Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!csc!pfr654
From: pfr654@csc.anu.oz
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: A new idea regarding piracy and software sales
Message-ID: <2239.2678c760@csc.anu.oz>
Date: 15 Jun 90 11:32:47 GMT
Organization: Computer Services, Australian National University
Lines: 49

My two bits worth of the current piracy debate:

I have read lots of the discussion about piracy of software, but what 
strikes me is that the software companies are raking in money.

Picture this: ten years ago a department would use a minicomputer (like a 
Vax or DG or HP machine) and would buy A SINGLE WP program, A SINGLE 
GRAPHICS program, A SINGLE NUMBERCRUNCHING/DATABASE program. These items of 
software could be used by however many people in the group were logged on 
at any one time; mostly though the situation was that a few people were 
using the wp, a few using the database, a few using the graphics package 
etc NOT EVERYONE USING ALL OF THE SOFTWARE ALL THE TIME. Nor were all of 
the terminals in use; nor was the software all propietary.

Now the situation is that the software companies say that a group of 20 
computer users needs to get a copy of every program for each computer 
which might be used at any time. We know that mostly, of the 
computers switched on, about 1/2 would be doing wp [depending on your 
usage], 1/4 database/spreadsheet, 1/4 graphics. Further, we know that only 
about 2/3 of the computers will be doing anything at any one time during 
the work day (i.e. they might be switched on and in Word 4, but actually 
running a screensaver or something).

What I am implying is that the 1 copy of each item of software 
per computer is not fair: a step back to the time of minicomputer usage 
of software, where the authors sold one package and one set of 
documentation, and more sets of documentation could be purchased if 
necessary - separate to more copies of the software.

I realize that some companies have the sort of 'group licence' I am 
taliking about, but mostly even they are too expensive. Microsoft's version 
is in fact the wrong way around: ten copies of the original disks with two 
copies of the documentation [obviously they are agreeing that it is easier 
to copy magnetic media than paper], for about three or four times the 
normal price.

Why not have all software being allowed to be copied for a fee, which does 
not give the payers of the fee the right to upgrade; say $10 for a program 
costing under $US 200, $20 over that PLUS a realistic price for extra 
copies of the documentation [i.e. what is the production cost for that 
documentation].

Just an idea: email or post replies: if I get lots of mail I will 
summarize.
*====*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*===*
Phil Ryan                                         
ANU Department of Physics and Theoretical Physics 
Canberra, Australia                               
pfr654@csc.anu.oz@murtoa.cs.mu.oz.au   phone:(61-6) 249 4678