Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:13343 comp.sys.misc:1000 comp.sys.ibm.pc:10807 comp.sys.mac:11244
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!princeton!udel!gatech!mcnc!uvaarpa!umd5!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!decvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!Isaac_K_Rabinovitch
From: Isaac_K_Rabinovitch@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Shareware & Honesty (Was: Software (and other kinds of) cop
Message-ID: <2690@cup.portal.com>
Date: 23 Jan 88 21:55:55 GMT
References: <8055@g.ms.uky.edu> <174@piring.cwi.nl> <39450@sun.uucp> <6649@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 71
XPortal-User-Id: 1.1001.1472

learn@igloo.UUCP writes:
->(Discussion of the "honesty" of using shareware without paying for it,
->including an excerpt from the Oxford English Dictionary entry for
->the word.)
The OED isn't much use here, it's primarily an historical work.  Anyway
dictionaries don't define language, they just record how people use it.
I think most people consider that "honesty" consists in part of telling
the truth, but also in adhering to other common standards of behavior.
->Now, someone *gives* me (or otherwise makes available at no cost) a
->piece of software. I haven't done anything dishonest so far. They then
->say "Give me money if you use this." I *still* haven't done anything
->dishonest.
You mean, "if I continue to use the product without paying".  Well,
you certainly haven't lied to anyone, but many people would say you're
being dishonest (or at least "dishonorable", a related word) in
taking advantage of someone else's effort without recompensing them.
It's as if someone had laid out a buffet and left a cup labelled,
"if you're hungry, eat and pay what you can"; and you ate but chose
not to pay because you want to save the money for a movie.
->As for fair, that means according to the rules. The rules (laws) in
->the US state that if you give somebody something, it's *theirs*. You
->can get neither payment nor the return of the thing, unless there's a
->prior agreement about such.
You're overextending a concept here.  If I give you a physical thing
(like a pencil stamped "Vote for Isaac!"), you don't have to give it
back.  But software isn't just a magnetized disk, it's an intellecutal
property, like a copyrighted book.  (Some courts think it's more like
a patented invention; but all agree that it *is* intellectual property.)
If an author gives you a book, you own the book, but the author owns
the words inside; he can restrict your use of them, such as reading
them over the radio or feeding them through a OCR scanner.  Which is
fair:  if the creator can't control access to the creation, he can't
profit from it, and has no incentive to create, a principle recognized
in all law, including the U.S. Constitution.
->
->Now, calling such people immoral and disgusting is fine. Those are
->value judgements, and I can't dispute them. Of course, I expect the
->same when I tell you that I find the very concept of shareware immoral
->and disgusting. I mean, you give somebody something, and then tell
->them they are immoral scumbags if they don't pay you for it?
I find it amusing that everyone on the net finds criticism immoral,
but never hesitates to criticize.   It would seem that one's own
anger is the ultimate justification, but other people's anger justifies
nothing.

But back to the point:  do you find shareware less disgusting than the normal
means of distribution?  When you pay a $100 shareware registration fee,
most of the money goes to recompense the programmer and (not incidentally)
motivating him to produce more products.  By contrast, when you walk
into a software store and give the clerk $100 or send $100 to a mail order
house, about $30 dollars goes to the retailer, another $30 goes to
the distributor, another $10 goes to packaging (which adds nothing to
the product, but which is esential for mass-marketing).  What's
left goes to the programmer *if* he's not the salaried lacky of some
bloated business (did you know Lotus employs more marketeers than
programmers?)

The shareware customer also gets a free trial period.  That benefit
alone, I think, outweighs psychic damage he suffer from accusations
of dishonesty.  If I look at my shelves and total up the cost of
retail software I wish I could have *used* before I had to make the
purchase decision, and I come to a *lot* of dollars, more than
my hardware cost!

None of which means that shareware is gonna work.  Relies too much
on people's honesty.

Isaac Rabinovitch
Disclaimer:  Just because I think you're wrong, doesn't
             mean I don't think you're a fun person!
:-)