Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!evan
From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...)
Message-ID: <25B09FA1.5E13@telly.on.ca>
Date: 14 Jan 90 15:49:51 GMT
References: <2719@netxcom.DHL.COM> <4781@itivax.iti.org> <2793@netxcom.DHL.COM>
Organization: Public Access Usenet, Brampton, Ontario
Lines: 117

In article <2793@netxcom.DHL.COM> ewiles@netxdev.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes:

>	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.

You just can't claim theft, when:
a) The recipient did not request the item;
b) You do not make any attempts to control its distribution;
c) The other person's use does not deprive YOU of your enjoyment of it;

Before you start gratuitously using terms like theft, remember that in
many jurisdictions, you are allowed to refuse payment for, and *keep and
use*, unsolicited material, regardless of how it got to you.

>	The whole point of shareware is that the distribution method not
>	be outrageously expensive.

True. It's a tradeoff. As an author, you know that your product will
cost *you* more if you have to go through conventional channels, and that
fewer people will pay the higher price you will then have to charge.

If you go the shareware route, your costs are lower, but you are counting
on nothing more than the goodwill of your users, that they share your ideas
of the product's value, and the righteousness of support the author by
following instructions to send money.

What we have seen in this thread is the voice of those users who do not
share these ideas. As a shareware author, you have no recourse to their
actions, except to either attempt to change their minds or move on.
I guess there's also a need to make sure that more people don't hear
(and subscribe to) these views.

Using guilt, threats, or unenforcable legalese, to me, is the easiest
way to get people's backs up and *ensure* you won't get a cent from them.

>       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.

No. As an author, you can broadcast *information* about your product,
then allow people to mail you orders to send them disks or dial directly
into their computer to upload it. While this makes the direct cost of
your product slightly more expensive, and deprives users of the ability
to demonstrate your product, it gives you much greater control on its
distribution, without the "MUCH greater initial investment" claimed.

I am not saying this method is preferable to shareware, just that there
are other choices available to a software author. Choosing to go the
shareware route is easier and cheaper for the author, but takes control
of the product completely out of the author's hand. That approach has its
benefits and drawbacks, like any other option.

>	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.

*Only to the author.*

It can be more expensive to the recipient and sites along the way with no
interest in it.

>       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!

But I *am* part of the community, and I share the community-wide costs
in addition to those I bear personally. How can you state that people
have no responsibility to their greater community, especially on a
network which dpends so much on goodwill and co-operation as Usenet?

This divide-and-conquer approach certainly won't win any converts to
your sid of the argument...

>	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.

I have an implicit agreement with my Usenet neighbours (upstream and
downstream) that I neither pay nor charge for newsfeeds (beyond what Ma
Bell gets). I have no such agreement with the shareware author.
Therefore, by the above scenario, my only ability to recoup costs is
from the account holders on this system (who did not ask for the
shareware to be transmitted to this system) or the author (who did make
such a request by posting it.)

(Speculation: if sites carrying shareware started charging shareware
authors, and courts upheld even a few of the charges as legitimate, what
would that do to shareware's benefit of lower costs to the author?)

>       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.

Court has nothing to do with it. CI$ will charge as much as their
customers are willing to pay. UUNET will charge what *they* think is
reasonable.

>	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.

And if I bear part of the cost of distribution but don't use the
shareware, are you saying I have a right to bill the author a reasonable
amount for transmission and storage costs? I can live with that, but I
somehow doubt that Brad, Ross and other shareware authors will be enthused
with the idea.

-- 
The three stages of man:     | Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software
1 - Believes in Santa Claus  | Located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
2 - Doesn't believe in Santa | evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!attcan!telly!evan
3 - Is Santa Claus           | (416) 452-0504