karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (12/07/88)
(Added comp.misc to the newsgroups; flame me if you must, I thought it relavent to other than Amiga system owners). In article <555@icus.islp.ny.us> eric@icus.UUCP () writes: > >Hmmm This Bit about FTL and copywritten Save files and >peoeples replies to it have made me decide to write A note. > >My name is Eric Hyman, And I like you am A dedicated Amigophile. >By trade I am A Programmer, and I am currently trying >to MAKE A LIVING (Underline that) by doing software for our favorite machine... ....... Yes, and so am I (a programmer by trade; we do conferencing software). >Compromise: Manual based protection on Game load, using >statistics on the units in the game that are contained on a ready >refrence card.(It will be handy when you are playing), In addition, >with an assignment or two, the Game will happily reside on a Hardrive, >and will run on Any( Cross my Fingers 8) ) Amiga configuration. Now that I can live with -- but that's not what FTL has done! >Now to my points. > >How many people reading this article can HONESTLY say they have NEVER >Copied A disk of Commercial software. I can't say that... but what I CAN say is: I've never copied a disk of non-crippled commercial software. This is mainly due to (1) my sense of fair play, and (2) I'm not a thief. I HAVE copied crippled software (CPd things), mainly to see if they'll even BOOT on the hardware we use! This is a relatively recent phenomena, and is inspired by the $250 worth of TRASH DISKS that I have (that once did boot, and did hold games of various descriptions). These are programs that I paid for, and should be able to use, but fail to load on all our present hardware due to copy protection. >Im willing to bet few people will raise their hands and those of you >who can honestly do so are to be commended (If your interested, >Send me your address and I'll send you one of my games FREE!) Got a PC Version? (or wait a few months for us to get an Amy; hurry up Commodore -- we want one of the rumored next-generation machines!) :-) >How many of you on the other hand have come up with a Rationaliztion for >their copying. for example: > >2. "I Don't have enough money to buy all the progrms available, > By copying Them I can find the ones I truly like/Use and > THEN I go out and buy them" How about "I don't have money to throw down the drain on copy protected software that will either self-destruct or be useless when I buy a faster (but still compatible by everyone else's standards) computer, and I refuse to provide economic incentive to manufacturers who deliberately cripple their products and limit their scope of usefulness." >4. "With All the bugs in xxx Software, I'll copy and use > it untill Im satisfied its done, then Maybe I'll buy it" This one is valid today too -- gawd, I wish it wasn't. Look in comp.unix.microport sometime; their 80286 Unix release hasn't even deserved the label "beta" until recently. Once again, this particular cause of copying is simply protection of the user's interests (having been ripped off once too many times). I got burned on that one (Microport) to the tune of nearly $700! This for software that didn't (and from what I am told still doesn't) meet the requirements that I gave the salesperson when I placed the initial order -- almost two years after the initial purchase. IMHO: Copy Protection counts as a bug in my book; one that I _might_ be able to live with if it stays the heck out of my way. Intrusive, invasive, or simply draconian CP measures count as a fatal bug. >Now granted if your a type 2 or 4, and you Adhere to your reasoning, >then Admitedlly this ins't as bad as the other types (Especially those >who copy and distibute for the mere fun of it) > > Gettysburg Amiga: (Rated #1 2 years in a row as An 8 Bit title ) > Release January '88 > > (Fumbles for latest ledger sheet ) > > $2935.45 >All of which was paid on A % of sales that is about average for the industry, >My first product Kampfgruppe has netted me about double that, over >two years and hopfuly Rebel charge will get me Signifigantly more. >But Who knows. Currently I am doing nothing but writting for the AMiga, Gawd are these real numbers... $2935 looks TERRIBLE, but is it? I mean, how many copies have been sold? If you're only making $1 a copy, you've sold nearly 3k copies. If you're only getting $1 a copy, you're getting RIPPED OFF. > Why Am I not making money? Becase for Every Unit that SSI sells > At least 4 Are copied! And From my experience at least 1/2 of those > are copied by people who use it, but won't buy it for one > reason or another. If you have 500,000 machines out there, and only 3000 sales, you haven't even dented the market. Or someone has sold/copied 30,000 units and only told you about 3,000. How does SSI come up with the 4:1 ratio? I simply can't believe that half of these people would have paid money for the package if they couldn't pirate it -- it flies directly in the face of what I have experienced. My experience (7 years in the business and counting) is this: o Business people copy useful, productive things. They learn how to use them by buying the second-hand manuals in a bookstore (ie: using Lotus 1-2-3, etc). Lawyers, incidentially, seem to be the worst offenders (although this may be just wild ranting :-). They do this because they don't like paying $500 a copy for Lotus; most are FULLY aware that what they're doing is illegal, but won't stop as long as the risk of getting caught is comparable to smoking a joint in your home. o Kids copy games. These kids either (1) can't afford the game, and thus wouldn't buy it anyways, or (2) have to have everything, and once again couldn't buy it (who could afford EVERYTHING). o Adults copy games. Well, sometimes. But we're more likely to BUY the darn thing if it really is fun and works -- but "fun" and "works" means "keepa you hands off my multitasking capabilities!" to many people, or "keepa you boot disk write-protected!" or "keepa youself installed on this-here fixed disk drive." These adults will REFUSE (like I do) to buy crippleware. Note that among business software, even though the copying is RAMPANT, the manufacturers are ALL removing copy protection. Why? Because the market has TOLD THEM, in NO uncertain terms, that it WILL NOT purchase copy protected software. All it takes is ONE company that doesn't cripple their products -- and all of the cripple-ware firms' business dries up overnight. > So instead of whining and complaing about how this company won't write > for the machine, or that company won't, or another won't do > A better job. BUY SOME SOFTWARE and give them > incentive. its A rule in this industry, Whichever market > genrates strongs sales is gonna be where the Development dollars go, > and if there aren't enough sales, there isn't going to be a push in that > market. Crippled, copy-protected software might have been acceptable in the days of the C=64 and single floppy disk drives (where a reset was REQUIRED all of the time!). It's rediculous, unacceptable, and a disqualifying misfeature for software in today's environment, especially on a machine such as the Amiga! I will buy software -- IF AND ONLY IF I can: 1) Use my machine fully, given adaquate resources. This means that anything that "takes over" and locks me out of multitasking is an immediate "outski". Requiring 2M of RAM to play game <X> while compiling my latest project is ok, even slowing the game (or allowing me to specify who gets priority) is ok, but killing multitasking or (worse) requiring a reboot/power cycle to leave is NOT ok. (I'll qualify that -- for a truly real-time simulation where timing is absolutely _critical_, I would think that disabling multitasking would be ok... but I should be able to select "nasty" mode at will. Even in this case you can still let me resume my other work when I exit the game from some menu or prompt). A system RESET as a way to leave ANY program is a horrible kludge! This current trash comes from _good_ programmers? (I'll save for a seperate comment at a different time my opinion of an operating system that can't keep track of and free at exit the resources a process has requested and/or used.... :-) 2) Copy it to prevent the diskettes from being destroyed or infected by any form of virus or other nasty (including my coke bottle on the desk which might tip over). This includes putting it on my fixed disk "n" times. (Why? Do you do development on your gear? Device drivers perhaps? How many times have you accidentally destroyed your disk pack and needed those backup tapes? I refuse to lose $1000 worth of software when my disk drive fails; that's why I make backups). 3) Run the package on my equipment, and ANY EQUIPMENT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SAME STANDARD that I buy later on. This last point is very important -- those games referenced earlier probably still DO load and run on a 4.77 Mhz PC.... but we use 16 Mhz '386s here now to work and play! Along the same line, timing-based programs are definately out -- haven't game writers learned how to use a timer channel yet? Sheesh -- any reasonable system these days has interrupt-driven timer control; usually multiple channels are available! There is NO EXCUSE for games that run on an Amiga 1000 but fail on a 2000 with a 68020 board, for example. Those of you who program and feel otherwise are urged to take a good programming class -- you need it. 4) Have some reasonable recourse if it doesn't work reasonably well or at all, including returning the product for a FULL refund. If I can't get that, and I can't manage to evaluate it in any way first, it's not worth the risk. (Question: Would you buy a car or computer without ever SEEING it? By just looking at pictures in some catalog? How big of a fool do these publishers think we are?) > I've Done everything I though I had to for A Succesfull amiga > product. And so far have been very disappointed by the > results. So either I'm doint something wrong r a lot of > people are talking out of two corners of their mouths when > Stating their excuses for pirating. And quite > Frankly If I didn't like this silly machine So damn much > I doubt I'd still be working on it! (My pocket > book would much rather sell over 100000 versions of a messy > dos program!)(Comments?) We (as software authors and publishers) need to do the following: 1) Inform computer clubs and other "swapping places" that piracy is no longer acceptable -- and ACT ON IT. Yes, this means raids if necessary, and perhaps stronger laws (or at least an incentive to enforce them). How do we do this? Join organizations (or form one) such as the SPA, and INSIST that this be the agenda of these organizations. After all, these associations are in existance to help publishers and authors -- let's see some action rather than just strong words. 2) Publishers have to stop slapping people in the face by putting these silly "copy protection" schemes on their disks. Face it -- anything you can protect, a clever person can pick the lock on. All this does is force me to steal either TWO pieces of software (since I won't pay for software that's crippled -- and that ALWAYS includes the unlocking toys), or USE NONE OF THEM. Ok, PUBLISHERS, EITHER decision that I make at this point gets you nothing -- if you'd be reasonable you'd also gain some of my cash! The real software-buying world has already decided that copy protection is unacceptable; when will you catch on? 3) If you MUST MUST MUST hold something over a purchasers' head, how about a "burn in the name" scheme? No, it's not airtight, but it DOES stop casual copying 100% (give it away, sure, but your name is on it!). It also has a cost -- one computer at each possible point of sale, and a "special" serialization disk for the computer software store to use. Yes, it would take programming skill and an investment at the point of sale, yes, it would not be foolproof, but it wouldn't prevent the package's use either. This is a free market. Someone ought to fill the very real need for products that aren't crippled like this. Is anyone out there (besides us) in the small-systems software publishing business listening? Btw: My relavent experience: We publish and write Unix and Xenix software, as well as some DOS material. NONE of our products has or ever will be copy protected, although one of them does have the owner's name "burned" into it. That was the only concession I would make to the "protect the damned thing" people. Yeah, these are the views of the company. We had a nice long discussion on this topic before deciding to "burn names" on one of our products. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, ddsw1!karl) Data: [+1 312 566-8912], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality solutions at a fair price"
jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) (12/08/88)
In article <2363@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: > I've never copied a disk of non-crippled commercial software. This > is mainly due to (1) my sense of fair play, and (2) I'm not a > thief. > I HAVE copied crippled software (CPd things), mainly to see if > they'll even BOOT on the hardware we use! This is a relatively > recent phenomena, and is inspired by the $250 worth of TRASH DISKS > that I have (that once did boot, and did hold games of various > descriptions). These are programs that I paid for, and should be > able to use, but fail to load on all our present hardware due to > copy protection. I'll get to this later. > How about "I don't have money to throw down the drain on copy protected > software that will either self-destruct or be useless when I buy a faster > (but still compatible by everyone else's standards) computer, and I refuse to > provide economic incentive to manufacturers who deliberately cripple their > products and limit their scope of usefulness." > IMHO: Copy Protection counts as a bug in my book; one that I _might_ be able > to live with if it stays the heck out of my way. Intrusive, invasive, > or simply draconian CP measures count as a fatal bug. > How does SSI come up with the 4:1 ratio? I simply can't believe that half > of these people would have paid money for the package if they couldn't > pirate it -- it flies directly in the face of what I have experienced. Not me, that's a very conservative ratio. > All it takes is ONE company that doesn't cripple their products -- and all > of the cripple-ware firms' business dries up overnight. Yep, even though they may be the better software company... > Btw: My relavent experience: > We publish and write Unix and Xenix software, as well as some DOS > material. NONE of our products has or ever will be copy protected, Errr... How could you copy protect Unix software in the first place? Well, Let me make a few points. The reasons for copy protection are not because companies are greedy; the users created the problem. You can't complain about your problems, when there are people out there who get a kick out of cracking a game and spreading it. That 4:1 Ratio is very conservative, probably because the Amiga community is mostly honest, productive users. In the ST market, I would say the ratio is more like 10:1. A neighboor with an ST in my home town had EVERY single software title ever released. He called himself a collector; 90% of his stuff was pirated. You gave many reasons why companies should not copy-protect software, now how about some ideas in how to stop piracy. -- What about technology, computers, .------------------. J.A.Cisek nuclear fusion? I'm terrified of |Spectral Fantasies| jac423@leah.albany.edu radiation, I hate the television. `------------------' jac423@rachel.albany.edu
davidg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (David Guntner) (12/08/88)
From article <1334@leah.Albany.Edu>, by jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek): > Well, Let me make a few points. The reasons for copy protection are not > because companies are greedy; the users created the problem. You can't > complain about your problems, when there are people out there who get a > kick out of cracking a game and spreading it. Sounds like all the more reason to NOT copy protect. A company spends all that time and money designing a copy protection scheme that a dedicated pirate will just eventually break anyway, and that frustrates (sp?) the ligitimate buyer. So, what has the company in question gained in the long run? Nothing. What has it lost? The time and money (which gets passed on to the buyer - yet another reason for frustration for the ligitimate buyer...) spent developing Yet Another Useless Copy Protection Scheme. --Dave -- David Guntner UUCP: {ames, mit-eddie}!killer!davidg INET: davidg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US "...Different ship, but she's got the right name. Treat --Admiral L. McCoy her like a lady, and she'll always bring you home." "Encounter at Farpoint"
bell@unc.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) (12/08/88)
In article <1334@leah.Albany.Edu> jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) writes: >> How does SSI come up with the 4:1 ratio? I simply can't believe that half >> of these people would have paid money for the package if they couldn't >> pirate it -- it flies directly in the face of what I have experienced. >Not me, that's a very conservative ratio. >That 4:1 Ratio is very >conservative, probably because the Amiga community is mostly honest, >productive users. In the ST market, I would say the ratio is more like >10:1. A neighboor with an ST in my home town had EVERY single software >title ever released. He called himself a collector; 90% of his stuff was >pirated. What you have is the ratio of pirated copies to non-pirated copies. So what? If I could make copies of porsches, I'd probably have one, even though I can't afford to buy one. Was that neighbor going to buy every piece of of ST software if the copy protection is perfect? Don't be ridiculous. Most big-time pirates are fairly young, and don't have the disposable income to buy that much software. The ratio of copies that you would sell if copy protection always worked versus the number of copies you sell in our imperfect world is what the other poster was talking about. This is very hard to measure, of course, but I would doubt it's anywhere near 4:1. >You gave many reasons why companies should not copy-protect software, >now how about some ideas in how to stop piracy. Step one: think about what piracy actually hurts customers. That would be piracy by business and professional people, who have the income to buy the software. Note follow-ups to comp.misc. >What about technology, computers, .------------------. J.A.Cisek ------ Andrew Bell, living a double life at bell@cs.unc.edu and acb@cs.duke.edu "Why can't we ever attempt to solve a problem in this country without having a 'War' on it?" -Rich Thomson, talk.politics.misc
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (12/09/88)
In article <1334@leah.Albany.Edu> jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) writes: >> All it takes is ONE company that doesn't cripple their products -- and all >> of the cripple-ware firms' business dries up overnight. > >Yep, even though they may be the better software company... They are NOT the "better software company" if their products are crippled and they are not responsive to their customers. "Better" software companies listen to their customers, and more importantly, they _implement their requests within reason_ (because they know that those who make the request will probably buy more from them, and that they will ALSO tell their friends to do so as well). We do a heck of a lot of business on referral -- someone who currently has our product(s) is talking to a friend and says something like "Well, a couple of months ago I asked MCS if they could do <insert fav feature>, and whadda 'ya know, yesterday I got an update -- and it was in there!". Of course if you only produce products that are "one shot"; you provide ZERO in the way of support or assistance, and you basically never want to see the customer (or his opinions) once you have his/her money, then this doesn't work. In that case, though, I argue that you aren't interested in your customer at all -- only his/her pocketbook! We don't program (or sell programs) like that. We also listen to the customer; customers today are shouting "GET THAT @$%^& CRAP OFF THE DISKS, IT STOPS ME FROM PUTTING THIS PACKAGE TO USE - - or I will _NOT_ buy your product!" >> Btw: My relavent experience: >> We publish and write Unix and Xenix software, as well as some DOS >> material. NONE of our products has or ever will be copy protected, > >Errr... How could you copy protect Unix software in the first place? See SCO Xenix -- "brand". You can CP the original diskette, write an installation program, and use "brand" to serialize on installation. No serialization (meaning no valid key) and it doesn't work. Their OS and all their products install in this manner. You can also link your software in such that it looks at the OS serial number if you want to get cagey.... In fact, I recently got such a disk in the UPS delivery..... (it was a beta of a product I can't discuss); the people doing the beta thought they'd put some wierd things on the disk to prevent duplication. I could probably break it, but it would take some time and simply isn't worth it -- I'd rather not purchase the product at all if the CP was going to be on the final version (yep, we told them this). >You gave many reasons why companies should not copy-protect software, >now how about some ideas in how to stop piracy. I also listed several ideas to stop (or lessen) piracy. I see you didn't bother reading the rest of my article on the subject! Let's try again: 1) Form (and USE) associations such as the SPA (the SPA currently doesn't do much of a job -- unfortunately) to help combat organized piracy. This means that you need to hit the companies and individuals that do this as a matter of course -- with suits and confiscation raids, if necessary. In fact, if they really wanted to "crack down" they might even offer _REWARDS_ for fruitful tips....... All of this must be done within the law of course; I don't condone (and will not support) "police actions" by individuals or the state that violate Constitutional protections. 2) Burn purchasers names into programs if you need "protection". This also helps out the prosecution (and detection) under #1 above. The downside of this is that you need a system (or specialized "burning drive") at each point of sale. This sounds nasty -- until you consider that most computer stores ALREADY have the prerequisite machine onsite! All it takes is some fancy software. The other alternative is "Self-serializing" software that requires a PHONE CALL to the manufacturer for a code to "activate" the package. Both of these protection methods entail cost, but NEITHER one of them is intrusive or stops me from backing up or using the product, and both will stop the "heh Joe, check this package out" type copying, because if Joe calls for technical support, Jack (who gave Joe the disk) is busted! The "phone call" method also gives you a permanent record of everyone who has purchased a copy of the program.....useful if you DO find that a certain serial number is being seen often.... 3) Include a section in each manual (AT THE FRONT) discussing copyright law and the user's liabilities and responsibilities. 4) DO SOMETHING for the customer -- thereby forcing him to deal with you if he wants to keep things up to date -- AND keep him happy. The last may be the most important point. A _loyal_ customer simply won't let anyone copy the disks.... once again, if you're into selling "one-shots" and can't/won't help people out or listen to them this isn't going to get you anywhere. Like it or not, you'll probably never stop the 15-year old who has 95% of the Atari software. That's the breaks, folks -- until and unless we can get people to acknowledge (especially kids!) that it's WRONG, or we make enough examples out of people it simply won't stop. How to make an example? BUST that kid, take his computer, and sue the parents; Dad & Mom will turn WHITE when they discover that willful copyright violations are $25,000 a crack! (Heck, give the successful "informant" 10% of the net recovery, that ought to be enough incentive to keep people tattling on their fellow thieves!) After the first successful suit, how many parents will tolerate Junior's 200 "free" games? You can bet that first arrest and trial will make the headlines! I also contend that if you DO somehow stop the stealing by under-age people (which are probably the majority in the game area) you'll not make much more money as an author or publisher -- most of those kids simply couldn't afford to purchase the games no matter how good they are; you wouldn't see a plugged nickel from them REGARDLESS of the circumstances. The kids wouldn't have the software, true, but you wouldn't be compensated _either_. I'd estimate that you'd only see a 10% increase in sales of these products -- this means that only one in 100 (at a 10:1 copying ratio) of the present thieves would purchase the product, and I think that's probably pretty accurate. MOST of those kids who have 100's of games have a hard time buying the disks to copy the things on to! If you stop the piracy, they could only afford 1 or 2 of the games... and out of the 100's out there, what's the chance that YOURS is going to be that 1 or 2? About 1 or 2% :-) Until we treat (privately and publically) stealing software like stealing money we don't have a chance; currently stealing software is not only nearly risk-free, but it something that "everyone does". Even with those changes piracy won't disappear completely -- there are (and will be) thieves in every profession. BTW: We're not mass-market with our products; even so, our prior and current offerings, to the best of my knowledge, are not in use on any unauthorized sites (this probably means a few dozen ARE out there ;-). Anyone want to start an Association of Software Publishers & Authors, with a small annual dues that initially funds both a "rewards" system and a legal fund to bring the axe down on these people? NOT another SPA -- they're not enough. What we need to be effective is an organization with wide-based power, not something controlled only by huge giants like Lotus. Or is it better if we just ignore the problem, or continue on our present course? Do we REALLY want to change the "status quo"; if so, let's do it! -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, ddsw1!karl) Data: [+1 312 566-8912], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality solutions at a fair price"
rang@cpsin3.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang) (12/09/88)
In article <5769@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, bell@unc.UUCP (Andrew Bell) writes: >[ Various discussions deleted ] > >Most big-time pirates are fairly young, and don't have the disposable >income to buy that much software. By counting people, I'd have to agree that most pirates are young. Counting software (# of packages, or total volume) I'd disagree. The absolute WORST pirates I've ever seen are school systems: not the kids, but the teachers/administrators. I know there are a lot of honest people out there, but it only takes one administrator who decides that instead of buying 100 copies of some package (at a quite reasonable discount, too) they want to buy one and make 100 copies for all their schools (this was a large system) to use. And people wonder where kids pick up their dishonesty.... Anton P.S. Ever had someone return a disk to your for replacement, when it turns out they didn't even buy the package from you? Sheesh.... +---------------------------+------------------------+----------------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | "VMS Forever!" | "Do worry...be SAD!" | | Michigan State University | rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu | | +---------------------------+------------------------+----------------------+
jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) (12/09/88)
In article <6351@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, davidg@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (David Guntner) writes: > Sounds like all the more reason to NOT copy protect. A company spends all > that time and money designing a copy protection scheme that a dedicated > pirate will just eventually break anyway, and that frustrates (sp?) the > ligitimate buyer. So, what has the company in question gained in the long > run? Nothing. What has it lost? The time and money (which gets passed on > to the buyer - yet another reason for frustration for the ligitimate > buyer...) spent developing Yet Another Useless Copy Protection Scheme. Granted, it gives the crackers insentive to crack games (but maybe they'd be writing viruses instead :-) but there are many people who don't have access to the pirate bulletin boards, or to cracked programs. I love how Rogue kills you after the first level if you have a illegitimate copy. -- What about technology, computers, .------------------. J.A.Cisek nuclear fusion? I'm terrified of |Spectral Fantasies| jac423@leah.albany.edu radiation, I hate the television. `------------------' jac423@rachel.albany.edu
jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) (12/09/88)
In article <5769@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, bell@unc.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes: > Was that neighbor going to buy every piece of > of ST software if the copy protection is perfect? Don't be ridiculous. Of course not! He was a collector only because he could steal that software! > If I could make copies of porsches, I'd probably have one, even though I > can't afford to buy one. > Most big-time pirates are fairly young, and don't have the disposable > income to buy that much software. > Step one: think about what piracy actually hurts customers. That would be > piracy by business and professional people, who have the income to buy the > software. Wait a second! So what you're saying is that its okay to pirate stuff if you can't afford to buy it? That's insane! Can I steal your car because I can't afford one myself? -- What about technology, computers, .------------------. J.A.Cisek nuclear fusion? I'm terrified of |Spectral Fantasies| jac423@leah.albany.edu radiation, I hate the television. `------------------' jac423@rachel.albany.edu
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (12/09/88)
From article <1343@leah.Albany.Edu>, by jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek): " Wait a second! So what you're saying is that its okay to pirate stuff if " you can't afford to buy it? That's insane! Can I steal your car because " I can't afford one myself? You did steal my car, for all I know. I can't tell for sure how many people have stolen my car, of course, but based on what I know of human nature, I estimate that at least one in four drivers of this make and model are driving *my* car. And *none* of them has paid for it! Talk about insanity ... Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) (12/09/88)
In article <1343@leah.Albany.Edu> jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) writes: >In article <5769@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, bell@unc.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes: >> Most big-time pirates are fairly young, and don't have the disposable >> income to buy that much software. > >> Step one: think about what piracy actually hurts customers. That would be >> piracy by business and professional people, who have the income to buy the >> software. > >Wait a second! So what you're saying is that its okay to pirate stuff if >you can't afford to buy it? That's insane! Can I steal your car because >I can't afford one myself? Hardly. Copyright law says that copying that is insignificant in quantity and does not impact the fortunes of the copyright holder (this is not the exact wording, which also mentions not copying the entire work) is perfectly legal. While most software licences are more restrictive, this rule seems to keep book publishers reasonably happy. Stealing a car is *very* different, because it deprives the (former) owner of the use of the car. Copying (whether of a car or a program) doesn't. It only deprives the copyright holder of revenue. If you could tell that a person was not going to purchase something, there is no harm in them having a copy. Of course, in this world, it's hard to tell. Still, I think I can safely say that the copy of WordPerfect I have for the Amiga (used once, hated it, now collecting dust until I need another floppy for Fish Disks) isn't depriving WP corp. of any revenue. -- -Colin (uunet!microsof!w-colinp)
awm@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk (Aled Morris) (12/09/88)
>Errr... How could you copy protect Unix software in the first place?
Log in to a Vax (not uVax!) or Sun sometime, and type "hostid". You can
hardwire these numbers into commercial software to restrict their use
to particular CPUs.
btw, I strongly disapprove of copy protection, I also strongly disapprove
of software hoarding. Free software for all! (flames to /dev/null)
Aled Morris
systems programmer
mail: awm@doc.ic.ac.uk | Department of Computing
uucp: ..!ukc!icdoc!awm | Imperial College
talk: 01-589-5111x5085 | 180 Queens Gate, London SW7 2BZ
#disclaimer "Opinions are mine alone; I'm always right"grahamr@ucl-cs.UUCP (12/09/88)
From: Graham Roberts <grahamr@uk.ac.ucl.cs> >Well, Let me make a few points. The reasons for copy protection are not >because companies are greedy; the users created the problem. >You can't complain about your problems, when there are people out there >who get a kick out of cracking a game and spreading it. That 4:1 Ratio >is very conservative, probably because the Amiga community is >mostly honest, productive users. It depends on where you are in the world, though - don't forget that there are more Amiga's outside the US than inside. The Amiga is much more of a games/home machine in Europe and software piracy is a major problem. Some countries have a *very* bad reputation and no effective laws to combat piracy. For instance, I have read that in Denmark pirated software is normal and few people bother to buy the real thing - is this true or just journalistic hype?? Graham grahamr@uk.ac.ucl.uk
john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) (12/09/88)
In article <2397@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM(Karl Denninger) writes: > >They are NOT the "better software company" if their products are crippled >and they are not responsive to their customers. "Better" software companies >listen to their customers, and more importantly, they _implement their >requests within reason_ (because they know that those who make the request >will probably buy more from them, and that they will ALSO tell their friends >to do so as well). > >We do a heck of a lot of business on referral -- someone who currently has >our product(s) is talking to a friend and says something like "Well, a >couple of months ago I asked MCS if they could do <insert fav feature>, and >whadda 'ya know, yesterday I got an update -- and it was in there!". > ("you" and "your" is used generically, not toward Karl's company or him) One of the BEST forms of referral is for one of your customers to make up a disk for his friend. (gasp!) How? you say.. Well assuming your package is worth having in the first place, the copy will let the guy use and become familiar with the product. He obviously will not get full benefit from it without manuals and will not, of course, get support. when he gets serious about using the product, he will probably buy it to get support and docs. Assuming your cost is reasonable, of course. Consider also the fact that your company will get referrals from people who have "bootleg" copies of your software and have NOT bought a copy. I personally try to keep current copies of all significant software on the PC market. Many times as a consultant, I have given a disk to someone to try of software I have not bought and recommended that they try it and if they like it, buy it. Most do. This is the absolute BEST publicity you as a publisher could get. A locally recognized expert has recommended your product and has given the person a disk to try. What more could you ask for. I firmly believe that this so-called "piracy" is the root cause for the original success of all the major horizontal software companies. Take Boreland for example. I'll bet there are a Zillion copies of Turbo Pascal floating around. I don't program in TP, but I've always kept a bootleg copy of the current stuff around. I'm responsible for probably 2 or 3 dozen sales of TP based on my recommendation accompanied by a disk to novice programmers. I could make that recommendation because i had piddled around with it enough to personally know it was a good product. And I will NOT recommend a product I have not personally used. When the ocasion arose that I had to do some TP programming, I bought a copy. Everybody wins. Tightly coupled to this is the requirement that fair value be delivered. TP at 40 or 50 bux is a classic. Good docs, excellent operation at a fair price. If you sell a good program with xeroxed, dot-matrixed docs for 500 bux, be prepared to see a lot of copies floating around. ON the other hand, I will not use or buy or recommend any software with ANY kind of protection scheme, be it disk trickery, phone registration or embedded names. And I consider these types of packages to be fair game to anyone who wants to copy them. > >2) Burn purchasers names into programs if you need "protection". This also Unacceptable. Besides screwing yourselves out of the free publicity described above, consider the risk involved. Suppose I buy a product with my name embedded in it. A friend of mine comes to my machine and gets a copy without my knowledge (open offices and all you know) and spread it around a bit. You find out about it and sic your legal beagles on me with the full might of the copyright laws. The case will hit the papers and trade journals and i'll be terribly embarrised and slandered. You can bet your store on the fact that I'll be back screaming mad looking for your legal hide. Consider your chances of convincing a jury of MY peers (fellow software users) that you are inocent of neglence and slander. > protection methods entail cost, but NEITHER one of them is intrusive or > stops me from backing up or using the product, and both will stop the > "heh Joe, check this package out" type copying, because if Joe calls for > technical support, Jack (who gave Joe the disk) is busted! The "phone > call" method also gives you a permanent record of everyone who has > purchased a copy of the program.....useful if you DO find that a certain > serial number is being seen often.... > I certainly would not bother with the product. If I cannot buy it, open the box and run it unfettered with gimmicks, dongles, and the like, I'll look elsewhere. Your competator will probably have an equivilent product and will be more in touch with his customers than you are. >4) DO SOMETHING for the customer -- thereby forcing him to deal with you if > he wants to keep things up to date -- AND keep him happy. The last may > be the most important point. A _loyal_ customer simply won't let anyone > copy the disks.... once again, if you're into selling "one-shots" and > can't/won't help people out or listen to them this isn't going to get you > anywhere. > Ahaaa!!!! We're getting somewhere now. This is the key to continuing income. Upgrade (as opposed to bug fixes which should be free) the product frequently and offer real value in the form of good documentation. If you view your docs as an equal party in generating your income, you will be far ahead. For example, you should impart your knowledge of the problem your application is designed to address. An accounting package should have a section on double-entry accounting principles. A CAD system should have a section on engineering drawing practices and techniques. This added value is tremendous incentive to the customer to buy your package to get the docs. Especially so if there are enough docs to pass the pain threshold at the xerox machine. An absolutely fatal mistake is for you to unbundle the educational material and try to sell it as a separate book. The user will then simply grab a copy of your software and buy the $20.00 book. >Until we treat (privately and publically) stealing software like stealing >money we don't have a chance; currently stealing software is not only nearly >risk-free, but it something that "everyone does". > > I've got no problem in going after the real theives - those that buy oen copy and then propagate it all over the company - complete with xeroxed docs. I'd screw those people to the wall. Note that this policy almost eliminates the private individual as a "pirate". The one exception is probably the club or user group that sponsors mass copying. > >Or is it better if we just ignore the problem, or continue on our present >course? Do we REALLY want to change the "status quo"; if so, let's do it! I think the real solution will occur when the publishers realize that they are really in pardnership with their customers and that their customers' concerns are at least as important as their own. When the publishers provide reasonably bug free and easy to use software accompanied by good documentation, knowledgible tech support people reachable without 40 calls, fair upgrades that provide added value (as opposed to the 70 and 80 dollar maintenance and bugfix upgrades Microsoft has been foisting off on their compiler customers lately), and readjust their definition of piracy to exclude casual and/or referral copying, then the problem will magically go away. It's as simle as that. Screw the real pirates to show you will not tolerate such activities but support your current and potential users and you will be very successful. john De Armond
jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) (12/10/88)
In article <39@microsoft.UUCP>, w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes: > Stealing a car [...] deprives the (former) owner > of the use of the car. Copying (whether of a car or a program) doesn't. > It only deprives the copyright holder of revenue. If you could tell that > a person was not going to purchase something, there is no harm in them having > a copy. Of course, in this world, it's hard to tell. Still, I think I > can safely say that the copy of WordPerfect I have for the Amiga (used once, > hated it, now collecting dust until I need another floppy for Fish Disks) > isn't depriving WP corp. of any revenue. So the car analogy was pretty awful. :-) Grrrr... There are many people who pirate stuff even though they COULD afford it. Didn't someone recently say how businesses and schools pirate stuff as well? There is NO way to rationalize pirating! You may do it, but don't say that its okay! -- What about technology, computers, .------------------. J.A.Cisek nuclear fusion? I'm terrified of |Spectral Fantasies| jac423@leah.albany.edu radiation, I hate the television. `------------------' jac423@rachel.albany.edu
kenk@algedi.UUCP (Ken Koster N7IPB) (12/10/88)
In article <jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) writes: > Various stuff about why copy protection is needed - deleted. SCENE 1 >10:1. A neighboor with an ST in my home town had EVERY single software >title ever released. He called himself a collector; 90% of his stuff was >pirated. Did you turn him in to the police? If not: SCENE 2 A neighboring house is being used for drug dealing. The people using it fence stolen goods, and make drug deals at all hours. Obviously you don't turn them in either. If we personally don't do something about the problem, It won't get solved. >You gave many reasons why companies should not copy-protect software, >now how about some ideas in how to stop piracy. In the old days pirates were hunted down, tried (sometimes) and hung. We can be a little more lenient, but if your neighbor next door or the kid down the street were caught and fined, their friends and neighbors might be a little less inclined to steal software. It works for common thieves, why not software thieves as well. -- Work: uport SYSV algedi!kenk@data-io.com Ken Koster or uunet!pilchuck!algedi!kenk A lone Unix-pc Home: Amiga uunet!pilchuck!algedi!kkami!kenk in the MSDOS swamp Packet Radio: N7IPB@N7IPB
kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) (12/10/88)
I wonder why companies don't offer cash rewards for "information leading to the arrest and conviction" of software pirates. Just imagine if pirates had to keep their hoards secret because of a substantial cash incentive for their friends to rat on them. Don't think it would happen? How many scruples can a software pirate have? The minimum charge would be something like recipt of stolen goods. If copying could be proved, the copyright laws enable fines up to $10K per occurrance. Make the rewards and penalties significant, and you'd find password hackers invading each other's secret pirate bulletin boards like rival gangs shooting it out. With pirating driven deep underground, the options for honest citizens would be clearer. Break the law and actually risk conviction, pay the price and use the product, or do without. Nahh. I must have missed something. This looks too easy.
Dave Lawrence (12/10/88)
kenk@algedi.UUCP (Ken Koster N7IPB) wrote: >In article <jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) writes: >SCENE 1 [ - Software pirate, described by Julius ] >Did you turn him in to the police? >If not: >SCENE 2 [ - neighbour drug-dealers/fencers ] >Obviously you don't turn them in either. Well, well. Yet another completely far-fetched analogy from USENET. Surprised? Not much. I look for maybe 5 or 6 of them a week in the handful of groups which I read and try to find the most ridiculous. This one wins for this week. I'd rank it at about a megagilly. Dave (My apologies if this crticism has upset you.) -- tale@rpitsmts.bitnet, tale%mts@rpitsgw.rpi.edu, tale@pawl.rpi.edu
karl@sugar.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer) (12/11/88)
In article <6268@fluke.COM>, kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) writes: > I wonder why companies don't offer cash rewards for "information leading to > the arrest and conviction" of software pirates. Just imagine if pirates had > to keep their hoards secret because of a substantial cash incentive for > their friends to rat on them. You're right. Although person-to-person piracy is nearly impossible to detect, what allows pirate boards to operate so blatantly is they are not being prosecuted for copyright violations. If the government would crack down on them, they would have to keep their boards secret, and this would reduce their ability to proliferate pirated software. It also would make copy protection work better, because cracking copy protection with anything other than Marauder or its equivalent is beyond the abilities of most Amiga owners. Whether or not that's an advantage depends on your point of view regarding copy protection. For games for which one doesn't even don't need a manual to learn to operate, I think *some* kind of CP is a necessary evil. For commercial packages that you do work with (and usually need support, documentation and udpates for), no way. Regarding the copying of ROM cartridges, there were some hardware techs at a certain large company who had EPROM copies of a very large number of Atari 2600 games and they made a 2600 cartridge PC board that had a ZIF (Zero Insertion Force, the green sockets that have a lever on them to clamp the socket down on the pens) socket on it and they just distributed the chips to their circle of pals. Nintendo and Sega cartridges being as expensive as they are, I imagine this sort of thing is going on in some places. -- -- "We've been following your progress with considerable interest, not to say -- contempt." -- Zaphod Beeblebrox IV -- uunet!sugar!karl, Unix BBS (713) 438-5018
michael@taniwha.UUCP (Michael Hamel) (12/11/88)
In article <1343@leah.Albany.Edu> jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) writes: >Wait a second! So what you're saying is that its okay to pirate stuff if >you can't afford to buy it? That's insane! Can I steal your car because >I can't afford one myself? Whoa thar! We are talking about copying. This has *nothing* to do with theft. Maybe you *can* copy my car if you can't afford one yourself. Wouldn't that make for a kinder, gentler nation? -- Where now are those who in times past have opposed the Group of Seventeen? Michael Hamel University of Otago ..!ucbvax!michael@otago.ac.nz
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/11/88)
In article <2087@stiatl.UUCP>, john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes: > An absolutely fatal mistake is for you to unbundle the educational > material and try to sell it as a separate book. The user will then > simply grab a copy of your software and buy the $20.00 book. ... unless you decide to make your money off the book. Now who was it was doing that a few years ago? -- Peter da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net Have you hugged U your wolf today? Disclaimer: My typos are my own damn busines#!rne
jpdres10@usl-pc.usl.edu (Green Eric Lee) (12/11/88)
In message <2397@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) says: >Of course if you only produce products that are "one shot"; you provide ZERO >in the way of support or assistance, and you basically never want to see the >customer (or his opinions) once you have his/her money, then this doesn't >work. Actually, this is the majority of software publishers out there in the PC world. Most of them release one version of the program, then drop it from their lineup when sales start tailing off (because it is functionally obsolete, or whatever). I hear that something of the sort is why we haven't seen a version of Dpaint for the Amiga with the bugs fixed -- Electronic Arse refuses to use the fixed version that Dan Silva (the author) sent them. >In that case, though, I argue that you aren't interested in your >customer at all -- only his/her pocketbook! You said it, not me! >I also listed several ideas to stop (or lessen) piracy. >1) Form (and USE) associations such as the SPA (the SPA currently doesn't > do much of a job -- unfortunately) to help combat organized piracy. This > means that you need to hit the companies and individuals that do this as > a matter of course -- with suits and confiscation raids, if necessary. > In fact, if they really wanted to "crack down" they might even offer > _REWARDS_ for fruitful tips....... All of this must be done within the > law of course; I don't condone (and will not support) "police actions" > by individuals or the state that violate Constitutional protections. This would especially be helpful for hitting businesses and school systems. If the tipster can recieve his/her reward anonymously, you'll see disgruntled employees everywhere turning in their cheap employers. >2) Burn purchasers names into programs if you need "protection". This also > helps out the prosecution (and detection) under #1 above. The downside > of this is that you need a system (or specialized "burning drive") at > each point of sale. This sounds nasty -- until you consider that most > computer stores ALREADY have the prerequisite machine onsite! All it Note that computer stores are one of the biggest sources of pirated software! I'm not talking about Entre' or Computerland, here, of course... I'm talking about Joe's Hack Shop, which sells a little of this, a little of that, neighborhood gathering spot for the hacker clique, walk in the back and he has a filing cabinet full of copied disks. Usually the small-time shops can't afford to stock lots of games, which move slowly after the initial spurt upon release, and so the owners are less-than-dilligent about policing copying on the premesis. Another source of pirated games is the proprieter's children. At one local very respectable computer store, the proprietor apparently doesn't feel like paying for software for his children when he has a whole store full of slowly-moving stock... unfortunately for his sales, his kids tend to let their friends copy them! (but they live 30 miles away in another town, so that tends to alleviate the effects). So how do you stop this? Well, if you walk into the store, it's not obvious, and you can't raid all the computer stores. The only people who know about such things are the people who copy software, and they won't turn in their "source", so that won't work. Beats me. > takes is some fancy software. The other alternative is > "Self-serializing" software that requires a PHONE CALL to the > manufacturer for a code to "activate" the package. Both of these Might eliminate some casual copying, but the hackers will have it "broken" in two minutes or less. Or else they'll distribute the unserialized disk with the code they got from the telephone (probably with a fake name/address/phone #). > "heh Joe, check this package out" type copying, because if Joe calls for > technical support, Jack (who gave Joe the disk) is busted! Nope. See above. Jack probably gave his name as "Jane Doe" when he called. It happens. Besides, few people copy the kind of programs that need technical support (with the exception of Lotus 1-2-3, Wordstar, and Wordperfect, for which aftermarket manuals exist). Most of the kids are interested only in games -- which don't need support. I know that I personally would have little use for a wordprocessor without documentation. >3) Include a section in each manual (AT THE FRONT) discussing copyright law > and the user's liabilities and responsibilities. I wrote a BBS program some years back. After a new user enters his name, ID, etc., it drops him into the editor to enter some comments. Everytime the program enters the editor, it prints out "Enter /H for Help". About 2 callers out of every three instead hit the RETURN key a couple of dozen times on an empty line -- i.e., like you do with Fido and other such simplistic BBS's. My conclusion is that most people do NOT read the documentation, even if it's a single line! You really expect them to read this whole dull boring conversation about copyrights? >4) DO SOMETHING for the customer -- thereby forcing him to deal with you if > he wants to keep things up to date -- AND keep him happy. YES. Fix bugs. Release updates regularly. Write a good, thorough manual, e.g. like AREXX on the Amiga. I know personally one person who thought about pirating AREXX, but desisted because it'd be a pain to copy the manual. A good manual for a complex product is going to be fairly lengthy if it is going to be complete and understandable. For example, the step-by-step setup section for how to set up the BBS was nearly 40 pages, and included a number of helpful charts and illustrations. That's the setup section -- not the reference section (the whole manual was somewhere around 120 pages, including an INDEX -- an INDEX, mind you, that most useful of things that EVERYBODY seems to omit. I know it's a pain to build an index, but there is NO EXCUSE for a professional-quality product to not have an indexed manual). >The last may > be the most important point. A _loyal_ customer simply won't let anyone > copy the disks.... once again, if you're into selling "one-shots" and > can't/won't help people out or listen to them this isn't going to get you > anywhere. You got it. Fiercly loyal customers not only won't let anyone copy the disk, they'll throw tantrums and threaten bodily harm if they catch someone else pirating the program. >I also contend that if you DO somehow stop the stealing by under-age people >(which are probably the majority in the game area) you'll not make much more >money as an author or publisher -- most of those kids simply couldn't afford >to purchase the games no matter how good they are; you wouldn't see a plugged >nickel from them REGARDLESS of the circumstances. The kids wouldn't have >the software, true, but you wouldn't be compensated _either_. I'd estimate >that you'd only see a 10% increase in sales of these products -- this >means An interesting phenomenon: during the height of the Commodore 64's popularity, there were kids dumping their PC Jr.'s and Apple IIs by the wayside to buy 64's. The reason? All their friends at school had 64s, so they could all go in together to buy a program, and copy it among themselves (these were just ordinary schoolkids, not the stereotypical bepimpled geek with 900 disks... they weren't interested in spending all their time "collecting", they just wanted to play a game occasionally to relax after school or whatever). Anyhow, because of that phenomenon, you might actually see a DECLINE in sales if you manage to totally stop the kids from copying (which, BTW, is an impossibility, since it would take Gestapo tactics to eliminate such small-time graft). Kids don't generally hold on to their money for long. If they have $10, they tend to start looking for something to spend it on. If four kids have $10, they might go in together on a $40 game. But, seperately, it's more likely to go for gas, burgers, movie tickets, or some other teen pasttime. >Anyone want to start an Association of Software Publishers & Authors, with a >small annual dues that initially funds both a "rewards" system and a legal >fund to bring the axe down on these people? NOT another SPA -- they're not >enough. What we need to be effective is an organization with wide-based >power, not something controlled only by huge giants like Lotus. What we need is an organization to which I can give my enrollment fee, and then when I discover someone copying my program, give them a call and have them handle prosecuting the bastards. Given that someone copying my program is probably also copying other member's software, it seems quite ridiculous for me to have to pay for going after the SOB all by myself... not to mention that if I, personally, go after him, he might manage to "lose" the one particular disk with the evidence I need... but Joe Collector can't "lose" 900 disks very easily in a short amount of time. >Or is it better if we just ignore the problem, or continue on our present >course? Do we REALLY want to change the "status quo"; if so, let's do it! I think that going after institutional pirates and certain high-profile types (the "crackers" and "collectors") would be useful, but eliminating pirating altogether is a pipe dream that will never happen. People tend to notice that it doesn't cost anything to copy a disk... and people will always give in to the temptation. The only way to remove that temptation is to make copying a program harder than just copying a disk, i.e. with documentation and support. -- Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 {ames,mit-eddie,osu-cis,...}!killer!elg, killer!usl!elg, etc.
jpdres10@usl-pc.usl.edu (Green Eric Lee) (12/11/88)
In message <1343@leah.Albany.Edu>, jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) says: >In article <5769@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, bell@unc.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes: >> Was that neighbor going to buy every piece of >> of ST software if the copy protection is perfect? Don't be ridiculous. >> If I could make copies of porsches, I'd probably have one, even though I >> can't afford to buy one. > >> Most big-time pirates are fairly young, and don't have the disposable >> income to buy that much software. > >> Step one: think about what piracy actually hurts customers. That would be >> piracy by business and professional people, who have the income to buy the >> software. > >Wait a second! So what you're saying is that its okay to pirate stuff if >you can't afford to buy it? That's insane! Can I steal your car because >I can't afford one myself? Specious analogy. If I steal your car, you can no longer use it. If I "steal" your computer program, by copying it, you can still use it. In other words, you haven't been deprived of your property etc. An interesting moral question (in places outside the U.S., where, as Reagan always tells us, there is no poverty): If your family starving, is it right to steal in order to feed them? (yes, unfair, but no more so than the "stealing the Porsche" analogy!). -- Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 {ames,mit-eddie,osu-cis,...}!killer!elg, killer!usl!elg, etc.
thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) (12/11/88)
Kurt Guntheroth was asking (paraphrased) " ... why not offer cash prizes for turning in pirates ..." ... Earlier this year (1988), I understood that SPA (Software Publishers Ass'n) was offering a $50 bounty to people who reported thieves' (e.g. "pirates", though why glorify scum with such a name?) BBS' and other operations. I heard the program ($50 bounty) was successful re: closing down such BBS operations in Washington and Oregon, and the present focus is California. Thad Floryan [thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ..!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad]
Amarth@csuchico.EDU (Amarth) (12/11/88)
In article <2783@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: > > You did steal my car, for all I know. I can't tell for sure how many > people have stolen my car, of course, but based on what I know of human > nature, I estimate that at least one in four drivers of this make and > model are driving *my* car. And *none* of them has paid for it! Talk > about insanity ... > > Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu Come on, if you take that analogy far enough, you end up in trouble. Try it with $1 bills, or $1000 bills. Get it? Counterfeitting reduces the value of that which is copied, so the producer can no longer get as much money for it as it SHOULD be worth, sans counterfeitting. Just face the fact that piracy is dead wrong, and stop trying to rationalize it. /| / | _/_ / /--| ______ __. __ / /_ \_/ l/ / / <_(_/|_/ (_<__/ /_ Power spikes to pirates!
chari@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Chris Whatley) (12/12/88)
In article <245@taniwha.UUCP> michael@taniwha.UUCP (Michael Hamel) writes: >In article <1343@leah.Albany.Edu> jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) writes: > >>Wait a second! So what you're saying is that its okay to pirate stuff if >>you can't afford to buy it? That's insane! Can I steal your car because >>I can't afford one myself? > >Whoa thar! We are talking about copying. This has *nothing* to do with theft. >Maybe you *can* copy my car if you can't afford one yourself. Wouldn't that >make for a kinder, gentler nation? I'm sorry but that is the most ludicrous concept. Pure fantasy! Is this not a capitalistic economy? Said copying seriously devalues the software product. It DOES NOT make any sense to say otherwise. If in your fantasy-land (you know, the "kinder and gentler nation", Ha!) we could copy others posessions and then those posessions would be worthless and the company who made them would likely go bankrupt. Gee wouldn't that be great! If this were a non-capitalistic economy, with no monetary standards or commercial enterprises what you say here might make some sense. Instead, in this context, you sound like an idiot. > >Michael Hamel >University of Otago ..!ucbvax!michael@otago.ac.nz Chris -- <--> INET: chari@killer.DALLAS.TX.US | BIX: chari UUCP: {anywhere}!killer!chari | -- CI$: 71370,1654 | Phone: 512/453-4238
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (12/12/88)
In article <1343@leah.Albany.Edu> jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) writes: <In article <5769@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, bell@unc.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes: <> If I could make copies of porsches, I'd probably have one, even though I <> can't afford to buy one. < <> Most big-time pirates are fairly young, and don't have the disposable <> income to buy that much software. < <> Step one: think about what piracy actually hurts customers. That would be <> piracy by business and professional people, who have the income to buy the <> software. < <Wait a second! So what you're saying is that its okay to pirate stuff if <you can't afford to buy it? That's insane! Can I steal your car because <I can't afford one myself? Slight difference here. If I steal your car, I have it and you don't. If I *copy* your Lotus disks, you may never even know the difference. I can use the same copy of Turbo Pascal at work and at home and still be within Borland's quite liberal license agreement. But I'm *still* going to buy a copy for home as soon as I can spare the cash. Why? Because it is a pain lugging the manuals back and forth! On the other hand we have Lotus and Ashton-Tate. Their ideas regarding quantity discounts, LAN licences, and site licences are a *bad* joke. Add to that the fact that their manuals are poorly written and that the programs are overpriced (compare their prices with the competition's!) and you'll see we both copying and "cloning" worry them so much. -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'. You know... I'd rather be a hacker."
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (12/12/88)
In article <1334@leah.Albany.Edu>, jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) writes: > In article <2363@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: > > All it takes is ONE company that doesn't cripple their products -- and all > > of the cripple-ware firms' business dries up overnight. > Yep, even though they may be the better software company... > The cripple-ware company writes programs that don't run at all on my hardware. The non-cripple-ware company writes programs that do run on my hardware. Yup, the cripple-ware company writes better software for me to use. Yup. Methinks you aren't paying attention to something... -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu Go be a `traves wasswort. - Doug Gwyn
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (12/13/88)
In article <12447@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com (Thad P Floryan) writes: >Kurt Guntheroth was asking (paraphrased) " ... why not offer cash prizes for >turning in pirates ..." ... > >Earlier this year (1988), I understood that SPA (Software Publishers Ass'n) >was offering a $50 bounty to people who reported thieves' (e.g. "pirates", >though why glorify scum with such a name?) BBS' and other operations. > >I heard the program ($50 bounty) was successful re: closing down such BBS >operations in Washington and Oregon, and the present focus is California. As a publisher, let me say that I think we'd be more than willing to offer 5% of the recovery goes to the "snitch"; in addition, I'd even be willing to keep the "snitch"'s identity confidential (although this might drastically affect the chance of persuing the thief; the snitch can always come forward publically to ensure they get paid off :-) 5% of the $10,000 possible per violation ought to wake some people up -- sure, you won't get paid every time you snitch on your employer/pirate/etc, but the few times you do......I mean, that's $500 per violation! And we know how many violations the average teen pirate commits, right? Catch that kid (or the law office) with 300 pirated disks and you can say goodbye to Mom & Dad's (or Mr. Lawyers) home (office) building..... Sure, the kids can't be stopped by suing them -- they don't have anything to lose! But the PARENTS have something to lose, and our legal system makes parents accountable for their children's actions. In fact, perhaps we ought to start such a program for our software; who knows if it's being pirated (we've never seen a rogue copy, but I assume there are a few). -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, ddsw1!karl) Data: [+1 312 566-8912], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality solutions at a fair price"
john13@garfield.MUN.EDU (John Russell) (12/13/88)
In article <6268@fluke.COM> kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) writes: >I wonder why companies don't offer cash rewards for "information leading to >the arrest and conviction" of software pirates. ... >Nahh. I must have missed something. This looks too easy. Yeah, the first person to take advantage of the offer will be the Byte Bandit or some other sleazoid who's copied everything ever written, who will turn in all the people he knows who have 1-2 pieces of pirated software (and he probably gave them to them!). John -- "The sinuous roots meshed together... the sun-dappled leaves... the arching branches... and put it all together? Nothing! Icky, icky tree!" -- something like that anyway; from "The Kids in the Hall"
bill@bilver.UUCP (bill vermillion) (12/13/88)
In article <3080@sugar.uu.net> karl@sugar.uu.net (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: > >You're right. Although person-to-person piracy is nearly impossible to >detect, what allows pirate boards to operate so blatantly is they are not >being prosecuted for copyright violations. If the government would crack ^^^^^^^^^^ >down on them, they would have to keep their boards secret, and this would >reduce their ability to proliferate pirated software. Uh! - Don't know if you noticed it or not, but we are not in a police state. The government has no right to "crack down" on these boards. The ones who have to do something are the copyright owners. They have to file a complaint, and then the "government" - read that as the judicial system - can haul the offenders in. Copyright violation are crimes against individuals and not society. -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!rtmvax!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
jrk@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway CMP RA) (12/13/88)
In article <6390@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, chari@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Chris Whatley) writes: > In article <245@taniwha.UUCP> michael@taniwha.UUCP (Michael Hamel) writes: > >Whoa thar! We are talking about copying. This has *nothing* to do with theft. Right. Too many people are saying, here and elsewhere, that copying is theft. Theft deprives someone of the use of their property. Copying does not. This doesnt mean that copying is not wrong, just that it's not theft. > >Maybe you *can* copy my car if you can't afford one yourself. Wouldn't that > >make for a kinder, gentler nation? > I'm sorry but that is the most ludicrous concept. Pure fantasy! Is this not > a capitalistic economy? Said copying seriously devalues the software product. Copying software does not change its value one whit. It reduces the *price* the manufacturer is able to sell it for. The only difference other peoples' illegal copies of the software I use can make to me is that it hurts the fortunes of the companies who wrote it, who may therefore not write any more. The idea that copiers have stolen something from the software itself is the ludicrous concept. > It DOES NOT make any sense to say otherwise. If in your fantasy-land (you > know, the "kinder and gentler nation", Ha!) we could copy others posessions > and then those posessions would be worthless and the company who made them > would likely go bankrupt. Gee wouldn't that be great! Ever heard of the FSF? I don't mean Fantasy and Science Fiction :-) > Chris > > -- > <--> > INET: chari@killer.DALLAS.TX.US | BIX: chari > UUCP: {anywhere}!killer!chari | -- > CI$: 71370,1654 | Phone: 512/453-4238 -- Richard Kennaway SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K. uucp: ...mcvax!ukc!uea-sys!jrk Janet: kennaway@uk.ac.uea.sys
jxc@rayssdb.ray.com (Jeffrey J. Clesius) (12/14/88)
In article <218@algedi.UUCP> kenk@algedi.UUCP (Ken Koster N7IPB) writes: >In article <jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) writes: > >SCENE 1 >>10:1. A neighboor with an ST in my home town had EVERY single software >>title ever released. He called himself a collector; 90% of his stuff was >>pirated. > >Did you turn him in to the police? SCENE 1.A: A neighbor sees that you have a computer and reports you as having stolen software in your possession. The police break down your door and ask you to produce receipts for EVERY PIECE OF SOFTWARE YOU OWN! Can you do it? (Just because the disks have commercial labels does not mean the software isn't stolen!) Is this what you want? Freedoms have their costs. Some guilty must go free to avoid the innocent being punished. I agree that something should be done to hinder piracy; as a former game co-author, (anyone remember Commbat?) I truly understand the losses from piracy. But, respectfully, yours is not the desired solution. ------------ >Ken Koster or uunet!pilchuck!algedi!kenk >A lone Unix-pc Home: Amiga uunet!pilchuck!algedi!kkami!kenk >in the MSDOS swamp Packet Radio: N7IPB@N7IPB ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- __________ | / /_ | "For every action there is an equal / / / and opposite litigation procedure." / From the desk of: ---------------------------------------------------- /________ / / Jeffrey Jay Clesius, Raytheon Submarine Signal Division /_________/ | 1847 West Main Road, Mail Stop 188 | Portsmouth, RI (401) 847-8000 (X4015) -----------------+---------------------------------------------------------- { allegra | gatech | mirror | raybed2 } ----\ { linus | ihnp4 | uiucdcs } -------------->!rayssd!jxc jxc@rayssd.ray.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- === Standard disclaimers apply ===
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (12/14/88)
In article <142@usl-pc.usl.edu., jpdres10@usl-pc.usl.edu (Green Eric Lee) writes: . In message <1343@leah.Albany.Edu., jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) says: . .In article <5769@thorin.cs.unc.edu., bell@unc.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes: . .Wait a second! So what you're saying is that its okay to pirate stuff if . .you can't afford to buy it? That's insane! Can I steal your car because . .I can't afford one myself? . . Specious analogy. If I steal your car, you can no longer use it. If I . "steal" your computer program, by copying it, you can still use it. . In other words, you haven't been deprived of your property etc. . . An interesting moral question (in places outside the U.S., where, as . Reagan always tells us, there is no poverty): False. No such claim has been made. The Meese Commission didn't even claim that there was no hunger -- just that hunger exists in pockets largely because of failures to let people know where to go. . If your family starving, is it right to steal in order to feed them? Sure. But someone who has a computer to run software on isn't starving. And I'm hard pressed to see how a floppy disk is going to fill an empty belly. . Eric Lee Green P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509 -- Clayton E. Cramer {pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer (Note new path!)
chari@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Chris Whatley) (12/15/88)
In article <287@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk> jrk@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway CMP RA) writes: >In article <6390@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, chari@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Chris Whatley ) writes: >> In article <245@taniwha.UUCP> michael@taniwha.UUCP (Michael Hamel) writes: >> >Whoa thar! We are talking about copying. This has *nothing* to do with thef [Richard says copying is not theft but it still may be wrong] >> >Maybe you *can* copy my car if you can't afford one yourself. Wouldn't that >> >make for a kinder, gentler nation? >> I'm sorry but that is the most ludicrous concept. Pure fantasy! Is this not >> a capitalistic economy? Said copying seriously devalues the software product. >Copying software does not change its value one whit. It reduces the >*price* the manufacturer is able to sell it for. The only difference >other peoples' illegal copies of the software I use can make to me is >that it hurts the fortunes of the companies who wrote it, who may therefore >not write any more. The idea that copiers have stolen something from the >software itself is the ludicrous concept. What else do you think I mean by "devaluation" than a reduction of the price of the product. I cartainly don't think that the software will wear out or become soiled in any way! Geez! Well, at the very least you agree that illegal copying is unfair to the publisher, writer and even the twits who allow themselves to be taken advantage of when they let somebody copy their $400.00 program for free. I just can't see what type of "value" you are referring to there. Maybe you think I meant the software lost self-esteem after being copied? >> It DOES NOT make any sense to say otherwise. If in your fantasy-land (you >> know, the "kinder and gentler nation", Ha!) we could copy others posessions >> and then those posessions would be worthless and the company who made them >> would likely go bankrupt. Gee wouldn't that be great! >Ever heard of the FSF? >I don't mean Fantasy and Science Fiction :-) Sure I've read about them, in books. What do they have to do with this discussion? I don't see how it relates since their licensing policy, as I understand it, does not include the concepts of intellectual property or a price for that property. (Disclaimer: I have no beef with the FSF. In fact, I hardly know anything about them except for the fact that they make my favorite editor.) So, really what is your purpose here? >> Chris >Richard Kennaway SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K. uk.ac.uea.sys Chris (Sorry if I was mean but, this was such a stupid reply.) -- -------------------------------------------------------- INET: chari@killer.DALLAS.TX.US | BIX: chari UUCP: {anywhere}!killer!chari | -- CI$: 71370,1654 | Phone: 512/453-4238
amorando@euler.uucp (Alexander R. Morando) (12/15/88)
I wrote two long articles that I junked because they sounded too whiny. Here is my $.02: Good luck if you are going to try and make a living on the Amiga, and you are an individual. It's practically impossible, what with the computer magazines not printing announcements, high cost of advertising, and general apathy all around. Good look trying to contact big publishers/developers like Electronic Arts and Epyx. You probably have to suck up to them royally to get them to listen to you. You're best bet is contacting the small, just-starting- out houses, who have not become so big that they cannot dart and weave in the microcomputer market. Disk based copy protection does not work and only incites to anger software buyers and spur on pirates. I am still seething at Emerald Mine's flaky protection that 95% of the time hangs. But I love the game...although I haven't played it since I finished every level. Computer stores are the sources of a lot of piracy. They often leave disks lying around. It is possible to copy RIGHT UNDER THEIR NOSE, dealer versions of software that are not copy protected. I know one store in particular, that I would rather not receive copies of any of my software... The average person is always looking for a way to save money. Given the opportunity, he will pirate software. He would feel like a patsy if he went into the store and bought it, when he could get it for free. A lot of people pirate software so they can look at it. If they like the software enough, they will go out and purchase a legitimate copy. There is a lot to be said about piracy in this form. It allows potential buyers to test-drive stuff, without the hassle of dealing with money-back guarantees. I would feel uncomfortable going into a software store and asking for my money back, knowing that the store thinks that I probably duplicated the software while I had it, even though I didn't. How often can you do that to the same store? After a while, they will probably change their policy, or will refuse to sell you software, or will be snotty to you. I am a developer, but I don't hate pirates. I don't hate piracy. It is a problem, and I don't have any solution to it. Perhaps some actual arrests, infiltration, or levying some of those big $10,000 fines would scare some people and make a difference. It seems that society doesn't care if piracy is going on, because society is represented 99+% by people who are potential pirates. I think it is important to knock down big pirating groups and pirate BBS's. Just exposing them and giving them a warning is enough to change them. Expecting citizens to rat on their friends is rediculous. No one would do that. In one of my games, Targis, there is type-in-the-word copy protection, like on Digi-paint and Starglider-II and others. I don't know how effective that is, but I do know it will always work. Also I know that since I usually go to the hardware directly, my programs will always work, even if they change the software to 1.4,1.5,etc. And I know that I am getting the most out of the Amiga. Believe me, go to the hardware even if it isn't convenient. All the best software does. JUST BE ABLE TO BACK OUT, SO THE USER DOES NOT HAVE TO REBOOT. It is ok to take over the display while the game is running, BUT DON'T DISABLE MULTI-TASKING. Oh well. Life is a game I play to win. David Ashley amorando@euler.berkeley.edu
fmr@cwi.nl (Frank Rahmani) (12/15/88)
> An interesting moral question (in places outside the U.S., where, as > Reagan always tells us, there is no poverty): > If your family starving, is it right to steal in order to feed them? Can only speak for Europe: in most European countries stealing is NOT PUNISHABLE in aforementioned circumstances as long as you don't steal any luxury stuff. By the way, this analogy is interesting in another context: although the number of shoplifters is significantly smaller than the number of software copiers the police never gets around to do anything more than write their names down. Persecuting and punishing them all would cost 1000 times the amount of the damage they do (at least in Netherland). Thec whole discussion about this subject is like raindancing:ABSOLUTELY USELESS!! There is no NO NO way to stop somebody to copy a program, and while he's busy why not make another ten copies for friends? If you pay me $50 for the name of a 'pirate', I would first contact that person and ask him to give me copies of some nice big programs for a value of let's see, say $500. So theoretically I win $450 and that sounds ok. Find some nifty tricks to protect your software and people will start competing with you to break your protection. And once its broken... Big manuals aren't a problem either, Ive occasionally seen people copying 1000 pges manuals (takes 35 minutes) and once you have the looseleaf version, the automatic copymachine will unattendedly make whatever number of copies you need. Then there's this huge market in books ("All about...") that are nothing else than camouflaged copies of original manuals intended to get the owners of pirated software going just as if they had the original program. By the way, if you wonder if I use pirated software (it sometimes is just on my desk without me asking for it and I haven't the slightest idea who dropped it there): I NEVER got a pirated program to work (because of the lack of documentation) except for one command: FORMAT. fmr@cwi.nl -- It is better never to have been born. But who among us has such luck? Maintainer's Motto: If we can't fix it, it ain't broke. These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.
duncan@geppetto.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) (12/15/88)
In article <27145@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> amorando@euler.UUCP (Alexander R. Morando) writes: > >Computer stores are the sources of a lot of piracy. They often leave disks >lying around. It is possible to copy RIGHT UNDER THEIR NOSE, dealer versions >of software that are not copy protected. I know one store in particular, that >I would rather not receive copies of any of my software... And I know of people who have worked for stores who have everything you can imagine in their posession, clearly not paid for. >The average person is always looking for a way to save money. Given >the opportunity, he will pirate software. He would feel like a patsy if he >went into the store and bought it, when he could get it for free. Well, I don't approve of illegal copying/use of software. I understand this feeling. I refuse to buy from stores -- I always get software through the mail. Why? People in stores have been absolutely USELESS when it comes to any serious advice/support for ANY software I have ever tried to pruchase from them. (I am a programmer, etc., so I can afford to support myself, but I am a USER of software as well and would be more willing to support stores if they had something to offer. I buy hardware from stores because it DOES wear out, break-down, etc. and I am NOT skilled/knowledgable enough to do this for myself.) >A lot of people pirate software so they can look at it. If they like the >software enough, they will go out and purchase a legitimate copy. There is >a lot to be said about piracy in this form. It allows potential buyers to >test-drive stuff, without the hassle of dealing with money-back guarantees. I do NOT find this true in my experience with people. >I would feel uncomfortable going into a software store and asking for my >money back, knowing that the store thinks that I probably duplicated the >software while I had it, even though I didn't. How often can you do that to >the same store? After a while, they will probably change their policy, or >will refuse to sell you software, or will be snotty to you. If they had GOOD SUPPORT for and KNOWLEDGE about their products, I, for one, would not need the 'test drive' situation. I usually find someone who has purchased (and used) the package(s) of interest to me and ask them what ex- perience they have had. Then I buy it mail-order at a discount if I want it. > I think it is important to knock down big pirating groups and pirate >BBS's. Just exposing them and giving them a warning is enough to change them. >Expecting citizens to rat on their friends is rediculous. No one would do >that. I guess I'd have to agree with this on a practical basis. If you're going to go after someone, target the biggest abusers. I think, at this point, it's a bit like prohibition, however, no matter what economic case one may make. I think the fear of software sources drying up means little or nothing to the average user of a home/desktop system. People are not yet vitally linked to the function of personal computers and have them as pure luxury items, i.e., whatever they are using them for could be done with paper and pencil (admit- tedly much harder). Personal computing is NOT as important as driving, using the phone, etc. and the great home computing revolution has not really had the impact in the fun- damental way that cars and phones have. Until it does -- until computing is more hidden within the applications in 'appliance' fashion -- people will not take concerns like piracy, support, insurance, etc. seriously. If it is something they can envision themselves doing without, they won't pay much to have it. (People copy records, videos, etc. ALL the time. It's a luxury entertainment item that they do NOT really value highly.) Speaking only for myself, of course, I am... Scott P. Duncan (duncan@ctt.bellcore.com OR ...!bellcore!ctt!duncan) (Bellcore, 444 Hoes Lane RRC 1H-210, Piscataway, NJ 08854) (201-699-3910 (w) 201-463-3683 (h))
dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) (12/16/88)
In article <2149@nunki.usc.edu> wdao@castor.usc.edu (Walter Dao) writes: >How about the games ? I hate the games the leave that ugly window top border >on ... and they usually use a drab (mean ugly yuck pallette of colors.) This can be solved by using custom screens. >...fancy multitasking S L O W piece of sloppy code (reason for ARP) called >AMIGADOS. Agreed, AmigaDos (as originally conceived) is sloppy and slow. It was put together in an awful hurry by MetaComCo. However, AmyDos does not multitask. Exec multitasks. Exec is a speed demon. The games that take over the machine for speed often continue to use it. If you want speed while co-existing with AmyDos and WorkBench, etc. peacefully, there are ways to do it. You can get every cycle the 68000 and the hardware support has to offer without wiping out the OS. A simple-minded example comes to mind. Just set the priority of all the other tasks in the system to -128. When you need one of them (such as trackdisk.device), temporarily raise its priority to the normal level while using it. The rules don't make one go slow. The real reason people take over the machine is that it makes their programming job a bit easier. They have less to worry about if they wipe out all competition. >a software booting with a fast loading hires picture and playing some >funky piece of music will ALWAYS grab my attention. As stated above, you don't need to take over the machine to do this. >Remember, not all amiga users are developpers (or usenet type of users). >they are the minority. So? Even the 'end users' I know prefer software that doesn't kill their OS. >by the way , wares that take over the machine CAN work with hard disk and >memory expansions . One does not rule out the other. Not unless you want to include in your game ten zillion device drivers to support ten zillion different hard disks. This is what Dragon's Lair attempted to do. Unfortunately, only COMSPEC answered their queries. So the COMSPEC drive is the only hard drive that Dragon's Lair will work with. >reward for pirate busting ? I can't say I am crazy about bounty-hunting software pirates - some are just people who want to review software before buying it. And there is another solution to piracy - see my article with the subject 'FREE Software' or something of the sort. >Technology gave us the means, so use it ! and even better ABUSE it ! I don't think I'll dignify this by arguing with it. Dan Hankins
dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) (12/16/88)
In article <1379@leah.Albany.Edu> jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) writes: >You're telling me that Jez San who wrote Starglider II is a sloppy >programmer? Ha! Lets see you do three dimentional (filled!) graphix that >move like that! I think Starglider II is a special case. Unlike most games, SGII consumes *all* of a 512K machine just to run. It's simply too large to coexist with Workbench and still do what it does. This should be stated on the package, though. And it should be able to be loaded to a harddisk, and to coexist *if* the user has all that extra memory. I have extra memory, and there really isn't a good reason why SGII could not detect this, quiesce the OS (rather than wipe it out entirely), and run mostly in the extra space, allowing me to restart the OS when I'm done with the game - without rebooting. >I'd say you need a Porsche with things like DM, Dragon's Lair, and >Starglider II. These programs are not Amoeba, you know... No, they aren't. But they should be written to take advantage of extra Amiga add-ons if they are there. Okay, take over the machine on a 512K job with one disk drive, etc. But not my 1.5Meg machine - let AmyDos remain, *please*. >This I'm not sure on (does the Amiga handle this?), but unless a sample >takes over the system momentarily, it will certainly not work. Nope, it will work. Load the sample into chip ram, point the DMA at it, then say 'go!' to the sound chip. The 68000 is no longer needed. I have a demo I created which (a) coexists with AmyDos, (b) displays Kahnankas at full speed, and (c) plays a Sonix sampled song at full speed. >that several of these people were using these arguments to rationalize >piracy (hypocrits! A copied or cracked version will STILL take over your I'm not trying to rationalize piracy - I think there's an alternative to the software seller/pirate war that now exists. See my posting with a subject line that begins 'FREE' for details. Dan Hankins
dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins) (12/16/88)
In article <27145@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> amorando@euler.uucp (Alexander R. Morando) writes: >is, but I do know it will always work. Also I know that since I usually go >to the hardware directly, my programs will always work, even if they change >the software to 1.4,1.5,etc. And I know that I am getting the most out of Ummm... what if the user (a) has a non-standard disk drive (b) one of the new graphics boards or a Fat Agnus (c) has a 68020 or '30 (d) a CMI accelerator (e) extra memory (f) any of a number of other hardware configurations Are you ready for all of these and more in your software? Also, on piracy - there is an alternative to the developer/pirate war now being waged. See my posting with a subject line beginning 'FREE' for details. What happens when the only software produced is what comes with the machine and PD and shareware and what you write for yourself? Then my scheme will probably occur to some bright soul - collect money in advance, then develop the program and ship it to the payers with documentation and support, but without copy protection or copyright. The author gets paid, and the pirates are happy (or maybe they aren't - there is no longer the thrill of doing something illegal, or the challenge of defeating the protection). Dan Hankins
jarl@loglule.se (Jarl Sandberg) (12/16/88)
Different analogies to copying software has been offered such as stealing cars and so forth. But what happened to the "real" analogy copying of music? The whole debate can easily be transfered to the world of music and often with the same kind of arguments. In the world of music, customers might have to put up with inferior technologies since the vendors of music are afraid of what might happen. (I refere to the digital audio tape (DAT) which would have made it possible to make almost perfect copies of a CD disc. In the world of video, a VCR was introduced and quickly removed from the market. It had two slots for the tapes, so that it was easy to copy one video cassette onto another. The companies that produced movies didn't like this one (it figures). Are all the pirates the same? I do not think so! There are at least three kinds of "pirates" a/ Those who copy and SELL copies! This is VERY dirty and should be prohibited in any possible way. b/ Those who can't afford to buy a specific item of software (such as students) and make a copy and use it at home (with no intention of making money through selling copies of the program). The first category should be banned, no doubt about that! The second category is harder since it might produce spin-off sales later on when the student has got himself a job... This does however imply one thing. A student who got himself a job and continues to use the pirate copy in his profession should be banned. He (his company) is making money on a pirate copy which, de facto, transfers them to the first category. It might be hard (impossible) to promote laws that makes this distinction but it might not be needed. All I'm saying is the effort to stop pirating should/must be concentrated on the first category since they're stealing the developers efforts. The second category might be considered as marketing costs? (The arguments apply mostly to "proffessional" software, games are a specific kind of software which doesn't fit into my arguments). As a private person I might use pirated software. In my profession, working for a company that produces software I don't use pirated software. That is a strictly NONO! -- Jarl Sandberg Disclaimer: These opinions belong to me and not my company!
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/16/88)
If you could copy Porsches (and other tangible goods) as easily as you can copy software, we would be living in an economy of such abundance that such details as software copyrights would be irrelevant. It certainly wouldn't be anything like what we have now. Unfortunately, we don't. Discussions as to who would be harmed in such an economy might serve a useful purpose to Science Fiction writers, but in the present situation it's not really relevant. Software authors need to acquire money to purchase Porsches... or even Hyundais.... The free market has disadvantages, I admit, but as a reward and incentive system it's about the only one that's workable in a society larger than a Mediaeval feifdom. People who do good work should be rewarded for it. This is the basic factor controlling software prices, quality, and availability. If the market is distorted, for example by piracy, then two things will happen. First, there will not appear to be demand for a product. If you've ever heard of a company not producing a product due to piracy, that's what this means... due to piracy the demand for that product is artificially lowered. This is not good for you, as a consumer, or for the authors. This is also not good for you as a pirate... you can't steal what's not been written. Secondly, if the product is produced, the market for the product (which is possibly small to begin with) is smaller than it would be. To recover their costs and make a profit companies have to take this into account when they set thir prices. This means that the cost of the product goes up, possibly further reducing demand. This is not good for you, as a consumer, or for the authors. This may be good for reluctant pirates, since they have a rationale for stealing software... prices are too high. Some packages may be priced higher than they're worth to you, but they must be worth that much to someone or they wouldn't sell. You are perfectly free to not pay that sort of price for them, just as you're free to not pay $80,000 for a Porsche 928S4. Just don't buy them. By and large prices are what they are because the market is small. If they were any lower there wouldn't be any incentive to write new software. If you want lower prices, get as many people as you can to buy computers and buy... not steal... software. As the size of the market goes up, prices will fall. Trust me. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/16/88)
In article <12656@bellcore.bellcore.com>, duncan@geppetto.ctt.bellcore.com (Scott Duncan) writes: > (People copy records, videos, etc. ALL the time. It's a luxury > entertainment item that they do NOT really value highly.) Something I missed in my earlier posting, it seems. If the market for "records, videos, etc." was as small as the software market, this theft would have driven these businesses to the wall as well. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net.
john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) (12/17/88)
In article <2460@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >If you want lower prices, get as many people as you can to buy computers and >buy... not steal... software. As the size of the market goes up, prices will >fall. Trust me. >-- >Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. >Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. >Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net. Well, lets see now. hmmmm. I can think of Lotus 123, Dbase III.... Wordperfect... Crosstalk... well now, boys and girls, can anybody pick a product out of this list that has come down significantly in price? NO? I did not think so. Now, boys and girls, does anybody know of lower priced clones for any of the above products? YES? I thought so. Could it be that COMPETITION and not size of the market is what has some effect on prices? YES? I thought you'd say that. John De Armond Intrigued minds STILL want to know. Sales Technologies, Inc.
comeau@Alliant.COM (John Comeau) (12/17/88)
In article <2087@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes: > >One of the BEST forms of referral is for one of your customers to make up >a disk for his friend. (gasp!) Yeah! - You're not really TAKING anything from the publishers, You're GIVING them free publicity. >Consider also the fact that your company will get referrals from people who >have "bootleg" copies of your software and have NOT bought a copy. I Wow! - What a generous guy. Those software publishers should be paying YOU! >PC market. Many times as a consultant, I have given a disk to someone to >try of software I have not bought and recommended that they try it and if Of Course! - Giving is a YEAR ROUND proposition, not just Christmas time. >This is the absolute BEST publicity you as a publisher could get. >A locally recognized expert has recommended your product and has given >the person a disk to try. What more could you ask for. Well done! - Those software publishers sould be paying you top dollar for publicity from a RECOGNIZED EXPERT. >I firmly believe that this so-called "piracy" is the root cause for the >original success of all the major horizontal software companies. Take MBA! - Never mind the payments, You deserve STOCK OPTIONS. >ON the other hand, I will not use or buy or recommend any software with >ANY kind of protection scheme, be it disk trickery, phone registration or >embedded names. And I consider these types of packages to be fair game >to anyone who wants to copy them. Outrage! - Those software publishing BASTARDS! (scuse my language. I'm outraged.) Their programs being copied might not be ENOUGH punishment. >>2) Burn purchasers names into programs if you need "protection". >This is also Unacceptable. >Besides screwing yourselves out of the free publicity described above Outrage and pity! - Those STUPID software publishing B******S!! >The case will hit the papers and trade journals and i'll be terribly >embarrised and slandered. You can bet your store on the fact that I'll >be back screaming mad looking for your legal hide. Consider your chances >of convincing a jury of MY peers (fellow software users) that you are >inocent of neglence and slander. For sure. - No Jury that knew what a nice generous guy you are could consider ruling against you. And to slander a fellow with such a philanthopic history - Sue 'em for Millions. >I certainly would not bother with the product. If I cannot buy it, open >the box and run it unfettered with gimmicks, dongles, and the like, I'll >look elsewhere. Your competator will probably have an equivilent product Free enterprise! - The COMPETITOR will get the free publicity. >package to get the docs. Especially so if there are enough docs to >pass the pain threshold at the xerox machine. >An absolutely fatal mistake is for you to unbundle the educational >material and try to sell it as a separate book. The user will then >simply grab a copy of your software and buy the $20.00 book. Absolutely! - Who would want such software? The ONLY way it could be used is if you knew of a bookstore with a xerox machine. >I've got no problem in going after the real theives - those that buy one >copy and then propagate it all over the company - complete with xeroxed >docs. I'd screw those people to the wall. Note that this policy almost >eliminates the private individual as a "pirate". The one exception is >probably the club or user group that sponsors mass copying. Good policy! - Identify the REAL thieves and go after them. >readjust their definition of piracy to exclude casual and/or referral copying >then the problem will magically go away. It's as simle as that. Webster - Call a spade a spade. Piracy is piracy, Publicity is publicity. If you define free publicity as piracy you will see all kinds of problems that really don't exist. It IS as simple as that. >john De Armond Thanks!!!!!!!!!
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (12/17/88)
From article <2460@ficc.uu.net>, by peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva): " ... " The free market has disadvantages, I admit, but as a reward and incentive " ... " If the market is distorted, for example by piracy, then two things will " happen. The laws which have the effect of defining software piracy as a crime are distortions of the free market. Perhaps they are good laws to have, since they create a market which might not otherwise exist. And perhaps they are not. But to call piracy a distortion of the free market is a distortion of language -- an attempt to make a point by an inappropriate application of a derogative term. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (12/18/88)
To answer many points: Q) If they just charged less, people would stop pirating. A) Hah. Just like nobody makes illegal copies of record albums, which cost far less than software could ever cost! Q) I'm not actually taking anything. Nobody's property is removed. A) Wrong. The only thing you *can* do with intellectual property is control it and say how it is to be used. By copying, you are appropriating the owner's only true right. It's theft, plain and simple, equal to (or worse than) any other theft. Q) Worse than other theft? A) Yes. Intellectual property is the truest form of property. There is nothing that is more "yours" than the creations of your own mind. In fact, what's valuable about physical property are the non-tangible things like thought, effort and labour that have gone into turning random matter into valuable property. That's why smashing something to bits (and leaving the owner with the pieces) is just as bad as stealing. The human creation is destroyed. Q) Sometimes pirated copies turn out to be advertising that sells real copies. A) Could be. That's up to the owners to decide. If they think that some free copies might drum up sales, it's entirely up to them to do it. Free samples are nothing new in the conventional industries. But it's up to them. Not up to you. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/18/88)
In article <2210@stiatl.UUCP>, john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes: > In article <2460@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >If you want lower prices, get as many people as you can to buy computers and > >buy... not steal... software. As the size of the market goes up, prices will > >fall. Trust me. > Well, lets see now. hmmmm. I can think of Lotus 123, Dbase III.... > Wordperfect... Crosstalk... VIP Professional... Foxbase... Mirror. I don't know of any WP clones, but that's understandable. I think Wysiwyg is a waste of time, so I don't pay attention to that market. > well now, boys and girls, can anybody pick a product out of this list that > has come down significantly in price? NO? I did not think so. Now, boys > and girls, does anybody know of lower priced clones for any of the above > products? Ah, you're making my point for me. These products *have* come down significantly in price... not under those names, but generic products that do what the originals did faster, better, and cheaper. Think of cars. There's no way a Cadillac Cimarron is going to come down in price... but if what you want is "a family car with a decent engine" instead of "a Cadillac Cimarron", just wait. And pick up a Mazda 626 Turbo, or the Ford Taurus with the V6, or whatever else comes along. You win, Ford wins, and Lotus... I mean GM... loses. > YES? I thought so. Could it be that COMPETITION and not size > of the market is what has some effect on prices? And size of the market has an effect on competition. How many cheap clones are there for the UNIX market? I can't think of *any* cheap software for UNIX. Why? because the market is so small. And how about the tiny markets? Atari ST, Amiga, Acorn, and so on? About all I can think of is VIP Professional, and Word Perfect. There are several products that I know of that have been dropped because the market, *after piracy was factored in* was too small. New companies will produce better products at a lower price, if they think they can get a decent return on their work. The bigger the market, the more people will make the decision to get in... and the lower prices will get. Market forces work, but unless there are a lot of suppliers there's no elasticity in supply for them to work on. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net.
jeffd@ficc.uu.net (jeff daiell) (12/18/88)
Greg Lee writes: > But to call piracy a distortion of the free market is a > distortion of language This is like saying that kicking someone in the head is not a breach of the peace (or of the victim's rights). Jeff Daiell -- Fiat Justitia, Ruat Caelum
wdao@castor.usc.edu (Walter Dao) (12/18/88)
this is about some stuff ... 1) the guy who got a non working Dungeon Master disk. I was lucky that when I booted the game for the very first time, No virus was in memory. The disk fresh out of the box was not write protected. THe idea of checking the disk hit me right after I saw the opening screen. Doom could have struck . 2) Documentations not being posted ? I have seen it. Even the Numbers of the code wheel type of protection. All the numbers of all the disks of a code wheel were carefully typed and saved in a text file and uploaded to a BBS. 3) Comparing the Nintendo to the Amiga ... Who the hell was the first guy to raise such a topic ? I by far prefer my amiga. 4) I to saw the Elite game version for the ST . Dam... saliva was dripping from the corner of my mouth .... 5) I am patiently waiting for B.A.T. (should be out in the states under an EPIX Label and I hope they are not going to screw the game up -game censorship- <like redrawing sprites of females a bit too naked... they usually do it>) B.A.T. is The ULTIMATE SCi-FI game . (B.A.T. is not the cheap game name CON -BAT = pseudo flight sim.) 8-# *Keep your connections**** clic ***
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (12/19/88)
From article <2515@looking.UUCP>, by brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton): " ... " Q) I'm not actually taking anything. Nobody's property is removed. " " A) Wrong. Answer makes no sense. It's obvious that nobody's property is removed. (It may be that somebody's property is diminished in value.) " The only thing you *can* do with intellectual property " is control it and say how it is to be used. So since it's the only thing you can do with it, therefore you should be able to do this with it? What kind of reasoning is that? " By copying, you are " appropriating the owner's only true right. You say it's a true right -- others disagree. If this is intended to support your case, you should be reminded that calling it a true right doesn't make it one. Because there's no other right doesn't mean this right exists. " It's theft, plain and " simple, equal to (or worse than) any other theft. Silliness. There are obviously thefts that do much greater injury to people. The law makes distinctions among different kinds of theft and exacts penalties of differing severities. Are your eyes so firmly fixed on your wallet that you really can't see any differences? I understand that it may be to the mutual benefit of producers and consumers of software to outlaw and to prevent piracy. It's arguable. What I don't have any sympathy with is self-serving moralizing from people who make their living selling software. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) (12/19/88)
In article <39@microsoft.UUCP> w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes: | In article <1343@leah.Albany.Edu> jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) writes: | >In article <5769@thorin.cs.unc.edu>, bell@unc.cs.unc.edu (Andrew Bell) writes: [...] | >Wait a second! So what you're saying is that its okay to pirate stuff if | >you can't afford to buy it? That's insane! Can I steal your car because | >I can't afford one myself? | | Hardly. Copyright law says that copying that is insignificant in quantity ^^^^^^^^ I believe this refers to quantity of the total percentage of one copyrighted work, (i.e. 1% of a book) not quantity of total production run. So this is going to excuse you having one copy out of 300,000 copies. | and does not impact the fortunes of the copyright holder (this is not the | exact wording, which also mentions not copying the entire work) is perfectly ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^note this^ Don't you think this makes your one complete copy of word perfect illegal? | legal. While most software licences are more restrictive, this rule seems | to keep book publishers reasonably happy. | It's hard for me to picture book publishers worrying about people having guests over to sit around a coffee table with an artistically arranged group of stapled photocopies of some of the upper class books and magazines 8^) | Stealing a car is *very* different, because it deprives the (former) owner | of the use of the car. Copying (whether of a car or a program) doesn't. Stealing is stealing. The law generally uses the quantity of theft only to determine the quantity of punishment, not to determine the boolean value of "theft/not theft". So the only difference between stealing a car and stealing a program is that the value of the car is substantially greater than the value of the lost revenue/profit. | It only deprives the copyright holder of revenue. I think the copyright holder probably considers this important 8^) | If you could tell that | a person was not going to purchase something, there is no harm in them having | a copy. Of course, in this world, it's hard to tell. Most copyright holders consider the possession of a copy of their property as proving they have been deprived. Most courts consider it not relevant that the thief wouldn't have purchased. | Still, I think I | can safely say that the copy of WordPerfect I have for the Amiga (used once, | hated it, now collecting dust until I need another floppy for Fish Disks) | isn't depriving WP corp. of any revenue. I hope you have $25,000 handy. Since you have just admitted willful copyright violation. *Isn't* doesn't count. You already deprived them of the purchase price of Word Perfect. The portion of the copyright law you were reading covers reviews, quotes, excerpts for footnotes, etc. It isn't you who gets to decide if WP is deprived of income. It is WP corp. and the courts. And they may feel that if you penned one letter to a pen pal you owed them the cost of the software. And the law would say they were correct. Then they penalize you. | -- | -Colin (uunet!microsof!w-colinp) Sigh. One thing I have observed is that employees of software companies don't seem to understand the value of other peoples software. Maybe they think theirs is the only important software? Let us forget about all these attempt to set value comparisons, and get back down to the simple facts: 1) Intellectual property *is* property. 2) The *owner* of a property generally gets to determine what value that property has. 3) There are laws that force certain values upon owners of property, but they are individual special cases (selling software to the federal gov't is one that relates to software pricing), but they are special cases, the general case remains that the owner sets the value. It is his property. If you possess it without permission, all the words you use to defend this do not count. A person who possesses the property of another without permission is historically known by a simple, short word, "thief". I will repeat: "It is his property". -- Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim OR domain: jim@eda.com #define disclaimer "I do not speak for my employer" #define truth "I speak for myself" #define result "variable"
jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) (12/19/88)
In article <245@taniwha.UUCP> michael@taniwha.UUCP (Michael Hamel) writes: | In article <1343@leah.Albany.Edu> jac423@leah.Albany.Edu (Julius A Cisek) writes: | | >Wait a second! So what you're saying is that its okay to pirate stuff if | >you can't afford to buy it? That's insane! Can I steal your car because | >I can't afford one myself? | | Whoa thar! We are talking about copying. This has *nothing* to do with theft. Wrong! You obviously have little grasp of the concept of property. Intellectual property *is* property. It has *everything* to do with theft. You copy a program, you have stolen. The only difference between stealing a car, and stealing the revenue/profit the owner of intellectual property was due is the amount. Would you go into a store and steal a pack of gum? I mean, geez, that's only 25 cents, hardly important, right. [sarcasm, in case you can't tell]. You copy a $39 game program and you have deprived various people of their lawful revenue: 1) The publisher, oh lets say $2 2) The retailer, uh, give him $2 Now that 25 cent pack of gum someone shoplifted, no one here would deny that is theft would they? Why are so many here willing to believe an act which deprives others of more value than that pack of gum is not theft? -- Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim OR domain: jim@eda.com #define disclaimer "I do not speak for my employer"
jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) (12/19/88)
In article <5027@garfield.MUN.EDU> john13@garfield.UUCP (John Russell) writes: | In article <6268@fluke.COM> kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) writes: | >I wonder why companies don't offer cash rewards for "information leading to | >the arrest and conviction" of software pirates. [...] | Yeah, the first person to take advantage of the offer will be the Byte Bandit | or some other sleazoid who's copied everything ever written, who will turn in | all the people he knows who have 1-2 pieces of pirated software (and he | probably gave them to them!). Can you say Ivan Boesky? I knew you could. This is definately in the time honored American and British tradition of State/Queen 's Evidence. -- Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim OR domain: jim@eda.com #define disclaimer "I do not speak for my employer"
jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) (12/19/88)
In article <287@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk> jrk@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway CMP RA) writes: | In article <6390@killer.DALLAS.TX.US>, chari@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Chris Whatley) writes: | > In article <245@taniwha.UUCP> michael@taniwha.UUCP (Michael Hamel) writes: | > >Whoa thar! We are talking about copying. This has *nothing* to do with theft. | | Right. Too many people are saying, here and elsewhere, that copying | is theft. Theft deprives someone of the use of their property. Exactly. Copying deprives the manufacturer of the profit he would have earned on the sale. THIS IS THEFT. | Copying does not. This doesnt mean that copying is not wrong, just that | it's not theft. WRONG. I repeat copying deprives the manufacturer. Where did use come into the definition of theft? | | > >Maybe you *can* copy my car if you can't afford one yourself. Wouldn't that | > >make for a kinder, gentler nation? | > I'm sorry but that is the most ludicrous concept. Pure fantasy! Is this not | > a capitalistic economy? Said copying seriously devalues the software | > product. | | Copying software does not change its value one whit. It reduces the | *price* the manufacturer is able to sell it for. The only difference | other peoples' illegal copies of the software I use can make to me is | that it hurts the fortunes of the companies who wrote it, who may therefore | not write any more. The idea that copiers have stolen something from the | software itself is the ludicrous concept. Look at that. This bozo just proved my point for me. Copying reduces the value to the intellectual owner. Therefore it is theft. This bozo describes how it hurts the creator of the software, and how it may cause them to stop supporting the software, but cant expand his intellectual horizon far enough to understand how this hurts the software and why it is theft. He actually *sees* the damage it does, but since he can still use the software he doesn't consider it's value reduced. | | > It DOES NOT make any sense to say otherwise. If in your fantasy-land (you | > know, the "kinder and gentler nation", Ha!) we could copy others posessions | > and then those posessions would be worthless and the company who made them | > would likely go bankrupt. Gee wouldn't that be great! | | Ever heard of the FSF? | I don't mean Fantasy and Science Fiction :-) The Free Software Foundation is a wondeful organization which has chosen to give their property away. The fact that they chose to give *their* software away has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of the owners of other software. -- Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim OR domain: jim@eda.com #define disclaimer "I do not speak for my employer"
jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) (12/19/88)
In article <2210@stiatl.UUCP> john@stiatl.UUCP (John DeArmond) writes: | In article <2460@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: | >If you want lower prices, get as many people as you can to buy computers and | >buy... not steal... software. As the size of the market goes up, prices will | >fall. Trust me. | >-- | >Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. | Well, lets see now. hmmmm. I can think of Lotus 123, Dbase III.... | Wordperfect... Crosstalk... | | well now, boys and girls, can anybody pick a product out of this list that | has come down significantly in price? NO? I did not think so. Now, boys | and girls, does anybody know of lower priced clones for any of the above | products? YES? I thought so. Could it be that COMPETITION and not size | of the market is what has some effect on prices? YES? I thought you'd | say that. Actually, I think you proved Peter's point. Could it be that the reason the other clones entered the market was because it was large enough for them to make a profit while undercutting the prices of the name brand. Small markets generally don't have competition. So your statement is true, competition does bring the prices down. But Peter's statement is true also because if the market isn't large enough there is no competition. | John De Armond Intrigued minds STILL want to know. jim -- Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim OR domain: jim@eda.com #define disclaimer "I do not speak for my employer"
csc21824@unsvax.UUCP (Jay) (12/19/88)
> >How about the games ? I hate the games the leave that ugly window top border > >on ... and they usually use a drab (mean ugly yuck pallette of colors.) > > This can be solved by using custom screens. > It doesn't even take that. Just open a borderless window with no gadgets, that is the full size of the screen. --------------------------------------------------------------------- This space for Rent Eric J. Schwertfeger CIS [72657,1166] or csc21824%unsvax.uns.edu Disclaimer:These are just the mad ramblings of a man forced to use vi once too often, and as such, should be ignored.
w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) (12/19/88)
In article <400@eda.com> jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) writes: >In article <39@microsoft.UUCP> w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes: >| Hardly. Copyright law says that copying that is insignificant in quantity > ^^^^^^^^ >I believe this refers to quantity of the total percentage of one copyrighted >work, (i.e. 1% of a book) not quantity of total production run. So this is >going to excuse you having one copy out of 300,000 copies. No, actually, this says that, even if you only copy a small quote (a few paragraphs), but you put it in a widely published book, you need permission. This is almost universally given, but the copyright holder has the right to refuse. >| and does not impact the fortunes of the copyright holder (this is not the >| exact wording, which also mentions not copying the entire work) is perfectly > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > ^note this^ >Don't you think this makes your one complete copy of word perfect illegal? Yes. But it is not in violation of coyright law to circulate, say, a disassembly of some neat code (line-break algorithm, QuickDraw kernel, or whatever) among a few friends. The point I was trying to make is that there is a current compromise in the printed-material business short of paying the publisher every time you look at something. The law basically says I can do what I want as long as I don't deprive the copyright holder of revenue, and then defines some things considered to deprive copyright holders of revenue. I can make as many complete copies of a book I own as I like, as long as I don't distribute them, and then there is a very rough inverse relationship between how much I copy and how far I distribute it. This relation is *not* copies*distance = 0. >| legal. While most software licences are more restrictive, this rule seems >| to keep book publishers reasonably happy. > >It's hard for me to picture book publishers worrying about people having >guests over to sit around a coffee table with an artistically >arranged group of stapled photocopies of some of the upper class books >and magazines 8^) No, but you probably do have experience with people's libraries of photocopies of interesting journal articles. I do routinely copy entire magazine articles. >| Stealing a car is *very* different, because it deprives the (former) owner >| of the use of the car. Copying (whether of a car or a program) doesn't. > >Stealing is stealing. The law generally uses the quantity of theft only >to determine the quantity of punishment, not to determine the boolean >value of "theft/not theft". So the only difference between stealing a car >and stealing a program is that the value of the car is substantially >greater than the value of the lost revenue/profit. Well, I maintain that copying software is *not* stealing. There may not be a good word for it in the English language (or the American one), but while we use the term, we should be careful not to over-generalise. You're saying the amount stolen only has to be non-zero. Okay. And I mainmtain that the amount stolen is exactly zero. If I steal your car, you want it back. If I copy your copy of program X, you still have it. Yes, copyright law and licencing come into the real world, but this definitely isn't reducing your ability to use the program. Software copyright holders are of a similar view, usually stating that a person's obligations under a licence agreement end when all copies of the software have been destroyed. This strikes me as different from what a car rental agency accepts. Following your logic that lost potential revenue=stealing, you'd say I was stealing if you had the only car in the world and I gave everyone else one. Violation of patent law, if you've patented the automobile, but *not* stealing. >| It only deprives the copyright holder of revenue. > >I think the copyright holder probably considers this important 8^) Yes, he probably does, but if I write a clone, I've also probably deprived him of revenue, and there's not a damn thing he can do about it legally. (In the U.S., he can bombard me with nuisance "look & feel" lawsuits, but I won't talk about my contempt for that nonsense.) >| If you could tell that >| a person was not going to purchase something, there is no harm in them having >| a copy. Of course, in this world, it's hard to tell. > >Most copyright holders consider the possession of a copy of their property >as proving they have been deprived. Most courts consider it not relevant >that the thief wouldn't have purchased. Of course, because it can't be proved. I said "if you could prove", both to yourself and the copyright holder, that it doesn't cost them money, I really doubt they would mind. In the real world, such proof is basically impossible to provide. >| Still, I think I >| can safely say that the copy of WordPerfect I have for the Amiga (used once, >| hated it, now collecting dust until I need another floppy for Fish Disks) >| isn't depriving WP corp. of any revenue. > >I hope you have $25,000 handy. Since you have just admitted willful >copyright violation. *Isn't* doesn't count. You already deprived them of the >purchase price of Word Perfect. No I don't have $25,000 handy. This one reason why WP Corp. is unlikely to sue me. Another is that, as I just pointed out, I have *not* deprived them, to 99.99% certainty, of any revenue. >One thing I have observed is that employees of software companies don't seem >to understand the value of other peoples software. Maybe they think theirs >is the only important software? Huh? I think *Microsoft* is founded on a misguided principle. I am not, however, so dim as to miss the carrot (we'll give you money) and stick (we'll sic coproprate legal on you) with which they encourage me not to distribute their products myself. I am further aware that this all depends on them catching me should I go against their wishes, which has a very, very low probability indeed. (I also think Microsoft products, to a first approximation, are crap, but that's another story, and partially because I'm working on some particularly crappy crap at the moment. They pay me to do certain things, and my desire to do those things is for me to weigh against my desire to eat. I'll be moral when I'm rich.) >Let us forget about all these attempt to set value comparisons, and >get back down to the simple facts: > >1) Intellectual property *is* property. I disagree. Legally, maybe (I don't understand the details), but I don't think it should be so. >2) The *owner* of a property generally gets to determine what >value that property has. The owner gets to decide what he wants to sell it for. "Value" is a term usually used to describe the compromise reached by seller & buyer. This can often be estimated without a sale, by comparison with other, similar things' values. But things like bank loans are often calculated on the value of the collateral, and there value is usually computed a bit more objectively. >3) There are laws that force certain values upon owners of property, >but they are individual special cases (selling software to the federal >gov't is one that relates to software pricing), but they are special >cases, the general case remains that the owner sets the value. See above. Value is a relative term, but it can be objectively determined with some accuracy. >It is his property. If you possess it without permission, all >the words you use to defend this do not count. A person who possesses >the property of another without permission is historically known >by a simple, short word, "thief". No, that's reserved for someone who *takes* the property of another. As in takes away. We do not generally call an unknowing buyer of "hot" property a thief. An d I don't consider copying taking. >I will repeat: "It is his property". Right. He had it before, he still has it. What did I do wrong? Current law and its interpretation says that making a literal copy of something is a crime, while making a functional one is not. Now for the hard part: where's the boundary? -- -Colin (uunet!microsof!w-colinp)
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/19/88)
In article <2850@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes another pseudo-libertarian defence of piracy. Let me put this into libertarian terms. Look, Lee, when you "buy" software you are entering into a contract with the seller. The terms of this contract are more or less: you get the right to use the software on your computer. You may make backup copies or otherwise modify the software to enable you to use it. In exchange for this you pay the author a fixed sum of money and agree not to distribute the software. There's nothing coercive about this. It doesn't take laws or a distortion of the market to allow this sort of transaction to take place or this market to exist. It's just a contract, no stranger than the one you sign when you rent a car or get married. The terms are different, but the principle is the same. And breaking a contract is morally and ethically wrong, whether you're copying someone else's software, cheating on your spouse, or letting a third party drive a rental car. Just because you are less likely to get caught doing these things doesn't make them any less wrong. > " By copying, you are > " appropriating the owner's only true right. > You say it's a true right -- others disagree. If this is intended to > support your case, you should be reminded that calling it a true right > doesn't make it one. Because there's no other right doesn't mean this > right exists. It is the authors right to put any terms he wants to on a contract. It is your right to accept or reject the contract as a whole. It is not your right to turn around and force a third party, who has agreed to that contract, to break it. > What I don't have any sympathy with is self-serving moralizing from > people who make their living selling software. How about good sound ethical reasoning from a guy who makes his living writing software under a work-for-hire contract? -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/19/88)
In article <2843@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: > The laws which have the effect of defining software piracy as a crime > are distortions of the free market. That's true, but misleading. The free-market solution to the problem of "how do I make money selling software" is through license agreements and contracts. If you don't like these laws, you're perfectly welcome to engage in any other mutually agreeable contract with the author. How do you feel about yearly license fees? The legislation doesn't make "software piracy a crime". All it does is make this existing process as painless and convenient as possible for the consumer. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net.
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (12/20/88)
From article <3121@sugar.uu.net>, by peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva): "In article <2850@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) "writes another pseudo-libertarian defence of piracy. " " Let me put this into libertarian terms. " " Look, Lee, when you "buy" software you are entering into a contract with the " seller. The terms of this contract are more or less: you get the right to use "... A very nice well reasoned argument. And for those cases where a contract actually is executed between buyer and seller, and the buyer breaks the contract by selling or giving the software to a third party, I agree, he has done something wrong, as well as illegal. But is this how piracy happens? I have bought some software in my time -- I have never signed a contract, however. I have noticed that some of the stuff came with notices saying "... if you break this seal ... you are agreeing to ... terms inside". I think you would have to be pretty gullible to believe those notices. I never have, nor considered that I entered into any contract. A software pirate doesn't break any contract by making copies and using them, does he? What contract? Where? It sounds like Da Silva wants us to believe that *every* buyer of software enters into some sort of implicit contract not to distribute the stuff to others. Is anyone going to buy that? " ... It doesn't take laws or a distortion of " the market to allow this sort of transaction to take place or this market to " exist. That's right. The trouble is, this is not the market that was under discussion. Or, at least, the part of the market governed by signed contracts is peripheral to the discussion. " ... " It is the authors right to put any terms he wants to on a contract. It is your " right to accept or reject the contract as a whole. It is not your right to " turn around and force a third party, who has agreed to that contract, to " break it. What's this about third parties? Are we trying to sneak the pirates into being partiies to broken "contracts" by claiming they coerce the people whose software they copy into distributing it? Whew! Awesome reasoning. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
clayj@microsoft.UUCP (Clay Jackson) (12/20/88)
Well, I've been watching this thread for a while, and something happened to me last nite that I think is somewhat line with this discussion, altho a bit on a tangent. I just purchased a copy of Managing Your Money, after some fairly extensive research. For the kinds of things I need to do, it is (IMHO) the best package of it's ilk for the PC. There is one thing my research did NOT uncover, due primarily to the fact that I did NOT look in detail at the manual, but only at the demo disks and some books written by third parties. The ^&(% thing is copy protected; in what I feel is the most onerous possible way. You can COPY (but NOT diskcopy) the disks; but the program will randomly ask you to insert your "master" disk. If you do not have your master handy, or if it gets broken, you're SOL. MECA (the distributor) wants $15 for overnite shipment of a new disk; otherwise, they'll take their sweet time. I'm currently deciding if I should send it back or keep it, which will depend to a large degree on my success in copying the disk with COPY II PC. (If anyone from MECA is listening, I'm sure my lawyer would LOVE a fight with your lawyers about the legality of my copying your disks FOR MY OWN PERSONAL USE, and the (ill?)legality of you preventing me from doing so). I really DISLIKE copy protection; but I can at least see the justification for it on something like a game; but NOT on a Financial Package that is pretty much useless without the manual (and support) in the first place. Clay Jackson Microsoft As usual, these opinions are my own, and in no way reflect the opinions of Microsoft Corp or anyone else!
jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) (12/20/88)
In article <2854@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: >From article <3121@sugar.uu.net>, by peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva): >"In article <2850@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) >"writes another pseudo-libertarian defence of piracy. >" >" Let me put this into libertarian terms. >" >" Look, Lee, when you "buy" software you are entering into a contract with the >" seller. The terms of this contract are more or less: you get the right to use >"... > >A very nice well reasoned argument. And for those cases where a >contract actually is executed between buyer and seller, and the buyer >breaks the contract by selling or giving the software to a third party, >I agree, he has done something wrong, as well as illegal. And he goes on to say how he never entered into a contract. Greg, you miss the point. He was translating the current legal situation into a hypothetical libertarian society, and showing that the same effect could exist in a libertarian society. If you haven't noticed, we don't live in anything close to a libertarian society. Peter's point was that the current copyright laws we live under, and are supposed to abide by, are the _equivalent_ to a contract in a libertarian society, in which you agree not to redistribute the item in question. In our society, there is no need of a contract for it to be illegal (and immoral) for you to copy software you have purchased, unless you get _explicit_ permission from the copyright holder. If we lived in this hypo- thetical libertarian society, you can bet that most software developers (and perhaps book writers, and musicians, etc) would demand a contract before giving you a copy of their work. >A software pirate doesn't break any contract by making copies and using >them, does he? What contract? Where? Read the above. He breaks plenty of laws instead. -- You've heard of CATS? Well, I'm a member of DOGS: Developers Of Great Software. Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup
jrk@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk (Richard Kennaway CMP RA) (12/20/88)
This is two replies on the same subject, packed in one message so you only
have to hit 'n' once.
Summary: I and everyone quoted here agree that illegal copying of software
is wrong. We disagree over whether to call it "theft". It's a futile
argument over the meanings of words. Hit 'n' now.
CW = chari@killer.DALLAS.TX.US (Chris Whatley)
RK = me
In various articles, drastically edited (parentheses in [], the rest is quotation):
CW: [Illegal] copying seriously devalues the software product.
RK: [Copying reduces the price, not the value.]
CW: [That's what I meant.] I cartainly don't think that the software will
CW: wear out or become soiled in any way!
Nor do I. Fine.
RK: Ever heard of the FSF?
CW: [Yes.] What do they have to do with this discussion?
CW: (Disclaimer: I have no beef with the FSF. In fact, I hardly know anything
CW: about them except for the fact that they make my favorite editor.)
I've never even used emacs, but in the documentation that goes with GNU
emacs, I remember reading a manifesto setting out the policies of the FSF.
It is there argued that ownership of software is *wrong*. (Such is my
memory; I couldnt track it down to verify it.) This seems to have a great
deal to do with the discussion (the one about piracy, not this one about
the proper definition of "theft").
JB = jim@eda.com (Jim Budler)
RK: [Copying harms the producer. Copying is wrong. Copying is not theft.]
JB: Copying deprives the manufacturer of the profit he
JB: would have earned on the sale. THIS IS THEFT.
[and later]
JB: Copying reduces the value to the intellectual owner. Therefore it is theft.
Doesnt follow. There are many activities, legal and illegal, that can reduce
the value of people's property. Only a few of them are called "theft".
JB: This bozo [referring to me] describes
how it hurts the creator of the software, and how it may cause them
to stop supporting the software, but cant expand his intellectual horizon
far enough to understand how this hurts the software and why it is theft. He
actually *sees* the damage it does, but since he can still use the software
he doesn't consider it's value reduced.
"Hurts the software"? And you were doing so well up to then. I just went
through this with Chris Whatley above. No doubt it will turn out that by
"hurts the software" you meant "hurts the producer of the software" and that
you "certainly don't think that the software will wear out or become soiled
in any way!". But this strand of the thread is too long already.
--
Richard Kennaway SYS, University of East Anglia, Norwich, U.K.
uucp: ...mcvax!ukc!uea-sys!jrk Janet: kennaway@uk.ac.uea.syslee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (12/20/88)
From article <5531@cbmvax.UUCP>, by jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup): " ... " Peter's point was that the current copyright laws we live under, and " are supposed to abide by, are the _equivalent_ to a contract in a libertarian " society, in which you agree not to redistribute the item in question. I asked whether anybody was going swallow the view that software buyers somehow enter into an implicit contract not to redistribute. Apparently the answer is yes. No, wait. They actually *do* sign a contract in a parallel imaginary libertarian world. And any obligations they undertake in that world carry over to ours. Am I getting it? I must admit, I didn't appreciate the true subtlety of the argument. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/20/88)
In article <2854@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: > From article <3121@sugar.uu.net>, by peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva): > " Look, Lee, when you "buy" software you are entering into a contract with the > " seller. The terms of this contract are more or less: you get the right to use > "... > A very nice well reasoned argument. And for those cases where a > contract actually is executed between buyer and seller, and the buyer > breaks the contract by selling or giving the software to a third party, > I agree, he has done something wrong, as well as illegal. And all the laws that have been passed to help deal with the piracy problem come down to streamlining this process. It's not changed any from the old days when you actually signed a license agreement with DEC, or whoever, just the mechanism has been simplified. Or are you telling me that you really want to go back to explicit licensing? If your arguments are to be believed, you do. > I think you would have to be pretty > gullible to believe those notices. I never have, nor considered that I > entered into any contract. I'm not talking about "shrinkwrap licensing". I'm talking about the laws that basically define purchase of software in terms that are functionally equivalent to a conventional open-ended licensing agreement. > It sounds like Da Silva wants us to believe that *every* buyer of software > enters into some sort of implicit contract not to distribute the > stuff to others. Is anyone going to buy that? That's what the law means. Because people didn't like shrink-wrap agreements. There's nothing inherently wrong with shrink-wrap agreements so long as the terms are spelled out ahead of time (i.e., you don't have to pay money to read them). The legal system may disagree, since the law has superceded them, but that's a different matter. So what do *you* want people to do? What's your motivation here? You want people to buy software, license software, or steal software? These are the three alternatives. Option 3 is economically unjustifiable. Option 1 is convenient, but since you don't believe in copyrights or intellectual property, that's out of the question. That leaves us with Option 2: licensing the stuff. So you can either sign a peice of paper or accept the law that makes "buying" software equivalent to signing that peice of paper. Where do you go from here? > " It is the authors right to put any terms he wants to on a contract. It is your > " right to accept or reject the contract as a whole. It is not your right to > " turn around and force a third party, who has agreed to that contract, to > " break it. > What's this about third parties? Are we trying to sneak the pirates > into being partiies to broken "contracts" by claiming they coerce the > people whose software they copy into distributing it? Whew! Awesome > reasoning. We're not trying to sneak anything in. There are two cases: You pay your money and then give copies of the software away. You're breaking that implicit contract. You pay your money and then someone copies the software. The contract has still been broken, and you've been negligent in protecting the terms of the contract. In the second case, yes, the pirate is responsible for forcing the original licensee into breaking the contract. You do not have the legal right to force someone to break a contract. QED. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net
36_5130@uwovax.uwo.ca (Kinch) (12/21/88)
In article <5531@cbmvax.UUCP>, jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes: > In article <2854@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: >>From article <3121@sugar.uu.net>, by peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva): >>"In article <2850@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) [ lots-o-stuff deleted ] > > In our society, there is no need of a contract for it to be illegal > (and immoral) for you to copy software you have purchased, unless you get ^^^^^^^^^^^ I have (and will likely conto)ue to) stay out of this argument as I am of two minds on this issue, but this particular statement deserves some comment. It is NOT up to you, Randell Jesup, to decide what is moral and what is not. I concede the illegality of the situation but I will decide for myself (as everybody must do for THEMSELVES) the morality of the situation. > -- > You've heard of CATS? Well, I'm a member of DOGS: Developers Of Great Software. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ should we not be the judge of this?! > Randell Jesup, Commodore Engineering {uunet|rutgers|allegra}!cbmvax!jesup Please everyone continue this extremly interesting conversation. It is so rewarding! Kinch
frank@rsoft.UUCP (Frank I. Reiter) (12/21/88)
In article <105@microsoft.UUCP> w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) writes: >In article <400@eda.com> jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) writes: >>1) Intellectual property *is* property. > >I disagree. Legally, maybe (I don't understand the details), but I don't >think it should be so. It _seems_ obvious to me that if software is freely copied then software developers are not going to make any money. Are you advocating stronger copy protection or do you have in mind some non-financial way of encouraging people to write software? -- *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* Frank I. Reiter \ / UUCP: {uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!rsoft!frank Langley, British Columbia / \ BBS: Mind Link @ (604)533-2312 *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (12/21/88)
In article <2854@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu., lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes:
. From article <3121@sugar.uu.net., by peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva):
. "In article <2850@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu., lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee)
. "writes another pseudo-libertarian defence of piracy.
. "
. " Let me put this into libertarian terms.
. "
. " Look, Lee, when you "buy" software you are entering into a contract with the
. " seller. The terms of this contract are more or less: you get the right to use
. "...
.
. A very nice well reasoned argument. And for those cases where a
. contract actually is executed between buyer and seller, and the buyer
. breaks the contract by selling or giving the software to a third party,
. I agree, he has done something wrong, as well as illegal.
.
. But is this how piracy happens? I have bought some software in my time
. -- I have never signed a contract, however. I have noticed that some of
. the stuff came with notices saying "... if you break this seal ... you
. are agreeing to ... terms inside". I think you would have to be pretty
. gullible to believe those notices. I never have, nor considered that I
. entered into any contract.
Have you ever entered a U.S. military base? There is a notice at the
entrance that says that you agree that your vehicle can be searched at
any time. Do you have any question in your mind that the courts do
not consider that a binding contract? Is it any different from a
shrink-wrap agreement?
. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
--
Clayton E. Cramer
{pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer (Note new path!)lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (12/21/88)
From article <3127@sugar.uu.net>, by peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva): " ... " So what do *you* want people to do? What's your motivation here? You want " people to buy software, license software, or steal software? These are the " three alternatives. Option 3 is economically unjustifiable. Option 1 is " convenient, but since you don't believe in copyrights or intellectual " property, that's out of the question. That leaves us with Option 2: licensing " the stuff. I'm flattered you should ask my opinion. I'm afraid I don't have any, though. I think of the question what should be done about the copyrighting of software and piracy as a technical issue. What would happen to our software industry and would it be in the interest of software users if software were not protected by copyright? I don't know the answers -- I don't think the answers are obvious. I would be interested to read some informed discussion from those of you who know more about the software scene than I. It could be that copyright protection for software is a good thing, and at the same time that some reasons advanced in its favor are bogus. I've seen some bogus reasoning -- I've pointed it out. Your current argument that copyright protection is a good thing because it allows a simple transfer to serve the essential purpose of a contract without the inconvenience of an actual contract makes sense to me. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (12/22/88)
From article <729@optilink.UUCP>, by cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer): " Have you ever entered a U.S. military base? There is a notice at the " entrance that says that you agree that your vehicle can be searched at " any time. Do you have any question in your mind that the courts do " not consider that a binding contract? Is it any different from a " shrink-wrap agreement? Yes, I do have some question in my mind about that. I would guess that the sign without the "you agree" part would have as much force, or that the sign is not necessary at all for a search to take place without being disputed by a court. So, it's probably the same as a shrink-wrap agreement in having no legal force. (From the fact that I'm willing to offer an opinion about this, you can probably deduce that I'm not a lawyer ...) Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (12/22/88)
In article <401@eda.com> jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) writes:
<Wrong! You obviously have little grasp of the concept of property.
<Intellectual property *is* property. It has *everything* to do
<with theft. You copy a program, you have stolen.
[arguments ommitted]
<You copy a $39 game program and you have deprived various people of
<their lawful revenue:
< 1) The publisher, oh lets say $2
< 2) The retailer, uh, give him $2
Wrong. Neither the retailer nor the publisher is due *any* money.
You didn't obtain the program thru them. If I buy a car direct from
the factory, neither the wholesaler nor my local dealer are due any
money. They didn't provide any service, so they don't get any money.
The author (or the copyright owner) is due some money. But I'd say you
could reasonably argue that they aren't due any amount beyond the
normal royalty on the package. On a $39 game, this may only be $1
*or less*.
This doesn't make copying any more ethical, but it should point out
that any claims of loss due to piracy shouldn't be based on the price
of the program. (A strong case can be made that the publisher can
claim the lost *profits*, but not the full retail price!)
In a world with totally honest end-users, I strongly doubt that more
than an *exceedingly* small fraction of what are now pirate copies
would be replaced by legal copies. The users would do without instead.
Or they'd find a cheaper package that would still meet their needs.
(I'm quite happy with Multiplan 3.0 at $200, no way will I buy Lotus
at $700+!)
It *is* possible to find legal ways to obtain software cheaply. I
obtained an *old* copy of Wordstar that had been bundled with a system
from someone when he junked the system. I then upgraded this copy
to the current version for slightly over $100. I couldn't afford the
full price, but I found a *legal* way to get it cheaper!
Of course this doesn't help you on games, but they tend to be cheap
anyway...
--
Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]
"I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'.
You know... I'd rather be a hacker."leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) (12/22/88)
In article <403@eda.com> jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) writes: <In article <287@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk> (Richard Kennaway CMP RA) writes: <| Copying software does not change its value one whit. It reduces the <| *price* the manufacturer is able to sell it for. The only difference <| other peoples' illegal copies of the software I use can make to me is <| that it hurts the fortunes of the companies who wrote it, who may therefore <| not write any more. The idea that copiers have stolen something from the <| software itself is the ludicrous concept. < <Look at that. This bozo just proved my point for me. Copying reduces the <value to the intellectual owner. Therefore it is theft. This bozo describes <how it hurts the creator of the software, and how it may cause them <to stop supporting the software, but cant expand his intellectual horizon <far enough to understand how this hurts the software and why it is theft. He <actually *sees* the damage it does, but since he can still use the software <he doesn't consider it's value reduced. The value *of the software* is not changed by copying. The *price* may be affected. The value *to the copyright holder* may also be diminished. But there is no such thing as "the" value of a piece of software. There is only the value for a specific use or to a specific user. Do note that I am *not* in favor of pirating software. But you don't help matters by *assuming* that ALL (or even MOST) pirated copies would have been purchased if the user couldn't have pirated them. Believe me, they wouldn't. If the price of the software exceeds the value of that software *to a given user* then that user will either do without or find a way to reduce the price. Thus, piracy. What you need to do, is convince the user that he should be doing without, say by pointing out that the author loses royalties. Not complaining about the lost *sales*, especially if you keep referring to the *price* (which *by definition* the user in question has found to be unreasonable!) -- Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard CIS: [70465,203] "I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'. You know... I'd rather be a hacker."
korz@iwtsf.ATT.COM (Korzonas) (12/22/88)
Those of you who have never seen a license agreement either only have pirated software in your posession or have been too excited to read it when you were tearing the wrapper off your software. Every piece of non-PD software that I have seen has its disks packaged separately or the license agreement is on the outside of the package. Here is an example (note that I am paraphrasing so as not to infringe on the author's copyright on the license agreement): ATTENTION: Before opening this package containing your software, read the LIMITED USE SOFTWARE LICENSE, in the user's manual. By opening this package, you indicate that you have read and accept the LIMITED USE SOFTWARE LICENSE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The LICENSE notes, among other things: 1. If you don't agree to the terms of the license, return all the manuals and disk packages with the seals unbroken to your dealer along with your receipt and you will get a refund. 2. All the software AND COPIES THEREOF, are and will remain the property of <the software company>. 3. <The software company> allows you, the purchaser, to use the software on ONE COMPUTER AT A TIME. 4. You agree not to disassemble nor reverse-compile this software. 5. You agree to NOT GIVE COPIES TO ANYONE. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Seems pretty clear-cut to me. The thing that I believe makes people think that copying software is not stealing is that they have trouble separating material property from intellectual property. If you worked on an idea for a year and wrote software that implemented that idea, wouldn't you feel that anyone who used your product owed you something for your efforts? Actually, I feel that good ideas are harder to develop than good material items. Al.
peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (12/22/88)
In article <2855@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes: > No, wait. They actually *do* sign a contract in a > parallel imaginary libertarian world. And any obligations they > undertake in that world carry over to ours. Am I getting it? I must > admit, I didn't appreciate the true subtlety of the argument. Congratulations. You just invented L. Neil Smith. No, it's not quite that subtle. Your argument seems basically to be that from a libertarian standpoint copyrights are a distortion of the market. I decided to grant you Libertaria (a society designed by libertarians), and explained how *if this was Libertaria* things wouldn't be very different. They'd just be a little less convenient and there'd be less piracy. Thus, it's not morally wrong (from a libertarian viewpoint) for there to be such a thing as intellectual property rights. Got that? Now then, this isn't Libertaria. Instead of a complex licensing scheme we have copyright laws. The mechanism is less flexible and more convenient than the licensing contracts that would exist in Libertaria. But, since intellectual property rights are moral (see above), it's perfectly ethical for libertarians and others of like mind to accept and support the concept of copyrights. Since copyrights lead to a desirable state -- more software gets written -- it is therefore immoral or unethical to pirate software. There. Nestor Makhno might not agree, but I think it holds water. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' peter@sugar.uu.net
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (12/22/88)
From article <3135@sugar.uu.net>, by peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva): " ... Your argument seems basically to be that " from a libertarian standpoint copyrights are a distortion of the market. You and the other software developers who have been filling my mailbox of late seem to have a facility for jumping to conclusions. I did not argue that copyrights were a bad thing because they distort the free market. I argued that you were wrong to say that piracy distorts the free market, and I stated that copyright laws distort the free market. So do laws against slavery. That doesn't mean I'm against them. "... " it's not morally wrong (from a libertarian viewpoint) for there to be such " a thing as intellectual property rights. If you mean that it's not wrong for intellectual property rights to be recognized under the law, I agree. If you mean that you have provided a moral basis for such rights by this argument from convenience, I can't agree with that. Let's do away with criminal trials and just consider accusation by a public prosecutor as _equivalent_ to being found guilty by a jury. It would be convenient, and we can consider that the trial is held in an imaginary world as a rationale. But I can't speak for libertarians. " therefore immoral or unethical to pirate software. So long as piracy remains illegal because it violates copyrights, I would tend to agree that it's unethical, though the matter is not obvious. And there may be good reasons for extending copyright law to cover software binaries. But that the laws are justified because the behavior they prohibit would in any case be immoral -- this is something else again. Promises made in Libertaria are not binding here. If you want the protection of a contract, you have to suffer the inconvenience of actually executing one. You can't just pretend you did. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
kudla@pawl17.pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (12/23/88)
In article <125@iwtsf.ATT.COM> korz@iwtsf.ATT.COM (Korzonas) writes: >(iterates your typical shrinkwrap license) >Seems pretty clear-cut to me. The thing that I believe makes people Wrong..... Shrinkwrap licenses, as they're generally called, are not legally binding (or at least, have never been proven to be in a U.S. court of law). A shrinkwrap license is akin to printing a notice on a box of cheerios to the effect that by opening this box of cheerios you forsake all legal claims against General Mills Inc. and agree never to eat your Cheerios in a manner inconsistent with the suggested serving; i.e. with milk. If shrink- wrap licenses are binding, so would be that Cheerios license. Wouldn't you say? -----------Robert J. Kudla - Ex-Pseudo-Freshman Extraordinaire----------- // Don't surround yourself \ Itt@RPITSMTS.BITNET \\ // with yourself.... \ USERFW3S%mts@itsgw.rpi.edu \X/ / \ kudla@pawl.rpi.edu -------------------------------------------------------------------------
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (12/23/88)
In article <125@iwtsf.ATT.COM> korz@iwtsf.ATT.COM (Korzonas) writes: >ATTENTION: >Before opening this package containing your software, read the LIMITED >USE SOFTWARE LICENSE, in the user's manual. By opening this package, >you indicate that you have read and accept the LIMITED USE SOFTWARE >LICENSE. 1. What if I'm illiterate? Did I just enter a binding contract? 2. What if someone sells me the software after it's opened? That would mean that I didn't open the package? 3. What if I say to myself, "All I did was open it. I bought it, it's mine. I'm not agreeing to anything by this."? Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet *** Who sometimes never learns. {backbone site|rutgers|uunet}!ukma!sean *** U of K, Lexington Kentucky, USA ..where Christian movies are banned. *** ``My name is father. You killed my die. Prepare to Inigo Montoya.''
jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) (12/23/88)
In article <1176@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes: | In article <401@eda.com> jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) writes: | <Wrong! You obviously have little grasp of the concept of property. | <Intellectual property *is* property. It has *everything* to do | <with theft. You copy a program, you have stolen. | | [arguments ommitted] | | <You copy a $39 game program and you have deprived various people of | <their lawful revenue: | < 1) The publisher, oh lets say $2 | < 2) The retailer, uh, give him $2 | | Wrong. Neither the retailer nor the publisher is due *any* money. | You didn't obtain the program thru them. If I buy a car direct from I'll give you the retailer, perhaps, although a mail order house is a retailer. But in a majority of cases the publisher is the *only* person who can distribute software. He usually has an exclusive contract with the author, as well as with the duplicating house. He *is* the manufacturer. Even if you get a copy bundled with hardware, where the duplication is performed by the hardware manufacturer, and the publisher had nothing to do with it, the hardware manufacturer has a contract with the publisher, and therefore, even that piece of the software came 'through' the publisher. So how did you get the software without going through the publisher? | the factory, neither the wholesaler nor my local dealer are due any | money. They didn't provide any service, so they don't get any money. The factory, in this case is acting as distributor and retailer. So what. If you are buying from the duplicating house, they are the pirates, but you might be liable. If you are buying from the author, he may be violating his contract, and in fact the publisher might consider him a pirate. You might be liable. | The author (or the copyright owner) is due some money. But I'd say you | could reasonably argue that they aren't due any amount beyond the | normal royalty on the package. On a $39 game, this may only be $1 | *or less*. The publisher is usually either the copyright owner, having purchased the copyright from the author, or commissioned the author. Or the author retains the copyright, but licenses the exclusive use of the copyright for some term. Very seldom will a publisher have a non-exclusive license. Ok, how did you get this software, bypassing everyone in the normal legal distribution channels, and pay the author, whom you seem to feel is the only one due anything, his $1? | | This doesn't make copying any more ethical, but it should point out | that any claims of loss due to piracy shouldn't be based on the price | of the program. (A strong case can be made that the publisher can | claim the lost *profits*, but not the full retail price!) Exactly my point. I used the word revenue, not price. The only way in which I used retail price was as an example of approximate revenues from the purchase price. I used $2 for the publisher (meaning the copyright holder or licensee), and $2 for the retailer (meaning the person from whom the consumer legally obtained his copy). There are often others in between these who get their share also ( wholesaler, distributer, transportation, storage ), but these don't always exist as seperate entities. And in fact as you pointed out, publishers often sell factory direct, so a retailer may not exist. But I bet you pay the publisher both his profit and the retailers profit (and everyone elses) in this case. I've seldom found factory direct software to be cheaper than discount house copies of the *same* software. [ totally honest end-user fantasyland deleted ] | Or they'd find a cheaper package that would still meet their needs. | (I'm quite happy with Multiplan 3.0 at $200, no way will I buy Lotus | at $700+!) No doubt. | | It *is* possible to find legal ways to obtain software cheaply. I | obtained an *old* copy of Wordstar that had been bundled with a system | from someone when he junked the system. I then upgraded this copy | to the current version for slightly over $100. I couldn't afford the | full price, but I found a *legal* way to get it cheaper! | There are hundreds of legal ways to get software cheaper. Discount houses, used, fire sales, promotions. All of these merely alter the percentage of the revenues in the chain, or in the case of the used software, the revenues were already paid when it was new. [...] | | -- | Leonard Erickson ...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard So why are you trying to equate your legal ways of getting software cheaper than list price with my description of the damage done to the software providers by pirates? jim -- Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim OR domain: jim@eda.com #define disclaimer "I do not speak for my employer" Notice: I record license plate numbers of tailgaters
jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) (12/23/88)
In article <299@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk> jrk@uea-sys.UUCP (Richard Kennaway) writes: | | JB = jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) [That's me] | | | JB: This bozo [referring to me] describes | how it hurts the creator of the software, and how it may cause them | to stop supporting the software, but cant expand his intellectual horizon | far enough to understand how this hurts the software and why it is theft. He | actually *sees* the damage it does, but since he can still use the software | he doesn't consider it's value reduced. | | "Hurts the software"? And you were doing so well up to then. I just went | through this with Chris Whatley above. No doubt it will turn out that by | "hurts the software" you meant "hurts the producer of the software" and that | you "certainly don't think that the software will wear out or become soiled | in any way!". But this strand of the thread is too long already. No. Hurts the software. All software I am aware of is benefited by bug fixes, updates, and rework. I don't know of a perfect piece of software. If the value to the (author/copyright holder/publisher) is reduced to the point they no longer desire to market/maintain it the software is damaged/hurt. Now the value of *a* *particular* *user's* particular copy of the software is not effected, and if *that* *particular* *user* perceives no problems with the program, the value of the program to him is not hurt. But the program *is* harmed. The terminology difference appears to be that when I say "The software is harmed" I mean "The future potential/growth of the software is harmed" and you take it to mean that "The copy of the software is harmed/soiled" The harm to the software provider, although the legal force, is less important to me than the fact that the software will cease to improve, and it isn't perfect already. g'day jim -- Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim OR domain: jim@eda.com #define disclaimer "I do not speak for my employer" Notice: I record license plate numbers of tailgaters
Sullivan@cup.portal.com (sullivan - segall) (12/23/88)
From article <729@optilink.UUCP>, by cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer):
" Have you ever entered a U.S. military base? There is a notice at the
" entrance that says that you agree that your vehicle can be searched at
" any time. Do you have any question in your mind that the courts do
" not consider that a binding contract? Is it any different from a
" shrink-wrap agreement?
Yes, I do have some question in my mind about that. I would guess
that the sign without the "you agree" part would have as much force,
or that the sign is not necessary at all for a search to take place
without being disputed by a court. So, it's probably the same
as a shrink-wrap agreement in having no legal force. (From the
fact that I'm willing to offer an opinion about this, you can probably
deduce that I'm not a lawyer ...)
Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
<Sullivan replies:>
More to the point, that sign does not constitute a binding legal agreement.
If you drive your car on base, and someone asks to search it, you have the
right to refuse. Of course, if you refuse, you will be removed from the
base, and your entry permit will be revoked. However, even though there
is a sign at the entrance, you are under no legal obligation to consent to
search. On the other hand, certain circumstances do warrant search without
consent.
-Sullivan Segall
(The damned editor isn't working here at Portal (we can make it more painful
for you to read net mail than anyone else) Communications, so you'll have
to live without my .signature, I know you're disappointed...)