Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!bbn.com!cosell
From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Pirates and swapware
Message-ID: <57915@bbn.BBN.COM>
Date: 1 Jul 90 13:06:45 GMT
References: <1990Jun26.090628.18273@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <203.filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us>
Sender: news@bbn.com
Lines: 53

filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin) writes:

}I have a big problem with this method.  Suppose my business depends on a
}piece of software.  The publisher of this software goes out of business.
}I have to replace my computer for some reason -- it dies, is stolen,
}whatever.  Now what? ...
}...  This is
}unacceptable.

I'm not sure what version of the real world you live in, but I guess you
don't find very much 'acceptable' stuff.  The fact of businesses depending on
the continuing existence of some of their hardware and software suppliers is
a *fact*of*life*.  What do you do if your *hardware* supplier goes out of
business, or decides to stop making/supporting your platform?  The world is
probably still filled with big IBM mainframes running in 1401-compatibility
mode because their payroll program was written by some long-gone consultants
in AutoCoder.  A project I was working on *died* because we got trapped by a
VMS upgrade: some stuff that we needed was _only_ available on the new
system, and one of our big applications had not been ported forward yet.

Out in the "real world", figuring in the prob of continued support for
your hardware, software, materials, supplies, etc is just the way things are.
If you bet your company on a huge Multics-based application, or the CDC6600,
or on the DEC 36-bit machines, or... you're out of luck.  


}Big-systems software protected in this fashion are not subject to this
}problem only because there is a higher level of confidence in the
}publishers of the software.  This is not to say that they won't go out
}of business, etc., but that if they do, they will probably clean up
}after themselves -- hand out free keys, sell their licensing business to
}another firm, or whatever.

This doesn't agree with my experience, speaking from a LONG history of
working around orphaned, dead, etc, etc hardware platforms, software
packages, peripherals, etc.  Mostly, when your sole-supplier of
*anything* goes under, you are in *deep* shit.  Generally, there is no
fanfare, no "free keys", no nothing: just a "sorry this number has been
disconnected" when you try to call, or someone semi-politely informing
you that they (or the company's successor) no longer support
whatever-it-is.

}Understand this: some people are always going to pirate; they will go to
}any length to do it.

So what is the point here?  You can say *exactly* the same thing, word
for for, about shoplifting.  Should we follow the same policies you
suggest?  Make shoplifting EASY so the heavy-duty theives will get
bored?  The argument about morals sounds hopelessly naive: if these
folks had any moral sensibilities to start with, they wouldn't be
engaged in the whole activity in the first place.

   /Bernie\