rec.autos.simulators

Rae

When he stops laughing, stop by Buisiness Admin and chat about ethics...

--
Marc J. Nelson
The Sim Project - http://www.simproject.com/
Extinct Track Archive - http://www.simproject.com/eta/

--
Marc J. Nelson
The Sim Project - http://www.simproject.com/
Extinct Track Archive - http://www.simproject.com/eta/

* Switch confused.net with concentric.net to reply...Confused-yet? *

I've never used warez or downloaded pirated software off the net. Not
that I'm so pure but downloading 20+ Mb of software on my 28k modem
doesn't exactly thrill me. However I have used software 'borrowed'
from friends, which is a similar thing in my opinion.

I think there's some honest value and integrity in this practice.
Invariably, whenever I have liked the program I've bought a genuine
copy. Again this isn't due to some kind of high ground value system
but simply more to do with wanting my own genuine box/manual/CD etc.
More of a childish territorial possessive thing I suspect. In the
other case, whenever I didn't like a piece of borrowed software I
deleted it from my system as I don't like my hard drive space taken up
with stuff I don't use or don't like. In this way the using of
non-purchased software has been more of a free test run in my case,
and I suspect in lots of cases.

I feel this is OK because of the many claims by so many manufactures
about their products that simply are not true. Everything from how
stable their programs run, to the hardware it needs, to the quality of
the features etc. So many software companies have gilded the lily so
heavily that the stem has bucked and broken under the weight of their
'lies'. Politicians say anything, used car sales people say anything,
and software companies say anything. The only way you can have any
idea about what you're buying is to try before you buy. Ultimately
only the dishonest politician, car seller, or software company has
anything to fear from this approach. I see that some countries have
laws that allow buyers to take software back if its unsatisfactory. In
Australia once you've walked out the door with it its your problem,
such is the weakness of our politicians over here. For these reasons I
have complete symphony for anyone who would like to test an item
before they pay for it.

I vaguely recall I once read an article, several years ago in fact,
where someone from a major software company ( was it Lotus ? )  was
asked, among other things, why they didn't use any kind of copy
protection for their very popular programs when many other smaller
companies used all kinds of devices, from requiring the original disc
to be inserted to providing codes from manual pages etc. They answered
that nothing really worked anyway. Also their research found that it
inconvenienced and irritated their genuine customers. The guy also
said they had researched the very point and found the practice of
people giving out copies of their products to friends etc actually
helped promote their programs. They found that sooner or later the
illegal users often bought their own genuine copy, which they may not
have done if they hadn't already tried it.

As to the argument that using pirated software reduces a manufactures
profit - I don't think it's as plain a case as it appears. Certainly
the professional software pirate who mass produces software for
reselling is a real criminal and profit reducer but that's not the
scenario here and certainly not something I support at all. Here we're
talking about an individual who acquires a copy of a program for their
own use without any intention of making money from it.

So what are the possibilities ?

1) If I buy a copy of a program and am disappointed with it I
invariably sell it off 2nd hand to get some of my money back. In this
case the company has sold one copy. It looses the sale to the 2nd hand
buyer who might never have paid full price anyway.

2) If I don't buy or sell such a copy then my 2nd hand buyer will have
to buy their own new copy or forget about it. In this case the company
at best sells one copy and at worse sells none.

3) If I 'borrow ' a copy and like it and so buy my own genuine copy.
In this case the company sells one copy.

4) If I borrow a copy, and like it, and decide I'll happily continue
to use the borrowed copy without ever buying a real copy. This is the
only case where a sale is missed. But does this happen that often ?
All my friends and I have our own copies of the software we like.
Regardless of whether the first contact with such software was
borrowed or not.

5) Someone lends me a copy of something that I would never have been
interested in the first place. Only because I get it for free do I
even try it. To my surprise I like it and go out and buy my own copy.
This has actually happened at least a couple of times. A sale is made
that would never have happened otherwise.

6) Similar to 5). I might try out a program out of idle curiosity or
whatever that I would never pay the price of. If I don't like it it'll
soon be off my system anyway. But occasionally I might actually be
surprised and like the item and buy one. Again a sale that would never
have happened otherwise.

Like the guy said in that long ago interview, I think its quite
possible that program proliferation by any means generally results in
overall more sales for the makers.

Troy "The Kid" wrote,

What you do IS illigal, so you ARE a criminal. Even if you buy it
later.

Well,

You still cann't spell. (neither can I)

Warez DOES NOT help software manufactors. (Lets face it, you'll buy
GPL anyhow)

You are a criminal.

Errrr....where are you right?

Remco

And the sentence where they wrote "and if I like it, I ususally buy it
due to the fact that most warez games arent full versions or dont
include videos. " is just pathetic.  This translates to:

"I still buy the game if the warez version sucks"

Again, I have read plenty of people doing a great job of justifying it,
but supporting the warez people who, for the most part, are NOT going to
buy a game but just thrill in the illegal trade of games is wrong.

You cost all of the consumers of that game money.  Uh, that would be
me...

I like this idea, but why not put the royalty fee on to the medium
specifically intended for copying?  What you've outlined assumes
certain things, including that a predetermined number of consumers
will eventually, but may not intentionally, make illegal copies of
said item.

However, puting the royalty fee on blank tapes and CD's, recording
equipment, and maybe even pencil and paper rightly assumes something
will be "copied" to this medium.  Call it insurance...

The whole point is that by placing the fee on the equipment, you're
no longer labeling the average CD-consumer as a potential pirate, at
least not to their face.<g>

Cheers!

Marc

--
Marc J. Nelson
The Sim Project - http://www.simproject.com/
Extinct Track Archive - http://www.simproject.com/eta/

* Switch confused.net with concentric.net to reply...Confused-yet? *

Many people may not realize that its actually illegal to simply lend
someone a copyrighted book or magazine. Yet how many of us lend books
etc to one another all the time? Its also illegal to copy by any means
any material from magazines, books, or newspapers etc. Yet how many of
us do this all the time. If you're going to cry foul specifically
about a particular form of copyright infringement then you may be
exposing yourself to claims of being a hypocrite, and rightly so. How
can you claim that your particular form of copyright infringement is
less of an offence than someone else's? You can't and maintain
integrity.

So what's the solutions? We can simply accept than a certain amount of
copying inevitably will go on and so factor such into our equations as
a normal facet of being in a publication business. We could rely more
and more on tracking technology so that eventually everything a person
owns,  hears, sees, or smells, is listed in a global data bank -
disallowing access by and/or pouncing on anyone who appears to have
access to a non-cleared item for their ID. I suspect the latter will
regretfully be more the case as time goes by. ( Someone once wrote
than an ounce of freedom is worth a pound of accountability in any
language. But I fear the money monsters of the world will/have adopted
the axiom that an ounce of individual freedom for someone else
generally means a potential bottom line negative for themselves. Alas
and sigh etc. )

There is one approach I know of that actually sounds like a fair
compromise. Like all compromises it isn't fair in every aspect for
every party but I think its not bad.

In Australia the problem existed where people would borrow others'
music CDs, records, cassettes, etc and record the music onto blank
cassettes. ( I'm sure this happens everywhere and has gone on since
personal tape recording devices were invented ). This of course robbed
the copyright holders of their rightful revenue. It seems impossible
to police. Its hard enough to get a permit to search a persons house
if there are grounds for suspecting them of being a drug dealer. To
search a private citizens effects or house because they are a
suspected music copier would never be allowed by any politician who
had a desire to be reelected.

What eventually has come to pass is that a royalty fee is added to the
price of every blank cassette tape sold in Australia. This goes into a
royalty fund. Periodically this fund is dispersed proportionally to
the copyright holders of the known music sales for the relevant period
- the reasonable assumption being that the mix of the music illegally
copied would reflect the mix of music bought in the normal way in the
same period. The assumption wouldn't be perfect of course and some
folks who buy blank cassettes may be using then for entirely
non-copyright-infringement purposes. But overall I think it's not a
bad solution.

If you transferred this approach to computer mediums then I suppose
there'd be a royalty fee on every floppy disk, recordable CD, and
perhaps even hard drives themselves. The resulting royalty fund to be
divided in a similar way as the music royalty fund above.

These aren't perfect solutions I know. But perhaps they'd go some way
in solving the problems that everyone complains about. Publishers
complain about lost income. End users complain about not being able to
try before they buy. I think that basically everyone wants to be
treated fairly and with respect. Under this system the producers would
still get revenue for their popular items, while the end user also
feels able to try before they buy to protect their reasonable
interests.

I for one would be happy to pay a bit extra on the price of recordable
mediums if it meant I could freely test out software before I bought
it.

Phillip McNelley

Do you have libraries where you live? Are the police routinely raiding
them? :)

I'm only familiar with US law, but there are wide exceptions in US
copyright law for "fair use" and "archival" purposes.

---Jim

If I was paying a surcharge on every hard-drive I bought for all the illegal
copies
I was expected to store on it, I would feel that I had also bought the right
to make illegal copies, having already paid something for them.  It's just a
twisted proposition.

rob.

<snip>

<snip>

<snip>

It certainly does beg the question, if I have paid a royalty surcharge
then am I legally entitled to copy what I please. I don't know how
this has been addressed in the act, if at all. I don't have nor have I
read a complete copy of the act. My knowledge about the matter comes
entirely  from the popular media. Its an interesting point and I
suppose if I  was more keen about the area I'd get a copy of the bill
to see the detail. I'm not that interested, as it happens, and have
mentioned it here simply as a case in point about how a particular
case of copyright infringement was addressed by what seems a
reasonably workable system, as opposed to  un-policeable systems that
are honored more in the breach than in the compliance.

Cheers

Phillip McNelley

Cheers!
John