NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/sys/amiga/applications/3401

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 3.9 KB

Path: ix.netcom.com!news
From: Aristophanes <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.applications,comp.sys.newton.misc
Subject: Re: Users are selfish Was Re: crippled software
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 01:53:28 -0800
Organization: Netcom
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>   <[e-mail]>  <4hllsv$[e-mail]>    <4hmvq7$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
        <4ia7el$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: van-bc1-08.netcom.ca
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-NETCOM-Date: Sat Mar 16  3:54:59 AM CST 1996
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K)

Gopi D Flaherty wrote:

> If I own the copyright to something, then you are only allowed to use it
> under the terms of the agreement that I specify.  A copyright license is
> different from a normal contract.  You are only authorized to use the
> software if I _say_ you are.  Some of the shrink wrap agreements on
> commercial software are unenforeceable, but I'm pretty sure that
> according to what I;ve read shareware licenses could be enforced.  If
> they said "you owe me $10 for looking at my program", and you couldn't
> read the agreement before you looked at it, then it would be invalid.
> But the agreement says that you must pay money if you continue to use
> the program- there's no reason that the law would call that invalid.

The law would also probably call it unenforcable. That has always been the
nemesis of all software licensing agreements, save maybe those using
dongles.

> Simply being able to obtain a copy of a program doesn't give you a right
> to use it- if I copy a commercial program, I don't have a right to use
> it.  Why should I have a right to a shwareware program unless I am
> specifically given the right to use it from the author?

The only counter to this is to use the market argument first put forth here.
That is: if a coder puts a program on the shareware market and only gets a
few payments, then the market is just that size - nothing more. Whether or
not people are using and not paying is an assumption of using that market
distribution method in the first place. Marketing rarely works with an
enforcement to pay methodology as opposed to an incentive to buy one.

I think that - while most of the shareware I've seen is first-rate code and
very useful - there is some confusion in the shareware market as to what the
market really is. Just because a lot of effort went into a useful, fun,
needed program, doesn't ensure that people accessing it via this
distribution system will pay for it. In fact, practically speaking, the
opposite is true. Many consumers see the shareware (Stuffit, for example) as
a system necessity, not budgeted for in the original computer/software
financial plans. The consumer has some say as to whether they will pay or
not. Really, the only incentive withing the shareware system is an ethical
plea for just payment. However, the consumer might feel the product is not
worthy of payment, but worthy of use. You can call that unlawful, but
nonetheless it is an established market risk, and accepted as such. A market
for a product requires both demand (indicated by a willingness to pay) and,
of course, supply. But just because a product is supplied, does not
necessarily mean people will pay for it. And the producer alone cannot
simply define the terms of the market, especially not if they use a public
and sanctioned distribution system, as with shareware. If the public won't
pay, then there is effectively no market. Only when a product reaches a
certain threshold of function and usability will people pay for it (Unless
you're Bill Gates and you're licensing DOS ;-)