Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!joel From: joel@decwrl.UUCP (Joel McCormack) Newsgroups: net.micro.apple Subject: An open letter to software pirates Message-ID: <1180@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Wed, 20-Mar-85 02:07:08 EST Article-I.D.: decwrl.1180 Posted: Wed Mar 20 02:07:08 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 21-Mar-85 03:53:03 EST Organization: DEC Western Software Lab, Los Altos, CA Lines: 180 I have very strong feelings about software piracy. The widespread tacit approval of piracy, as evidenced by the number of people I know who own stolen software, simply infuriates me. I don't like shoddy journalism either, and understand why Ernie Longmire criticizes many points of the article in Electronic Games. But he too, is guilty of making incorrect and irrelevant accusations, and in doing so is propagating typical pirate justifications for their behavior. Here is my letter to all of you with stolen software: Dear Software Pirate, I ran Volition Systems for awhile. We sold Modula-2 for the Apple II, IBM PC, and Sage II and IV. None of our software was copy-protected: we figured there are honest people and dishonest people, and copy-protection has little to do with the classification. I got quite a bit of insight into what it takes to develop, sell, and support software for the masses. It isn't easy. I'd like to discuss a few myths that you people are always telling each other and us (I presume to assuage the guilt that must hit you now and again). MYTH #1: Software is overpriced -------------------------------- Our prices were nowhere near what you would consider reasonable. The cheapest anyone ever got our system, special discounts and everything, was $245 for a single copy. I did not get rich doing this. I am now working as a programmer for DEC, instead of a capitalist exploiter of the masses, and make nearly twice what I did at Volition. But, perhaps we should have sold it for $70/copy like Borland - after all, they have done quite well. Not as many people want to buy Modula-2 as Pascal, sorry. Also, we hadn't the capital to ramp up production to sell stuff as cheaply, nor could we afford the hefty ad budget Borland has. We would have had to settle for the level of after-purchase support most software purchasers have come to expect, rather than the excellent support we wanted to provide. We did do some experiments with price reduction. Knocking prices down about 25-40% did, indeed, result in increased business. It barely increased total revenues. It did increase phone support, etc. It can be argued that the price reductions didn't pay off. It is almost certain that further reductions would have been death. We sold a lot of systems, we were making a profit, but were nowhere near paying off the development costs incurred. Frankly, I shouldn't have to give a shit about what you, personally, think is a fair price. I'm no flaming capitalist, but I must admit that, with few exceptions, price should be related closely to maximizing profit (assuming social costs of production, like pollution, have been factored in), and related distantly, if at all, to cost of development and production. I can (and will) lower my prices in response to (or to scare off potential) competition, but why lower them (and lower profits) because some guy on the street who has no experience with running a company (which I assume describes you) thinks you are ripping me off? If you think my software is horribly overpriced, why, there's a marketing niche for you to fill. YOU find out what it takes to develop what I'm selling, then let's see what YOU price it at. And don't complain if I change my pricing to put you out of business. What should matter is this: can I keep my company healthy charging the prices I do? If you think my price is too high, fine, don't buy it; obviously other people find it valuable enough that I don't have to worry about people like you. I should ask myself "If I raised (or lowered) prices by $25, how many less (or more) people would buy my product? Does it change my net profit?" I shouldn't have to ask myself "Well, if I raise my price $25, how many more would-be customers would steal rather than buy?" Hardware manufacturers don't have to take this into account, why should I? And aside from your obvious willingness to commit theft, I have some severe doubts about your honesty. Most software pirates I've seen are pathetic liars when it comes to words vs. actions. "I would've bought it if it was reasonably priced" is the constant cry of the accused pirate. Yet I know pirates who don't own a single piece of purchased software, save that which came with the machine. Surely, not ALL software is that overpriced? Most of you people wouldn't buy software unless it was priced slightly higher than a blank disk, and then it would be only to save on the hassle of copying. MYTH #2: If I can't back up software, I have the right to steal it ------------------------------------------------------------------ No, that header really doesn't make much sense to me, either. I don't know why so many pirate arguments complain about lack of backup capabilities in a product. Obviously YOU don't have any problems copying disks. Just get the Locksmith parameters from a friend, or work them out yourself. (And, well, since you went to all that trouble figuring it out, why not run a few copies off for those guys that gave you Zaxxon and PFSFile last week? I mean, hey, think how cool people will think you are at your next Software Ripoff Club meeting if you bring in copies of stuff they couldn't break.) Again the analogy to hard, physical products. If my car breaks down, even under warranty, about the only thing I can do is take it in to get fixed. Some companies have better warranties than others, and may give me a loaner. I may take this into account when buying a car. But I have no right to steal a car just because I don't like the company's policy on repairs. If you don't like the way a software product comes, due to backups, licensing, packaging, or because it runs about as fast as a snail in a coma, don't buy it. If enough people share your views, the company will go out of business or change its policies. MYTH #3: I wouldn't buy it anyway, so I'm not hurting anyone ------------------------------------------------------------ I'm sure you think I have no right to come into your house to take items which you aren't using, just as I think you have no right to copy software you "weren't going to buy anyway." In both cases neither of us is hurt, right? Suppose there was some magic way to stop illegal copying of software overnight. Legitimate purchasers could make backups for themselves, could even loan their software to friends (thus depriving the owner of the use of the software until it was returned). What would the computer software industry be like in this ideal world? Software pirates would have a hell of a lot less software than they own now. They WOULD own more purchased software than they do now. Estimates of pirated copies range from 5 to 10 times legal copies. Now, I know you just told me you wouldn't have bought any of the software you swiped, but are you really going to do without ANY of it? Assume that legal volume goes up maybe 100%. Prices would be lower, some perhaps down to 60% of current prices, others only 10%; huge jumps down to the prices pirates think "justifiable" would probably not happen. SOME companies that were marginal would be put on a more solid footing; SOME more good software would make it to the marketplace in quantity. Most software companies run a 5 to 30% return; even a 50% increase in sales is going to affect them pretty heavily. So enough with your lines about "Oh, c'mon, I'm not putting anyone out of business" or "I'm not the one keeping prices high." You are not the only cause when a software company goes out of business, but your decisions DO have a significant impact. In Summary ---------- Software pirates are pirates. They steal. No amount of argument changes that. Theft is theft, and bullshit is bullshit, and every argument I've seen to justify piracy falls in the latter catagory. No law gives you no right to decide what constitutes a "fair" price or licensing policy, no matter how well you have justified it "morally" in your pointy little head. When it comes down to my final opinion, the financial condition of software producers, publishers, and pirates don't concern me nearly as much as the moral question, and the number of people who take the question so lightly. To steal or not to steal. Some of you think it's okay. To you, let me wish you the worst of luck. I hope you work your ass off on something that means a lot to you, only to have it ripped off when you've finished. It probably won't teach you anything, but at least you'll have gotten what you deserve. To those who don't steal software, let me commend you. It is frustrating to watch friends build enormous libraries of software thru illegal means, while yours grows slowly. I suspect your concern for fairness extends beyond the purchase of software, and am glad there are people like you in the world. - Joel McCormack {ihnp4 decvax ucbvax allegra}!decwrl!joel joel@decwrl.arpa -- - Joel McCormack {ihnp4 decvax ucbvax allegra}!decwrl!joel joel@decwrl.arpa