jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) (03/14/91)
I am interested in cracking a game of mine. But first, a disclaimer: I AM NOT PIRATING SOFTWARE!!! I HAVE LEGAL SOFTWARE COMPLETELY ON MY SYSTEM (well, actually, one program isn't, but it's just unregistered shareware). I am interested in this information for piracy reasons, since I am a programmer and understand the problems of piracy! Anyway, I was wondering, I have LHX which requires the word look up method of copy protection, however, this has become an annoyance since LHX does not allow multiple fliers....so if you die, that's it. However, LHX.CFG can be copied and saved for archival purposes.] Now, I use a REST and SAVE bat file, and everytime I advance a lot I exit and SAVE, then rerun the game and continue...but constantly looking up stuff is REAL annoying. This applies even more to Dynamix's new game, SU-25, which has a horrid word look up scheme (it uses Russian!) So, if you know how I can crack a game like this, please let me know....I am not interested in patches, etc. since I have a legal copy and I am doing this for a learning experience.... I use Borland C++ 2.0, Tasm 2.0, TDebugger 2.5.... Brian PS LHX was written in MSC...
everett@hpcvra.cv.hp.com. (Everett Kaser) (03/19/91)
jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) / 6:09 pm Mar 13, 1991 / >I AM NOT PIRATING SOFTWARE!!! I HAVE LEGAL SOFTWARE COMPLETELY ON MY >SYSTEM (well, actually, one program isn't, but it's just unregistered >shareware). I am interested in this information for piracy reasons, since >I am a programmer and understand the problems of piracy! "just unregistered shareware" ^^^^ So, "unregistered shareware" isn't piracy, huh? It's attitudes like this that that cause "commercial" packages to put anti-piracy code into their games that cause you the irritation of constantly looking up keywords in the documents. It's attitudes like these that cause me, "just" a shareware author, irritation at pirates like you. "Unregistered shareware", when used beyond the test period, IS PIRACY. Everett Kaser Hewlett-Packard Company ...hplabs!hp-pcd!everett work: (503) 750-3569 Corvallis, Oregon everett%hpcvra@hplabs.hp.com home: (503) 928-5259 Albany, Oregon
glenn@welch.jhu.edu (Glenn M. Mason) (03/19/91)
In article <31600014@hpcvra.cv.hp.com.> everett@hpcvra.cv.hp.com. (Everett Kaser) writes: > > jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) / 6:09 pm Mar 13, 1991 / >>I AM NOT PIRATING SOFTWARE!!! I HAVE LEGAL SOFTWARE COMPLETELY ON MY >>SYSTEM (well, actually, one program isn't, but it's just unregistered >>shareware). I am interested in this information for piracy reasons, since >>I am a programmer and understand the problems of piracy! > >"just unregistered shareware" > ^^^^ >So, "unregistered shareware" isn't piracy, huh? It's attitudes like this that >that cause "commercial" packages to put anti-piracy code into their games that >cause you the irritation of constantly looking up keywords in the documents. > >It's attitudes like these that cause me, "just" a shareware author, irritation >at pirates like you. "Unregistered shareware", when used beyond the test ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Did the original poster ever say that he/she has or hasn't used the shareware beyond the test period? or even used it at all for that case? Who the hell does this idiot think he is? Why don't you get some of the facts before you bite someone's head of like that? Glenn
rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (03/19/91)
In article <31600014@hpcvra.cv.hp.com.> everett@hpcvra.cv.hp.com. (Everett Kaser) writes: >It's attitudes like these that cause me, "just" a shareware author, irritation >at pirates like you. "Unregistered shareware", when used beyond the test >period, IS PIRACY. Don't you love all the requests for "something that works just like (some commercial software package), but shareware," when you know damned well what they mean is "something I don't have to pay for, and that I don't have to be a member of a pirate board to download."
s902114@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au (Zen) (03/19/91)
jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes:
:-)stuff is REAL annoying. This applies even more to Dynamix's new game,
:-)SU-25, which has a horrid word look up scheme (it uses Russian!)
:-)So, if you know how I can crack a game like this, please let me know....I
:-)am not interested in patches, etc. since I have a legal copy and I am doing
:-)this for a learning experience....
Here! Here! A friend of mine has had a similar experience with Teenage Mutant
Ninja Turtles. It is a great game for his young kids to play, but when a
six/seven year old has to type in a horrendously long number from a manual,
it gets a bit frustrating.
--
_____ Two elephants fell off a cliff. Boom Boom.
// // __ //
// / \ I\ I for a good time call //
// (-- I \I alias s902114@minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au //
// \__/ I I Stuart Bishop or zen@phoenix.pub.uu.oz.au //
((___________________________________________________________________//
--
_____ Two elephants fell off a cliff. Boom Boom.
// // __ //bakke@plains.NoDak.edu (Jeffrey P. Bakke) (03/19/91)
In article <31600014@hpcvra.cv.hp.com.> everett@hpcvra.cv.hp.com. (Everett Kaser) writes: > > jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) / 6:09 pm Mar 13, 1991 / >>I AM NOT PIRATING SOFTWARE!!! I HAVE LEGAL SOFTWARE COMPLETELY ON MY >>SYSTEM (well, actually, one program isn't, but it's just unregistered >>shareware). I am interested in this information for piracy reasons, since >>I am a programmer and understand the problems of piracy! > >"just unregistered shareware" > ^^^^ >So, "unregistered shareware" isn't piracy, huh? It's attitudes like this that >that cause "commercial" packages to put anti-piracy code into their games that >cause you the irritation of constantly looking up keywords in the documents. > >It's attitudes like these that cause me, "just" a shareware author, irritation >at pirates like you. "Unregistered shareware", when used beyond the test Not to be demeaning to the shareware products out there (and there are some really good ones, and yes I do register the ones I really use and enjoy), but it amazes me how much shareware "crap" there is out there. I mean, I've got no qualms about paying $50 or more for an excellent editor or other impressive product but when you see shareware products like a directory lister with color that want $10-$25, you've got to be kidding. It seems to me that many people use shareware to say 'hey, I've written a neat program that I use, maybe people will pay me money for it.' I'm not talking about dBIII clones or word processors, but mainly those little annoying 'utilities' that really don't do that much. If I've got to be paying $50 to use a directory browser, I may just as well purchase Norton Commander or whatever and pay a few extra bucks for manuals, support, warantee, and usually a bit more robust program. -- Jeffrey P. Bakke bakke@plains.NoDak.edu (...other idiot methods...) UUCP : ...!uunet!plains!bakke BITNET : bakke@plains.bitnet
boutell@freezer.it.udel.edu (Tom Boutell) (03/20/91)
In article <1991Mar18.230807.21494@qualcomm.com> rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: >Don't you love all the requests for "something that works just like (some >commercial software package), but shareware," when you know damned well what >they mean is "something I don't have to pay for, and that I don't have to >be a member of a pirate board to download." Sure, these are annoying. But shareware can also allow for some creative solutions that I think are quite legitimate. For instance, we're developing a commercial video game with DICE (a shareware C compiler and environment for the Amiga), and we'll register it, all right- just as soon as we See our code successfully up, running and selling! (-: It's possible to have a moral sense and still get some real advantages out of the terms under which shareware is distributed. By the way, my next major project is a shareware game- Londonware, to be exact. Those who fail to register will be preventing me from getting to England for grad school and suffering eternally in hell as a result. (-: -- Dat be hip... dat be happening... DAT be a psuedoinstruction! Call Burger King at 1-800-YES-1-800 and request a vegetarian entree! Mass/ energy cannot be created or destroyed. It *can*, however, be wasted. INTERNET:boutell@freezer.it.udel.edu SNAIL: P.O.Box 295, Newark, DE 19715
pfratar@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Paul Frattaroli - DCS) (03/20/91)
In article <9010@plains.NoDak.edu> bakke@plains.NoDak.edu (Jeffrey P. Bakke) writes: >In article <31600014@hpcvra.cv.hp.com.> everett@hpcvra.cv.hp.com. (Everett Kaser) writes: >> [ stuff deleted ] > >Not to be demeaning to the shareware products out there (and there are some >really good ones, and yes I do register the ones I really use and enjoy), >but it amazes me how much shareware "crap" there is out there. I mean, >I've got no qualms about paying $50 or more for an excellent editor or other >impressive product but when you see shareware products like a directory lister >with color that want $10-$25, you've got to be kidding. Exactly!!!! If you had to pay that much for each of the native DOS commands, you would have to pay about $400 to $1000 for DOS. I don't agree with an author asking $25 for one piddly little sh*t utility that does very little more than the native DOS command. If on the other hand the author wrote a set of utilities (like Norton for example) I would not be so annoyed. I might be rather pleased and willing to part with some cash. :-) >It seems to me that many people use shareware to say 'hey, I've written a >neat program that I use, maybe people will pay me money for it.' I'm not True. Maybe some authors (and I'm not saying everyone is like this) should get off their EGO trip. What I mean is that, perhaps before you ask $25 for a single utility you should think about it's relative worth. Yes, I know that many programs offer free upgrade to the next version and/or printed docs and/or notification by mail of updates if you register. These alone can easily cost the author $20 to maintain. >talking about dBIII clones or word processors, but mainly those little annoying >'utilities' that really don't do that much. If I've got to be paying $50 >to use a directory browser, I may just as well purchase Norton Commander or >whatever and pay a few extra bucks for manuals, support, warantee, and >usually a bit more robust program. > >-- >Jeffrey P. Bakke bakke@plains.NoDak.edu >(...other idiot methods...) > UUCP : ...!uunet!plains!bakke BITNET : bakke@plains.bitnet I guess what I am really trying to say is that not all shareware is worth the price the author is asking for it. So tell me something I didn't know, right? :-) ....Paul -- Paul "vi joe" Frattaroli - Department of Computing Services University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario Canada N2L-3G1 < pfratar@watshine.UWaterloo.CA > < pfratar@watserv1.UWaterloo.CA > [129.97.128.171] [129.97.129.140] NeXT Mail: < pfratar@magpie.UWaterloo.CA > [129.97.32.42]
imp@Solbourne.COM (Warner Losh) (03/20/91)
>It's attitudes like these that cause me, "just" a shareware author, >irritation at pirates like you. "Unregistered shareware", when used >beyond the test period *** SOAP BOX ON *** By distributing your software via shareware, you are accepting the risk that people will not pay you for programs they really use. You of all people should know that. Could it be that this shareware that he has isn't worth registering? I have several programs that I have used a couple of times that weren't even worth the disk space to keep them, much less send in the "fee" that the license agreement (very one sided) stated that I must send in before I used the program. Face it. With shareware, you will get maybe 1 in 50 people that are really using your program to send you money for it. It is the risk you take for "giving it away" in the user's eyes. I know that you aren't really giving it away, but when a person downloads something for free, they tend to assume, rightly or wrongly, that the program itself is free. So lighten up on this guy. All shareware writer's know this risk when they release their products. They all know that there will be lots of people out there who don't register their copies of the program. They also know that some people will, and that is how they make their money. Anybody have any idea how many unregistered, heavily used PKZIP copies are floating around????? *** SOAP BOX OFF *** None of this says that using shareware w/o registering it is Right, or Moral, or anything like that. It happens. It shouldn't. Everybody should always pay for everything they use. But in reality, if you don't get the money up front from some people, you don't get the money from them at all. Warner P.S. As a shareware author, I don't want lots of people to copy my program and not pay me for it. However, that's a risk I knew I was taking when I desided that my program wasn't worth selling in more "traditional" channels. -- Warner Losh imp@Solbourne.COM We sing about Beauty and we sing about Truth at $10,000 a show.
dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) (03/20/91)
In article <1991Mar19.172138.4340@Solbourne.COM> imp@Solbourne.COM (Warner Losh) writes: >By distributing your software via shareware, you are accepting the >risk that people will not pay you for programs they really use. This is true if you distribute your software. Shareware distribution merely exposes the author to somewhat more more risk. However, we could also argue that the shareware author enjoys higher total revenues, despite the (somewhat) higher rate of piracy. If this were not true, then shareware authors would have all gone shrinkwrap by now. If you run a business, you must plan to have some losses in the ordinary course of business. For example, if you open up a grocery store, customers will drop your produce on the floor and step on it, accidentally break open glass and plastic containers, fill grocery carts and then realize they didn't bring any money, etc. Some of these losses are truly accidental, while others are the result of customer malice. One way to run a tidy grocery store is to keep the front doors locked. Then the customers won't come in and mess up all your nice displays. However, you won't earn much money this way. The shareware pirate is one of the ordinary business losses for the shareware author. However, if we look at the overall picture, we might see that this is not the most useful way to look at things. The shareware pirate is often a pirate for two reasons: (1) (s)he isn't very wealthy to begin with, and (2) (s)he has collected SO MUCH shareware that registering all of it would cost a small fortune. This doesn't excuse breaking the rules, of course. As we all know, writing a computer program grants a person a sort of Divine Right to dictate the behavior of hundreds of thousands of strangers. But consider whether the shareware pirate is really hurting the shareware author. Recall point (2) above. The shareware pirate often is an enthusiast who collects a lot of software, spends a lot of time getting it to run, and generally has a reputation for knowing a lot about software. People who have other job responsibilities often contact the computer enthusiasts they know to get advice on what products to buy. As we all know, experts tend to recommend what they use. The shareware pirate who acts as an unpaid consultant could well be generating a lot of indirect revenue for the shareware author (s)he is "ripping off". However, I have not seen a shareware license that attempts to compensate a shareware user for advertising the product. The shareware author earns higher profits by replacing, in part, for-profit dealers with volunteer consultants. Is that fair? Every shareware registration form should include a field for identifying the registered user who influenced the new registrant's decision. Then the shareware author should send a kickback to that person. This would motivate the unpaid-consultant-pirates to register, as well as give *them* an incentive to pressure their clients to register. -- Dan Mocsny Internet: dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu
everett@hpcvra.cv.hp.com. (Everett Kaser) (03/20/91)
/ glenn@welch.jhu.edu (Glenn M. Mason) / 2:35 pm Mar 18, 1991 / } everett@hpcvra.cv.hp.com. (Everett Kaser) writes: }> jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) / 6:09 pm Mar 13, 1991 / }>>I AM NOT PIRATING SOFTWARE!!! I HAVE LEGAL SOFTWARE COMPLETELY ON MY }>"just unregistered shareware" }> ^^^^ }>It's attitudes like these that cause me, "just" a shareware author, irritation }>at pirates like you. "Unregistered shareware", when used beyond the test } ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ }Did the original poster ever say that he/she has or hasn't used the shareware }beyond the test period? or even used it at all for that case? Who the hell }does this idiot think he is? Why don't you get some of the facts before you }bite someone's head of like that? } }Glenn It was reasonably clear from Brian's original posting that he had this ONE unregistered shareware program that he uses. Brian and I have since exchanged email discussing the subject, and I have no problems with his situation. I do have problems with the general attitude of "JUST shareware", and "I'M not paying for this stuff". As I've said on a number of occassions, there's a STRONG negative sentiment on this net regarding shareware, and I, as a shareware author who puts a great deal of sweat, time, and experience into my shareware programs (and have been told by hundreds of registered users that it's as good as, or better than, much commercial software), have just as much right to MY sentiment (and the right to voice it) as anyone else on the net. That's who "this idiot thinks he is". Everett Kaser Hewlett-Packard Company ...hplabs!hp-pcd!everett work: (503) 750-3569 Corvallis, Oregon everett%hpcvra@hplabs.hp.com home: (503) 928-5259 Albany, Oregon
tcs@mailer.jhuapl.edu (Carl Schelin) (03/20/91)
In article <7808@uceng.UC.EDU>, dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) says: > >In article <1991Mar19.172138.4340@Solbourne.COM> imp@Solbourne.COM (Warner Losh) writes: >>By distributing your software via shareware, you are accepting the >>risk that people will not pay you for programs they really use. > >This is true if you distribute your software. Shareware distribution >merely exposes the author to somewhat more more risk. > >However, we could also argue that the shareware author enjoys >higher total revenues, despite the (somewhat) higher rate of >piracy. If this were not true, then shareware authors would have >all gone shrinkwrap by now. > Huh? I have a few shareware products out there and have received a total of 250 bucks over the last 4 years. 150 of that was for a crippleware product. But then again, I guess that anything is better that what I expected which was nothing. >... >The shareware pirate who acts as an unpaid consultant could well be >generating a lot of indirect revenue for the shareware author (s)he is >"ripping off". However, I have not seen a shareware license that >attempts to compensate a shareware user for advertising the product. >The shareware author earns higher profits by replacing, in part, >for-profit dealers with volunteer consultants. Is that fair? > My shareware license does state that I will send 5 bucks back to you if a person who registered it gives me your name. It has for the past two years. > >Every shareware registration form should include a field for >identifying the registered user who influenced the new registrant's >decision. Then the shareware author should send a kickback to >that person. This would motivate the unpaid-consultant-pirates to >register, as well as give *them* an incentive to pressure their >clients to register. > Sorry, I don't have a field with the person's name on it, but I do have a serial number. You send in the serial number and I send the money to the person who registered it. No one's ever done it though. Carl Schelin tcs@mailer.jhuapl.edu
stu@voodoo.UUCP (Stuart Liddle) (03/20/91)
In article <1991Mar19.172138.4340@Solbourne.COM> imp@Solbourne.COM (Warner Losh) writes: > > >*** SOAP BOX ON *** > [stuff deleted about shareware and expected registration of same] > >Anybody have any idea how many unregistered, heavily used PKZIP copies >are floating around????? In a recent article in our local (free) computer rag , _Puget_Sound_Computer_ User_, there was an article about PKZIP. In it there was a quote that I found rather interesting: "Zip is neither commerical, shareware nor public-domain software; it is a copyrighted program free for all to use. There is no fixed cost, merely a request for a donation." Can anyone verify that this is indeed true? Now this would seem to imply that no "registration" is required except maybe by commercial users. My question in addition to this is why would anyone want to send in any money to Mr. PK since in order to do any downloading with any BBS you need Zip (or at least unZip)? Wow, what a neat deal, get a virtual monopoly by having .ZIP files be the only ones available for down- load and then ask for a donation for the use of the program to uncompress those files!! (1/2 ;-) here ). Stuart Liddle (206) 865-6559 (wk) Boeing Computer Services ....bcstec!voodoo!stu M/S 7K-20, P.O. Box 24346, Seattle, WA 98124-0346 * "I do not know what I do not know." - Alan Arkin, (movie unknown) * "You can never turn your back on your face." * "How can you be in two places at once, when you're not anywhere at all."
everett@hpcvra.cv.hp.com. (Everett Kaser) (03/21/91)
/ imp@Solbourne.COM (Warner Losh) / 9:21 am Mar 19, 1991 / ]>It's attitudes like these that cause me, "just" a shareware author, ]>irritation at pirates like you. "Unregistered shareware", when used ]>beyond the test period ]By distributing your software via shareware, you are accepting the ]risk that people will not pay you for programs they really use. You ]Face it. With shareware, you will get maybe 1 in 50 people that are ]really using your program to send you money for it. It is the risk ]you take for "giving it away" in the user's eyes. I know that you ]aren't really giving it away, but when a person downloads something ]for free, they tend to assume, rightly or wrongly, that the program ]itself is free. ]Warner Losh imp@Solbourne.COM I agree with almost everything you said in your post, Warner, but just because we agree with the state of reality doesn't mean that we can't try to change it (programmers are the eternal optimists :-). If we see something wrong and never say anything about it, what's the likelihood of it changing? Physics has a law about conservation of momentum. Periodically something will spark a fire under my chair (usually my mood rather than what any particular poster was saying) and I respond with a comment on morals (not legalities, since the shareware concept isn't currently covered by any copyright laws; but morals, PERSONAL morals which shape societal morals, and I'm just doing my part to attempt to push societies morals in a direction I like (just as everyone else does for their own points of view (don't you just love triple nested parenthetical statements?))). In reality, I estimate that less than 1 in a 100 of the people using my shareware offerings actually register. This estimate is based upon a lot of information from a lot of different sources over a period of almost two years. I don't mind it when people think my programs are trash and not worth wasting disk space upon (so long as they then purge my programs and never again run them). I don't mind if people dislike the shareware concept, so long as they DON'T USE shareware programs. BUT, if they use shareware programs, then I feel that they should be compelled to pay for them. When you go to a car dealership and test drive a car, you're not compelled to buy the car. But, if you don't buy the car, you shouldn't expect to be able to continue to drive it, either. (And I don't want to hear the tired old argument about the shareware being "delivered to my door when I didn't ask for it, so it's mine!". It never is delivered to your door without a responsible person asking for it! Either you work for a company who has chosen to subscribe to the notes system (fully knowing that everything from shareware to talk.bizzare.sex crosses the wires), or a BBS operator has CHOSEN to have shareware on his system and you have CHOSEN to download it. We're all responsible for our own actions, whether we like it or not. I sense major subject drift here. Sorry. The point is that I (a member of this society) am simply trying to convince enough other members of this society to my point of view, such that society as a whole will operate according to my point of view. We all do this. It's how society changes. Very few of us are ever very successful at it, but it's the sum of the parts that makes it operate. Everett ----------------------- Everett Kaser Hewlett-Packard Company ...hplabs!hp-pcd!everett work: (503) 750-3569 Corvallis, Oregon everett%hpcvra@hplabs.hp.com home: (503) 928-5259 Albany, Oregon
resnicks@netcom.COM (Steve Resnick) (03/21/91)
In article <31600014@hpcvra.cv.hp.com.> everett@hpcvra.cv.hp.com. (Everett Kaser) writes: > > jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) / 6:09 pm Mar 13, 1991 / >>I AM NOT PIRATING SOFTWARE!!! I HAVE LEGAL SOFTWARE COMPLETELY ON MY >>SYSTEM (well, actually, one program isn't, but it's just unregistered >>shareware). I am interested in this information for piracy reasons, since >>I am a programmer and understand the problems of piracy! > >"just unregistered shareware" > ^^^^ >So, "unregistered shareware" isn't piracy, huh? It's attitudes like this that >that cause "commercial" packages to put anti-piracy code into their games that >cause you the irritation of constantly looking up keywords in the documents. > >It's attitudes like these that cause me, "just" a shareware author, irritation >at pirates like you. "Unregistered shareware", when used beyond the test >period, IS PIRACY. Having been one who has, over the past 5 years, distributed many shareware items, from terminal emulators, to screen management libraries, I have not recieved ONE RED CENT for my work. This would probably bother me a hell of a lot more, but I never wrote these things to make money, I wrote 'em for me. Being a long time BBS operator, and therefore a distribution channel for shareware programs, I'm sure as hell not going to send everyone who wants a few bucks for their utilities. Not when I am footing the bill of having a semi-dedicated machine running 24 hours daily, eating a few bucks worth of electricity and many hours worth of frustration, all in the name of providing a distribution channel with no return on *my* investment. Maybe that's a shitty attitude, but until someone comes along and gives me incentive to act otherwise, tough. My bottom line, is that, after having registered several shareware packages, and recieving NO support, or other gratification for my money, combined with a zero return on my time/resource investment in shareware, it's not worth my while to "register" a shareware package. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- resnicks@netcom.com, steve@camphq, IFNA: 1:143/105.0, USNail: 530 Lawrence Expressway, Suite 374 Sunnyvale, Ca 94086 - In real life: Steve Resnick. Flames, grammar and spelling errors >/dev/null 0x2b |~ 0x2b, THAT is the question. The Asylum OS/2 BBS - (408)263-8017 12/2400,8,1 - Running Maximus CBCS 1.2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
amead@s.psych.uiuc.edu (alan mead) (03/21/91)
Although this was sparked by the ongoing thread about shareware
piracy, I am not speaking to or about anyone in particular. These
are mostly opinions and are entirely mine:
I don't wonder if this discussion points out the need for shareware to
have annoyances built into the distribution version? (Like the beeps
built into 4DOS).
Also, what incentives did you offer registered users?
Many might rightly take offencs at such a question, but as a
psychologist I firmly believe that people will act "good" *much* more
often if it is easy to do so (especially when it is often so easy to
act "bad").
Perhaps psychologists are the eternal pessimists :)
Regardless, if you list a registration for for some reasonably small
amount and a bunch of stuff (like source code) for extra (but available
only to registered users), I think you'd have a better return.
It's important to realize that it is no sin to earn money in a
capitalist society (indeed, it is no sin to win or be given money), and
software authors certainly earn their money.
If you release your work to the world without tactfully expressing this
to the user (or without believeing it yourself), then I doubt very much
that you will receieve anything.
A final opinion: in the accompanying documents, I would never 1) write
anything remotely condonning this type of piracy ("...and you'll get a
warm glow for having at least registered for one of the many shareware
programs that you use."); 2) representing yourself as less than a paid
professional ("...and since I'm moonlighting, there won't be any
upgrades unless I get some support."); or 3) asking for a unspecified
donation ("...just send $5, $10, or whatever you want...").
-alan mead : amead@s.psych.uiuc.edugreg@irl.ise.ufl.edu (Greg O'Rear) (03/22/91)
In article <1136@voodoo.UUCP> stu@voodoo.UUCP (Stuart Liddle) writes: >... >Now this would seem to imply that no "registration" is required except maybe >by commercial users. My question in addition to this is why would anyone >want to send in any money to Mr. PK since in order to do any downloading >with any BBS you need Zip (or at least unZip)? Wow, what a neat deal, get >a virtual monopoly by having .ZIP files be the only ones available for down- >load and then ask for a donation for the use of the program to uncompress >those files!! (1/2 ;-) here ). 1/2 :-) noted. IMHO, you would want to send Mr. PK money because you find his program of use, which is the usual language of such programs. You point out that he has a virtual monopoly as .ZIP files seem to be the most popular. Well, maybe this is because his program is good. It's useful, reliable software, and he should be encouraged to write more (or at least given a donation as a vote of confidence). -- Greg O'Rear Industrial and Systems Engineering Department, University of Florida Address: O'Rear@ise.ufl.edu
thood@pluton.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) (03/22/91)
A more interesting issue, is shareware used in the business world. I know of one company that uses a shareware program on a regular basis without paying a CENT. Large businesses have substantial financial resources and should definitely be registering their shareware. There is room for employee activism on this issue. -- Tom Hood
yawei@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (mr. yawei) (03/23/91)
In article <31600016@hpcvra.cv.hp.com.> everett@hpcvra.cv.hp.com. (Everett Kaser) writes: >]Face it. With shareware, you will get maybe 1 in 50 people that are >]really using your program to send you money for it. Agree very much. I have released a few sharewares myself and have received about 80 bucks for them during the last 4 years. On the contrary, a far simpler program, which I decided not to go shareware, but somehow managed to get the word out, has brought me ca 10000 bucks in about a year. Not bad for 3 evenings of programming, would you say? Shareware authors basically just skip the marketings. They just want their products to go out to the real world and propagating and sending money home. Propagating they might, but sending money home may be too much to hope for. From my experience, the marketing step may be a lot more work, and a lot more difficult for us programmers (I am still very confused about how most of the market works), but it is crucial in having your products sending money home. Another factor that contributes to the monetary failure of sharewares, in my opinion, is a misconception in most users that price reflects quality. This is not just for rich businesses, but for ordinary users as well. If you have not paid for a program, you tend to be able to delete it from your harddisk without much regret. If you have paid for it, you may somehow feel obliged to keep it for a longer while. Since most programs tend to have a short life-span (after which the user start to feel the pressure to get a new one), users also may not be inclined to pay for something that they know they probably want to replace in the very near future. yawei