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.