mxmora@unix.SRI.COM (Matt Mora) (06/22/91)
I have a program that is ready for release that will scan hard disks for commercial software. (one to include shareware is already in the works) This program is going to be used by companies to make sure that they have legally purchased all software that their employees are using (or they are making them use). The program is called "SPAudit for the Macintosh" and it will be free from the Software Publishers Association (SPA). I have received from Apple Computer the signature registry database containing all the signatures that have be registered with Apple as of last year. Out of the over 3000 signatures in the database we have chopped it down to to about 950 products. This is probably too many but we had to start somewhere. I would like to know for sure that we have your products in the our database. If you want to make sure that SPAudit will find your software, please let me know the following information. Your company name as you want it to appear in the reports. ie Apple Computer, Inc. The signature and software products name as released by you for each of your software products. ie "SURF" SurfWriter(tm) The program currently will scan for Applications,Inits,Cdevs,Postscript fonts and hypercard stacks. If you would like to try the program first to see if it will find your software or you want to make sure the data is accurate, let me know and I will send you a beta copy of the program. Thanks for listening. Matthew Xavier Mora Developer of SPAudit For The Macintosh P.S. Please no flames about how you hate this program already. If people (or companies) didn't steal software there wouldn't be a need for this program. -- ___________________________________________________________ Matthew Mora | my Mac Matt_Mora@sri.com SRI International | my unix mxmora@unix.sri.com ___________________________________________________________
jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) (06/23/91)
In article <25662@unix.SRI.COM> mxmora@sri-unix.sri.com (Matt Mora) writes: >P.S. Please no flames about how you hate this program already. If >people (or companies) didn't steal software there wouldn't be a need for >this program. First, let me say that I do not believe that copying software that others work hard to write is in any means right. I do, however, believe that the only way to have a reasonable chance of buying the right software for specific needs is to use several competitors for several MONTHS before purchasing one of them. There is only so much that you can learn from calling the companies, asking the net, reading the trade rags, and talking to your local IDIOT computer retailer (any of the ones that I've talked to know less about the fewer pieces of software than your average Mac hobbyist/fanatic/enthusiast). This belief in a need for using software before purchase arises from my past software purchases. Those purchases that I am truly very happy with are ones that I managed to test against the competition for a long period of time before purchase. I hate having to future software needs, having to gamble by not having personal prior experience with all likely candidates. I believe that this gamble is what also has given rise to the near monopolies and mega-companies that we see in the Mac world today. Software is purchased not by its actual value, but by the fact that it's by somebody big and, therefore, can't be too bad. I truly believe that many fewer people would steal software if more products had free demos. I mean demos that work in every respect except, for instance, not allowing saving, printint a "DEMO" across any printouts, and would do a similar thing to its exports if necessary. I know that the logistics could be a bit difficult. If users could find a product that they KNOW they LOVE, though, I believe that they would be much more likely not only to purchase it over its competitors, but to commit money to the package, rather copying it. I also believe that this will allow more packages to thrive in the Mac market. The makers of Nisus and other companies are starting to use demos more extensively to break into stagnant monopolized markets. I think very widespread demo usage could at new vigor Mac software by improving the basis for competition. Anyway... Enough of my ramblings... Jess Holle P.S. I just bought Claris CAD, and it is wonderful.
johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) (06/23/91)
In article <25662@unix.SRI.COM> mxmora@sri-unix.sri.com (Matt Mora) writes: >P.S. Please no flames about how you hate this program already. If >people (or companies) didn't steal software there wouldn't be a need for >this program. Sorry, Matt. This is a flame; and no, I haven't seen SPAudit yet, so it's going to be a flame of the worst sort: biased and uninformed. (This is not personal; it's getting harder and harder to come up with a unique software concept. I do think it's a pity that the muse cursed you with this one.) Some background: "SPA" stands for the "SoftWare Publishers Association". I think it's fair to characterize them as an organization that promotes an "activist" approach to dealing with the problem of software piracy. To be a bit less fair, I would also characterize them as an industry "hit squad" who look after the interests of the big software houses. I don't know who pays their electric bill, but I haven't heard of any small-time developer who has kicked in $$ for SPA. From the description offered by Mr. Mora, SPAudit seems to be software tool designed to facilitate corporate software-witch-hunts. In other words, a convenience for the person whose happy task is to skulk through the office after hours and document the contents of everyone's hard disk for comparison against the corporate 'master list'. Will this put another nickel in the pocket of ANYBODY in the software industry? The answer is no, it will not. But let's take a look at an imaginary scenario, so we can see what is likely to happen, and who is likely to be the beneficiary ( aside from Mr. Mora, of course ). Enter "smilin' Fred". (You know Fred, don't you? The computer support "expert" down in the MIS department who was so helpful when you had that problem getting MacTCP to work with the new network setup? Sure, he was the guy that answered your question by offering to check to make sure that you hadn't "messed up" your CONFIG.SYS file ...). Yeah, that's Fred. He doesn't like Macs, and he hates answering questions about them. (He doesn't get many ... because "Macs aren't for experts, anyway"). But over Fred's objections some misguided upper-management type approved the purchase of a few Macs, and things are getting out of hand. People like these machines, and they like to do things in their own way. Why, just last week he had to fix an AppleTalk problem over in Publications and he noticed that somebody's disk was full of files whose name ended in ".cpt". A few people were clustered around another Mac chuckling at a screen saver with fishes swimming back and forth. Nancy's machine has a folder called "Public" that is full of _unapproved_ software that Fred has never heard of ... and apparently everybody in the office has access to it, but Fred can't remember approving the purchase of a file server. His head is spinning ... is it a virus threat? ... are we going to be sued for having bootleg software? To add insult to injury, one of the _women_ in the office tried to tell him how to fix the network ... and she was right! What can Fred do to regain control of this horrible situation? Well, Mr. Mora, I think we just found you a customer. I could go on with the story about Fred (my apologies to Freds everywhere, by the way) but you already know what Fred is going to do when he finds that ad for "SPAudit" that ran in INFOworld and "controlFREAK Week". ... Well, why not finish the story? Fred buys SPAudit and a few weeks later everybody gets a memo from Fred's boss announcing that from now on the "approved" software list will be enforced; "flagrant offenders" like Nancy (who didn't even know what was in her Public folder) get a list of the illicit software that was found on her machine which BELONGS to XYZ, Inc.... along with a stern warning not to let it happen again. Notice what Fred didn't do: 1) He didn't offer to help the person with the hard disk full of ".cpt" files to get a purchase order approved so that XYZ Corp. could continue to use Bill Goodman's "Compact Pro" legitimately. 2) He didn't offer to buy a work-copy of WriteNow for the office heretic who doesn't like MS Word. (They won't even listen to his protest that he bought the software himself; it's NOT ON THE LIST!) 3) He didn't bother to find out that Nancy's "Public Folder" network was freeware and full of other perfectly legitimate and useful public domain software. So, who benefits from SPAudit ... besides Mr. Mora? Could it be the companies who front the money for SPA? The ones who are on "THE LIST"? I think you know the answer ... -- Bill (johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu) -- 38 Chambers St.; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949
francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) (06/23/91)
In article <56971@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes: >[Very probable scary scenario deleted] >So, who benefits from SPAudit ... besides Mr. Mora? Could it be >the companies who front the money for SPA? The ones who are on >"THE LIST"? I think you know the answer ... So how come he's coming out with a version checking shareware as well? -- /============================================================================\ | Francis Stracke | My opinions are my own. I don't steal them.| | Department of Mathematics |=============================================| | University of Chicago | Should five percent appear too small, | | francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu | Be thankful I don't take it all. "Taxman" | \============================================================================/
m_herodotus@csc32.enet.dec.com (Mario Herodotus) (06/23/91)
-- In article <FRANCIS.91Jun22234440@daisy.uchicago.edu>, francis@zaphod.uchicago.edu (Francis Stracke) writes: > >So how come he's coming out with a version checking shareware as well? > If he was really concerned about piracy he'd release it as public domain. I gotta agree with the previous points...it will make keeping software that is not on his list difficult to keep on your machine, it will need to be updated constantly (more money in Mr. Mora's pocket), it will probably be misused (I loved the Fred story, matter of fact I know Fred!), it will cost money that could be spent to pay for more programs. In a similar vein, have any of you seen the ad for Software Security that's been running in MacWorld? It features "Softy the Porcupine" telling you "Only you can prevent software piracy". The whole thing looks a lot like the Smokey the Bear ads I used to see. Software Security will help you prevent software piracy but they could care less about copying old Smokey's act! Even if they got a license to do it I think that they should have been more creative. It looks to me like they pirated Smokey the Bear. I know it's a stupid complaint but it bugged me. Mario ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I can't afford my own opinions, and DEC won't pay for them either. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mario Herodotus [ CX03 1/K3 ] | m_herodotus@coors.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation | Customer Support Center | - or - m_herodotus%coors.dec@decwrl.dec.com 305 Rockrimmon Blvd. | Colorado Springs, CO 80919 | - or - ...!decwrl!coors.dec.com!m_herodotus | (800) 525-6570 Ext 25520 | - or - CSC32::M_HERODOTUS [direct line (719) 592-5520] | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) (06/24/91)
In article <1991Jun23.011635.19552@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> jess@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Jess M Holle) writes:
I do, however, believe that the only way to have a reasonable
chance of buying the right software for specific needs is to use
several competitors for several MONTHS before purchasing one of
them.
The law, alas, believes otherwise. Having just finished Paul Heckel's
excellent book, The Elements of Friendly Software Design, in which he
discusses his struggles to get his software patents respected, I feel
I can quote (as Mr. Heckel does) from A Man For All Seasons, in which
Sir Thomas More is told that the world interprets his silence as
meaning that he thinks the king's divorce is invalid. More replies,
"The world may construe according to its wit, but the law must
construe according to the law."
There is only so much that you can learn from calling the
companies, asking the net, reading the trade rags, and talking to
your local IDIOT computer retailer (any of the ones that I've
talked to know less about the fewer pieces of software than your
average Mac hobbyist/fanatic/enthusiast).
If you want to "use" or "test" nearly anything else in the world, you
must pay for it first. I would like nothing more than to walk down
the road to my friendly Ford and GM dealers and ask that they each
give me a car for free for, say, 6 months, or at least until I decide
which one I prefer. Then I'll be happy to pay for that one, assuming
I still want a car after all.
This belief in a need for using software before purchase arises
from my past software purchases. Those purchases that I am truly
very happy with are ones that I managed to test against the
competition for a long period of time before purchase. I hate
having to future software needs, having to gamble by not having
personal prior experience with all likely candidates.
I believe that this gamble is what also has given rise to the near
monopolies and mega-companies that we see in the Mac world today.
Software is purchased not by its actual value, but by the fact that
it's by somebody big and, therefore, can't be too bad.
I hate having to gamble too; what does that have to do with it?
Perhaps we should all sneak into movie theaters for free, and only
pay afterward when we know for sure whether the movie was in fact
worth seeing. After all, Hollywood is dominated by big studio and
distribution chains; if people had more choice in the matter and
didn't have to gamble with their $6, why things would be completely
different, wouldn't they? What sort of logic is this? What makes you
think that software -- unlike anything else -- is purchased by the
fact that it's sold by "somebody big"?
Also, the "gambling" of which you speak is actually called, variously,
obeying the law, respecting the work of others, and not deluding
yourself into thinking that just because no one will likely catch you
doing it that what you're doing is right.
You, at least, claim to pay for your software -- though after having
gotten months of free use out of it. Others, who take advantage of
people's work by stealing their products outright (in our industry, we
tend to use the somewhat romantic term "software pirate"; other
industries refer to these people as "shoplifters" or "thieves") are
even worse. It will be they -- not the giant software companies --
who do the most damage to small startup firms and entrepreneurs.
Perhaps this -- and not the "gamble" of which you speak -- is truly
what "has given rise to the near monopolies and mega-companies that we
see in the Mac world today."
Where would all those failed startups be today if everyone who
unfairly and illegally used their products paid for them on time and
in full? Might a few of them still be in business and providing
competition for those "big somebodies" that you so scorn?
One can't have it both ways. If you want innovative software and some
competition for the status quo, don't expect people to work for you
for free. Expect instead that they will ask -- and expect to be paid
-- a reasonable price for their work, and that they would no more
accept it months late than you would your own paycheck.
--
Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart,
Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you."
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com |
cmcl2!esquire!baumgart | - David Lettermanbaumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) (06/24/91)
In article <56971@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes: Some background: "SPA" stands for the "SoftWare Publishers Association". I think it's fair to characterize them as an organization that promotes an "activist" approach to dealing with the problem of software piracy. This "activist" approach is similar to the approach used by store detectives when you walk out the door with an armful of merchandise for which you haven't paid. That's why stores do more than just post signs saying "Please don't steal." To be a bit less fair, I would also characterize them as an industry "hit squad" who look after the interests of the big software houses. I don't know who pays their electric bill, but I haven't heard of any small-time developer who has kicked in $$ for SPA. Have you asked? Or are you making an assumption? Since we're all going to be making assumptions in this discussion, shall I assume that by your disapproval of the SPA you actively support software piracy? Perhaps we shouldn't assume things after all. From the description offered by Mr. Mora, SPAudit seems to be software tool designed to facilitate corporate software-witch-hunts. In other words, a convenience for the person whose happy task is to skulk through the office after hours and document the contents of everyone's hard disk for comparison against the corporate 'master list'. This seems accurate. How else could one tell whether, say, General Motors has purchased one copy of PageMaker and distributed it to every person in their employ. By the way, you don't think that that's right, do you? GM should have to purchase more than just one copy of a program; it's just people like you -- the little folks -- who are exempt, right? Will this put another nickel in the pocket of ANYBODY in the software industry? The answer is no, it will not. What a singularly bizarre answer. How on earth do you arrive at this conclusion? There are two possibilities here: either the illegal softare is deleted or it is paid for. If it is deleted, then yes, no one has made any more money. If not, than your conclusion is wrong. I would suggest to you, however, that if 10,000 employees at GM use PageMaker every day, and GM has in fact purchased only one copy of the program, that Aldus will be receiving a rather large check. But let's take a look at an imaginary scenario, so we can see what is likely to happen, and who is likely to be the beneficiary [...] Enter "smilin' Fred". (You know Fred, don't you? The computer support "expert" down in the MIS department who was so helpful when you had that problem getting MacTCP to work with the new network setup? Sure, he was the guy that answered your question by offering to check to make sure that you hadn't "messed up" your CONFIG.SYS file ...). [rest of scenario deleted] This is a wonderful scenario, but I could come up with one just as wonderful. Let's say that I write some software and register it with the SPA. And let's say that it's so simple, wonderful, and elegant that everyone wants a copy and no one can live without it. Steve Baumgarten's Super Duper MacPeriod, the system extension that automatically types a period for you whenever you end a sentence, takes the Mac community by storm, and it seems that everyone is using it. But no one, it seems, has paid for it. Or at least very few people have. Now that I've spent two years of my life developing this wonderful software, I find myself faced with overdue bills, an angry landlord, and three hungry cats. No fear, I say, the royalties will start rolling in any day now. Surely as soon as people find out how useful Super Duper MacPeriod is, they'll rush right out to the store, plop down a measly $29.95, and I'll be rolling in money. But what happens instead? Well, what happens is that GM buys one copy and installs it on all their Macs. Or let's say they buy one copy, install it on one of their Macs, but then look the other way when all of their employees line up in the hall, blank floppy disks in hand, to take free copies. Now we're at the sad ending. The sad ending is that Steve Baumgarten heads back to that landscaping truck, broke and dejected, while Super Duper MacPeriod simultaneously makes MacUser's 10 Best list and starts appearing on BBS systems in Denmark. How's that scenario? So, who benefits from SPAudit ... besides Mr. Mora? Could it be the companies who front the money for SPA? The ones who are on "THE LIST"? I think you know the answer ... I know the answer; do you? See you on that landscaping truck... -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." baumgart@esquire.dpw.com | cmcl2!esquire!baumgart | - David Letterman
long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) (06/24/91)
In article <BAUMGART.91Jun23150846@esquire.esquire.dpw.com>, baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes...
[about "gambling" on buying software]
I believe people should be able to evaluate software before purchase, or
failing that, have the ability to return unsuitable software.
Software is quite complex these days, and expensive, and before I plunk down
several hundred dollars for a package, I want to be sure it's going to meet my
needs. This is why I am in favor of functional demos, with perhaps "Save"
or "Print" functions disabled.
The example was cited of a car not coming with a trial period. Actually, I
believe that GM (Olds?) _did_ have such a thing for a while! In any event,
many things today come with money-back guarantees; why not software? (I know
some mail-order places have such today--I think it's great!)
This whole thing puts me in mind of the time a friend tried to buy a video
switcher. He tried to ask some pointed questions, and get a demo, and the
salesman said something like "Whaddya want? It switches video!"
Oh well. I think this discussion has veered off the track.
Richard C. Long | long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com | Selfware: If you like
--------------- | ...!decwrl!mcntsh.enet.dec.com!long | this program, send
A First Edition | long%mcntsh.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com | yourself five bucks!peterc@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter Creath) (06/24/91)
Well, I wouldn't have any problem with your argument EXCEPT: Take a look at shareware. You've got workable demos that you can test until you decide to keep it. Then you're supposed to buy it. This system eliminates the SHIT that large corporations are allowed to get away with. (pardon my emphatic adjective) Take a look at, say, a database on the IBM. Some resourceful guy decides to recompile it on the Macintosh and sell it for $500 (the IBM version being $400, but they need the extra $$$ to compensate for the "risk" they took in developing the product for such a limited market). This piece of software has NO mac interface. It's just text, just like the ol' IBM version. Now tell me it's not shafting the customer to do that... Well, to avoid getting royally shafted by large corps (and very few small corps), people will test software before buying it. If the company offered demos, it'd eliminate the legitimate excuse for pirating. If everyone who pirated ended up buying the program they used most, we wouldn't have a problem. Both sides need to give & take. (But Big Business has got the cash to hold its interests) --
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/24/91)
In article <BAUMGART.91Jun23150846@esquire.esquire.dpw.com> baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes: >If you want to "use" or "test" nearly anything else in the world, you >must pay for it first. I would like nothing more than to walk down >the road to my friendly Ford and GM dealers and ask that they each >give me a car for free for, say, 6 months, or at least until I decide >which one I prefer. Then I'll be happy to pay for that one, assuming >I still want a car after all. For the last time (I wish), software and cars are NOT NOT NOT analogous. Software manufacturers EXLICITLY state that the software isn't guaranteed to do anything. If you bought a car, you'd have a FAR better chance at recovering damages from a car manufacturer. There are all sorts of laws covering "lemons" in the car industry, but your best shot at a guarantee when you buy software is a 30-day money back guarantee. It is MUCH easier to find a defect in your car (though not certain, of course) in 30 days that in your software. You could counter with the claim that people can vote with their money, but that simply benefits the big companies. The little companies often live or die on the short-term utility of their products. If people didn't "try before they bought" that product, I'm guessing that some of those companies wouldn't make it. If people bought only software that has been around for some time period equal to the optimum "trial period", it is quite likely that only the big companies could last that long. In spite of the fact that I've seen many sales of software packages based on piracy (theft if you prefer), and I've seen many failures of software packages to live up to even their features lists, let alone marketing claims, software IS being stolen by current definitions. In most industries, the manufacturer has the advantage, in the early history of that industry. It may well be that when regulations are improved and enforced on BOTH sides of the license, what is currently termed "theft" will be merely "trial period" use of the software.
ohland@itsgw.rpi.edu (Matt Ohland) (06/24/91)
In reference to software testing, don't forget that some companies, MacProducts, for one, offer software for lease. Test capabilities and legal software rights at the same time!
nick@cs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) (06/24/91)
In article <25662@unix.SRI.COM>, mxmora@unix.SRI.COM (Matt Mora) writes: > Your company name as you want it to appear in the reports. > ie Apple Computer, Inc. So, the reports are true. Every Macintosh software company in the US is now an Apple subsidiary....! :-) > P.S. Please no flames about how you hate this program already. If > people (or companies) didn't steal software there wouldn't be a need for > this program. No flames, but there are interesting points here. If a company steals software, why should it bother scanning its employees' disks? And, as an employee, would *you* work for a company which insisted on inspecting your Macintosh regularly to see what software you had on it? I don't think I would. Probably not subject material for comp.sys.mac.apps, but I find it interesting anyway. Nick. -- Nick Rothwell, Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh. nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk <Atlantic Ocean>!mcsun!ukc!lfcs!nick ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ <-- WEST VIEWING ROOM EAST VIEWING ROOM -->
gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (06/24/91)
In article <56971@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes: >In article <25662@unix.SRI.COM> mxmora@sri-unix.sri.com (Matt Mora) writes: >>P.S. Please no flames about how you hate this program already. If >>people (or companies) didn't steal software there wouldn't be a need for >>this program. > >Some background: "SPA" stands for the "SoftWare Publishers Association". >I think it's fair to characterize them as an organization that promotes >an "activist" approach to dealing with the problem of software piracy. > >To be a bit less fair, I would also characterize them as an industry >"hit squad" who look after the interests of the big software houses. >I don't know who pays their electric bill, but I haven't heard of any >small-time developer who has kicked in $$ for SPA. Of course, to throw a bit more fuel onto the fire, it is interesting to note how much effort is being put into this "anti-piracy" activism. The major software houses are so very organized and together on this. Sending their teams to major corps to be certain that everything is done just right. It would be nice to see even a -fraction- of that kind of effort put into the creation of consistent, standard, and reasonable licensing schemes for software. 'nuff said. --- Jim Gaynor - AgVAX System Manager - Academic Computing - Ohio State University VMS:<gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> UNIX:<gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Disclaimer : All opinions expressed here are mine and only mine. So there! Witty Quote: "Shoot him now! Shoot him now!" - Daffy Duck, "Rabbit Seasonings"
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) (06/24/91)
In article <0bclf0k@rpi.edu> ohland@itsgw.rpi.edu (Matt Ohland) writes:
In reference to software testing, don't forget that some companies,
MacProducts, for one, offer software for lease. Test capabilities
and legal software rights at the same time!
This is absolutely correct. Then there's MacConnection (and many
other mail-order houses), which let you return software if you decide
that it doesn't meet your needs. And there are Mac dealers who do,
in fact, let you try software before you buy it. Egghead Software
comes to mind, and their prices are nearly as good as mail-order.
The point is not whether "borrowing software" or "taking it for a test
drive" is wrong -- it's not, as long as the software arrived on your
computer through legal means. What bothers me is the thought that Mr.
Mora's software, *because it will help determine whether people have
engaged in the theft of other people's products* is inherently bad.
The "big bad MIS/DP department" argument doesn't wash; you're either
stealing or you aren't.
I should also say that from the point of view of liability, an
employee's reckless disregard of the law and of company policy could
potentially get the company itself into big trouble. Companies don't
like getting into big trouble; they're much happier knowing that they
aren't going to be facing a dozen potential lawsuits by software
houses that discover that their products are being stolen.
If all the "big bad MIS/DP manager" does is take away your stolen
software, be happy; you could well lose your job for putting your
company in such legal jeopardy.
--
Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart,
Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you."
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com |
cmcl2!esquire!baumgart | - David Lettermandorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (06/24/91)
In article <56971@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes: >Fred buys SPAudit and a few weeks later everybody gets a memo >from Fred's boss announcing that from now on the "approved" >software list will be enforced; "flagrant offenders" like Nancy >(who didn't even know what was in her Public folder) get a list >of the illicit software that was found on her machine which BELONGS >to XYZ, Inc.... along with a stern warning not to let it happen again. Bill, you picked a benevolent "Fred". I had one person tell me that his "Fred" actually broke into his office at night and REMOVED software not on the corporate "approved" list. This wasn't pirated stuff, but freeware. Which isn't to say *I* hate this SPAudit thing; I applaud any company's efforts at reducing software piracy. I just hope it doesn't get used for computer fascism (fat chance :-(). -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner
bcarter@claven.idbsu.edu (Bruce Carter) (06/24/91)
In article <0bclf0k@rpi.edu> ohland@itsgw.rpi.edu (Matt Ohland) writes: >In reference to software testing, don't forget that some companies, >MacProducts, for one, offer software for lease. Test capabilities >and legal software rights at the same time! > > I believe that due to a recent federal court decision leasing software is illegal without the consent of the publisher. All of the software rental places around here have closed down due to this ruling. <-> Bruce Carter, Courseware Development Coordinator bcarter@claven.idbsu.edu Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725 duscarte@idbsu.bitnet (This message contains personal opinions only) (208)385-1250@phone
sjhg9320@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (/dev/null ) (06/24/91)
There's a lot to be said for adding your own encrypted partitions to
your office desktop computer...
--
================================================================================
| Return unused portion to creator if not fully satisfied. || ---------------------------------------- |================================================================================cy@dbase.a-t.com (Cy Shuster) (06/25/91)
I always love it when I can post an Actual Fact on the net! We are, of course, members of SPA. We just finished an internal audit on our own software use, on both our Macs and PCs, which resulted in our purchasing a few stray copies of both commercial and shareware software, to match our actual usage. Both of these groups are benefiting directly from the dollars we spent. I sympathize, however, with the original poster who feels the need to try software hands-on before buying. I don't even like demo software, as it's usually restricted in record count, which prevents performance testing on more typical file sizes. My solution is to find someone who has the software in question, and try it on their machine. I find it equally as useful to talk directly with someone who has used the particular package in the real world, as to try it myself. We've moved away from copy protection, which was mostly a pain for legal users, and a trivial challenge for crackers. We're trying to come back to honesty and accountability. Many corporate assests and activities are audited, for good reasons, including hardware, furniture, annual reports, and customer service levels. --Cy-- cy@dbase.a-t.com dBASE IV RunTime PLUS Developer
tgoose@eng.umd.edu (Jason Garms) (06/25/91)
Did I misread the original post in which the author wrote: > The program is called "SPAudit for the Macintosh" and it will be free > from the Software Publishers Association (SPA). So why does Mr Johnston say: > Fred buys SPAudit and a few weeks later everybody gets a memo > from Fred's boss announcing that from now on the "approved" > software list will be enforced; And then Mario Herodotus writes: > If he was really concerned about piracy he'd release it as public > domain. Jason Garms tgoose@eng.umd.edu
dnebing@bgsuvax.UUCP (David Nebinger) (06/25/91)
From article <BAUMGART.91Jun23150846@esquire.esquire.dpw.com>, by baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten): > If you want to "use" or "test" nearly anything else in the world, you > must pay for it first. I would like nothing more than to walk down > the road to my friendly Ford and GM dealers and ask that they each > give me a car for free for, say, 6 months, or at least until I decide > which one I prefer. Then I'll be happy to pay for that one, assuming > I still want a car after all. The dealerships do have a leasing program where you later have the option to buy the said vehicles. There is still a charge for it; but it is considerably lesser than having to buy the car. One can also rent the car one would like to test drive; you are not tied into the lease agreement. It is a lot cheaper to test the car you are considering. And even the dealers will let you kick the tires and go for a short test drive. This last option is free (except for their incessant sales pitch). Why can't this become an option when dealing with the purchase of expensive software? > Perhaps we should all sneak into movie theaters for free, and only > pay afterward when we know for sure whether the movie was in fact > worth seeing. After all, Hollywood is dominated by big studio and > distribution chains; if people had more choice in the matter and > didn't have to gamble with their $6, why things would be completely > different, wouldn't they? What sort of logic is this? What makes you > think that software -- unlike anything else -- is purchased by the > fact that it's sold by "somebody big"? But Hollywood goes above and beyond to push their new movies. You can always see the previews to coming attractions; not just still lifes of the characters, but actual footage from the film. Another way Hollywood makes more from a movie is to sell it on video cassette so you can go down to your local video store and rent the movie to watch at your leisure; then if you really like it and want to add it to your collection, you can go out and buy it knowing what you are going to get in advance. > Also, the "gambling" of which you speak is actually called, variously, > obeying the law, respecting the work of others, and not deluding > yourself into thinking that just because no one will likely catch you > doing it that what you're doing is right. More people than just the software vendors have to deal with copyright protection-examples are video tapes, record albums, etc. The copyright protection laws are simply hard to enforce. I think they are just, however. People do enjoy the ability to try something before buying it. It saves them from making an uneducated guess about the purchase they wish to make. The balance is, at this point, more towards the giants in the software industry-if it would shift towards the market buyers a little more, the software piracy would probably decrease. I think that a better marketing strategy of the distribution of demo versions of a software product would give the buyer a chance to "kick the tires" before the purchase so that they would not feel the need to pirate the software to do test it. Just my opinion, David Nebinger dnebing@opie.bgsu.edu
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (06/25/91)
In article <25662@unix.SRI.COM> mxmora@sri-unix.sri.com (Matt Mora) writes: > >I have received from Apple Computer the signature registry database containing >all the signatures that have be registered with Apple as of last year. Huh? I thought that the registry was confidential. That's what it says in Apple's Developer Q&A stack.
price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu (John Price) (06/25/91)
In article <1991Jun24.024712.25346@Sugar.NeoSoft.com>, peterc@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter Creath) writes: >...If the company offered demos, it'd eliminate the legitimate >excuse for pirating. Now there's a, shall we say, *interesting* point of view. Are there also legitimate excuses for armed robbery, rape, and murder? OK, that was out of line. However, that doesn't change the fact that there are *no* "legitimate" excuses for software piracy. I can understand why some people pirate software - it's too expensive. Way too expensive in many cases. Understanding, however, doesn't imply condoning. It's still wrong. John Price * * * * price@uclapp.physics.ucla.edu Where there is no solution, there is no problem.
mxmora@unix.SRI.COM (Matt Mora) (06/25/91)
In article <56971@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes: > >To be a bit less fair, I would also characterize them as an industry >"hit squad" who look after the interests of the big software houses. >I don't know who pays their electric bill, but I haven't heard of any >small-time developer who has kicked in $$ for SPA. Small time developers might not pay to be in SPA but ther software is included in the database to be scanned. >From the description offered by Mr. Mora, SPAudit seems to be software >tool designed to facilitate corporate software-witch-hunts. In other >words, a convenience for the person whose happy task is to skulk through >the office after hours and document the contents of everyone's hard disk >for comparison against the corporate 'master list'. That is up to the company and not to SPA. The way SPA is told about a company using illegal software is mostly from disgruntled employees finking on there previous employers. A lot of the companies that are audited are computer dealers that load up a hard disk to make a sell. >Will this put another nickel in the pocket of ANYBODY in the software >industry? The answer is no, it will not. But let's take a look at >an imaginary scenario, so we can see what is likely to happen, and who >is likely to be the beneficiary ( aside from Mr. Mora, of course ). Well for I or SRI for that matter did not get paid a cent to make this program for SPA. It was a "Public Service" donated to SPA by SRI. I think if SPA audits a company and they are found to be in the wrong, The fee is the suggested retail price of the software product * the number found. Also the cost of the product again if they want to keep it. Lets say a company bought 10 copies of Disk Doubler but is using it on 100 machines. Spaudit finds the 100 copies and the company can only prove they bought 10. 90 unlicensed copies * $69.96 = $6295.50. That would be the penalty fee that the company would pay. If they wanted to keep the software then they would pay $6295.50 to Salient software. Llyod and Terry sure would benefit then. This is just a senario, the actual settlement would of course be worked out between SPA and the companies attornees. Keep in mind that the company would probably pay any amount than to have the case brought to court. That benefits the software developer I beleive. Most cases are settled out of court because the company will not want to be known as a "Software Pirate". I don't know where the fee goes, I guess in SPA's greedy little pockets. >Yeah, that's Fred. He doesn't like Macs, and he hates answering >questions about them. (He doesn't get many ... because "Macs aren't >for experts, anyway"). But over Fred's objections some misguided >upper-management type approved the purchase of a few Macs, and things >are getting out of hand. People like these machines, and they like to >do things in their own way. Why, just last week he had to fix an >AppleTalk problem over in Publications and he noticed that somebody's >disk was full of files whose name ended in ".cpt". A few people were The company should get rid of Fred but that's another subject. >Well, Mr. Mora, I think we just found you a customer. Again, SPAudit is free. >Fred buys SPAudit and a few weeks later everybody gets a memo >from Fred's boss announcing that from now on the "approved" >software list will be enforced; "flagrant offenders" like Nancy >(who didn't even know what was in her Public folder) get a list >of the illicit software that was found on her machine which BELONGS >to XYZ, Inc.... along with a stern warning not to let it happen again. SPA can't do anything about company policies. Companies can run there business any way they want. They shouldn't use illegally obtained software though. >Notice what Fred didn't do: >1) He didn't offer to help the person with the hard disk full of >".cpt" files to get a purchase order approved so that XYZ Corp. >could continue to use Bill Goodman's "Compact Pro" legitimately. Well for one, SPAudit doesn't scan for shareware. And your are going to love this, SPAudit will have the capablility to scan INSIDE archives.(a future version) (i.e Disk Doubler,Compactor and Stuffit) Spaudit does not look at files to see what made them and then determine that they must be using 'xyz' because that's the creator signature of the file. It looks for the type APPL and then see if its sig is in the database. Also, if Nancy uses Compactor then either she (or her company) should pay Bill or don't use his software. Its that simple. >2) He didn't offer to buy a work-copy of WriteNow for the office >heretic who doesn't like MS Word. (They won't even listen to his >protest that he bought the software himself; it's NOT ON THE LIST!) Our Auditors at SRI will take any of the three forms of proof-of-purchase. Orignal disk(s),Original Manual(s) or a purchase order/petty cash receipt. Any of the three qualify as proof. If the company policy is to use word then the office heretic should use word or find other employment. Again this has nothing to do with Spaudit. >3) He didn't bother to find out that Nancy's "Public Folder" >network was freeware and full of other perfectly legitimate and >useful public domain software. Spaudit ingores shareware and freeware so Fred would never know that the software is on Nancy's hard disk. >So, who benefits from SPAudit ... besides Mr. Mora? Could it be >the companies who front the money for SPA? The ones who are on >"THE LIST"? I think you know the answer ... Software developers will benefit. Even the little guy. Unfortunatly I will not benefit unless the Software developers are SO happy that SPAudit is finding their software, they will shower me with gratitude checks. :-) Matt -- ___________________________________________________________ Matthew Mora | my Mac Matt_Mora@sri.com SRI International | my unix mxmora@unix.sri.com ___________________________________________________________
mxmora@unix.SRI.COM (Matt Mora) (06/25/91)
In article <1991Jun24.174956.18544@convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes: > >Huh? I thought that the registry was confidential. That's what it says >in Apple's Developer Q&A stack. It is confidential. SPA had to pull teeth to get the list from Apple. It also came with a bunch of warnings,threats and disclaimers. I guess it shows how much pull SPA realy has in the software industry. p.s. Actually I think Apple is a little embarassed about the database because it is in such bad shape. They told me that they are improving it though. -- ___________________________________________________________ Matthew Mora | my Mac Matt_Mora@sri.com SRI International | my unix mxmora@unix.sri.com ___________________________________________________________
johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) (06/25/91)
In article <1991Jun24.173711.17946@eng.umd.edu>, tgoose@eng.umd.edu (Jason Garms) writes... >Did I misread the original post in which the author wrote: >> The program is called "SPAudit for the Macintosh" and it will be free >> from the Software Publishers Association (SPA). > >So why does Mr Johnston say: >> Fred buys SPAudit and a few weeks later everybody gets a memo >> from Fred's boss announcing that from now on the "approved" >> software list will be enforced; > >And then Mario Herodotus writes: >> If he was really concerned about piracy he'd release it as public >> domain. I can't speak for Mario, but that Johnston guy is clearly an idiot. In his defense, remember that his article began as follows: >>Sorry, Matt. This is a flame; and no, I haven't seen SPAudit yet, >>so it's going to be a flame of the worst sort: biased and uninformed. Thus, my question "So, who benefits from SPAudit ... besides Mr. Mora? warrants a public apology. My story had Fred "buying" a copy of SPAudit, so I can't get away with pointing out that freeware projects are frequently undertaken with 'advertise-ware' motives. ;-) Several points are unclear from Matt's follow-up: Regarding the TYPE/CREATOR code registry: >It is confidential. SPA had to pull teeth to get the list from Apple. >It also came with a bunch of warnings,threats and disclaimers. >I guess it shows how much pull SPA realy has in the software industry. How this information is currently used: >It looks for the type APPL and then see if its sig is in the database. [ ... freeware and shareware apps are ignored ...] A future enhancement: >SPAudit will have the capablility to scan INSIDE archives.(a future >version) (i.e Disk Doubler,Compactor and Stuffit) My question is this: what happens next? If SPAudit looks only for files with type APPL and creator ???? where "????" is listed in the database (and the author of ???? gives his/her permission for SPA to search for ????) ... then I guess we can't complain. But look at Matt's version of the Fred scenario: >The way SPA is told about a company using illegal software is mostly from >disgruntled employees finking on there previous employers. >Lets say a company bought 10 copies of Disk Doubler but is using it on 100 >machines. Spaudit finds the 100 copies and the company can only prove they >bought 10. 90 unlicensed copies * $69.96 = $6295.50. That would be the >penalty fee that the company would pay. According to who? This is not a law, this is the SPA threatening to sue the company for an amount dictated by SPA policy. Furthermore, the SPA auditor only got his foot into the door by threatening to make public the accusations of a "disgruntled employee". THIS IS A WITCH-HUNT! Think about this for a minute. A private organization calls your company. Fred answers the phone. Remember Fred? >The company should get rid of Fred but that's another subject. Sorry, but Fred is the president's nephew. How else would a knee-biter like Fred get a job with your company. This is Fred's job, so Fred answers the phone. SPA> We have reason to believe that your company pirates commercial SPA> software. If you don't let us come to your facility to audit SPA> all your software, we'll [ insert suitable threat here ]. Now, SPA only has the word of this "disgruntled employee", so the available range of threats is limited. But Fred's main aim is to cover his ass, so it doesn't take much to intimidate him. A few conference calls later -- SPA gets its way. They find 100 copies of DiskDoubler -- and only 10 are licensed. Now what? >If they wanted to keep the software then they would pay >$6295.50 to Salient software. Llyod and Terry sure >would benefit then. Maybe Salient gets some fraction of this. Fred's boss decided to settle out of court, and SPA is realistic -- maybe Fred's company will challenge their star witness "Mr. Disgruntled" if the case goes to court. >I don't know where the fee goes, I guess in SPA's greedy little pockets. So part of the money goes to SPA, to cover costs. Probably a large part, if lawyers are involved. The other thing that happens is that Fred gets chewed out for costing his company $6295.50. It's his job to prevent this from happening. Does Fred take all the blame himself? No way! So who does Fred blame? Mr. Disgruntled? Probably. The department head who didn't keep track of DiskDoubler? That too. Salient? Definitely. That's where the money went. And Fred had to write the letter apologizing officially to Lloyd and Terry. Does this make Fred say "Gee, we had 100 copies of DiskDoubler, and I only authorized ten?" This program must be great! Let's buy more! No. The first thing Fred does is ask where he can buy some software that will 1) prevent copying 2) prevent unauthorized applications from working 3) give Fred back his "control". Fred doesn't know diddly about the Mac, so he buys the most pain-in-the-ass program that he can find. Lloyd and Terry lose out completely, by the way. Fred won't even sign the upgrade requests -- DiskDoubler is "too hard to police". It's "that program that gave us so much trouble in the past". In conclusion, if I were one of the "Companies and Developers ... (pls read)" -- and I do intend to be one of them someday -- I would look very carefully at the SPA proposal before endorsing this approach to the piracy problem. -- Bill Johnston (johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu) "Don't lend your hand to raise no flag, atop no ship of fools." -- Robert Hunter
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) (06/25/91)
In article <51087@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes:
In spite of the fact that I've seen many sales of software packages
based on piracy (theft if you prefer), and I've seen many failures
of software packages to live up to even their features lists, let
alone marketing claims, software IS being stolen by current
definitions. In most industries, the manufacturer has the
advantage, in the early history of that industry. It may well be
that when regulations are improved and enforced on BOTH sides of
the license, what is currently termed "theft" will be merely "trial
period" use of the software.
Perhaps, but I doubt it. Software houses don't make money by
encouraging people to use their software without paying for it. A
better idea would be for companies to produce demo versions of their
software and make them available for people to "test drive".
However, the point is not what we would like in the future; the point
is what people are doing right now, and whether that is right or
wrong.
By the way, I look forward to taking Spike Lee's "Jungle Fever" for a
"test view" tonight. Most critics have praised it, but there's really
no way of knowing whether it's worth paying for until you've actually
seen it, right?
--
Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart,
Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you."
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com |
cmcl2!esquire!baumgart | - David Lettermanohland@aix01.aix.rpi.edu (Matt Ohland) (06/25/91)
In article <1991Jun24.152341.26567@guinness.idbsu.edu> bcarter@claven.idbsu.edu (Bruce Carter) writes: >In article <0bclf0k@rpi.edu> ohland@itsgw.rpi.edu (Matt Ohland) writes: >>In reference to software testing, don't forget that some companies, >>MacProducts, for one, offer software for lease. Test capabilities >>and legal software rights at the same time! >> >> >I believe that due to a recent federal court decision leasing software is >illegal without the consent of the publisher. All of the software rental >places around here have closed down due to this ruling. > <-> >Bruce Carter, Courseware Development Coordinator bcarter@claven.idbsu.edu >Boise State University, Boise, ID 83725 duscarte@idbsu.bitnet >(This message contains personal opinions only) (208)385-1250@phone Correct, but realize that some software companies do consent. Check the MacProducts ad in the back of a MacUser, etc. I'm sure there are restrictions as to who may lease, but it's something. ---Matt Ohland---RPI---graduate student---ohland@mts.rpi.edu---
brooksj@is-next.umd.edu (Joanne Brooks) (06/25/91)
In article <13111@skye.cs.ed.ac.uk> nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk writes: > but there are interesting points here. If a company steals software, >why should it bother scanning its employees' disks? And, as an employee, would >*you* work for a company which insisted on inspecting your Macintosh regularly >to see what software you had on it? I don't think I would. What if company XYZ was stealing Mac/PC software, and when "Fred" kept trying to get the upper management to 'legalize' the company, all "Fred" got was fired for his efforts? This definitely dosen't belong in c.s.m.apps. Followups to this line to misc.jobs.misc > Nick. later daze... jojo -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Joanne Brooks |Internet: brooksj@is-next.umd.edu "Oh give me a home where the buffalo roam, | brooksj@syrinx.umd.edu and the death of a race is a game..." |**********************************
mxmora@unix.SRI.COM (Matt Mora) (06/25/91)
In article <BAUMGART.91Jun24163618@info7.esquire.dpw.com> baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes: >By the way, I look forward to taking Spike Lee's "Jungle Fever" for a >"test view" tonight. Most critics have praised it, but there's really >no way of knowing whether it's worth paying for until you've actually >seen it, right? I seen an article in one of those TV magazine shows where an owner of a theater in japan has a "test view" system. You don't pay until AFTER you see the movie! Its a neat concept and the owner said that he was doing better that he expected. He said he was surprised to see how honest most people are. (well in Japan anyway :-)) -- ___________________________________________________________ Matthew Mora | my Mac Matt_Mora@sri.com SRI International | my unix mxmora@unix.sri.com ___________________________________________________________
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (06/25/91)
In article <BAUMGART.91Jun24163618@info7.esquire.dpw.com> baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes: >However, the point is not what we would like in the future; the point >is what people are doing right now, and whether that is right or >wrong. Ah. You define right and wrong by whatever laws are in effect at a given time. >By the way, I look forward to taking Spike Lee's "Jungle Fever" for a >"test view" tonight. Most critics have praised it, but there's really >no way of knowing whether it's worth paying for until you've actually >seen it, right? Folks keep trying to come up with good analogies and continue to fail. Unless you plan on seeing that tape for several hundred hours and in some cases stake aspects of your business on the outcome of viewing that tape, the two situations don't compare. It is much easier for me to find others whose judgment in movies I trust than it is people with computing needs EXACTLY like mine. Software packages go through MANY beta-test/hours of evaluation and still slip through. In many cases, the risk of using a software package, and the investment of time in learning it outweigh by far the cost of the package. Magazine reviews and the opinions of "experts" are often worth less than using the software for a short time even in a store. I own several pieces of software with major problems that I would not have found without using it first. I was stupid enough to purchase the software, I am sorry to say. I have several pieces of software for my department sitting on shelves, useless because of incompatibilities. I suppose you would have considered it right that in years past, sawdust was sold as sausage? I am constantly reminding management that software MUST be purchased, and I show them the SPA "raid" articles in the computer rags. Where is the complementary action on the part of software manufacturers to ensure the quality of software? I am getting very tired of software acquisition being a crap shoot and having many companies leech off that pool.
ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) (06/25/91)
In article <57090@nigel.ee.udel.edu> johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes: >I can't speak for Mario, but that Johnston guy is clearly an idiot. I'll buy that. ;-] >THIS IS A WITCH-HUNT! Think about this for a minute. A private >organization calls your company. Fred answers the phone. Remember Fred? > >>The company should get rid of Fred but that's another subject. > >Sorry, but Fred is the president's nephew. How else would a >knee-biter like Fred get a job with your company. This is Fred's job, >so Fred answers the phone. [ another wild Fred story deleted ] Whew! Where the heck does Bill Johnston get this stuff? If corporate North America is really run this way, it is no wonder the Japanese are kicking our buts. Seriously, though, it is possible to take just about any management or accounting tool and create a nightmare scenario. It is also possible to take almost any job description (such as poor Fred's) and create a monster (ie: the janitor from hell who restricts you to one square of toilet paper per "bowel movement"). No doubt there are situations such as that described by Bill, but the number of companies who hire Freds is a distinct minority, and they soon go out of business because of poor management. Like any tool, SPAudit can be used internally for good or ill. Bill seems to confuse the tool with the user (this sounds like a NRA argument for guns, doesn't it?). `ps' on unix systems can be used to find out what employees are playing "hack", for instance. ======================================================================== On the other hand, Fred may be getting kind of a bad rap here. After all, his job is often fundamentally at odds with the people who want to play around with their computer. Among other things, Fred is supposed to: - Ensure compatibility between programs (ie: file exchange). - Support users with help and problem solving. - Protect the network from viruses and unstable programs. - Protect the company from litigation due to illegal software usage. Often, these conflict with the users' preferences. But a company has every right to decide the way it wants its equipment to be used. Imagine if every postal worker was allowed to customize his delivery vehicle with whatever modifications he/she wished. It may indeed improve that person's performance, but what a nightmare if the vehicle starts running poorly, or breaks down. Maybe that experimental (beta) feul injection is conflicting with the standard turbo (I wish! Maybe I'd get my mail faster). What happens if a different employee has to use that vehicle for a while. That joystick steering mechanism may be a bit of a problem. And what happens when the truck can't pull up to the loading bay and receive mail bags from the automated loader because the suspension has been lowered too much? What about when the customized part explodes and burns all the important mail? Compound the above with the fact that many of these customizing parts are stolen. What a nightmare. If I were the Postal Mechanic, I sure as heck would be tearing out those puppies. Of course, if a customization were useful, reliable, and compatible, I might just standardize on it, or make it available to everyone. (Mind you, I'd still fire Fred and find someone who's not such a wad.) ======================================================================== However, I am pretty much on Bill's side on the issue of the SPA knocking on your door. This sounds a bit like a vigilante group to me, and it should probably be regulated. Sounds like a job the legal system should be pursuing. Mind you, if anybody knocked on my door and said that I better let them search my place or they would advertise that my ex-girlfriend said I had pirated video tapes, I would sue their asses off for extortion. If they did publish the info, I would sue their asses off for defemation. Then let them try and prove they had anything better than heresay evidence that their allegations were true (even if they are). If neither of the above hold up, I'm sure my lawyer can come up with a few other cases to protect my civil liberties. Note that for the *police* to get a search warrant, a judge has to rule that they have just cause. I would be surprised indeed if a court would look favorably upon a private corporation making such a similar decision on its own. Note that I would refuse the SPA permission to search my premises ON PRINCIPLE. Otherwise, I could have the MPA ("Music Protection Agency") in to search for audio tapes, the VPA ("Video...") for video cassettes, BPA ("Book...") for photocopies, etc. All based on letters from the same "disgruntled girlfriend". The potential for harrassment is enormous. (Women - can't live with them; can't shoot them :-) ;-) ;-] ). Eric Standard disclaimers apply. -- ========================================================================== Eric Mitchell | "We're Screwed!!!" Ph. 604-278-3411 Fax. 604-278-2936 | email !uunet!van-bc!mdavcr!ewm | - Spaced Invaders. or ewm%mda.ca@wimsey.bc.ca | or ewm@mda.ca | ==========================================================================
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) (06/25/91)
In article <51145@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes:
Ah. You define right and wrong by whatever laws are in effect at a
given time.
Again, it's not my definition that matters; only the applicable law
makes any difference. You may disagree with it, or wish it were
otherwise, but you have to abide by it or accept the consequences.
Your license with Software Company XYZ states how the software you
have licensed may be used. If you use it otherwise, you leave
yourself open to a civil suit. At trial, you'll of course be free to
make all the arguments you wish about why you didn't feel you had to
abide by your agreement, but I suspect that none of that will hold
much water with the judge.
There was a story not long ago about the Disney corporation suing a
preschool over their use of Disney characters on the walls of the
school. The Disney characters were not properly licensed (i.e., they
were not bought from a vendor who had licensed the characters), and
Disney is rabid in its desire not to lose control of its copyrights.
Were they right to sue the school? That's one question. Did they
have the force of civil law on their side? That's quite another.
In these situations, however, that question is the only one that
matters.
I own several pieces of software with major problems that I would
not have found without using it first. I was stupid enough to
purchase the software, I am sorry to say. I have several pieces of
software for my department sitting on shelves, useless because of
incompatibilities.
People also buy cars that break down after 3 months; lemon laws are
only now coming into existence, but then usually only for used cars.
Again, this argument doesn't refute my point: that "borrowing"
software is in violation of most software license agreements.
Companies simply cannot afford to leave themselves open to civil suits
because their employees have no respect for the legal agreements into
which their companies have entered.
This is why Mr. Mora's tool is a good thing. If your company is not
in violation of the license agreements that cover the software it is
using, no problem. If it is, then it's best that the company find out
about it itself, rather than waiting for a disgruntled employee to go
tell Aldus that his company is using 10,000 copies of PageMaker but
has only paid for one.
I suppose you would have considered it right that in years past,
sawdust was sold as sausage?
Right and wrong have nothing to do with it; it's simply a matter of
adhering to the legal agreements into which you (or your company) have
entered. If you don't like the terms of the agreement, renegotiate
it, or deal with another vendor. Our company regularly renegotiates
agreements so that we can have site licenses for our software. In
fact, we generally won't buy software unless we can have a site
license.
I am constantly reminding management that software MUST be
purchased, and I show them the SPA "raid" articles in the computer
rags. Where is the complementary action on the part of software
manufacturers to ensure the quality of software?
No one is getting "raided". What's happening is that SPA is inquiring
about whether a particular company is in violation of one or more of
its license agreements; presumably they were given information in
these cases that that is the case. Of course, the company is free to
tell the SPA to take a hike, but if the company isn't sure that it is,
in fact, adhering to the license agreements into which it entered, it
is leaving itself open for legal trouble aplenty. No company wants
that, and no good employee wants that for his or her company.
I am getting very tired of software acquisition being a crap shoot
and having many companies leech off that pool.
As am I. Lots of vendors make samples available; lots of companies
allow you to return software if you don't like it. We recently
purchased two copies of the excellent NFS/Share direct from Intercon
(for use on two of our Macs). Although the information wasn't
initially volunteered, after I asked the sales rep I was told that our
company could return the software within 30 days if we weren't
satisfied. We've not needed to do that, but it just goes to show you
that not every company is run like Microsoft.
I'm getting very tired, though, of people who justify their laziness
and their contempt for other people's work by making sweeping
generalizations about the what the terrible effects of adhering to
the agreements that a company enters into will be.
You may wish the world of software retailing were different than it
is, and that preschool may wish that the world of copyright law were
different than it is, but for now it isn't. Until it is, I think
people should stop trying to justify their behavior by blaming their
own legal lapses on others.
At the very least they should own up to their own behavior. As it
stands, the arguments I've seen in this group boil down to those of
the shoplifter or the person who sneaks into the movies without
paying: "Well, I can't afford to buy it, so it's not like they're
losing a sale? And what does it matter if I see the movie for free?
If I didn't there'd just be one more empty seat in the theater, since
I'm certainly not going to pay good money to see a film if I don't
even know if it's worth seeing."
--
Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart,
Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you."
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com |
cmcl2!esquire!baumgart | - David Lettermanbaumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) (06/25/91)
In article <1810@mdavcr.UUCP> ewm@mdavcr.UUCP (Eric W. Mitchell) writes:
Mind you, if anybody knocked on my door and said that I better
let them search my place or they would advertise that my ex-girlfriend
said I had pirated video tapes, I would sue their
asses off for extortion. If they did publish the info, I would sue
their asses off for defemation. Then let them try and prove they had
anything better than heresay evidence that their allegations were
true (even if they are).
You know that the recording industry is trying just as hard as they
can to get Congress to impose a "blank tape tax" on cassettes of all
kinds? That's because they know that people flagrantly violate their
copyrights with total impunity, and that this is the norm rather than
the exception. So they want to be compensated for the revenue they
(and their artists) are losing.
I don't agree with this myself, but if it passes (and when the DCC is
introduced, I'd bet money that it will), they no longer have to search
your home, since in their minds you're already guilty.
Saves time and court costs, at least...
--
Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart,
Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you."
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com |
cmcl2!esquire!baumgart | - David Lettermanpeterc@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter Creath) (06/25/91)
Allow me to clarify. IF companies offered demos or money-back satisfaction guarantees, the excuse for pirace would no longer be understandable. I should have put the "legitimate" in quotes. Although, would YOU want to buy a $1000 CAD program with no information? I think not. --
edgar@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun25.164556.9703@Sugar.NeoSoft.com> peterc@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter Creath) writes: >would YOU want to buy a $1000 CAD program with no information? I wonder...if nobody bought the program (with no information), and nobody pirated the program, what would happen? -- Gerald A. Edgar Internet: edgar@mps.ohio-state.edu Department of Mathematics Bitnet: EDGAR@OHSTPY The Ohio State University telephone: 614-292-0395 (Office) Columbus, OH 43210 -292-4975 (Math. Dept.) -292-1479 (Dept. Fax)
long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) (06/26/91)
In article <BAUMGART.91Jun24163618@info7.esquire.dpw.com>, baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes... >By the way, I look forward to taking Spike Lee's "Jungle Fever" for a >"test view" tonight. Most critics have praised it, but there's really >no way of knowing whether it's worth paying for until you've actually >seen it, right? That's right. If you didn't like it, though, you won't have wasted several hundred dollars. It's an inappropriate comparison. Movies are entertainment. Software can be essential, and very hard to characterize. For example, you could say that you like action-adventure movies. It's probably a good bet that you will like "Terminator 2: Judgment Day". Calling both Word and WordPerfect "word processors", and saying it is a tossup as to which to buy is wrong. They both do similar things, but in very different ways. Then there is the whole issue of environment. What if you buy a package that won't run with some system extension that is absolutely critical to you? I think functional demos are absolutely essential for software. Richard C. Long | long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com | Selfware: If you like --------------- | ...!decwrl!mcntsh.enet.dec.com!long | this program, send A First Edition | long%mcntsh.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com | yourself five bucks!
cy@dbase.a-t.com (Cy Shuster) (06/26/91)
In article <51145@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >Folks keep trying to come up with good analogies and continue to fail. Unless >you plan on seeing that tape for several hundred hours and in some cases >stake aspects of your business on the outcome of viewing that tape, the >two situations don't compare. > >I am getting very tired of software acquisition being a crap shoot and having >many companies leech off that pool. OK, I'll try an analogy: how do you evaluate your hardware? --Cy-- cy@dbase.a-t.com
johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun25.192619.9070@zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu>, edgar@function.mps.ohio-state.edu (Gerald Edgar) writes... >In article <1991Jun25.164556.9703@Sugar.NeoSoft.com> peterc@Sugar.NeoSoft.com (Peter Creath) writes: > >>would YOU want to buy a $1000 CAD program with no information? > >I wonder...if nobody bought the program (with no information), and nobody >pirated the program, what would happen? What would probably happen is that the author look around and find that the most successful and popular software companies around have been fairly liberal with their policies. Forgive me for belaboring this. No Fred story this time. No legal department will admit it, but 80% registration rate on a big distribution base is a hell of a lot better way to make money on in the software business than hiring SPA to catch the few people that have even heard of the hypothetical $1000 CAD program with the lousy docs and no money-back guarantee. You only need to look at the companies that have succeeded and those who haven't to see that this is so. Sure, alot of companies fold and blame pirates. But how many people were using their stuff? System changes and the ever-advancing state of the art has kept my software registration status current. If a company doesn't keep pace with the times, they get dumped. If they don't offer upgrades at prices that make it worth my while, then goodbye you-know-who! (Well, that's what I wish that I had done. I was too curious not to buy the Excel upgrade.) The commercial software on my hard disk is paid for and for the most part I have chosen the types that use the "personalize" feature in lieu of copy protection. In some cases, though, like MIDI software, I've purchased copy-protected stuff when it was clearly the best tool for the job. But I'll be damned if I am going to post an armed guard at the door on the off-chance that the janitor is masquerading as a software pirate. Guess my IP number if you want to steal your software instead of paying for it. I occasionally login with NCSA Telnet, and when I do, I sure as hell don't bother to set an ftp password. It is not difficult to pirate software, and it never will be, because the burden imposed on the honest will always outweigh the complexity needed to foil the pirate. The notion that a software company will make few extra bucks by getting companies to audit is typical of what happens to a company when it is driven by its bean-counters and legal department, instead of being driven by the excellence of its engineering. Every now and then, a political candidate starts spewing blather about how his/her new tax program will refill the coffers of the treasury by catching tax-evaders and making them pay up. This never adds a nickel to the treasury; what is does do is add another gazillion pages to the tax code and make honest folks miserable. And making honest folks miserable is THE ONLY THING that SPAudit is likely to accomplish. Even Fred agrees, after a few beers. -- Bill (johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu)
gurgle@well.sf.ca.us (Pete Gontier) (06/26/91)
johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes: >In article <25662@unix.SRI.COM> mxmora@sri-unix.sri.com (Matt Mora) writes: >>P.S. Please no flames about how you hate this program already. If >>people (or companies) didn't steal software there wouldn't be a need for >>this program. >Sorry, Matt. This is a flame; and no, I haven't seen SPAudit yet, >so it's going to be a flame of the worst sort: biased and uninformed. Matt's mistake here was to include a case for his position. He could have said "please leave me alone; I'm doing this regardless of what you say, because I'm under contract." Eveidently, the expression of his real opinion on the matter was just too much for you. >To be a bit less fair, I would also characterize them as an industry >"hit squad" who look after the interests of the big software houses. >I don't know who pays their electric bill, but I haven't heard of any >small-time developer who has kicked in $$ for SPA. If you're not going to be fair, why present this opinion at all? (By the way, we're one of the smallest developers I know of, and we've certainly paid our dues to the SPA.) >From the description offered by Mr. Mora, SPAudit seems to be software >tool designed to facilitate corporate software-witch-hunts. In other >words, a convenience for the person whose happy task is to skulk through >the office after hours and document the contents of everyone's hard disk >for comparison against the corporate 'master list'. If you had read a bit more carefully, you'd see that that's not what it is at all. It's not an exclusionary list. It doesn't find things that aren't on the list and complain. It finds things that ARE on the list. If you're running Microsoft Word, and your witch-hunter can't find a license for you, he tells you to stop. However, if you're running Joe Idiot's Buggy Window Toy, 'BWT ' is not going to set off alarms. >Will this put another nickel in the pocket of ANYBODY in the software >industry? The answer is no, it will not. I don't know if it will or not. But you certainly haven't presented a case either way here. > [most of scenario deleted] >His head is spinning ... is it a virus threat? ... are we going to >be sued for having bootleg software? To add insult to injury, >one of the _women_ in the office tried to tell him how to fix the >network ... and she was right! What can Fred do to regain control >of this horrible situation? He can get himself fired, that's what. This guy is obviously a panic- ridden imbecile. Not only will he not last long in his job, but he's a fantasy. MIS guys are pure evil, granted. They're on species complexity chart somewhere between consultants and vertebrates. But this guy goes way too far. >Fred buys SPAudit and a few weeks later everybody gets a memo >from Fred's boss announcing that from now on the "approved" >software list will be enforced... These guys obviously didn't read the manual. Their SPAudit list is not exhaustive. If they feel a need to pretend that it is, then Nancy needs to go to Fred's boss and tell him exactly why Fred is incompetent. If Fred's boss won't listen, it's time for Nancy to look for another job, because this is likely only a symptom of what a rotten place to work she's got. > [more examples of just how incompetent Fred is] Any information is a weapon in the hands of an incompetent DOS wirehead. Idiots like this can manage amazing things. They can specify that the monitor run at a certain scan rate supported by monitors made only by IBM. This guy is not only incompetent, he's malicious -- what principle does he illustrate? >So, who benefits from SPAudit ... besides Mr. Mora? Could it be >the companies who front the money for SPA? The ones who are on >"THE LIST"? I think you know the answer ... And a mighty innocuous one it is, at that. Of *course* the SPA members benefit. Shouldn't they? Or should they just give software away? OK, you're right, I think I'll go on welfare. By the way, your taxes will be going up next year. -- Pete Gontier, gurgle@well.sf.ca.us Software Imagineer, Kiwi Software, Inc.
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) (06/26/91)
In article <5354@ryn.mro4.dec.com> long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) writes:
That's right. If you didn't like it, though, you won't have wasted
several hundred dollars. It's an inappropriate comparison. Movies
are entertainment. Software can be essential, and very hard to
characterize.
For example, you could say that you like action-adventure movies.
It's probably a good bet that you will like "Terminator 2:
Judgment Day". Calling both Word and WordPerfect "word
processors", and saying it is a tossup as to which to buy is
wrong. They both do similar things, but in very different ways.
You're aiding my argument here, and the analogy is a valid one.
Assume for a moment that we're talking about After Dark -- a non
"essential" piece of software if there ever was one -- and assume for
a moment that instead of $20 (or whatever it costs), that it costs $6
this week (Berkeley Software's running a sale). Now how's my analogy
looking?
Back to the movies: assume we're talking about seeing Terminator 2 or
Robocop 2. Both are action films, so they're at least as similar as
Word and WordPerfect are. At least with software you can, in fact,
preview it on someone else's machine. Can't do that with the movies,
so perhaps sneaking in to a theater and paying only after, say, 90
minutes is more supportable.
Then there is the whole issue of environment. What if you buy a
package that won't run with some system extension that is
absolutely critical to you?
I think functional demos are absolutely essential for software.
And I agree. But you can what if your "what if"s until the cows come
home. It doesn't change the fact that making use of someone else's
work without paying for it is both legally and ethically wrong.
If you feel you need more information about a product, there are
myriad sources available to you, from magazines to user groups, from
friends to dealers (Egghead Software will happily demo anything for
you). MacConnection (and other mailorder houses) will let you return
most software within 30 to 90 days if it doesn't meet your needs or if
you are unhappy with it.
What more could you want? How then can pirating software still be
considered ethically correct (I'll put aside the legal argument for
the moment)?
(By the way, please don't take this (or previous messages) as flames
or personal attacks; as a software developer myself -- and one who
works in a law firm -- I'm very interested in people's attitudes and
beliefs about this issue. On the other hand, this newsgroup may not
be the most appropriate place for this discussion any more...)
--
Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart,
Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you."
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com |
cmcl2!esquire!baumgart | - David LettermanRick_McCormack@mindlink.bc.ca (Rick McCormack) (06/26/91)
SPAudit by Mr. Mora will serve a useful purpose within many companies, and may even help the "lowly" worker in getting the programs s/he needs. i worked as an audio-visual technician in a large engineering organization. We created many multi-image, multi-media presentations which relied on a musical "bed" created from discs of licensed public domain recordings. I filled out a licensing form, listing the music used, its intended purpose and estimated audience. We calculated the fee, and submitted it to CAPAC, the Canadian musical rights police :-). Because groups like CAPAC existed, and because they were agressive in hunting down non-fee-payers, I was in a good position to ask for and receive accesss to the types of music I needed to create the kind of shows my employees wanted. I was also able to withstand some pressure from my immediate boss to "fudge" the reports to save money and to put together "quickies" that reflected poorly on our department--or at least to let them exist beyond the _one time only_ use they were supposedly made for. Mr. Mora's program isn't a "search and destroy" type of thing; it is an auditing tool to assist in determining which programs are being used, so that honest companies can enable their employees to have the needed tools to do their jobs. And if "Fred" is intent on using it to punish wayward employees, then "Fred" better start reading some management books to find out why he has been stuck with this lousy job for the past 14 years and why his career has been stalled! -- _________________________________________________________ | IMAGISTICS Business Theatre Technology | Rick McCormack | | Interactive Effective Compelling | Vancouver, BC | |________________________________________|________________| | UseNet: Rick_McCormack@mindlink.uucp | A O-L: Rique | |_________________________________________________________| .
mxmora@unix.SRI.COM (Matt Mora) (06/27/91)
In article <BAUMGART.91Jun25233314@esquire.esquire.dpw.com> baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes: > >Back to the movies: assume we're talking about seeing Terminator 2 or >Robocop 2. Both are action films, so they're at least as similar as >Word and WordPerfect are. At least with software you can, in fact, >preview it on someone else's machine. Can't do that with the movies, >so perhaps sneaking in to a theater and paying only after, say, 90 >minutes is more supportable. What a great idea. Maybe they should bring intermission back to the movies. You get to see the first part of the movie for free. If after intermission you want to see the end, then you pay to see the last half of the movie. I guess this doesn't belong here so I'll stop now. Matt -- ___________________________________________________________ Matthew Mora | my Mac Matt_Mora@sri.com SRI International | my unix mxmora@unix.sri.com ___________________________________________________________
gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu (06/27/91)
In article <BAUMGART.91Jun24163618@info7.esquire.dpw.com>, baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes: >By the way, I look forward to taking Spike Lee's "Jungle Fever" for a >"test view" tonight. Most critics have praised it, but there's really >no way of knowing whether it's worth paying for until you've actually >seen it, right? This analogy does not apply. Software is a tool. It is used (in most cases) numerous times in order to assist the user(s) in completion of one task or another. The ultimate measure of any piece of software is how well this "meta-task" is completed - how useful the software is in task completion. A movie is a consumable. Like food, beverages, and amusement park rides, it is an end unto itself (in most situations). One may expect certain standards, such as properly functioning projection equipment, but if the movie is not to your liking, then that is that. Food is similar. You may request reimbursement if the food is not properly prepared, or if the service is below par, but if you discover you don't like Clams A La Mode, that is a risk you took. You are purchasing a sensory experience - not a tool. Of course, some software falls into the "consumable" category. Games and screen savers, perhaps. <grin> But most software (word processors, spreadsheets, programming environments, communications) falls into the "tool" category. As such, the potential user should employ all ethical means possible to determine the appropriateness of the tool for the task at hand before purchasing the tool. --- Jim Gaynor - AgVAX System Manager - Academic Computing - Ohio State University VMS:<gaynor@agvax2.ag.ohio-state.edu> UNIX:<gaynor@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Disclaimer : All opinions expressed here are mine and only mine. So there! Witty Quote: "Shoot him now! Shoot him now!" - Daffy Duck, "Rabbit Seasonings"
long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) (06/27/91)
In article <BAUMGART.91Jun25233314@esquire.esquire.dpw.com>, baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes... >In article <5354@ryn.mro4.dec.com> long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com, I wrote: >> That's right. If you didn't like it, though, you won't have wasted >> several hundred dollars. It's an inappropriate comparison. Movies >> are entertainment. Software can be essential, and very hard to >> characterize. >You're aiding my argument here, and the analogy is a valid one. >Assume for a moment that we're talking about After Dark -- a non >"essential" piece of software if there ever was one -- and assume for >a moment that instead of $20 (or whatever it costs), that it costs $6 >this week (Berkeley Software's running a sale). Now how's my analogy >looking? Fine. I would probably spend the $6 to give it a shot. I have bought software sight unseen, when it was a good deal. For example, I just bought the Taste/Ultrapaint bundle for $79. I didn't know Taste from a hole in the wall, but wanted Ultrapaint anyway, and the price warranted the risk. I'm thinking more of expensive, "productivity-oriented," software. >If you feel you need more information about a product, there are >myriad sources available to you, from magazines to user groups, from Helpful, but not good enough. There is no substitute for hands-on use of a piece of software. >MacConnection (and other mailorder houses) will let you return >most software within 30 to 90 days if it doesn't meet your needs or if >you are unhappy with it. This is WONDERFUL. It's why I patronize MacConnection almost exclusively, and I'm happy to say I haven't had to make use of the return policy very often. >What more could you want? How then can pirating software still be >considered ethically correct (I'll put aside the legal argument for >the moment)? Nothing, really. It (money-back guarantee) eliminates the standard excuse for software piracy. But it's probably inconvenient for mail-order houses like the 'connection to support those returns. It makes much more sense for the companies to make demos available through the Net, user groups, etc. This is how I decided I didn't like Nisus, thus saving the hassle of ordering it and then returning it. It would also be great if software companies took some responsibility in their licence agreements, instead of disclaiming everything! Richard C. Long | long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com | Selfware: If you like --------------- | ...!decwrl!mcntsh.enet.dec.com!long | this program, send A First Edition | long%mcntsh.dec@decwrl.enet.dec.com | yourself five bucks!
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) (06/27/91)
In article <25809@unix.SRI.COM> mxmora@unix.SRI.COM (Matt Mora) writes:
What a great idea. Maybe they should bring intermission back to the
movies. You get to see the first part of the movie for free. If after
intermission you want to see the end, then you pay to see the last
half of the movie.
At the very least, it would give Hollywood and the Writers Guild some
incentive to write decent endings... :-)
I guess this doesn't belong here so I'll stop now.
I think you're right, though it's been an interesting discussion thus
far.
--
Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart,
Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you."
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com |
cmcl2!esquire!baumgart | - David Lettermanmspolin@george.lbl.gov (Mathew Spolin [summer intern]) (06/27/91)
SPA = Software Profiteers Association
mspolin@george.lbl.gov (Mathew Spolin [summer intern]) (06/27/91)
The notion of any type of software needing to be "registered" with any large, faceless organization (like the SPA) is ridiculous. Software is, after all, intellectual property. If I publish a newspaper, do I need to register it with Mr. Mora? If my software is "unregistered," will his facist program delete it?
ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (06/27/91)
< There's a lot to be said for adding your own encrypted partitions to < your office desktop computer... And what happens when you are sick for a few days, and your boss needs to have someone take over some rush project you were working on, and that person comes back and reports to the boss that he can't get the files because they are on an encrypted partition? I'm not saying you shouldn't have an encrypted personal partition on your disk. Just make sure that your boss knows about it, and don't keep company stuff on that partition, and make sure that the boss knows that you don't keep company stuff there. Tim Smith
ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (06/27/91)
< Spaudit does not look at files to see what made them and then determine that I think you should reconsider on this point. It could be very useful to know what applications are creating documents. Remember, many applications can read the documents of their competitors, so you can get situations where the software is mismatched to the needs of the company. Person A might make a document and give it to person B, who uses a different application to read it. We then end up with person B having documents not produced by any application on B's machine. A company might want to track this to find out what applications are actually used for producing new documents. For example, if 10% of the staff writes documents, and they use MacWrite, and the other 90% only reads them, but they use Word, then the company is wasting a lot of money on the more expensive Word for features that they don't need. A report on document creators could alert them to this, allowing them to make future purchasing decisions more wisely. < If the company policy is to use word then the office heretic should < use word or find other employment. Again this has nothing to do with Spaudit. I use FullWrite Professional and then save the document in a form that Word can read. This way I get to use the software I prefer, but the rest of the company gets documents in the form that they want. Tim Smith
ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (06/27/91)
< The notion of any type of software needing to be "registered" with any < large, faceless organization (like the SPA) is ridiculous. Software is, < after all, intellectual property. < < If I publish a newspaper, do I need to register it with Mr. Mora? If my < software is "unregistered," will his facist program delete it? Why would you be running Mr. Mora's program? Don't you already know what software you use? It will be companies that will run Mr. Mora's program, because they will want to know what software is being used at their company. Let's take a hypothetical example. A company buys a database and installs it on a machine that is used to track orders. Someone in QC sees it and decides that it would be cool for tracking bug reports, so they copy it over the network to their machine and write a QC database. This spreads through the QC department. An engineer sees it and decides this could be nice for keeping track of books in the company engineering library, so he makes a copy and writes a nifty library management system. Soon we have a dozen copies and no one even realizes that most of them are not legitimate. Somehow word of this gets back to the database vendor. The company now receives a note from the legal department of the database vendor, shows this note to their lawyers, and is told that they have made a major boo-boo and should give in to any demands of the database vendor. Oops. Companies strongly dislike receiving notes from the legal departments of other companies. They even more strongly dislike receiving such notes and then finding out that it does not matter that they did not know that their employees were copying this software -- they are still responsible. Do you object to a company trying to find out what software it is using? Tim Smith
johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) (06/28/91)
In article <6512@mindlink.bc.ca>, Rick_McCormack@mindlink.bc.ca (Rick McCormack) writes... >SPAudit by Mr. Mora will serve a useful purpose within many companies, and may >even help the "lowly" worker in getting the programs s/he needs. i worked as Of course, anything is possible, but there are many better ways to ask your organization to fork over to buy the right tool. This was a nice example, but it's a little far-fetched. The employee with the bootleg program is going to go to the supervisor and suggest that they better buy the bootleg because somebody might conduct a SPAudit? It seems to me that this puts an administrator in the position of resorting to a stern "We don't engage in software piracy."-lecture, at best. This might even make it more difficult to request the software through legitimate channels. Speaking as one who has often gone to great lengths to promote the Macintosh and to recommend particular software packages, I don't find any of the "silver-lining" scenarios offered in defense of auditing to be very convincing. I may be a "faith-in-human-nature" extremist: in 1986 I decided that I couldn't without a Mac at work so I lugged mine into the lab where it sat unmolested in an unlocked room for about six months, logging experimental data with registered copies of Scott Watson's Red Ryder and Don Brown's "MockChart". Mine wasn't the first Mac at work, but people liked what they saw from the Mac-using minority and now the whole Engineering department is Mac-based. The IIcis running LabView make my Red Ryder/RS-232 data-logging setup look like a toy. It's easy to forget the engineering and customer service values that make your product successful when someone drops a memo on your desk claiming that they've discovered that X% of the copies of your latest program are unpaid for ... it sounds like free money, and by all means it is justifiably yours. Still, it doesn't always benefit one's business in the long run to try to soak up every last dime. Include a "personalization" feature and display the username and the registration number in a splash-screen at start-up. That's easy enough. Use copy-protection if you feel that people won't be able to resist pirating. The sort of people who are inconsiderate enough to steal a personalized copy and use it won't stop pirating even if they are caught by a SPAudit. They'll run from floppies ... and use their bit-copiers to grab the CP stuff. >Mr. Mora's program isn't a "search and destroy" type of thing; it is an >auditing tool to assist in determining which programs are being used, so that That's true, and moreover, it only looks for programs that are on the SPA list. No messing with your copy of Adventure or those PD utilities that you can't live without, but can't explain to Fred, either. It's far better for somebody like Matt to write a SPAudit than a person with less concern about privacy rights. He seems to have done the best that one possibly could with a a nasty job. Nevertheless, I respectfully disagree with Pete Gontier of Kiwi Software who wrote to endorse SPAudit from the perspective of the small developer. In my experience, audits lead to approved lists, and approved lists hurt the little guy. Sometimes the list even prevents you from buying the Mac in the first place. The alternative is for SPA to stick to advertisments reminding people that software is intellectual property which must be paid for according to the terms set by it's owner. Those ads are constructive and deserve our support. These audits -- whether initiated by the honest employee or by the accusation of the disgruntled employee -- just create ill will and an atmosphere of mistrust that will hurt the industry more than it will help. It's easier to sell 100 new copies of a program by satisfying customers than it is to catch a hundred pirates and sue for damages. SPA will do what it damn well pleases, to suit the wishes of the companies that pay dues and make contributions. If you are a company and don't want to see SPA increasing the "auditing" and legal side of their operation, please consider withholding your contribution to SPA. If you are a systems administrator or Macintosh-buyer, please make your opinions known. I am convinced that this move will do little but increase the size of the SPA legal staff, which will inevitably sop up most of their self-legislated penalty fees. Bureaucracy never shrinks of its own accord; some would argue that bureaucrats and lawyers occur spontaneously whereever there is money to be made from human conflict. Please, let's not make this any easier for them. Invest in creating better software, and beware the pencil-pusher who tells you that he can make more money for you without extra work. They are either misguided or have something to gain out of it themselves ... or BOTH at the same time. -- Bill (johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu)
mxmora@unix.SRI.COM (Matt Mora) (06/28/91)
In article <14728@dog.ee.lbl.gov> mspolin@george.lbl.gov (Mathew Spolin [summer intern]) writes: >If I publish a newspaper, do I need to register it with Mr. Mora? If my >software is "unregistered," will his facist program delete it? Actualy the "facist" program does three things: 1) Once it finds the the "unregistered" program not only does it delete it, it also marks the blocks as bad blocks so you lose use of that much of your hard disk until you reformat the drive. 2) It also installs a init code resource in to the system file that prevents you from trying to re-copy the "unregistered" program back on to your hard disk. 3) This is the one that took the most time to implement but I am very proud of. The program installs a VBL task that when triggered from the code in the system file detecting you trying to copy on to your hard disk a "unregistered" program, the VBL task diverts the output from the flyback transformer down the ADB bus and gives you a High Voltage shock if you are holding the mouse. This of course comes with some compatability problems, but I felt the benefits of zapping that determined user far outway the cost. I can't do much about your newspaper except try to introduce a virus into your computer system. If this article needs smilely's then we are in BIG trouble. Disclaimer: I do not speak for SRI International or SPA in any way shape or form. -- ___________________________________________________________ Matthew Mora | my Mac Matt_Mora@sri.com SRI International | my unix mxmora@unix.sri.com ___________________________________________________________
coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) (06/28/91)
[Newsgroups widened to other groups that might be interested] ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes: >< There's a lot to be said for adding your own encrypted partitions to >< your office desktop computer... >And what happens when you are sick for a few days, and your boss needs >to have someone take over some rush project you were working on, and >that person comes back and reports to the boss that he can't get the >files because they are on an encrypted partition? And what happens when you are sick for a few days and the essential documents are locked in your desk instead of your computer? Court rulings (to my understanding) indicate that employers cannot search your desk without due process; I think the same should apply to your computer (note: not a legal expert; my understanding could be wrong). A different horror story no one has (quite) mentioned: Suppose our Fred is a real jerk, a complete kneebiter, who hates the company and is about to be fired anyway. Fred really doesn't like the company much at all, so he goes out and pirates 5 or 10 high-prices packages and throws them madly onto every workstation he can find. The next day he's fired. So he calls the SPA and tells them "Hey, XYZ Inc. has hundreds of pirated copies of the following 15 packages." The SPA descends and, indeed, finds the pirated programs. Now, these are all $250 packages, and there are (let's say) 50 that survived people noticing and deleting them. That's $12,500 Fred just cost his former employer (remember, he hates them, so he's dancing in the street about now). What's the moral of the story? Framing someone of software piracy, especially on a "we found one copy, so it must be deliberate piracy" basis, is way too easy. Organizations like the SPA should _always_ allow their victims the option of deleting the unlicensed programs with no fee or other payment or of paying the vendor the appropriate payment. Without such an option, the SPA is just a glorified protection racket; more on the up-and-up than the similar mafia operation, but not so much more that it makes a real difference. There's no analogy, here, to sneaking into a movie (I can't be framed for that; I either snuck in or not), stealing more conventional items of property (too easily traced; thief is to blame, not the company; owner notices the loss, etc), or any other common sort of frame. Software (and data in general) is much more easily forged than physical property. Of course, you say, the company could audit _every day_ and find Fred's malicious programs before the SPA did. Au contraire! Fred is a clever jerk, and he changes the type and creator fields of package XYZ to match public domain package ABC. But (clever fiend) he tells the SPA about the changes, claiming that it's just more evidence that his former company is an unrepentant bunch of pirating swine. In other words, Mr. Mora's program isn't the demon here (necessarily), nor is it the savior. It's just another tool for the protection racket, just like the guns and knives, which aren't evil in themselves, that the mafia use. There's plenty of good that the SPA can do in the world --- don't get me wrong. Faced with the choice of paying for useful programs or deleting them, many companies will pay. But as long as there's some fee to be paid whether or not the company involved deletes the offending program, it's much too easy for the SPA to abuse its power, intentionally or not. --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) Copyright 1991 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.
dnebing@bgsuvax.UUCP (David Nebinger) (06/28/91)
From article <BAUMGART.91Jun25122503@info7.esquire.dpw.com>, by baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten): > > I don't agree with this myself, but if it passes (and when the DCC is > introduced, I'd bet money that it will), they no longer have to search > your home, since in their minds you're already guilty. > So much for being innocent until proven guilty... David Nebinger dnebing@andy.bgsu.edu
jon@weber.ucsd.edu (Jon Matousek) (06/28/91)
In article <5363@ryn.mro4.dec.com> long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) writes: >... >... > It would also be great if software companies took some responsibility in > their licence agreements, instead of disclaiming everything! I agree with the above statement. Unfortunately the disclaimers are driven by lawyers, not the moral desire of a software company. To counter the disclaimers, Paragon places bugs, especially crashing or corrupting bugs, at the top of its agenda. I've seen Nisus burn off a couple of maintenance revs in short order, just because crashing bugs were discovered. On the same subject, but a slightly different perspective, it should be realized that beta testers will not catch everything. No matter how hard you try to find all of the bugs, there will always be some that slip by. Nisus must pass through beta testers, hours running a random "monkey" macro, and a macro that test major features. It is truely difficult to find all of the bugs in a program that contains several hundred thousand lines of source code. With this in mind, it is my personal opinion that the end user needs to realize that he/she has a responsibility to report problems (or ideas) about software they are using to the developers of the software. This is because software is a fluid medium, it is forever being improved upon. -jOn -------------------------------------------------------------------------- %% SoftwareEngineer: jOn mAtOUsEk; Internet: jon@weber.ucsd.edu %% Bitnet: jmatousek@ucsd Paragon Concepts, Inc. AppleLink: D0405 990 Highland Drive, #312 Solana Beach, Ca. 92075 Voice: (619)481-1477 USA FAX: (619)481-6154 ==========================================================================
dnebing@bgsuvax.UUCP (David Nebinger) (06/28/91)
From article <5363@ryn.mro4.dec.com>, by long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long): > >>MacConnection (and other mailorder houses) will let you return >>most software within 30 to 90 days if it doesn't meet your needs or if >>you are unhappy with it. > > This is WONDERFUL. It's why I patronize MacConnection almost exclusively, and > I'm happy to say I haven't had to make use of the return policy very often. > >>What more could you want? How then can pirating software still be >>considered ethically correct (I'll put aside the legal argument for >>the moment)? > > Nothing, really. It (money-back guarantee) eliminates the standard excuse for > software piracy. But it's probably inconvenient for mail-order houses like > the 'connection to support those returns. The idea of a return policy is not reserved to just software. It is used in lots of mail-order scenarios used to trap people into a purchase. When a purchase is made, the option to send the item back is there-the companies will refund money if an item is returned. But the secret here is that most people, when something is purchased and they do not like it, will _not_ take the time to bundle it up and return it. This is a fact that the mail-order companies could tell you but don't. Studies done prove such things. People consider it to be a learning experience and just eat the loss. I know that it is slightly different when dealing with software, but the idea is the same. I am glad to see that the money-back guarantee is offered; it will save some people some money. But it would be simpler to put a demo together and put it out where people can get their hands on it. It is also a better advertisement than some picture of the program and a list of features put into some magazine. People would get to work with the program and decide if it does do what they want it to do, therefore making an informed purchase. David Nebinger dnebing@andy.bgsu.edu
dnebing@bgsuvax.UUCP (David Nebinger) (06/28/91)
From article <43742@cup.portal.com>, by ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith): > < Spaudit does not look at files to see what made them and then determine that > > I think you should reconsider on this point. It could be very useful > to know what applications are creating documents. Remember, many > applications can read the documents of their competitors, so you can > get situations where the software is mismatched to the needs of the > company. Person A might make a document and give it to person B, who > uses a different application to read it. We then end up with person B > having documents not produced by any application on B's machine. > This is also a possible work-around. _If_ (this is purely theoretical and does not represent my situation or any that I might know of) I were to pirate software, it might be possible to get around the audit by using ResEdit (or another similar appl) to change the creator and the type of the document. When I wanted to use such an application, I'd just have to change them back. This just shows that there are holes in SPAudit that can be worked around if someone wants to pirate something. It may have other holes in it also. People have described using an encrypted partition on their hard drive to keep such items. SPAudit may look like a good answer from the outside, but upon closer examination, it can be bypassed just like other protection schemes. David Nebinger dnebing@andy.bgsu.edu
pillera@etd4260a.erim.org (Joe Pillera) (06/28/91)
Does this software also notify the THOUGHT POLICE if it finds a
program it doesn't like?
-Joe
--
-----
Joe Pillera ERIM
Research Scientist Image Processing Systems Division
pillera@erim.org P.O. Box 8618
(313) 994-1200 x2754 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107-8618
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are solely those of Joe Pillera,
and not of ERIM or its affiliates.coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) (06/29/91)
jon@weber.ucsd.edu (Jon Matousek) writes: >In article <5363@ryn.mro4.dec.com> long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) writes: >> It would also be great if software companies took some responsibility in >> their licence agreements, instead of disclaiming everything! >On the same subject, but a slightly different perspective, it should be >realized that beta testers will not catch everything. No matter how hard >you try to find all of the bugs, there will always be some that slip by. >Nisus must pass through beta testers, hours running a random "monkey" >macro, and a macro that test major features. It is truely difficult to >find all of the bugs in a program that contains several hundred thousand >lines of source code. All this is about as much justification for the current state of license agreements as the price of software is for software piracy. I enjoy the "benefits" of the current situation to some extent (being a programmer) but I wish that it would end. Certainly other hypercomplex systems manufacturers do not disclaim responsibility for their products anywhere near as vigorously as the software business does. Can you imagine Boeing telling customers that the 747 is "sold as is" and is not warranteed for fitness for any purpose (including flying)? With many license agreements I've seen, the company could hand you a blank disk and meet their side of the bargain. >With this in mind, it is my personal opinion that the end user needs to >realize that he/she has a responsibility to report problems (or ideas) about >software they are using to the developers of the software. This is >because software is a fluid medium, it is forever being improved upon. This is certainly true. However, vendors in turn have a responsibility to respond to bug reports and issue fixes in a timely manner. Upgrades which fix bugs should be free or media-cost-only (hey --- I _paid_ for a program to do x. If it can't do x because of a bug, then the bug fix should be part of what I paid for in the first place). Some vendors actually follow such a policy; many do not. There are clear problems with giving too much responsibility to the software vendor, but the current system often places far too little on them. --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) Copyright 1991 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.