Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!ox.com!yale.edu!cmcl2!esquire!baumgart From: baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps Subject: Re: All Commercial Software Developers or Companies (pls read) Message-ID: Date: 24 Jun 91 20:36:18 GMT References: <25662@unix.SRI.COM> <1991Jun23.011635.19552@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> <51087@ut-emx.uucp> Sender: news@DPW.COM Organization: Davis Polk & Wardwell Lines: 31 In-reply-to: awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu's message of 24 Jun 91 03:55:25 GMT In article <51087@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: In spite of the fact that I've seen many sales of software packages based on piracy (theft if you prefer), and I've seen many failures of software packages to live up to even their features lists, let alone marketing claims, software IS being stolen by current definitions. In most industries, the manufacturer has the advantage, in the early history of that industry. It may well be that when regulations are improved and enforced on BOTH sides of the license, what is currently termed "theft" will be merely "trial period" use of the software. Perhaps, but I doubt it. Software houses don't make money by encouraging people to use their software without paying for it. A better idea would be for companies to produce demo versions of their software and make them available for people to "test drive". However, the point is not what we would like in the future; the point is what people are doing right now, and whether that is right or wrong. By the way, I look forward to taking Spike Lee's "Jungle Fever" for a "test view" tonight. Most critics have praised it, but there's really no way of knowing whether it's worth paying for until you've actually seen it, right? -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." baumgart@esquire.dpw.com | cmcl2!esquire!baumgart | - David Letterman