Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/13/84; site intelca.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!intelca!clif From: clif@intelca.UUCP (Clif Purkiser) Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: Re: software copying and protection (a personal opinion) Message-ID: <35@intelca.UUCP> Date: Fri, 9-Aug-85 01:45:18 EDT Article-I.D.: intelca.35 Posted: Fri Aug 9 01:45:18 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 06:42:01 EDT References: <409@brl-tgr.ARPA> <95@duvel.UUCP> Organization: Intel, Santa Clara, Ca. Lines: 122 > I also agree, that lots of companies and individuals are willing to pay for > their software. But the fact is that software is just too easy to copy. > Suppose you have this fine multi-user system. Suppose you've got that nice > whatever-it-must-do package. Since you're in a multi-user environment, you > might want to have more than one copy of the documentation. Fine, most > companies will be glad to sell additional copies to you. > > Frans Meulenbroeks, Philips Microprocessor Development Systems > ...!{seismo|philabs|decvax}!mcvax!philmds!frans > I am just taking one (and a few other comments) of the many good points Frans made in his lengthy discussion; Software is too easy to copy. I have owned an Apple II+ since 1979, and over the years have collected a large amount of software, some of the software has been bought much of it hasn't been bought . I am not advocating pirating software, nor attempting to defend my actions. I personally place individual software piracy as crime more serious than intentionally driving faster than 55 MPH and less serious than shoplifting. It is exactly equivalent to copying records with tape decks or movies on a VCR. Over the years of collecting an interesting phenomona (sp) has occured. The ratio of my pirated programs to bought programs has decreased substanially from 20-1 in 1979 to 1-1 in 1985 eventhough I am much less interested in Apple II programs since I bought my Macintosh. I attribute this to six factors: 1. My income has increased. (It was hard to afford too many $30-$60 game programs or a $200 compiler, when I was in college.) 2. The cost of Apple game software has decreased, I now find that I can by most Apple game programs for $7.50 - $20. via record stores mail house, or clearance sales. 3. The huge number of programs for the Apple II has resulted in the good programs achieving widespread distribution and the bad programs disappearing. For instance, I have yet to see a new game release by Electronic Arts that isn't very high quality. Software Publishing PFS has also consistently come out with good products at reasonable prices. It seems to me that my chances of buying a turkey program for the Apple II are much less than they were in 1979, before the channels of distribution were saturated. 4. Manuals and updates are becoming more worthwhile, even for game programs, Try playing a game from Strategic Simulation Inc (SSI) without a manual. 5. Having worked for a software publishing house (VisiCorp) as a software engineer I've become more aware that pirating hurts people. 6. Programs are becoming harder to copy for the Apple II. When Woz, decided to make the Apple II disk controller totally software driven he did a great service to software publishers. (Because, the Apple II disk drive is totally software driven, you can play all kinds of incrediable tricks to copy protect your software) In the old days, when I found a new medicore game that was copy-protected, all I had to do was pull out my latest Bit copy program and in a few minutes I had saved myself $40 bucks. Now days with many Apple II games, using 1/2 or 1/4 tracking, sychronizing tracks, preserving track lengths etc, trying to copy an excellent game may take 2 hours or several days. If I can buy the game for $10-20 and help feed the author who spent so long developing it, I am inclined to buy it instead of copy it. I think the key to surviving in the software market, is to sell an excellent product at a reasonable price $20 for a game under $100 for everything else. It is also important to make it more convenient for the average person to buy your product than to copy it. If this means updates, or manuals which are hard to copy, or copy protection, so be it I think anything is fair. I believe most people don't thing pirating is really a crime, and therefore manufacturers have to try to protect their interests. I have yet to meet a single computer owner who would not take a pirated program if was offered to him. (I believe I'm rather atypical in that I have on several occasions purchased programs which I already had pirated copies of because I felt the programs should be bought) I have also not meet many people who have tape decks or VCR who don't have illegal copies of records, movies, or cable TV shows. Eventhough, I think copy-protection is needed to ensure the survival of the software business. I think software publishers should not try to cheat the public. The standard license agreement is atrocious (sp). "This product is not guaranteed to do anything, despite the claims of our salesmen and advertising. but we will replace the disk for a shipping and handling fee (generous aren't they :-)." I could live with a copy protection scheme as long as I could do the following: For a game program get a replacement disk, and/or update for $10. For a business package, I must be able to install it on my hard disk. I want to only have to insert my key disk when I bring up the program. I am given two copies of the program so if I one fails I can still work. The company must be willing to replace my defective disk for a nominal fee. Finally, and most important I want a money-back guarantee. If I buy, a kitchen appliance , a pair of pants, a set of Ginju knives advertised on TV, or almost anything else in America and I don't like it I can take it back and get my money back. Why can't I do this for software? I believe that money-back guarantee are rare in software for several reasons. Software houses, don't have faith in their products, they are too greedy, and finally they are afraid that people will buy it, copy it, and return it. I am surprised at many of the people on the net who believe that software should be free, or not copy-protected. I believe that much of the software is overpriced because, publishers are greedy, and piracy tends to drive the price up. It is a classic chicken and the egg situation but I think people should complain about overpriced software, not copy protection. -- Clif Purkiser, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca. HIGH PERFORMANCE MICROPROCESSORS {pur-ee,hplabs,amd,scgvaxd,dual,idi,omsvax}!intelca!clif {standard disclaimer about how these views are mine and may not reflect the views of Intel, my boss , or USNET goes here. }