Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc
Subject: Re: Re: Copy Protection - a case study
Message-ID: <904@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Dec-85 12:24:47 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.904
Posted: Tue Dec 17 12:24:47 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Dec-85 05:42:57 EST
References: <3624@think.UUCP> <131300002@ima.UUCP> <882@ecsvax.UUCP> <883@ecsvax.UUCP> <465@looking.UUCP> <1799@uwmacc.UUCP> <31@gum
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 35

In article <467@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
>>
>>  The
>>best way of reducing loss to piracy is to provide good programs at low prices.
>
>I have heard several people say this.  Why do they say it?  Is there some
>evidence for it?  It seems to me that the better a program is, the more
>likely it is to be stolen.  Are programs like popular games, flight
>simulators and other cheap products stolen less?  I doubt it.

        They may not be stolen less, but they are purchased more which
is the important thing. Actually they may even be stolen less. With my
current financial situation I cannot afford a program over about $60,
and it sure can be a *pain* *not* having the Microsoft Assembler, or a
decent DBMS. And of course I am stuck with older, buggy, versions of my
programs because I cannot justify spending $50 for an upgrade(with my
registered user discount no less!). So, yes *good*, *cheap* software
is the real solution, because then people like me can *afford* to buy
the program and there is really less temptation to steal it in order
to have it at all.
>
>But the kid pirates who steal for fun are not the main complaint on
>some groups of software, although they are on many of my commercial products.
>For a program like Lotus, it's the business where one copy zoomed around the
>department that caused the real damage.
>
        Then Lotus should have provided them with a *site* license,
there is *no* valid reason why a business should have to purchase a
seperate copy for each and every employee!
--

                                Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen
ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa