Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.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: <BAUMGART.91Jun25233314@esquire.esquire.dpw.com>
Date: 26 Jun 91 03:33:14 GMT
References: <5354@ryn.mro4.dec.com>
Sender: news@DPW.COM
Organization: Davis Polk & Wardwell
Lines: 60
In-reply-to: long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com's message of 25 Jun 91 19:43:30 GMT

In article <5354@ryn.mro4.dec.com> long@mcntsh.enet.dec.com (Rich Long) writes:

    That's right. If you didn't like it, though, you won't have wasted
    several hundred dollars. It's an inappropriate comparison. Movies
    are entertainment.  Software can be essential, and very hard to
    characterize.

    For example, you could say that you like action-adventure movies.
    It's probably a good bet that you will like "Terminator 2:
    Judgment Day". Calling both Word and WordPerfect "word
    processors", and saying it is a tossup as to which to buy is
    wrong. They both do similar things, but in very different ways.

You're aiding my argument here, and the analogy is a valid one.
Assume for a moment that we're talking about After Dark -- a non
"essential" piece of software if there ever was one -- and assume for
a moment that instead of $20 (or whatever it costs), that it costs $6
this week (Berkeley Software's running a sale).  Now how's my analogy
looking? 

Back to the movies: assume we're talking about seeing Terminator 2 or
Robocop 2.  Both are action films, so they're at least as similar as
Word and WordPerfect are.  At least with software you can, in fact,
preview it on someone else's machine.  Can't do that with the movies,
so perhaps sneaking in to a theater and paying only after, say, 90
minutes is more supportable.

    Then there is the whole issue of environment. What if you buy a
    package that won't run with some system extension that is
    absolutely critical to you?

    I think functional demos are absolutely essential for software.

And I agree.  But you can what if your "what if"s until the cows come
home.  It doesn't change the fact that making use of someone else's
work without paying for it is both legally and ethically wrong.

If you feel you need more information about a product, there are 
myriad sources available to you, from magazines to user groups, from
friends to dealers (Egghead Software will happily demo anything for
you).  MacConnection (and other mailorder houses) will let you return
most software within 30 to 90 days if it doesn't meet your needs or if
you are unhappy with it.

What more could you want?  How then can pirating software still be
considered ethically correct (I'll put aside the legal argument for
the moment)?

(By the way, please don't take this (or previous messages) as flames
or personal attacks; as a software developer myself -- and one who
works in a law firm -- I'm very interested in people's attitudes and
beliefs about this issue.  On the other hand, this newsgroup may not
be the most appropriate place for this discussion any more...)

--
   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