fullerr@yvax.byu.edu (08/07/90)
I am wondering why people pirate software. Other than the obvious cost advantages of pirating software what are some possible justifications for piracy? Please reply by e-mail. <fullerr@byuvax.bitnet>
srm@dimacs.rutgers.edu (Scott R. Myers) (08/08/90)
In article <1462fullerr@yvax.byu.edu> fullerr@yvax.byu.edu writes: > I am wondering why people pirate software. Other than the obvious cost > advantages of pirating software what are some possible justifications for > piracy? Please reply by e-mail. My 2 cents worth... One possibility is to give software an honest test drive before deciding to give it any use. If the product is worth while enough they will go ahead and purchase it. I'll probably get flamed for that statement but lets face it, any worthwhile piece of software these days is worth the cost of the support you get from the manufacturer. In other words copying disks and manuals is not gonna make it... srm -- Scott R. Myers Snail: 26 Stiles Street Phone:(XXX)XXX-XXXX(Home) Apartment 18 Elizabeth, NJ 07201 Arpa: srm@dimacs.rutgers.edu Uucp: ..!dimacs!srm "... No matter where you go, there you are ..."
wozniak@utkux1.utk.edu (Bryon Lape) (08/08/90)
In article <Aug.7.15.00.09.1990.12840@dimacs.rutgers.edu> srm@dimacs.rutgers.edu (Scott R. Myers) writes: >In article <1462fullerr@yvax.byu.edu> fullerr@yvax.byu.edu writes: > >> I am wondering why people pirate software. Other than the obvious cost >> advantages of pirating software what are some possible justifications for >> piracy? Please reply by e-mail. > Since I know a reason I thought I would respond. It is one word: Cost. New software is sometimes too expensive and sucks. I but my own or use public domain now, but commercial software is just too much. -bryon lape-
ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi LASK) (08/08/90)
In article <Aug.7.15.00.09.1990.12840@dimacs.rutgers.edu> srm@dimacs.rutgers.edu (Scott R. Myers) writes: >In article <1462fullerr@yvax.byu.edu> fullerr@yvax.byu.edu writes: > >> I am wondering why people pirate software. Other than the obvious cost >> advantages of pirating software what are some possible justifications for >> piracy? Please reply by e-mail. > >One possibility is to give software an honest test drive before >deciding to give it any use. If the product is worth while enough >they will go ahead and purchase it. I'll probably get flamed for that >statement but lets face it, any worthwhile piece of software these >days is worth the cost of the support you get from the manufacturer. No reason to get flamed, because, if one discounts outright dishonesty, wanting to try software out before bying is one of the probable reasons. As we all know, the concept of shareware came from this notion. Having seen much commercial, shareware and (freeware) PD programs, it is fair to state that there are also such commercial programs as turn out to be almost useless despite their hype. Nevertheless, it goes without saying that illegal copying should be discouraged. ................................................................... Prof. Timo Salmi (Moderating at anon. ftp site 128.214.12.3) School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: gado::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun
dwj@stiatl.UUCP (David Jaquay) (08/08/90)
In article <Aug.7.15.00.09.1990.12840@dimacs.rutgers.edu> srm@dimacs.rutgers.edu (Scott R. Myers) writes: >In article <1462fullerr@yvax.byu.edu> fullerr@yvax.byu.edu writes: > >> I am wondering why people pirate software. Other than the obvious cost > >One possibility is to give software an honest test drive before >deciding to give it any use. If the product is worth while enough >they will go ahead and purchase it. I'll probably get flamed for that >statement but lets face it, any worthwhile piece of software these >days is worth the cost of the support you get from the manufacturer. >In other words copying disks and manuals is not gonna make it... I agree completely with what's being said here. The support makes all the difference in the world. Flames or no, that's the biggest reason I buy software, especially turning down copies from friends. Except of course to try it out to see if it's worth the price that's being charged. There are a couple of programs (that shall remain nameless) that I bought and then never used because they really weren't worth it. At the same time, there are several programs I tried out and decided not to buy for the same reason. I feel that I have therefore saved myself much frustration and probably a many hundred dollars by not purchasing poor or unneeded software. Just two more cents. (6 more and we'll have a dimes worth...) -- David Jaquay (gatech!stiatl!dwj)
alanf@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Alan Grant Finlay) (08/09/90)
In article <Aug.7.15.00.09.1990.12840@dimacs.rutgers.edu>, srm@dimacs.rutgers.edu (Scott R. Myers) writes: > > One possibility is to give software an honest test drive before > deciding to give it any use. If the product is worth while enough > they will go ahead and purchase it. I'll probably get flamed for that > statement but lets face it, any worthwhile piece of software these > days is worth the cost of the support you get from the manufacturer. > In other words copying disks and manuals is not gonna make it... > I suggest this is too close to the truth for comfort. What we should really do is ban the copyright of software altogether. Over the past few years I have seen more harm than good come out of software copyrightability. I know many will disagree but I am serious - think about it! What we should pay for is the support. Consumers should refuse to buy (or use!) copyright software and insist on source code for the software they do use. If we had no such thing as copyright for software then public domain or GNU would really go places. The real problem with the software industry is distribution. "The Lord of the Rings" took J.R.R Tolkien 20 years (part time) to write. I can buy the book for about $30, paperback. Software of this standard costs thousands of dollars and has conditions attached analogous to the purchaser being able to read the book once only or pay a rereading fee. Also we have libraries for those too poor to buy books. I know software writers have to be paid, but the current system is just not cost effective. There must be a better way! We don't expect mathematicians to copyright their proofs, and yet mathematics progresses. The current software industry is like the pop music industry, it's not the best music that gets backed, its the most profitable crap that gets "marketed". N.B. The term "pirate" should be reserved for those criminals that SELL software they don't have the right to. A pirate is a very nasty piece of business. We still have some murdering refugees in the seas around South East Asia.
manning@coil.caltech.edu (Evan Marshall Manning) (08/09/90)
I think one reason people make illegal copies of software is that it doesn't seem as much like stealing. If I steal my friend's car, he will no longer have one. But he's likely to just give me a copy of the new version of windows. And he still has his. Of course there is an injured party, but like tax evasion or copyright infringement you don't really know the victim. Me? I'm pretty honest, but I'm not above an occasional test-drive. (Gimpel PC-Lint just passed the test drive - legal copy is on order.) -- Evan *************************************************************************** Your eyes are weary from staring at the CRT for so | Evan M. Manning long. You feel sleepy. Notice how restful it is | is to watch the cursor blink. Close your eyes. The |manning@gap.cco.caltech.edu opinions stated above are yours. You cannot | manning@mars.jpl.nasa.gov imagine why you ever felt otherwise. | gleeper@tybalt.caltech.edu
bmarsh@cod.NOSC.MIL (William C. Marsh) (08/09/90)
In article <2847@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU> alanf@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Alan Grant Finlay) writes: >I suggest this is too close to the truth for comfort. What we should really do >is ban the copyright of software altogether. Over the past few years I have >seen more harm than good come out of software copyrightability. Please name a couple of examples where a copyrighted program has caused problems for someone other than someone with a legal licence. > I know many >will disagree but I am serious - think about it! What we should pay for is >the support. Consumers should refuse to buy (or use!) copyright software and >insist on source code for the software they do use. If we had no such thing >as copyright for software then public domain or GNU would really go places. The problem with 'paying for support' is that to have an effective support group at a software publishers costs money up front! If this was the only way to get paid, then I think you'd see more bugs in programs, worse manuals, and generally a 'harder to use' interface to generate revenue. (Gee, then Ashton-Tate would be doing just great now! (sorry, I had too ;-)) What we should pay for is the usefullness of the program. >The real problem with the software industry is distribution. "The Lord of the >Rings" took J.R.R Tolkien 20 years (part time) to write. I can buy the book >for about $30, paperback. Software of this standard costs thousands of dollars If I could expect to sell over 1 million copies, I could afford to sell software for $30 a copy. There just isn't that kind of quantity on most computer software. Also, when was the last time you saw a full page add for the "Lord of the Rings"? Full page adds are a necessary requirement to sell software now, and they are not cheap. > Software of this standard costs thousands of dollars >and has conditions attached analogous to the purchaser being able to read >the book once only or pay a rereading fee. I beleive everyone should be able to use licenced software on one machine at a time. You should be able to copy it onto as many machines as you need, but just use it once. I do not believe in forcing this rule with a dongle, since all that does is punish the legal user and gives hackers something to figure out. > I know software writers have to be paid, but the current >system is just not cost effective. There must be a better way! We don't >expect mathematicians to copyright their proofs, and yet mathematics >progresses. The current software industry is like the pop music industry, >it's not the best music that gets backed, its the most profitable crap that >gets "marketed". When was the last time you bought a proof? Mathematicians do not 'sell' their proofs to make money, they are hired to work on the proofs, and by becoming well known in their field will get better offers. While this sounds great, it wouldn't work with software if you only paid for service. If it's lousy software, you have to make sure people find out. In the music business, there are many 'review' magazines, which can be used to estimate in advance what music will sound like. There are many PC magazines doing the same thing for software. One thing that would be nice is a way to sell back software that doesn't work or isn't right for you, like you can do with CD's now. >N.B. The term "pirate" should be reserved for those criminals that SELL >software they don't have the right to. Right, and someone who uses something they have no right to is a thief. I agree the current system isn't perfect, but humans are not either. I would love to see a system where you could try out software yourself, before buying (and not a crippled demo), and then return the purchase if you didn't like it. Maybe also have different tiers of payment for different levels of support (none, email, phone, etc.). Bill -- Bill Marsh, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA {arpa,mil}net: bmarsh@cod.nosc.mil uucp: {ihnp4,akgua,decvax,dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!nosc!bmarsh "If everything seems to be coming your way, you're probably in the wrong lane."
ashing@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Shing) (08/10/90)
In article <2847@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU> alanf@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Alan Grant Finlay) writes: #In article <Aug.7.15.00.09.1990.12840@dimacs.rutgers.edu>, srm@dimacs.rutgers.edu (Scott R. Myers) writes: #The real problem with the software industry is distribution. "The Lord of the #Rings" took J.R.R Tolkien 20 years (part time) to write. I can buy the book #for about $30, paperback. Software of this standard costs thousands of dollars #and has conditions attached analogous to the purchaser being able to read #the book once only or pay a rereading fee. Also we have libraries for those #too poor to buy books. I know software writers have to be paid, but the current #system is just not cost effective. There must be a better way! We don't In the case of a book, one can loan the book to a friend who can read it without buying it. We can also loan CD's and tapes to friends, or even tape music and TV shows off the air for free. If you loan software to a friend, it is said to be illegal, and if you down- load software, you are supposed to pay a registration fee. This is analogous to saying that you cannot loan books, or CD's to friends, and if you tape stuff from the radio or TV, you have to send in money to the copyright owner. If this doesn't make sense for copyrighted books, music, and TV shows, it also doesn't make sense for computer software, either. Just my opinion. -- Al Shing (ashing@cac.washington.edu)
longj@handel.CS.ColoState.Edu (john liddell long) (08/10/90)
In article <6092@milton.u.washington.edu> ashing@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Shing) writes: >to saying that you cannot loan books, or CD's to friends, and if you tape >stuff from the radio or TV, you have to send in money to the copyright owner. > >If this doesn't make sense for copyrighted books, music, and TV shows, it >also doesn't make sense for computer software, either. I tend to agree with the 'test-drive' philosophy. The problem with not having to pay for software you download is that you are getting a perfect copy, whereas taping music on the radio is hardly 'perfect'. That would be my reasoning, anyway. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dell Long longj@handel.cs.colostate.edu Colorado State University -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ordania-DM@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes) (08/10/90)
Bill Marsh writes.... >In article <2847@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU> alanf@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Alan Gran >t Finlay) writes: >>I suggest this is too close to the truth for comfort. What we should really >do >>is ban the copyright of software altogether. Over the past few years I have >>seen more harm than good come out of software copyrightability. > >Please name a couple of examples where a copyrighted program has caused >problems for someone other than someone with a legal licence. Hmmm...SEA vs Philip Katz, Apple vs Microsoft, Lotus vs Paperback, etc. Flame...how long have you been in Timbuktoo? :) SEA vs Philip Katz - I believe this was actually a trademark battle [do you know that using the ARC(TM) logo as a file extender is illegal? ] Apple vs Microsoft - Microsoft licensed the MAC interface, Apple got ticked when they used it for Windows & PM. Lotus vs Paperback - look and feel crapola (some merit to this suit, but so little that the suit did a great deal more harm to the community at large than Paperback did to Lotus). Charles_K_Hughes@cup.portal.com Disclaimer: ARC (TM) is trademarked by SEA [illegally I might add, but since no judge will agree with me...]
dgs@swdev.Waterloo.NCR.COM (David G. Schwartz) (08/10/90)
In article <6092@milton.u.washington.edu> ashing@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Shing) writes:
=In the case of a book, one can loan the book to a friend who can read it
=without buying it. We can also loan CD's and tapes to friends, or even tape
=music and TV shows off the air for free.
=
=If you loan software to a friend, it is said to be illegal, and if you down-
=load software, you are supposed to pay a registration fee. This is analogous
=to saying that you cannot loan books, or CD's to friends, and if you tape
=stuff from the radio or TV, you have to send in money to the copyright owner.
=
=If this doesn't make sense for copyrighted books, music, and TV shows, it
=also doesn't make sense for computer software, either.
=
=Just my opinion.
The difference between loaning a book, CD or (original) tape and loaning
your software is that in the former case you are transferring the original,
genuine artifact and not retaining a copy for continued use. If you give the
software AND accompanting documentation AND delete all copies in your
possession, that is legal since there is still only one legitimate copy.
When you tape stuff with your VCR, you are in technical violation of
copyright laws, however most copyright holders turn a blind eye to
private, non-comercial due to the enforcement problem.sunni@microsoft.UUCP (Sunni ROGERS) (08/11/90)
In article <2847@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU> alanf@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Alan Grant Finlay) writes: >In article <Aug.7.15.00.09.1990.12840@dimacs.rutgers.edu>, srm@dimacs.rutgers.edu (Scott R. Myers) writes: >> >> One possibility is to give software an honest test drive before >> deciding to give it any use. If the product is worth while enough >> they will go ahead and purchase it. I'll probably get flamed for that >> statement but lets face it, any worthwhile piece of software these >> days is worth the cost of the support you get from the manufacturer. >> In other words copying disks and manuals is not gonna make it... >> > >I suggest this is too close to the truth for comfort. What we should really do >is ban the copyright of software altogether. Over the past few years I have >seen more harm than good come out of software copyrightability. I know many >will disagree but I am serious - think about it! What we should pay for is >the support. Consumers should refuse to buy (or use!) copyright software and >and insist on the source code ......[stuff deleted] ^^^^^^^^^^ YEAH RIGHT!!!! It would be IMPOSSIBLE to provide support to over a million different customized versions of the product. I could just see a call: "It doesn't work right. It hangs when I ..." tech- "what version are you using?" "Well our consultant installed it and then said he could do some things for us to make it run faster, then the boss's genius kid came in and decided to make it support our Joe Blow's super duper .........." RIGHT!!!! Sunni +-------------------------------------------------------------+ | Disclaimer: I don't speak for Bill or anyone else. ;) | +-------------------------------------------------------------+
jpgordon@well.sf.ca.us (Joshua Gordon) (08/12/90)
>In the case of a book, one can loan the book to a friend who can read it >without buying it. We can also loan CD's and tapes to friends, or even tape >music and TV shows off the air for free. > >If you loan software to a friend, it is said to be illegal, and if you down- >load software, you are supposed to pay a registration fee. This is analogous >to saying that you cannot loan books, or CD's to friends, and if you tape >stuff from the radio or TV, you have to send in money to the copyright owner. No. When you loan out a book, only the borrower can use it; hence, there is still only one copy around. However, if you were to make a copy of the book and then give your copy away, you'd indeed be in violation. You'd also be pretty dumb, because copying costs more than buying the original, in general. Copying software is free 'cept for the disk space. The analogy only holds if you loan out the software without keeping a copy yourself. When you tape stuff from radio or TV, you really should send in money to the owner; and if you sell taped copies, you better believe you are in violation of copyright!
ashing@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Shing) (08/12/90)
In article <19504@well.sf.ca.us> jpgordon@well.sf.ca.us (Joshua Gordon) writes: > >No. When you loan out a book, only the borrower can use it; hence, there >is still only one copy around. However, if you were to make a copy of the >book and then give your copy away, you'd indeed be in violation. You'd >also be pretty dumb, because copying costs more than buying the original, >in general. Copying software is free 'cept for the disk space. The analogy >only holds if you loan out the software without keeping a copy yourself. > The value of a book is the contents of the book, not the book itself. If a book is loaned to someone, and that person reads the book without buying it, then he has received the full use of the book. In this case, two people have had the full usage of the book - the original purchaser, and the person to whom the book was loaned. The copyright holder only received money for only one usage. If the software policy were to be applied to books, then nobody should be allowed to read a book without purchasing his own copy. This obviously is not the case. Suppose every book came with a seal, and a page that said that breaking the seal implied an agreement that the purchaser would not loan the book to anyone else, unless he forgot everything he read in the book. Then we would be analogous to the situation everyone is describing. In loaning out a book, one still retains the plot or knowledge of what was in the book. Whether or not the original copy is retained does not change this. Another bone of contention is the one copy per CPU policy, which is analogous to saying that if you buy a video tape, you can only watch it on one VCR, or if you read a book at home, or on a bus, or at work, you need a separate copy for each place. The latter is not the case, so why is the former the case? >When you tape stuff from radio or TV, you really should send in money >to the owner; and if you sell taped copies, you better believe you are >in violation of copyright! The Supreme Court has stated that taping of music and TV programs for one's own usage is legal. No royalties are due to anybody, if you are a private citizen, and not gaining a profit on the taped material. Nobody is talking about selling taped copies of broadcast music or TV programming here, nor are we talking about selling copies of computer programs. -- Al Shing (ashing@cac.washington.edu)
jpgordon@well.sf.ca.us (Joshua Gordon) (08/13/90)
In article <6207@milton.u.washington.edu> ashing@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Shing) writes: > >In loaning out a book, one still retains the plot or knowledge of what was in >the book. Whether or not the original copy is retained does not change this. Oh? How about reference books? Do you keep in your head all of the information in your CRC Handbooks? Computer programs aren't fictions; they are tools. > >Another bone of contention is the one copy per CPU policy, which is analogous >to saying that if you buy a video tape, you can only watch it on one VCR, or >if you read a book at home, or on a bus, or at work, you need a separate copy >for each place. The latter is not the case, so why is the former the case? One copy per CPU is questionable; I agree with you there. However, one copy in use at a time is fair. (If you are reading the book on the bus, your roommate can't be reading the book at home. If you are running the computer program at work, your wife can't be running a "xerox" of the same program at home. This is the essence of the "Borland no-nonsense license.") > >Nobody is talking about selling taped copies of broadcast music or TV >programming here, nor are we talking about selling copies of computer programs. Giving away copies of copyrighted material is as wrong as selling it. Look at the word again: "copyright". The law allows the owner of the copyright to limit who may make copies, and under what conditions.
bmarsh@cod.NOSC.MIL (William C. Marsh) (08/14/90)
In article <32634@cup.portal.com> Ordania-DM@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes) writes: > Hmmm...SEA vs Philip Katz, Apple vs Microsoft, Lotus vs Paperback, etc. > Flame...how long have you been in Timbuktoo? :) > SEA vs Philip Katz - I believe this was actually a trademark battle [do you >know that using the ARC(TM) logo as a file extender is illegal? ] So, PK has come up with ZIP, which is a better, faster, and more compact storage method. Also note, this was settled out of court, so no legally binding decision was made from this action. Using 'ARC' is only illegal if your 'ARC' file is not compatible with the 'ARC' utility from SEA. It seems simple enough to get SEA's approval, though I dislike having to give SEA any source code. You have to remember, in cases that are settled 'out of court', that no law was applied (or tested). In SEA v. PKWARE, PK (i believe) gave in because of other things. > Apple vs Microsoft - Microsoft licensed the MAC interface, Apple got ticked >when they used it for Windows & PM. And it's still in court. It would appear that Microsoft will win, based on the current round of judgements in the case. I think Apple still hasn't shown what is in Windows v2.0 that was not in Windows v1.0 that was 'invented' by Apple. (i.e. there is no trashcan in Windows) > Lotus vs Paperback - look and feel crapola (some merit to this suit, but >so little that the suit did a great deal more harm to the community at >large than Paperback did to Lotus). The Judge didn't mention 'look and feel', just that the Lotus menu system was unique and non-obvious, not that the spreadsheet has rows and columns. IMHO, I think that all three of the cases were based on greed, and only greed. Instead of continuing to develope and improve their software, the companies decided to use the courts to protect their market advantage, which I think is wrong. Anything new and unique (Which SEA's ARC isn't, BTW) should be rewarded with copyrights or patents. Bill -- Bill Marsh, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA {arpa,mil}net: bmarsh@cod.nosc.mil uucp: {ihnp4,akgua,decvax,dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!nosc!bmarsh "If everything seems to be coming your way, you're probably in the wrong lane."
bmarsh@cod.NOSC.MIL (William C. Marsh) (08/14/90)
In article <991@ncrwat.Waterloo.NCR.COM> dgs@swdev.Waterloo.NCR.COM (David G. Schwartz) writes: >When you tape stuff with your VCR, you are in technical violation of >copyright laws, however most copyright holders turn a blind eye to >private, non-comercial due to the enforcement problem. Last I had heard, the airwaves are still public domain, so anything received from them is public domain, including satellite transmissions. That's why they decided to scramble the satellite channels, because then you had to buy a de-scrambler and pay for a password. Bill -- Bill Marsh, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA {arpa,mil}net: bmarsh@cod.nosc.mil uucp: {ihnp4,akgua,decvax,dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!nosc!bmarsh "If everything seems to be coming your way, you're probably in the wrong lane."
Ordania-DM@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes) (08/15/90)
Bill Marsh writes: ------------------------ >In article <32634@cup.portal.com> Ordania-DM@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes) > writes: >> Hmmm...SEA vs Philip Katz, Apple vs Microsoft, Lotus vs Paperback, etc. > >> Flame...how long have you been in Timbuktoo? :) > >> SEA vs Philip Katz - I believe this was actually a trademark battle [do you >>know that using the ARC(TM) logo as a file extender is illegal? ] > >So, PK has come up with ZIP, which is a better, faster, and more compact >storage method. Also note, this was settled out of court, so no legally >binding decision was made from this action. I agree, ZIP is much better [and I hope SEA is badly hurt by it too! :) ] However, this doesn't change the fact that PK was strangled in court by a company able and willing to waste his time and money in court. If there were no copyright/trademark stupidities such as this we would have better software - PK would have continued with his ARC programs (adding ZIP compression,etc). If you compare SEA's current ARC to the one before the suit, you won't find much of a difference. This indicates a willingness to play in court but not in the marketplace. > >Using 'ARC' is only illegal if your 'ARC' file is not compatible with the >'ARC' utility from SEA. It seems simple enough to get SEA's approval, >though I dislike having to give SEA any source code. Seems a perfect reason to not have copyrights to me. This is the same as saying I I can't play PREPPIE because it is a takeoff of PACMAN. > >You have to remember, in cases that are settled 'out of court', that no >law was applied (or tested). In SEA v. PKWARE, PK (i believe) gave in >because of other things. Yeah, he gave in because he didn't have the money to fight the suit. The effect was a 'win' for SEA by precedent. > >> Apple vs Microsoft - Microsoft licensed the MAC interface, Apple got ticked >>when they used it for Windows & PM. > >And it's still in court. It would appear that Microsoft will win, based on >the current round of judgements in the case. I think Apple still hasn't >shown what is in Windows v2.0 that was not in Windows v1.0 that was 'invented' >by Apple. (i.e. there is no trashcan in Windows) You're right, MS may win (and I hope they do) but in the meantime it has cost MS and the end user a great deal of time and money. > >> Lotus vs Paperback - look and feel crapola (some merit to this suit, but >>so little that the suit did a great deal more harm to the community at >>large than Paperback did to Lotus). > >The Judge didn't mention 'look and feel', just that the Lotus menu system >was unique and non-obvious, not that the spreadsheet has rows and columns. Kinda funny that Lotus is going after Borland then, eh? > >IMHO, I think that all three of the cases were based on greed, and only >greed. Instead of continuing to develope and improve their software, the >companies decided to use the courts to protect their market advantage, >which I think is wrong. Yep, they sure are...and that is what you asked for. (see previous posting) >Anything new and unique (Which SEA's ARC isn't, BTW) >should be rewarded with copyrights or patents. I disagree on what is 'new and unique' as does Lotus, Apple, and SEA. The difference is that they are willing to go to court and I am willing to make something better. > >Bill >-- >Bill Marsh, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA >{arpa,mil}net: bmarsh@cod.nosc.mil >uucp: {ihnp4,akgua,decvax,dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!nosc!bmarsh >"If everything seems to be coming your way, you're probably in the wrong lane. Charles_K_Hughes@cup.portal.com
meadors@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Tony Meadors) (08/15/90)
In article <2847@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU> alanf@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Alan Grant Finlay) writes: > >What we should really do >is ban the copyright of software altogether. Over the past few years I have >seen more harm than good come out of software copyrightability. I know many >will disagree but I am serious - think about it! What we should pay for is >the support. Consumers should refuse to buy (or use!) copyright software and >insist on source code for the software they do use. One of the many problems with this is the adverse affect it would have on the software design itself. The more easy to learn, use, and maintain a product was, the less support it would need. Thus, very there would be little pressure to produce good software--only essential software. >There must be a better way! We don't >expect mathematicians to copyright their proofs, and yet mathematics >progresses. Yet, well developed proofs may be reported in journals and discussed at conferences--even named after the develper. The renown of such good work is a reward in itself and may lead to appointments and a better life. There is compensation in a great many ways that drive the research. On the other hand, engineering a useful tool for the purpose of monetary gain seems a reasonable enterprise itself--one more similar to writing a book or inventing a new chemical treatment process. It is pretty generally accepted that scientific and mathematic discoveries (of the ways of nature or numbers) may not be copyrighted, while specific linguistic matter or engineered designs can be. This arrangement has worked pretty well for a couple of hundred years now. The primary difference that the engineering of software brings is in how easily it may be copied and used without remnumeration to its creators/owners. Some argue that it can't be controlled. You take the stance that it shouldn't...presumably even if could be easily controlled. Is that right? tonyM
ralphs@halcyon.wa.com (Ralph Sims) (08/15/90)
Ordania-DM@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes) writes: > I disagree on what is 'new and unique' as does Lotus, Apple, and SEA. The > difference is that they are willing to go to court and I am willing to make > something better. SEA went to court and now ARC 7.0 is better, faster, tighter (read ad hype here) than anything else on the planet. [hyperbole mine] -- Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most...
bmarsh@cod.NOSC.MIL (William C. Marsh) (08/16/90)
In article <3wJXN2w162w@halcyon.wa.com> ralphs@halcyon.wa.com (Ralph Sims) writes: >SEA went to court and now ARC 7.0 is better, faster, tighter (read ad hype >here) than anything else on the planet. [hyperbole mine] I wonder if going to court prompted this 'new' version, or the fact that ZIP was becoming very popular, and they had no 'legal' means to stop it. If this had been the original response to PKARC then I would have applauded SEA, and we all would all have better utilities. But as it stands I have removed all ARC files from my systems... Bill -- Bill Marsh, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA {arpa,mil}net: bmarsh@cod.nosc.mil uucp: {ihnp4,akgua,decvax,dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!nosc!bmarsh "If everything seems to be coming your way, you're probably in the wrong lane."
markh@squirrel.LABS.TEK.COM (Mark Henderson) (08/17/90)
In article <2056@cod.NOSC.MIL> bmarsh@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William C. Marsh) writes: ->In article <3wJXN2w162w@halcyon.wa.com> ralphs@halcyon.wa.com (Ralph Sims) writes: ->>SEA went to court and now ARC 7.0 is better, faster, tighter (read ad hype ->>here) than anything else on the planet. [hyperbole mine] -> ->I wonder if going to court prompted this 'new' version, or the fact that ZIP ... ->we all would all have better utilities. But as it stands I have removed all ->ARC files from my systems... -> ->Bill ->-- ->Bill Marsh, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, CA Fact is, that ARC 7.0 seems to provide tighter compression than PKZIP 1.10. I sat down last night and tested it on various types of files (binaries, text, program source, database...etc.) and in all cases it compressed to a greater degree than PKZIP 1.10, LHARC 1.13d and PAK 2.10 with about the same speed as PKZIP. Registration for PKZIP is $47; ARC 7.0 sells for $49.95; so they're comparably priced. Lawsuit or not, I'll use the product that makes most efficient use of limited resources: disk space and transmission time. The outcome of the current situation is that we DO have better utilities. Both PKZIP 1.10 and ARC 7.0 are significantly faster and compress to a greater degree than PKARC and ARC 5.21 did. Can one really be confident that if things had gone differently that we would have even better utilities? At least I can't. Mark -- Mark Henderson, Tektronix, Inc., MS 50-662, P.O. Box 500, Beaverton, OR 97077 Telephone: +1 503 627 6280 FAX: +1 503 627 5502 TELEX: 6503784996MCI UW INTERNET: markh@crl.labs.tek.com ATTmail: !mchenderson MCI MAIL: 378-4996 X.400: ADMD=MCI/C=US/Surname=Henderson/Given_Name=Mark/DDA ID=3784996
alanf@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Alan Grant Finlay) (08/17/90)
In article <185@cogsci.ucsd.EDU>, meadors@cogsci.ucsd.EDU (Tony Meadors) writes: > In article <2847@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU> > alanf@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Alan Grant Finlay) [*** That's me! ***] > writes: > > > >What we should really do > >is ban the copyright of software altogether. Over the past few years I have > >seen more harm than good come out of software copyrightability. I know many [ stuff deleted ] > The primary difference that the engineering of software brings > is in how easily it may be copied and used without remnumeration > to its creators/owners. Some argue that it can't be controlled. You > take the stance that it shouldn't...presumably even if could be > easily controlled. Is that right? > My original article was in reponse to another and was presenting an extremist viewpoint to get people thinking. Your question deserves an answer. I really can't say what would have been if things had been different. I do know that I regularly buy books that I could photocopy for much less money (and I'm not so rich that the time I would spend matters). However even if illegal distribution was not such a problem I think we might still be suffering. What I think is more sensible than disallowing the copyright of software altogether is to make a new kind of law for software that is more appropriate. For example the copyright of books lasts for 25 years after the author's death (if I remember correctly). It is innapropriate to carry this kind of time scale over to computer software - five years would be far more reasonable. One thing that really pisses me off is that companys retain their copyrights to old versions of their products and won't even sell them any more. I also think we should weaken the terms of what software copyright means. We should certainly not allow "look and feel". The human motor system is geared to having one procedure only for each function. When my mind says "delete", my hands act - they don't ask me if I'm running A's product or B's product. I also think that all interfaces that define a product should be public domain - so if I want to produce a product with exactly the same functionality but written independently, from the interface specifications, then I should be free to (actually I think this is already the case - it just hasn't been tested in court). I don't know all the answers - I just think we could do a better job if we put our minds to it and stand up to these capitalists. With regard to how programmers should be renumerated - I ask you - what proportion of programmers are providing off the shelf products? Precious few and even these could be rewarded by some alternative scheme (e.g. a tax on hardware). Now don't start criticising me for suggesting this tax - its just an EXAMPLE of what we could consider doing and it may not even be necessary. We may find people writing the "off the shelf" stuff for exactly the same reasons we have mathematical proofs being developed - personal pride. And also if the copyright law is merely weakened as I suggested above then companys may still be able to provide the stuff and make a profit.
roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) (08/18/90)
markh@squirrel.LABS.TEK.COM (Mark Henderson) writes: > Registration for PKZIP is $47; > ARC 7.0 sells for $49.95; so they're comparably priced. ^^^^^ I take this to mean that ARC 7.0 is a commercial product? > Lawsuit or not, > I'll use the product that makes most efficient use of limited > resources: disk space and transmission time. Efficiency, although important, is a lesser consideration to me than portability. With ARC 7.0 a commercial product, I have little or no guarantee that the recipient of my compressed file will be able to unpack it. > Can one really be confident that if things had gone differently that > we would have even better utilities? At least I can't. Knowing Phil Katz's work record, I can! His version of ARC (which scared SEA into starting this whole mess) was _already_ superior. Hairsbreadth superiority or not, I still stick with ZIP. Maybe, _if_ I start seeing _vast_ numbers of 7.0-compressed ARCfiles, I'll change my mind, but I wouldn't be holding my breath. -- Roy M. Silvernail | #include <stdio.h> | Does virtual now available at: | main(){ | reality need cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu | float x=1; | swap space? (cyberspace... be here!)| printf("Just my $%.2f.\n",x/50);} | -- me
markh@squirrel.LABS.TEK.COM (Mark Henderson) (08/18/90)
In article <FD92N1w162w@cybrspc> cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu (Roy M. Silvernail) writes: >markh@squirrel.LABS.TEK.COM (Mark Henderson) writes: ... >portability. With ARC 7.0 a commercial product, I have little or no >guarantee that the recipient of my compressed file will be able to >unpack it. > Roy M. Silvernail | #include <stdio.h> | Does virtual > now available at: | main(){ | reality need > cybrspc!roy@cs.umn.edu | float x=1; | swap space? >(cyberspace... be here!)| printf("Just my $%.2f.\n",x/50);} | -- me A freely distributable "dearcer" for ARC 7.0 is provided by SEA, called XARC.EXE. Also, one can make self extracting archives. Someone pointed out to me that the $49.95 price was a limited time offer, which expired on the 15th of this month. I guess that the price now is probably more, but one would have to contact SEA (+1 800 899 4732) to find out. Mark Henderson -- Mark Henderson, Tektronix, Inc., MS 50-662, P.O. Box 500, Beaverton, OR 97077 Telephone: +1 503 627 6280 FAX: +1 503 627 5502 TELEX: 6503784996MCI UW INTERNET: markh@crl.labs.tek.com ATTmail: !mchenderson MCI MAIL: 378-4996 X.400: ADMD=MCI/C=US/Surname=Henderson/Given_Name=Mark/DDA ID=3784996
nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (08/19/90)
From: ashing@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Shing)
:
:In the case of a book, one can loan the book to a friend who can read it
:without buying it. We can also loan CD's and tapes to friends, or even tape
:music and TV shows off the air for free.
:
When you lend a book or CD to a friend you no longer have
the book or CD; he does. The only way this would be analogous
to software would be if you deleted the software from your hard
disk and then gave him the floppies to install on his machine.
And under the terms of most software license agreements this
is perfectly legal, since the ones I've seen license the
software for use on one machine or sometimes one user.
Another difference betweeen books and software is that your
friend presumably reads the book and gives it back to you.
Software is typically used many times. The only kinds of
books which are used many times are reference or technical
volumes, and if you make a copy of, say, a dictionary for your
friend (say you had a high-speed, low-cost copy machine)
you would, indeed be violating the law.
The problem with software is that it is possible for two
or more people to have identical copies at the same time.
This is not the case with books or CD's. You can tape music
off the air but this is for your own use. If you start distributing
copies to your friends you probably are violating the law.
And besides, taping off the air doesn't give you nearly the
quality of the original, whereas a copy of a piece of software
is a PERFECT copy, it's as good as the original. Also, the
music business works differently: record companies SEEK to
have their music broadcast; that's how they promote their
products; that people may tape them off the air is the price
they pay for that and they grudgingly accepted the Supreme
Court's decision on that. There is no analogy with software.
The software industry does not broadcast copies of our products
to the public, say via a public access dial-up. Each copy is
issued individually to parties who are fully informed before-
hand what the terms of the license agreement are.
As someone who writes software for a living I may be prejudiced,
but I claim I or my comapny have a right to be compensated
for my work. Using a piece of software which I wrote, without
compensating me or my company is stealing, plain and simple.
---Peterlowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) (08/19/90)
>>No. When you loan out a book, only the borrower can use it; hence, there >>is still only one copy around. However, if you were to make a copy of the >>book and then give your copy away, you'd indeed be in violation. You'd >>also be pretty dumb, because copying costs more than buying the original, >>in general. Copying software is free 'cept for the disk space. The analogy >>only holds if you loan out the software without keeping a copy yourself. > The value of a book is the contents of the book, not the book itself. > If a book is loaned to someone, and that person reads the book without > buying it, then he has received the full use of the book. In this case, > two people have had the full usage of the book - the original purchaser, and > the person to whom the book was loaned. The copyright holder only received > money for only one usage. I am not a lawyer, so I'm going to simply quote passages from the book "Computer Contracts" by Hilary E. Pearson, 1984, publishers Chapman and Hall: Page 207: The basic right given to the copyright owner is to prevent others from copying his work. This is, however, usually expressed as the positive exclusive right to reproduce the work, and to do related acts. Page 208: Because the rights are limited to the author's work, they do not prevent others from using the ideas contained in that work, nor can the author restrain use of an identical work which was independantly conceived. So your example falls apart. The copyright owner (the author or publisher of the book) prohibits people who buy that book from making COPIES of the book. However, that does not prohibit the person from using things learned from reading the book. Thus the book CAN be loaned, the original purchaser is just transfering his right to use the one copy to someone else. All the copyright does is prohibit a person from making a COPY of the book. > If the software policy were to be applied to books, then nobody should be > allowed to read a book without purchasing his own copy. This obviously is > not the case. Suppose every book came with a seal, and a page that said > that breaking the seal implied an agreement that the purchaser would not loan > the book to anyone else, unless he forgot everything he read in the book. > Then we would be analogous to the situation everyone is describing. That is a completely different issue. Now you are talking about software licences, not copyrights. Don't confuse the two. A copyright focuses only on the right to copy something. It is usually protected by criminal law, to the point that it was included in the constitution of the Unitied States. Page 203: The importance of protecting the works of authors was recognised by the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America, in the same article that provided for Patents. A software licence is a contract entered into by two parties which outline FURTHER restrictions IN ADDITION to the copyright. This contract is enforced by CIVIL law on a case by case basis. The contract could say you have to always wear mirror shades and hold a Nerf Bat when you use the software. It would be up to the courts to decide if that was valid or not. A more realistic example may be your telephone book. The book itself is protected by a copyright, meaning people cannot duplicate the book. However there is usually a "Conditions of Service" portion at the beginning which outline further limitations, such as the following from my SaskTel book: PAGE 20: 9. Each subscriber shall be allowed without charge the use of one telephone directory. 10. Every precaution is taken to prevent errors or ommissions in this directory, but SaskTel assumes no liability whatever for damages caused to subscribers by errors or omissions in the compiling and printing of this directory. etc. In other words, this BOOK has included a LICENCE which further limits the legal liabilities and use of the book over the existing copyright laws. Computer Software has its own unique problems, such as the ease with which it can be copied when compared to books, and situations like computer networks where one copy of the program can be used by many computers at the same time (although technically each computer has its own copy in RAM so copyright has been violated). This was originally compounded by confusion about exactly how Copyright law applied to Computer Software. To protect themselves, software licences (contracts) were added to software to outline how the software should be protected. > Another bone of contention is the one copy per CPU policy, which is analogous > to saying that if you buy a video tape, you can only watch it on one VCR, or > if you read a book at home, or on a bus, or at work, you need a separate copy > for each place. The latter is not the case, so why is the former the case? No, its the same as saying you can only watch the tape on one VCR AT ONE TIME. Most of the CPU policies I see say this is licenced for one cpu at a time. However, since this is covered by a software contract, and not copyright law, the copyright holders can say ANYTHING THEY WANT about how the software is used. It's up to the courts to decide if the contract is binding or not. If you don't like the conditions associated with buying some software, then don't buy it. >>When you tape stuff from radio or TV, you really should send in money >>to the owner; and if you sell taped copies, you better believe you are >>in violation of copyright! > > The Supreme Court has stated that taping of music and TV programs for one's > own usage is legal. No royalties are due to anybody, if you are a private > citizen, and not gaining a profit on the taped material. But that is a different matter too. TV stations pay performance rights to the copyright holders so they can show the TV program. The closest computer analogy is a site licence, where you pay up-front a fee for unlimited copies as long as those copies are only used in your institution (by your TV viewers in the case of TV stations) > Nobody is talking about selling taped copies of broadcast music or TV > programming here, nor are we talking about selling copies of computer > programs. No, but you ARE talking about illegally COPYING computer programs so that more than one person can use the program at the same time. This is a no-no. - Kevin Lowey (LOWEY@SASK.USASK.CA, LOWEY@HERALD.UUCP, LOWY@SASK.BITNET)
lowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) (08/19/90)
I meant to add this at the end of my last message:
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer. In this discussion and all similar legal
discussions consult a lawyer and don't depend upon what anyone
says in a Usenet Newsgroup.
(should be obvious, but it had to be said ...)
- Kevin Loweylowey@herald.usask.ca (Kevin Lowey) (08/19/90)
> I agree, ZIP is much better [and I hope SEA is badly hurt by it too! :) ] > >>Using 'ARC' is only illegal if your 'ARC' file is not compatible with the >>'ARC' utility from SEA. It seems simple enough to get SEA's approval, >>though I dislike having to give SEA any source code. > > Seems a perfect reason to not have copyrights to me. This is the same > as saying I I can't play PREPPIE because it is a takeoff of PACMAN. I am actually glad the lawsuit took place, because if it hadn't then Katz would probably still be trying to keep backward compatible with the .ARC format (which at the time didn't support things like full directory names, etc.). However, I do agree that SEA had a right to protect its copyright. After all, what use is a "Standard" if 15 different variations of the standard pop up? Where would X-Window be now if MIT didn't retain rights to the X-Window standard? How about Kermit? The correct thing to do is exactly what Katz ended up doing. Develop a new competing "standard". His mistake was making incompatible small modifications to the established ARC file format which caused confusion. If he had started with .ZIP right from the start, things would have been much smoother. I guess to ME the difficulty is determining what is a "standard". I can see file formats, system calls, and other things which would break existing programs if they are changed being a standard. However, I have trouble with the look of a windowing system or the organization of menus being a standard. - Kevin Lowey
Ordania-DM@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes) (08/19/90)
> > > > >From: ashing@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Shing) >: >:In the case of a book, one can loan the book to a friend who can read it >:without buying it. We can also loan CD's and tapes to friends, or even tape >:music and TV shows off the air for free. >: > > When you lend a book or CD to a friend you no longer have > the book or CD; he does. The only way this would be analogous > to software would be if you deleted the software from your hard > disk and then gave him the floppies to install on his machine. > And under the terms of most software license agreements this > is perfectly legal, since the ones I've seen license the > software for use on one machine or sometimes one user. > > Another difference betweeen books and software is that your > friend presumably reads the book and gives it back to you. > Software is typically used many times. The only kinds of > books which are used many times are reference or technical > volumes, and if you make a copy of, say, a dictionary for your > friend (say you had a high-speed, low-cost copy machine) > you would, indeed be violating the law. This difference is bigger than you think...yes, a book, especially a reference manual, can only be in one place at a time. The software analogy is, unfortunately, some sort of utility, such as a hard disk optimizer. Software companies do NOT approve of sharing this type of software (it is used once per machine :) and it should be (I don't know if it is or isn't) perfectly legal. From what I can remember, however, software companies require site licenses for these kinds of products. > > The problem with software is that it is possible for two > or more people to have identical copies at the same time. > This is not the case with books or CD's. You can tape music > off the air but this is for your own use. If you start distributing > copies to your friends you probably are violating the law. > And besides, taping off the air doesn't give you nearly the > quality of the original, whereas a copy of a piece of software > is a PERFECT copy, it's as good as the original. Also, the > music business works differently: record companies SEEK to > have their music broadcast; that's how they promote their > products; that people may tape them off the air is the price > they pay for that and they grudgingly accepted the Supreme > Court's decision on that. There is no analogy with software. > The software industry does not broadcast copies of our products > to the public, say via a public access dial-up. Each copy is > issued individually to parties who are fully informed before- > hand what the terms of the license agreement are. This is often not the case. Lots of software comes with a "shrink- wrapped" license. Some of the better outfits have a return-for-full- refund option even after opening the package, but not all of them. > > As someone who writes software for a living I may be prejudiced, > but I claim I or my comapny have a right to be compensated > for my work. Using a piece of software which I wrote, without > compensating me or my company is stealing, plain and simple. > I agree fully, but is a piece of software you wrote 5, 3, or even 2 years ago valuable enough to warrant a continued copyright? Most 5 year old software has been superceeded by better software [not neccessarily by the same author] and should lose its copyright status. In fact, most software is updated annually, but it SHOULD lose copyright status after a few years rather than authors-lifetime+50 years [note that the copyright is virtually forever if the author should happen to be a company or if the copyright is sold to a company]. > ---Peter Charles_K_Hughes@cup.portal.com
KRW1@Lehigh (08/20/90)
This wouldn't be much of a discussion if it weren't for all those people trying to rationalize the illegal copying of software. The intent of the copyright law is clear enough to everyone else. Why do people pirate software? Ignorance or thievery. Don't delude yourself by thinking it's anything else. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Weiner Lehigh University Computing Center (215) 758-3991
Ordania-DM@cup.portal.com (Charles K Hughes) (08/20/90)
Kevin writes: >This wouldn't be much of a discussion if it weren't for all those people >trying to rationalize the illegal copying of software. The intent of >the copyright law is clear enough to everyone else. Actually, this discussion had degenerated into arguments on the merits of copyright protection as it is applied to software. > >Why do people pirate software? Ignorance or thievery. Don't delude >yourself by thinking it's anything else. Nah, some people pirate because it is legal. Yep, pirating is legal in certain countries, Brazil is one I think. > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Kevin Weiner Lehigh University Computing Center (215) 758-3991 Charles_K_Hughes@cup.portal.com
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) (08/20/90)
KRW1@Lehigh writes: >Why do people pirate software? Ignorance or thievery. Don't delude >yourself by thinking it's anything else. Sorry, its not as black and white as you claim. Why do companies advertise software having fantastic features that either 1) don't work, or 2) don't really exist? Why do companies release bug-ridden which costs the user hundreds of dollars, only to find out after the user installed it that it doesn't work? I digress to one of my own experiences from the past.... I purchased a product called dBx, which was a dBase clone. Advertised as a $99 special, the outer packaging included a leaflet which claimed "full dBase III compatibility". Welp, I bought it, installed it, and started programming away. Guess what? File/Record locking didn't work. So, I called the company, and asked "Why do you claim full dBase compatibility if in fact you're not?" The reply: "If you read the last, three line paragraph in Appendix B4 of the manual, you would see it clearly states that the network commands are not supported. We have a network version of dBx which I'll be happy to let you upgrade to for a reduced price of $395..." The manual was over 400 pages long. I'm supposed to notice four lines in AN APPENDIX? Besides - Why did the outer leafet profuse "Full Dbase Compatibility" when it wasn't?" Companies like that deserve to get screwed, since they're only out to screw the consumer. This company was sleazier than a used-car salesman. This is why I make it a point from now on to "test drive" any software I'm going to purchase. If it means I have to borrow a friend's copy for a few weeks, fine. Companies who release legitimate programs that do as they claim should feel secure enough to offer a money-back guarentee, or at least have no problems with someone "test driving" the software prior to purchase. If this brands other people and myself who copy software for test drive purposes "criminals", then fine. I'd rather be a criminal than a consumer screwed out of several hundred dollars - or even more - by a sleazy software company which lies to the consumer. MD -- -- Michael P. Deignan, President -- Small Business Systems, Inc. -- -- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com -- Box 17220, Esmond, RI 02917 -- -- UUCP: ...uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 -- -- XENIX Archives: login: xxcp, password: xenix Index: ~/SOFTLIST --
fisher@sc2a.unige.ch (Markus Fischer) (08/20/90)
One thing strikes me in the recent discussions about the pirating of software.
Computer programs are always compared to books, why is that so?
Of course, the point is that you *can* copy programs, in a much simpler way
than books. Maybe that is why the obvious comparaison is made so often. In
fact, the equivalence can be made for any type of *data* on an electronical
device (help files, documentation, pictures, financial data, etc.), but
shouldn't be made for *programs*, even in source form.
If someone copies a program, he should be treated exactly the same way as if
he had duplicated a *machine* (a watch, a car, a pocket calculator, etc.).
I expect that no one would complain if I made a "copy" of a friends car for my
own usage, because the cost involved are much higher than the price of my
own legitimate "copy". Of course, the builder of the car has a right to
complain, as he holds the copyright, and I'm sure he *would* use his right
if the duplication of his product was cheaper than it's price.
The fact that a program needs a computer to be run is of no significance. If
I made "copies" of tape (the tape itself, not it's content), I'd need a
recorder to use it. Same problem.
There even was a posting transposing the "look-and-feel" problem to books!
Now that is really silly. If one transposes it to machines, it makes sense:
I can't sell a copy of a famous Swiss watch, even if the mechanics inside
are completly different. There are billions of ways to display the time, but
that particular way happens to be copyrighted...
About the original question: "Why do people pirate software?", the answer is
simple enough: because it's cheaper! and don't believe anything else. I was
convinced once by a friend who believes that illegitimate "trial copies"
were ok, because it allowed him to sell software that people didn't think
they'd need. But even in that case, the legal way (i.e. buy one copy he
can lend to the potential client, without keeping a "backup copy" for himself)
works the same. That is he should, as a seller, invest first in legal copies
in order to be able to offer that service, much like a car vendor in fact.
It is a fact that the real problem about copyright appear when the duplicate
becomes cheaper than the original (like for japanese duplicates of swiss
watches, many years ago). This has always been the case for paper money
(watch out for color photocopies of dollar bills!), and when someone uses
the research of somebody else to produce a "clone" (no research costs, so
it can be much cheaper!).
Just a thought
Markus Fischer -|--|--|--|--|--|--I Department of Anthropology
-|--|--|--|--|--|--|-(#)-I University of Geneva
-|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|--|-(#)-|-(#)(#)(_)-I CH-1227 Carouge (GE)
-&-(_)-|--|--|-(#)-&--|-(#)(#)(_)(#)-&-(_)(#)-I Switzerland
-|--|--|--|--|-(#)(_)-|-(_)(_)(_)(#)-I
black (#) to kill ! --|--|-(#)(_)(_)(_)(#)(#)(_)(_) fisher@sc2a.unige.ch
=+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+==+=(#)=+ fisher@cgeuge52.bitnetashing@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Shing) (08/21/90)
In article <19089016:24:58KRW1@lehigh.bitnet> KRW1@Lehigh writes: >This wouldn't be much of a discussion if it weren't for all those people >trying to rationalize the illegal copying of software. The intent of >the copyright law is clear enough to everyone else. > >Why do people pirate software? Ignorance or thievery. Don't delude >yourself by thinking it's anything else. > It is also illegal to drive faster than 55 mph. Yet everyone drives at 80 mph around here. If you drive 55, you will probably be creamed, or severely flamed (ie. given the finger). When a law is unenforceable, and blatantly violated by the public at large then it is a bad law, and should be eliminated. Let's face it - it does no good to argue about the right and wrongness of copying software. People do it because the current software copyright and licensing policies are nonsensical, and cannot be enforced. People also see the laws as a reflection of greed on the part of the software writers, and thus feel no remorse in copying and distributing a $500 software package. The people who have been arguing moralistically about violating copyrights are technically correct under the law, but awfully naive about human nature. I assume that these people religiously drive at 55 mph where posted. If not, then they are in violation of the law. As criminals, do they have the right to throw stones at others? >---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Kevin Weiner Lehigh University Computing Center (215) 758-3991 -- Al Shing (ashing@cac.washington.edu)
marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) (08/21/90)
ashing@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Shing) writes: >The value of a book is the contents of the book, not the book itself. >If a book is loaned to someone, and that person reads the book without >buying it, then he has received the full use of the book. In this case, >two people have had the full usage of the book - the original purchaser, and >the person to whom the book was loaned. The copyright holder only received >money for only one usage. >In loaning out a book, one still retains the plot or knowledge of what was in >the book. Whether or not the original copy is retained does not change this. I don't think your argument works for reference books. They are intended to be used over and over - just like software. When you loan your dictionary to a friend, you cannot use it. The same should apply to software. >Another bone of contention is the one copy per CPU policy, which is analogous >to saying that if you buy a video tape, you can only watch it on one VCR, or >if you read a book at home, or on a bus, or at work, you need a separate copy >for each place. The latter is not the case, so why is the former the case? I agree with you there. That's one think I like about Borland's license agreements. They don't care how many machines it's on or how many use it - as long as it is never used concurrently. Microsoft now allows you to put your software on more than one machine. However, you must have the license card with you when you are using it. That seems fair to me, but I wish the card was wallet sized. -- Marshall L. Buhl, Jr. EMAIL: marshall@seri.gov Senior Computer Missionary VOICE: (303)231-1014 Wind Research Branch 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401-3393 Solar Energy Research Institute Solar - safe energy for a healthy future
josef@nixpbe.UUCP (Moellers) (08/22/90)
In <6526@milton.u.washington.edu> ashing@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Shing) writes: [stuff deleted] >It is also illegal to drive faster than 55 mph. Yet everyone drives at >80 mph around here. If you drive 55, you will probably be creamed, or >severely flamed (ie. given the finger). >When a law is unenforceable, and blatantly violated by the public at large >then it is a bad law, and should be eliminated. >Let's face it - it does no good to argue about the right and wrongness of >copying software. People do it because the current software copyright and >licensing policies are nonsensical, and cannot be enforced. People also >see the laws as a reflection of greed on the part of the software writers, >and thus feel no remorse in copying and distributing a $500 software >package. >The people who have been arguing moralistically about violating copyrights >are technically correct under the law, but awfully naive about human nature. >I assume that these people religiously drive at 55 mph where posted. If not, >then they are in violation of the law. As criminals, do they have the right >to throw stones at others? Some time ago, I read an article covering the US's progress in fighting drugs, especially preventing drugs to enter the US. The article concluded that the battle was as good as lost. From what I read above, I would conclude, that Mr. Shing would agree that we legalize drugs, just because the governments fail in fighting it. To add to the list: How about - polluting the environment, - corruption, - crime in general? No. We can't give in to those who think that law is there to break it. -- | Josef Moellers | c/o Nixdorf Computer AG | | USA: mollers.pad@nixbur.uucp | Abt. PXD-S14 | | !USA: mollers.pad@nixpbe.uucp | Heinz-Nixdorf-Ring | | Phone: (+49) 5251 104662 | D-4790 Paderborn |
s64421@zeus.usq.edu.au (house ron) (08/24/90)
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes: >[Horrendous example deleted.] >This is why I make it a point from now on to "test drive" any software I'm >going to purchase. If it means I have to borrow a friend's copy for a few >weeks, fine. Companies who release legitimate programs that do as they >claim should feel secure enough to offer a money-back guarentee, or at least >have no problems with someone "test driving" the software prior to purchase. >If this brands other people and myself who copy software for test drive >purposes "criminals", then fine. I'd rather be a criminal than a consumer >screwed out of several hundred dollars - or even more - by a sleazy >software company which lies to the consumer. I couldn't agree more. I recently received a poster from a mob called BSAA. It's some sort of anti-piracy association in Australia with members like Microsoft, Wordperfect, and so on. In it, they announce boldly: "Copying is stealing." Well, no. Stealing is a very specific offence, and copyright violation is _not_ stealing. It might not be ethical (or sometimes it might!) but it certainly aint stealing! I am moved to proclaim: LYING ABOUT THE COPYRIGHT LAWS IS STEALING! Just about as logical as the tripe BSAA is pedalling, bit I wonder what THEY would think if I broadcast that in the same way they are speading their own lies. They go on to proclaim that illegal copying in Aust. costs [them] $300 million a year. I am sure extravagant figures like this are floated all over the world. WHERE DO THESE FIGURES COME FROM??? I strongly suspect that they are simply counting illegal copies and then having rosy fantacies about all those people being forced to cough up payment for them. But if software could not be copied, I VERY much doubt that they would sell even a small fraction of those illegal copies legitimately. Students, hackers etc. would simply do without. Also for reasons like Michael's, most sane people do get a look at software they plan to buy. I suspect that if everyone obeyed the copyright laws scrupulously, people like Michael and I would end up buying a lot less software! After all, why pay dearly for stuff sight-unseen when shareware is available? -- Regards, Ron House. (s64421@zeus.usq.edu.au) (By post: Info Tech, U.C.S.Q. Toowoomba. Australia. 4350)
lukrw@vax1.cc.lehigh.edu (08/25/90)
In article <6526@milton.u.washington.edu>, ashing@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Shing) writes: > It is also illegal to drive faster than 55 mph. Yet everyone drives at > 80 mph around here. If you drive 55, you will probably be creamed, or > severely flamed (ie. given the finger). Thankfully, "Everyone's doing it" has never been much of a defense. > When a law is unenforceable, and blatantly violated by the public at large > then it is a bad law, and should be eliminated. No, the law isn't bad. The law is designed to protect (however poorly designed). It's the violators who are ALL "bad", no matter how many people are doing it. My definition of "bad" in this case being knowingly causing harm to someone else, or infringing on their rights. And no, I am not some guardian of public morals. This is clear-cut illegality we're talking about.
lukrw@vax1.cc.lehigh.edu (08/25/90)
In article <2643@anomaly.sbs.com>, mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes: > KRW1@Lehigh writes: > >>Why do people pirate software? Ignorance or thievery. Don't delude >>yourself by thinking it's anything else. > > Sorry, its not as black and white as you claim. > > Why do companies advertise software having fantastic features that either > 1) don't work, or 2) don't really exist? Why do companies release bug-ridden > which costs the user hundreds of dollars, only to find out after the user > installed it that it doesn't work? That's misrepresentation - not a valid excuse for violating *their* rights. > Companies like that deserve to get screwed, since they're only out to > screw the consumer. This company was sleazier than a used-car salesman. What they deserve is not up to you to decide. > This is why I make it a point from now on to "test drive" any software I'm > going to purchase. If it means I have to borrow a friend's copy for a few > weeks, fine. Companies who release legitimate programs that do as they > claim should feel secure enough to offer a money-back guarentee, or at least > have no problems with someone "test driving" the software prior to purchase. As a member of the Association of Shareware Professionals, I fully support the notion of users being able to test complete, functioning versions of applications. That is, however, at the sole discretion of the vendor. Poor software needs to be addressed, but not by people arbitrarily breaking the law. You have many rights guaranteed by state and federal statute which protect you, should you decide you have been taken and wish restitution. Not an easy task, granted, but still your only legitimate recourse. -- Kevin
F0O@psuvm.psu.edu (08/27/90)
>In article <2643@anomaly.sbs.com>, mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) >writes: >> KRW1@Lehigh writes: >> >>>Why do people pirate software? Ignorance or thievery. Don't delude >>>yourself by thinking it's anything else. I know one person who will take anything someone gives him, whether he needs it or not. I remember one time he took a version of autocad, and couldn't get it running(he didn't have the instructions of course), and wanted me to get it running for him. I didn't. A couple of times, he brought in stolen copies of compilers, and thought he was doing me a big favor. When I ask him if he has the documentation, and he says no, I promptly give the disks back to him. I can see he doesn't like that, but oh well. When I tell this person that he is in effect, stealing software, he totally denies that. I always like to give this example: "If you are in a computer store, and no one was around, and you took said product out of the store without paying for it, is that stealing?" "Yes." "Then what is the difference between you taking the product out of the store, or getting it from a friend. The software developer is still out money. Either way its stealing." "..." One of the great advantages of buying a product is the updates and price breaks you can get on new software. Borland has been wanting me to buy Quattro Pro from them for $99 for the last 6 months. Moral of the story, there are definite advantages to buying software from a good company. But if you are going to take software, with no intention of paying for it, then at least admit to yourself what it actually is. [Tim]
bwb@sei.cmu.edu (Bruce Benson) (08/28/90)
In article <90239.093316F0O@psuvm.psu.edu> F0O@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > > I know one person who will take anything someone gives him, whether >he needs it or not. I remember one time he took a version of autocad, and >couldn't get it running(he didn't have the instructions of course), and >wanted me to get it running for him. I didn't. I've know "collectors" like this. I actually stopped being too concerned about these folks as they have "lots" of software but rarely use any of it. Their thing seems to be collecting (and redistributing), rather than use. They don't get any benefit out of the software. I use to freely volunteer to set up anyones system. I gave up this altruistic activity since those people who took me up on my offer never seemed to want to buy the software they needed. Too often they had stacks of disks they got from a "collector" and thought I was going to install them and show them how it works (and be on call for questions). > A couple of times, he brought in stolen copies of compilers, and thought >he was doing me a big favor. When I ask him if he has the documentation, >and he says no, I promptly give the disks back to him. I can see he doesn't >like that, but oh well. Ditto. My mistake was to every once in awhile ask him if he had software "X" because I was thinking about buying it and wanted to look at it. In turn he expected me to give him copies of the software I bought. (You should have seen his eyes bug out the day he dropped by my home and saw a bookshelf of software manuals - I've seen third world country street kids look at a wallet that same way.) I realized what I was doing was equally wrong and stopped asking. > When I tell this person that he is in effect, stealing software, he >totally denies that. I always like to give this example: > > "If you are in a computer store, and no one was around, and you took >said product out of the store without paying for it, is that stealing?" > "Yes." > "Then what is the difference between you taking the product out of the >store, or getting it from a friend. The software developer is still out >money. Either way its stealing." > "..." Ditto. I had almost the exact same conversation. The individual had an IQ twice that of mine (was a rated chess player) and was a good programmer but was not convinced that there was any parallel in the above examples. His response to the stealing software was that it was a "victimless crime". He didn't have a quick answer to stealing from a store. The person I refer to above is actually a composite of four people I have worked with. They were all hard working, very capable, fairly well paid, all professional software people. They were all considered a lot more normal than I was! I wonder if they don't all have some form of mild addiction (kinda like buying only on sale - even if it isn't a better buy) that drives them to "collect" but never really to use. Is there a comp.pychology.pirate news group somewhere? * Bruce Benson + Internet - bwb@sei.cmu.edu + + * Software Engineering Institute + Compuserv - 76226,3407 + >--|> * Carnegie Mellon University + Voice - 412 268 8469 + + * Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890 + + US Air Force
mikew@proton.LCS.MIT.EDU (Michael B. Williams) (08/28/90)
In article <90239.093316F0O@psuvm.psu.edu> F0O@psuvm.psu.edu writes: > One of the great advantages of buying a product is the updates and >price breaks you can get on new software. Borland has been wanting me to >buy Quattro Pro from them for $99 for the last 6 months. > [Tim] I must have gotten at least half a dozen letters from Borland offering me the ``$99 Quattro Pro'' upgrade either because I'm a Lotus 1-2-3 user or because I'm a registered owner of Turbo C 2.0. (The funny thing about the Lotus 1-2-3 letters is that I have never owned, used, or needed to use 1-2-3.) I wonder if there is a polite way to tell Borland that it's nothing personal, but I DON'T NEED OR USE SPREAD SHEETS and would they kindly stop sending me these $99 upgrade letters. :-) Of course, a $99 upgrade to Turbo C++ Professional, now we're talking... ______________________________________________________________________ Michael B. Williams | /| /| ) /| / Room 527 | / | / |--<| / | / Laboratory for Computer Science | / |/ |___)/ |/ Massachusetts Institute of Technology | Internet: mikew@athena.mit.edu 545 Technology Square | CompuServe: 73667,3264 Cambridge, MA 02139 | AT&T: (617) 253-6015
ashing@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Shing) (08/30/90)
In article <1990Aug27.220656.22537@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> mikew@proton.LCS.MIT.EDU (Michael B. Williams) writes: #In article <90239.093316F0O@psuvm.psu.edu> F0O@psuvm.psu.edu writes: #> One of the great advantages of buying a product is the updates and #>price breaks you can get on new software. Borland has been wanting me to #>buy Quattro Pro from them for $99 for the last 6 months. #> [Tim] # #I must have gotten at least half a dozen letters from Borland offering #me the ``$99 Quattro Pro'' upgrade either because I'm a Lotus 1-2-3 #user or because I'm a registered owner of Turbo C 2.0. (The funny #thing about the Lotus 1-2-3 letters is that I have never owned, used, #or needed to use 1-2-3.) I wonder if there is a polite way to tell #Borland that it's nothing personal, but I DON'T NEED OR USE SPREAD #SHEETS and would they kindly stop sending me these $99 upgrade #letters. :-) # As a registered owner of Turbo C 2.0 (yes, I do buy my own software), I also received the $99 Q Pro offer, and also didn't consider myself in the spread- sheet market, since I already had MS Works. However, I did take them up on the offer, on the theory that any time you can buy a $495 piece of software for $99, you should do it, and lo and behold, I all of a sudden have lots of uses for a professional quality spreadsheet. Borland can send me these offers any day. I am aware that Q Pro is probably going to be upgraded fairly soon, and that the upgrade fee is probably going to be considerably more than $99, but I'll probably go ahead and get the upgrade. This strategy is a lot like that of the drug pushers, and IBM - start 'em off cheap and get 'em hooked, and then hit 'em when they can't do without your product. Too bad other vendors haven't figured this out. #Of course, a $99 upgrade to Turbo C++ Professional, now we're talking... # The price will come down to around $150 pretty soon, so don't hold your breath waiting. -- Al Shing (ashing@cac.washington.edu)