Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!umich!sharkey!itivax!dhw
From: dhw@itivax.iti.org (David H. West)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...)
Message-ID: <4781@itivax.iti.org>
Date: 11 Jan 90 20:09:16 GMT
References: <137@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk> <15398@well.UUCP> <1134@utoday.UUCP> <1990Jan8.043811.23794@robohack.UUCP> <1361@key.COM> <1990Jan9.212923.917@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <2719@netxcom.DHL.COM>
Reply-To: dhw@itivax.UUCP (David H. West)
Organization: The Forgotten Legions of ... um ... er ...
Lines: 27

#include <not_a_lawyer.disclaimer>

In article <2719@netxcom.DHL.COM> ewiles@netxdev.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes:
   [example involving keeping a trespassing cow]
>In both cases, property is retained in lieu of payment for damages perceived.
   [and later:]
>But using shareware without paying for it is
>rather like picking pencils out of a blind man's cup without paying for it.

Bad examples.  Retaining a physical object denies use of it to
others.  Not so with copied information.  If the author wanted use
to be contingent upon payment, s/he should not cause the automatic
distribution of tens of thousands of unsolicited copies at others'
expense.  Unlike the cited blind man, shareware authors are not
forced into this way of making a living. 

I am not arguing against paying shareware authors, but I'm also not
going to spend any time feeling sorry for those who complain that
they broadcast their work, and were not rewarded by people who never
asked to receive the work in the first place.

Probably the cost of the human time spent on skimming the headers 
exceeds the cost of net transport for this stuff.  Much of it is 
probably useful to someone, but most of it is probably useless to any 
specific person.

-David West       dhw@iti.org