Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.8 $; site uiucdcsp
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsp!forbus
From: forbus@uiucdcsp.Uiuc.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc
Subject: Re: Re: software protection - dongl
Message-ID: <10800013@uiucdcsp>
Date: Tue, 13-Aug-85 09:41:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsp.10800013
Posted: Tue Aug 13 09:41:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 04:31:59 EDT
References: <250@sesame.UUCP>
Lines: 38
Nf-ID: #R:sesame.UUCP:-25000:uiucdcsp:10800013:000:2437
Nf-From: uiucdcsp.Uiuc.ARPA!forbus    Aug 13 08:41:00 1985


I am getting sufficiently tired of Mr.  Lerner's constant propagandizing on
behalf of his employer that I want to go and burn my copy of 1-2-3.  It is
the ONLY piece of copy-protected software that I have ever purchased.  I
deliberated for a month before buying it, precisely because it was
protected.  Given the attitude I have seen since from Lotus in general and
Mr. Lerner in particular I sincerely regret my decision.

Many software companies appear to think they have the right to make millions
with only little capital cost and effort (compared to, say, hardware
manufacturers or chip designers).  I have heard numerous complaints that the
software industry "cannot survive" without such profits.  I do not believe
this.  The more appropriate model for the software industry is the
publishing industry.  Publishing houses still make a great deal of money,
yet do not speak of "renting books", nor charge ruinous prices for them.

I have heard Mr.  Learner parrot claims by the organization sponsored by
Lotus (and other like-minded software companies) that some massive fraction
of programs in use are pirated.  I also do not belive this.  I purchased
every piece of software I use on my micro, OR got it from public domain
sources, OR was given it by the authors to review, OR wrote it myself.  (I
wonder if the existence of the latter two catagories is the source of the
bizarre statistics claimed by Lotus and associates?)  The same is true for
all of my friends and collegues.  While I do not doubt that there are
pirates, people who routinely use purloined copies, etc., I have trouble
believing they make a signficant difference -- why else whould the makers of
Final Word, Wordstar 2000, and Cornerstone voluntarily REMOVE copy
protection from their products, in response to customer complaints?  Do
Infocom and Mark of the Unicorn seem like companies that want to go out of
business?  Clearly there is some disagreement within the industry about the
necessity for copy protection.

Please do not get me wrong -- except for being copy protected, Lotus 1-2-3
is a fine product.  But I'm going to call my software supplier and find out
how much SuperCalc III, Release 2 costs these days.  Sorcim, as well as many
other reasonable software companies, don't see the need for copy protection.
I'd rather deal with a company that respects me, assumes I'm honest, and has
a more realistic view of what their marketplace is like.