Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!vrdxhq!dgis!bms-at!stuart From: stuart@bms-at.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Program rentals - an invitation to piracy? Message-ID: <322@bms-at.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Dec-86 00:31:21 EST Article-I.D.: bms-at.322 Posted: Tue Dec 16 00:31:21 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Dec-86 07:17:21 EST References: <800@mtunb.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: Business Management Systems, Inc., Fairfax, VA Lines: 54 Summary: A reasonable rental policy. In article <800@mtunb.UUCP>, dmt@mtunb.UUCP (Dave Tutelman) writes: > "Members are not inconvenienced by having to return the rented software > to the club. They are simply asked to erase the software on their own > before expiration of the 21 day rental period." > "We do not provide documentation. However, in many cases the ... manuals > are not required. The most popular ... programs are represented by many > books available in computer/book stores. These books generally explain > the operation of the programs better than the original documentation." My feeling is that a software rental company should: a) rent only original disks with original documentation and backup copies. The originals help keep people honest. The backup copies would actually be used. b) require a deposit in case of loss or damage (although most software companies will replace a damaged original disk for a nominal fee). Originals, backups and documentation must be returned at the end of the rental period. c) keep enough paid for originals around to satisfy the demand. Thus, the publisher is getting paid for N users if there are enough copies for N rentals to be outstanding. d) charge enough to cover replacement for wear and tear plus overhead and profit. Sleazy companies like the one quoted above are essentially stealing from the software publishers. Unfortunately, an honest company would have trouble charging competitive prices compared a sleazy one. Therefore such sleazy activity should be illegal. I think that software publishers should be the ones to attempt legal action. They are ones who stand to lose. This is one area where Lotus and Ashton-tate should cooperate! I think that the law should require that only paid-for originals may be 'rented'. Copies may be used only for backup purposes and a) may not be transferred to another party while retaining posession of the originals. and b) *must* be transferred to another party or destroyed when the original is sold or rented. P.S. I detest copy protection. It's not so much the backup, it's having to stick a stupid diskette in drive A on an otherwise all hard disk system. -- Stuart D. Gathman <..!seismo!dgis!bms-at!stuart>