LBAFRIN%clemson.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.arpa (06/10/86)
I bring the community's attention to the advertisement in the lower left-hand
corner of page 372 of the June issue of "PC World" magazine, in which a
company calling itself Soft/Plus Research (operating out of a P.O. box in
California) is selling (?) for $6 *each* such popular shareware/freeware as
PC-Write, PC-File III, QModem, PC-Calc, DeskMates, and various and sundry PC
games. "All orders please include $3 shipping & handling." They accept
Visa and MasterCard and even have a toll-free order line. They also advertise
such quantity deals as 6 programs for $34.95 and 10 programs for $49.95.
Any comments as to the legality/ethicality of this venture? It's been my
understanding ever since the early days of PC-Talk that one may freely
distribute copies of a freeware/shareware program as long as one doesn't
commercially profit from it. (Yes, I'm aware of the technical differences
between freeware and shareware, but let's look at the broad picture here.)
With these guys operating at $6 a crack, with an extra $3 S&H to boot, is there
anyone who doubts their pure profit motive? Soft/Plus Research does not
seem to be in the same league as groups like the Capitol PC Users' Group
and the PC-Blue library, whose *software* is truly free (although there
is a modest S&H charge to offset distribution costs).
Maybe Soft/Plus Research has "understandings" with the authors of the software
it is selling. But I doubt it. Is there anyone out there in NetLand who knows
more of the story behind these boys and their operation?
-- Larry Afrin
Dept. of Computer Science
Clemson University
================================
Please send replies, if any, to:
lbafrin@clemson.csnet or
lbafrin%eureka@clemson.csnet or, as a last resort,
any reasonable-looking string with
"lbafrin", "eureka", and "clemson" in it
(And I'm told that Usenet fans can try ihnp4!seismo!clemson.CSNET!lbafrin)
I disclaim everything anybody ever said about anything.petera@utcsri.UUCP (Smith) (06/20/86)
> I bring the community's attention to the advertisement in the lower left-hand > corner of page 372 of the June issue of "PC World" magazine, in which a > company calling itself Soft/Plus Research (operating out of a P.O. box in > California) is selling (?) for $6 *each* such popular shareware/freeware as I too have noticed these companies here in Canada. It is a bit anoying to see companies 'selling' software that is supposed to be free or shareware especially shareware because you do not have the choice of not paying if you do not like the program or do not use it much. Hopefully what will happen is that most users will know the software is free and that it can be obtained without cost from some local BBS that will put these leeches out of buisness. I doubt however if we as authors of this software have a legal leg to stand on but I'm not a laywer. Peter Ashwood-Smith University of Toronto. > PC-Write, PC-File III, QModem, PC-Calc, DeskMates, and various and sundry PC
jhv@houxu.UUCP (James Van Ornum) (06/23/86)
I wonder if copying floppies with public domain software on them and selling those copies at 5 to 6 dollars each really is profiteering!!! The service these companies provide is the duplication service; and in some cases, providing some level of documentation (or description, or indexing) for the software. Some also weed out duplicate copies or obsolete versions. Granted, this software is also available on bulletin board systems, but for some people, the convenience of ordering vs randomly searching through a bulletin board is worth the small price.
markd@wolf.UUCP (Mark Divecchio) (06/24/86)
Regarding the companys who sell shareware/freeware diskettes for $5-$10. I am the author of PC-VT which is distributed as User Supported Software (aka shareware). My program is the library of about half dozen companys who sell it for a small handling fee. These companies do me a service. I cannot afford to advertise nationally as they do. I have received many support payments directly traceable to these companies. As some say "cut out the middleman", well here it helps. -- --------------------------------- Mark C. DiVecchio 9067 Hillery Drive San Diego, CA 92126 K3FWT Home of PC-VT sdcsvax!man!wolf!markd No disclaimer : anyone who listens to me is a bigger fool than I.
fnf@unisoft.UUCP (Fred Fish) (06/25/86)
In article <791@houxu.UUCP> jhv@houxu.UUCP (James Van Ornum) writes: >Granted, this software is also available on bulletin board systems, but for >some people, the convenience of ordering vs randomly searching through a >bulletin board is worth the small price. Actually, it is probably not only more convenient, but cheaper. I have a library of (currently) 26 disks that I support for the Amiga. In the last six months I have spent well over $1,000 in telephone charges, most of which was associated with gathering probably only about 40% of the total software available on diskette. It has also consumed many hundreds of hours of my time to sort, test, and polish the software. If not for the generous contributions of people who have ordered complete sets of my library, even when they already had access to a set to copy for "free", I would probably have stopped after about disk number 5... -Fred =========================================================================== Fred Fish UniSoft Systems Inc, 739 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,lll-lcc}!unisoft!fnf (415) 644 1230 TWX 11 910 366-2145 ===========================================================================
phil@osiris.UUCP (06/25/86)
It seems to me (personal analysis probably unrelated to legal reality
coming) that the standard {share,free}ware copyright notice explicitly
prohibits redistributing such software for personal gain. Am I wrong,
or is this really the case, and if so, aren't the shareware profiteers
guilty of copyright infringement? Do any {share,free}ware authors out
there know? (Anyone else who might know is also invited to reply.)
Phil Kos ...!decvax!decuac
The Johns Hopkins Hospital > !aplcen!osiris!phil
Baltimore, MD ...!allegra!umcp-cs
"Drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex. I
could pinch them." - A. Martiandml@rabbit1.UUCP (David Langdon) (06/25/86)
> > I wonder if copying floppies with public domain software on them and selling > those copies at 5 to 6 dollars each really is profiteering!!! The service > these companies provide is the duplication service; and in some cases, > providing some level of documentation (or description, or indexing) for the > software. Some also weed out duplicate copies or obsolete versions. > Granted, this software is also available on bulletin board systems, but for > some people, the convenience of ordering vs randomly searching through a > bulletin board is worth the small price. I don't think the problem here is duplication services. I am certainly willing to have someone else duplicate and provide the software to me without having to go somewhere and do it myself (phone lines, BBS charges, diskettes, ...). The problem is when the organization charges 5 or 6 bucks and THEN 3 or 4 bucks in duplication/handling charges. This implies that the original 5/6 bucks is "clear" profit (or pretty close). -- ----------------------------------------------------------- David Langdon Rabbit Software Corp. ...!ihnp4!{cbmvax,cuuxb}!hutch!dml ...!psuvax1!burdvax!hutch!dml (215) 647-0440 7 Great Valley Parkway East Malvern PA 19355
Ghenis.pasa@Xerox.COM (06/25/86)
> I bring the community's attention to the advertisement in the lower left-hand > corner of page 372 of the June issue of "PC World" magazine, in which a > company calling itself Soft/Plus Research (operating out of a P.O. box in > California) is selling (?) for $6 *each* such popular shareware/freeware as > PC-Write, PC-File III, QModem, PC-Calc, DeskMates, and various and sundry PC As long as there is no misrepresentation and they only claim to be charging $6 for media, the copying service and shipping then this seems like a legitimate thing to do. Six dollars is in line with what you would pay a non-profit user group for this service. My personal feeling is that people should really order from user groups such as PC-SIG because then they help support the user community through these true service organizations. By the way, it takes a long time to download one 360k floppy full of programs even with a 1200 baud modem, so some people would gladly pay $6 to save themselves the hassle. And, believe it or not, there are still some microcomputer owners who don't have a modem (???!!!). If there weren't a demand for this service nobody would bother supplying it... Pablo Ghenis
petera@utcsri.UUCP (Smith) (06/25/86)
From postnews Wed Jun 25 16:16:39 1986 > Granted, this software is also available on bulletin board systems, but for > some people, the convenience of ordering vs randomly searching through a > bulletin board is worth the small price. Absolutely true. The difference comes when that $6 disk suddenly costs $20 and the ad for the company says "some ShareWare programs ask for a contribution for further developement, you do not have to pay this". In other words they are advising the buyer that he does not need to support the ShareWare principle as long as he pays the $20. Everybody suffers when this happens because the authors of these programs will stop making contributions to the world of ShareWare and public domain. This is a real shame because the ShareWare principle is a good one. Pay for it if it is useful instead of give us $500 now and go away and never bother us again. As I said before, I doubt that there is a legal leg to stand on in the ShareWare/Public Domain software profiteering racket. Sigh! Peter Ashwood-Smith
WANCHO@SIMTEL20.arpa (06/26/86)
The concept of "shareware" is a sore subject with me. If it weren't for the network of bulletin boards, and user groups with an existing distribution mechanism, and a dearth of quality software for MS/PCDOS, shareware would have been stillborn. Note that the SIG/M librarian refuses to carry such software. He doesn't believe shareware authors should be allowed to piggy-back on a mechanism designed and supported by authors who freely contribute their works with no monetary strings attached. He has more than enough such contributions. On the other hand, the PC/BLUE librarian has no such qualms. To me, it's a sign of desperation: it appears that there just aren't enough quality contributions freely given into the public domain in the MS/PSDOS world. Perhaps the authors for the PCs come from a different mindset; perhaps they believe PC owners are professionals who are more willing to pay vs. the hackers of the CP/M world, many of whom built their own systems and banded together to share their works with each other. Not too long ago, several companies offered collected, pruned, and documented sets of public domain collections. Some of us became upset with these companies, who appeared to make a relatively small contribution to the value of the original works and then have the nerve to *charge* considerably more than the currently discussed $6 a disk. They were in a *business* to make money; SIG/M and the PC/BLUE groups are volunteer members of non-profit computer groups. So, the argument went that it appeared unethical to profit from the works of others. Now enter shareware. We finally have a case where the author has everything to gain from even more potential contributions when a commercial vendor includes his work in a collection he sells for a bit over the cost of duplication. The $6 charge seems to be more than fair when you consider that the SIG/M and PC/BLUE groups charge that and use volunteer labor. To clarify a minor point: PC-SIG has often been mentioned in the same context as SIG/M and PC/BLUE. PC-SIG is NOT a volunteer non-profit user group; it is a commercial operation. Even if we had the disk space, it is not likely we will ever get their permission to carry their collections on SIMTEL20. Why would we need their permission? Because you can collect public domain works and claim a copyright the collection... Finally, let me say that shareware isn't really a bad idea. However, let's have shareware authors keep within the spirit of the concept: offer a product and enough documentation with it to be able to use it properly. The documentation doesn't have to be "complete". Offer the registration for current version, update/patch notices, and full hardcopy documentation in return for the registration fee (contribution). But, PLEASE, no guilt trips: DO NOT tell me I can only use your product for 14 days, or else. I won't even bother using it at all, and I will refuse to recommend or even mention your product to others, no matter how good it may be, or is trying to be. --Frank
rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (07/01/86)
In article <3005@utcsri.UUCP> petera@utcsri.UUCP (Smith) writes: >> I bring the community's attention to the advertisement in the lower left-hand >> corner of page 372 of the June issue of "PC World" magazine, in which a >> company calling itself Soft/Plus Research (operating out of a P.O. box in >> California) is selling (?) for $6 *each* such popular shareware/freeware as > > I too have noticed these companies here in Canada. It is a bit anoying >to see companies 'selling' software that is supposed to be free or shareware >especially shareware because you do not have the choice of not paying if you >do not like the program or do not use it much. Hopefully what will happen >is that most users will know the software is free and that it can be >obtained without cost from some local BBS that will put these leeches out >of buisness. I doubt however if we as authors of this software have a legal >leg to stand on but I'm not a laywer. > Sounds like there are three separate issues here. 1. Who would buy something they can get for "free". Unfortunately there are a few folks who don't realize the value of a good modem. They will, out of ignorance or convenience buy software at $6 each simply because they don't have to look for it. This is especially attractive to dealers, some of which will also sell you shareware at very reasonable cost. There is something to be said for the "Impulse" buying habits. I doubt that many individuals would mail or phone order only one or two copies, but dealers may indeed want a small supply of originals that they can legally copy. 2. What protection do the authors have? If they have not included a copyright notice on software submitted to a BBS, NONE. If they have stated in the software or source that the software is Public Domain, NONE. If they have included a copyright notice as specified by the copyright act of 1978 (USA), quite a bit. 3. Why would authors who are protected allow a company to sell their shareware programs? Because it IS SHAREWARE. If someone wants to plop down 6 bucks for a "near freebie" that's OK. But when they see that they can get an enhanced version, printed documentation, and even SOURCE, if they like the program, they are happy to pay a little extra, to the author. The author gets national advertizing for a program he can barely afford to support via BBS. Some other possibilities: Software distribution and marketing has gotten to be much more difficult and expensive to market in traditional ways. Many companies figure that as much as 50% of the retail price is advertising, marketing, and distribution expense. So what seems to be happening now, is that more and more software authors are looking to non-traditional marketing methods, including BBS "samplers", and very low priced "samplers". Some companies are even distributing software via the "boards" and selling hard-cover or paperback documentation over the counter. A quick look at some of the Apple software products is revealing. Their most recent upgrades are available through commercial bulletin boards only. MacIntosh Basic, never "formally released" has been available via the "nets" for quite some time. A book of documentation, provided by the author is available at most larger bookstores. The industry is learning that software for micros must be sold to individuals, not necessarily to corporations. Furthermore, some of the braver companies are actually learning that by selling products at reasonable prices (often as low as $10 for a word processor - see some of the Atari ST products), and putting documentation in well bound books, they have less of a problem with piracy. Some publishers are even getting into the "subscription" technique. You buy their product, if you have questions or problems, you dial their BBS and fill out a bug report (or send it to a commercial BBS) and they tell you which of their subsequent releases will contain the fix. If you want the fix, you buy a brand new copy of the software. Think about it. If one copy of ALL the software titles written for the "PC and compatibles" market were put in one store, it would be about the size of a good sized book or record store. You could also find several titles in the $5-$10 range. Unfortunately, dealers haven't caught on. In many smaller towns and cities, the dealers don't want to carry more than a few copies of the "top 10" programs for each of their respective machines. Even video cassette dealers have more respect for their suppliers than do computer software dealers. The industry is finally "growing up"! The days of $600 "percieved value" pricing will soon go the way of the "personalised railroad car". It will probably be replaced with a market that buys upgrades (at retail yet) on a monthy or bi-monthly basis, and seldom tries to "talk to the author" at 3:00 AM on a saturday morning. Except via E-mail maybe.
rb@cci632.UUCP (07/03/86)
In article <180@rabbit1.UUCP> dml@rabbit1.UUCP (David Langdon) writes: >> >> I wonder if copying floppies with public domain software on them and selling >> those copies at 5 to 6 dollars each really is profiteering!!! >> Granted, this software is also available on bulletin board systems, but for >> some people, the convenience of ordering vs randomly searching through a >> bulletin board is worth the small price. > >I don't think the problem here is duplication services. I am certainly willing >to have someone else duplicate and provide the software to me without having >to go somewhere and do it myself (phone lines, BBS charges, diskettes, ...). >The problem is when the organization charges 5 or 6 bucks and THEN 3 or 4 >bucks in duplication/handling charges. This implies that the original 5/6 >bucks is "clear" profit (or pretty close). >----------------------------------------------------------- >David Langdon Rabbit Software Corp. Actually, these services may be the beginning of something really big. If it is found to be profitable to sell software that is otherwise available for free and truly public domain, it may also be profitable to sell copyrighted software that is otherwise available for free and pay authors royalties. Suppose the authors of GNU Emacs, Mince, MicroEmacs, NeoChrome, Kermit, Xmodem,.... were given a small (6% is standard for most book authors) royalties on the software. Suppose enhancements were also allowed, and authors were paid royalties for these enhancements. The royalties per copy might not be that great ($.10/copy), but when you realize that there are something like 8 million computers out there, that could make a nice income or income supplement, even if your particular software only sold a million copies/year. Collections of public domain works are often marketed in other fields such as books (poetry, cookbooks, auto repair, how-to-do-it, and short stories), music, and theater/plays. If you want to protect work form "profiteers", include a copyright notice and "non-commercial use" terms. If someone wants to sell your product, they can negotiate with you or your agent. You might wish to register a copy of your creation with the federal copyright office as well. It would be interesting to see if any of these "profiteers" were selling copyrighted "non-commercial use" works without paying the author. THAT would be a bad thing.
elg@usl.UUCP (Eric Lee Green) (07/03/86)
In article <1692@brl-smoke.ARPA> WANCHO@SIMTEL20.arpa writes: >The concept of "shareware" is a sore subject with me. If it weren't >for the network of bulletin boards, and user groups with an existing >distribution mechanism, and a dearth of quality software for MS/PCDOS, >shareware would have been stillborn. > I really see no problem here. Putting a notice on the software that says "Copyright by Joe Bloe, all are free to copy and distribute as they please, for a small donation you can get a printed manual, updates, and technical support" doesn't seem obnoxious. Anybody can use the program all they want, if people need help with the program, want bugs fixed, or whatever, Joe Bloe is sitting at home instead of working down at the Burger Barf to pay the rent. I can see where professional computer programmers don't like seeing Joe Bloe intruding on their territory ("He ought to let us make our $500/copy for FooBar-1-2-3 instead of writing a useful program that people like so much they're willing to donate money to him"). But, most people don't program professionally for a living (in fact, some people actually pay to program -- like me), and couldn't afford to support the program if nobody paid them for that support. It's real easy for a professional programmer making $30,000/year to say "Freeware is bad, I give all my stuff away". Of course, you've got your bad apples, who put notices on their software that say "Copyright by B.B. Wolf, send me $500 if you use this program", but we all know what to do about notices like that... strangely enough, such things only happen in the IBM PC world, nowhere else (if an Apple hacker put such a notice on his software, he'd be laughed out of town). -- --------Mandatory quote:------------ "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy." -- Louisiana governor Edwin Edwards before 1984 governor's race. ------------------------------------ Eric Green {akgua,ut-sally}!usl!elg (Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509)
davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (Davidsen) (07/06/86)
Before we get too upset at people "selling" public domain software,
think about the $6 price you quoted. That's the going price for PC-BLUE
and SIG/M software, too. Looking at what it would cost a small company
to duplicate and mail a disk, I somehow doubt that there's much profit
there. Having looked on lots of bulletin boards for some software, I
can assure you that in some cases it's a better bargan for the user to
"buy" it than to get it "free" for the price of three or four phone
calls, even if you value your time at zero.
There are lots of people making a buck they shouldn't, but I would not
be offended at someone offering to duplicate any of the software I've
released. Public domain doesn't imply that the supplier is required to
distribute at his/her own expense.
Above is my opinion only.
--
-bill davidsen
ihnp4!seismo!rochester!steinmetz!--\
\
unirot ------------->---> crdos1!davidsen
chinet ------/
sixhub ---------------------/ (davidsen@ge-crd.ARPA)
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward"