Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cos!hadron!netxcom!netxdev!ewiles From: ewiles@netxdev.DHL.COM (Edwin Wiles) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...) Message-ID: <2793@netxcom.DHL.COM> Date: 12 Jan 90 18:16:18 GMT References: <137@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk> <15398@well.UUCP> <1134@utoday.UUCP> <1990Jan8.043811.23794@robohack.UUCP> <1361@key.COM> <1990Jan9.212923.917@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <2719@netxcom.DHL.COM> <4781@itivax.iti.org> Sender: news@netxcom.DHL.COM Reply-To: ewiles@netxdev.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) Organization: NetExpress Communications, Inc. Lines: 89 In article <4781@itivax.iti.org> dhw@itivax.UUCP (David H. West) writes: >#include > >In article <2719@netxcom.DHL.COM> ewiles@netxdev.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes: >>In both cases, property is retained in lieu of payment for damages perceived. > >Bad examples. Retaining a physical object denies use of it to >others. Not so with copied information. Perhaps they are not the best examples possible, but your above argument is IMHO a slightly concealed argument that software is not property, and it is therefore OK to make a copy of it to do with as you wish. It's still stealing property. >If the author wanted use >to be contingent upon payment, s/he should not cause the automatic >distribution of tens of thousands of unsolicited copies at others' >expense. The whole point of shareware is that the distribution method not be outrageously expensive. Expensive distribution forces higher prices for software by require a MUCH greater initial investment in the software before you can even hope to get a reasonable return. Electronic distribution, without the requirement that you pay for the product, unless you keep a copy of it, is the most inexpensive means of distribution. NOTE! The cost to any ONE site, which is all any ONE person can complain about, is quite small. Granted, the cost to the community at large is higher, but YOU (speaking generally) do not bear that larger cost! You don't like paying a few cents for distribution of shareware? Then bill the author! But I think it would cost you FAR more to bill the author than you would obtain in *reasonable* fees for distribution. NOTICE! Commercial outfits (like UUNET, CI$, etc.) CANNOT charge for the distribution, as they already recoup their costs from the sites which they are transmitting to. (Weellll, maybe the could try, but they'd have a rough time in court. Besides, they make more money the more they have to carry! I would think they would be in favor of shareware. IMHO! IMHO! IMHO! ) >Unlike the cited blind man, shareware authors are not >forced into this way of making a living. Are you sure of that? A shareware author could just as easily be in a wheelchair in such a condition that holding down a regular job is impossible. Such a situation could also reduce his income to the point where commercial distribution would be impossible. Not saying they are, just that assuming they aren't does not make it true. (Doesn't make it untrue either!) >I am not arguing against paying shareware authors, but I'm also not >going to spend any time feeling sorry for those who complain that >they broadcast their work, and were not rewarded by people who never >asked to receive the work in the first place. I wouldn't argue about it either, and I wouldn't feel sorry for them if the people who received it never used it either, but if you USE their work, then you SHOULD pay for it. What apparently started this was someone posting a complaint about being "forced" to carry shareware, and then the authors having the gall to ask for/expect payment, so they were going to use it without paying for it, and post a note here rubbing the shareware author's nose in it. I'm not going to feel sorry for THEM either! As I said previously, about the only thing you could legitimately do would be to deduct the *reasonable* distribution costs that YOUR site encountered in obtaining the software. >Probably the cost of the human time spent on skimming the headers >exceeds the cost of net transport for this stuff. Much of it is >probably useful to someone, but most of it is probably useless to any >specific person. That's the way with ALL software. It's just that this way, the cost is low enough that there is NO REASON not to pay for it if you are going to use it. You even get to test it out first! Surely that opportunity is worth the few cents you paid to get it on your system! And if this particular piece of shareware is of no use to you, it may be so for someone else. Just as YOU might one day find a truly useful piece of shareware some day, THEY are waiting for you to pass THIS one on! "Who?... Me?... WHAT opinions?!?" | Edwin Wiles Schedule: (n.) An ever changing nightmare. | NetExpress, Inc. ...!{hadron,sundc,pyrdc,uunet}!netxcom!ewiles | 1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300 ewiles@iad-nxe.global-mis.DHL.COM | Vienna, VA 22182