Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!ucbvax!world.std.com!bzs
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Feedback on Computer Crime - Apology
Message-ID: <9008131552.AA27315@world.std.com>
Date: 13 Aug 90 15:52:30 GMT
References: <90224.202102POPOVICH@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 114



Perhaps we can draw this back to some FUTURES issues...I urge you to
read this message through once before cutting and pasting chunks to
argue with, the conclusions may not be what you expect (and chances
are you'll just point out the obvious.)

I will claim that the real problem with so-called software piracy etc
is that the software industry has, to date, built its business on a
very bad foundation. They share strongly in the problem.

The result of this is that the current standard business practice is
to expect to be able to sell a few $1 floppies and perhaps a $15
manual for hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars. And all
materials are perfectly duplicatable for a few dollars by virtually
anyone receiving these materials.

Although this is (somewhat) true in the music recording and book
industry the critical parts of the material are not as perfectly
duplicatable (as the floppies or tape) and, much more importantly, the
price disparity is orders of magnitude smaller (copying a $10 music
tape still involves buying a $5 blank tape plus my time, copying a
$500 software package involves buying $5 in blank disks, for many
books it's *more* expensive to copy it, the quality will be distinctly
lacking, and time/nuisance is enormous, try photocopying a 300 page
book some day, the comparisons must ignore these facts to be
believable.)

The software industry of course points to the cost of developing those
materials, and that's indisputable (although exactly how that relates
to the cost of the product is not very well understood, certainly
there are some enormously profitable software companies out there.)

The important point is that at this time the software industry is
seeking massive government (i.e. taxpayer) subsidies to ensure these
profit margins, which at least on materials seem fairly large to the
consumer. These subsidies are being sought in the form of police and
court expenses to criminalize anyone who threatens their profits.

This is not capitalism! Once you need huge govt intervention to assure
your "market price" and profits you've wandered quite far from any
notion of a "free market".

Now, the question is, is it possible that they have structured a
business that must *assume* that these police/court subsidies by the
taxpayer be made available to them in order for them to survive?

We can argue moral niceties about what's right and what's wrong but in
the end, is it fair that we as taxpayers foot this bill?  It could be
billions of dollars in investigations, prosecutions, etc.

As an analogy, imagine if some broadcast radio or tv station
programming could be "stolen" by anyone by merely tuning in that
channel? I realize that this is a problem with satellite dishes,
but again the analogy is strained in that case by the prerequisite
of a thousand or more dollars in satellite dish etc equipment.

The ease of copying a floppy begs a clear analogy, and the analogy is
far more clear if we stick to the simple case of anyone with a cheap
radio being considered criminal for merely turning to a station on the
dial without paying some fee.

There's no doubt that this can be argued as immoral or even illegal.

But we also have to ask if it's the industry's responsibility to find
some solution better than merely asking for the govt to spend billions
on enforcing their profits. It's also possible to say, you're right,
but we're not going to spend a lot of tax dollars and chase otherwise
honest citizens around, there's too large a stupidity factor involved.

(note: the police are no longer required to respond to someone making
threats to your life! An SJC decision says it's reasonable for them to
suggest a personal bodyguard service, mere immorality is not the
question, they can demand it costs you, not the taxpayers, for that
security.)

So, the speculative QUESTION I am raising here is:

	Can the software industry reorganize itself such that
	this problem obviates itself? It doesn't have to be a
	perfect solution, if less than 1% of the copies in use
	were illegal then I don't think anyone would be concerned.

There are two obvious ways: Raise the COST of copying or lower the
(marginal) VALUE of copying.

You can raise the cost by various copy-protection schemes tho these
have proved unpopular enough with consumers that it actually hurts
sales. Just an example.

You can lower the value of copying by either lowering the price of the
software (or even providing cheap licenses to people willing to copy
the software/manual themselves), or by providing after-sales services
only to bona-fide users. Just examples, again.

I understand why the current gold-rush of being able to sell $5 in
floppies for $500 is so attractive. I also understand why it's
attractive to try to lock in those profits by backing them with a few
billion dollars in legal subsidies from the taxpayers.

I also understand that once they come to the govt (us) for that kind
of help, they should be willing to trade some real concessions which
may be quite unpalatable (why should the taxpayers just give them
these billions for nothing? Other heavily subsidized industries have
had to trade all sorts of regulatory and other concessions to get
their subsidies.)

Your thoughts on how the software industry might change in the future
are solicited.

        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD