🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1gfhe8INNrhf@rs1.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE> aeg03@rrz.uni-koeln.de (Jan T. Kim) writes:
>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.

I'll dare to disagree.  The customer isn't just paying for "software,"
he/she is paying for the SOLUTION to some problem.  The solution
sometimes happens to take the form of computer software.

But part of the solution takes its form in determining what ought to
be done.  This may involve determining which piece of software will
provide the best solution.

>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>!"

I've seen it happen.

>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?

You're assuming that it's not ok.

>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.

On the other hand, if he DOESN'T "cheat" the customers, he's going to
be cheating the shareholders out of some potential dividends.

>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 understand what this paragraph means; you might want to reword it so
that it would be more easily understood.  Something like:

"Piracy is a bad idea because it results in `legitimate' purchasors
paying a lot more than their fair share of the costs, and `pirates'
paying less than their fair share."

The idea about "paying twice for work done once" isn't inherent to the
argument.  (And people WILL disagree on the issue.)  According to the
"Principle of Minimal Commitment", I'd put off defining what the "fair
share" refers to.

>>>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.

I don't think that there is ANY sensible way of enacting "appropriate"
legislation for software.  I don't think that it's possible.  Politics
just doesn't work that way.

The presence of a multiplicity of companies producing competing
products is probably much more helpful than even the most totalitarian
laws.

The presence of competing products probably helps to bring prices down
more than even the most potent anti-piracy laws would.

Word(im)Perfect needs to compete with Microsoft Word, Ami Pro, and the
plethoria of other "cheaper" word processors.  (I'm just surprised
that Borland doesn't sell anything much in the way of a high-end word
processor.)  Users "win" in that the prices come down at least a
little, the programs are better supported, and are upgraded more
often.

Likewise, Lotus 123 has got to compete with other spreadsheets, which
is good for users REGARDLESS of pro/anti-piracy laws or
copyright/left.

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |===================================
University of Ottawa              |  The Personal Computer:  Colt 45
Master of System Science Program  |  of the Information Frontier