🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Dec13.024009.15597@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:

>In article <1ge4eqINNp10@rs1.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE> kim@vax.mpiz-koeln.mpg.dbp.de writes:

>You're describing only one area of software; namely the MASS MARKET.
>I suspect that the majority of software development actually takes
>place at other levels, in the form of "custom software."
>Customization (whether it's particularly creative or not) does cost a
>lot, and does NOT result in an "infinite" number of useful copies.
>For a specialized report, there might actually only be ONE user.

Yes, my bitching really does target mainly the mass market, where
thousands  of  absolutely identical copies of a piece of software
can be sold without any customization whatsoever. I'd never  dare
to  judge  how  creative  some kind of work is, but I do question
that it is right and viable to charge for copying  as  though  it
was programming.
If someone does some customization for ONE  user  and  that  user
pays  him  for  the  effort the programmer made, e.g. $1000 for a
week or so, that's perfectly ok.  But  now,  if  that  very  same
programmer  gets a similar job from another customer, and he digs
out the stuff from the first job, does some  changes  to  it  in,
say,  half a day, is it jutified that this programmer charges the
second customer $1000, as though the second job had taken  him  a
week to do like the first one? I say no.
Don't tell me such things don't happen. I once talked  to  a  guy
who  was  working  for a company that did software customizations
for commercial customers, i.e. big enterprises. I asked  if  they
charged  for stuff they just took from work that was already done
and paid for by another customer as though they had to  write  it
up from scratch. His answer was "Of course we do <GRIN>!"

Now, if charging twice for work one did once is not ok,  how  can
charging  thousands  of time for work that has been done once be?
This  is  exactly  what  happens  when   commercially   marketing
copyrighted  software on the mass market. The fact that the price
for a single legal copy doesn't cover the production cost doesn't
change  the fundamental problem: If the price per package is, say
0.1% of the total production cost of 1000 packages, then  it  is,
by  extension of the line of reasoning described above, ok if the
software marketer sells 1000 packages for the said price. I'd not
be  bothered  if  he  sold  some  more  for  the  benefit  of his
shareholders, but if he sells 3000 packages, he has cheated  each
of  his customers at least as badly as the programmer who charges
a customer for work that he did during time he was  paid  for  by
another customer.
Viewed from this aspect,  I  don't  condemn  piracy  one-sidedly,
because  it  will reduce the "pirate cheat ratio", i.e. the ratio
of illegal copies to legal ones, but it will, at the  same  time,
increase  the  "software  charge cheat ratio", i.e. the number of
times charged on the average for work done once.

>>I think that is  a  fundamental  problem  in  the
>>concept of marketing copyrights. Software companies rip off  both
>>programmers and users these days.

>>Maybe all that is needed to resolve this problem is a law  saying
>>that  after the copyright on a program expires after one year and
>>is automatically converted to a copyleft.

>"There ought to be a law!"  The most common, and the most STUPID
>statement that people typically make.

Don't get me wrong here. I'd like to  do  with  as  few  laws  as
possible,  and  I'm not calling for any. This suggestion was only
meant as an example how one could change legislation  in  a  more
sensible   way   than   implementing  totalitarian  measures  for
enforcing copyrights.

Greetinx, Jan

 +- Jan Kim -- X.400:    S=kim;OU=vax;O=mpiz-koeln;P=mpg;A=dbp;C=de -+
 |             Internet: kim@vax.mpiz-koeln.mpg.dbp.de               |
 |                                                                   |
 *----=<  hierarchical systems are for files, not for humans  >=-----*