rafael@proxftl.UUCP (Rafael Mayer) (05/16/88)
> If software authors charged 200% more than what their software was worth, they > would not sell one single copy. Not one. OK, perhaps a few copies to > complete imbiciles, but that's about it. Lotus has managed to sell a few > million copies. You are implying that Lotus's production costs are in excess of $150 dollars and I don't believe that. Actually, software is over priced initially to cover the R&D margin. Once the R&D cost is covered, the rest of the costs per unit (production and advertising) are close to negligible compared to what the software costs. > Ah, you mean 200% more than it's worth to YOU! So what we need is to hire > you and others like you to be "worth police" to go around and make sure > nobody charges more for anything than you think it's worth, even if millions > of others think it is worth more. Actually, something is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. You could have the greatest little program, and if no one will pay a cent for it it is worthless. Worth is relative to both the buyer and seller, it is not an intrinsic quality of the product. > How much is land worth? How much is gold worth? How much is a spreadsheet > worth? Why should software be any different from land? > > I hate to tell you this, but making as big a profit as possible is what makes > the world go around. Most people in business would be confused if you told > them profiteering was a crushing indictment. > Actually you make a good point. Profits are good. I am all in favor of profits. I am not in favor of companies that treat their customers unfairly. I don't expect software companies to make prices so low that they run themselves out of business, but at the same time I do expect them to make a only a reasonable profit (400% is not reasonable). I don't believe that Lotus's production costs are $100 dollars per unit. They are so busy over-paying their executives that they end up screwing their customers. Software piracy is a direct cause of their pricing policies. (Of course there will always be software pirates. No matter what the cost.) I dodn't mean to flame so much, but this issue always gets me riled. Nothing personal. Rafael
bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) (05/16/88)
In article <174@proxftl.UUCP>, rafael@proxftl.UUCP (Rafael Mayer) writes: > Actually you make a good point. Profits are good. I am all in > favor of profits. I am not in favor of companies that treat > their customers unfairly. I don't expect software companies to > make prices so low that they run themselves out of business, but > at the same time I do expect them to make a only a reasonable > profit (400% is not reasonable). I don't believe that Lotus's > production costs are $100 dollars per unit. They are so busy > over-paying their executives that they end up screwing their > customers. Software piracy is a direct cause of their pricing > policies. (Of course there will always be software pirates. No > matter what the cost.) You goofed. First you say that profits are good. Next you say that you expect software companies should only make a reasonable profit. Ignoring an important point, which I will get to shortly, you have contradicted yourself. The point you overlook is this: Lotus (and possibly others, but I will say `Lotus' to keep things simple) owns the software. No one, other than Lotus has any right whatsoever to the software. If Lotus offers it for $400 and someone agrees to buy it for that price, whatever profit they make is irrelevant. In other words, any profit they make in an uncoerced exchange is a reasonable profit. And then, you have confused cause and effect and I do not mean that you used `cause' where you should have used `effect'. The cause of software piracy is software pirates; the pricing policies of software companies is absolutely irrelevnat to their existence. A minor joke here, to make my point: At a party, a philosopher was talking to a socialite; here is their conversation: "If I gave you a million dollars would you go to bed with me?" "Yes." "Would you do it for five dollars?" "What do you think I am, a whore?!" "I've already determined that, all I am trying to do is find out your price." (I seem to remember that this came from _Up the Organization_, whose author I do not remember.) A software pirate is a thief; anything he says to justify himself is a rationalization for doing what HE wants to do. His being a thief is a consequence of his morality and has nothing to do with the price of the goods he steals.
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (05/17/88)
I fail to see why this is so complicated. I have something which I
am willing to sell to you for $X. If you think what I have is worth $X, you
buy it. If you don't think it's worth $X, you don't buy it. It is totally
immaterial why I decided that $X is my selling price, I just did. From your
point of view, if the value you get from my product is worth $X, what
difference does it make if I'm going to use that money to buy myself another
Rolls Royce, give a raise to my employees, send food to Ethiopia, or keep my
nose supplied with coke for the next month?
Let's say, for example, that I have a program which can make a
Macintosh emulate an IBM-1130 (you have to supply your own SCSI card
reader/punch and line printer). I decide to sell it for $1,750 (two free
upgrades included). Does that make me immoral? No, it just makes me stupid.
Does it give you the right to steal a hot copy of my program? No, it just
gives you the right to not buy it.
OK, let me admit that sometimes there are reasons other than price
why you would or wouldn't want to buy something. Let's say, for example,
that I have something which I'm willing to sell for $X again. But you know
that I do a lot of business with South Africa, or that I exploit illegal
aliens, or dump PCBs into the river behind my factory, or that I'm a
Republican. You decide that you can't in good conscience do business with
me. Fair enough, that's your decision. You can even take out a full page ad
in the New York Times explaining to other people why you won't do business
with me and extolling others to do likewise. But you still don't have the
right to steal my software.
--
Roy Smith, System Administrator
Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
{allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.netbrad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/18/88)
In article <174@proxftl.UUCP> rafael@proxftl.UUCP (Rafael Mayer) writes: >You are implying that Lotus's production costs are in excess of $150 dollars >and I don't believe that. > ...and then... > >Actually, something is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. I have to admit I am confused by this argument. What on earth do the production costs of 1-2-3 have to do with how much it is worth? Does the cost of floppy duplicating and book printing have anything to do with what software is worth? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
dc@gcm (Dave Caswell) (05/18/88)
In article <174@proxftl.UUCP> rafael@proxftl.UUCP (Rafael Mayer) writes:
.> If software authors charged 200% more than what their software was worth, they
.> would not sell one single copy. Not one. OK, perhaps a few copies to
.> complete imbiciles, but that's about it. Lotus has managed to sell a few
.> million copies.
.
.You are implying that Lotus's production costs are in excess of $150 dollars
.and I don't believe that.
I don't see how this relates to your next paragraph. Lotus is worth countless
dollars to a company that it helps to reduce work and zero to someone who
lets it sit on a shelf unopened. So what. What relation is their between
production costs and worth? Why isn't it the amount of money it would cost
you to redesign and build it yourself? If you think it is overpriced write
it yourself; what possible rational is there for stealing it?
Design a substitute, advertise it and sell it if you think it is so overpriced.
Please don't tell me it is OK to steal it. It is amazing that in a community
where most people get paid for programming that people are trying to say
it is OK to steal programmer's work. You can bet that does not happen in
most other professions.
.Actually, something is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. You
.could have the greatest little program, and if no one will pay a cent for it
.it is worthless. Worth is relative to both the buyer and seller, it is not
.an intrinsic quality of the product.
.Actually you make a good point. Profits are good. I am all in favor of profits.
.I am not in favor of companies that treat their customers unfairly. I don't
.expect software companies to make prices so low that they run themselves out
.of business, but at the same time I do expect them to make a only a reasonable
.profit (400% is not reasonable). I don't believe that Lotus's production costs
.are $100 dollars per unit. They are so busy over-paying their executives that
Profits are in and of themselves reasonable. In a capitalist company if
profits become too great than competitors come into the business
undercutting costs and stealing market share. An excellent example
is Turbo Pascal about 3-5 years ago . Instead
of paying 300$ for a Pascal compiler you can now buy one for 50$ or so.
This did not come about because a bunch of rationalizing crooks stole the
300$ compilers. It also did not happen because a few people complained about
how prices were too high.
.they end up screwing their customers. Software piracy is a direct cause of
.their pricing policies. (Of course there will always be software pirates. No
.matter what the cost.)
This last paragraph is the only thing you said that makes sense and you probably
didn't mean it. Software piracy causes software to be higher priced than
it would be if people were honest.
--
Dave Caswell
Greenwich Capital Markets uunet!philabs!gcm!dc
If it could mean something, I wouldn't have posted about it! -- Brian Casecramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/19/88)
In article <174@proxftl.UUCP>, rafael@proxftl.UUCP (Rafael Mayer) writes: > > If software authors charged 200% more than what their software was worth, they > > would not sell one single copy. Not one. OK, perhaps a few copies to > > complete imbiciles, but that's about it. Lotus has managed to sell a few > > million copies. > > You are implying that Lotus's production costs are in excess of $150 dollars > and I don't believe that. > > Actually, software is over priced initially to cover the R&D margin. Once the > R&D cost is covered, the rest of the costs per unit (production and > advertising) are close to negligible compared to what the software costs. "Negligible"? I've been selling a couple of software packages for the last year or two -- more of a profitable hobby than anything else, really -- and I've been constantly surprised how hideously expensive production and advertising really are. I suggest that you take a look at what it costs to have a several hundred page manual printed. A thousand pages, all alike, is trivial. A five hundred page manual means printing thousands of copies of five hundred different pages. The disks are cheap -- but even five disks, at $.28/disk is over a dollar. Copying isn't free, and the box, shipping charges, sending out product announcements... I don't know if I believe that Lotus spends $150/unit, but I can well believe that it costs them $50/unit for production alone. Clayton E. Cramer
msf@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Michael S. Fischbein) (05/20/88)
In article <474@white.gcm> dc@white.UUCP (Dave Caswell) writes: >In article <174@proxftl.UUCP> rafael@proxftl.UUCP (Rafael Mayer) writes: > Why isn't it the amount of money it would cost >you to redesign and build it yourself? If you think it is overpriced write >it yourself; what possible rational is there for stealing it? > >Design a substitute, advertise it and sell it if you think it is so overpriced. I've given this advice myself in the past; now I'm not so sure. The plethora of lawsuits in the big name software industry makes this a potentially hazardous policy. If Rafael writes a Lotus clone, Dave, will you agree to be responsible for his legal bills? >Please don't tell me it is OK to steal it. It is amazing that in a community >where most people get paid for programming that people are trying to say >it is OK to steal programmer's work. I agree that one shouldn't steal it; if 1-2-3 or any other software package isn't worth the asking price to you don't get it. Use something else. Boycott the company. Don't steal it. However, I am worried about the effects of the Lotus and Apple lawsuits on the small, innovative programmer. Doesn't the threat of hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) in legal bills tend to stifle development as much as the "why should I develop the program if I won't get paid" argument? Heck, I think it's worse; most of the good programmers I know would keep going unless you threatened them -- which is what Lotus is doing. >Dave Caswell >Greenwich Capital Markets uunet!philabs!gcm!dc mike -- Michael Fischbein msf@ames-nas.arpa ...!seismo!decuac!csmunix!icase!msf These are my opinions and not necessarily official views of any organization.
shino@motbos.UUCP (Rei Shinozuka MCD SE) (05/20/88)
In article <177@proxftl.UUCP>, bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: > You goofed. > The point you overlook is this: Lotus (and possibly others, but I > will say `Lotus' to keep things simple) owns the software. No > one, other than Lotus has any right whatsoever to the software. > A minor joke here, to make my point: ...joke deleted > (I seem to remember that this came from _Up the Organization_, > whose author I do not remember.) > A software pirate is a thief; anything he says to justify himself > is a rationalization for doing what HE wants to do. His being a > thief is a consequence of his morality and has nothing to do with > the price of the goods he steals. Uh, excuse me, but you DID lift that joke, presumably without the author's permission (since you don't even remember his name). You goofed. The point you overlook is this: the author of that joke owns the joke. No one, other than the author has any right whatsoever to the joke. A joke pirate is a thief; anything he says to justify himself is a rationalization for doing what HE wants to do. His being a thief is a consequence of his morality and has nothing to do with the price of the goods he steals. I'm sorry, I could not resist. No hard feelings. -rei
gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (05/20/88)
In article <1654@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <174@proxftl.UUCP> rafael@proxftl.UUCP (Rafael Mayer) writes: >>You are implying that Lotus's production costs are in excess of $150 dollars >>and I don't believe that. >> >...and then... >> >>Actually, something is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. > >I have to admit I am confused by this argument. What on earth do >the production costs of 1-2-3 have to do with how much it is worth? Precisely. People are misunderstanding what Lotus is selling. It is not "software" but a larger object which may have software at its core. The larger object includes glossy plastic packaging, manuals, a visible corporation which can be called up, written to, and sued, and many intangibles such as the comfort of dealing with a business able to buy expensive advertising with good graphics and copy. These qualities not only bring peace to the heart of the DP manager, but may cover his nether parts in the event that something goes wrong in a big way. The fact that a corporate officer made $26,000,000 simply adds to the value of the product. Also, we shouldn't forget that the expense of the product may be a valuable attribute in a corporate environment. If you pay a few hundred dollars for an "off" brand, all you get is functionality and risk. If you can justify paying fifty thousand, you've enlarged your province in the corporate empire. If all you want is 1-2-3 functionality, you can buy a clone from Public Brand Software (distributors of shareware and public domain stuff) for a few dollars. Their telephone number is 800-426-DISK, or so they say. Gordon Fitch (...!uunet!actnyc!gcf)
bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) (05/29/88)
In article <384@motbos.UUCP>, shino@motbos.UUCP (Rei Shinozuka MCD SE) writes: ) In article <177@proxftl.UUCP>, bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: ) > You goofed. ) > ...excess verbiage deleted ) > A minor joke here, to make my point: ) ...joke deleted ) > (I seem to remember that this came from _Up the Organization_, ) > whose author I do not remember.) ) > A software pirate is a thief; anything he says to justify himself ) > is a rationalization for doing what HE wants to do. His being a ) > thief is a consequence of his morality and has nothing to do with ) > the price of the goods he steals. ) ) Uh, excuse me, but you DID lift that joke, presumably without the ) author's permission (since you don't even remember his name). ) ) You goofed. ) ) The point you overlook is this: the author of that joke owns the joke. ) No one, other than the author has any right whatsoever to the joke. ) ) ...stuff deleted ) ) I'm sorry, I could not resist. No hard feelings. ) ) -rei And none taken. But, since the author of the work made use of the copyright law to protect his work, not even a Libertarian could argue (without sounding even sillier than they usually do) that he retained all rights to his work. I do believe that my use of his work is permitted by the copyright laws (else I'd have not done it so publicly :-) P.S. Libertarians can flame me on talk.philosophy.misc.
maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) (05/30/88)
I have been following this discussion of piracy with special interest because, unlike the majority of discussants, I am not a programmer, but I am a producer of intellectual property, i.e., a writer. My sense is that we do not yet understand *information as property* fully enough to make absolute pronouncements; that the moral terrain outlined by issues such as software piracy is not yet clearly mapped. Thus the following remarks are more on the order of tentative explorations than definitive mappings. Perhaps it would make sense to say that I produce a kind of software; certainly it makes sense to say that I produce artifacts that have many of the characteristics of programs. My intellectual property, like the programmer's, requires an extraordinary effort to produce: the 7000 word story that appears in _Omni_, say, represents a profound investment of all my talents and skills, whatever they might be. So, if you copy one of these stories and give it to your friends, are you stealing from me? Well, yes. Technically, you should buy the magazine (or whatever) in question and not make use of available xeroxing. Practically, a great deal of copying does take place, at least some of it in violation of copyright. Yet, few of us writers yell about such piracy; instead, we do so in the cases where someone markets our work without acknowledgement or pay. In short, the fact that you might xerox a story, even a book, then do it again for a friend, and so on . . . it simply doesn't bother me much. If I were a programmer, however, I suspect I would feel differently--*perhaps* because the money to be made programming is on the whole (or on the average) much more than the money to be made writing fiction. In short, by xeroxing my _Omni_ story, you really don't steal much from me. However, if I write a useful MSDOS utility, and you steal that, then you may be stealing quite a bit more. Someone quoted, sarcastically, the tale about George Bernard Shaw and the great lady, the point of which is that having sex with someone for money is prostitution, whether the fee is $1 or $1,000,0000. While it is a charming story, its point runs counter to our experience of morality: misdemeanors are not felonies, no matter that both might be crimes; petty theft is not grand theft, etc. In short, I think part of the problem here is that we live in a culture which winks at several kinds of piracy (to add to previous examples, taping music and films in violation of copyright) and thus creates a morally ambiguous climate with regard to other piracies. Also, I think most of us feel that intellectual property really is different somehow from material property, that xeroxing my story is different from stealing my computer, as it were. We live in a time when information has just recently become known as a thing with properties of its own, apart from whatever medium in which it might be manifested; it is not unreasonable to suppose that new concepts of property might have to evolve with regard to information. (As an aside, I believe most of us are committed in some way to the free flow of information; we feel that a culture which generates such a flow is a more open and civilized culture than one which does not. Thus, we may be caught on the point where the right to personal property conflicts with this more general principle that dissemination of information is a good thing.) Finally, I do not believe that capitalism and socialism are at all the issue here. Only the most primitive and otherworldly communists, such as the 19th century utopians, have ever believed in total abolition of private property. In the real world, socialists and communists alike have laws against theft. Thus, whether we are capitalist or socialist (or some mixture), we all have to try to come to terms with this new kind of property.
tada@athena.mit.edu (Michael Zehr) (06/01/88)
In article <501@novavax.UUCP> maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) writes: > > I have been following this discussion of piracy with special >interest because, unlike the majority of discussants, I am not a >programmer, but [...] a writer. > >[isn't bothered by someone photo-copying an article of his] > > If I were a programmer, however, I suspect I would feel >differently--*perhaps* because the money to be made programming is on >the whole (or on the average) much more than the money to be made >writing fiction. In short, by xeroxing my _Omni_ story, you really >don't steal much from me. However, if I write a useful MSDOS utility, >and you steal that, then you may be stealing quite a bit more. > [other good points about intellectual property] Yes, but... How would you feel if someone photo-copied a book of yours instead of just an article? What if photo-copying the book took only a few seconds of time. It's impractical to photo-copy an entire book. But if it weren't ... It is true that there is more money to be made in software than in writing fiction. But partly that's because there are programming teams, whereas writing is generally individual. If I write something small, then usually I don't bother marketing it at all but just spread it around for free. Assuming royalties are such that you can't live on just one published article a month, that article took you less than a man-month to produce, right? [I don't know what typical royalties are, so i could be way off base here.] To continue your comparison of magnitude of crimes, copying a single article is closer to petty theft, but copying an entire book is more like grand theft. There's also a tricky clause in the copyright laws. Something about personal copies for educational purposes. I'm not a lawyer, so i don't know the exact phrasing or application, but my understanding is that if i see an article in a computer journal which i think everyone in my department should read, i'm allowed to make 10 copies and stick it in everyone's mailbox. It's for "personal" (as a corporation is a person under the law) educational purposes. But how does that apply to software? There's also a difference in kinds of piracy. If I copy 1-2-3 and put it on 10 machines in an office, but only _one_ of them is actually running the program at any one time, is that illegal? (Note i'm asking if it's "illegal", not if it's "immoral" or "wrong.") In other words, there's a difference between "copy-piracy" and "copy-and-sell- piracy." There are a lot of new ideas in software licensing, too. Particularly in having different prices depending on the platform you want to run the software on. In cases like this, the licensing party is charging you for the usefullness of the product, notwithstanding that the program is identical. (For those of you not familiar with software licensing, i'm referring to the practice of charging more for a particular program based on the MIPS [or perceived MIPS :-) ] of the machine it will run on.) Anyway, it's a very complicated issue, and I certainly don't think I have all the answers... -michael j zehr
bill@isl.Stanford.EDU (Bill Moore) (06/01/88)
In article <384@motbos.UUCP> shino@motbos.UUCP (Rei Shinozuka MCD SE) writes: >I'm sorry, I could not resist. No hard feelings. What's a "hard feeling"? -B PS Do anything you wanna do! -Eddie and the Hot Rods
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/02/88)
In article <501@novavax.UUCP> maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) writes: >My sense is that we do not yet understand *information as >property* fully enough to make absolute pronouncements; I don't think it's so much "information as property" as it is "creations as property." I do think that a person's creations are the truest form of property, and should be under the creator's ownership and total control. Some creations happen to be purely instantiated as information, and that brings up the question of how one can tell the difference between created and copied information, but it doesn't concern the issue of whether you should own your creations. (Other than the creations of your gonads, which are deemed to own themselves, eventually.) > (As an aside, I believe most of us are committed in some way >to the free flow of information; we feel that a culture which >generates such a flow is a more open and civilized culture than one >which does not. Thus, we may be caught on the point where the right >to personal property conflicts with this more general principle that >dissemination of information is a good thing.) > As an aside, it is worth noting that most people believe that the private ownership of plain old material property and value is most conducive to the free and increased flow of such property. The economies of propertied states seem to be far more productive and wealthier per capita than non-propertied states. So it may well be that the best thing for the free flow of information is encouraging the ownership of information. It gives people a motive to encourage the flow of valuable information. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
peter@athena.mit.edu (Peter J Desnoyers) (06/02/88)
In article <501@novavax.UUCP> maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) writes: > > Finally, I do not believe that capitalism and socialism are at >all the issue here. Only the most primitive and otherworldly communists, >such as the 19th century utopians, have ever believed in total abolition >of private property. In the real world, socialists and communists >alike have laws against theft. Thus, whether we are capitalist or socialist >(or some mixture), we all have to try to come to terms with this new >kind of property. However, the naive idea that property rights are in some way predefined and have existed throughout history is not correct, so an analysis (Marxist or otherwise) of who stands to benefit from what property rights is valid. You do not have to go too far back in the history of Europe to find a time when buying and selling land was not legal. Land belonged to the king, and was granted to his vassals. Similarly, the fruits of a commoner's labors were the rightful property of his lord. Much of the present definition of property rights can be traced to the rise of the towns, and their need to define those rights which would allow them to become independent of feudal rulers. Unfortunately, the good burghers did not write computer software, and so there is not any comparable common law tradition for its protection. Thus we have to make due by thrashing it out in the courts. In the absence (we hope) of the great economic and class changes that occurred during the time in which modern Western ideas of property were defined, any definition of intellectual property which we reach will no doubt be much less permanent, and endowed with less of an aura of moral certitude. Oh well. Peter Desnoyers peter@athena.mit.edu
kenw@arcsun.UUCP (Ken Wallewein) (06/05/88)
In article <501@novavax.UUCP>, maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) writes: > > ... > My sense is that we do not yet understand *information as > property* fully enough to make absolute pronouncements; that the > moral terrain outlined by issues such as software piracy is not yet > clearly mapped. Good point. Now think about this: As the technological basis of our civilisation progresses, it is going to become easier and easier to make copies of more and more things. It will probably become commonplace to create copies remotely, by merely transmitting the description (does this sound a little bit familiar?). How are we going to deal with copyright as applied to physical objects, rather than ideas and information? My point is this: sooner or later, we must realize that there are only two things of any objective value - work and information. And I think any attempt to prevent the copying of information is doomed to failure. And I gotta wonder, how are we going to handle that? /kenw
jesse@proxftl.UUCP (Jesse Perry) (06/13/88)
In article <501@novavax.UUCP>, maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) writes: > [Stuff about which kinds of copyright violations upset authors] > > (As an aside, I believe most of us are committed in some way > to the free flow of information; we feel that a culture which > generates such a flow is a more open and civilized culture than one > which does not. Thus, we may be caught on the point where the right > to personal property conflicts with this more general principle that > dissemination of information is a good thing.) I am committed to the free flow of information, or more specifically, of *ideas*. Copyright law does not treat *ideas* as intellectual property. An idea cannot be copyrighted; only a particular expression of an idea can be. For example, Lotus Corp. has copyrighted a particular expression (the 1-2-3 program) of the *idea* of a spreadsheet program. Nonetheless, the idea of a spreadsheet program is still freely and legally available to anyone interested, and anyone who wishes can write a spreadsheet program of his or her own. Thus, the enforcement of personal property rights by copyright law does not conflict with the free flow of information.
maddoxt@novavax.UUCP (Thomas Maddox) (06/15/88)
In article <309@proxftl.UUCP> jesse@proxftl.UUCP (Jesse Perry) writes: > >I am committed to the free flow of information, or more specifically, of >*ideas*. Copyright law does not treat *ideas* as intellectual property. >An idea cannot be copyrighted; only a particular expression of an idea >can be. How you can be committed to the "free flow of information" and yet in favor of restricting "particular expression of an idea" is beyond me. "Idea" and "expression" cannot be so clearly separated. If they could, there would be no problem. >For example, Lotus Corp. has copyrighted a particular expression (the >1-2-3 program) of the *idea* of a spreadsheet program. Nonetheless, the >idea of a spreadsheet program is still freely and legally available to >anyone interested, and anyone who wishes can write a spreadsheet program >of his or her own. How about the idea of the row and column spreadsheet as first embodied in Visicalc? By what logic is that "idea," not "expression"? Very very slippery terrain. >Thus, the enforcement of personal property rights by copyright law does >not conflict with the free flow of information. Try again. Sure it does. Information is first and foremost a clearly quantifiable property, x number of bytes, etc. Enforcement of any kind of copyright clearly restricts the flow. Such is its intent. The questions remain: what restrictions should properly apply, what not? I just talked to a man who spent the past few years in Hong Kong as a teacher. There at the Golden Market (is that the right phrase?) he saw the unfettered flow of information in absolute violation of copyright. "Copyright will soon be extinct," he said. Maybe so. Maybe it's not a bad thing. What's interesting is, then what?
rafael@proxftl.UUCP (Rafael Mayer) (06/20/88)
In article <5585@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, tada@athena.mit.edu (Michael Zehr) writes: > There's also a difference in kinds of piracy. If I copy 1-2-3 and put > it on 10 machines in an office, but only _one_ of them is actually > running the program at any one time, is that illegal? This really depends on what the 1-2-3 licensing agreement says. Some licensing agreements allow for only one back-up copy of the original software, others allow for more. Now that networks are becoming more common licensing agreements are becoming much more explicit. For instance here is a quote from the Microsoft 5.0 C compiler license agreement: "1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the right to use this copy of a Microsoft language compiler program (the "COMPILER") and to distribute your programs created using the COMPILER. You may not network the compiler or otherwise use it on more than one computer (i.e., a single CPU) at the same time. The COMPILER is owned by Microsoft and is protected by United States copyright laws and international treaty provisions. Therefore you must treat the COMPILER just like any other copyrighted material (e.g. a book or musical recording) except that (a) you may make one copy of the COMPILER solely for backup purposes, ..." One thing is clear, the agreement explicitly prevents you from executing the compiler on more than one cpu at a time, and you may only make one back-up copy of the compiler. So at most you could install the compiler on two machines. If you were careful about never using it at the same time on both machines, (i.e. you made a rule that the compiler can only be used on the machine that has all the manuals sitting next to it) you would not break the licensing agreement. (At least, I don't think so. I am no expert on these matters.) Disclaimer: My opinions are not those of my employer. +-----------------------------------------------------+---------------------+ | Rafael Mayer | NO ONE EXPECTS THE | | UUCP: {ihnp4!codas,allegra}!novavax!proxftl!rafael | SPANISH INQUISITION | |_____________________________________________________|_____________________| | Smooth ice | Friedrich | | Is paradise | Wilhelm | | For those who dance with expertise. | Nietzsche | +------------------------------------------------------------+--------------+
robertl@killer.UUCP (Robert Lord) (06/20/88)
In article <341@proxftl.UUCP>, rafael@proxftl.UUCP (Rafael Mayer) writes: > > "1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the right to use this copy > of a Microsoft language compiler program (the "COMPILER") and to distribute > your programs created using the COMPILER. You may not network the compiler or > otherwise use it on more than one computer (i.e., a single CPU) at the same ^^^^^^^^^^ > time. The COMPILER is owned by Microsoft and is protected by United States Does this mean that if you had a PC with PC-Slave or some other device that allowed more than one person to use a PC at the same time, then it would be alright for them to use MSC? I'm sure this is not what Microsoft means, but it is an interesting point. Robert
erict@flatline.UUCP (j eric townsend) (06/23/88)
In article <341@proxftl.UUCP>, rafael@proxftl.UUCP (Rafael Mayer) writes: > "1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the right to use this copy > of a Microsoft language compiler program (the "COMPILER") and to distribute > your programs created using the COMPILER. You may not network the compiler or > otherwise use it on more than one computer (i.e., a single CPU) at the same > time. The COMPILER is owned by Microsoft and is protected by United States Does anybody out there with a LAN and a handfull of PC's bother with a multiple site license? I didn't think so... -- "It was men made her that way, Skate UNIX or go home, boogie boy... it was us made her that way." -- from "Airhead" by Thomas Dolby J. Eric Townsend ->uunet!nuchat!flatline!erict smail:511Parker#2,Hstn,Tx,77007 ..!bellcore!tness1!/