shino@motbos.UUCP (Rei Shinozuka MCD SE) (04/26/88)
(warning: this article is a soapboxer)
I just read in this week's Business Week (May 2, 1988) that Jim Manzi
of Lotus made $26,297,000 in salary, bonuses and stock options
last year. Alexander V. d'Arbeloff, chairman of Lotus' compensation
committee explains: "Around him, Jim saw people obviously not of his
competence making millions of dollars... we wanted to make sure he
stayed with the company, because he was holding it together."
Next, I read in MacWeek that the SPA (Software Publishers Association)
is now collecting legal fees to prosecute users who illegally copy
software. I've also seen many ads put out by the SPA bemoaning the
loss to the industry, claiming that piracy is pushing up prices of
software, etc.
I can't accept the juxtoposition of these two news items. I think
instead of having a "computer programmer" in an SPA ad self-righteously
proclaiming: "I'm a programmer, and you're ripping ME
off every time you copy software," I'd like to see: "I'm the chair-
man of ABC Software and piracy has reduced my salary from 10 million
to 7 million dollars per year." I'm a programmer, too, and that
"programmer spokesman" in the ad sure doesn't speak for me!
Granted, copying software is illegal. But I just can't see that it
is IMMORAL, as the SPA is trying to brainwash me into believing.
From d'Arbeloff's quote, it seems that there are scads of guys running
around at Lotus literally making millions of dollars. They are all
making too much money! I am a staunch capitalist, make no mistake,
but the simple fact of the matter is: THEY ARE MAKING TOO MUCH MONEY!
How much is too much? I'd like to know what the programmers are
making, in comparison. After all, a lot of programmers make 26K, which
is THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE less than 26M!! THAT'S TOO MUCH MONEY!!
When you compare their profits versus their earnings to companies
like GE, IBM, DEC (no flames, please) that actually MANUFACTURE
SOMETHING REAL, then you can see that THEY ARE MAKING TOO MUCH MONEY!!
The SPA is legally in the right, and they have the bucks to buy the
lawyers to prove it. But when I think of them busting users making
copies, I can't help thinking of robber barons, feudal kings vs. serfs,
etc. They were legally in the right, too. But you didn't feel sorry
for them, the way you are supposed to for the SPA companies.
Don't feel sorry for the SPA. I'm not condoning piracy, because
that's illegal. But I can think of many situations where it's surely
not immoral. And I find it hard to feel sorry for those who make
several orders of magnitude more than anyone I know.
I don't enough about the law to know what a solution is, but I
do know that it stinks.
-rei
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
disclaimer: 1) these opinions are my own and are not shared or known by
my employers, teachers, parents, etc.
2) i am in no way advocating illegal copying of software, which
is by definition against the law.
3) this article is not aimed against all software companies,
but against what i interpret the attitude of the SPA to be.mike@cisunx.UUCP (Mike Elliot) (04/27/88)
In article <380@motbos.UUCP> shino@motbos.UUCP (Rei Shinozuka MCD SE) writes: >(warning: this article is a soapboxer) > [stuff deleted] >Granted, copying software is illegal. But I just can't see that it >is IMMORAL, as the SPA is trying to brainwash me into believing. >From d'Arbeloff's quote, it seems that there are scads of guys running >around at Lotus literally making millions of dollars. They are all >making too much money! I am a staunch capitalist, make no mistake, >but the simple fact of the matter is: THEY ARE MAKING TOO MUCH MONEY! >How much is too much? I'd like to know what the programmers are >making, in comparison. After all, a lot of programmers make 26K, which >is THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE less than 26M!! THAT'S TOO MUCH MONEY!! > Illegally copy software is not immoral if and only if stealing is not immoral. Perhaps you are the sort of individual who does not think there is anything wrong with stealing; I on the other hand see this and any other stealing as being not only illegal but also immoral. One can't justify stealing on the grounds that the person one steals from has more than he deserves. Stealing is stealing, no matter from whom it was appropriated. Mike Elliot {allegra|bellcore|cadre|psuvax1}!pitt!cisunx!mike mike@pittvms.bitnet It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institutions and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones. -Machiavelli
djs@actnyc.UUCP (Dave Seward) (04/28/88)
In article <380@motbos.UUCP> shino@motbos.UUCP (Rei Shinozuka MCD SE) writes: >(warning: this article is a soapboxer) > >I just read in this week's Business Week (May 2, 1988) that Jim Manzi >of Lotus made $26,297,000 in salary, bonuses and stock options >last year. >[...] >From d'Arbeloff's quote, it seems that there are scads of guys running >around at Lotus literally making millions of dollars. They are all >making too much money! I am a staunch capitalist, make no mistake, >but the simple fact of the matter is: THEY ARE MAKING TOO MUCH MONEY! I know this isn't a real solution for most individuals, but collectively... The solution to this (as if one were required) is to offer the public the same capabilities (ie equivelent software) for a low enough cost that you make only 10 million or maybe 5 million dollars per year. The definition of TOO MUCH MONEY for a particular activity ought to be that another individual who could accomplish the same thing would be willing to do it for significantly less. If so, go to it. Try to analyze what he is getting that sum for. It is not writing code, I assure you. But, he wouldn't get it without the code to sell. Make an investment; put your money where your mouth is; write that great piece of software and sell it to the masses. This is not intended to be a flame, but I don't begrudge him his income as long as I could get the same for the same thing. As I see it, this is a opportunity. Dave Seward uunet!actnyc!djs
lee@uhccux.UUCP (Greg Lee) (04/28/88)
From article <9160@cisunx.UUCP>, by mike@cisunx.UUCP (Mike Elliot): " ... I on the other hand see this and any other " stealing as being not only illegal but also immoral. One can't justify " stealing on the grounds that the person one steals from has more than he " deserves. Stealing is stealing, no matter from whom it was appropriated. Sure one can. And one can't show that stealing is never justified by stating a tautology. Greg Lee, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
drogers@riacs.edu (David Rogers) (04/29/88)
`Too much money' is better defined as what is healthy for the corporation, not the individual. Look at Japanese firms, where the wage differential between the highest and lowest paid workers is around 6-8, and American firms, where the differential is 100-1000. No wonder why Japanese workers feel more like they are `in the same pot' with their management than do American workers. If fair compensation is whatever the market will bear, then maybe some American executive salaries ARE more than the market can bear. If American workers are being asked to accept Japanese-style work rules, maybe American executives should be asked to accept Japanese-style compensation rules! David Rogers drogers@riacs.edu
john@geac.UUCP (John Henshaw) (04/29/88)
In article <380@motbos.UUCP> shino@motbos.UUCP (Rei Shinozuka MCD SE) writes: >(warning: this article is a soapboxer) > >From d'Arbeloff's quote, it seems that there are scads of guys running >around at Lotus literally making millions of dollars. They are all >making too much money! I am a staunch capitalist, make no mistake, >but the simple fact of the matter is: THEY ARE MAKING TOO MUCH MONEY! If you really are a staunch capitalist, you'd realize that you get paid what you're worth. Making "too much money" is therefore not possible. Stop whining... >-rei -john- -- John Henshaw, (mnetor, yunexus, utgpu !geac!john) Geac Computers Ltd. If we don't pay for education now, are we Markham, Ontario, Canada, eh? going to be able to pay for ignorance later?
ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) (04/29/88)
In article <1801@uhccux.UUCP> lee@uhccux.UUCP (Greg Lee) writes: >From article <9160@cisunx.UUCP>, by mike@cisunx.UUCP (Mike Elliot): >" ... I on the other hand see this and any other >" stealing as being not only illegal but also immoral. One can't justify >" stealing on the grounds that the person one steals from has more than he >" deserves. Stealing is stealing, no matter from whom it was appropriated. > >Sure one can. And one can't show that stealing is never justified >by stating a tautology. I would be interested in knowing what Mike Elliot thinks of the "Robin Hood" figure, who stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Would he be in favor of the Sherrif? Or does he, as most people I know, support the theives. I doubt that Mike has really thought this through. But, I'm willing to ask! As I see it, the cases are parallel, though different in that the Lotus Chairman could not be described as classically 'bad', as the Sherrif could. (Greedy maybe, but not inherently 'bad'.) And in case you think I'm being frivolous, I'm not. I would like to see more discussion on exactly WHY copying software is 'wrong/right'. Here are some ideas on it: Copying Software is Wrong Because: 1. The people who wrote it have to make a living, and if you copy their software without paying for it, you are effectively stealing their income. (Kind of like cuting off a peice of their paycheck before it gets to them.) Copying Software is Right Because: 1. The people who wrote it are charging so much for it that I can't afford it, yet I really need it. (A rather lame argument.) 2. The people who wrote it are greedy so-and-so's who charge 200% more than the product is actually worth, so I'm reducing that profit margin to something more reasonable. (Not much better.) 3. Software is not tangible property, so when I copy it (like taking a picture of a waterfall) I do not 'take' anything; therefore I am not stealing. (Has possibilities, but would also apply to things like sci. theories. Not a good defense.) I'd put more into the discussion, but I've got to do some work now... :-) Enjoy! -- ...!hadron\ "Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?" | Edwin Wiles ...!sundc\ Schedule: (n.) An ever changing | NetExpress Comm., Inc. ...!pyrdc\ nightmare. | 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300 ...!uunet!netxcom!ewiles | Vienna, VA 22180
mike@cisunx.UUCP (Mike Elliot) (05/03/88)
In article <807@netxcom.UUCP> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: >In article <1801@uhccux.UUCP> lee@uhccux.UUCP (Greg Lee) writes: >>From article <9160@cisunx.UUCP>, by mike@cisunx.UUCP (Mike Elliot): >>" ... I on the other hand see this and any other >>" stealing as being not only illegal but also immoral. One can't justify >>" stealing on the grounds that the person one steals from has more than he >>" deserves. Stealing is stealing, no matter from whom it was appropriated. >> >>Sure one can. And one can't show that stealing is never justified >>by stating a tautology. > > >I would be interested in knowing what Mike Elliot thinks of the "Robin Hood" >figure, who stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Would he be in favor >of the Sherrif? Or does he, as most people I know, support the theives. > >I doubt that Mike has really thought this through. But, I'm willing to ask! > Since you asked...Robin hood is stealing from the Sheriff who stole from the people, albeit through legal (and unethical) means. Since the Sheriff, or his boss King (Prince? I don't rightly recall) John is the ultimate authority, there were no legal means for him to right this wrong. There- fore he fought fire with fire and stole the gold back. It was still stealing, but it was (in my opinion) justified. Now when it comes to stealing software, I haven't found any rational that would allow me to do it. I'll state my reasons later on. >As I see it, the cases are parallel, though different in that the Lotus >Chairman could not be described as classically 'bad', as the Sherrif could. >(Greedy maybe, but not inherently 'bad'.) How do you classify the chairman as bad in any way? He performs his job in such an exemplary fashion, that the company rewards him for it with a large salary. An enviable postion no doubt, but that doesn't make him bad. > >And in case you think I'm being frivolous, I'm not. I would like to see >more discussion on exactly WHY copying software is 'wrong/right'. Here are >some ideas on it: > >Copying Software is Wrong Because: > >1. The people who wrote it have to make a living, and if you copy their >software without paying for it, you are effectively stealing their income. >(Kind of like cuting off a peice of their paycheck before it gets to them.) That's right. I know alot of people who feel its wrong when someone steals a product from a store, but see nothing wrong with stealing software. I don't understand how people who would say that shop lifting is wrong, can steal someone else's work without paying for it. > >Copying Software is Right Because: > >1. The people who wrote it are charging so much for it that I can't afford >it, yet I really need it. (A rather lame argument.) I really need a car right now, but can't afford it. That doesn't give me the right to steal one. > >2. The people who wrote it are greedy so-and-so's who charge 200% more than >the product is actually worth, so I'm reducing that profit margin to something >more reasonable. (Not much better.) If the product is so outlandishly priced, dont' buy it. Call your friends and co-workers and tell them not to buy. If vendors can't sell their products at such prices, they'll have to bring the price down or go out of business. That's what supply and demand is all about. > >3. Software is not tangible property, so when I copy it (like taking a >picture of a waterfall) I do not 'take' anything; therefore I am not >stealing. (Has possibilities, but would also apply to things like sci. >theories. Not a good defense.) Like taking a picture of a waterfall huh? Well maybe true, but if I were to take a picture of a waterfall, my thumb would probably be in the corner; the focus wouldn't be just right; nor would the lighting. That's why when someone else takes a picture of the waterfall at just the right time of day, with the right exposure, and filters and such, he has copies made and sells them. If people like them, they pay him for it, and take it home with them. They don't (at least not those with whom I'm acquainted) say, "Hey, that's Niagara falls, you don't own the waterfall, so you don't own the picture, so I don't have to pay you for it." After all, lotus isn't the only spreadsheet around, just one of the better one's. Mike Elliot {allegra|bellcore|cadre|psuvax1}!pitt!cisunx!mike mike@pittvms.bitnet It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institutions and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones. -Machiavelli
ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) (05/03/88)
In article <9360@cisunx.UUCP> mike@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Mike Elliot) writes: >In article <807@netxcom.UUCP> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: >>As I see it, the cases are parallel, though different in that the Lotus >>Chairman could not be described as classically 'bad', as the Sherrif could. >>(Greedy maybe, but not inherently 'bad'.) > > How do you classify the chairman as bad in any way? He performs his > job in such an exemplary fashion, that the company rewards him for > it with a large salary. An enviable postion no doubt, but that doesn't > make him bad. There may be some misunderstanding here, I'm not sure. As the above paragraph states, I do *not* consider the Lotus Chairman as 'bad'. Just possibly as 'greedy'. I know I find many products too expensive, and what I do is to not buy them. (As you sugested.) But the one thing I really dislike about the current software situation, is that there's no way for me to spend several months with a product deciding whether it's really worth the several hundred dollars that the manufacturers are asking for. (Re: C Compilers...) It's not an economic justification of the price that I'm looking for. I'm quite sure that the manufacturers are capable of producing documents of costs they incurred that justify the price they ask. What I'm interested in is if this product is worth the price *to* *me*. Which, with something like a compiler, I'm going to need at least a solid month of working with it before I can come to a decision. An expenditure of over $200 for one software product is a major purchase for me! The only 'legal' way that I would able to do this sort of testing, would be to borrow such products from friends for a period of time. Since they wouldn't want to be left without their software for an extended period, this would involve copying. Understand, I'd only do this to decide which of several packages did everything I wanted, the way that I wanted. When I came to a final decision, which would take some time, I WOULD purchase one of them. The others would be destroyed. Is this a 'justifiable' usage of 'copied' software? Or am I asking for a lawsuit? -- ...!hadron\ "Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?" | Edwin Wiles ...!sundc\ Schedule: (n.) An ever changing | NetExpress Comm., Inc. ...!pyrdc\ nightmare. | 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300 ...!uunet!netxcom!ewiles | Vienna, VA 22180
john@geac.UUCP (John Henshaw) (05/03/88)
In article <9360@cisunx.UUCP> mike@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Mike Elliot) writes: >Since you asked...Robin hood is stealing from the Sheriff who stole from >the people, albeit through legal (and unethical) means. Robin Hood *stole* from the Sheriff: Robin Hood broke the law which in this case was stealing. The Sheriff did NOT steal from the people: the Sheriff did not break the law. You introduce a concept I'd call "legal theft"? Is this really possible? Perhaps you've just invented a new oxymoron! -john- -- John Henshaw, (mnetor, yunexus, utgpu !geac!john) Geac Computers Ltd. If we don't pay for education now, are we Markham, Ontario, Canada, eh? going to be able to pay for ignorance later?
peter@athena.mit.edu (Peter J Desnoyers) (05/03/88)
I am more interested in the morality of paying the chairman of Lotus the astounding sum of 26 million dollars. That's on the order of salary (not overhead or bennies) for 500 software engineers. Does Lotus even employ 500 engineers? They've got a building or two down by Lechmere, and a new one by the river - I don't think they have room for 500 engineers plus the support and sales staff. (I realize they must have more locations, but still, Lotus isn't that big by most measures of company size except profit.) If Lotus fired their chairman tomorrow, they would still be in business in a year. If they fired their engineers, they would be out of business very soon. This seems to be one of the many cases where corporate salaries are not explainable by assuming a free market in equilibrium. Of course, Lotus collects monopoly rents on its products, due to time of introduction, copyright, and other factors, which allows them to pay their chairman a vast amount too much, instead of just a lot more than he deserves. However, just because this guy is making 26M doesn't mean we should steal from Lotus. Instead, we should be trying to find out why executives in Lotus and many other firms are allowed to steal from consumers and employees, and find a way to prevent it. Peter Desnoyers peter@athena.mit.edu
chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) (05/04/88)
In article <9160@cisunx.UUCP> mike@cisunx.UUCP (Mike Elliot) writes: >Illegally copy software is not immoral if and only if stealing is not >immoral. Is it? I have just invented a matter duplicator. A friend drove his new BMW over here this weekend, and we put it in the `original' side; I shoveled an equal mass of dirt into the hopper, and produced an exact copy. Was that immoral? (Alas, the duplicate and the duplicator were both unstable, and both just dissolved back into piles of virtual particles.) -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris
scott@attcan.UUCP (Scott MacQuarrie) (05/04/88)
I can't understand this moaning about the chairman of Lotus making 26
million. Instead of sitting around counting how many employees one could
hire we should try and figure out how he did it. There are many, many people in this world who get paid MORE than 26 Million. I feel no grudge against
the people who can manage to do this. In fact, I like it... It gives me
someone to study so that someday perhaps I can make 26 million a year
myself.
Scott MacQuarrie
Senior Techinical Consultant
AT&T Canada Inc.
{utzoo, ihnp4}!attcan!ctor01!scottfloyd@brl-smoke.ARPA (Floyd C. Wofford) (05/04/88)
In article <11334@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes: > >I have just invented a matter duplicator. A friend drove his new BMW >over here this weekend, and we put it in the `original' side; I >shoveled an equal mass of dirt into the hopper, and produced an exact >copy. > >-- >In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) >Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris You can resolve the morality problems amongst yourselves. I have some dirt; how much would you charge to make a BMW for me. Viva entrepreneurship! I hope you can make $27,000,000.00 a year (in the first month) with it. Whatever you do though, do not get it patented. You have a fine idea, exploit the heck out of it. floyd@brl.arpa
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/04/88)
You bet it was immoral for you to duplicated that BMW, and also illegal. In using your matter duplicator, you became a car manufacturer. The duplicator is not important. You could make an exact duplicate of a BMW with conventional methods (BMW does it all the time). Aside from the obvious fact that you would have to rip the BMW logos, nameplates, insignia and serial numbers off your duplicated car, or be guilty of fraud, I think it would not be proper of you to duplicate all the artistic and aesthetic elements of the car without paying the creators of those elements. Plus, there had better not be any patented parts in the automobile, including things patented by people who simply licenced the patents to BMW. (Isn't that British Motor Works? :-) ) Fact is that the design and engineering of a car, particularly a fancy car, is a considerable creative effort. Just like writing a piece of software. It is immoral to misappropriate somebody else's creative efforts against their will. Why is that hard to understand? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
rwwetmore@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) (05/05/88)
In article <1606@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >You bet it was immoral for you to duplicated that BMW, and also illegal. > >In using your matter duplicator, you became a car manufacturer. The >duplicator is not important. You could make an exact duplicate of a BMW >with conventional methods (BMW does it all the time). > [ ... ] >It is immoral to misappropriate somebody else's creative efforts against >their will. > >Why is that hard to understand? >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 The devil's advocate would probably come up with something like ... Throughout history spies and informants have long understood that the value of information was inversely proportional to the number of people that had that information, and for all intents and purposes a delta function for any individual transaction. The costs of passing on information are almost independent and usually much much less than the value of the information (before the transaction). Darwinian evolution and its corresponding commercial counterpart imply that that survival depends on taking advantage of any competitive edge. This implies the converse that those with a competitive edge use it and try to monopolize it in an effort to stifle the competitor. The only time this is a concern is when there is money or prestige involved (ie some definite survival advantage). There is no morality in nature or a capitalist economy ... except survival ie it is immoral not to survive (it is also dangerous to your health :-). Ross W. Wetmore | rwwetmore@water.NetNorth University of Waterloo | rwwetmore@math.waterloo.edu Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 | {clyde, ihnp4, ubc-vision, utcsri} (519) 885-1211 ext 3491 | !watmath!rwwetmore
mike@cisunx.UUCP (Mike Elliot) (05/05/88)
In article <810@netxcom.UUCP> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: [Lots of stuff deleted] >What I'm interested in is if >this product is worth the price *to* *me*. Which, with something like a >compiler, I'm going to need at least a solid month of working with it before I >can come to a decision. An expenditure of over $200 for one software product >is a major purchase for me! > >The only 'legal' way that I would able to do this sort of testing, would be to >borrow such products from friends for a period of time. Since they wouldn't >want to be left without their software for an extended period, this would >involve copying. Understand, I'd only do this to decide which of several >packages did everything I wanted, the way that I wanted. When I came to a >final decision, which would take some time, I WOULD purchase one of them. >The others would be destroyed. > >Is this a 'justifiable' usage of 'copied' software? >Or am I asking for a lawsuit? > As far as legal, its not. Once a person buys software X, he is allowed to make backup copies. However, he is not allowed to have more than one copy of the software running at a time. Therefore, if you are both running this software, you are violating the copyright. Now justifiable, is another story. I won't speak for all of the software vendors out there, but if you were to do this with software that I was marketing, I wouldn't take you to court over it. Your other option is to talk with trusted friends who have used the soft- ware in question and to check out reviews in PC Magazine and the like. Mike Elliot {allegra|bellcore|cadre|psuvax1}!pitt!cisunx!mike mike@pittvms.bitnet It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage, than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institutions and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones. -Machiavelli
gcf@actnyc.UUCP (Gordon Fitch) (05/06/88)
In article <11334@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes: } In article <9160@cisunx.UUCP> mike@cisunx.UUCP (Mike Elliot) writes: } >Illegally copy software is not immoral if and only if stealing is not } >immoral. } } Is it? } } I have just invented a matter duplicator. A friend drove his new BMW } over here this weekend, and we put it in the `original' side; I } shoveled an equal mass of dirt into the hopper, and produced an exact } copy. } } Was that immoral? Part of what BMW sells is BMW design, on which they put in a lot of time, effort, and money (I guess.) Maybe you should have negotiated a royalty arrangement.
joel@pyr.gatech.EDU (Joel Rives) (05/06/88)
>scott@attcan.UUCP (Scott MacQuarrie) (scott@attcan.UUCP, <3367@attcan.UUCP>): > >I can't understand this moaning about the chairman of Lotus making 26 >million. Instead of sitting around counting how many employees one could >hire we should try and figure out how he did it. There are many, many people in this world who get paid MORE than 26 Million. I feel no grudge against >the people who can manage to do this. In fact, I like it... It gives me >someone to study so that someday perhaps I can make 26 million a year >myself. Great! [ Start sarcastic interlude ] <- lest other's misunderstand Let's all play "King of the Heap" and see who can get closest to the top. Who cares that we may have to trample thousands of hapless jerks that get in our way. Heh, that's the law of the jungle don't ya know! And so what if the heap we're climbing is slowly but surely becoming a dung heap due to all that trampling. Just as long as I get as close to the top as I can (that way I don't have to look at all those poor suckers down below). [ End sarcastic interlude ] Making lots of money is one thing. Doing it despite the welfare of the rest of humanity is genocidal. joel -- The thief Left it behind-- The moon at the window. -Ryokan
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/06/88)
In article <18662@watmath.waterloo.edu> rwwetmore@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) writes: > ... a long analogy about "darwinist capitalism" > >There is no morality in nature or a capitalist economy ... except survival >ie it is immoral not to survive (it is also dangerous to your health :-). > This is pretty high on the silly analogies list, Ross. Capitalism is fundamentally based on the concept of private property. A system without a moral concept of property (ie. one where property is protected only through loyalty and strong weapons) can't have capitalism. The big debate in this forum centers in non-material property, such as software. To me, a person's creations are the truest form of personal property. While one might argue that one owns a piece of land only through social conventions, ownership and control of one's own thoughts and mental creations is indisputable -- until you publish them, and then that ownership needs laws to protect it. So to me, software is a more true form of property than land! It is not proper to do something with somebody else's property without their permission. And when you pay for the right to use software, you don't get permission to copy it and give it away. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
john@geac.UUCP (John Henshaw) (05/06/88)
In article <5713@pyr.gatech.EDU> joel@pyr.UUCP (Joel Rives) writes: > >Making lots of money is one thing. Doing it despite the welfare of the >rest of humanity is genocidal. > >joel Interesting... And yet it seems that this is exactly what mankind has been doing for centuries - and now the planet is getting more and more crowded. (Is this a form of genocide?) How do you reconcile this apparent inconsistency? -john- -- John Henshaw, (mnetor, yunexus, utgpu !geac!john) Geac Computers Ltd. If we don't pay for education now, are we Markham, Ontario, Canada, eh? going to be able to pay for ignorance later?
dc@gcm (Dave Caswell) (05/07/88)
In article <5079@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> peter@athena.mit.edu (Peter J Desnoyers) writes:
.If Lotus fired their chairman tomorrow, they would still be in
.business in a year. If they fired their engineers, they would be out
That is not the argument. The argument would have to be put 500 engineers
in a room and see if a large successful company pops up. Or is the success
really the result of a few peoples foresight and of course the
cooperation of many other people.
.of business very soon. This seems to be one of the many cases where
Engineers are 600,000 a dozen but people who can build large successful
companies are very rare.
.corporate salaries are not explainable by assuming a free market in
.equilibrium. Of course, Lotus collects monopoly rents on its products,
The high wages aren't because no one else has the product they are because
no one else(or hardly anyone) has the wisdom to lead a company to such success.
.due to time of introduction, copyright, and other factors, which allows
Other factors such as money invested in research, advertising, having the
best product etc.
.them to pay their chairman a vast amount too much, instead of just a
.lot more than he deserves.
.
.However, just because this guy is making 26M doesn't mean we should
.steal from Lotus. Instead, we should be trying to find out why
.executives in Lotus and many other firms are allowed to steal from
.consumers and employees, and find a way to prevent it.
It was probably somebody at the chairman level who decided to go ahead and
spend the money to go ahead with the product in the first place. It was
not obvious that spending the millions of dollars it cost to develop 1-2-3
was the right thing to do. Lotus is a publicly held company. I don't
understand the reference from stealing. Do you really think that if the
chairman died in a car accident tommorow and a successor could not be found
that everyone's salary would increase? Would dividends go up?dc@gcm (Dave Caswell) (05/07/88)
In article <810@netxcom.UUCP> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: >In article <9360@cisunx.UUCP> mike@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Mike Elliot) >writes: >>In article <807@netxcom.UUCP> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: .The only 'legal' way that I would able to do this sort of testing, would be to .borrow such products from friends for a period of time. Since they wouldn't .want to be left without their software for an extended period, this would .involve copying. Understand, I'd only do this to decide which of several .packages did everything I wanted, the way that I wanted. When I came to a .final decision, which would take some time, I WOULD purchase one of them. .The others would be destroyed. Read almost any software agreement. It is not copiable except for backup purposes. Your argument is meaningless; you can not copy it. You have to think of some other way to make a buying decision. Most people seem to make do for other products.
dc@gcm (Dave Caswell) (05/07/88)
In article <11334@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
.
.I have just invented a matter duplicator. A friend drove his new BMW
.over here this weekend, and we put it in the `original' side; I
.shoveled an equal mass of dirt into the hopper, and produced an exact
.copy.
.Was that immoral?
Of course you forgot to state that he agreed not to copy it and that it is
against the law. Do you call it Chris Torek Inc? How much do you charge
for a 535i? Is Prevention against disintegration guaranteed for the first
twelve months? Did the original company that did all the work designing
the car manage to stay in business now that their product has to be priced
like dirt? I'm sure that they advertising dollars were spent because they
thought it would entice people to buy their product rather than help some
startup company in Maryland.
.(Alas, the duplicate and the duplicator were both unstable, and both
.just dissolved back into piles of virtual particles.)
Sort of like joy riding correct? I stole your car while you were sleeping
last night but it is back in your garage in time to drive to work the
next morning.dc@gcm (Dave Caswell) (05/07/88)
In article <5713@pyr.gatech.EDU> joel@pyr.UUCP (Joel Rives) writes:
.
.[ Start sarcastic interlude ] <- lest other's misunderstand
.
.Let's all play "King of the Heap" and see who can get closest to the
.top. Who cares that we may have to trample thousands of hapless jerks
.that get in our way. Heh, that's the law of the jungle don't ya know!
.And so what if the heap we're climbing is slowly but surely becoming
.a dung heap due to all that trampling. Just as long as I get as
.close to the top as I can (that way I don't have to look at all those
.poor suckers down below).
.
.[ End sarcastic interlude ]
.
.Making lots of money is one thing. Doing it despite the welfare of the
.rest of humanity is genocidal.
genocide n. The systematic, planned annihilation of a racial, political
or cultural group. [Gree gemas, race see gene]
What is the world does the chairman of Lotus Development Inc. have to do
with the rest of humanity. Life is not a zero sum game. Success does not
neccessarily imply someone else's failure; maybe you are thinking of baseball
games? Just so you know I got paid yesterday and the welfare of the rest
of humanity never once crossed my mind and I should know. I'm saving it
to buy a real BMW. I would rather be at the top than anywhere else and
when I am not posting I spend most of my time working to get there.
I think that a world where people were not rewarded for their efforts would
be genocide for the U.S.rwwetmore@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) (05/09/88)
In article <1614@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >In article <18662@watmath.waterloo.edu> rwwetmore@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) writes: >> ... a long analogy about "darwinist capitalism" >> >>There is no morality in nature or a capitalist economy ... except survival >>ie it is immoral not to survive (it is also dangerous to your health :-). >> >This is pretty high on the silly analogies list, Ross. I thought it was at about the same tenor as the earlier posting :-). >Capitalism is >fundamentally based on the concept of private property. A system without >a moral concept of property (ie. one where property is protected only through >loyalty and strong weapons) can't have capitalism. In the end property is always protected by strong weapons - you can call it a 'police' force or a 'military' force, however I don't know any (capitalist == competitive) society that doesn't have such referees to back up the current 'morality' of their position. >The big debate in this forum centers in non-material property, such as >software. The key point is that non-material property in the form of ideas cannot be controlled unless you institute mind control. It is only the tangible material products of those ideas that you stand a chance of controlling. However, I would not like to live in a society 50 years from now, where every time I turned an idea into a product I was sued for copyright because every idea anyone ever had was recorded and every idea ever produced could be traced back to components of at least a million predecessors. >To me, a person's creations are the truest form of personal property. While >one might argue that one owns a piece of land only through social >conventions, ownership and control of one's own thoughts and mental creations >is indisputable -- until you publish them, and then that ownership needs laws >to protect it. Once you transmit a idea, it no longer belongs to you. Anyone can think it. I refuse to constrain my thoughts just because you thought them at some prior point in time. Put another way, I refuse to let you claim exclusive ownership on any thoughts. >So to me, software is a more true form of property than land! It is not >proper to do something with somebody else's property without their >permission. And when you pay for the right to use software, you don't >get permission to copy it and give it away. I am not against copyright protection of software or any other creative efforts. My point is that this is *not* a simple black and white picture, and the whole concept of intellectual property is an incredible minefield. >-- >Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 Ross W. Wetmore | rwwetmore@water.NetNorth University of Waterloo | rwwetmore@math.waterloo.edu Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 | {clyde, ihnp4, ubc-vision, utcsri} (519) 885-1211 ext 3491 | !watmath!rwwetmore
fmr@cwi.nl (Frank Rahmani) (05/10/88)
> > You bet it was immoral for you to duplicated that BMW, and also illegal. > Aside from the obvious fact that you would have to rip the BMW logos, > nameplates, insignia and serial numbers off your duplicated car, or be > guilty of fraud, I think it would not be proper of you to duplicate all > the artistic and aesthetic elements of the car without paying the creators > of those elements. > (Isn't that British Motor Works? :-) ) It would be neither immoral nor illegal to make your personal copy of a BMW (says BMW). It would be quite a respectable effort. They would like to use your 'copy' for carshows (first handbuild BMW!) By the way , all car manufacturers sell their logo's and insignia's to anybody who wants them (collectors, kit car builders etc.) And of course BMW is Bayerische Motoren Werke (in contrary to any British car manufacturer their sales grow, they even caught up with Germany's number one: Mercedes. I hope you understand that cars are a bad example in this discussion. > It is immoral to misappropriate somebody else's creative efforts against > their will. Nonsense. Copying somebody else's creative efforts is a creative effort in itself, you are creating something, if it is your idea or not. And how about two or more people having the same idea at the same time without knowing about each other? When YOU see the finished product you would shurely accuse one of them having copied the other. > > Why is that hard to understand? Because worldwide the lack of respect towards other people's properties has grown immensely, that's what we call Freedom. > -- -- It is better never to have been born. But who among us has such luck? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.
mch@computing-maths.cardiff.ac.uk (Major Kano) (05/10/88)
In article <807@netxcom.UUCP> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: ## In article <1801@uhccux.UUCP> lee@uhccux.UUCP (Greg Lee) writes: (* robin hood stuff deleted *) ## And in case you think I'm being frivolous, I'm not. I would like to see ## more discussion on exactly WHY copying software is 'wrong/right'. (* What everyone seems to ignore is that the *REAL* argument in favour of s/w copying is a combination of (1) and (2) below:- *) ## ## 1 The people who wrote it are charging so much for it that I can't afford it, ## yet I really need it. (A rather lame argument.) ## ## 2 The people who wrote it are greedy so-and-so's who charge 200% more than ## the product is actually worth, so I'm reducing that profit margin to ## something more reasonable. (Not much better.) (* In other words, "I really need it, and though I should like, from a fair-play viewpoint, to pay for it, the people who wrote it are greedy so-and-so's and are charging 200% more than the product is actually worth." In other words, the s/w writers are * PROFITEERING *. This seems to me to be a crushing indictment of s/w writers, but it is the most common reason for s/w copying that I have heard of. In most cases, I would agree with it. What does everyone else think ? -- Martin C. Howe, University College Cardiff | "You actually program in 'C' mch@vax1.computing-maths.cardiff.ac.uk. | WITHOUT regular eye-tests ?!" -------------------------------------------+-----+------------------------------ My cats know more about UCC's opinions than I do.| MOSH! In the name of ANTHRAX!
joel@pyr.gatech.EDU (Joel Rives) (05/11/88)
>john@geac.UUCP (John Henshaw) (john@geac.UUCP, <2708@geac.UUCP>): >In article <5713@pyr.gatech.EDU> joel@pyr.UUCP (Joel Rives) writes: >> >>Making lots of money is one thing. Doing it despite the welfare of the >>rest of humanity is genocidal. >> >>joel > >Interesting... And yet it seems that this is exactly what mankind has >been doing for centuries - and now the planet is getting more and more >crowded. (Is this a form of genocide?) How do you reconcile this apparent >inconsistency? You attribute a quality to mankind, as a whole, which I think is erroneous. I attest that the vast majority of mankind are not primarily concerned with making more money-- as you suggest. [ A complete look at my original posting will show that this is in fact what John is suggesting ] Regardless of one's opinion on the matter of mankind's primary goal, this in now way introduces any form of inconsistancy that I can see. Perhaps, you can shed some light on the matter for me. joel -- The thief Left it behind-- The moon at the window. -Ryokan
chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) (05/12/88)
[subject left alone so that kill files work] >In article <11334@mimsy.UUCP> I wrote a little parable: >>I have just invented a matter duplicator. A friend drove his new BMW >>over here this weekend, and we put it in the `original' side; I >>shoveled an equal mass of dirt into the hopper, and produced an exact >>copy. ... Was that immoral? So many people have misinterpreted this that I feel compelled to elaborate. Apologies to those reading comp.misc for things that are related directly to computing. In article <458@white.gcm> dc@gcm (Dave Caswell) writes: >Of course you forgot to state that he agreed not to copy it and that it is >against the law. I really did buy a new car (alas, not a BMW :-) ) some months ago. There was nothing in the sales agreement making copying illegal. Various parts on the thing are patented, but that too does not make them illegal to copy. (Ask a patent lawyer for details. It amounts to certain types of `home use' being legal.) In point of fact, copying a car with such a device would be illegal, but not for the reasons everyone seems to believe. It would be illegal because it would have the same serial number as the original, and the same license plates. And as far as I can tell, those are the *only* reasons the *act of copying* would be illegal. It would, of course, also be illegal to drive the copy on public roads, as matter duplications are not approved for safety, and so forth. But all of these are largely irrelevant: I was not questioning the legality of software pirating---it is quite definitely illegal--- but rather trying to lead some of you to realise that copying and stealing are not identical, and therefore the immorality of the former act (if you believe, as I do, that stealing is immoral) does not, in and of itself, impart immorality to the latter. *Is* copying immoral? No and yes. I remain unconvinced of both answers. Is it illegal? Yes. Should you do it? I advise not: the law holds no regard for morals. (That last is a job for the judge and jury.) >>(Alas, the duplicate and the duplicator were both unstable, and both >>just dissolved back into piles of virtual particles.) >Do you call it Chris Torek Inc? How much do you charge for a 535i? >Is Prevention against disintegration guaranteed for the first >twelve months? Just supposing I did invent a duplicator---one not built of virtual particles and imaginary transmuters---my current inclination would be to give it away. As soon as you had one, and she had one, and they had one, why, everyone would have one. The economy would suffer horribly, and the government would dither madly, and after a while, and maybe a war or two as various governments tried to suppress the invention, everything would settle down and the matter of real-object copies would finally have been answered. >Sort of like joy riding correct? *No*. Given the concept of property ownership, joyriding is clearly immoral (unless the owner gives the `joyer' the keys and says `go have fun'). And in any case, there is a risk to the original, and there is wear upon it; if the joyrider uses only a copy, there is no risk to the original (beyond the copying process) and there is no wear on the original. So let me try it again, on a rather less emotional subject. Suppose I had such a method of duplication, and used it on my wheezy old 1979 Chevette Scooter (the Chevette was not my idea; I bought it from my father years ago). Legality questions aside, would that be immoral? *Think* about your answer---do not tell it to me; I really do not care very much. But think about it, and consider this too: Does your answer change if the duplication consists of hand-crafting each part? (And have I taken one too many philosophy classes? :-) ) -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris
jimh@ism780c.UUCP (Jim Hori) (05/14/88)
In article <5713@pyr.gatech.EDU> joel@pyr.UUCP (Joel Rives) writes: >>scott@attcan.UUCP (Scott MacQuarrie) (scott@attcan.UUCP, <3367@attcan.UUCP>): >> >>I can't understand this moaning about the chairman of Lotus making 26 >>million. Instead of sitting around counting how many employees one could stuff deleted - you've seen it > >Great! > >[ Start sarcastic interlude ] <- lest other's misunderstand > >Let's all play "King of the Heap" and see who can get closest to the more stuff deleted >Making lots of money is one thing. Doing it despite the welfare of the >rest of humanity is genocidal. > Informational question: is this 26 mil a yearly salary, or a one time figure based on stock options, bonuses, etc. A friend claims no company could afford to pay this yearly. Jess Wondering. jimh@ism780c.UUCP awopbopaloobop alopbamboom ...................................................................
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/14/88)
In article <362@cf-cm.UUCP> mch@computing-maths.cardiff.ac.uk (Major Kano) writes: > > "I really need it, and though I should like, from a fair-play viewpoint, to > pay for it, the people who wrote it are greedy so-and-so's and are > charging 200% more than the product is actually worth." 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. 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. How much is land worth? How much is gold worth? How much is a spreadsheet worth? Why should software be any different from land? > > In other words, the s/w writers are * PROFITEERING *. > > This seems to me to be a crushing indictment of s/w writers, but it is the >most common reason for s/w copying that I have heard of. In most cases, I would >agree with it. 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. I suppose you want wage police to set your salary, and to make sure it gets reduced if it gets too high, or *gasp* more than you're worth. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
wtr@clyde.ATT.COM (Bill Rankin) (05/14/88)
In article <362@cf-cm.UUCP> mch@computing-maths.cardiff.ac.uk (Major Kano) writes: > What everyone seems to ignore is that the *REAL* argument in favour of > s/w copying is a combination of (1) and (2) below:- > >> 1 The people who wrote it are charging so much for it that I can't afford it, >> yet I really need it. (A rather lame argument.) ^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ > In other words, > > "I really need it, and though I should like, from a fair-play viewpoint ^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ > to pay for it, the people who wrote it are greedy so-and-so's and are > charging 200% more than the product is actually worth." > > What does everyone else think ? >Martin C. Howe, University College Cardiff | "You actually program in 'C' OH, COME ON NOW! LETS AT LEAST BE HONEST TO OURSELVES. the majority of pirated software is NEEDED like the people who steal it NEED a hole in their head. the feeling/emotion that we are looking at is DESIRE/GREED. "oh god! look at that user interface! i got to have that to show off to my peon friends!" NEED usually has very little to do pirated software. just look at your REAL motives and desires befor you EVER go calling programmers who spent time producing a product as "greedy so-and-so's"! at least they have put a lot of effort and professionalism into their code. people whom actually NEED a piece of software usually end up buying it. if for nothing else than to rag on the company who wrote it when something goes wrong ;-) BTW: how does all this apply to a software house that uses pirated text editors to write their code ;-) life is something like existance between alt.flame and rec.humor. keep on smilin' ===================================================================== Bill Rankin Bell Labs, Whippany NJ (201) 386-4154 (cornet 232) email address: ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!moss!wtr ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua watmath ]!clyde!wtr =====================================================================
dc@gcm (Dave Caswell) (05/16/88)
In article <362@cf-cm.UUCP> mch@computing-maths.cardiff.ac.uk (Major Kano) writes:
. "I really need it, and though I should like, from a fair-play viewpoint, to
. pay for it, the people who wrote it are greedy so-and-so's and are
. charging 200% more than the product is actually worth."
.
.
. In other words, the s/w writers are * PROFITEERING *.
.
. This seems to me to be a crushing indictment of s/w writers, but it is the
.most common reason for s/w copying that I have heard of. In most cases, I would
.agree with it.
It is amazing that the Major is able to talk about the problem with profits
in one sentence and than in the next talk about stealing products that are
too expensive. This is what you get from a society where profits are
bad. It is not more fairness and concern for others instead it is theft
and lawlessness.
You do not pay for something from a fair play perspective. This is very
important, instead you pay to transfer ownership of something that belongs
to someone else.
Socialists have little need for property rights and consequently individual
rights. Theft is what they understand.
--
Dave Caswell
Greenwich Capital Markets uunet!philabs!gcm!dc
If it could mean something, I wouldn't have posted about it! -- Brian Casejohn@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (05/16/88)
In article <10033@ism780c.UUCP>, jimh@ism780c.UUCP (Jim Hori) writes: > Informational question: is this 26 mil a yearly salary, or a > one time figure based on stock options, bonuses, etc. A friend > claims no company could afford to pay this yearly. > According to the May 2, 1988 Business Week magazine, Jim P. Manzi had a 1987 salary and bonus of $941,000, plus "long term compensation" (e.g. stock options) of $25,356,000, for a total of $26,297,000. The annual Executive Compensation issue of Business Week is always interesting. One of the things they do is try to analyze which executives gave their shareholders the best value for their money. One of their ratings compares the total shareholder return to the compensation (over a three year period), the other relates pay to return on equity. Using the first yardstick, Mr. Manzi came in fourth worst -- shareholder return was 284% (not at all bad), and total compensation for 3 years was $30,404,000. Worst place was, for at least the second year running, Lee Iacocca, with 71% return being achieved at a cost of $49,865,000. The best value was Robert Swanson, founder of Genentech, was paid $1120K and had a return of 391%; followed by Joseph R. Canion, president of Compaq, paid $2292K and returning 736%. Go read the magazine. It is, as usual, a fascinating article (and also includes a discussion of the impact of stock options (the vast bulk of Mr. Manzi's compensation last year) on corporations). -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu "Cutting the space budget really restores my faith in humanity. It eliminates dreams, goals, and ideals and lets us get straight to the business of hate, debauchery, and self-annihilation." -- Johnny Hart
rafael@proxftl.UUCP (Rafael Mayer) (05/16/88)
> > Informational question: is this 26 mil a yearly salary, or a > one time figure based on stock options, bonuses, etc. A friend > claims no company could afford to pay this yearly. > > Jess Wondering. > Your right these are stock options and bonuses which vary from year to year. The base pay for these executives can vary from 1/4 mill to a mill. The bonuses are the so-called performance incentives. Iacocca this year is getting 18 mill in bonuses (down 9 mill from last year, poor guy). Sculley at Apple makes 1 million base pay and several million in bonuses. I find it all sort of ridiculous, probably because I am not quite sure what one does with that kind of money. After allhow many yacths can you own? Rafael
wayneck@tekig5.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) (05/17/88)
In article <362@cf-cm.UUCP>, mch@computing-maths.cardiff.ac.uk (Major Kano) writes: > In other words, > > "I really need it, and though I should like, from a fair-play viewpoint, to > pay for it, the people who wrote it are greedy so-and-so's and are > charging 200% more than the product is actually worth." > > In other words, the s/w writers are * PROFITEERING *. > > This seems to me to be a crushing indictment of s/w writers, but it is the > most common reason for s/w copying that I have heard of. In most cases, I would > agree with it. > > What does everyone else think ? > > -- > Martin C. Howe, University College Cardiff | "You actually program in 'C' You are really off base. The programmer often gets less than 15% of the wholesale cost of the software. A decent package will cost around $10 to produce and normally one sells software packages to distributors for 40% of the list price. They move the software out to store and by mail order at around 55% to 70% of list. Store resell it at around 80% to 100% of list price. You can save a lot by buying mail order. Now lets say the author gets a good contract how much dose he make? List price Wholesale price -minus cost author gets ------------------------------------------------------------------- $50 $20 $10 $1.50 $100 $40 $30 $4.50 $250 $100 $90 $13.50 So if the author has put over a year in his work (often much more) he needs to set the price at a level where he can make good money for the year. It is simply supply and demand. He isn't a profiteer. He is trying to survive. I have some software that will be out this summer. A several people have over 4 man years of effort in it. The list price will be around $300. If all goes well I'll get $30,000 for my years worth of work. The other people will get less since this code is a port. Since the market for this kind of code is less than 10,000 people right now I can't really sell it for less. If I set the price at $50 and sold a copy to all 10,000 people I get around $15,000 for a years work. Forget it. If someone can not come up the $180 mail order price he dosen't need my program! I need to make a living too! The real PROFITEER is the priate who copies my code. He gets 4 years worth of work for nothing! By the way most of the money that doesn't go to the author goes to pay for user support for the package. So I think that anyone who copies a program without paying should have to pay the author 100 times what he would normally make for the sell and also have his floppy cut off. Priates are the true PROFITEERS - why do you think they are called priates! Wayne Knapp
floyd@brl-smoke.ARPA (Floyd C. Wofford) (05/17/88)
In article <173@proxftl.UUCP> rafael@proxftl.UUCP (Rafael Mayer) writes: >> > After all how many yacths can you own? > > Rafael At least one more than I already have.
dewey@execu.EXECU (dewey henize) (05/17/88)
Do you really think you are going to convince each other on this? There are those that are going to steal every piece of software they think they might want. It's their 'right', can't you see that? Just because someone else made it and debugged it and packaged it doesn't matter. So save yourself some problems. You CAN NOT convince someone who steals copyrighted programs that they shouldn't - the only thing you can occasionally convince him/her of is that they might get caught. And you know how likely that will be....
ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) (05/17/88)
In article <493@sering.cwi.nl> fmr@cwi.nl (Frank Rahmani) writes: >> It is immoral to misappropriate somebody else's creative efforts against >> their will. >Nonsense. Copying somebody else's creative efforts is a creative effort >in itself, you are creating something, if it is your idea or not. Nonsense. Copying somebody else's creative efforts is a creative effort in itself, you are creating something, if it is your idea or not. Wow. Aren't the above two lines a paragon of creativity!! (:-) >> Why is that hard to understand? >Because worldwide the lack of respect towards other people's >properties has grown immensely, that's what we call Freedom. No......that's what we call anarchy. Frankly, seeing freedom equated with the right to tread roughshod over the property of others, intellectual or otherwise, is a distortion which disturbs me strangely. In this case however I am willing to rest fairly easy, as the whole posting was ah... a little off the beaten track! -- Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ..!{philabs, mnetor}!micomvax!ray Philips Electronics Ltd. | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext: 2347 600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | FAX : (514) 744-6455 St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | TLX : 05-824090
jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) (05/18/88)
>people whom actually NEED a piece of software usually end up buying >it. if for nothing else than to rag on the company who wrote it >when something goes wrong ;-) Gee, I don't know. This isn't ALWAYS true. A simple counterexample: MSDOS. I'll bet that there are a LOT of pirate copies of this operating system out there. And you NEED it, or your computer system won't run. If I ever decide to upgrade from DOS 3.1, I'll probably use a pirated copy. Why? Because: #1: Microsoft/IBM did not provide any way for me to upgrade my legitimate copy of DOS at a reasonable price, and #2: I don't expect to get any SUPPORT from Microsoft no matter HOW loudly I complain. At the moment, I'm sorry that I paid good money to upgrade from DOS 2.11! -- john nelson UUCP: {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!teddy!jpn ARPA (sort of): talcott.harvard.edu!panda!teddy!jpn
timim@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tim Lorello) (05/18/88)
In article <2767@tekig5.TEK.COM>, wayneck@tekig5.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes: > The real PROFITEER is > the priate who copies my code. He gets 4 years worth of work for nothing! > > Wayne Knapp This is right on the money. It is interesting that the motives of the Lotus chairperson are being questioned by the original poster. All questions of capitalism aside; when you pirate someone's software, you take something that is not yours. You did not design it. You did not provide input to its assimilation. What gives you the right to take it or copy it? Our legal system has already stated that software is "copywrightable." Our morality says that taking something from someone, INCLUDING IDEAS, is a form of theft unless compensation is provided. Sometimes, the compensation can be a simple thank you or acknowledgement. Sometimes it is $400. If you want to test a piece of software out ahead of time, BORROW IT from your friend, have your software dealer demo it (or maybe he'll lend/rent it to you), read reviews, talk with people. There are a lot of other ways to find out about software without having to copy it. Be creative! Tim Lorello AT&T Bell Laboratories
mwm@eris (Mike (I'm in love with my car) Meyer) (05/18/88)
In article <160@execu.EXECU> dewey@execu.EXECU (dewey henize) writes:
<Do you really think you are going to convince each other on this?
No - that's why I only posted one article, very early in the
discussion.
<So save yourself some problems. You CAN NOT convince someone who steals
<copyrighted programs that they shouldn't - the only thing you can occasionally
<convince him/her of is that they might get caught. And you know how likely
<that will be....
Likewise, you CAN NOT convince someone who thinks that intellectual
property makes sense that it's an oxymoron. You can occasionally
convince them that copying something is not the same thing as stealing
it. But that's not very likely.
<mike
--
I went down to the hiring fair, Mike Meyer
For to sell my labor. mwm@berkeley.edu
I noticed a maid in the very next row, ucbvax!mwm
I hoped she'd be my neighbor. mwm@ucbjade.BITNETrwwetmore@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) (05/18/88)
In article <5371@ihlpg.ATT.COM> timim@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tim Lorello) writes: >In article <2767@tekig5.TEK.COM>, wayneck@tekig5.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes: >> The real PROFITEER is >> the priate who copies my code. He gets 4 years worth of work for nothing! >> Wayne Knapp > >This is right on the money. It is one aspect of the problem. No one except a 110% socialist really believes that those creative enough to come up with original ideas should not be compensated accordingly. Most people don't understand the role of the chairman of the board, seven levels of middle-men and the government who get most of this compensation though and this confuses them into thinking they can do the same. >All questions of capitalism aside; Then you are a socialist, and we already discussed what those fundamental hypotheses imply. >when you pirate someone's software, you take something that is not yours. Oops, property is a capitalist concept. Careful, what you take is ideas structured in a particular form. >You did not design it. You did not provide input to its >assimilation. What gives you the right to take it or copy it? Ideas cannot be owned by anyone (yet, and I hope never). Back off and take a serious look at the implications of this one before rushing off to legislate. If someone stands on his soapbox and spouts, those ideas do not remain his/her property (besides they probably weren't his/hers anyway). To be more explicit, copyrighting certain negative ideas would be a great way to control dissent. >Our legal system has already stated that software is "copywrightable." It is not clear what the Apple lawsuit will mean, but until now I believe it has been perfectly legal to take the description of the idea and create ones own particular form of its implementation. That is, it is the form of expression or implementation of the idea that the creative person can currently lay claim to. >Our morality says that taking something from someone, INCLUDING IDEAS, >is a form of theft unless compensation is provided. Morality == religion -> breeds all kinds of myopic fanatics. Moral justification is only applicable to those who belong to your particular sect, and should be confined to discussions between its members. Besides this statement is obviously wrong :-) > Tim Lorello > AT&T Bell Laboratories We are in the information age, and one of its problems is defining workable property rights for information. This is not a good-guy/bad-guy emotional exercise but a serious issue. Those that wish to blindly apply material property rights to everything are ignoring some fundamental differences between the material and the non-material. Those who make no obeisance to property rights are ignoring millenia of history and experience at their peril. It would be nice to see some rational discussion of these fundamental differences, the implications of choosing one particular course of action over another, and less outright religion. Ross W. Wetmore | rwwetmore@water.NetNorth University of Waterloo | rwwetmore@math.Uwaterloo.ca Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 | {clyde, ihnp4, ubc-vision, utcsri} (519) 885-1211 ext 3491 | !watmath!rwwetmore
singer@XN.LL.MIT.EDU (Matthew R. Singer) (05/19/88)
In article <2767@tekig5.TEK.COM>, wayneck@tekig5.TEK.COM (Wayne Knapp) writes: > > You are really off base. The programmer often gets less than 15% of the > wholesale cost of the software. A decent package will cost around $10 to > produce and normally one sells software packages to distributors for 40% of > the list price. They move the software out to store and by mail order at around > 55% to 70% of list. Store resell it at around 80% to 100% of list price. You > can save a lot by buying mail order. > > Now lets say the author gets a good contract how much dose he make? > > List price Wholesale price -minus cost author gets > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > $50 $20 $10 $1.50 > $100 $40 $30 $4.50 > $250 $100 $90 $13.50 > > So if the author has put over a year in his work (often much more) he needs > to set the price at a level where he can make good money for the year. It is > simply supply and demand. He isn't a profiteer. He is trying to survive. . . . > So I think that anyone who copies a program without paying should have to > pay the author 100 times what he would normally make for the sell and also > have his floppy cut off. Priates are the true PROFITEERS - why do you think > they are called priates! > > Wayne Knapp Minor correction: Software distributors get a 60% discount. Dealers get 40%.
toma@tekgvs.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (05/19/88)
In article <4780@teddy.UUCP> jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson) writes: >>people whom actually NEED a piece of software usually end up buying >>it. if for nothing else than to rag on the company who wrote it >>when something goes wrong ;-) > >Gee, I don't know. This isn't ALWAYS true. A simple counterexample: >MSDOS. I'll bet that there are a LOT of pirate copies of this >operating system out there. And you NEED it, or your computer system >won't run. > No you don't NEED MSDOS to run your computer. The orignal IBM/PC could be started in Basic (no DOS at all). IBM orignally sold three DOSes, MSDOS, CP/M 86, and UCSD P-System. These are still available as well as some others multitasking DOSes (OS/2, Pick, PC/MOS, UNIX, many others) and programming enviroments (some Forths come to mind). You may not be able to run the software you want, but you can run the computer! Tom Almy A user of MSDOS and other operating systems toma@tekgvs.tek.com
egranthm@jackson.UUCP (Ewan Grantham) (05/19/88)
In article <362@cf-cm.UUCP>, mch@cf-cm.UUCP writes: > > In other words, the s/w writers are * PROFITEERING *. > > This seems to me to be a crushing indictment of s/w writers, but it is the > most common reason for s/w copying that I have heard of. In most cases, > I would > agree with it. > > What does everyone else think ? > > -- > Martin C. Howe, University College Cardiff Let me see if I understand your reasoning, because most people who copy software say they are doing it because it costs too much, then software writers must be profiteering? First, I think most of us are aware that the profits for items such as Lotus 1-2-3, DBase, etc. are going to publishing houses, not the writers themselves. Even so, I think that the reason given, and the actual reason are a lot farther apart. My guess at the real reason - I need what this piece of software can do, and since I don't HAVE to pay for it, I won't. In other words, if I can get the software without getting in trouble, then I'm going to take it. I am not advocating copy-protection as a solution, because it isn't. As we are all aware, there is now way to keep something that was put on disk from being copied to another disk. What is the solution? I'm not sure. If you look at robbery in general, you'll see that fines, jail sentances, etc. have not stopped it, simply they have made the price of non-compliance high enough to keep the majority of us from doing it. How you could do this with software, and still leave the software in an easily usable state is beyond me. Suggestions anyone? Ewan Grantham (uunet!nuchat!jackson!egranthm) My bosses aren't responsible for me, and vice-versa.
bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) (05/22/88)
In article <160@execu.EXECU>, dewey@execu.EXECU (dewey henize) writes: > > Do you really think you are going to convince each other on this? > > There are those that are going to steal every piece of software they think > they might want. It's their 'right', can't you see that? Just because someone > else made it and debugged it and packaged it doesn't matter. > > So save yourself some problems. You CAN NOT convince someone who steals > copyrighted programs that they shouldn't - the only thing you can occasionally > convince him/her of is that they might get caught. And you know how likely > that will be.... Agreed. A software pirate is a thief, no matter what justifications he may give, and in spite of our calling him a `software pirate'. Arguing with him will not change his feelings. Unfortunately, today, received morality has degenerated to a kind of subjectivism (for the uninitiated, this means approximately that "if I feel it is good then it is") that makes the arguments that "software pirates" use seem plausible. Arguments like this let others know that there ARE people out there who reject (at least some) of today's junk morality and that there are alternates to "doing it because I feel like it". On the other hand, the arguments against "software pirates" are also tainted by this same subjectivism so maybe these discussions do not help. Sigh! At this point, anything further I might say would be an actual discussion of morality (or a flame against subjectivism); that does not belong in this newsgroup.
rwwetmore@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) (05/23/88)
In article <203@proxftl.UUCP> bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: >In article <160@execu.EXECU>, dewey@execu.EXECU (dewey henize) writes: >> >> Do you really think you are going to convince each other on this? > >Unfortunately, today, received morality has degenerated to a kind >of subjectivism (for the uninitiated, this means approximately >that "if I feel it is good then it is") that makes the arguments >that "software pirates" use seem plausible. A perceptive insight. Now ask yourself why there are only ten commandments in the Bible, and not ten thousand regulations. If you get through this, ask how, why and by who these came about. >Arguments like this let others know that there ARE people out >there who reject (at least some) of today's junk morality and >that there are alternates to "doing it because I feel like it". Unfortunately few people reach the necessary level of understanding and maturity to identify and extract the essence of a rational argument or distill it into a moral slogan that captures the universality of the idea. Belief as opposed to understanding is a powerful enforcement tool, but not a good foundation on which to build. Emotional bases seldom are. It is too bad that humans are more easily led by emotions than rational thought, and that power blocs in government, the media and elsewhere are too ready to exploit this for short term goals. Is it any wonder that software pirates will follow this example to justify their goals, or large corporations will use similar tactics to stifle competitors or sell their product. Remember the trade war with Japan over memory chips? Leadership has got to come from the top. Support has got to come from the bottom. Ross W. Wetmore | rwwetmore@water.NetNorth University of Waterloo | rwwetmore@math.Uwaterloo.ca Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1 | {clyde, ihnp4, ubc-vision, utcsri} (519) 885-1211 ext 3491 | !watmath!rwwetmore
bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) (05/28/88)
In article <18963@watmath.waterloo.edu>, rwwetmore@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) writes: > >Our morality says that taking something from someone, INCLUDING IDEAS, > >is a form of theft unless compensation is provided. > Morality == religion -> breeds all kinds of myopic fanatics. Moral > justification is only applicable to those who belong to your particular > sect, and should be confined to discussions between its members. > Besides this statement is obviously wrong :-) Ah... it is not possible to abstract legal rights from their moral foundation. Eventually, in order to justify property rights of any kind you must do so by reference to some morality. While one CAN look at property rights from the aspect of how one group forced others to respect their property rights, this totally ignores WHY it is that they considered those property rights as important. And it ignores the causes for why we have come to accept the idea of property rights. Property rights, however defined, must rest on the idea of something of value to someone. And right there you have run into a question of morality.
mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) (05/29/88)
In article <203@proxftl.UUCP>, bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: > In article <160@execu.EXECU>, dewey@execu.EXECU (dewey henize) writes: >> You CAN NOT convince someone who steals copyrighted programs that >> they shouldn't This is not always true; some (most?) software copiers are perfectly well aware that they shouldn't be. > Agreed. A software pirate is a thief, no matter what justifications > he may give, and in spite of our calling him a `software pirate'. > Arguing with him will not change his feelings. Legally, yes: current law agrees with this point of view. But a software pirate is a thief only if you recognize the notion of intellectual property, and I've found that not everyone does. (I think I have some idea where I stand, but I do not argue on either side on the net, so I'll refrain from stating which view I hold.) der Mouse uucp: mouse@mcgill-vision.uucp arpa: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/01/88)
In article <230@proxftl.UUCP>, bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes: > In article <18963@watmath.waterloo.edu>, rwwetmore@watmath.waterloo.edu (Ross Wetmore) writes: > > >Our morality says that taking something from someone, INCLUDING IDEAS, > > >is a form of theft unless compensation is provided. > > Morality == religion -> breeds all kinds of myopic fanatics. Moral > > justification is only applicable to those who belong to your particular > > sect, and should be confined to discussions between its members. > > Besides this statement is obviously wrong :-) > > Ah... it is not possible to abstract legal rights from their > moral foundation. Eventually, in order to justify property > rights of any kind you must do so by reference to some morality. > > Property rights, however defined, must rest on the idea of > something of value to someone. And right there you have run into > a question of morality. What I find most amusing is that leftists frequently argue against property rights, and indeed, all notions of human rights because they dispute the idea of absolute morality -- but that doesn't seem to stop them from appealing to the idea of "right" when trying to justify whatever wealth redistribution scheme they are peddling at the moment. Because of the differences of opinion of what constitutes right and wrong, our society's disagreements about human rights finally boil down to, "Are you strong enough to force your will on me or not?" Power comes from the barrel of a gun -- and that's the only thing that matters when the basic assumptions about human rights are as far apart as they are between the left and right in our country. Clayton E. Cramer
bill@proxftl.UUCP (T. William Wells) (06/15/88)
In article <187@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: } Because of the differences of opinion of what constitutes right and wrong, } our society's disagreements about human rights finally boil down to, "Are } you strong enough to force your will on me or not?" Power comes from the } barrel of a gun -- and that's the only thing that matters when the basic } assumptions about human rights are as far apart as they are between the } left and right in our country. Excuse me, but you have made a mistake. While it is true that the final resolution of any difference of opinion is enforced by the state, the opinion which is enforced by the state is NOT determined by who has the bigger stick. Rather, a complicated process comprised of reasons, demagoguery, brute force, and all the other elements of our political system results in this determination. Not all of these can be reduced to "Power ... from the barrel of a gun." Followups to talk.politics.misc, please.