Subject: Re: Piracy was Re: HH drives

From: "Dwight K. Elvey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue Apr 15 19:11:00 2003

>From: "Paul Berger" <[email-masked]>
>
>On Mon, 2003-03-10 at 16:46, Lawrence Walker wrote:
>>  Why does this legalistic crap with high moral tone 
>> forever come up on the list. For the most part almost
>> all old computer collectors are using programs illegally.
><snip>
>> a thousand others sitting on a program which they won't 
>> put into public domain due to not giving a shit about the 
>> end user.
>
>I usually take the extremely legalistic point of view to highlight to
>people that the current system of copyright is broken, and only getting
>more so to protect the interests of a few.
>
>Whenever I catch somebody I know doing something that is technically
>illegal I point out this fact most strenuous and let them know they can
>get a criminal records, do jail time and receive millions in fines if
>somebody takes offense at what they are doing.  I will then suggest that
>if they think this is wrong they should contact their representative and
>suggest things be changed.
>
>Most shrug, figure I'm a kook (probably right) and don't do a damn thing
>... this is why things won't change.
>
>> Why is there not an similar outcry about companies like
>> Lotus or Borland that put out products that were obsoleted
><snip>
>> companies it's tit for tat. Apple and a few others do the 
>> decent thing but they are the exceptions not the rule.
>
>Borland has released some of their old dos compilers on their community
>site, so I would not knock them too much.  They sold off the rights to
>many of their applications so I would not expect them to release them to
>the public.
>
>I'm hoping that the shareware type idea will come back with the rise of
>open-source software creating new niches, and the big software companies
>charging for support & updates.  You don't want support, the software is
>free, but if you want somebody to answer questions, you need to pay the
>author something.

Hi
 The only problem here is something I saw done ( and
admitted to ) in shareware. The product was release to
shareware with a known bug. In order to get it fixed,
simply pay for the support/upgrade. I chose to delete
the original and not use either.
 I had a couple of shareware programs that I released.
They were used by many hundreds of people. I only had
4 people send me the $5. I'm not complaining. Actually
I'm happy that so many found them useful. I'll have to
admit that most were college students so they have a good
excuse.
 I've also used several shareware programs without sending
any money in so I can't complain about others. There were
a couple that I did send money in for and used quite a bit.
 My only complaint is with abandonware. When the code is
no longer relevant, why hang onto it as though it were
of some value. I can see that one could make a point that
there might be something in the source that was of value
but the application is different.
Dwight

>Regards,
>Paul

---

From: Paul Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue Apr 15 20:22:00 2003

> the original and not use either.

Hopefully such products would not last long in the market.  I wonder
sometimes if such a strategy is used by certain other large software
vendors that I won't mention.

> admit that most were college students so they have a good

Myself I've paid for software that I find useful even if I was not
required by the license.  If I use a utility that has a donate link on
the site I will throw a couple spare bucks to. I know I am unusual, most
people I know abuse shareware licenses far beyond anything reasonable, I
find this sad since most can afford to pay.

There are some shareware utilities (DIRMAN is an example of one) that I
would like to pay for, but I can't find the author.

<SNIP>
> but the application is different.

Things where the copyright is essentially abandoned like much software
that is more than 10 years old, old book that are not published, and
most old movies moldering in vaults are a big problem.  Most you can't
determine the current holder of the copyright to request permission, and
the current holder may not even know what they have.

This is why it should never have gotten away from the system that
existed pre 1973 where the holder had to renew copyright after 28 years
for 28 years or else it went into the public domain. Pulling numbers out
of the air I would say 20 years with 10 year increments till 70-90 years
would be fine.

Regards,
Paul