nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (08/21/90)
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
:The software industry of course points to the cost of developing those
:materials, and that's indisputable (although exactly how that relates
:to the cost of the product is not very well understood, certainly
:there are some enormously profitable software companies out there.)
:
:The important point is that at this time the software industry is
:seeking massive government (i.e. taxpayer) subsidies to ensure these
:profit margins, which at least on materials seem fairly large to the
:consumer. These subsidies are being sought in the form of police and
:court expenses to criminalize anyone who threatens their profits.
:We can argue moral niceties about what's right and what's wrong but in
:the end, is it fair that we as taxpayers foot this bill? It could be
:billions of dollars in investigations, prosecutions, etc.
But the "moral niceties" are CENTRAL to the issue. Copying com-
mercial software and giving it to our friends either IS or IS NOT
stealing. And we have to decide that issue. If it isn't stealing
then Mr. Shein is certainly correct in decrying the use of public
money to defend these companies. But if it is stealing then these
companies have every right to expect the state to protect them.
Although Usenet is full of debates about the role of government
all but the most minarchist people believe that stopping "theft
and fraud" is a legitimate government function.
There are certainly other industries which depend on the police
for their protection. Banks, for one. And the insurance industry
couldn't exist without strong punishment for insurance fraud.
The pharmeceutical industry is likewise dependent on vigorous
enforcement of patent laws: the real cost many drugs is in the
R&D and testing process; often the manufacturing cost is fairly
trivial, and it would be easy to copy if other companies could get
away with it.
:But we also have to ask if it's the industry's responsibility to find
:some solution better than merely asking for the govt to spend billions
:on enforcing their profits. It's also possible to say, you're right,
:but we're not going to spend a lot of tax dollars and chase otherwise
:honest citizens around, there's too large a stupidity factor involved.
There may not BE a solution, or at least one which consumers
would accept. It's easy to say they should do "something"
but on the other hand, anyone who DOES come up with a good
anti-piracy scheme will get disgustingly rich overnight if
it cannot be defeated and is also acceptable to the market.
---Peterbzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (08/21/90)
From: Peter Nelson > But the "moral niceties" are CENTRAL to the issue. Copying com- > mercial software and giving it to our friends either IS or IS NOT > stealing. And we have to decide that issue. If it isn't stealing > then Mr. Shein is certainly correct in decrying the use of public > money to defend these companies. But if it is stealing then these > companies have every right to expect the state to protect them. > Although Usenet is full of debates about the role of government > all but the most minarchist people believe that stopping "theft > and fraud" is a legitimate government function. I am arguing that the mere act of using something that you haven't paid for may be, in the abstract, "stealing", but that does not imply absolutely that the state has an obligation to spend taxpayer's money on the matter. Some analogies for consideration... 1. You have a lovely privet hedge in front of your home. Every morning, on the way to work, I pluck one small leaf off it as I walk by. This irritates the hell out of you, although you would be hard-pressed to even find which leaf is missing (since there are millions of leaves in a privet hedge.) So you call the police and insist that I am stealing that leaf and I should be arrested for stealing your property, you call for a stake-out, investigation, volunteer to press charges etc. What outcome do you realistically expect? 2. You run a private museum with some interesting sculptures in the garden and charge a sizeable admission. My upstairs porch overlooks your sculpture garden. You notice that on weekends my friends and I gather on my porch to have a drink and marvel at all the wonderful sculptures you bring in, at great expense to you, each week. In fact, if some stranger knocks on my door and asks if they can look also I invite them right in and hand them a pair of opera glasses. You call the police and insist that my dozens of friends etc. represent significant lost income to you and we are stealing exactly what you are selling, the opportunity to gaze upon your fine sculpture. What outcome do you realistically expect? So it's not absolute on the surface, unless you can really argue that the above incidents are prosecutable. It's actually quite a matter of situation and the circumstances. At the point that I am "stealing" something not of tangible value (a notion the law recognizes very clearly and strongly, "tangible" value), you are immediately on quite shaky footing and have to pull out all sorts of licensing, copyright etc laws. Even copyright is hardly correct since all those laws tend towards *publishing* of works that are not yours. Making a copy for a friend is not publishing, they stretch the laws to suit their desires. In fact, many violations are limited to some calculation based on income received (not expenses saved!) by publishing a work under copyright, although you can always sue to stop someone from publishing even for free. The law may not be what you hope, some simple set of algorithms, universally applicable to any minutiae that interests you. The law, in fact, is deeply steeped in practicality and considerations of real harms. The law does not generally recognize the claim that I stole your soul with my camera, as appealing as that atavistic fear may be. > There are certainly other industries which depend on the police > for their protection. Banks, for one. And the insurance industry > couldn't exist without strong punishment for insurance fraud. > The pharmeceutical industry is likewise dependent on vigorous > enforcement of patent laws: the real cost many drugs is in the > R&D and testing process; often the manufacturing cost is fairly > trivial, and it would be easy to copy if other companies could get > away with it. Only your last example is relevant, and it's a good one. But the problem is that it's not generally assumed that I will do damage to Pfizer by manufacturing Haldol in my kitchen. The implication is that someone has gone into the business of manufacturing and selling. Again, the issue of degree is critical. In the case of people like the SPA (et al) they are trying to use the police to enforce against what is not a manufacturing or sales distribution at all, but the mere private use of a copy of software. Note: I am not arguing the ethicality of copying software, I am merely wondering if the software industry has created these problems for itself by badly managing their entire industry. Several examples were given earlier in this discussion about analogues like music cassettes where the motivation to buy a $5 blank tape just to copy a $10 music tape is hardly a motivation, thus not that great a problem. Copying a $500 software package by buying $5 worth of floppies seems to be a situation akin to storing diamonds in open containers in front of your house and then demanding the police stand guard lest some crook steal them. Certainly the person who stole them committed a crime, but if the society responds that perhaps you should store your diamonds in some better way is also valid, being as you are obviously fully aware of the problem you are creating. And if you cannot come up with the solution or find it too expensive (but safes cost money!), well, perhaps you are in the wrong business. > There may not BE a solution, or at least one which consumers > would accept. It's easy to say they should do "something" > but on the other hand, anyone who DOES come up with a good > anti-piracy scheme will get disgustingly rich overnight if > it cannot be defeated and is also acceptable to the market. Perhaps there is no solution. So, therefore, we should subsidize the profitability of this industry with billions of tax dollars? I am not so certain, perhaps you are. -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
josh@klaatu.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) (08/21/90)
Barry writes:
Copying a $500 software package by buying $5 worth of floppies seems
to be a situation akin to storing diamonds in open containers in front
of your house and then demanding the police stand guard lest some
crook steal them. Certainly the person who stole them committed a
crime, but if the society responds that perhaps you should store your
diamonds in some better way is also valid, being as you are obviously
fully aware of the problem you are creating. And if you cannot come up
with the solution or find it too expensive (but safes cost money!),
well, perhaps you are in the wrong business.
...
Perhaps there is no solution. So, therefore, we should subsidize the
profitability of this industry with billions of tax dollars?
This, of course, is why the anarchocapitalist scheme is so appealing.
There *are* no tax dollars, and *all* the costs of doing business are
brought out in the price of the good. If the software company had to
pay for its own copy protection both ways, the choice of means would
be simply an economic calculation--as it should be.
Furthermore, the question of property rights in software would *also*
be a matter of economic calculation. The question of property rights
in information is going to become much more serious in the future, as
nanotechnology begins to make matter duplication possible. Without
a straightforward way to define property rights appropriately in a
whole succession of different situations, a holy mess will ensue.
Look as the science fiction stories that deal with the introduction
of the matter duplicator: most of them predict the breakdown of
society in some form. (I'm thinking of one in particular by George O.
Smith--can anyone remember the title?)
So I think software is a test case for the future--of everything!
--JoSHbrad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (08/22/90)
Naturally the police don't enforce all laws or all infractions -- does this have anything to do with the debate on whether the laws are moral or not? It is true, however that if: a) Property is misappropriated b) Real monetary value is involved c) Enforcement is possible at a reasonable cost then it is the duty of the police to protect that property. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
thomas@topaz.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Thomas) (08/27/90)
Brad Templeton writes: >a) Property is misappropriated >b) Real monetary value is involved >c) Enforcement is possible at a reasonable cost >then it is the duty of the police to protect that property. Brad, To some extent this is like asking "How many hostages do we let them take before we go to war?" There are two ethical positions possible. One is the pragmatic view, which you have chosen, and the other is the principled. I think perhaps we spend much to much time thinking of the amount of damage caused and whether it is "worth it" to pursue wrong-doing. I agree with making the punishment fit the crime--so perhaps a tiny crime should result in little more than a harsh word of warning. . .but it definitely should not be ignored as if it didn't happen. Looking the other way is one of the worst ways we can invalidate a principle. The instant we do, we are no longer defending principle, but are rather buttressing up a "grey" or "wishy-washy" set of individual cases. Is it any wonder our legal system is in such a mess? We have been doing this for so many years that it is now almost impossible to distinguish wrong from right--and just about possible to sue anyone over anything and at least have some legal precedent as a leg to stand on. If we are truly looking towards building a better _future_society_ perhaps we should put a greater emphasis on principled and reasoned action. --Pete
robertj@Autodesk.COM (Young Rob Jellinghaus) (08/28/90)
In article <9008210016.AA14566@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >Note: I am not arguing the ethicality of copying software, I am merely >wondering if the software industry has created these problems for >itself by badly managing their entire industry. ... >Copying a $500 software package by buying $5 worth of floppies seems >to be a situation akin to storing diamonds in open containers in front >of your house and then demanding the police stand guard lest some >crook steal them. Certainly the person who stole them committed a >crime, but if the society responds that perhaps you should store your >diamonds in some better way is also valid, being as you are obviously >fully aware of the problem you are creating. And if you cannot come up >with the solution or find it too expensive (but safes cost money!), >well, perhaps you are in the wrong business. Autodesk got bitten badly by the hypocrisy and inherent contradictions of the software market when it attempted to ship a hardware lock with Release 9 (I think) AutoCAD. The lock was designed well, it worked on all but a fraction of machines, and it in general provided a solution to the "open diamond containers" problem. It _worked_. Autodesk removed the lock after suffering a veritable shitstorm of negative publicity, bad dealer relations, and general vilification from the trade press. There was no well-thought-out rationale for the attacks; no one justified the aversion to the hardware lock. Indeed, everyone still decried piracy. But Autodesk was portrayed as a company hostile to users, authoritarian, and generally bad, simply because they were attempting to do the reasonable thing with regard to the problem of piracy! One CPU, one copy of AutoCAD... it doesn't sound so bad, does it? If it _does_ sound bad, can you still claim to be against piracy? (My information on this comes from _The_Autodesk_File_, by John Walker, New Riders Publishing, 1989. I don't have the whole story.) >Perhaps there is no solution. So, therefore, we should subsidize the >profitability of this industry with billions of tax dollars? > >I am not so certain, perhaps you are. No, I'm not certain. I wish there were a way to rewrite the implicit rules of the industry to make hardware locks acceptable... personally, I think CPU IDs are the way to go. Most Unix server software is installed on one particular CPU, and thereafter can't be run on any other. It's a hardware lock, but the user doesn't have to know about it, and it's networkable... hopefully _that_ is the way to go. > -Barry Shein
mwm@DECWRL.DEC.COM (Mike Meyer, Real Amigas have keyboard garages) (08/29/90)
>> Autodesk got bitten badly by the hypocrisy and inherent contradictions of >> the software market when it attempted to ship a hardware lock with Release >> 9 (I think) AutoCAD. The lock was designed well, it worked on all but a >> fraction of machines, and it in general provided a solution to the "open >> diamond containers" problem. It _worked_. There are a number of problems with dongles (generic name for such a creatures). The worst one is that you may have to swap dongles for every program, or you have to have one port for every such program, or there has to be some form of extendion bus. None of these is really satisfactory once you have even a relatively small number of such programs. I'm not sure what you mean by the "open diamond containers" problem. If it's the above, I'd be interested in knowing what the solution was that "_worked_". If it's not the above, then I'd like to know what the problem is, and probably how it was solved. Also how the AutoDesk solution solved the above problem. >> I think CPU IDs are the way to go. That's what looks like the best solution to the first problem. But it leaves the interesting problem that it makes legitimate changes of hardware painful. I've had four different CPUs on my desk in the last three months due to upgrades. If I'd had to wait N weeks for all/most of my commercial software - or even a few critical pieces - after those upgrades, I would have been tempted not to make them. This also means I can't run software protected in such a way both at work and at home (such useage is well within the bounds of the copyright laws), and have to drag my machine anyplace I want to do a demo that needs said software. This can be a real pain in the ass. >> One CPU, one copy of AutoCAD... it doesn't sound so bad, does it? I think I've demonstrated that the real world isn't that simple. There are legitimate reasons for wanting to run one copy on machines other than a specific one. Since copy protection only stops causal copying, and not serious pirates, what's the justification for making users lifes miserable? >> But Autodesk was portrayed as a company hostile >> to users, authoritarian, and generally bad, simply because they were >> attempting to do the reasonable thing with regard to the problem of piracy! Based on what I've seen here, I'd say it was deserved. They apparently took an action that did user no good and caused them noticable pain, just for the bottom line. Sounds "hostile to users and generally bad" to me. They also restricted what users can do under the same conditions. Sounds authoritarian. <mike
clw@volcano.Berkeley.EDU (A Ghost in the Machine) (08/29/90)
In article <4678@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov> thomas@topaz.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Peter Thomas) writes: >Brad Templeton writes: > >a) Property is misappropriated > >b) Real monetary value is involved > >c) Enforcement is possible at a reasonable cost > >then it is the duty of the police to protect that property. > >Brad, >To some extent this is like asking "How many hostages do we let >them take before we go to war?" There are two ethical positions >possible. One is the pragmatic view, which you have chosen, and >the other is the principled. I think perhaps we spend much to >much time thinking of the amount of damage caused and whether it >is "worth it" to pursue wrong-doing. I agree with making the >punishment fit the crime--so perhaps a tiny crime should result >in little more than a harsh word of warning. . .but it >definitely should not be ignored as if it didn't happen. Police departments typically have finite resources, and in large cities are often overloaded. They know they will be unable to respond to a large number of illegal activities, and rather than administering justice on a first-come-first-serve basis, usually choose to concentrate on crimes where real damage is being done (especially where lives are at risk). In many urban settings this response threshold is dangerously high, but while I would support additional funds to increase manpower etc. to lower the threshold, an urban police force with enough resources to pursue minor infringements would be absurdly (and impossibly) large and expensive.
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (08/31/90)
In article <65@autodesk.UUCP> robertj@Autodesk.COM (Young Rob Jellinghaus) writes: > The lock was designed well, it worked on all but a > fraction of machines, and it in general provided a solution to the "open > diamond containers" problem. It _worked_. Except that if *everyone* used dongles you lose big time, as they get in each other's way physically and electrically. The only way to solve the "open diamond containers" problem is for the computer to have some sort of dongle bay. There has to be a standard. It's bad enough dealing with a zillion companies ideas of how TSRs will work. > There was no well-thought-out rationale for the attacks; > no one justified the aversion to the hardware lock. See above. > No, I'm not certain. I wish there were a way to rewrite the implicit > rules of the industry to make hardware locks acceptable... Go back to 1981 and put a dongle bay in the IBM-PC, or have IBM and Compaq come out with a dongle bay. The other solution is to ship software in cartridges. That's actually not a bad idea, but the hardware isn't ready. Imagine, it's 1999. Your computer comes with a bunch of slots which you stick software packages in. Each package contains a complete CPU, ROM, Ram, a multitasking OS, and something like X. When you boot the computer up the Autodesk module opens a little window in the corner of your display (by doing network protocols to the display server) that says "Autodesk Cyberspace". You click it open when you want to use the package. How many copies are running is totally up to Autodesk. You can have modules running UNIX, Windows, OS/2, Apple System 7, AmigaOS, whatever... you don't care. So long as the network protocols are compatible it's OK. The hardware (say, 32 Meg of RAM, 8 Meg of ROM with a file system, and the network interface) costs $20 (in 1990 dollars)... it's in the noise. You can also buy software on disk, but it's generally cheesy stuff... the good stuff is sold in the package for safety's sake. (and you wondered what William Gibson's "ROM CONSTRUCT" was) -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. 'U` peter@ferranti.com