Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!snorkelwacker!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!sean
From: sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...)
Message-ID: <14060@s.ms.uky.edu>
Date: 7 Feb 90 20:47:31 GMT
References: <137@sneezy.tcom.stc.co.uk> <15398@well.UUCP> <1134@utoday.UUCP> <13011@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <3032@netxcom.DHL.COM> <13742@s.ms.uky.edu> <7146.25c595d1@dit.ie> <13912@s.ms.uky.edu> <1201@utoday.UUCP> <13946@s.ms.uky.edu> <1212@utoday.UUCP>
Organization: The Leaning Tower of Patterson Office @ The Univ. of KY
Lines: 116

greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes:

|So, there is software sitting on your harddisk with my copyright and license
|information on it.  It got there without you asking for it, and without me
|posting it.  I give you certain restrictions on its usage.  However, the
|particular package sitting on your disk is not shareware.  Do you use
|something to which you are clearly not entitled?

No, that's copyright infringement, in which case everyone is required to
destroy their copies of it, because those copies are stolen.

|Now, I tell you it's shareware.  Does your opinion of the program change?
|Of the author?  Of the restriction against its usage?

Yes, the big difference is with the latter you gave permission for
redistribution or were aware of redistribution and did nothing to stop
it. In the latter case, everyone now owns a legal copy of the software.

|Wait, I'll back up.  Let's say I post a message that says "Whoops! Somehow,
|my commercially distributed code got out on the net.  Without my permission.
|I beg your forgiveness for utiltizing some of the valuable resources on your
|computer -- even though I never posted the stuff myself.  In payment for
|this unwarrented intrusion of my software, which I did not release on the net,
|and which somebody else illegally placed on the net, i would like to offer
|you usage of that software for a limited time.  At the end of that limited
|time, I figure that my utilization of your resources and your utilization
|of my program even each other out, and I'll ask you to stop using it. At
|that time, you may purchase a brand new, spanking fresh copy of the code,
|including documentation, support, a new disk, the works...but please 
|remember that your usage of that illegally distributed code is only with my
|permission in the first place...and I herewith remove that permission after
|'n' days..."

No, you can't do that. Either you permit it's release, or you do not. You
cannot give it away and then take it back. If you tried such a scam, you
better cover your tracks well, because you could very well be prosecuted
for it.

|Thta's not, strictly speaking, shareware.  Tell me, will you use the illegally
|distributed code at all?  Will you use it against the wishes of the author?
|Will you appreciate the offer the author is giving you?

That's a clear cut case of software theft. If I have the software at all
and I don't immediately destroy it, that's possessing stolen property.

Ownership isn't a gray area. Either I own a copy, or I don't.

|Bind him legally, probably not.  Ethically, well, that depends on how ethical
|the user is.  As to seeing a license agreement....you are suggesting bigger
|screens, displays and copyright/license notices?

It's not a matter of "how ethical the user is", as if only ethical users will
be bound. Enough horsecrap about ethics. Lets let the law decide what's
ethical.

|>The key issue here is rights. I don't feel like you have the right to
|>bind me to a license that doesn't have my signature. If you claim that
|>you do, then we have a difference of opinion.

[...]

|Heck, those commercial houses, like Lotus, are using some tax credits,
|using some of the resources your tax dollar buys.  Does this entitle you
|to use any commercial program you pirate, based on the idea of having somehow
|already paid for it in some obscure and self justifying way?

No, but I already made that clear.

|>I think that distributing something at the public's expense, and then
|>demanding money for its use is more reprehensible than spitting on the
|>sidewalk. At the very least is shows blatant disrespect for the rights
|>of others, and for those that foot the bills for the distribution. It's
|>a con, a scam, and I don't like it.

|So?  Stand up, shout, scream, make your view known.  But don;t use shareware
|unless you pay for it.  You;re entitled to your view, me to mine.  You're
|entitled to rant and rave about the evils of shareware, but I'm still
|entitled to get my registration fee from the ethical users out there.  Those
|who use the code without paying for it are unethical.

I'm not ranting and raving. I'm discussing, and I don't have to insult you
to win an argument.

You aren't entitled to *any* registration fees.

Ethics is a matter of personal opinion. I happen to feel like you're
a con artist, a swindler, and a crook. So you see, arguing ethics isn't
going to get us anywhere.

|>If shareware authors want to be righteous, why don't they sell support
|>and good documentation? Then the public can use the software for which
|>they've already paid the distribution costs, and get enhanced
|>functionality and human help by paying for it.
|>

|Obviously, you have no idea how shareware works, for the "extras" you
|descibe is how we convince people to register.  We're doing it already,
|and have been for years.  I, personally, am just tired of the justification
|people try to use when they unethically use someone else's work without
|paying for it.

Obviously you have no idea what I do and do not know. Your use of "we"
describes a large number of people whose tactics range from threats to
support to "you're a slime if you don't register".

I don't care what you're tired of. I don't care what you personally
think. I don't care if you try to force your ethics down other's throats.

I do care about the legal issues involved, and that's what I've
been discussing. Please stick to them, or move it to alt.flame.

-- 
***  Sean Casey          sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean
***  "May I take this opportunity of emphasizing that there is no cannibalism
***  in the British Navy. Absolutely none, and when I say none, I mean there
***  is a certain amount, more than we are prepared to admit." -MP