Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!dan-hankins
From: dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B Hankins)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: FREE Software, PD, and author compensation
Message-ID: <12825@cup.portal.com>
Date: 22 Dec 88 05:12:36 GMT
References: <12748@cup.portal.com> <3126@sugar.uu.net>
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
Lines: 105

In article <3126@sugar.uu.net> peter@sugar.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:

>In article <12748@cup.portal.com>, dan-hankins@cup.portal.com (Daniel B
>Hankins) writes:
>> ...stuff about desire for Berne convention deleted ...
>
>This is an interesting argument, since it's saying "You have the rights to
>your own intellectual property, except that you can't sell it. You can
>license it or rent it under any terms you like, but you can't sell it."

     No, that's not what I'm saying.  I never said that it was *wrong* to
sell software or that it should be unlawful to sell software.  What I said
was that software commerce in its present form is ineffective.  I then
proceeded to outline an alternative that might be more desirable.
     Under this alternative, things like the Berne convention might be less
necessary, since employers would likely have less motive to prevent their
programmers from doing work on the side.


>I'm sorry, but if I own something (such as the fruit of my labors) and I
>want to sell it that's my right. I may be foolish for doing so, but any
>law that says I can't sell something is telling me I really don't own it.

     Of course you should be able to sell it if you want to.  I did not
propose a law outlawing selling software.  I proposed a method of selling
software services that might lead to less conflict, litigation, and piracy
in the computer industry.


>Why should Joe Handyman be able to sell those crude painted wooden ducks
>by the side of the road, but I can't sell a quick thirty-line program that
>took about the same amount of effort, should I wish to sell it. Or even
>give it away.

     No reason.  Just because I propose an alternative does not mean I want
to outlaw the former option.  In fact, giving away software would be a
primary means of building up an author's reputation in my system.


>> 3. Things have not yet reached the stage where only one license of a
>>    program is sold and all the rest is pirated.  In such a situation,
>>    the *only* way for software people to get money would be a scheme
>>    such as mine or Stallman's.
>
>Things don't have to get quite so bad to drive software companies out of
>business.

     No, they don't.  Which is why I hope that my scheme, or something like
it, is adopted by software companies soon.  It might well save some.


>I don't know anyone who would have the slightest difficulty in buying
>drugs, saturday-night specials, or explosives. I don't know anyone who
>would have the slightest difficulty vandalising any number of houses,
>cars, buildings, etc....

     All true.  None of these is really relevant to the point I was making
or responding to.  The point I was responding to said:

     "No one will pay the contract price because they can just wait and
copy the software when it comes out."

     My point was:

     "People already do this.  The only considerations which currently stop
people from copying software without paying are:

     1. Support
     2. Documentation
     3. Ethics (*not* legalities)

     Copy protection does not stop people from copying software.  The
hardcore hackers will crack the program, and then it is as easy to get a
copy as it would be for an unprotected program.
     Legal considerations do not stop people from copying software.  The
risk of being caught is too low and the punishment not severe enough
(possibly non-existent).  Legally, it's like speeding, only with lower risk
and lower punishment.  We all know how many people speed.

     The considerations that would prevent people from copying software
without paying the contract price under my system are the same as the above
three.  The only real differences are copy protection and legality (since
the distributor *chose* to put the program in the public domain, it is
legal to copy it).  And as we see from the above, those are not
considerations for people who pirate under the current system."


>The argument that "It's easy to do this so it can't be that wrong" is just
>plain bull. People have no difficulty seeing the ethical problems with
>other illegal acts.

     I never said that being easy makes something right.  I think that
using a program without paying for it is *wrong*.  What I am saying is that
it is no less easy to copy software under the current system than it would
be under mine.  And the ethics are the same.  It might be legal to use the
software without paying under my system, but it would not be ethical.

>As for "distributing the money according to the popularity of a product",
>why, isn't that what we do now?

     Nope.  The better a program is, the more it is pirated.  This offsets
increases in price the author charges for additional quality/function.


Dan Hankins