Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sri-unix!vortex!lauren@Rand-Unix.ARPA
From: lauren@Rand-Unix.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: laws, morality, and software rot (long message)
Message-ID: <12296@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Apr-84 20:09:17 EST
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.12296
Posted: Sun Apr 15 20:09:17 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Apr-84 01:48:47 EST
Lines: 108

Several points:

1) If you're going to break the law (rape, murder, violate copyright
   laws, etc.) at least ADMIT that you are a crook!  People who sit
   around trying to rationalize how their "higher moralities" make
   it necessary for them NOT to pay for something are really amusing.
   Let's face it, what they want to do is get something without
   paying for it.  Past that it's all rationalization.  I hardly
   think that copying software can be equated to the same moral
   plain as refusing induction into the armed forces on genuine
   religious grounds.  Of course, when people refused such induction,
   they had to be prepared to accept the legal consequences.  Most
   of them were.	

2) There is little evidence that the people who rip-off software
   now will not rip it off even if it was priced quite low.  While
   there are indeed some individuals who apparently will buy cheap
   software and steal expensive software (or even steal the expensive
   sort of software first and then pay for it later if they like it)
   by and large this doesn't seem to be the case.  People trade and
   copy all sorts of software without regard to price -- I've come across
   people with disks full of "minor" utilities and such that they 
   didn't pay for and that they've distributed freely through BBS's
   and computer networks.  When questioned, they usually say that 
   it's so cheap that the author of the software couldn't possibly miss
   the money!  Great -- if it's cheap the author won't miss it, and if
   it's expensive the author is trying to cheat you.  There doesn't seem
   to be any middleground with most of these people.  Some say that they
   didn't buy the software because they only needed it "occasionally."
   Somehow this is supposed to make everything OK and legit.

3) The people who promote the "information should be free" concept
   often seem to be people who have never tried to distribute
   or maintain software on a large scale -- even for free.  Of course,
   it's a lot easier to do such things for free if you're only "playing"
   with your software distribution on the side -- which assumes that you
   are either working for someone else, are independently wealthy, or that
   you live on such a simple level (no family to support, we can be sure)
   that you just don't need money.  It's a lot easier to say that information
   should be free when you derive your income directly from a government
   or corporate-based salary.  Somehow people who try to make a living
   from designing, selling, and distributing software are evil, according
   to these people.  This is a view that seems particulary prevalent
   among people who derive their income from educational institutions
   (e.g. University computer science departments, etc.)  Of course, those
   departments and related projects are usually funded from direct tax
   revenues, government grants (taxes, again), and other public sources.
   Apparently getting your money THAT way is OK with these people, but
   to SELL something?  Oh, horrors!

4) There was a time when I put most of my software into the public
   domain -- usually with sources included.  I stopped doing so.
   I stopped not because of financial considerations, but because:

	a) I found people selling my software under other names
           or as part of other packages with absolutely no credit
           being given to the origin, even though the software explictly
       	   required such notification.  What was I going to do, sue
    	   them?  You know how much that COSTS?

	b) This relates to (a) as well.  I started to find zillions of
 	   different versions of my code floating around.  Most of these
	   didn't work properly anymore thanks to modifications
	   by well meaning people who didn't know what they were doing,
	   or who added so many useless new features that most people
	   didn't even have room to run it anymore.  I started getting
	   phone calls from people at all hours complaining about my
	   "rotten software" -- but when I questioned them, I discovered
	   that usually about the only thing unchanged in my code was my
	   name at the top.  In most cases, there was no additional change
	   history -- though I had specifically asked that it be
	   included in all copies, of course.  Maybe a history had been
	   in there at some point, but it was long gone by the time my
	   callers got copies from various BBS's.

	   My original code worked.  The modified versions (I later tracked
	   down over 80 different versions, most of which were essentially
	   useless due to bad code changes) were by and large hopeless.
	   Of course, it turned out that some of the versions that people
	   were selling (see (a) above) were the broken versions.  Usually
	   these were the cases where the sellers HAD left my name on
	   there.  What a treat.

One of the things you pay for when you buy software is the support of
the organization selling it.  If the organization isn't supporting it
properly, then you shouldn't have to pay a lot for it.  If it is being
well supported, it is generally worth more.  When software becomes
widely pirated, modified, and (in many cases) corrupted, the task
of software support becomes difficult, or often impossible.  Long before
that point is reached, there isn't any economical way to support the
people writing and maintaining the software -- so you're out of luck
unless you're working for someone else and/or are somehow taxpayer supported.
However, if an organization is charging too much for software, that doesn't
give you the moral right (or obligation!) to simply start using it without
paying for it.  You certainly have the right NOT to pay for the software
and not to use it.

Is it any wonder that copy protection systems (none of which are perfect,
and all of which represent a hassle in terms of backups and ease of use)
are becoming so widely used?  Is it any surprise that the copyright laws
and other laws relating to software are being strengthened?  Of course,
when you pay good money for software, you should expect it to work and
be well supported.  If it's not, you should scream bloody murder to the
distributer, the Better Business Bureau, Byte, and Ann Landers.  Don't
let people rip you off.  But on the other hand, please don't 
rip them off either.

--Lauren--