Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!wugate!uunet!yale!eagle!jtreworgy
From: jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Software thieves (Piracy discussion, LONG)
Message-ID: <831@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Date: 31 Aug 89 14:39:26 GMT
References: <30706@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <6846@rpi.edu> <2361@raspail.cdcnet.cdc.com> <6865@rpi.edu> <58013@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <6876@rpi.edu> <1160@sas.UUCP> <11682@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <1575@convex.UUCP> <620@eagle.wesleyan.edu> <1616@convex.UUCP>
Distribution: usa
Lines: 71

Before I begin here I have since been convinced that using (long term) pirated
programs without paying for them is not a good thing, even if you can afford
them.

In article <1616@convex.UUCP>, swarren@eugene.uucp (Steve Warren) writes:
[this was removed because I basically agree with most of it now]

>        [...discussion of piracy as a "try before you buy" technique...]
>>core.)What is wrong with letting people find out if they like something before
>>they pay out?
> 
> As I said before there is simply no incentive for people to buy something they
> already have.  People talk about support, but I've never used a customer
> support line (I know some of you do; good for you!).  Popular packages like
> Autocad have aftermarket manuals available for a fraction of the cost of
> the package.

Most software packages do not have aftermarket manuals.

> This is part of the terms that must be negotiated with the
> seller.  If you refuse to buy it without trying it first, maybe he will
> agree to those terms.  But you have to be accountable to him.  If he says
> "no try before you buy", then tough.  And if you say, "oh yeah, well I'll
> get it from a pirate," then you have just taken the moral low ground.
> 

Any lower than his moral ground of NOT letting you try it first? Many software
manufacturers are, either consciously or because of cutting corners, trying to
screw you over with a buggy or poorly designed product.

Here is the situation. Decide for yourself who is on lower moral ground.

1. A lot of software is copy protected. This is very inconvenient for a lot of
reasons:

    a) No hard disk
    b) No backup (except for a tidy $15 or whatever, if at all)
    c) For games, if you have a lot of RAM it's nice to put the whole thing
there to save disk access time. This can't be done either.

2. A lot of software really sucks. You are at the mercy of butt-licking
magazines giving the software good reviews, and slick ads promising a great
product from the company. Software, unlike other consumer products, is not
subject to the "not performing as advertised" rule (or at least perfomance in
software is subjective enough that it can't really be victim of a lawsuit). You
can return most things you buy to stores if you don't like them. Rarely so with
software.

So basically the consumer is at a high risk when buying software. I think it's
interesting that some copy-protected software I have purchased comes with a
license agreement which includes something to effect of "backups may only be
made for archival purposes", yet you most likely have no way to make such a
backup.

I applaud those software companies who have limited demo-versions of their
software available. Like Dungeon Master, and a number of productivity packages
which have "save" disabled. This is a very good thing. But in the absence of
this, I do not think there is anything wrong with using a copy of something
before you buy it. You said that maybe nobody loses in this case, but it's
still immoral. IMHO, it is only immoral if you do NOT dispose of the copy
after having used it a while. You said, there is nothing stopping you from
using it for free. So? I am talking about previewing. Not using it on the long
term for free. It's only immoral if you use it on a long term basis without
paying. Morality is not the law. It is illegal to posess a copy of a program,
even if only for two hours. But it's not immoral because you tried it, made an
assessment, did not benefit in any productive way except to judge whether or
not you liked it, and destroyed it. This is not immoral.
-- 
James A. Treworgy
jtreworgy@eagle.wesleyan.edu
jtreworgy%eagle@WESLEYAN.BITNET