Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!utoday!greenber From: greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Paying for Shareware (Was: Re: v09i070: newsclip 1.1...) Message-ID: <1213@utoday.UUCP> Date: 8 Feb 90 16:47:08 GMT References: <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> <14060@s.ms.uky.edu> Reply-To: greenber@utoday.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) Organization: UNIX Today!, Manhasset, NY Lines: 171 In article <14060@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >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. But you already claimed that you own everything sitting on your local machine's disk, no matter how it got there. Isn;t that a contradiction? > >|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. You still haven;t defined legal and what constitutes a "legal" copy of the software. If by legal you mean it is sitting on your disk, then you must feel entitled to use a pirated copy of any code sitting on your disk. If, instead, you feel that the copyright agreement for Lotus 123 prohibits your usage of it, then please tell me what the difference between their copyright agreement and a shareware copyright agreement is? > >|Wait, I'll back up. Let's say I post a message that says "Whoops! Somehow, >| .... example of author of commercially distributed program allowing its >| usage in certain circumstances -- time restricted circumstances... > >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. > Whatever are you speaking of? Scam!?!! The example I used simply stated that the author of an ilegally copied program was apologizing for the possible usage of your resources, through no fault of his own. And, that in reparation for that usage, he lets you use his propgram for a short while. So, the author is telling you that he did not permit its release, but it was released all the same. And that hes giving *you*, Sean Casey, permission to use that program for a limited time (perhaps he's heard your comments in this newsgrop about the usage of your disk and other resources and feels that he owes you something?). Will you abide by his wishes, or do you feel that this author, wronged by some unknown person, is somehow liable for whatever usage you have in mind for his software, simply because it exists on the machine you call "home"? How about if the program *is* shareware, but it specifically states that this software is not permitted on Sean Casey's machine, simply because of statements that you have made showing that you have little regard for an author's wishes. And somehow, it ends up on your machine. Do you feel you have the right to avenge the usage of other's resources throughout the world and, in your moral outrage, you'll do as you damn well wish with anything on your disk? Does that mean that, if anything copyrighted goes on your machine it's yours? Looking at my signature below, you can imagine that I'm quite concerned about people who feel they can ignore copyright notices -- my job is based upon the proprietary nature of the words I write. If, somehow, you snuck onto our subscription list and our newspaper started showing up in your mailbox, does the only thing that makes a difference in your eyes seem to be whether or not you specifically requested the newspaper? That, if you requested it you'll abide by the copyright agreement, but if you didn't you feel you can do anything you like with other's intellectual property? > >|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. Did you look for loopholes in the Boy Scout's Oath, too? ``Lesse...it doesn't specifically say that I have to walk that little old lady across the street, so I guess I'm clear...'' I'm not concerned at all about the legalities involved in the shareware issue, for the law doesn't cover shareware distribution in any reasonable fashion yet. Maybe it will one day, maybe it won't. In the interim, I would like to think that there are some people in the world who are honest and ethical. When a person can say "let the law decide what's ethical" I realize that the person has knowledge on neither side of that equation. The two sides of that equation are not related. > >|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. > My apologies. I don't consider the above an insult, but I might be thicker-skinned than you. >You aren't entitled to *any* registration fees. > Then you aren't entitled to use my program. So there. >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. Jane, you ignorant slut. What was that about insults? Pray tell, sir, why providing a service that 99% of the people in the world use for free makes me, and those of my ilk, any of the above list of unsavories? Arguing ethics with a person who has none, as you've amply demonstrated in your case, probably is a waste of time. > >|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". > Your shoveling all shareware authors together, painting them with the same brush as a few you've seen would be as silly as me generalizing and thinking that anyone named "Sean" has no ethics or respect for intellectual property. I know that such a generalization is bogus, even though an example makes itself painfully more and more clear. Did a shareware author frighten you as a young tot? >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. Nice attitude, Sean. Graduated from Dale Carnegie, right? > >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. > But there are no legal issues that I'm discussing. I'm only discussing ethics, or in your case, the lack of them. Go talk to some lawyers if you want to speak on legal issues. They'll charge you by the hour, regardless of result. I'm all for shareware lawyers: pay them only if you're satisifed with their results. Have a nice day, Sean. -- Ross M. Greenberg, Technology Editor, UNIX Today! greenber@utoday.UUCP 594 Third Avenue, New York, New York, 10016 Voice:(212)-889-6431 BIX: greenber MCI: greenber CIS: 72461,3212 To subscribe, send mail to circ@utoday.UUCP with "Subject: Request"