profitable, is intended to produce a profit. As such you can attempt to recoup costs for your services that were performed in support of their activity. As an additional instigation to NOT charge for transport of shareware, consider your own suggestion that the authors broadcast information on the software and then await responses. In all likelyhood, such responses and conversations regarding the software would take place on the network. It is also quite likely that the software itself would be sent via Email. Now, consider the costs to the network with ONE BROADCAST copy of the software, for which each site effectively pays for 'once'. Contrast that with MULTIPLE copies of the same software being mailed to the specific users who requested it. Which is likely to cost more to the "community"? Sure, you can state that the authors should use alternate means, like direct dialup, and/or mail to send the software where it belongs, and many of them do! But not all of them will.... Consider the costs to the community then? >The three stages of man: | Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software >1 - Believes in Santa Claus | Located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario >2 - Doesn't believe in Santa | evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan >3 - Is Santa Claus | (416) 452-0504 ( P.S. I *LIKE* your "signature"! Good "three stages"! ) "Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?" | Edwin Wiles Schedule: (n.) An ever changing nightmare. | NetExpress, Inc. ...!{hadron,sundc,pyrdc,uunet}!netxcom!ewiles | 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300 ewiles@iad-nxe.global-mis.DHL.COM | Vienna, VA 22182
jef@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) (01/16/90)
In the referenced message, ewiles@netxdev.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) wrote: } By analogy, consider the broadcasts of the National Football League } in the U.S.A. Each such broadcast, at some point in it, contains a } statement that you cannot rebroadcast, or otherwise use it without } permission to do so. I have no doubt that such a statement is legally } binding, and should I break it, I would find myself in court on the } "sharp end of the stick". Notice that I did not "request" that } broadcast, I merely had a receptor tuned to recieve it. It is still } not mine to do with as I wish. Yet Another Stupid Shareware Analogy. Does the N.F.L. require that viewers pay for these non-requested broadcasts? Hmmmm? Is there an epidemic of cluelessness going around? --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!jef "In America the young are always ready to give to those who are older than themselves the full benefits of their inexperience." -- Oscar Wilde
alan@sersun2.essex.ac.uk (Stanier A) (01/16/90)
In article <1134@utoday.UUCP> greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes:
?But, if you're going to proclaim you're dishonest, unethical and willing
?to use another's intellectual property without paying for it (that's
^^^^^^
?called theft), then please do the shareware authors of the world a favor?
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not under English law it isn't. The definition of theft includes the requirement
of the "intention permanently to deprive", which is not clearly present in
this case. Call him dishonest or unethical if you will (I wouldn't), but
calling him a thief is probably libellous.greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (01/17/90)
In article <15530@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us> writes: >[in response to Edwin Wiles analogy of broadcast medium's usage and shareware] > >Yet Another Stupid Shareware Analogy. Does the N.F.L. require that >viewers pay for these non-requested broadcasts? Hmmmm? > >Is there an epidemic of cluelessness going around? Evidently, Jef, but it seems you're the victim. Shareware is a method of distributing programs to you so you can try before you buy. Very little of the hareware that is distributed is distributed via UseNet. The majority of it is distributed bulletin board systems owned and operated by individuals that are appreciative of uploads. So, then, it seems that you're having a real problem with people using up some of your resources to distribute a coupla K of shareware? Would it be improper for me to state that your only problem seems to be with the usage of UseNet for distribution of shareware, but that you are supporting of the shareware concept through the auspices of BBS systems, both pay and free? If you have a problem with shareware as a whole, and not just with the usage of UseNet, then please state this? Or do you think that intellectual property of another that happens to come your way is something that you inherently have the right to do with as you see fit? -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
ewiles@netxdev.DHL.COM (Edwin Wiles) (01/17/90)
In article <15530@well.UUCP> Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us> writes: >In the referenced message, ewiles@netxdev.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) wrote: >} By analogy, consider the broadcasts of the National Football League >} in the U.S.A. Each such broadcast, at some point in it, contains a >} statement that you cannot rebroadcast, or otherwise use it without >} permission to do so. > >Does the N.F.L. require that viewers pay for these non-requested broadcasts? As a matter of fact, YES! As follows: Who pays for the rights to broadcast the game? The network. Who pays the network back for the cost of the game, plus the broadcast costs? The advertisers. Who pays for the advertising? The people who buy the products advertised. You aren't even given a choice! If you buy the products advertised, then you're certainly paying for the show, whether you choose to watch it or not! At least with shareware the 'broadcast costs' are small, and if you don't like the product you don't have to pay for it! Baring the broadcast costs, which I've already stated I wouldn't mind if you billed the authors for. I've also stated that it's highly likely that the transport costs incurred by any one site (which is all any one site could charge back to the author) are so small that it would cost far more than the transport costs to recoup such costs. Consider the *small* amount of money you pay for transport of shareware a service to the community by way of keeping software costs down to the point that people can afford it. Would YOU begrudge a few cents for this?!?! I don't! If you DO begrudge the transport costs for shareware, then DO WHAT I SUGGESTED IN MY MESSAGE! Help the network to gather shareware into one or two groups which can then be carried, or not, as sites choose! BE USEFUL INSTEAD OF NITPICKING! >Is there an epidemic of cluelessness going around? It certainly seems so.... "Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?" | Edwin Wiles Schedule: (n.) An ever changing nightmare. | NetExpress, Inc. ...!{hadron,sundc,pyrdc,uunet}!netxcom!ewiles | 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300 ewiles@iad-nxe.global-mis.DHL.COM | Vienna, VA 22182
brucet@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bruce Thompson) (01/17/90)
I think that the discussion may be getting a little clouded, and I thought
that I'd try to summarize a few observations.
The ethical issue seems to be centered around the claim that by using a piece
of freely distributed software a contractual obligation exists between the
writer of that software and the user of that software.
Precisely what basis exists for that claim is fairly unclear.
The reply to that claim is that there is no such contract, or if there is that
it is strictly unenforceable and therefore invalid.
As near as I can figure, the related topic of unsolicited merchandise recieved
by mail is very relevant. If I am reading *.source.* and I recieve source code
for a program that I find useful, it is my contention that, like unsolicited
merchandise, I am under no OBLIGATION to pay for that software. In the case of
shareware, where there is a REQUEST that I register for various purposes,
including providing financial support to the author, I can freely decide
whether or not I want to do so. I have not seen anything to convince me
otherwise.
Intellectual property rights do exist, and there certainly are many reasonable
ways that these rights can be enforced. Indeed, by placing a Copyright notice
in the source code you can rightfully require recipients of he software to not
copy it, sell it, etc. without your express written permission. Richard
Stallman's Copyleft is a well designed example of a copyright notice which
establishes specific requirements under which the covered software may be
distributed/used by third parties. There are though some clear precedents
whereby requiring payment for goods can and cannot be done.
An analogy will be helpful here. Let us suppose that you and I are neighbors.
You grow an apple tree next to the fence separating our property. You put a
lot of work into nurturing this tree and it grows large and produces a lot of
fruit which you sell at a local farmer's market. It turns out that a few of
the branches hang over the fence into my yard. I decide to pick the apples on
my side of the fence. You claim that since the apples came from your tree that
I have an obligation to pay you for the apples. In Canadian courts, it has
been ruled (there have been cases precisely like this in the past) that since
the branches are on my property then the apples from these branches are my
property and that therfore I have no OBLIGATION to pay you for them. However,
as I good neighbor I may pay you for them to help you buy the fertilizer, etc.
that keeps the tree so healthy.
This is precisely the state when Shareware is distributed REGARDLESS of the
fact that the UseNet is paid for by other people. If you wish to require
people to pay for software that you produce then you will have to provide an
enforceable method. There are several ways to do this. The first is to simply
market the software. A second would be to post a "demo" subset of the software
that people can try out and if they like it they can order the full
implementation through email. A third though more difficult method would be to
use time-stamped authentication codes. The distribution could go out with
codes that will expire in say a month, then new codes can be provided when the
software is registered.
I think the hing to do is not claim that people are "stealing" your
intellectual property because clearly they're not. You are giving it away and
asking people to pay for it. There are no legal grounds upon which to base a
claim of theft. I'm not suggesting that Shareware die, and if I used any I
likely would register it regardless of profit, etc. However I would suggest
that if it is so vital that all copies being used be registered then steps can
and should be taken to force this.
==============================================================================
Bruce Thompson | "I've got this terrible pain in all the
NovAtel Communications Ltd. | diodes down my left side" - Marvin the
| Paranoid Android
The opinions expressed are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of
NovAtel Communications Ltd. nor those of The University of Calgary.brucet@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bruce Thompson) (01/17/90)
In article <17608@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > > ... Various items deleted ... > >It's only perceived value, and at a cost which the site owner >was =coerced= to pay. The owner of the site didn't have the >option to not pay for Brad's Shareware offering, that's the >issue. Shareware belongs in biz.sources, pure and simple. > Somethings been bothering me during parts of various discussions on the net regarding the cost of people posting stuff, etc. etc. I don't intend to sound like I'm singling out John here, I think that this misconception is extremely widespread. The concept that by posting something to the net I'm FORCING the other sites on the net to spend money on my behalf is a little strange. When sites join UseNet, it should be understood that there's a lot of traffic on the net. By establishing a UseNet connection, a site is FREELY accepting those costs which may be entailed in that connection. By posting something to the net I am not coercing you to pay for it you have already in effect stated that you would! While I agree that efforts to keep these costs down are worthy, I don't think it's fair to use these costs in any argument. If your site does not want to incur these costs then frankly your site can freely disconnect from the net in the same manner that it freely connected. I'm not trying to flame anyone here, it's just frustrating when people complain that others are FORCING them to spend money. In a previous article in this chain an analogy was made to postage-due mail arriving. I don't think that this is a valid analogy for the simple reason that you didn't freely decide that all postage due mail was to be paid automatically, which is in effect what you've done by connecting to UseNet. >-- >John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh >Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org ============================================================================== Bruce Thompson | "I've got this terrible pain in all the NovAtel Communications Ltd. | diodes down my left side" - Marvin the | Paranoid Android The opinions expressed are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of NovAtel Communications Ltd. nor those of The University of Calgary.
markv@gauss.Princeton.EDU (Mark VandeWettering) (01/18/90)
In article <1134@utoday.UUCP> greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >As a shareware author, allow me to be the first to tell you that your >attitude sucks? The reason I come out with shareware is because of the >honest people in the world -- they send in the bucks that allow me to >continue to develop software. There are people like Larry Wall who opt >to produce freeware - and that's great. The net owes their thanks to >Larry and those like him. Larry Wall is indeed super human in his ability to write and maintain incredibly useful stuff, as well as warp, one of my personal favorites for games :-). Applause for the man! (Any hints about a new rn? :-) >Some of my stuff, though, does have a price tag on it. My free stuff you >can use without paying for. But, you're obliged, ethically, to pay for >the shareware. Don't like it, then don't it. That's pretty simple. He is not obliged to do anything of the sort. Ethically or otherwise. If you post something on a bizillion bulletin boards saying "Send me a dollar." and everyone downloads it, do you think that everyone is bound to send you a dollar? There is indeed a great amount of free software that I would pay money for. There is a much larger volume of shareware (should be called "for-money-ware") that, to quote Theodore Roosevelt, "ain't worth a bucket of warm spit". >But, if you're going to proclaim you're dishonest, unethical and willing >to use another's intellectual property without paying for it (that's >called theft), then please do the shareware authors of the world a favor? There is nothing dishonest in this. You published your intellectual property. You would have a very hard time proving theft. And what is so ethical about charging for intellectual property in the first place? "It's the American way...." >Keep your ethics, or lack thereof, to yourself? It disgusts those of us >who *do* rely on the honest and ethical people of the world.. Sigh. Shareware irritates me even more than the irritating GNU copyrights. REALLY people, if you want to write software, do so, and let it go where it will, freely distributed. If you wanna quibble about dimes, or make a real living from software, then go get a real job. It will give you far less headaches, and pay better to boot. Mark
geiser@apollo.HP.COM (Wayne Geiser) (01/18/90)
I find it interesting that in this entire discussion, everyone seems to
believe that the money being spent on commercial software or the money
being sent to the shareware author is payment for the software.
As it has been explained to me (in print and by those of the legal
profession), one does not generally BUY software. In nearly all
cases, one LICENSES software. That's why Microsoft, for example, can
tell you not to give your old disks to anyone else when you order an
upgrade to one of their products. If you actually BOUGHT the software,
they would have absolutely no right to tell you what you can and cannot
do with your PURCHASE.
I view shareware as offering a user a free license for a "short period"
of time in order to determine its usefulness. Sometimes this "short
period" is well defined (e.g. 30 days), others leave it up to the user
to determine how much time he or she needs to make that determination.
If you decide that the software is of use to you, you are then
requested to send in your license fee. I used "requested" in the
previous sentence to stay out of the mess of whether or not there is an
obligation to send in license fees. I have my own beliefs but do not
have enough legal knowlege to defend them at this time. (I know, when
did that matter on Usenet? :-))
Note that this works much like time-shifting on VCRs. Some believe
that that means that you tape a show for view later on that week (or
so). Others would argue that viewing their copy 50 times over 5 years
following the taping is still considered time-shifting.
Wayne Geiser
Apollo Computer, Inc. - A subsidiary of Hewlett Packard
{mit-erl, yale, uw-beaver, decvax}!apollo!geisersean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (01/19/90)
geiser@apollo.HP.COM (Wayne Geiser) writes: |As it has been explained to me (in print and by those of the legal |profession), one does not generally BUY software. In nearly all |cases, one LICENSES software. Not necessarily. The status of software "licenses" is very much in doubt. Without a signature prior to buying the software, it is doubtful that a software license is binding at all. The copyright issue still comes into play, but there are precendents for the status of over the counter software being "bought" rather than "licensed". |Note that this works much like time-shifting on VCRs. Some believe |that that means that you tape a show for view later on that week (or |so). Others would argue that viewing their copy 50 times over 5 years |following the taping is still considered time-shifting. Interesting that was brought up. Copyright law says that you may receive a broadcast program and record it for private use later. It says you may watch it once, or watch it every day for the rest of your life. That's how I feel about publically broadcast software. -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** Copyright 1990 by Sean Casey. Only non-profit redistribution permitted. *** "You see before you two identical Tiamats." "Uh oh."
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/02/90)
In article <7146.25c595d1@dit.ie> alawlor@dit.ie (Aengus Lawlor) writes: > >I've heard it said that American ShareWare writers don't like us Europeans >because we don't pay for ShareWare. Since I graduated, I've developed a >conscience about paying for ShareWare, but the cost of US Dollar Money orders >or Drafts makes paying for ShareWare a lot of hassle. A solution would be to >accept payment by credit card, but I'm certainly not going to send my Master >Charge card number to somebody I don't know in the States. Offers of support >are useless, given the cost of trans-atlantic calls. Speaking just for myself, I know that my registration rate from your folks on that side of the puddle is substantially less than on this side of the puddle. I have registration sites in the UK and in France that take local currency in, do the work there (including distribution and support) and they seem to do a prety darned good job for all concerned. However, my registrations, in total, are still substantially less than local, US registrations. For shareware authors who are serious about shareware as a business, there really is no way to *not* offer services like this overseas -- it's part of the cost of doing business. However, it is difficult to arrange and more difficult to manage. My transatlantic phone bill hovers around $200 US per month just supporting my distributors and site licensees.... -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/02/90)
In article <13912@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >I say the analogy is more like a a fishing rod being delivered to your >house. By US law, you're free to go fishing with it. I feel exactly the same >way about software delivered without a previous contract. > Although this is not the case, Sean, what would happen if my shareware package had a specific not in it: "Not to be distributed onto UseNet or InterNet by any means whatsoever." And, it appeared there. And, hence appeared on your local system. If I, the author of the package, was not the poster of the package, would you still feel that you have the moral right to use the software? Even though the author specifically prohibits it and specifically did not use the net by his own desire? Doesn't the author of the program have *any* rights at all insofar as you are concerned with regard to their program being posted? If the answer to that question is "No.", then I expect you'd have no problem with a copy of Lotus, for example, being distributed on the net. Nor would you have a problem with someone busting into your account on your machine, taking whatever proprietary stuff you have on that machine (even stuff that might belong to your employer and which you've signed non-discolsures on!) and distributing that on the net. So, then, if there is some moral reserve you'd have about using a pirate copy of Lotus (and what makes it "pirated"? The fact that you're using it against their license agreement, I guess), or about others using something that you consider proprietary to yourself, then what is the problem with adhereing to the wishes of another author, a commercial author (too), who has happened to distribute software in a different way than through Egghead software? I contend that, if you think that Lotus has the right to prohibit the usage of their software from being distributed *and*used* on the net (again, let's forget the legal implications) and would uphold a decision they might have to do whatever they could to prevent usage of the product against their license agreement, then shareware license agreements should be looked at in the same light. As for legalities: in NYC it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk. Some cretins still do it. What keeps the majority of people from spitting on the sidewalk? Two things: their own personal set of values as to what constitues proper behavior and what does not, and (potentially) the adverse views of others at their unruly and unsocial behavior. The fear of being arrested or getting a ticket does not enter into it. I would like to think that, eventually, the improper usage of shareware, that is, the usage of shareware against the license agreement, would be viewed as if the user were one of those spitting on the sidewalk: vulgar, crass, anti-social, and disgusting. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (02/02/90)
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: |Although this is not the case, Sean, what would happen if my shareware |package had a specific not in it: "Not to be distributed onto UseNet or |InterNet by any means whatsoever." Then that would be copyright infringement, which is a pretty clear cut issue. I do not advocate theft of anything, which make most of the rest of your posting completely irrelevant. |Doesn't the author of the program have *any* rights at all insofar as you |are concerned with regard to their program being posted? Yes, a user has all the rights that a copyright grants. That is, the author has the right to limit the duplication of his work. What the author probably does not have the right to do, and I personally believe that he does not, is bind the user to a "license" that he never signs or indeed might never see. |I contend that, if you think that Lotus has the right to prohibit the usage |of their software from being distributed *and*used* on the net (again, let's |forget the legal implications) and would uphold a decision they might have |to do whatever they could to prevent usage of the product against their |license agreement, then shareware license agreements should be looked at |in the same light. Lotus' license agreements have nothing to do with the various lawsuits they've filed. All of them have been for copyright infringement. Although without a contract, Lotus can't dictate what is done with a legally owned copy of their software, copyright law says they do have the right to limit duplication of those copies. A networked piece of software, for example, is necessarily copied from disk into memory when it is used. Copyright law allows a software author to limit that copying to one instance at a time. This is a copying issue, not a use issue. |I would like to think that, eventually, the improper usage of shareware, |that is, the usage of shareware against the license agreement, would be |viewed as if the user were one of those spitting on the sidewalk: vulgar, |crass, anti-social, and disgusting. The key issue here is rights. I don't feel like you have the right to bind me to a license that doesn't have my signature. If you claim that you do, then we have a difference of opinion. I think that distributing something at the public's expense, and then demanding money for its use is more reprehensible than spitting on the sidewalk. At the very least is shows blatant disrespect for the rights of others, and for those that foot the bills for the distribution. It's a con, a scam, and I don't like it. If shareware authors want to be righteous, why don't they sell support and good documentation? Then the public can use the software for which they've already paid the distribution costs, and get enhanced functionality and human help by paying for it. Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** "May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism *** in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there *** is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit." -MP
richard@pegasus.uucp (Richard Foulk) (02/03/90)
> >I would like to think that, eventually, the improper usage of shareware, >that is, the usage of shareware against the license agreement, would be >viewed as if the user were one of those spitting on the sidewalk: vulgar, >crass, anti-social, and disgusting. > Shareware has no license agreement (legal contract) involved. No signature -- no contract. If both sides don't benefit then there's no legal contract. When a package comes across the net it's mine to use already -- so I gain nothing through such an agreement. So the shareware hucksters are the anti-social and disgusting ones for foisting their scam on the rest of us. A request for a donation is fine by me, and I'll pay it if I like the software enough. A demand is not okay. I have no respect for the sleaze-balls that lie to your face and try to coerce you to send them money on false pretenses. If anyone wants to start a fund to sue one of these jerks as an example, please contact me, I'll contribute. An injunction against the "you must pay" notices would be enough. I get the impression that they think if they spread their scam around enough, and say "it's the law" enough, and create an association... That somehow they'll become legitimate; that the laws will just have to change to suit their new reality. -- Richard Foulk richard@pegasus.uucp richard%pegasus.uucp@nosc.mil richard@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) (02/04/90)
Various posters who have pointed out that you can't be bound into a contract by just receiving shareware are 100% correct. And with no contract, the author can't enforce payment of some specific licence fee from you, that's also correct. And with no contract, you also can't use the software without infringing the copyright -- except as specified in the shareware evaluation rules. Having no contract goes both ways, folks. Just because you have no contract, it doesn't mean you're free to infringe copyright. Shareware evaluation takes pace without any contract, it is a gift from the author, but not an unlimited gift. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (02/05/90)
bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes: |And with no contract, you also can't use the software without infringing |the copyright -- except as specified in the shareware evaluation rules. Brad is wrong. The "shareware evaluation rules" aren't binding because they don't come under the domain of copyright law. Copyright law has nothing to do with usage. It has to do with copying and exhibiting. Since Brad by posting his software has given his permission for everyone to receive it, they own their copies. Brad cannot tell them what to do with those copies anymore than he can tell them what to do with any other of their personal possesions. The only rights that copyright law grants Brad is to limit people from redistributing it or showing it at a public gathering. If you don't believe me, ask a copyright lawyer. Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** "May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism *** in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there *** is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit." -MP
marc@dumbcat.UUCP (Marco S Hyman) (02/05/90)
In article <1990Feb2.194315.3924@pegasus.uucp> richard@pegasus.UUCP (Richard Foulk) writes:
A request for a donation is fine by me, and I'll pay it if I like
the software enough. A demand is not okay. I have no respect for
the sleaze-balls that lie to your face and try to coerce you to send
them money on false pretenses.
It's not just shareware. I got a plain business size envelope in the mail
the other day with ``Statement Inclosed'' printed on the outside. The
statement (and that's what it looked like) was for a $10 contribution to
some charity. I can only wonder how many they fooled.
As for shareware on the net: How many net readers are willing to run
binaries without sources? How many net reader's companies, schools, etc.,
will allow binaries pulled off the net to be used? I don't know, but
suspect that binary distribution is on the wane. If true, the issue is, or
soon will be moot.
And for shareware source distribution -- shareware, like most other things,
suffers from Sturgeon's Law (90% is crap). After looking at a bunch of that
crap you become amazed that it works at all. (I'm not saying non-shareware
products are any better, just that the code is hidden so it can't scare you
as much.)
--
// marc {ames,pyramid,sun}!pacbell!dumbcat!marcbstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) (02/05/90)
If you're saying that posting shareware to USENET gives everybody ownership of a copy, then what are the consequences of this? Which lawyer said this, anyway? The consequence would be that shareware in a distributed net is impossible -- is this what you desire? Shareware is a good concept, because it benefits the user a great deal. Based on figures of shareware success, it benefits the user a great deal more than the author. After all, one of the whole ideas behind shareware is that the traditional distribution mechanism (expensive packaging, distributors, stores etc.) is a big cost that just gets passed on to the customer. With no try-before-you-buy. I still maintain that posting to USENET no more gives away the software than posting to a BBS or Compuserve. Why? For one thing, the stuff that was posted can't be used. It wasn't in a usable form, much like most USENET postings. You have to go to some trouble, including copying the software, unpacking it (copying it again), compiling it and then using it. All these are voluntary acts which you must take before using the software, and I don't see why anybody thinks that 'downloading' is a special act which makes the shareware terms valid, but all those other acts don't. Most shareware that's posted is clearly marked as such, and contains english information that you can read without copying, unpacking etc. Anybody who takes the further step of unpacking is no different than anybody who downloads. Can you come up with an argument to the contrary? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (02/06/90)
bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes: |If you're saying that posting shareware to USENET gives everybody ownership |of a copy, then what are the consequences of this? |Which lawyer said this, anyway? The consequence would be that shareware |in a distributed net is impossible -- is this what you desire? I don't think shareware is impossible, or even a bad idea. If you want to sell support or documentation, or request donations, that's great. If you want to con me into paying money for it, or attempt to use guilt trips on me, then, no, I do not desire that. |Shareware is a good concept, because it benefits the user a great deal. |Based on figures of shareware success, it benefits the user a great deal |more than the author. After all, one of the whole ideas behind |shareware is that the traditional distribution mechanism (expensive |packaging, distributors, stores etc.) is a big cost that just gets |passed on to the customer. With no try-before-you-buy. Most shareware, just like most general software, doesn't benefit many people. Ninety percent of everything is crud. Good shareware is very beneficial. There's even more public domain and freely redistributable copyrighted software that's beneficial. Try before you buy is nice, but you see I don't have to buy because I already own it. |I still maintain that posting to USENET no more gives away the software |than posting to a BBS or Compuserve. |Why? For one thing, the stuff that was posted can't be used. It wasn't |in a usable form, much like most USENET postings. You have to go to |some trouble, including copying the software, unpacking it (copying it |again), compiling it and then using it. It's just like getting a shrink wrap book in the mail. No matter how big and bright the letters are that say "If you read past chapter one, you must pay", there is no contract, and you really don't have to pay. As a matter of fact, the Post Office would vigorously prosecute the perpetrators of such a scam. If you willingly post your copy to Usenet, or passively allow it to be posted with no contest, then every single solitary soul that recieves a copy OWNS that copy. They can execute it, make archival copies, put that copy on the space shuttle, make a T-shirt out of it, or even sell their copy. The program is your intellectual property, but you do NOT have the right to say what people do with legitimately obtained copies of that property unless there is a previous contract. All you can do is limit copying and exhibition. |All these are voluntary acts which you must take before using the |software, and I don't see why anybody thinks that 'downloading' is |a special act which makes the shareware terms valid, but all those |other acts don't. Most shareware that's posted is clearly marked as |such, and contains english information that you can read without |copying, unpacking etc. Anybody who takes the further step of unpacking |is no different than anybody who downloads. Can you come up with an |argument to the contrary? It doesn't matter if I have to stand on one leg and juggle bananas to make it work. You'll find that the steps involved in making it usable do not violate copyright law nor do they constitute any sort of agreement. That's why shrink wrap "licenses" aren't binding. They're not a license at all, because there is no prior contract. Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** "May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism *** in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there *** is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit." -MP
bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) (02/06/90)
I don't think people are understanding what I am saying. I agree that shareware licences, like shrinkwrap licences, are not binding, in that you are not bound to the specific terms and prices involved in these. At the same time, it is try that if you copy a copyrighted work without explicit permission of the author, then you are in violation of copyright. The question is not whether you are bound to pay the specific fee, it's whether you are in violation of the copyright. Violation of a copyright doesn't prescribe any specific fee. It's up to a court to decide, in the end, what you pay if you violate a copyright. So forget about the shareware licence terms. Only one matters. That's the one that tells you how you may copy the program without violating the copyright. And that's the term you must obey, within reason, if you want to obey the law. To get a firm answer beyond this, we need a judge, not speculation. The case of "use" is still very unclear. While recent laws do indeed specify that a licence can't prohibit certain kinds of use by the holder of a valid copy, could anybody quote the actual law that says that the copyright holder does get to specify if there can be any use or not? Finally, many people seem to think that the shareware terms are binding if you download from a BBS. Can somebody who agrees with that (which is really the whole shareware concept, except for actual disk swapping) tell me why they think it is different if you: o) Arrange for your site to be fed a 'newsgroup' which has a public policy of permitting shareware. o) Arrange for that material to be transmitted to your machine. o) Subscribe to that group on your machine. o) Notice a shareware package, and copy it to a private directory o) Unpack the program in that directory and compile it for use. Why would you argue that shareware copyright is valid if you download from a BBS, but not valid in the above case? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (02/07/90)
I too am very much interested in the issue of copyrights in the issue of shareware. What I have seen so far indicates that public distribution or third party distribution with knowledge and without protest implies consent for anyone subscribing to that distribution medium to own a copy. That is, say Joe writes a book and hands it to Bill. Joe watches while Bill makes a copy for Jack. Unless Joe complains, Jack now owns his copy. The same may not apply to Usenet. I suspect that it does, but I'd be interested if anyone could post any specific cases. Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** "May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism *** in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there *** is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit." -MP
woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) (02/07/90)
In article <34004@watmath.waterloo.edu> bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes: > [ stuff ] I agree to most of what was above re licenses and copyright. I do not agree to the comment about fair use. I think there are quite powerful arguments in similar situations which apply quite well (i.e. the un- solicited book in the mail, etc.). I feel quite comfortable with the thought of actively retrieving software (shareware) from a BBS, and using it, without breaking the copyright, and without breaking any contract, and without paying any money. Copyright infringment only applies if the author makes a reasonable attempt to prevent any such infringment. Posting your "product" to a BBS certainly isn't making an attempt to prevent copyright infringment! Posting to Usenet, in any form, be it in comp.sources.unix, or comp.shareware, is clearly an un-solicited offer. Let's forget all this legal mumbo-jumbo, and get on with writing stuff. For those of you who feel you need some form of reimbursement for your efforts, I offer you the best of luck with shareware. I have in the past, and will in the future, offer monetary rewards for software which I truely appreciate, especially in those cases where the author can use a helping hand. However, if making money is your goal, and you are not interested in putting in the effort to market, sell, and support your product, you'd best look for a more reliable source of income. My best wishes are all you'll get from me, certainly you'll not receive any sympathy or active help in your "cause". Shareware was a neat experiment in the PC world, and provided both developers and consumers with a great deal of experience. I have no doubt that it will survive actively into the future. However I have no patience for anyone who tries to use coercion or asinine "moral" aggression in an attempt to make me pay for something I already have. -- Greg A. Woods woods@{robohack,gate,tmsoft,ontmoh,utgpu,gpu.utcs.Toronto.EDU,utorgpu.BITNET} +1 416 443-1734 [h] +1 416 595-5425 [w] VE3-TCP Toronto, Ontario; CANADA
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/08/90)
In article <13946@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > >|Although this is not the case, Sean, what would happen if my shareware >|package had a specific not in it: "Not to be distributed onto UseNet or >|InterNet by any means whatsoever." > >Then that would be copyright infringement, which is a pretty clear >cut issue. I do not advocate theft of anything, which make most >of the rest of your posting completely irrelevant. The interesting question is whether or not you'd feel entitled to use the copy of the code residing on your machine. For example: I've never posted any of my shareware stuff to a usenet newsgroup. Let's assume someone else does. And it sits on your machine. And I say, in a posting, that the software should not have been distributed and for everybody to please not use it unless they want to buy a legitimate copy directly from me or from my distributors. So, there is software sitting on your harddisk with my copyright and license information on it. It got there without you asking for it, and without me posting it. I give you certain restrictions on its usage. However, the particular package sitting on your disk is not shareware. Do you use something to which you are clearly not entitled? Now, I tell you it's shareware. Does your opinion of the program change? Of the author? Of the restriction against its usage? Wait, I'll back up. Let's say I post a message that says "Whoops! Somehow, my commercially distributed code got out on the net. Without my permission. I beg your forgiveness for utiltizing some of the valuable resources on your computer -- even though I never posted the stuff myself. In payment for this unwarrented intrusion of my software, which I did not release on the net, and which somebody else illegally placed on the net, i would like to offer you usage of that software for a limited time. At the end of that limited time, I figure that my utilization of your resources and your utilization of my program even each other out, and I'll ask you to stop using it. At that time, you may purchase a brand new, spanking fresh copy of the code, including documentation, support, a new disk, the works...but please remember that your usage of that illegally distributed code is only with my permission in the first place...and I herewith remove that permission after 'n' days..." Thta's not, strictly speaking, shareware. Tell me, will you use the illegally distributed code at all? Will you use it against the wishes of the author? Will you appreciate the offer the author is giving you? > >What the author probably does not have the right to do, and I >personally believe that he does not, is bind the user to a "license" >that he never signs or indeed might never see. > Bind him legally, probably not. Ethically, well, that depends on how ethical the user is. As to seeing a license agreement....you are suggesting bigger screens, displays and copyright/license notices? > >Lotus' license agreements have nothing to do with the various lawsuits >they've filed. All of them have been for copyright infringement. Although >without a contract, Lotus can't dictate what is done with a legally owned >copy of their software, copyright law says they do have the right to >limit duplication of those copies. > But they could never enforce their rights on alt.sources. Only the ethics of the end-user, the guy or gal receiving that code, can enforce these rights. Just as only you can prevent forest fires, only you can prevent ethics violations. > >|I would like to think that, eventually, the improper usage of shareware, >|that is, the usage of shareware against the license agreement, would be >|viewed as if the user were one of those spitting on the sidewalk: vulgar, >|crass, anti-social, and disgusting. > >The key issue here is rights. I don't feel like you have the right to >bind me to a license that doesn't have my signature. If you claim that >you do, then we have a difference of opinion. > Again, are you going to use that copy of software posted above? I've introduced a third party to this. That's because that's how shareware spreads. I release my products only onto four systems: my own BBS, CIS, BIX, and my computer clubs bulletin board system. All other copies were copied by someone else. Potentially, you're saying that you'd feel no obligation to pay for the usage of my code is someone else posts it onto usenet. Potentialy, though, if someone did not post it there, you might have bought a copy of it commercially, or through a shareware disk distributor. Interesting thought: you can simply wait for someone to post code to the net, collect it, use it, not pay for it, and claim they owe you for the use of your machine. Neat trick. Sorta silly, but a neat trick. If you were to buy shareware from a shareware vendor (they charge you a coupla bucks for a disk full of shareware you;re supposed to register if you like it), well, do you register? Or do you feel that their usage of the mail system, partially subsidized by your tax dollar, entitles you to not register the code and pay the requested fee? Heck, those commercial houses, like Lotus, are using some tax credits, using some of the resources your tax dollar buys. Does this entitle you to use any commercial program you pirate, based on the idea of having somehow already paid for it in some obscure and self justifying way? >I think that distributing something at the public's expense, and then >demanding money for its use is more reprehensible than spitting on the >sidewalk. At the very least is shows blatant disrespect for the rights >of others, and for those that foot the bills for the distribution. It's >a con, a scam, and I don't like it. So? Stand up, shout, scream, make your view known. But don;t use shareware unless you pay for it. You;re entitled to your view, me to mine. You're entitled to rant and rave about the evils of shareware, but I'm still entitled to get my registration fee from the ethical users out there. Those who use the code without paying for it are unethical. > >If shareware authors want to be righteous, why don't they sell support >and good documentation? Then the public can use the software for which >they've already paid the distribution costs, and get enhanced >functionality and human help by paying for it. > Obviously, you have no idea how shareware works, for the "extras" you descibe is how we convince people to register. We're doing it already, and have been for years. I, personally, am just tired of the justification people try to use when they unethically use someone else's work without paying for it. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request" -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (02/08/90)
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: |So, there is software sitting on your harddisk with my copyright and license |information on it. It got there without you asking for it, and without me |posting it. I give you certain restrictions on its usage. However, the |particular package sitting on your disk is not shareware. Do you use |something to which you are clearly not entitled? No, that's copyright infringement, in which case everyone is required to destroy their copies of it, because those copies are stolen. |Now, I tell you it's shareware. Does your opinion of the program change? |Of the author? Of the restriction against its usage? Yes, the big difference is with the latter you gave permission for redistribution or were aware of redistribution and did nothing to stop it. In the latter case, everyone now owns a legal copy of the software. |Wait, I'll back up. Let's say I post a message that says "Whoops! Somehow, |my commercially distributed code got out on the net. Without my permission. |I beg your forgiveness for utiltizing some of the valuable resources on your |computer -- even though I never posted the stuff myself. In payment for |this unwarrented intrusion of my software, which I did not release on the net, |and which somebody else illegally placed on the net, i would like to offer |you usage of that software for a limited time. At the end of that limited |time, I figure that my utilization of your resources and your utilization |of my program even each other out, and I'll ask you to stop using it. At |that time, you may purchase a brand new, spanking fresh copy of the code, |including documentation, support, a new disk, the works...but please |remember that your usage of that illegally distributed code is only with my |permission in the first place...and I herewith remove that permission after |'n' days..." No, you can't do that. Either you permit it's release, or you do not. You cannot give it away and then take it back. If you tried such a scam, you better cover your tracks well, because you could very well be prosecuted for it. |Thta's not, strictly speaking, shareware. Tell me, will you use the illegally |distributed code at all? Will you use it against the wishes of the author? |Will you appreciate the offer the author is giving you? That's a clear cut case of software theft. If I have the software at all and I don't immediately destroy it, that's possessing stolen property. Ownership isn't a gray area. Either I own a copy, or I don't. |Bind him legally, probably not. Ethically, well, that depends on how ethical |the user is. As to seeing a license agreement....you are suggesting bigger |screens, displays and copyright/license notices? It's not a matter of "how ethical the user is", as if only ethical users will be bound. Enough horsecrap about ethics. Lets let the law decide what's ethical. |>The key issue here is rights. I don't feel like you have the right to |>bind me to a license that doesn't have my signature. If you claim that |>you do, then we have a difference of opinion. [...] |Heck, those commercial houses, like Lotus, are using some tax credits, |using some of the resources your tax dollar buys. Does this entitle you |to use any commercial program you pirate, based on the idea of having somehow |already paid for it in some obscure and self justifying way? No, but I already made that clear. |>I think that distributing something at the public's expense, and then |>demanding money for its use is more reprehensible than spitting on the |>sidewalk. At the very least is shows blatant disrespect for the rights |>of others, and for those that foot the bills for the distribution. It's |>a con, a scam, and I don't like it. |So? Stand up, shout, scream, make your view known. But don;t use shareware |unless you pay for it. You;re entitled to your view, me to mine. You're |entitled to rant and rave about the evils of shareware, but I'm still |entitled to get my registration fee from the ethical users out there. Those |who use the code without paying for it are unethical. I'm not ranting and raving. I'm discussing, and I don't have to insult you to win an argument. You aren't entitled to *any* registration fees. Ethics is a matter of personal opinion. I happen to feel like you're a con artist, a swindler, and a crook. So you see, arguing ethics isn't going to get us anywhere. |>If shareware authors want to be righteous, why don't they sell support |>and good documentation? Then the public can use the software for which |>they've already paid the distribution costs, and get enhanced |>functionality and human help by paying for it. |> |Obviously, you have no idea how shareware works, for the "extras" you |descibe is how we convince people to register. We're doing it already, |and have been for years. I, personally, am just tired of the justification |people try to use when they unethically use someone else's work without |paying for it. Obviously you have no idea what I do and do not know. Your use of "we" describes a large number of people whose tactics range from threats to support to "you're a slime if you don't register". I don't care what you're tired of. I don't care what you personally think. I don't care if you try to force your ethics down other's throats. I do care about the legal issues involved, and that's what I've been discussing. Please stick to them, or move it to alt.flame. -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** "May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism *** in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there *** is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit." -MP
brucet@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bruce Thompson) (02/08/90)
In article <33975@watmath.waterloo.edu> bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes: >If you're saying that posting shareware to USENET gives everybody ownership >of a copy, then what are the consequences of this? That's precisely what the copyright laws say. Yes, I have ownership of a COPY, not the COPYRIGHT. There are subtle differences here. There are no consequences of this because of the simple fact that it DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING! We, as UseNet readers, are just as bound by copyright as anyone else is. The issue here is what rights copyright gives you as the holder of that copyright. > >Which lawyer said this, anyway? The consequence would be that shareware >in a distributed net is impossible -- is this what you desire? > If we are talking ShareWare as you apparently define it, then perhaps that is what I seek. You are arguing from an unenforceable position. As the holder of the copyright, the burden of proof is on YOU. If you contend that I have illegally acquired a copy of your software, then it is incumbent on YOU to prove that I have done so. It is my contention that because YOU GAVE ME A COPY any attempt by you to show that I illegally obtained my copy is ludicrous. This though is all an infringement of copyright suit can do. As others have stated, copyright protects only copying and distribution, not use. I don't think that ShareWare in a distributed net is impossible, just that ShareWare AS YOU WISH IT TO BE IMPLEMENTED is impossible. As I have suggested time and again, rather than complaining about issues that clearly cannot be changed, why not do something constructive to increase the probability that someone will pay? > >Shareware is a good concept, because it benefits the user a great deal. I certainly agree. >Based on figures of shareware success, it benefits the user a great deal >more than the author. After all, one of the whole ideas behind >shareware is that the traditional distribution mechanism (expensive >packaging, distributors, stores etc.) is a big cost that just gets >passed on to the customer. With no try-before-you-buy. I have no problem with this, except that the traditional distribution mechanism is the only viable way to ensure that payment is received for purchases. It is also the only way to ensure that the purchaser and the supplier are engaged in a legal contract. >I still maintain that posting to USENET no more gives away the software >than posting to a BBS or Compuserve. Except for the fact that the UseNet is broadcast around the globe. The receiver is not going out of his/her way to SPECIFICALLY obtain a piece of ShareWare. On the BBS or Compuserve, I must Specifically download. >Why? For one thing, the stuff that was posted can't be used. It wasn't >in a usable form, much like most USENET postings. You have to go to >some trouble, including copying the software, unpacking it (copying it >again), compiling it and then using it. Let's not get caught up in trivia. Under Canada's copyright laws, a legally obtained copy of a copyrighted item can be copied for the private use of the legal owner of that copy. For instance, if I buy a record and then tape it, I am leagally entitled to do so if the copy is for my own use (my Walkman(tm) for example). Copying in the manner you mention is perfectly legal provided the original was obtained legally. Again, you gave it to me by broadcasting it on the net. >All these are voluntary acts which you must take before using the >software, and I don't see why anybody thinks that 'downloading' is >a special act which makes the shareware terms valid, but all those >other acts don't. Most shareware that's posted is clearly marked as >such, and contains english information that you can read without >copying, unpacking etc. Anybody who takes the further step of unpacking >is no different than anybody who downloads. Can you come up with an >argument to the contrary? See above. >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473 The final thing I'd like to say is that I'm not convinced that a commercial venture in the manner you describe is viable. No amount of legislation can make a non-viable business viable. I do feel that a commercial venture along the lines of distributing the software and providing tangible benefits for paying the requested fee MAY be viable. I honestly don't know. I would recommend reading Robert A. Heinlein's story "Life-Line", particularly the scene in court. Life-Line can be found in "The Past Through Tomorrow", an anthology published by The Berkley Publishing Group. ISBN: 0-425-06458-1. God Grant me the Serenity to Accept the Things I Cannot Change The Courage to Change the Things I Can And the Wisdom to Know the Difference. Cheers, Bruce. ============================================================================== Bruce Thompson | "I've got this terrible pain in all the NovAtel Communications Ltd. | diodes down my left side" - Marvin the brucet@ksi.cpsc.UCalgary.CA | Paranoid Android The opinions expressed are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of NovAtel Communications Ltd. nor those of The University of Calgary.
richard@pegasus.uucp (Richard Foulk) (02/08/90)
> >So? Stand up, shout, scream, make your view known. But don;t use shareware >unless you pay for it. You;re entitled to your view, me to mine. You're >entitled to rant and rave about the evils of shareware, but I'm still >entitled to get my registration fee from the ethical users out there. Those >who use the code without paying for it are unethical. > By demanding payment for software that you have distributed freely you are acting unethically. Therefore I would use your software (if it was any good) and never ever pay you a penny -- in protest of your unethical, and probably illegal approach to marketing. I urge others to do the same. If you were to request payment rather than demand it I would then feel obliged to pay you (if your software was any good, and I needed it.) Since you're legal arguments are all falling apart you're starting to attack us on bogus "ethical" grounds -- personally I find this reprehensible. -- Richard Foulk richard@pegasus.uucp richard%pegasus.uucp@nosc.mil richard@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/09/90)
In article <14060@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > >|So, there is software sitting on your harddisk with my copyright and license >|information on it. It got there without you asking for it, and without me >|posting it. I give you certain restrictions on its usage. However, the >|particular package sitting on your disk is not shareware. Do you use >|something to which you are clearly not entitled? > >No, that's copyright infringement, in which case everyone is required to >destroy their copies of it, because those copies are stolen. But you already claimed that you own everything sitting on your local machine's disk, no matter how it got there. Isn;t that a contradiction? > >|Now, I tell you it's shareware. Does your opinion of the program change? >|Of the author? Of the restriction against its usage? > >Yes, the big difference is with the latter you gave permission for >redistribution or were aware of redistribution and did nothing to stop >it. In the latter case, everyone now owns a legal copy of the software. You still haven;t defined legal and what constitutes a "legal" copy of the software. If by legal you mean it is sitting on your disk, then you must feel entitled to use a pirated copy of any code sitting on your disk. If, instead, you feel that the copyright agreement for Lotus 123 prohibits your usage of it, then please tell me what the difference between their copyright agreement and a shareware copyright agreement is? > >|Wait, I'll back up. Let's say I post a message that says "Whoops! Somehow, >| .... example of author of commercially distributed program allowing its >| usage in certain circumstances -- time restricted circumstances... > >No, you can't do that. Either you permit it's release, or you do not. You >cannot give it away and then take it back. If you tried such a scam, you >better cover your tracks well, because you could very well be prosecuted >for it. > Whatever are you speaking of? Scam!?!! The example I used simply stated that the author of an ilegally copied program was apologizing for the possible usage of your resources, through no fault of his own. And, that in reparation for that usage, he lets you use his propgram for a short while. So, the author is telling you that he did not permit its release, but it was released all the same. And that hes giving *you*, Sean Casey, permission to use that program for a limited time (perhaps he's heard your comments in this newsgrop about the usage of your disk and other resources and feels that he owes you something?). Will you abide by his wishes, or do you feel that this author, wronged by some unknown person, is somehow liable for whatever usage you have in mind for his software, simply because it exists on the machine you call "home"? How about if the program *is* shareware, but it specifically states that this software is not permitted on Sean Casey's machine, simply because of statements that you have made showing that you have little regard for an author's wishes. And somehow, it ends up on your machine. Do you feel you have the right to avenge the usage of other's resources throughout the world and, in your moral outrage, you'll do as you damn well wish with anything on your disk? Does that mean that, if anything copyrighted goes on your machine it's yours? Looking at my signature below, you can imagine that I'm quite concerned about people who feel they can ignore copyright notices -- my job is based upon the proprietary nature of the words I write. If, somehow, you snuck onto our subscription list and our newspaper started showing up in your mailbox, does the only thing that makes a difference in your eyes seem to be whether or not you specifically requested the newspaper? That, if you requested it you'll abide by the copyright agreement, but if you didn't you feel you can do anything you like with other's intellectual property? > >|Bind him legally, probably not. Ethically, well, that depends on how ethical >|the user is. As to seeing a license agreement....you are suggesting bigger >|screens, displays and copyright/license notices? > >It's not a matter of "how ethical the user is", as if only ethical users will >be bound. Enough horsecrap about ethics. Lets let the law decide what's >ethical. Did you look for loopholes in the Boy Scout's Oath, too? ``Lesse...it doesn't specifically say that I have to walk that little old lady across the street, so I guess I'm clear...'' I'm not concerned at all about the legalities involved in the shareware issue, for the law doesn't cover shareware distribution in any reasonable fashion yet. Maybe it will one day, maybe it won't. In the interim, I would like to think that there are some people in the world who are honest and ethical. When a person can say "let the law decide what's ethical" I realize that the person has knowledge on neither side of that equation. The two sides of that equation are not related. > >|So? Stand up, shout, scream, make your view known. But don;t use shareware >|unless you pay for it. You;re entitled to your view, me to mine. You're >|entitled to rant and rave about the evils of shareware, but I'm still >|entitled to get my registration fee from the ethical users out there. Those >|who use the code without paying for it are unethical. > >I'm not ranting and raving. I'm discussing, and I don't have to insult you >to win an argument. > My apologies. I don't consider the above an insult, but I might be thicker-skinned than you. >You aren't entitled to *any* registration fees. > Then you aren't entitled to use my program. So there. >Ethics is a matter of personal opinion. I happen to feel like you're >a con artist, a swindler, and a crook. So you see, arguing ethics isn't >going to get us anywhere. Jane, you ignorant slut. What was that about insults? Pray tell, sir, why providing a service that 99% of the people in the world use for free makes me, and those of my ilk, any of the above list of unsavories? Arguing ethics with a person who has none, as you've amply demonstrated in your case, probably is a waste of time. > >|Obviously, you have no idea how shareware works, for the "extras" you >|descibe is how we convince people to register. We're doing it already, >|and have been for years. I, personally, am just tired of the justification >|people try to use when they unethically use someone else's work without >|paying for it. > >Obviously you have no idea what I do and do not know. Your use of "we" >describes a large number of people whose tactics range from threats to >support to "you're a slime if you don't register". > Your shoveling all shareware authors together, painting them with the same brush as a few you've seen would be as silly as me generalizing and thinking that anyone named "Sean" has no ethics or respect for intellectual property. I know that such a generalization is bogus, even though an example makes itself painfully more and more clear. Did a shareware author frighten you as a young tot? >I don't care what you're tired of. I don't care what you personally >think. I don't care if you try to force your ethics down other's throats. Nice attitude, Sean. Graduated from Dale Carnegie, right? > >I do care about the legal issues involved, and that's what I've >been discussing. Please stick to them, or move it to alt.flame. > But there are no legal issues that I'm discussing. I'm only discussing ethics, or in your case, the lack of them. Go talk to some lawyers if you want to speak on legal issues. They'll charge you by the hour, regardless of result. I'm all for shareware lawyers: pay them only if you're satisifed with their results. Have a nice day, Sean. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/09/90)
brucet@ksi.cpsc.UCalgary.CA (Bruce Thompson) writes: > >The final thing I'd like to say is that I'm not convinced that a >commercial venture in the manner you describe is viable. No amount of >legislation can make a non-viable business viable. I do feel that a >commercial venture along the lines of distributing the software and >providing tangible benefits for paying the requested fee MAY be viable. >I honestly don't know. I would recommend reading Robert A. Heinlein's >story "Life-Line", particularly the scene in court. Life-Line can be >found in "The Past Through Tomorrow", an anthology published by The >Berkley Publishing Group. ISBN: 0-425-06458-1. > Bruce, if you'll note, I've not commented on the legality of The Shareware Argument. That's because I, too, have read that passage in Life-Line. That's why I take the approach that I do: I offer a good product, at a cheap price and offer incentives for people to register the code. Enough people do so that I'm living pretty confortably on my income from the code. (Heck, you didn't think that journalism paid well, now, did you? :-) ) I'm trying to combat the attitudes that I see threatening shareware in the future. To be unbiased, for me, would be impossible - the more honest and ethical people are, the money I make. But, I see too many software authors, not making decent money on the shareware scene, drop out of producing quality code at a cheap price. That's the problem with people not registering. It might not affect folks now, but it will, one day, and for the rest of their lives. "Suppose they gave a shareware party and nobody was left..."? -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (02/10/90)
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: |>No, that's copyright infringement, in which case everyone is required to |>destroy their copies of it, because those copies are stolen. |But you already claimed that you own everything sitting on your local |machine's disk, no matter how it got there. Isn;t that a contradiction? This is a misquote. I never claimed that I owned everything sitting on my local disk. If I stole a copy of your software, or someone else stole it and put it there, I don't own it, do I? |>Yes, the big difference is with the latter you gave permission for |>redistribution or were aware of redistribution and did nothing to stop |>it. In the latter case, everyone now owns a legal copy of the software. |You still haven;t defined legal and what constitutes a "legal" copy |of the software. If by legal you mean it is sitting on your disk, then |you must feel entitled to use a pirated copy of any code sitting on your |disk. If, instead, you feel that the copyright agreement for Lotus 123 |prohibits your usage of it, then please tell me what the difference between |their copyright agreement and a shareware copyright agreement is? How many times do I have to iterate? Possesion is not ownership if the copy is stolen. There is no such thing as a "copyright agreement". Something is either copyrighted, or it is not. A copyright is your right to govern copying of the work. You are confusing a copyright with a license. A copyright says whether or not I may obtain a copy. A license is a contractual agreement between two parties. My first point is that if you allow your shareware product to be redistributed at will, then everyone that gets a copy owns their copy. My second point is that you cannot allow "conditional redistribution", because a copyright does not grant those rights, and a license must be agree to in advance. If a copy arrives on my system without a previous agreement from you, it is stolen or not stolen. You can't say that it's not stolen "only if you do this". |How about if the program *is* shareware, but it specifically states that this |software is not permitted on Sean Casey's machine, simply because of statements |that you have made showing that you have little regard for an author's wishes. |And somehow, it ends up on your machine. Good question. My bet is that legally I own my copy. |Do you feel you have the right to |avenge the usage of other's resources throughout the world and, in your |moral outrage, you'll do as you damn well wish with anything on your disk? Avenge? What are you implying? If it's my copy, it's mine. Copyright laws still apply. Do you really KNOW anything about copyright law? You keep harping again and again as if I own ALL rights to anything on my disk. This is so ludicrous that I suspect you really don't know the first thing about copyright law. |Does that mean that, if anything copyrighted goes on your machine it's yours? |Looking at my signature below, you can imagine that I'm quite concerned about |people who feel they can ignore copyright notices -- my job is based upon the |proprietary nature of the words I write. Being a programmer doesn't automatically make someone knowledgeable about copyright law anymore than does being a magazine editor. |If, somehow, you snuck onto our |subscription list and our newspaper started showing up in your mailbox, does |the only thing that makes a difference in your eyes seem to be whether or not |you specifically requested the newspaper? You're damn right. You send me free copies, I get to keep them. I can paste then on my walls, give them to my friends, burn them, or whatever. And I don't owe you a cent. No prior contract, no payola. |That, if you requested it you'll |abide by the copyright agreement, but if you didn't you feel you can do |anything you like with other's intellectual property? Sigh. See above. Do I have to put it in 10 inch letters? |>It's not a matter of "how ethical the user is", as if only ethical users will |>be bound. Enough horsecrap about ethics. Lets let the law decide what's |>ethical. |Did you look for loopholes in the Boy Scout's Oath, too? ``Lesse...it |doesn't specifically say that I have to walk that little old lady across |the street, so I guess I'm clear...'' |I'm not concerned at all about the legalities involved in the shareware issue, |for the law doesn't cover shareware distribution in any reasonable fashion |yet. Maybe it will one day, maybe it won't. In the interim, I would like to |think that there are some people in the world who are honest and ethical. |When a person can say "let the law decide what's ethical" I realize that the |person has knowledge on neither side of that equation. The two sides of |that equation are not related. The law is there to protect people's rights. Yours and mine. It is also there to keep people like you from deciding for everyone what is ethical and what is not. And while we're at it, this has nothing to do with honesty. Everyone is telling the truth here, or so I think. |>You aren't entitled to *any* registration fees. |Then you aren't entitled to use my program. So there. Yes I am, because you delivered it to my place. It doesn't matter if you put "not for Sean Casey" on it, because if you distribute it publically or allow it to be distributed, then I get to keep and use my copy. What the other person said in this newsgroup is correct. Shareware is viable only if people want to pay, because they don't *have* to pay. |Jane, you ignorant slut. What was that about insults? Pray tell, sir, |why providing a service that 99% of the people in the world use for free |makes me, and those of my ilk, any of the above list of unsavories? To be "honest", I really don't care if you run your shareware business. Best of luck to you. But if you start demanding money from people, then you're a crook, pure and simple. Attempting to make someone pay for something they already own is a crime (except when the government does it (sigh)). |Arguing ethics with a person who has none, as you've amply demonstrated |in your case, probably is a waste of time. Blah blah blah. So easy to say "you have no ethics" because you disagree. |>Obviously you have no idea what I do and do not know. Your use of "we" |>describes a large number of people whose tactics range from threats to |>support to "you're a slime if you don't register". |Your shoveling all shareware authors together, painting them with the |same brush as a few you've seen would be as silly as me generalizing and |thinking that anyone named "Sean" has no ethics or respect for intellectual |property. I know that such a generalization is bogus, even though an |example makes itself painfully more and more clear. Who generalized? I said shareware has a "range of people". Learn English. Once again (broken record time), read the above. I respect your intellectual property. I don't want anyone to steal it, although I doubt anyone can the way you are distributing it. |Did a shareware author frighten you as a young tot? No, shareware authors seem to think they can deliver something to my machine and make me pay for it when it's already mine. You don't find that thought scary? |But there are no legal issues that I'm discussing. I'm only discussing |ethics, or in your case, the lack of them. Go talk to some lawyers if you |want to speak on legal issues. They'll charge you by the hour, regardless |of result. I'm all for shareware lawyers: pay them only if you're satisifed |with their results. Fortunately, Ross Greenberg doesn't get to decide what's right and wrong in this world. That's for each one of us. At least *I* don't go around telling everyone I disagree with that they have "no ethics". |Have a nice day, Sean. Have a day, Ross. -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** "May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism *** in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there *** is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit." -MP
bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) (02/10/90)
I guess I will have to give up asking this question. Nobody has yet to say what the difference between copying a file from the news spools on (usually somebody else's) machine and downloading from a BBS, yours or somebody else's. The reason is that there isn't a difference. Both are non-passive actions. Both get you a copy of the software which the author has permitted you to get. If you go to the trouble and cost of subscribing to USENET (somebody called USENET unsolicited! Tee hee) and shareware comes to you through that route, it's because the author wanted you to have a copy. If you download shareware from a BBS or get it at a swap fest, it's because the author wanted you to have a copy. No difference here. And in both cases, it's pretty explicit that the author gave you this copy... for evaluation. If shareware via usenet is invalid, then so is shareware by any other means, except an mutually agreed upon evaluation contract. And if you want the law to require a mutually agreed evaluation contract in all cases, then you're asking for a world of lawyers and of virtually no good shareware. You may get what you ask for. To the best of my knowledge, these laws are new enough that no court has ruled on whether "you may copy for evaluation purposes only" is a valid restriction a copyright holder may place on copying. We may never know. None of use know, that's for sure. I still think it is improper to ignore such a restriction, law or no law, simply because I know it is the code that has the value, not the bits on the disk. This "unsolicited book" mentality comes from people who think software should cost $2 because disks cost that. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (02/10/90)
bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes: |This "unsolicited book" mentality comes from people who think software |should cost $2 because disks cost that. Poor generalization. The "unsolicited book" is an analogy, not a mentality. Shareware is a mentality. I don't care what software costs. That's for the author to decide. The market will determine if it's a viable price, but "should be" really has nothing to do with it. Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** "May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism *** in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there *** is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit." -MP
aburt@isis.UUCP (Andrew Burt) (02/11/90)
In article <34142@watmath.waterloo.edu> bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes: >...I still think it is improper to >ignore such a restriction, law or no law, simply because I know it is the >code that has the value, not the bits on the disk. This "unsolicited >book" mentality comes from people who think software should cost $2 because >disks cost that. I hate to jump into this fray, and I don't want to engage in any flame wars; but... As a software developer myself, one theme I find constantly popping up among customers I know, including myself, is the cost/benefit analysis of software. This is almost universally ignored during these shareware debates -- but Brad brings up a point: People are apparently willing to pay $2 for a program that they're not willing to pay $30 for (or whatever the shareware author requests in payment). This suggests to me that software is vastly overpriced relative to what (shareware) consumers are willing to pay for it. I hate to use the book analogy, but considering the effort that goes into a book is probably more than goes into a shareware program, and that the information content of a book is quite often much higher than that of a program (consider, if you want, a simple utility program) -- then why shouldn't a consumer feel upset that someone wants $15, $30, $50 for a program when a book with more information content costs $3, $5, $8 etc. (paperback for example). Even most high end books run less than $50 -- but high end programs run in the multiple $100's. To get people to pay for something they must feel it is worth the cost. As a software developer (non-shareware, but I have nothing against it) I am very critical of the software I use. I've almost universally found it's never worth what I pay for it. I'm much happier with the software the less I pay for it (and not just because I paid less hard cash). I think it may have something to do with expectations relative to other cash expenditures of the same magnitude. I know software is expensive to create, I'm not say it isn't. But to anyone who whines they aren't getting their just dues, consider WHY people don't pay for it. Maybe it isn't very good; or maybe it just isn't worth as many $$$ as you think it is. My $.02. -- Andrew Burt uunet!isis!aburt or aburt@du.edu "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped"
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/11/90)
richard@pegasus.UUCP (Richard Foulk) writes: > >By demanding payment for software that you have distributed freely >you are acting unethically. First, I (and other shareware authors) demand payment for the continued right to use our software. We use existing lines of distribution, and rarely do the actual distribution ourselves. We ask only that you pay for software if you continue using it. Unlike commercial software that you pay for and *then* use. So, what is unethical here? > >Therefore I would use your software (if it was any good) and never >ever pay you a penny -- in protest of your unethical, and probably >illegal approach to marketing. My own software ended up winning PCMag's Editor's Choice against a bunch of competitor's. The two ends of the spectrum won: mine, at $10, and the other end, at $189. I figure that shows that shareware is "just as good" as commercialware. As to whether my approach to distributing software is illegal: please, be serious? > >I urge others to do the same. > That's a pity, for you would have others act in an unethical manner and against the wishes of the intellectual property owner. An attitude such as yours in one to be ashamed of, not one to be proud of; it's an attitude we try to teach out children to avoid: "No, Sammy, just ignore that rude man and walk around him..." >If you were to request payment rather than demand it I would then >feel obliged to pay you (if your software was any good, and I needed >it.) I do request payment. Demands can be made when you're able to enforce them. I know damned well that a demand is -- currently -- unenforceable. But I am entitled to restrict the usage license on my software contingent upon anything I like. That's the law. And, I've restricted mine so that you're able to use it freely for a while, but then must pay me for the continued right to continue using the software. I guess that's a demand upon your ethics, for if you don't pay, you're not using the software with the permission of the owner, or in the way that the author has given you permission to. > >Since you're legal arguments are all falling apart you're starting to >attack us on bogus "ethical" grounds -- personally I find this >reprehensible. I've never stood on the legal ground, Richard. I've always felt that the proper usage of software was ethical usage of it. Improper usage of it, such as using against the permissions of the owner of the right to use that software, well that *is* unethical. You might call it "bogus" because that might make you more comfortable. But it isn't. As for reprehensible, well, inviting others to act in an unethical manner (visions of a crack dealer, standing outside a schoolyard, saying "Hey, just try it once...") might be considered a bit worse than simply trying to get others to respect the rights of intellectual property owners. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) (02/12/90)
In article <34142@watmath.waterloo.edu> bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes: > And in both cases, it's pretty explicit that the author gave you this copy... > for evaluation. > [....] > To the best of my knowledge, these laws are new enough that no court has > ruled on whether "you may copy for evaluation purposes only" is a valid > restriction a copyright holder may place on copying. We may never know. Whoa! This is where it gets sticky. WARNING, I am not a lawyer, and I haven't actually read the copyright law since the early 70's. However, I don't believe it is as fuzzy as you say. I recently read a comment by a lawyer which stated that it was unwise for a software author to try to attach any special considerations to the copyright notice, except the standard "All rights reserved..." notice. Copyright law protects an author from those who would make un-authorized copies of his work for distribution, and from those who would claim the work to be their own. Second, and most important in this argument, is the fact that for an author to protect his copyright, he must make specific and obvious effort to prevent un-authorized copying of the work. Everyone on the shareware side of the argument seems to be missing the meaning of these little points. Shareware seems to be protected only by copyright. Contracts and licenses do not seem feasible. I.e. the only protection under the law for shareware authors is copyright. If this is the case, shareware authors appear to be doing the exact opposite of what the law requires them to do to protect their copyright. They are making copies of their product freely available, and encouraging further copying! The only thing left for copyright law to protect is the ownership of the work and prevent another from claiming the work to be his own. > [....] I still think it is improper to > ignore such a restriction, law or no law, simply because I know it is the > code that has the value, not the bits on the disk. This "unsolicited > book" mentality comes from people who think software should cost $2 because > disks cost that. Fine, you have your "morals" and I have mine. Where software is involved, mine definitely lean towards those of the FSF. I do write software for profit, but under contract agreements and such. I have not, and probably will not ever write a piece of software which I intend to become a product for profit in and of itself. On the other hand, I would not turn down financial benefit offered for this software in the case where such benefit did not restrict the further distribution of said software. The party which offered the benefit would certainly get superior service and support. There is one more interesting little point I should make: I would not dissuade others from supplying service and support for my software in trade for financial benefit (as per the FSF philosophy). It is my guess that shareware authors are trying to do just that. They believe software should be easily available (but not completely free), and that they should be given the exclusive right to service and support their own creations. Please correct me if you think I'm wrong. -- Greg A. Woods woods@{robohack,gate,tmsoft,ontmoh,utgpu,gpu.utcs.Toronto.EDU,utorgpu.BITNET} +1 416 443-1734 [h] +1 416 595-5425 [w] VE3-TCP Toronto, Ontario; CANADA
news@zodiac.ADS.COM (USENET News) (02/12/90)
From: mliverig@Verity.COM (Mike Liveright) Path: spark!mliverig 1) My personal Ethic requires me to pay for a product, software, un-solicided mail, etc. that I use. Thus I will pay for the shareware that I use and, consider the lack of payment by others as unethical, i.e. not in agreement with my personal ethics. 2) My practical Ethic requires me to encurage others to do what I think will benifit me and the communities that I involve myself in, e.g. the computer community. Since I believe that if shareware is not payed for, than there will be less available, and thus, I and my community will be hurt. I will continue to suggest that others should pay for the shareware that they use. 3) My legal Understanding is that shareware that is delivored to me, without my specific request, is probably legally mine to use as I wish, but that if I take action to obtain such shareware, after being informed of the authors conditions, then I may be legally responsible for following these conditions. Because of this, I will continue to pay for the shareware that I use and encurage others to do the same. I do not feel that this is required by the legal situation, and feel that others that disagree with me are not criminals, but just have a different belief of what is "right" and what will benefit them.
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (02/12/90)
In article <1233@utoday.UUCP> greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >I do request payment. Demands can be made when you're able to enforce them. >I know damned well that a demand is -- currently -- unenforceable. But >I am entitled to restrict the usage license on my software contingent upon >anything I like. That's the law. And, I've restricted mine so that you're >able to use it freely for a while, but then must pay me for the continued >right to continue using the software. I've avoided this until now, and I stick my nose in only because I keep wondering why articles with this topic continue to be KILL'd. The law, more likely than not, is that even the license is unenforcable, and that shareware is pretty much available for free public use, without restriction of any kind, if it is distributed in a medium such as USENET. A license is a contract. Once you have given me the software by sending it out on a public network, you are unable to force me to agree to the terms of the contract. Others have suggested analogies to the postal system. I didn't ask for it, and now I am free to do with it as I please. And what is unethical, and probably illegal as well considering the non-commercial nature of the Internet, is that people are being forced to provide the distribution for your software. It costs money to provide Internet connections and UUCP connections, and the administrative services to maintain the systems. And you are, if you are a successful shareware author, sitting back and collecting money that was earned for you by others who have provided this "distribution mechanism". Before anyone screams about DEC or SUN or AT&T posting messages, remember that no one is forcing these customers to buy any of these vendors computers, nor are these vendors forcing the customers they have already being forced to pay for answers posted to the USENET. By way of bogus analogy, the terms and conditions of a shareware posting are not unlike DEC attaching a "license" requiring anyone who read a posting giving an answer to a problem with a VAX to send them $10 or to completely forget how to fix that problem forever. USENET is a =free= co-operative network. People who take advantage of =free= things in life are scum. High ideals or not, they remain scum. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (02/12/90)
news@zodiac.ADS.COM (USENET News) writes: |3) My legal Understanding is that shareware that is delivored to me, without |my specific request, is probably legally mine to use as I wish, but that if |I take action to obtain such shareware, after being informed of the authors |conditions, then I may be legally responsible for following these conditions. It's very doubtful that you are legally responsible for following those conditions. Wonder why software vendors won't prosecute for violation of a shrink wrap license? It's because they have every reason to fear that they will lose, and set a precedent. I don't like being told that I'm bound by a contract that I never signed. Opening a shrink wrap or downloading software proably does not constitute a valid agreement. For almost anything like that to be legal, it requires a signature or at least some overt paperwork with the author (as in checking "yes" on a subscription offer). Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** "May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism *** in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there *** is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit." -MP
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (02/12/90)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: |USENET is a =free= co-operative network. People who take advantage of |=free= things in life are scum. High ideals or not, they remain scum. I don't think they're scum, but I am seriously concerned that they may try to bind us to licenses we don't sign. My biggest concern in that area is the potential for abuse. Ross Greenberg and others are providing a good product for a good price. But others may be attracted by the possibility of abusing it and scamming a lot of people out of their money. That, combined with the license issue, is why I think the legal status quo, "you don't have to pay for it", should be maintained. Too much potential for destruction of liberties, and too much potential for "get rich quick at the public's expense." Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** "May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism *** in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there *** is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit." -MP
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/12/90)
In article <10807@zodiac.ADS.COM> mliverig@verity.com (Mike Liveright) writes: > >Because of this, I will continue to pay for the shareware that I use and >encurage others to do the same. I do not feel that this is required by >the legal situation, and feel that others that disagree with me are not >criminals, but just have a different belief of what is "right" and what >will benefit them. A very thoughtful message. Thanks! -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/12/90)
woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes: > > >Copyright law protects an author from those who would make >un-authorized copies of his work for distribution, and from those who >would claim the work to be their own. Right. The "All Rights Reserved" clause means that all of the rights, even those not specifically mentioned belong with the author. Now, the author may make special consideration and permit persons to copy their creation provided they follow certain guidelines. Could they restrict a person who follows those guidelines because they don;t like the person, or don;t like the person's politics? Probably not. But, unless you follow whatever restrictions the author places on the copying of his or her creation, then you are in violation of their Copy Right. > >Second, and most important in this argument, is the fact that for an >author to protect his copyright, he must make specific and obvious >effort to prevent un-authorized copying of the work. I can't speak for all software authors, but a good percentage of my assistants time is spent going through catalogs of shareware and looking for persons selling my code without my permission. They are contacted and given a choice to sell according to my guidelines, to no longer sell, or be sued over copyright infringement. I have two cases in copyright infringement right now, because they refused to stop selling my code when I requested that they come in line with my copyright restrictions. Most shareware authors I know will do as much to protect their rights, too. > >Everyone on the shareware side of the argument seems to be missing >the meaning of these little points. No, we live with hose points everyday. It's our income, and our business. That's why I get so infruiated when I see somebody saying "Hey! Use that guy's code without paying for it!" > >Shareware seems to be protected only by copyright. Contracts and >licenses do not seem feasible. I.e. the only protection under the law >for shareware authors is copyright. Don't confuse the right to copy with the license to use. The software author owns both and may grant them as they see fit. But, giving out blanket rights on one does not give out blanket rights on the other. They are unrelated with a common intersection only by the author's leave. > >If this is the case, shareware authors appear to be doing the exact >opposite of what the law requires them to do to protect their >copyright. They are making copies of their product freely available, >and encouraging further copying! The only thing left for copyright >law to protect is the ownership of the work and prevent another from >claiming the work to be his own. Most shareware has a statement such as: "You may distribute this shareware in its entirity, but not for commercial gain. If you wish to distribute this software for any fee whatsoever, you must have <author's> written permission to do so." This is merely a loosening of the "All Rights Reserved" clause. > >There is one more interesting little point I should make: I would not >dissuade others from supplying service and support for my software in >trade for financial benefit (as per the FSF philosophy). It is my >guess that shareware authors are trying to do just that. They believe >software should be easily available (but not completely free), and >that they should be given the exclusive right to service and support >their own creations. Please correct me if you think I'm wrong. Again, I can;t speak for all shareware authors. In my case, I encourage as many people as possible to try my code out. If they like it, they'll continue to use it. If they continue to use it, they'll make it a part of their normal computing environment. When that occurs, I expect them to pay my $10 registration fee. Other's may not sell my software without my permission, and I will not give that permission to anyone who would sell a disk containing my code for more than $10. However, nothing prohibits them from selling that disk for $10, then offering a service or support contract for $1000/month if someone is so inclined to pay them. For the $10 registration fee they pay me (that is in addition to whatever fee they paid to get the disk containing my code), I provide them with full telephone, E-mail, Snail mail and any other support I can. They get updates, when available, for a discounted fee. What allows me to provide such code and such services for as little as I do is the continued support of some of the ethical people out there. The lack of support by those lacking in the ethics to adhere to my wishes causes me to raise my price. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/12/90)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > >The law, more likely than not, is that even the license is unenforcable, >and that shareware is pretty much available for free public use, without >restriction of any kind, if it is distributed in a medium such as USENET. Okey doke, then you have no problem using copies of Lotus 123 that find their way onto your computer, eh? > >A license is a contract. Once you have given me the software by sending >it out on a public network, you are unable to force me to agree to the >terms of the contract. Others have suggested analogies to the postal >system. I didn't ask for it, and now I am free to do with it as I please. Alright then, ask a friend of your to post Lotus to the net. Now, you take it and start freely distributing it around. Now, tell your management what you are doing. I'm sure they'll see it the same way as you do. You're right in that *I'm* unable to enforce my license agreement if you choose to violate it. That's why I rely on the ethics of people. > >And what is unethical, and probably illegal as well considering the >non-commercial nature of the Internet, is that people are being forced >to provide the distribution for your software. As of date, you'll not find that my own software has been posted to the Internet or to Usenet. Simply because of that reason, actually. Now, if there were a comp.binaries.shareware newsgroup, then it could be restricted (if people felt like it). InterNet is being used for a bunch >. And you are, if you are a successful >shareware author, sitting back and collecting money that was earned for >you by others who have provided this "distribution mechanism". Nope, not sitting back. Wondering if i should provide a timely update, providing services to registered customers and allowing people to try my software first, before they pay that hefty $10 registration fee. Right now, about 1% of the people using my code are ethical enough to register it. The other 99% are still benefiting from its usage. > >USENET is a =free= co-operative network. People who take advantage of Sigh. UseNet is not now, nor has it ever been free. There have always been charges for telecommunications, for disk space, for that modem, for the extra time the SA's spend maintaining netnews, etc. It has, usually (and if you ignore *.flame) been co-operative. It has occasionally been commercial. Now, are you complaining about shareware over UseNet, or about shareware as a whole? Or, are you simply complaining? -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/12/90)
In article <14108@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: > >It's very doubtful that you are legally responsible for following those >conditions. Wonder why software vendors won't prosecute for violation of >a shrink wrap license? It's because they have every reason to fear that they >will lose, and set a precedent. No, it's because we have never been able to track someone down, it would cost too much money to sue (tens of thousands, actually) and people too unethical to register for their usage of someone else's intellectual property probably don;t have deep enough pockets to go after. > >I don't like being told that I'm bound by a contract that I never signed. >Opening a shrink wrap or downloading software proably does not constitute >a valid agreement. For almost anything like that to be legal, it requires >a signature or at least some overt paperwork with the author (as in checking >"yes" on a subscription offer). > Balderdash, Sean. Whethr you like it or not, you are bound by certain laws: try selling copies of Lotus 123. Give those folks up at Cambridge adequate notice. You'll be sued forcopyright infringment. And you never signed anything. Tell it to the judge. By the way: checking `yes' as an overt move on a subscription blank is so that you can be counted as a subscriber before payment for the advertisers. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/12/90)
In article <14109@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > > >My biggest concern in that area is the potential for abuse. Ross Greenberg >and others are providing a good product for a good price. But others may be >attracted by the possibility of abusing it and scamming a lot of people out >of their money. Thanks, Sean. I like to think that my code is good stuff and is presented at a reasonable price with adequate support. I'd like to be able to continue providing such code, but that code actually costs me a bundle every week -- support, telephone, etc. Heck, even legal fees. As for the people scamming you (and me!), I'm against them, too. We're on the same side in this issue. I would suggest that you take a look at code provided my authors who qualified for entry in the Association of Shareware Professionals. The ASP does not vouch that the code is any code at all, and they are not a revewiing body of the worth of that code. But, to gain admission into ASP you must meet certain criteria. You must offer free support for at least 30 days, you must provide the name, telehone number and E-mail/snail mail addresses of a representative of ASP, the Ombudsmen, so a person can register a complaint against you if they desire, etc. There are 150-175 members of ASP right now: their products account for about the top 80% of the best selling shareware software. Every piece of shareware that has ever won a PCMag's Editor's Choice has been from an ASP member, for example. They're (We're) proud of being able to offer shareware via these alternative channels for a fraction on the price that the commercial guys do, and some of us make enough to be millionaires (not me, alas: $10 software is not put out because you expect to get rich!). > >That, combined with the license issue, is why I think the legal status >quo, "you don't have to pay for it", should be maintained. Too much potential >for destruction of liberties, and too much potential for "get rich quick >at the public's expense." > But, you don;t have to pay for it. Simply stop using it if you're not satisfied with the software and don;t think it's worth the requested price. That's the beauty of shareware. If too many people do as you are advising them to, that is to use shareware without paying for it, they'll be no incentive for the "good guys" to continue to provide it. Then, for example, you'll pay $190 for an anti-virus package instead of $10. Tooting my own horn, the $10 package is better! :-) -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
bjones@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Brad Jones) (02/12/90)
In article <1237@utoday.UUCP> greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >[omitted section about suing unregistered shareware users]... people >too unethical to register for their usage of someone else's intellectual >property probably don;t [sic] have deep enough pockets to go after. Could you help me with this? Are unethical people poor, or are poor people unethical? An interesting concept in either case. I bet I could really generate flames by guessing which political party you belong to... I apologize to those who are tired of this discussion, but I must add a few thoughts: 1) We were exposed to quite a lot of shareware in comp.binaries.ibm.pc this year (when the group was active). I was always disappointed when I decoded a program and found that it was not public domain. The most desirable programs delivered over the Usenet are the ones that include source code and are free to use and "hack on". This, to me, represents the unified creative spirit that should typify the Usenet. Otherwise the whole thing is just a glorified bulletin board (where I think shareware rightfully belongs). 2) Within the group of shareware programs that I saw, there were two main types: the ones where the bulk of the programing effort had gone into solid, useful, efficient code; and the ones where a substantial effort had gone into creating screenfuls of (often) brightly-colored, blinking messages reminding the user to send money. I know that these types are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but the correlation was too great to be coincidence. The documentation also generally reflects the author's bias. 3) A good, solid, bug-free piece of shareware is probably worth $10 - $20. I say this not to belittle the efforts of the individual programmers, but because that's what seems to be fair in today's competitive marketplace. For example, I purchased Borland's Turbo C for $50 through an educational discount, and PCTOOLS costs approximately $70 if one finds a good discount. These are both (in my opinion) high quality software products that serve a variety of needs. In addition, they both come with complete, *bound* documentation. The companies are proven and I know they will be around for support and upgrades. When I get a piece of shareware with incomplete, badly- formatted documentation, from somebody working out of their basement, and they want me to send them $20 - $30 or more, I'm just amused. 4) A final note to shareware authors from an "end user". If you want my money: write solid, useful code and put a message in the documentation about how much you want (but be realistic) and where to send it. Otherwise, if you: a) are in my face every time I run the program; b) are unrealistic about the price; c) force me to type in a number or string when I try to execute; or d) fill my harddisk with files like "license", "credit.crd", "copyrght" or "order.frm", then my only response is... del *.*. And, hey, that doesn't infringe *anyone's* copyright (now matter how poorly based in actual law). Brad Jones bjones@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu bjones@uhccux.bitnet -- Brad Jones bjones@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu bjones@uhccux.bitnet
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (02/12/90)
In article <1236@utoday.UUCP> greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >> >>The law, more likely than not, is that even the license is unenforcable, >>and that shareware is pretty much available for free public use, without >>restriction of any kind, if it is distributed in a medium such as USENET. > >Okey doke, then you have no problem using copies of Lotus 123 that find their >way onto your computer, eh? No, and you know exactly why. Quit playing stupid. The difference between Lotus 1-2-3 showing up on my computer and Newclip or whatever is that there is no =LEGAL= way Lotus 1-2-3 is going to be distributed on the net. Copying shareware is =encouraged=. So I may very legally obtain and distribute copies of shareware. With the issue of the legality of any copies of shareware disposed of, the only remaining legal issue is whether or not the license can restrict me from using it. Since I did not agree to the terms of the license, I am free to use my copy in any fashion I choose. >Alright then, ask a friend of your to post Lotus to the net. Now, you >take it and start freely distributing it around. Now, tell your management >what you are doing. I'm sure they'll see it the same way as you do. Ross, you're being an idiot. Lotus 1-2-3 is protected by a copyright, shareware isn't - the copyright on most shareware is written to encourage copying. That's the whole idea - make all the copies you want and them give them to your friends, along with a request for money. There is no question as to my legally being able to obtain a copy. Several years ago when someone posted the AT&T sources to YACC and I received the nice letter from the charming people at AT&T to remove all of the copies I had from my system, I was more than happy [ heavy sarcasm ] to remove the copies I had, because there was no =LEGAL= way I could have obtained the software. >Now, are you complaining about shareware over UseNet, or about shareware as >a whole? Or, are you simply complaining? Shareware on USENET. This is USENET, right? -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
bradn@tekig3.PEN.TEK.COM (Bradford Needham) (02/13/90)
This is all loads of fun, but won't anyone admit that all this is just speculation until some shareware developer actually wins a suit against a user? Without that precedent, this discussion is only philosophical*. Since it's just speculation (and bordering on a religious war), how 'bout moving to misc.legal and letting comp.sources.d get back to talking about sources? Brad Needham bradn@tekig3.pen.tek.com *which is not to say that philosophical and ethical issues aren't important -- abortion vs. choice, for example, is an important ethical and legal issue; yet I (thankfully!) don't see anybody discussing it on comp.sources.d.
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (02/13/90)
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: |In article <14108@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: |>It's very doubtful that you are legally responsible for following those |>conditions. Wonder why software vendors won't prosecute for violation of |>a shrink wrap license? It's because they have every reason to fear that they |>will lose, and set a precedent. |No, it's because we have never been able to track someone down, it |would cost too much money to sue (tens of thousands, actually) and people |too unethical to register for their usage of someone else's intellectual |property probably don;t have deep enough pockets to go after. I said "software vendors", like the Lotus corporation so fondly referenced by Ross. They do have tens of thousands of dollars. So does Apple, and the other people who will go after violation of copyright but to my knowledge none have taken a shrink wrap violation to court. |>I don't like being told that I'm bound by a contract that I never signed. |>Opening a shrink wrap or downloading software proably does not constitute |>a valid agreement. For almost anything like that to be legal, it requires |>a signature or at least some overt paperwork with the author (as in checking |>"yes" on a subscription offer). |Balderdash, Sean. Whethr you like it or not, you are bound by certain laws: |try selling copies of Lotus 123. Give those folks up at Cambridge adequate |notice. You'll be sued forcopyright infringment. And you never signed |anything. Tell it to the judge. Ross is playing stupid again. I know he's not stupid. A copyright does not require a contract to be valid. A license does. -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** "May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism *** in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there *** is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit." -MP
dalenber@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (Russel Dalenberg) (02/13/90)
In article <1233@utoday.UUCP>, greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > richard@pegasus.UUCP (Richard Foulk) writes: >>Therefore I would use your software (if it was any good) and never >>ever pay you a penny -- in protest of your unethical, and probably >>illegal approach to marketing. > ... >> >>I urge others to do the same. >> > > That's a pity, for you would have others act in an unethical manner and against > the wishes of the intellectual property owner. An attitude such as yours in > one to be ashamed of, not one to be proud of; it's an attitude we try to teach > out children to avoid: "No, Sammy, just ignore that rude man and walk around > him..." Gee, this sounds a lot like the arguments raised when someone raises a valid, but "unpopular" political argument; like "flag burning should be protected under the Constitution" or "the War On Drugs causes more problems than it cures". You reply that they are *obviously* unethical (or immoral, or un-patriotic, or a brain-dead druggie), dismiss them, and climb right back onto your high horse. This argument seems no more convincing in this case than in the flag-burning case. Look at it this way, civil disobedience is one way to change bad laws (and informal rules of society). That's what seems Richard seems to be advocating to me. > I am entitled to restrict the usage license on my software contingent upon > anything I like. That's the law. You sure are. But if you give me a copy of your work without an explicit contract, I have the right to do whatever I want with *my* *copy*. You still hold the copyright, so I can't redistribute it, but the copy you gave me is mine. > I've never stood on the legal ground, Richard. I've always felt that the > proper usage of software was ethical usage of it. Improper usage of it, > such as using against the permissions of the owner of the right to use that > software, well that *is* unethical. Everyone who has a copy of the program, obtained in a legal manner, is the "owner of the right to use" that copy of the software. > As for reprehensible, well, > inviting others to act in an unethical manner (visions of a crack dealer, > standing outside a schoolyard, saying "Hey, just try it once...") might > be considered a bit worse than simply trying to get others to respect the > rights of intellectual property owners. More good solid arguments here (heavy scarcasm). I'm sure that if I felt it was wrong for the government to outlaw flag burning (and I do), the arguments above could easily be applied to me were I to encourage people to burn flags to protest this law. Russel Dalenberg att!ihlpb!dalenber dalenber@ihlpb.att.com Disclaimer: These are my views, not AT&T's.
dalenber@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (Russel Dalenberg) (02/13/90)
In article <1236@utoday.UUCP>, greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > Okey doke, then you have no problem using copies of Lotus 123 that find their > way onto your computer, eh? Well, if I had a PC, and discovered that one of my friends has put a copy of Lotus 123 on my hard disk illegally, then I would delete it and ask my friend not to do it again. But, if I had a copy of Lotus 123 with one of those stupid licenses that said that I could only use it on a single CPU, I'd feel no guilt at using it on another PC. It's my copy of Lotus, and I can use it where I want to use it. But I'm not following their ridiculous license (which I never agreed to in the first place), so I'm obviously unethical. >>A license is a contract. Once you have given me the software by sending >>it out on a public network, you are unable to force me to agree to the >>terms of the contract. Others have suggested analogies to the postal >>system. I didn't ask for it, and now I am free to do with it as I please. > > Alright then, ask a friend of your to post Lotus to the net. Now, you > take it and start freely distributing it around. Now, tell your management > what you are doing. I'm sure they'll see it the same way as you do. There is a big difference between a copyright owner sending out legal copies of their work and a random person sending out illegal copies of that same work. But if Lotus 123 was posted to Usenet by it's copyright owners, even with a "shareware license", I would consider the copy I received to be mine; free and clear. Russel Dalenberg att!ihlpb!dalenber dalenber@ihlpb.att.com Disclaimer: These are my opinions, not AT&T's
dalenber@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (Russel Dalenberg) (02/13/90)
In article <1237@utoday.UUCP>, greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > In article <14108@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >>I don't like being told that I'm bound by a contract that I never signed. >>Opening a shrink wrap or downloading software proably does not constitute >>a valid agreement. For almost anything like that to be legal, it requires >>a signature or at least some overt paperwork with the author (as in checking >>"yes" on a subscription offer). > > Balderdash, Sean. Whethr you like it or not, you are bound by certain laws: > try selling copies of Lotus 123. Give those folks up at Cambridge adequate > notice. You'll be sued forcopyright infringment. And you never signed > anything. Tell it to the judge. Ross, as you said in article <1235@utoday.UUCP>: < Don't confuse the right to copy with the license to use. No one ever said that the copyright was invalid because no contract was signed. But without my signature, I am not bound to the terms of any software license. If I were to buy a copy of Lotus 123, I would have no rights to make copies to sell, or even to give away. But it is perfectly within my rights to sell *my* copy of Lotus 123 *even if the license forbids it*. What if your new car came with an automatic "this isn't really yours, you can't sell it" statement on the front seat. Would you consider that valid? Russel Dalenberg att!ihlpb!dalenber dalenber@ihlpb.att.com Disclaimer: These are my opinions, not AT&T's
rick@pcrat.uucp (Rick Richardson) (02/13/90)
In article <34142@watmath.waterloo.edu> bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes: >To the best of my knowledge, these laws are new enough that no court has >ruled on whether "you may copy for evaluation purposes only" is a valid >restriction a copyright holder may place on copying. At least in the U.S., copyright law (17 U.S.C. sec 106, sec 117) explicitly allows the holder of a legal copy of a computer program the right to copy the program into memory (load and execute the program). The copyright owner may not abridge this right using just the copyright laws. This right is in addition to those rights which are granted under the fair use doctrine. I think if you are going to try to enforce eval-ware type limits, you'll have to rely on the validity of the license. Since the validity of a license can only be tested in court can we please drop this portion of the discussion. Here is my opinion concerning Shareware on the net: 1) only source code submissions should be allowed, because the net is a broadcast medium, and source code can be used on a larger proportion of the receiving machines than can binaries. 2) All postings must be beg-ware style (as opposed to eval-ware), since copyright law treats these the same. Rather than have these "eval-ware license flames", lets just avoid the issue. BTW, I don't like the term "beg-ware", but the terminology has become so confused that this term is the only one I could think of that was not ambiguous. "beg-ware" used to be called freeware, but that name was trademarked or something, so freeware became shareware. Then came the ASP and eval-ware became shareware, too. Now freeware has public domain connotations. I can't wait to see what the new O.E.D. will have to say about these terms. -Rick (beg-ware author) -- Rick Richardson | JetRoff "di"-troff to LaserJet Postprocessor| Ask about PC Research,Inc.| Mail: uunet!pcrat!jetroff; For anon uucp do:| FaxiX uunet!pcrat!rick| uucp jetroff!~jetuucp/file_list ~nuucp/. | for UNIX/386 jetroff Wk2200-0300,Sa,Su ACU {2400,PEP} 12013898963 "" \d\r\d ogin: jetuucp
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/13/90)
In article <6566@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> bjones@uhccux.UUCP (Brad Jones) writes: > >Could you help me with this? Are unethical people poor, or are poor >people unethical? An interesting concept in either case. I bet >I could really generate flames by guessing which political party you >belong to... Libertarian, if you must know. Everyone I know who would stand atop a soapbox and proclaim how they would use another's intellectual property with little or no regard to the owner's wishes is not in a position to have very deep pockets. That's just what I've experienced to date. No commentary is implied. >.... The most desirable programs delivered over the Usenet >are the ones that include source code and are free to use and "hack >on". This, to me, represents the unified creative spirit that should >typify the Usenet. Otherwise the whole thing is just a glorified >bulletin board (where I think shareware rightfully belongs). No complaint from me on this: I agree. The business side of me understands why Ido not distribute the source code on my stuff -- and my own stuff (anti- virus software) probably should *not* be distributed with the source, just to play things safe. But I've learned a great deal over the years looking at the source out there. > >2) Within the group of shareware programs that I saw, there were two >main types: the ones where the bulk of the programing effort had gone >into solid, useful, efficient code; and the ones where a substantial >effort had gone into creating screenfuls of (often) brightly-colored, >blinking messages reminding the user to send money. I know that these >types are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but the correlation was too >great to be coincidence. The documentation also generally reflects the >author's bias. Generally, the more flashy the request for money, the less worthwhile the code: at least that's been my experience. Naturally, my request for registration is not flashy at all! :-) > >3) A good, solid, bug-free piece of shareware is probably worth $10 - >$20. I say this not to belittle the efforts of the individual >programmers, but because that's what seems to be fair in today's >competitive marketplace. Actually, it's worth whatever the market pays for it. Almost by definition in the shareware arena. The folks making the most money in shareware seem to offer products in the $75 - $99 range. Those are the really rich guys. Those, like me, who don;t think ahead end up supporting a product that brings in only $10 a head! >...[variety of complaints about "bad" shareware]... >response is... del *.*. And, hey, that doesn't infringe *anyone's* >copyright (now matter how poorly based in actual law). That's the whole point: if you don't like it, don't use it. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/13/90)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > >Copying shareware is =encouraged=. So I may very legally obtain and >distribute copies of shareware. With the issue of the legality of any >copies of shareware disposed of, the only remaining legal issue is >whether or not the license can restrict me from using it. Since I did >not agree to the terms of the license, I am free to use my copy in any >fashion I choose. If you do not see the inherent contradiction between the above and your reluctance to use priacted software, I'm at a loss. I permit legal *copying* of my software. I permit you to use my software for a while. But, after that while is up, I expect you to pay for its usage or to stop using it. Since you claim you did not agree to the terms of any license, I suppose that if the message: "This code not registered after 90 days, erasing your disk..." you'd be happy to take the other side of the equation: you can;t sue the SOB destroying your data because *you* never signed anything? > >Ross, you're being an idiot. Lotus 1-2-3 is protected by a copyright, >shareware isn't - the copyright on most shareware is written to encourage >copying. That's the whole idea - make all the copies you want and them >give them to your friends, along with a request for money. There is no >question as to my legally being able to obtain a copy. Wrong. First, I work hard at not being an idiot, I only play one on TV. Second, I do not give up my copyright by giving you permission to make copies as per my terms. Third, the "request" for funds is part of the copying, and your right to se that code is contingent upon you paying for that continued right. There is a world of difference between being able to legally obtain a copy and being able to ethically use that copy. You may use that copy, ethically, for the evaluation period without paying for it. Usage without payment after that period is unethical. Simply don't use the code if you don;t want to pay for it. It really is that simple. > >>Now, are you complaining about shareware over UseNet, or about shareware as >>a whole? Or, are you simply complaining? > >Shareware on USENET. This is USENET, right? Right you are. I've been Usenetting for a while, and that'swhy I've never posted my code here. I'm a tad uncomfortable with using the net that way. For myself. However, if somebody else posts my code to the net, I'd still feel that users of my code must pay for it. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/13/90)
In article <14122@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: > >I said "software vendors", like the Lotus corporation so fondly referenced >by Ross. They do have tens of thousands of dollars. So does Apple, and >the other people who will go after violation of copyright but to my >knowledge none have taken a shrink wrap violation to court. > Sorry, Sean, but you're wrong. Copyright violations, as in the usage of pirated software, is pretty old stuff and Lotus has won a few times. On the shareware side of things, the folks who put out `Procomm' recently won a copyright infringement case against someone distributing their code without their permission. Every reputable shareware author I know, and every reputable commercial software house will go after a company that illegally distributes their code in violation of internationally agreed upon copyright law. > > >|Balderdash, Sean. Whethr you like it or not, you are bound by certain laws: >|try selling copies of Lotus 123. Give those folks up at Cambridge adequate >|notice. You'll be sued forcopyright infringment. And you never signed >|anything. Tell it to the judge. > >Ross is playing stupid again. I know he's not stupid. > >A copyright does not require a contract to be valid. A license does. > Nope, I keep telling ya, I just look this way. What do you think you;re in violaion of, Sean, if you're using a pirated copy of Lotus? The guy who gave it to you is in violation of copyright law. But you, the poor schmuck whose company will fire him, at the least, for knowingly using pirated code, well, what are you in violation of. Hint: think license agreement. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (02/13/90)
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: |In article <14122@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: |>I said "software vendors", like the Lotus corporation so fondly referenced |>by Ross. They do have tens of thousands of dollars. So does Apple, and |>the other people who will go after violation of copyright but to my |>knowledge none have taken a shrink wrap violation to court. |Sorry, Sean, but you're wrong. Copyright violations, as in the usage of |pirated software, is pretty old stuff and Lotus has won a few times. On |the shareware side of things, the folks who put out `Procomm' recently |won a copyright infringement case against someone distributing their code |without their permission. Cmon Ross! I'm *not* talking about copyright violations! Everyone knows that it's illegal to violate a copyright, and that software vendors have prosecuted when feasable. I'm talking about shrink wrap license violations where the copyright is not otherwise violated. I've bought software at the store that said "you can't lend this to friends" and "you may not make *any* copies". Well the law says that if I own copyrighted software, and unless I am bound by a license not to, that I can lend it and I can make archival copies. The question is whether a shrink wrap license is binding, and my point is that software companies are very reluctant to test it in court because they will probably lose. The deal with Procomm was a case of copyright violation, not shrink wrap or other license violation. Procomm is not redistributable. Only their test drive disk can be redistributed. It was the former--not the latter--that was the subject of copyright infringement. Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** "May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism *** in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there *** is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit." -MP
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (02/13/90)
In article <1235@utoday.UUCP> greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes: >>Copyright law protects an author from those who would make >>un-authorized copies of his work for distribution, and from those who >>would claim the work to be their own. > >Right. The "All Rights Reserved" clause means that all of the rights, >even those not specifically mentioned belong with the author. Now, the >author may make special consideration and permit persons to copy their >creation provided they follow certain guidelines. Could they restrict >a person who follows those guidelines because they don;t like the person, >or don;t like the person's politics? Probably not. But, unless you follow >whatever restrictions the author places on the copying of his or her >creation, then you are in violation of their Copy Right. USENET is not the same as the floppy distributors you are probably dealing with. When you post an article to USENET, you have caused it be copied onto every system on the network. You =can't= restrict it from being copied onto my machine, unless I tell you in advance I have no intention of complying and you monkey with the article header. The entire issue of the recipient having a legal copy is mute - you gave me the copy I have. The only thing left to argue is ownership and redistribution. I don't want to own it, and I don't plan on selling it to anyone else [ or if I plan on redistributing it, I plan on redistributing it according to the normal set of guidelines ] All that remains to argue is the license, and it isn't legally valid. >Don't confuse the right to copy with the license to use. The software author >owns both and may grant them as they see fit. But, giving out blanket >rights on one does not give out blanket rights on the other. They are >unrelated with a common intersection only by the author's leave. Well, the license is invalid. There is a legal term for holding someone to an agreement based on some arbitrary action they took. The most common example is public parking - the "not liable no matter what" type statements are also invalid [ go ask in misc.legal ]. >Most shareware has a statement such as: "You may distribute this shareware >in its entirity, but not for commercial gain. If you wish to distribute >this software for any fee whatsoever, you must have <author's> written >permission to do so." > >This is merely a loosening of the "All Rights Reserved" clause. Fine, and that part of the =COPYRIGHT= is still valid. >Again, I can;t speak for all shareware authors. In my case, I encourage >as many people as possible to try my code out. If they like it, they'll >continue to use it. If they continue to use it, they'll make it a part >of their normal computing environment. When that occurs, I expect them to >pay my $10 registration fee. Presuming they legally obtained the copy, the =LICENSE= requiring them to send you the $10 is invalid. >What allows me to provide such code and such services for as little as I do >is the continued support of some of the ethical people out there. The >lack of support by those lacking in the ethics to adhere to my wishes causes >me to raise my price. And what allows others to distribute their shareware on USENET is the continued support of unwitting companies and unversities being required to be their distribution service. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/13/90)
In article <14144@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: > >Cmon Ross! I'm *not* talking about copyright violations! Everyone knows >that it's illegal to violate a copyright, and that software vendors have >prosecuted when feasable. I'm still getting confused. It looks like you uphold all of the copyright stuff, that you approve of the owner of an intellectual property being able to determine exactly how that software might be protected from copying against the owner's desire? Are you know acknowledging that the owner of the intellectual property owns the right of determining the copying of that software, regardless of how it got on your machine? > >I'm talking about shrink wrap license violations where the copyright is >not otherwise violated. I've bought software at the store that said >"you can't lend this to friends" and "you may not make *any* copies". Actually most of them say that you may make backup copies and that you may only use the product on one CPU at a time. Backup copies are permitted by copyright law. Making more than one viable copy and using it is specifically against copyright law. Above you indicated that you upheld the copyright laws. Now you do or you don't. Which is it? > >Well the law says that if I own copyrighted software, and unless I am >bound by a license not to, that I can lend it and I can make archival >copies. The question is whether a shrink wrap license is binding, and my >point is that software companies are very reluctant to test it in court >because they will probably lose. The shrinkwrap agreement we're speaking of here seems to be the lessening of the terms of the copyright law. If you don't want those laws lessened, fine. If, however, you've agreed with the shrinkwrap license enough to allow yourself, to force yourself, to bend the copyright law as the shrinkwrap agreement indicates you can, then you've already agreed to what the shrinkwrap license says, Sean. Enforceable in court? Probably not. But, again, I'm only speaking ethics here. > >The deal with Procomm was a case of copyright violation, not shrink >wrap or other license violation. Procomm is not redistributable. Only >their test drive disk can be redistributed. It was the former--not the >latter--that was the subject of copyright infringement. > It was copying their software without their permission. A simple case of copyright infringement. But, fortuneately, you have already agreed that the owner of an intellectual property may decide how that intellectual property may be distributed. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/13/90)
dalenber@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (Russel Dalenberg) writes: > >What if your new car came with an automatic "this isn't really yours, you >can't sell it" statement on the front seat. Would you consider that valid? > Go to car dealer. Ask him for a test drive. Don't take the car back. Explain it to the nice police officer when he comes a'knocking on your front door. Get it? -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/13/90)
dalenber@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (Russel Dalenberg) writes: >There is a big difference between a copyright owner sending out legal copies >of their work and a random person sending out illegal copies of that same >work. But if Lotus 123 was posted to Usenet by it's copyright owners, even >with a "shareware license", I would consider the copy I received to be mine; >free and clear. Okey doke, then, we'll hold off on the idea of whether or not you should abide by a shareware agreement. For a while, we'll even believe that you can hold to your idea of ethics. Now, please tell me how you would prove that the shareware is posted by the legitimate copyright holder? Let's presume that until you prove that a person is the legitimate copyright holder, you wouldn't infringe on the wishes of the real intellectual property owner by using that shareware against their wishes. Now, tell me what shareware author would knowingly post their software to UseNet with an attitude such as yours rampant? None I can think of. That would mean that all the shareware on the net was posted by somebody else, and that you won't use it. Good. Glad we got that settled. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (02/14/90)
In article <17923@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >And what allows others to distribute their shareware on USENET is the >continued support of unwitting companies and unversities being required >to be their distribution service. Quite right, although it doesn't necessarily have to be unwitting. An institution (large, like MIT, or small, like me) can decide that the benefits to THEM of receiving and passing on shareware outweigh the costs. Institutional networks exist for the convenience of their consitituents, who may be happy to see shareware offerings arrive. But the basic point is valid, and that's why all commercial product distribution should be booted out of the core hierarchies. Just because some folks find it useful doesn't mean it should pollute the noncommercial net core. There is plenty of vigorous opportunity for expansion to new hierarchies transmitted among consenting institutions. The marketplace will enforce survival there. But the noncommercial core should be preserved. I have seen zero followups along these lines of argument from the folks nattering endlessly about copyrights and such, so I assume the point is accepted. If so, the policy issue is decided and we're down to chatter.
evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch) (02/14/90)
In article <1249@utoday.UUCP> greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > dalenber@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (Russel Dalenberg) writes: >>[...] if Lotus 123 was posted to Usenet by it's copyright owners, even >>with a "shareware license", I would consider the copy I received to be mine; >>free and clear. >Now, tell me what shareware author would knowingly post their software to >UseNet with an attitude such as yours rampant? None I can think of. Attention, shareware authors! If you allow your work to be distributed over Usenet, it may be mucked with by people whose ethics don't resemble yours at all. Your licences will be ignored, your requests for payment sneered at, your evaluation deadlines ridiculed. Answer: Don't post shareware on Usenet. Don't even allow it to be done. Explicitly disallow Usenet posting of your work in your copyright notice. >Good. Glad we got that settled. Me too. -- Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software, located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario evan@telly.on.ca / {uunet!attcan,utzoo}!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504 If they call it WordPerfect, why is it on revision five?
kentfo@polari.UUCP (Kent Forschmiedt) (02/14/90)
Based on the volume that this subject has generated, I propose the creation of a new group, talk.shareware, or perhaps it might even go in an alt group. I think that this discussion does not belong in the comp hierarchy, since it is only incidentally related to computers and is much more concerned with moral, ethical and legal issues. In any case, it no longer relevant to comp.sources.d. At best, as a discussion of usenet policy, it belongs in news.admin or some such.
alawlor@dit.ie (Aengus Lawlor) (02/20/90)
In article <13555@cbnewsc.ATT.COM>, dalenber@cbnewsc.ATT.COM (Russel Dalenberg) writes: > Ross, several times you've mentioned your anti-virus software. I just > thought I'd mention that anti-virus software is the *last* thing I'd use > as shareware. I would trust an expensive program from a known software > company much more readily than I would trust something uploaded to a BBS > that claimed to be an anti-virus program. Seems like the perfect place > to put a virus if you ask me. Just how effective will an anti-virus program from say Ashton-Tate, that went into the package 6 months ago, and doesn't know about recent Viruses (Virii??)? Try tell convince a big name, regular channel retail distributor that he should scrap the production run of his AV package just because his ace "rattle the cage" hacker came up with a new anti-viral routine? A trusted (important caveat) shareware route is much more effective at fighting Viruses, precisely because it can react so much more quickly. > > Just two more cents on the pro/anti shareware debate. :-) > > Russel Dalenberg > > att!ihlpb!dalenber > dalenber@ihlpb.att.com -- Aengus Lawlor Dept of Computer Science. Time flies like an arrow, ALAWLOR@DIT.IE Dublin Institute of Technology. Fruit-flies like a banana Kevin Street. Dublin 8. Ireland.
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/21/90)
In article <15179@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >Meanwhile Ross "I Follow Up Every Article, Don't You?" Greenberg writes: Just the ones that miss the point. >>Again, I'd have no problem with it being in a biz group, although that >>does seem to deprive a number of sites that do not get any biz hierarchy >>groups to date. > >Then why is this discussion happening. Create biz.shareware and >distribute away. *YES* some sites don't get biz.* but that's because >they don't WANT to PAY for commercial traffic!! Get it? > There are two discussions taking place here. One is on registering shareware. One is on whether comp.* should carry shareware. I'm with you on the "comp ain't the right place for it" for such a placement makes me a bit uncomfortable, too. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
mbennett@midas.UUCP (Mike Bennett) (02/22/90)
in article <14010@s.ms.uky.edu>, sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) says: > > bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes: > > |If you're saying that posting shareware to USENET gives everybody ownership > |of a copy, then what are the consequences of this? > > [discussion about good shareware, bad shareware, etc. deleted] > > If you willingly post your copy to Usenet, or passively allow it to be > posted with no contest, then every single solitary soul that recieves a > copy OWNS that copy. They can execute it, make archival copies, put > that copy on the space shuttle, make a T-shirt out of it, or even sell > their copy. > > [more stuff deleted] > > The program is your intellectual property, but you do NOT have the right > to say what people do with legitimately obtained copies of that property > unless there is a previous contract. All you can do is limit copying and > exhibition. This whole discussion about shareware reminds me of a lot of bandwidth spent sometime last year about a different, albeit similar, topic. I think it is very appropriate that Brad enter the discussion because he was deeply involved in the other topic of debate. Some of you may recall Brad's announcement that he intended to take some jokes from rec.humor.funny (I think) and bind them in a "book" and make them available for sale. There was a LOT of discussion about how he couldn't just take articles from the net that someone else posted and make a profit on them. As a result of that discussion, I now see that a number of people have added Copyrights to their .signature files. I'm very confused about the whole matter. There are those who say, "Anything I take off the net is mine to use as I please." Some go so far as to say they can sell it (as Sean did above), while others say they can decide if the program is good enough for them and, if they determine it is, then they have no obligation (you can take it as moral, ethical, or legal - it doesn't matter to me) to the author of the program. As far as I can tell, there is no difference between me posting a very usable program in source form or posting this article to the net. They are both my intellectual property. I have yet to see someone dispute this point. I see the point of dispute being whether someone MUST pay for the program if the author requests it. This is what I intend to address. For discussion, let's say person A posts source to the net. Person B decides it might be useful, so B "downloads" it (whatever that means). Now, does B have the right to take that code and sell it to anyone (note that I did not say the program is shareware)? I think we all agree that B does not have that right. However, is B free to give the source away? I think we all agree that B does have that right - and probably most would agree that the Copyright notice is part of the source and should be kept with the source. So, it seems we have no problem if someone posts source to the net, we pay the expense to get it here, download it, use it, and pass it on to someone else. Now for the hard part. What happens (or should happen) when someone adds something to the effect of "send me money to use this" in the distribution. Let's look at a comparable problem. A number of years ago, home satellite dishes became popular. You could go out and buy the dish, set it up in your backyard and receive any signal you wanted (limited only by your receiver). Of course, this didn't please the cable networks such as ESPN, HBO, Showtime, and Cinemax, et al. They wanted people to PAY for their signal so they decided to scramble their signal. Now, you could still receive the signal through your receiver, but it was unintelligible. You were forced to buy a descrambler and pay monthly fees to receive a clear signal. Of course, we all know that bootleg descramblers exist which you can purchase for a onetime fee and avoid the monthly charge. However, we also all know this is illegal. Why? I'm not a lawyer so I can't answer that question, but that does not change the fact that decoding this signal is illegal - even though it arrives at my home without me asking for it. I suppose you know the substitutions I want to make in the above paragraph, so I won't rewrite the entire thing. Suffice it to say that the net is the satellite dish, shareware authors are ESPN, HBO, et al, the uuencoded source is the signal, and uudecode is the descrambler (or substitute arc for uu[en|de]code). I believe this is a very strong legal argument for following the guidelines of the shareware author (pay or don't use). An interesting addendum to this argument is the situation with my cable company. Although I am technically capable of adding additional outlets in my home for the cable signal I receive, I am not allowed to do so without increasing my monthly payment to the cable company. In other words, there would be an additional charge for using the same signal I receive now. Having said all of the above, my advice to shareware authors is this: its obvious that no amount of arguing is going to pursuade some people to do what they should. They are only out to take all they can get for as little as possible, regardless of scruples, ethics, morals - whatever. I would not want to do business with these people based on this information. I prefer dealing with honest people who do not try to skirt their obligations, implied or stated, or walk the line between legal and illegal. If you feel your code is good enough to be shareware and you desire it to be so, post an article stating what you have available and have people "order" it for a trial period by mailing you with their return address. This, then, legally obligates them to send the money you ask if they decide to use it or destroy their copy if they decide not to use it. It is my opinion that this whole discussion is a direct outgrowth of the kind of "Ivan Boesky" ethics people hold to today. What a shame. -- Encore Computer Corporation, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida .....!{uunet,sun,pur-ee,brl-smoke}!gould!mbennett I am paid to work and to think for my employer - so I do. I am NOT paid to speak for my employer - so I don't.
jmm@eci386.uucp (John Macdonald) (02/22/90)
In article <17981@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: | | The companies posting in those newsgroups do not advertise jobs [ except | for recruiters, but they are asked to behave themselves ] or sell dinette | sets or hold conferences as their principle source of revenue. | | Commercial software developers are not posting on comp.sources.unix. The | only organizations who principle revenue source is software distribution ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | and who are posting their "product" to the net are shareware authors. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (Brad, grab that one for rec.humor.funny) I'd be surprized to hear of anyone making a decent living by distributing shareware over the net. There are a handful of people who are successful using the commercial networks and local BBS's, but it appears that posting shareware to Usenet does not produce very many paying customers no matter how good the software (or how bad :-). -- Algol 60 was an improvment on most | John Macdonald of its successors - C.A.R. Hoare | jmm@eci386
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (02/22/90)
In article <1268@utoday.UUCP> greenber@.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >There are two discussions taking place here. One is on registering shareware. There are two kinds of software distributed on Usenet: source (traditional) and binaries (since the PC/BBS universe broke in). Shareware source won't work because source is made to be patched, and once it's patched it's not your work product anymore, it's a joint work product of the net. This was a FEATURE NOT A BUG in the original net milieu. But it doesn't mix with the shareware concept. Shareware binaries work exactly as well on the net** as they do on BBS's and commercial timesharing services -- neither better or worse. You fling your handiwork to the winds and sit back and hope for a decent percentage of registrations. If you're sensible, you keep on inventing new things and distributing them, so that your receipts accrue. If you're more greedy than sensible, you spend your efforts trying to coax more registrations out of your existing products' users (via crippling, pleading or legalistic-sounding threats) instead of writing new stuff. Or if you're truly hopeless, you spend lots of time on the computer nets TALKING about all this instead of DOING it. :-) ------------------ ** A separate issue is whether binaries belong in the core groups to begin with. We had this flamewar a year or two ago and the pro-binaries people won, lengthening UUCP sites' "sys" files the world over...
brucet@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bruce Thompson) (02/23/90)
In article <125816@midas.UUCP> mbennett@midas.UUCP (Mike Bennett) writes: [ A nice summary of the problem deleted. ] >Let's look at a comparable problem. A number of years ago, home satellite >dishes became popular. You could go out and buy the dish, set it up in your >backyard and receive any signal you wanted (limited only by your receiver). >Of course, this didn't please the cable networks such as ESPN, HBO, Showtime, >and Cinemax, et al. They wanted people to PAY for their signal so they decided >to scramble their signal. Now, you could still receive the signal through >your receiver, but it was unintelligible. You were forced to buy a descrambler >and pay monthly fees to receive a clear signal. Of course, we all know that >bootleg descramblers exist which you can purchase for a onetime fee and avoid >the monthly charge. However, we also all know this is illegal. Why? I'm not a >lawyer so I can't answer that question, but that does not change the fact that >decoding this signal is illegal - even though it arrives at my home without >me asking for it. Well, actually, in Canada this decoding is perfectly legal. Under the Canadian Copyright Law, any use or reproduction of a copyrighted item that was originally received legally, is in turn legal. Under the CRTC (Canadian equivalent of the FCC) guidelines, any telecommunications that are received from the _public_airwaves_ are to be considered under the Copyright Law. Thus, if I construct a descrambler that is capable of descrambling ESPN from a satellite transmission, then I am not at risk of being charged under either Copyright Infringement nor Theft of Telecommunications. When Pay-TV first arrived in Calgary, there were a number of home-brewed descramblers floating around that, in most cases, did a fairly good job. Calgary Cable TV/FM Inc. attempted to bring suit against several subscribers for descrambling pay signals without paying the monthly fee. The actions were thrown out on the grounds that the Cable TV service had provided the signals, and thus no Theft of Telecommunications had occurred; and that since the subscribers' use was strictly for their own private use that no Copyright Infringement had occurred. > >Although I am technically capable of adding additional outlets in my >home for the cable signal I receive, I am not allowed to do so without >increasing my monthly payment to the cable company. In other words, >there would be an additional charge for using the same signal I receive >now. Calgary Cable would have you believe that you are legally restricted from adding your own outlets, but again they have no legal basis under which to make that claim. To the best of my knowledge these points HAVE been tested in court. > >If you feel your code is good enough to be shareware and you desire it >to be so, post an article stating what you have available and have >people "order" it for a trial period by mailing you with their return >address. This, then, legally obligates them to send the money you ask >if they decide to use it or destroy their copy if they decide not to >use it. Incidently, I think this is a wonderful idea. This way the author and the prospective buyer are known to each other and an agreement can be said to exist between these people. For example, the article announcing the software could include a sentence stating that a file called "LICENSE" is included with the package and that if you do not agree to the terms as set out in that file then you must delete the package. By explicitly ordering the package you are agreeing to the terms of the original article, and if you do not delete the package then a license agreement between you and the author could be shown to exist. Legal and reasonable! >It is my opinion that this whole discussion is a direct outgrowth of the >kind of "Ivan Boesky" ethics people hold to today. What a shame. Actually, I disagree. The only reason I'm in this discussion has to do with the fact that people are trying to tell me that I am bound by an agreement that I did not make. I've said before that if I use ShareWare I would pay for it. The fact that I don't currently use any, nor the fact that I would pay for it has no bearing on my opinion regarding the legal issue. I don't feel that ethics have anything to do with the entire issue. It simply isn't an ethics issue. It is either a legal issue, or one of interpretation (whether or not an agreement can be said to be in effect). >-- >Encore Computer Corporation, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida >.....!{uunet,sun,pur-ee,brl-smoke}!gould!mbennett >I am paid to work and to think for my employer - so I do. >I am NOT paid to speak for my employer - so I don't. Cheers, Bruce. ============================================================================== Bruce Thompson | "I've got this terrible pain in all the NovAtel Communications Ltd. | diodes down my left side" - Marvin the brucet@ksi.cpsc.UCalgary.CA | Paranoid Android The opinions expressed are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of NovAtel Communications Ltd. nor those of The University of Calgary.
kentfo@polari.UUCP (Kent Forschmiedt) (02/23/90)
In article <1268@utoday.UUCP> greenber@.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >I'm with you on the "comp >ain't the right place for it" for such a placement makes me a bit >uncomfortable, too. Oh, good. That means this group has seen the last of this discussion, right? -- Kent Forschmiedt ... kentfo@polari ... uw-beaver!sumax!polari!kentfo
bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) (02/23/90)
John is right, I have participated in commercial activity on USENET, such as offering books for sale. And while there was some debate about that the first time I did it, my impression was that it came out on the side of approval -- it certainly wasn't unanimous disapproval. The next year when I did it again there was no disapproval. This is why I can state with some authority that USENET has no prohibition against such activity. Proof by counter-example. There is only one standard on USENET, in spite of what some who want to impose their own particular ideologies might say. "Is it of value to the readers and sites." Book announcments such as mine clearly were, based on response. Job postings are. For sale announcements are. Conference announcements are. New product announcements are. Product support is. etc. etc. And as far as I can see, shareware is too. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473
salvis@iam.unibe.ch (Hans Salvisberg) (02/23/90)
In article <14231@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >salvis@iam.unibe.ch (Hans Salvisberg) writes: > >|>You know, if you asked nice, I'd probably have removed it from the disk. >| >|You know, this is not really the question. If a software is on your disk >|and you're using it routinely for certain tasks, then that software >|provides some service to you, and it is only fair that you pay the >|author for that service. > >But my response *is* relevant, because this is not a cut and dried issue. >What is "fair" seems to be largely a matter of opinion. One can't assume >that fair in this instance is an empirical truth. Sean, you are deliberately misquoting me by only quoting half of what I wrote! The other half is: |If you could just as well remove it from your disk, you are obviously not |using it regularly, and in fact it is only taking up space on your disk |without giving you any benefit. In that case no shareware author will |ask you to pay for it. | |That's the beauty of shareware! So I agree with you that your response is indeed relevant. If your response is to delete the software, nobody wants you to pay for it. But throughout this discussion everyone on the shareware side implicitely assumes that there may be a piece of shareware that might actually be valuable to you, so that you'd rather pay the registration fee than delete it from your disk, if you were forced to choose between these two alternatives. And the whole point is that given you are using such a piece of shareware, it would be fair to pay the registration fee, even if you are not forced to. Hans Salvisberg salvis@ahorn.iam.unibe.ch
wagner@utoday.UUCP (Mitch Wagner) (02/24/90)
I don't have any problem with shareware. Just because it comes to your
disk without your express permission doesn't mean that you don't have
an obligation to abide by the terms of the shareware "license"---pay
for it if you use it and like it.
As to the idea of shareware occupying piles of disk space and phone
time... I just don't see that that happens. The only time we've
had a problem with disk space (and we have a fairly small system),
the source of the problem was not shareware over the net. It was
a half-dozen to a dozen postings of complete scripts of The Rocky Horror
Picture Show, which some well-meaning but misguided souls contributed
to alt.cult-movies.
Shareware has been on the net for a long time, as far as I know. As
to the legalities of putting it on the net, and how that affects
shareware "licensing" agreements....
When the law works *right*, it is a recognition on paper of principles
which the vast majority of a community live by, in order to keep that
small minority which does not live by those principles from fouling things up.
Thus in the "real world" (i.e., non computer), we have laws against
stealing. The vast majority of people do not steal, and agree that
stealing is wrong. We have laws to give that vast majority a tool to
protect themselves against the minority.
Okay, now take "shareware." This is a concept which evolved in the computer
community meaning, "Here, take this program, use it for a while, then
if you like it, pay me $XX." I don't know how long the concept has been
around, but it is firmly grounded in the community, now, I know. Everybody
skilled enough to get on usenet, download a program, compile it and run
it knows what "shareware" is.
So far as I know, "shareware" as a concept is unique in this world. To
address the concerns of one poster---no, nobody in his right mind would
give away a book and put a notice in Chapter 3 saying, "Like this book?
Gimme $10 if you want to read more," because the concept of shareware
does not exist in the reading community. Similar arguments apply to buying
cars on a "shareware" agreement and some of the other specious analogies
which I've seen here. The nearest analogy I can see is the "honor boxes"
used by some small newspapers, the open racks with a tin can with a slit
in the side wherein one is suppsoed to deposit his nickel or dime or quarter
or whatever before he picks up a newspaper. Those boxes generally aren't
watched, and they're wide open to the air---anybody could walk off
with a paper if they wanted to, without paying. The publishers
rely on people's sense of honor to pay if they take one. However,
even that analogy is quite imprecise, because you have to pay before
you read the paper---not after the paper has been used, as
is the case with shareware.
So you can't argue the principles of shareware by analogy to other
vendor-consumer agreements. There just isn't anything sufficiently like
it in the world to compare it to.
(Just for the record, I don't think any shareware license could be legally
binding. It would be unenforceable... How do you prove that the program
was used?
(But the law and morality don't always coincide. A man I knew who is
a lawyer and former judge... an *excellent* lawyer and *excellent* judge ...
is fond of saying, "When you go into a courtroom, you do not get justice. You
get law.")
The people who are saying, "You're taking up *my* disk space and *my* phone
time" sound to me like they're rationalizing something they know is wrong.
I haven't seen any stories here about shareware overwriting valuable
non-newsgroup files, or newsgroups growing *real* big to the point where
they need cleaning up (as happened to us), and the news
administrator going in and saying, "Lo and behold, most of this is
shareware."
As far as shareware violating the "noncommercial" spirit of Usenet---
from what I've seen, that "noncommercial" rule is an attempt to
rationalize the already-existing customs of the net. Help-wanted ads
and product announcements are already allowed. The idea here is to
prevent the ads, news releases and sales pitches from overwhelming the
free discussion. As with many "laws," (or regulations or guidelines,
or whatever), we have a custom in place which is difficult to express
in words, and the rule-writers are doing the best they can to express
it in words. Doing a poor job of it too, frankly---but I mean no
criticism of the writers-of-the-rules---it's a tough job and I doubt
anybody could have expressed the custom better.
Hasn't shareware been on the net a while? Isn't it part of the customs
of newsgroups?
If there is a problem, then perhaps there should be a comp.shareware
newgroup, or hierarchy of some kind, to which shareware would be
directed. Then, if you hate shareware that much, you don't have
to subscribe.
Two disclaimers, in addition to my customary one below:
1--I'm not a lawyer.
2--Yes, Ross Greenberg, who seems to have initiated this discussion, is
a co-worker and a friend. But if I disagreed with him, I'd say so, or
at least keep my mouth shut. He happens to be right here, I think.
--
Mitch Voice: (516) 562-5758
wagner@utoday.UUCP or wagner@utoday.uu.net
These opinions are mine and are my responsibility,
not my employers' or anyone else's. levin@magnus.Hotline.Com (Michael M Levin) (02/25/90)
In article <125816@midas.UUCP> mbennett@midas.UUCP (Mike Bennett) writes: >in article <14010@s.ms.uky.edu>, sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) says: > >..... vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv >posting this article to the net. They are both my intellectual property. I ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > There seem to be a number of points getting lost here. 1). Since all of the sites between the person who posts a piece of shareware, and the site that ultimately ends up using it, are an integral part of the distribution chain for a commercial product, they rightfully should be compensated as well. In normal business practice, there are one or more distributors involved in the selling of most products. They earn a percentage of the profits. That's because they provide a service which is crucial to selling the product: they get it to the end buyer, which is something that the manufacturer by himself is unable to do because of the costs of advertising and customer interface. I think that unless there is compensation, it's about the same as my stopping by 7-Eleven, putting up a display for 'PRODUCT X', for which buyers are to mail money back to me, without the permission of 7-Eleven, and without any compensation to them. I'm using their floor space, their customer base, and their good-will, without their permission. If anything, the law (in this wonderfully capitalistic country) provides much stiffer penalties for mercantile abuse than it does for misuse of intellectual property. 2). "Intellecutual property" doesn't mean that every word I speak, and every line I write, and every thought I express, are MY PROPERTY. Only if I choose to 'publish' something, and if I take steps to protect it, and notify people that I have taken steps to do so, am I entitled to any protection. The law is pretty clear about the issue of taking steps to protect it: using a public domain medium for distribution might very well invalidate that entire protection. 3). The network is inherently 'public domain'. The general attitude is that while 'commercial traffic' (such as product announcements, and job offers, etc.) is tolerated, that is not the primary purpose of the net. The purpose is to allow for the interchange of ideas, and discussions, etc. It is NOT to be used as a distribution medium of products for profit. 4). Unless the 'rules' for the net are revised, such that the understanding of the various parties which hook up to the net and spend millions of dollars carrying traffic is changed, the people who distribute 'shareware' for profit are misusing an awful lot of computer systems. It would be very interesting to to actually conduct a formal poll, and to determine just what the 'rules of the net' really are. In fact, the 'publishers' of shareware, by using the net, may even be guilty of certain laws concerning misuse of other people's computers (such as the laws by which William Morris has been prosecuted). >For discussion, let's say person A posts source to the net. Person B decides >it might be useful, so B "downloads" it (whatever that means). Now, does B >have the right to take that code and sell it to anyone (note that I did not >say the program is shareware)? I think we all agree that B does not have that >right. I tend to agree, but only because the publisher of such material has essentially abided by the 'rules of the net' in sharing an intellectual property (not 'distributing a product'), and that the only protection being sought is for the general good: by NOT charging money for a property he has placed into the public domain. > However, is B free to give the source away? I think we all agree that >B does have that right - and probably most would agree that the Copyright >notice is part of the source and should be kept with the source. So, it seems >we have no problem if someone posts source to the net, we pay the expense to >get it here, download it, use it, and pass it on to someone else. Again, for the 'general good'. Not because the so-called 'copyright' is included, but rather as an issue involving plagiarism. If another party SELLS my intellectual property, he is a plagiarist. If he gives it away for free, after I have allowed him to, he isn't claiming any sort of ownership nor seeking to profit by it. > >Now for the hard part. What happens (or should happen) when someone adds >something to the effect of "send me money to use this" in the distribution. >Let's look at a comparable problem. A number of years ago, home satellite >dishes became popular. You could go out and buy the dish, set it up in your >backyard and receive any signal you wanted (limited only by your receiver). >Of course, this didn't please the cable networks such as ESPN, HBO, Showtime, >and Cinemax, et al. They wanted people to PAY for their signal so they decided >to scramble their signal. Now, you could still receive the signal through >your receiver, but it was unintelligible. You were forced to buy a descrambler >and pay monthly fees to receive a clear signal. Of course, we all know that >bootleg descramblers exist which you can purchase for a onetime fee and avoid >the monthly charge. However, we also all know this is illegal. Why? I'm not a >lawyer so I can't answer that question, but that does not change the fact that >decoding this signal is illegal - even though it arrives at my home without >me asking for it. > Selling a decoder, for the purpose of illegally tapping into a private radio transmission, is a criminal offense-- not a civil one. This involves the FCC (which has some rather bizarre and out-of-date ideas about the ownership of the 'air waves'). This is tantamount to tapping into a telephone line, or eavesdropping. It has NOTHING what- so-ever to do with copyright. >I suppose you know the substitutions I want to make in the above paragraph, >so I won't rewrite the entire thing. Suffice it to say that the net is the >satellite dish, shareware authors are ESPN, HBO, et al, the uuencoded source >is the signal, and uudecode is the descrambler (or substitute arc for >uu[en|de]code). I believe this is a very strong legal argument for following >the guidelines of the shareware author (pay or don't use). An interesting >addendum to this argument is the situation with my cable company. Although I >am technically capable of adding additional outlets in my home for the cable >signal I receive, I am not allowed to do so without increasing my monthly >payment to the cable company. In other words, there would be an additional >charge for using the same signal I receive now. > That's a contractual issue. Look at the cable TV contract you signed when you set up service. It contains an agreement by you to not add any additional taps. Again, this has nothing to do with copyright. You have the right to hook up as many telephone extensions as you like in your home (which was something that MA BELL used to think they had the right to bar you from doing). Again, this is an issue involving contract, and possibly city ordinance. It is not relevant. >Having said all of the above, my advice to shareware authors is this: its >obvious that no amount of arguing is going to pursuade some people to do >what they should. They are only out to take all they can get for as little >as possible, regardless of scruples, ethics, morals - whatever. I would >not want to do business with these people based on this information. I prefer >dealing with honest people who do not try to skirt their obligations, implied >or stated, or walk the line between legal and illegal. If you feel your code >is good enough to be shareware and you desire it to be so, post an article >stating what you have available and have people "order" it for a trial period >by mailing you with their return address. This, then, legally obligates them >to send the money you ask if they decide to use it or destroy their copy if >they decide not to use it. > If you're talking about using a floppy disk, or some such, as the distribution medium, I agree with you. >It is my opinion that this whole discussion is a direct outgrowth of the >kind of "Ivan Boesky" ethics people hold to today. What a shame. > You are trying to argue that a law such as copyright- created for the purpose of protecting book authors and artists from being ripped off- is one that can or should be stretched to the limit to try and justify ripping off tens of thousands of computer sites around the country of millions of dollars for some individual's profit. Who is it that has the 'Ivan Boesky' ethics? Mike Levin -- _ _ | | ___ ___ |_| ___ Michael Levin SilentRadio Headquarters- Los Angeles | |/ ._\| | || || \ 20732 Lassen Street, Chatsworth CA 91311 U.S.A. |_|\___/ \_/ |_||_|_| E-Mail: levin@Hotline.Com {att|csun|srhqla}!magnus!mml
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/25/90)
In article <15191@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: > >Shareware binaries work exactly as well on the net** as they do on BBS's >and commercial timesharing services -- neither better or worse. You >fling your handiwork to the winds and sit back and hope for a decent >percentage of registrations. Actually, you're wrong. UseNet is a lousy source of revenue for me. Seems it is for most of the shareware people I speak to - I'll go so far as to say that no one I know has made any money off of their shareware through UseNet as a channel. > >Or if you're truly hopeless, you spend lots of time on the computer nets >TALKING about all this instead of DOING it. :-) > I have the time to spend on the nets. Shareware has been very good to me, Tom, except on the nets. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"
" Maynard) (02/25/90)
In article <1990Feb23.155338.28418@iam.unibe.ch> salvis@iam.unibe.ch (Hans Salvisberg) writes: >[...] everyone on the shareware side implicitely assumes that >there may be a piece of shareware that might actually be valuable to you, >so that you'd rather pay the registration fee than delete it from your >disk, if you were forced to choose between these two alternatives. And >the whole point is that given you are using such a piece of shareware, >it would be fair to pay the registration fee, even if you are not forced >to. This is a clear, concise, and understandable position, and one with which I agree. You may not be forced to pay for the shareware you use, but it's the Right Thing to do. Me? I voted with my wallet: this discussion led me to go buy a copy of FluShot+, Ross Greenberg's program. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Free the DC-10!
woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) (02/26/90)
In article <1288@utoday.UUCP> greenber@.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > In article <15191@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: > > Shareware binaries work exactly as well on the net** as they do on BBS's > > and commercial timesharing services -- neither better or worse. You > > fling your handiwork to the winds and sit back and hope for a decent > > percentage of registrations. > > Actually, you're wrong. UseNet is a lousy source of revenue for me. Seems > it is for most of the shareware people I speak to - I'll go so far as to > say that no one I know has made any money off of their shareware through > UseNet as a channel. Hmm... I wonder if UseNet simply doesn't have the group of readers who need-want-use-buy traditional (i.e. PC/binary) shareware. I know well that lots of PC users are on the net (several on my machine alone). But perhaps they turn to other channels for shareware. UseNet certainly won't be the fastest and easiest channel for many of these people. Anyway, I don't want you to put down UseNet as a shareware channel just because.... Perhaps there's a real reason. -- Greg A. Woods woods@{robohack,gate,eci386,tmsoft,ontmoh}.UUCP +1 416 443-1734 [h] +1 416 595-5425 [w] VE3-TCP Toronto, Ontario; CANADA
darcy@druid.uucp (D'Arcy J.M. Cain) (02/26/90)
In article <1990Feb26.132435.19063@robohack.UUCP> woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes: >Hmm... I wonder if UseNet simply doesn't have the group of readers >who need-want-use-buy traditional (i.e. PC/binary) shareware. I know >well that lots of PC users are on the net (several on my machine >alone). But perhaps they turn to other channels for shareware. >UseNet certainly won't be the fastest and easiest channel for many of >these people. > Or perhaps UseNetters are more discriminating about the software they use? I haven't tried much shareware but so far I havein't kept anything I have tried (With the exception of PCBOSS Windows which I paid for.) Most of the stuff I tried wwas clumsy, buggy or useless. I have usually wound up writing what I need or modifying someone else's source. I have always thought that UseNet was for sharing ideas and helping each other with problems. Shareware fits a different model. One side of the shareware group writes software for sale and the other side uses it. Both sides get something from UseNet without returning anything to it. They just see UseNet as a free distribution channel. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain (darcy@druid) | Thank goodness we don't get all D'Arcy Cain Consulting | the government we pay for. West Hill, Ontario, Canada | (416) 281-6094 |
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (02/27/90)
If Usenet (or USENET -- not UseNet or USENet or UsEnEt you heathen; rtfm) is relatively unproductive as a registration cash-cow for shareware postings, it's probably because people don't EXPECT to find shareware here; why should they, since common sense suggests IT DOESN'T BELONG HERE! Still, authors like Ross "I Conduct Mail-Type Conversations In News Articles, Don't You?" Greenberg can hardly claim it's a BAD channel, since after one little upload the entire net patiently does the remaining 99% of the commercial distribution work, at its own expense. With an implicit subsidy like this, any return at all is worth it -- to the author that is. The bottom line is, BBS's and commercial timesharing services ALREADY exist. Usenet cannot and should not try to emulate them. -- To have a horror of the bourgeois (\( Tom Neff is bourgeois. -- Jules Renard )\) tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/28/90)
woods@robohack.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes: > >Anyway, I don't want you to put down UseNet as a shareware channel >just because.... Perhaps there's a real reason. Actually, as a shareware channel, the only thing useful about UseNet is that there can be pretty fast feedback, something lacking from a lot of other channels. I always include my various E-mail addresses (UseNet, BIX, CIS, MCI, RamNet, etc.) and get the most feedback mail on CIS, followed by MCI, followed by UseNet. The UseNet feedback is usually the most informative, the MCI the least informative. -- Ross M. Greenberg, President, Software Concepts Design, greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 BBS:(212)-889-6438
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (02/28/90)
In article <15206@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: > >Still, authors like Ross "I Conduct Mail-Type Conversations In News >Articles, Don't You?" Greenberg can hardly claim it's a BAD channel, >since after one little upload the entire net patiently does the >remaining 99% of the commercial distribution work, at its own expense. >With an implicit subsidy like this, any return at all is worth it -- to >the author that is. Dear Tom: Hi. How are you? I'm fine. How's the wife and kids? Really, Tom "I Rarely Find The Facts Out Before Posting" Neff, you really *should* find out the facts before posting. I upload my code to a total of three places. That's enough, for a $10 product, to provide for a full-time income for me and for my assistant. Usenet happens to a horrid place for registrations because of attitudes such as the one you're so proud of representing. No other channel tries so hard to justify itself for lack of registrations, either. -- Ross M. Greenberg, President, Software Concepts Design, greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 BBS:(212)-889-6438
bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) (03/01/90)
Sigh. USENET is *NOT* public domain. It's not even a public network. It is *not* noncommercial. Saying it won't make it so. I have, and have given, counterexamples. Counterexamples are generally accepted as a pretty darn good way of disproving a thesis. So stop saying it! Some people are missing the point of shareware over a net like USENET. It's to benefit the *readers*, not just the poster and/or author. If it didn't benefit the readers, then it would not be appropriate to post. So to suggest that sites be paid as middlemen in a software distribution channel is silly. It misses the point of shareware, which is that the users get to pass it around for their benefit. The authors would be glad to send a disk to any customer in the mail who places an order. The shareware concept came about to benefit the users as well as the author. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (03/01/90)
To conclude, then: Usenet is a poor source of shareware registrations because, as the home of message exchange and SOURCE freeware, it neither expects nor particularly welcomes shareware or any other commercial software *distribution* at its expense. Neither Usenet nor any other existing medium has an obligation to "justify" its shareware registration rate. What a thought! (As for "anti-virus" software, picture Joe Isuzu cruising by with red pickup and bullhorn: "Ask him if it handles Twelve Triiiicks...") -- "NASA Awards Acronym Generation :(%( : Tom Neff System (AGS) Contract For Space : )%): tneff%bfmny@UUNET.UU.NET Station Freedom" - release 1989-9891 :(%( : ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (03/01/90)
In article <34720@watmath.waterloo.edu> bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes: >Sigh. USENET is *NOT* public domain. It's not even a public network. >It is *not* noncommercial. Saying it won't make it so. I have, and have >given, counterexamples. Counterexamples are generally accepted as a pretty >darn good way of disproving a thesis. So stop saying it! No, Brad has given examples of commercial ANNOUNCEMENTS, which are specifically OK'd in the guidelines. Red herring. At issue is commercial DISTRIBUTION of product at the net's expense. Whole different kettle of fish. This distinction has been pointed out in previous articles with no acknowledgement from Brad that I've seen. The only commercial distribution on Usenet today is shareware, and shareware on Usenet is WRONG -- that's the thesis. Next case.
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (03/01/90)
In article <34720@watmath.waterloo.edu> bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes: >Sigh. USENET is *NOT* public domain. It's not even a public network. >It is *not* noncommercial. Saying it won't make it so. I have, and have >given, counterexamples. Counterexamples are generally accepted as a pretty >darn good way of disproving a thesis. So stop saying it! Your counterexamples have consisted of bogus analogies. You aren't the official spokesman for what USENET is or isn't. Quit pretending you are. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (03/02/90)
In article <15217@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >To conclude, then: Usenet is a poor source of shareware registrations >because, as the home of message exchange and SOURCE freeware, it neither >expects nor particularly welcomes shareware or any other commercial >software *distribution* at its expense. Neither Usenet nor any other >existing medium has an obligation to "justify" its shareware >registration rate. What a thought! > To conclude, then: Usenet is a poor source of shareware registrations. Why that is, well, that hasn't been settled. Certainly, the fact that little shareware is distributed on the net might be one reason for it. Another might be that people are not aware of what shareware really is. Another reason might be that somebody told them "Oh, don't pay for it!" and people opt not to pay for it rather than have to listen to those petty justifications. My mailbox, by the way, Tom, shows me that you know as much about how the net, whose members you presume to speak for, as you do about the shareware business. That is, virtually nothing. Finally, Tom: nobody would expect any medium to try to justify itself. The members of this net are not represented by you. You seek only to justify your own beliefs. -- Ross M. Greenberg, President, Software Concepts Design, greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 BBS:(212)-889-6438
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (03/02/90)
In article <1331@utoday.UUCP> greenber@.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >My mailbox, by the way, Tom, shows me that you know as much about how the >net, whose members you presume to speak for, as you do about the shareware >business. That is, virtually nothing. >greenber@utoday.UUCP >BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 > BBS:(212)-889-6438 I rest my case. -- "My God, Thiokol, when do you \\ Tom Neff want me to launch? Next April?" \\ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
root@polari.UUCP (The Super User) (03/03/90)
Keywords: No one speaks for the net. Ross, I think you've gotten plenty of clear opposition to your or anyone else's posting shareware on the network, and everyone has agreed that the return rates are abomindable. Stop accusing the network of "trying to justify..." blah blah blah and just drop it. Yo are sending a clear message to thousands of net readers that you're insensitive to a large segment (10%? 20%? 60%?) of the folks who provide usenet to them, and that can't be helping the public image of your product. Yes, I carry shareware on my system, and yes, I do encourage it to be downloaded --true also that I get a cut of the proceeds of any registration fees earned by copies directly downloaded from my system. Suggest that you consider giving something of worth to the people who are helping you and your assistant earn a living off of peddling paranoia and fear.
bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) (03/03/90)
In article <18063@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >Your counterexamples have consisted of bogus analogies. > >You aren't the official spokesman for what USENET is or isn't. Quit >pretending you are. That's the best contradiction within a posting I have seen in a while! Of course I am not the official spokesan for what USENET is. That's what I've been telling you all along -- or more to the point, that you aren't the spokesman either. One thing I can say with authority. USENET has no ideology. Not yours or mine. So it is *not* non-commercial. It does *not* prohibit shareware or selling books etc. That's because it's not any ideology and it doesn't prohibit anything explicitly. So stop running around describing your opinion of the ideology that governs USENET as a fact. There is no ideology, that's all you can say. USENET is just a private club with effectively no rules. And shareware does appear on USENET, and has appeared here fairly often. So don't say it isn't appropriate here. I don't argue by analogies in this case, I present real examples of the facts. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473
wagner@utoday.UUCP (Mitch Wagner) (03/03/90)
In article <34720@watmath.waterloo.edu> bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes: >Sigh. USENET is *NOT* public domain. It's not even a public network. >It is *not* noncommercial. Saying it won't make it so. I have, and have >given, counterexamples. Counterexamples are generally accepted as a pretty >darn good way of disproving a thesis. So stop saying it! > >Some people are missing the point of shareware over a net like USENET. >It's to benefit the *readers*, not just the poster and/or author. If it >didn't benefit the readers, then it would not be appropriate to post. > >So to suggest that sites be paid as middlemen in a software distribution >channel is silly. It misses the point of shareware, which is that the >users get to pass it around for their benefit. The authors would be glad >to send a disk to any customer in the mail who places an order. > >The shareware concept came about to benefit the users as well as the author. Agreed, but it's hard not to sympathize with the systems-owner who feels ripped off.... that he's giving away access to his system so that another person can make a buck that he won't see. If enough people feel that way, it can make the net unpopular, make sites less willing to do their parts and contribute to the greater good, etc., which could undermine the net. I guess the solution to this is to set up a call for votes on the quesiton of whether shareware should be distributed on the net. (NOTE: I am *not* volunteering to do this. I am quite satisfied with he status quo myself--- and BTW, I don't write shareware myself... I'm not even a programmer... so I have no financial interest in how the question is decided.) How long has shareware been on the net, anyway? -- Mitch Voice: (516) 562-5758 wagner@utoday.UUCP or wagner@utoday.uu.net These opinions are mine and are my responsibility, not my employers' or anyone else's.
wagner@utoday.UUCP (Mitch Wagner) (03/03/90)
In article <18063@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >In article <34720@watmath.waterloo.edu> bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes: >>Sigh. USENET is *NOT* public domain. It's not even a public network. >>It is *not* noncommercial. Saying it won't make it so. I have, and have >>given, counterexamples. Counterexamples are generally accepted as a pretty >>darn good way of disproving a thesis. So stop saying it! > >Your counterexamples have consisted of bogus analogies. > >You aren't the official spokesman for what USENET is or isn't. Quit >pretending you are. Neither are you. Brad is stating his opinions, Ross states his, you state yours, I state mine, Tom Neff states his. What's the problem? -- Mitch Voice: (516) 562-5758 wagner@utoday.UUCP or wagner@utoday.uu.net These opinions are mine and are my responsibility, not my employers' or anyone else's.
bruceki@microsoft.UUCP (Bruce KING) (03/03/90)
Your example is one of sending an ANNOUNCEMENT of a product over the network -- "this book is for sale". Our problem with shareware is that they're SHIPPING it over the network. If you posted the entire text of the book to usenet and stuck a label on it saying you could get a paper copy if you sent money it'd be the same sort of waste of net bandwidth that we're complaining about here. When you post an example please take the time to make sure that it fits the problem precisely. We're talking about people subsidizing their products distribution; if the shareware authors wanted to post a note to somewhere saying "hey, this product is available, mail me at ..." I don't think that ANYONE would complain. Ross Greenberg, please note: You can announce your new product in comp.announce.newprod any time you want; Brad, you can announce your book any time you want. The objections here center around the distribution over the network. The shareware guys should really start a mailing list or something so that interested site admins can hear about new shareware and request it. How much is computer professional's good will to your bottom line? Every time this thread irritates another person, how long will they remember that X or Y person is an irritating guy who's wasting net resources? This is my opinion. I don't speak for any other people.
levin@magnus.Hotline.Com (Michael M Levin) (03/03/90)
In article <34720@watmath.waterloo.edu> bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes: >Sigh. USENET is *NOT* public domain. It's not even a public network. >It is *not* noncommercial. Saying it won't make it so. I have, and have >given, counterexamples. Counterexamples are generally accepted as a pretty >darn good way of disproving a thesis. So stop saying it! Sigh. . . YOU seem to miss the point. I quote 'How to Use USENET Effectively' by Matt Bishop (10-19-86): [Introduction] "USENET is a worldwide bulleting board system in which thousands of computers pass articles back and forth. Of necessity, customs have sprung up enabling very diverse people and groups to communicate peaceably and effectively using USENET..." ** Customs of the net is the operative word here. Not 'commercial' vs 'non-commercial'. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that customs is the 'co-operative' word. [Section 2: All about USENET] "As a result, USENET has no equivalent of a "sysop" or a central authority controlling the bulletin board. What little control is exercised is wielded by the person at each site who is responsible for maintaining the USENET connections." How can you possibly say the USENET is not a public network, and that it is commercial? It sure doesn't sound like a business to me, but more like a 'club' that lets anybody who isn't a jerk join, as long as he abides by the 'rules'. In this case, the 'rules' are the customs of the net. It also seems that anything that is set up to let just about anybody who wants to get in is pretty darned public. I grant you, we'd have to be willing to admit jerks as well to be *TRULY* public. If you can show me where there is a financial interest on the part of USENET (whatever the heck that ethereal entity is) I might buy your argument about it being commercial. If you can't find any (which I'm sure you can't), then it by definition *CAN'T* be commercial. >Some people are missing the point of shareware over a net like USENET. >It's to benefit the *readers*, not just the poster and/or author. If it >didn't benefit the readers, then it would not be appropriate to post. [Section 3.3: 'Be sure your posting is appropriate to USENET'] ..."And please don't quote the First Amendment, or the laws allowing freedom of speech in your country; while the posting programs will not stop you, the aftermatch could be very unpleasent - lawsuits and court trials usually are, and the USENET would certainly collapse as sites dropped from it to protect themselves from legal liability. You wouldn't want that on your conscience, would you? Of course not." ** This also extends to the laws covering copyrights, and the ones related to telecommunications, etc. I take issue with the idea that the shareware distribution is a 'posting appropriate to USENET.' And, since a great number of sites' involvement in USENET is completely unrelated to their business or financial interests, any legal controversy about the practices related to using the net could 'collapse the USENET'. I take this to basically mean that it is not in the co-operative interests of the USENET to get into anything sticky. Shareware is sticky, and is therefore inappropriate. It's also commercial, and I suspect that a lot of business people at sites who offer courtesy connections wouldn't feel that they should be involved in *any way* with something that could end up costing them time and money (and possibly legal fees). You wouldn't want that on YOUR conscience, would you? Of course not. [Section 3.4: Do not post other people's work without permission] "Posting something to USENET puts it in the public domain for all practical purposes." ** Not public domain? I think the courts will have to reach some decisions before you can be sure, but in the mean time I wouldn't think of USENET as private. In a funny sort of way, if USENET were a paid bulletin board, your shareware arguments might hold some more water. If the bulletin board's customer agreed to honor shareware copyrights, then they might be enforcable, and they wouldn't slip into the public domain. Since USENET is *PUBLIC* (we've admitted a few jerks), and *NON-COMMERCIAL* (we don't pay for a feed), and since there aren't any contracts signed in advance regarding copyrighted material, I'm no legal-eagle, but it seems pretty darned clear to me. > >So to suggest that sites be paid as middlemen in a software distribution >channel is silly. It misses the point of shareware, which is that the >users get to pass it around for their benefit. The authors would be glad >to send a disk to any customer in the mail who places an order. Stick to the issue. If I sell a product, it's a commercial enterprise (if you don't believe me, call your local city-hall, tell them what you're doing with your home computer, and ask if you need a business license). You have NO right to take advantage of the fact that I am providing USENET feeds to other sites to peddle your product. If you make me incur costs as a result, I want compensation. If I'm not compensated, then you are taking something from me. Much in the same way that if you are distributing advertising literature, and you decide to walk to my house and stick it in my mailbox, you are violating the law. I didn't give you the right to use my mailbox for your commercial benefit. Seems pretty darned simple to me. > >The shareware concept came about to benefit the users as well as the author. If the primary benefactor is the user (as is the case with free-ware), I'll spend my money to help the cause. I don't think the author of share- ware's primary concern is the 'user'. If it were, he'd say "Here it is, enjoy it, it's free". I don't object at all to those folk who get together and (using the net) get buying groups together to purchase something at a lower price for the group. Even if the person organizing the buy is making a few bucks for his time. It involves $$$$, but *THAT's* the kind of commercial activity that IS appropriate to the net. As to your comment about counterexamples, I've presented them here for every issue you raised in your posting. I've also provided excerpts from documentation which is regarded as 'official' within the USENET world. All you've said is it's *NOT* public domain, not a public network, *not* non- commercial. Where have you presented documentation? Where have you addressed the issues directly, and not gone off on tangents about such things as the 'user is the benefactor'? Saying it won't make it so, so *you* stop saying it. Mike Levin -- _ _ | | ___ ___ |_| ___ Michael Levin SilentRadio Headquarters- Los Angeles | |/ ._\| | || || \ 20732 Lassen Street, Chatsworth CA 91311 U.S.A. |_|\___/ \_/ |_||_|_| E-Mail: levin@Hotline.Com {att|csun|srhqla}!magnus!mml
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (03/03/90)
In article <1341@utoday.UUCP> wagner@.UUCP (Mitch Wagner) writes: >In article <18063@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >>In article <34720@watmath.waterloo.edu> bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes: Brad Sez - >>>Sigh. USENET is *NOT* public domain. It's not even a public network. >>>It is *not* noncommercial. Saying it won't make it so. I have, and have >>>given, counterexamples. Counterexamples are generally accepted as a pretty >>>darn good way of disproving a thesis. So stop saying it! John Sez - >>You aren't the official spokesman for what USENET is or isn't. Quit >>pretending you are. Mitch Sez - >Neither are you. Brad is stating his opinions, Ross states his, you >state yours, I state mine, Tom Neff states his. What's the problem? There is a difference between saying "I don't think that USENET is a commercial network" and saying "USENET is *NOT* public domain. It's not even a public network. It is *not* noncommercial." Those are statements of fact, not opinions. "I think", or "I feel", or "In my humble opinion"; those are statements of opinion. Brad makes statements of fact. Since USENET has no spokesman, stating that he is not the spokesman is a true statement of fact. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) (03/05/90)
If I said "USENET is a commercial" network I went a bit beyond what I meant. What I thought I said was that USENET is not non-commercial, in that commercial traffic is not barred -- or even discouraged in many cases -- on this network. I don't have to provide documentation on a claim as to what USENET is not. What has to be shown is that USENET is any particular thing. The burden of proof is on somebody who makes an assertion about what is, not on somebody who denies it. You can quote from news.announce.newusers all you like. I wrote some of that stuff directly, and helped in the writing of other parts of it. Quote my own stuff if you like. It doesn't define what USENET is. Those files are simply volunteer works that a few people liked and turned into regular postings. That's all. I know, I was there. They aren't official in any way, they were never "approved." Dozens of commercial activities take place on USENET. Job postings, Ads, announcements, tech support, people asking for help in their work, cars for sale, rooms for rent, software updates and yes, shareware and lots of it (with effectively no complaint prior to this debate.) The burden of proof lies with those who would argue that USENET follows their particular ideology. It's a tough burden, because USENET has no ideology that I have seen in my 9 years on it -- other than that derived from the laws of the nations it is in. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473
seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (03/05/90)
I may have missed this, since I tuned out of this discussion several weeks ago (and it's *still* going on?!), but has anybody brought up the point that a site which feeds others may be able to collect payment from the poster of shareware? Most postings result in $0.00 income for the poster, yet shareware attempts to get more than that. Seems only fair that the site paying for some of the distribution should collect a percentage of all profits made, don't you think? Or do you disagree with TANSTAAFL? -- Sean Eric Fagan | "Time has little to do with infinity and jelly donuts." seanf@sco.COM | -- Thomas Magnum (Tom Selleck), _Magnum, P.I._ (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald) (03/05/90)
root@polari.UUCP (The Super User) writes: > No one speaks for the net. Ross, I think you've gotten plenty of clear > opposition to your or anyone else's posting shareware on the network, Well, if nobody else is being supportive of the idea, let me. I like having shareware come across. If it looks good, I'll use it, and if it still seems worthwhile, I'll pay for it. I don't want to be deprived of the opportunity of seeing shareware just because other people don't want to see it. /r$ has already stated his policy of not allowing shareware in comp.sources.unix. Clearly there's no way of preventing shareware in alt.sources. I don't know what Brandon's policy is. So it seems clear that if you don't want a feed that includes shareware, get comp.sources.unix but don't get alt.sources. But please don't prevent _me_ from having the opportunity to get shareware, and don't try to prevent shareware writers from sending me their stuff via USENET. --- Tom Fitzgerald fitz@wang.com Wang Labs ...!uunet!wang!fitz Lowell MA, USA 1-508-967-5278
greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (03/05/90)
In article <1326@polari.UUCP> root@.UUCP (The Super User) writes: > Suggest that you >consider giving something of worth to the people who are helping you and >your assistant earn a living off of peddling paranoia and fear. I resent that. Try taking a look at what I produce before babbling away. There are those who peddle fear. Then there are those who peddle other people's intellectual property and charge a fee for it. -- Ross M. Greenberg, President, Software Concepts Design, greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 BBS:(212)-889-6438
wagner@utoday.UUCP (Mitch Wagner) (03/06/90)
In article <15220@bfmny0.UU.NET> tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) writes: >In article <1331@utoday.UUCP> greenber@.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >>My mailbox, by the way, Tom, shows me that you know as much about how the >>net, whose members you presume to speak for, as you do about the shareware >>business. That is, virtually nothing. > >>greenber@utoday.UUCP >>BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 >> BBS:(212)-889-6438 > >I rest my case. > Huh? What have you proven here? -- Mitch Voice: (516) 562-5758 wagner@utoday.UUCP or wagner@utoday.uu.net These opinions are mine and are my responsibility, not my employers' or anyone else's.
sob@watson.bcm.tmc.edu (Stan Barber) (03/06/90)
In article <34812@watmath.waterloo.edu> bstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) writes: > USENET has no ideology that I have seen in my 9 years on it -- other than > that derived from the laws of the nations it is in. I believe that until ClariNet, UUnet and similiar operations came along, USENET was operated by a group of people as a good thing for which they received no compensation. That strikes me an idealogy of sorts. Now, this idealogy has changed such that people can make a buck. I suppose this is similiar to the commericalization of the internet. What was once mostly socialistic, is now capitalistic. This is progress, I guess. -- Stan internet: sob@bcm.tmc.edu Director, Networking Olan uucp: {rutgers,mailrus}!bcm!sob and Systems Support Barber Opinions expressed are only mine. Baylor College of Medicine
davecb@yunexus.UUCP (David Collier-Brown) (03/06/90)
sob@watson.bcm.tmc.edu (Stan Barber) writes: >Now, this idealogy has changed such that people can make a buck. I suppose >this is similiar to the commericalization of the internet. What was once >mostly socialistic, is now capitalistic. Dear me! I hope you're referring to Usenet as the socialistic (actually chaotic anachist), not the internet. The ARPAnet was military-based research, and became the DARPA internet... and is slowly turning into the Internet. --dave (formerly DRBrown.TSDC@HI-Multics.ARPA) c-b -- David Collier-Brown, | davecb@yunexus, ...!yunexus!davecb or 72 Abitibi Ave., | {toronto area...}lethe!dave Willowdale, Ontario, | Joyce C-B: CANADA. 416-223-8968 | He's so smart he's dumb.
rick@pcrat.uucp (Rick Richardson) (03/09/90)
In article <1288@utoday.UUCP> greenber@.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >Actually, you're wrong. UseNet is a lousy source of revenue for me. Seems >it is for most of the shareware people I speak to - I'll go so far as to >say that no one I know has made any money off of their shareware through >UseNet as a channel. I'll volunteer to be the first. JetRoff, although not in the class of FluShot in revenue, does reasonably well. The reason for JetRoff's acceptance has been the source distribution for a UNIX audience of a key piece of high quality software not available from any other vendor. No scare tactics were employed, as I was confident that the package could stand on its own merits. There are other pieces of software that could be written that I think would be successes if distributed as Shareware under Usenet. One that immediately comes to mind is a Quicken style home and small business accounting package for UNIX. I am confident that a source distribution of such a product would meet with widespread accolades. Only purists and those jealous because they didn't think of it first would complain. And since we all know about this idea, only the purists are left.* * As has been mentioned, there is no definition of a pure Usenet, nevertheless, Usenet purists exist. They seem to be in the vocal minority these days. -Rick -- Rick Richardson | Looking for FAX software for UNIX/386 ??? Ask About: |Mention PC Research,Inc.| FaxiX - UNIX Facsimile System (tm) |FAX# for uunet!pcrat!rick| FaxJet - HP LJ PCL to FAX (Send WP,Word,Pagemaker...)|Sample (201) 389-8963 | JetRoff - troff postprocessor for HP LaserJet and FAX|Output
larry@macom1.UUCP (Larry Taborek) (03/09/90)
From article <18063@rpp386.cactus.org>, by jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II): > > You aren't the official spokesman for what USENET is or isn't. Quit > pretending you are. > -- > John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh An Excellent point John, (IMHO) Usenet is lots of different things to lots of different computers and lots of different users. Some sites/users will welcome shareware and use it without payment, Somes sites/users will use shareware and pay for it, and some sites don't want to carry shareware at all. I think that we could give everyone a solution that they could live with if we had a shareware news group. In that way sites that didn't want to carry it wouldn't have to, and sites that want shareware would receive it (or arrange to receive it). Hope this helps... Larry -- Larry Taborek ..!uunet!grebyn!macom1!larry Centel Federal Systems larry@macom1.UUCP 11400 Commerce Park Drive Reston, VA 22091-1506 My views do not reflect those of Centel 703-758-7000