Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!snorkelwacker!bu.edu!xylogics!transfer!crackers!m2c!umvlsi!umaecs!amh!amherasimchu From: amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: software piracy Message-ID: <9665.2687d72d@amherst.bitnet> Date: 26 Jun 90 21:44:13 GMT References: <9446@hubcap.clemson.edu> <43793@brunix.UUCP> <9658.26861a4c@amherst.bitnet> <1990Jun26.161427.3417@Neon.Stanford.EDU> Lines: 89 In article <1990Jun26.161427.3417@Neon.Stanford.EDU>, kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) writes: > > No, it doesn't, ...a Shrink-Wrap license is a statement of what YOU want ME > to do, but I don't necessarily agree to it -- regardless of the wording. If > you don't want me to open the package, have someone at the store get my > agreement in writing. Otherwise -- good luck. Read my lips. If you can't, > there was no Verbal agreement. I liscense agreement, in most cases, appears where the diskettes are contained. This means that you can open the package, read the manauls, check out the mailing stuff inside, etc, as you like. Once open the package that contains the diskettes, then you have agreed to the terms of the liscense. REad the entire manual if you like to make sure the software will do what you are looking for it to do. If it doesn't, send the package back and get your money back. > >>As for the the addition of the liscense agreement which is "concealed" beyond > >>The copyright laws only protect the code for the software, not the sale and >>profit made from it, which is what liscening agreements are for. > > Sure it is. Thats why the agreement says such things as (from Apple's): > "Apple makes no warranty or representation, either express or implied, with > respect to software, its quality, performance, merchantability, or fitness > for a particular purpose. As a result, this software is sold 'as is', and > you the purchaser are assuming the entire risk as to its quality and > performance."... The next time you go see a movie, and you don't like it, go to the register and demand your money back. > > I'll be happy to adhere to shrink-wrap licenses, just as soon as the software > makers will be willing to stand behind their products. If I buy a compiler, > say, and I invest a lot of time and money bringing up a system and then find > that the compiler generates buggy code -- my SOLE recourse under the current > agreements is to get a refund of the purchase price of the software. I want > software companies to have more responsibility for making it work right! Completely agreed. Look, I am not trying to preach the alimghty word of Liscense Argeements. I understand. I'm a die hard user. We intend to stand behind our product. But in order to do so, we have to make sure that we don't fail in the business world. We believe in our products. I know some companies do not. (I've spoken to many a employee at those companies who just give a s**t.) That's a fine line to walk. People do the best they can sometimes. > >>You may talk to our lawyer (who writes our software agreements) in court if you >>would like to test the system. > > I'm not afraid of your lawyer. And you'll have to bring the action, and > win the case -- or pay MY court costs (and the lawyers I use are not cheap) I forgot the smiley on that on. It was intended to be humorous. Let me throw this at you: I can see your argument against liscense agreements. If you have a system that will work for *all* companies to A) Protect their software from piracy, B) Keep their profit margins in the positive, C) Protect the users from poor software, but also from deceiving companies, and D) Is simple, clean and efficient, then I'd be more than willing to try it. However, think about this: If a software companiy sells package "A" @ $495, and the package is pirated a hundred times, that's already a $49,500 loss for the company. Compound over time to a year or two (let's say that the package is pirated four hundred times, one hundred for every business quarter) the loss becomes $198,000. That's quite a chunk. Some software companies need that money. They could advertise more, hire moer emplotyees to help their customers, etc. Again, the software companies are not in a business like fastfood, where the money contiually rolls in. Users are the toughest people on this planet to please, and the software that is out there has survived some of the toughest critism this planet has seen. I'm am all for a new system, if you like. Givbe me the system, the numbers, the cost, the employees it will require, the machines, the advertising costs, the insurance costs, the lawyer fees, etc., and then put those figures against the time it will take to implement the system, make it work for the company and the user, and show me that it will keep the profit margins at the highest level possible. I'll be the first one to implement it. Andrei Herasimchuk Marketing Director Specular Int'l Standard Disclaimer as always.