SHEIZAF@HBUNOS.BITNET (Sheizaf Rafaeli) (03/03/88)
In one of the reactions to the "Soap Software" teaser I posted a while ago, Michael J. Farren commented: > One of the biggest problems I have with the current 'debate' on copy > protection which is raging throughout the microcomputer groups is, > simply, that people are vehemently defending positions that they have > taken with, it seems to me, no actual evidence at all to support those > positions. I can't claim finders credit for "discovering" software theft. Anecdotal evidence is widely available (e.g. PERSONAL COMPUTING, May 1987). More verifiably, one can cite three major sources of evidence: surveys, legal literature, epidemiology. Granted, the best "proof" would be a scientific, random sample of hard disks in use at large. We attempted to do just such a study - and reported some data. Not surprisingly, we ran into some sampling problems. The Federation Against Software Theft (in the UK) published a 1986 estimate for national annual loss of about 150 million British Pounds in Great Britain alone. Their data show about five illegal copies for each duely purchased package. Future Computing (based in Texas) completed a large scale survey of users, and estimated an annual 800 million dollars loss, extrapolating a single purchase for each four acts of theft. They projected a single stolen copy for each legally paid-for package. Write to each of these organizations, as well as North American based ADAPSO for details. There is a deluge of legal literature on the topic. Hardly likely that this literature is all hypothetical. Also, see the Lotus vs. Rixson 1984 case. The propagation of viruses (viri?) is another indirect (unobtrusive?) epidemiological measure of the phenomenon. Viruses seem to flow so rapidly across sites and even continents (talk to any administrator of microcomputer clusters in industry or education). The "carriers" are mostly executable files. And these are mostly originally, ostensibly (and by contract) intended "for use on one machine". Our study is available as part of the Proceedings of the 1987 National Conference on Data Processing, Jerusalem, Israel, pp. 106 - 135. Other versions have appeared in a local computing journal and as a chapter in a legal textbook. An English version is in the works. However, I think you are missing the point by fixing on the financial loss of manufacturers. The three most important issues about theft have to do with users, not manufacturers. These are not the taking of high moral ground, blaming the thieves, rather: a) Morally and philosophically, software theft is of concern. There is a second-order reflection on the perceptions of computers, intellectual property, the worth of creativity, the subculture of programming, etc. Our respondents agreed that software theft is a less serious offense (or social problem) than jaywalking, cutting-in ahead of a line, smoking in a public place. b) Efficiency-wise: it seems that (most?) stolen software gets disseminated sans some unpilferable ingredients, such as the tutorial, manual, installation files. These (numerous?) users are likely to be using the software in a less efficient, knowledgeable manner. We are now trying to study this question systematically. Can "quality of use" be measured? c) Software itself (like art) is supposed to be a process, not a product. A lot of MIS and computer science literature is devoted to showing this. I wonder whether there is a nice way to say the same (process, not product) about art, film, journalism, etc. Software maintenance, iterative design, ongoing and context- sensitive documentation, structured programming, etc. are all concepts related to the need for software to be dynamic, developing. If software is a process why is it priced like a product? What happens to processes that are priced like stagnant products? How does the software market reward excellence, reward early adopters, treat updates, encourage rethinking, ensure intellectual property rights, guarantee its own ongoing size? I would like to bring the discussion back to the original proposition, of advertising support for software. I have received numerous reactions (in this forum, as well as privately). I will summarize and post these, as well as report some empirical findings from our experiments. (Data, Michael Farren, data!). But I think the more interesting issue has gone mostly unnoticed: What are the implications, promises or perils of advertising in software? Are the only valid questions whether it will be acceptable, or whether theft exists? Sheizaf Rafaeli
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (03/08/88)
Sheizaf Rafaeli writes: > I can't claim finders credit for "discovering" software theft. > Anecdotal evidence is widely available (e.g. PERSONAL COMPUTING, May > 1987). More verifiably, one can cite three major sources of evidence: > surveys, legal literature, epidemiology. You misunderstand. What I was commenting on was not software theft, which is indisputably endemic in this world of personal computers, but the effects of copy protection schemes to prevent such theft. For this, I have seen no reliable studies done, and my experience working in a large computer game company (Epyx) tended to show that no such studies were felt to be necessary - it was accepted without data that copy protection was necessary, even with the full knowledge that our games were being cracked within days of their release. Michael J. Farren
julian@riacs.edu (Julian E Gomez) (03/17/88)
Michael J. Farren writes: > ...no such studies were felt to be necessary - it was accepted without > data that copy protection was necessary, even with the full knowledge > that our games were being cracked within days of their release. Having thought about this for a few days, I must admit that I am still baffled. At the risk of starting a "discussion", can you explain the reasoning behind that conclusion? Julian Gomez
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (03/25/88)
I originally wrote: > ...no such studies were felt to be necessary - it was accepted without > data that copy protection was necessary, even with the full knowledge > that our games were being cracked within days of their release. to which Julian Gomez replied: > Having thought about this for a few days, I must admit that I am > still baffled. At the risk of starting a "discussion", can you > explain the reasoning behind that conclusion? Well, having thought about this for a few years, I'm just as baffled as you are :-) The reasoning, such as it was, was simply that we knew that illegal copies of our games were being distributed. It therefore seemed sensible to some (particularly those who were more money-conscious than anything else) to copy-protect, to hold down the number of illegal copies made, thus resulting in increased sales among those who would other- wise have just obtained an illegal copy. While this made superficial sense, I maintained then, and still maintain, that there would be no substantial difference in sales if the products were copy-protected or not. Those who wanted to buy the game would, those who wouldn't wouldn't, and that was that. My position has long been that the number of additional sales generated by copy-protection, if it exists at all, is infinitesmal compared to the drawbacks of copy-protection, both from the developers' and customers' standpoints. The data I was hoping to see would be that which would provide substanti- ation, either for their assertion that copy-protection increased revenue, or my assertion that it would not. I've never seen such data, at least not in any form that seemed to be actually researched and investigated. The circumstantial evidence goes both ways - there are companies which have reported increases in revenue when copy-protection was dropped, as well as companies which claim decreased revenue. What I want to see is objective evidence, either one way or the other. Michael J. Farren
demers@beowulf.UCSD.EDU (David E Demers) (03/25/88)
Michael Farren wrote: >> ...no such studies were felt to be necessary - it was accepted without >> data that copy protection was necessary, even with the full knowledge >> that our games were being cracked within days of their release. to which Julian Gomez replied: > Having thought about this for a few days, I must admit that I am > still baffled. At the risk of starting a "discussion", can you > explain the reasoning behind that conclusion? I'm not sure exactly what Mr. Farren had in mind; however, when I was with a major (at the time :-) software company, we used copy protection on the rationale that there is a continuum of piracy. Some people will NEVER buy anything if they can steal it. Others will steal software if it doesn't take much work. And others are honest, and won't use pirated software even if it is offered to them by a friend. This is a bit of a simplification... However, for those in the first and third groups, copy protection is meaningless; while for those in the second, it is a deterrent to theft. To analogize, nothing can prevent a determined car thief from stealing your car. But an alarm, or steering wheel lock, (or always removing the distributor cap, as a friend of mine who lives in East Oakland does...) may prevent the non-pro thief from making off with your wheels. David E. DeMers