Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!unixhub!shelby!unix!hplabs!hpda!hpwala!hpwadac!lupienj
From: lupienj@hpwadac.hp.com (John Lupien)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Software Piracy
Keywords: piracy
Message-ID: <1472@hpwala.wal.hp.com>
Date: 30 Nov 90 20:05:36 GMT
References: <_&_^R9#@rpi.edu>
Sender: netnews@hpwala.wal.hp.com
Reply-To: lupienj@hpwadac.UUCP (John Lupien)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Waltham, Mass
Lines: 85

In article <_&_^R9#@rpi.edu> maddalop@cs.rpi.edu (Philip Maddaloni) writes:
[intro deleted]
>The first class
>consists of those who illegally copy software which they could not in the 
>first place afford.  The second consists of individuals and businesses who
>illegally copy software which they could not afford.  The third consists of 
                                          ^^^ (unintended?)
>those who illegally copy and mass distribute software.
>	The first class does not directly harm the computer industry since the
>amount of profit the software producer makes is not affected.  The only effect
>it may have is to cause the pirater to recommend the software to others or to 
>disocurage them from purchasing it.  This will only cause good products  to 
>survive and bad ones to fail.  This is a good result if anything.

I can't really argue about that, although these people may be morally in
the "wrong" by violating copyright, they would not be able to buy the
software that they are now able to give good references for. Of course,
they may be more likely to try to make the software do things it was not
designed for, and give it an undeserved bum rap when it fails...

[third class dismissal deleted]

>	This second form, though, is one which seems innocent and harmful
>enough, yet is very harmful to the computer industry and to the future of 
>personal computers  and computer products and their availability to the
>consumer.
>	First, the lost profit that will result in the large number of 
>people illegally copying software will result  in a raising of the price of
>software and a shortage in  the market for software since it becomes too
>risky to develop software that will not be purchased by many people.  This has
>the effect of putting software out of reach for many people and cause more
>pirating and this chain reaction continues .

This is really too bad. If only the software were free to begin with...

>	Next, if a new computer comes along that is powerful and innovative
>but, of course, being new has little user support it will be almost 
>impossible for the computer to survive since it will not be profitable to
>make software for it.  This lack of software will cause the computer to 
>become less popular and therefore fail in the market.  This type of 
>block on innovation is unacceptable.  
>	Some may say that this is good since it fosters standardization since
>a few large popular computers will take over the market as have IBM and Apple
>in the  personal computer  market.  Although standardiztion is beneficial to
>the industry innovation must not be sacrificed in favor of it.

Standardization (as exemplified by the FSF stuff (GNU)) of free code
would not exhibit this particular problem (IHMO), since the sources
are freely available, anyone who needs to will just compile up the
utilities they need, and off they go... while the folks who "don't
do software" would be welcome to pay me a porting fee to get it
running on their new whizz-bang box. The problem there is that the
whizz-bang 2000 may not have the architectural capability to support
the software. This would tend to make the whizz-bang 2000 fail, even if
the technilogical advances that it represents are actually a step forward.

>	Some solutions to this problem are possible.  One may be to include 
>advertisements in software packages and in the software itself to raise 
>enough money so as to lower the price of the software significantly enough
>so that people not only can afford it but are willing to pay for it to get
>the manual as opposed to just the software.  Once software is inexpensive
>enough many more people will buy it and therefore cause it to become
>even cheaper and proliferate the product if it is a good one.  

Please spare me the junk mail. I will not pay for you to give me
advertisements. You may pay me at my standard rate to review your
advertising if I so agree, but if I don't, don't call me, I won't
call you.

Including gratuitous advertisements has lead to the degredation of
many previously prestigeous industry periodicals into advertising
volumes. If you think that won't happen to software once you open
the door, well I think you may be wrong. I will omit references to
specific examples, I'm sure you can think of some (perhaps starting
with a P).

Make your software functional, reliable, and meet my processing needs,
and I will buy it if the price is right. Screw around with creative
financing and you may find that you waste so much time trying to cut
deals with advertisers and the like that your software work isn't getting
done, and your product isn't what it could have been.

---
John R. Lupien
lupienj@hpwarq.hp.com


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com