eagle@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) (02/14/91)
Is it wrong to test out software before you buy it? I'm not talking about pirating or illegally copying and continually using copyrighted software. I'm referring to "borrowing" someone's copy of disks and docs to see if you like something. Just another issue for me to get into... Daniel -- Name: Daniel C. L'Hommedieu III Snail: NCSU Box 21531/Raleigh/NC/27607 INet: eagle@catt.ncsu.edu Prodigy ID: bccj33d Tel:919 737 6143 -OBJ: "Welcome to the Literacy Self-test Hotline. Please leave your name, number, and a brief message using today's word: prelect."
chaz@chinet.chi.il.us (Charlie Kestner) (02/15/91)
In article <1991Feb13.205158.29145@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> eagle@hobbes.catt.ncsu.edu (Daniel L'Hommedieu) writes: >Is it wrong to test out software before you buy it? I'm not talking >about pirating or illegally copying and continually using copyrighted >software. I'm referring to "borrowing" someone's copy of disks and docs >to see if you like something. Just another issue for me to get into... "Is it wrong...?" Morally? Or legally? It's probably "wrong" on both counts, but that doesn't stop it from not only being wide-spread, but also beneficial for the softwar vendors. Of course, it's ONLY beneficial if you try it, and then go BUY it. Not only is doing so (buying it) being fair to the vendor, but you DO get the support and REAL manuals. (Yeah, I know, sometimes the "real" manuals suck, and you're better off with the aftermarket ones.) I imagine that the "tryware" concept is the modus operandi for many computists. Just as I'm sure the software companies hate piracy, I'm also pretty sure they appreciate the added sales from "tryware". Too bad the ratio of piracy/tryware is so out of kilter...
hp0p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Hokkun Pang) (02/16/91)
why do people pirate softwares? would the condition improves if the software houses make them available at low low prices for non-commercial home users?
IO92203@MAINE.BITNET (Scott Maxell) (02/18/91)
No, it is not wrong to test someone elses software before you buy UNLESS: 1. The software is installed on a machine semi-permanently (i.e. hard disk) and you use the software on another computer. 2. You make a copy rather than taking the back-up copies made by your friend. The software license isn't for the person who bought the software, it just says that it will not be used on more than one machine at one time. ============================================================================== +---------+ Scott Maxell --- IO92203 AT MAINE | | ---------------- IO92203 AT MAINE.MAINE.EDU | O | | | | "What I need is a computer that will do what I want it to do +---------+ not what I tell it to do..."
rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (02/19/91)
In article <objEa9K00VpfA2K7NH@andrew.cmu.edu> hp0p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Hokkun Pang) writes: >why do people pirate softwares? would the condition improves if the software >houses make them available at low low prices for non-commercial home users? I think this would help a lot... there are basically two types of pirates. Type 1 is the "packrat" who will collect any copy of any program he can get his hands on, but who never uses any of them except to boot it once and see what it does. Then the disk goes in the huge disk box and never sees the light of day again. I suspect the vast majority of pirating is of this type, and it's a mistake to include these in the pirated/bought ratio for the simple fact that this is not a sale that was lost. The pirate would not have bought the program regardless. In this case, lowering the price won't matter. The packrat isn't going to buy any software even if it's only $10, because it's not worth that much to him. He's just collecting to collect. He only costs the software companies money when he starts to act as a clearinghouse for the Type 2... Type 2 is the bane of software houses. He doesn't pirate often, but when he does it results in a lost sale. "Gee, I really need Quattro Pro 2.0. Got a copy?" This is bad for the company because this person really needs the package and will use it, and if he can't get a copy from someone will probably actually buy it (or more likely post on USENET "Does anyone have a PD program that acts just like QP 2.0?"). In this case I think lower prices would help, as after one experience with trying to use a complicated program with no user manual the pirate will probably think twice about doing it again if the program is available at a reasonable price.
rcw@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Robert White) (02/25/91)
In article <objEa9K00VpfA2K7NH@andrew.cmu.edu> hp0p+@andrew.cmu.edu (Hokkun Pang) writes: >why do people pirate softwares? In my travels, there are two types of people who pirate software. The first category genuinely are interested in the software and want to see whether or not they should get it. Usually, both the vendor and the individual benefit if the user decides it meets their needs. If it doesn't meet his or her needs, then they usually quit using it. (Note: from my point of view as a software developer, I disaprove of the practice, but it is reality. In all honesty, it is the most effective form of marketing that we have). The second category of people are 'collectors' who wouldn't buy an honest copy of the software from you if their lives depended on it. Still, if they like it, they tell their friends who may belong to group one described above. This underclass of users, unfortunately, is pretty invisible, so it is hard to gauge how big it is. All of the marketing in the world though would not sell a copy to these people, so I have to ask, who cares? would the condition improves if the software >houses make them available at low low prices for non-commercial home users? -- Robert C. White, Jr. Right lane of .signature closed, merge left The WhiteStar Corporation /\/\ rcw@scicom.alphacdc.com The Owls are not what they seem. / \