Woh, yer made /. !

What's up with the login here?

[moki]

Note to moderators: I am posting this here because there was a rather large discussion on this exact topic here a few weeks ago.

.....

Ambrosia Software's own Bitwise Operator, Matt Slot, has written an insightful and interesting piece on software piracy from the perspective of a software publisher. It relates Ambrosia's own experience with software piracy, license codes systems, and shows, unfortunately, how rampant piracy is in the sofware business.

There are numerous web sites, newsgroups and hotline servers devoted to software piracy, and the reality is that this has an impact on people who make a living writing software. Check out the full article here for details.

[Millennium]

Speak for yourself. I still believe that your Activation-esque method is unacceptable, and that better and fairer ways to accomplish what you want to do exist. You still haven't said what other methods were considered (if other methods even were) and why algorithms that don't require this invasion of privacy aren't as good. In short, by all the evidence you've given us, the only logical conclusion is that you've thought only about your own rights, and rationalized the trampling of the rights of your users. And that is unethical. It's not the moki I know, not the Ambrosia I knew, who kept their operations on the up-and-up and respected their userbase in a way that few companies do nowadays.

You're a great guy, moki. You do make good software, which is what makes me so reluctant to boycott. I honestly believe this is just an ethical slip on the part of Ambrosia. But I can't let it slide. You're Gatesing your users needlessly. Yes, piracy is wrong. Yes, you deserve to make money for your products. And yes, you have the right to take steps to ensure that you get that money from people who use your software. But you have no right -no right at all- to infringe on the rights of legitimate users in order to do it. When I buy a license from you, that license is mine, and there is no reason I should have to come back to you to keep using the license I've bought and paid for. That some users are stupid enough to not keep their license code is no excuse; they deserve what they get for their idiocy. I was once a member of that group, and I learned this the hard way. It's no excuse to punish legitimate users; however "convenient" you may make the process, you are still doing it.

This will probably sound inflammatory. I'm sorry for that. But my point still stands: I will only change my point of view if you tell me why there is any reason to change it, ie that this is the fairest, most ethical method our there of preventing piracy. I say it isn't. You have yet to explain why it is (and -more importantly- why other methods, like tying the license code to a user rather than an expiration date- are not), and this article does nothing but rehash old and logically-unsound arguments.

[dogzilla]

BTW Moki - why do you use capitalization on the links on your website? For example, when you go to http://www.ambrosiasw.com/ it meta-refreshes you to http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/news. For some browsers, this causes a problem.

[MacGorilla]

Yes, this has been discussed before and I still respectfully disagree with the new licensing scheme. I won't boycott tho; this self defeating but I will continue to let Ambrosia know my opinions on the matter.

[moki]

Originally posted by dogzilla:
<STRONG>BTW Moki - why do you use capitalization on the links on your website? For example, when you go to http://www.ambrosiasw.com/ it meta-refreshes you to http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/news. For some browsers, this causes a problem.</STRONG>

That has nothing to do with capitalization -- it is just a design consistency for us to have the home page forward to /news/

[MacGorilla]

BTW, excellent article! While I still disagree with the implementation, i do agree with the need for a more robust antipirating scheme, after all, I want Ambrosia to continue to produce great games so the extra hassle is worth it.

By the way, congrats Bitwise Operator on the baby!

[moki]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>You're a great guy, moki. You do make good software, which is what makes me so reluctant to boycott. I honestly believe this is just an ethical slip on the part of Ambrosia. But I can't let it slide. You're Gatesing your users needlessly. Yes, piracy is wrong. Yes, you deserve to make money for your products. And yes, you have the right to take steps to ensure that you get that money from people who use your software. But you have no right -no right at all- to infringe on the rights of legitimate users in order to do it. When I buy a license from you, that license is mine, and there is no reason I should have to come back to you to keep using the license I've bought and paid for. That some users are stupid enough to not keep their license code is no excuse; they deserve what they get for their idiocy. I was once a member of that group, and I learned this the hard way. It's no excuse to punish legitimate users; however "convenient" you may make the process, you are still doing it.</STRONG>

Did you read the entire article?

Did you try purchasing one of our products (such as Snapz Pro X) that implements this system? Give it a try -- I will refund your purchase personally if you find it onerous -- I think you will find that we have worked *very* hard to make sure that what we're doing it neither an invasion nor an inconvenience to our paying customers.

It isn't perfect, but IMHO is strikes a very good balance between something that is effective in the real world and something that isn't a burden to our customers. We are continually striving to improve our software in every regard, so any comments are certainly considered.

[moki]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
<STRONG>BTW, excellent article! While I still disagree with the implementation, i do agree with the need for a more robust antipirating scheme, after all, I want Ambrosia to continue to produce great games so the extra hassle is worth it.

By the way, congrats Bitwise Operator on the baby!</STRONG>

It should actually be even less of a hassle now that you can get authenticated immediately, with no interaction with us at all. And keep in mind that this is something that happens rarely -- most people enter their license code once after they get it, and use it for years after that, never having to re-enter it.

As for the baby, Matt actually has TWO now, so his support burden has doubled.

[dark3lf]

I don't know what everyone was so upset about, SP-X was hardly spyware, and Ambrosia's business practices are definitely fair. It seems to me those of you were bitching about the expiring licensing were upset that your pirated codes didn't work or got a little too paranoid about SP-X contacting a remote computer to report your nefarious activities. Or even legitimate activities for that matter, which is understandable. If you don't understand something, then ask, if you still don't like it, then don't use it.

[spdemac]

Upon reading the excellent article over at Ambrosia's site, I agree with their decision. I wrote several shareware applications and used a system to prevent piracy not unlike theirs.

The philosophy behind such a system is one of the few weapons the small developer has at their disposal. If you are trying to sell a piece of software you need to get it in front of customers so it is beneficial to both the developer and customer to let it flow freely. However the license key is actually the most valuable part of the product and should be secured in a manner that prevents theft.

I constructed a license server that asked the users to enter information from their purchase. This information was sent to the server which then removed the "nag" screen and licensed the product. The important part for me was that the license "key" never left the vault so to speak. This increased the challenge for hackers or pirates to crack the system. This system also protected my customers from others stealing their licenses. And I have heard from several people that had software licenses stolen from products using the traditional licensing method, and when they go the software companies they are immediately branded pirates.

When you start spouting about sending an email address or other relatively minor pieces of information to a license server is invasion of privacy. As long as the information is only based on information used during the original purchase it is really not an invasion of privacy since you already volunteered this information. Handing your credit card to a waiter or filling out an application for a lease or loan opens you up to far more invasions of privacy then a simply registration system used to protect the rights of a developer.

Now the software need fully functional for at least 7 days. To allow trials and testing by prospective customer, as well as, the re-installation of the product when net access was not readily available.

In a perfect world none of this would be necessary, but we all know that piracy is only becoming more of an issue with the spread of broadband technologies. A few years ago no one would have worried about a product that required several CD's being rapidly pirated on the net let along small shareware applications. But the flurry of activity with 600mb disc images flowing fast and furious across the hotline and carracho servers is an ominous warning for software developer everywhere.

I prefer Ambrosia's and my solution to the problem. The alternative is to box the software up try and get it into the retail channels, forcing user to purchase the products before trying them. This would raise the barriers to entry for a lot of new developers and dramatically reduce the choice for users.

I am sure that we will see more and more of these types of systems in the future. As a developer and as a customer I welcome them. I want good software, lower prices (reduction of piracy will help lower prices) and the security of know that my license is safe and secure with the company that I choose to do business with.

[ 02-01-2002: Message edited by: spdemac ]

[fprefect]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>This will probably sound inflammatory. I'm sorry for that. But my point still stands: I will only change my point of view if you tell me why there is any reason to change it, ie that this is the fairest, most ethical method our there of preventing piracy. I say it isn't. You have yet to explain why it is (and -more importantly- why other methods, like tying the license code to a user rather than an expiration date- are not), and this article does nothing but rehash old and logically-unsound arguments.</STRONG>

The fairest way would be that someone's account would automatically be debited for the software (or music or whatever) they used -- making piracy impossible. How this would affect product demos and pricing is anyone's guess, but I think the numbers would be much more equitable for everyone involved.

As for logically unsound, I think the numbers presented show pretty convincingly that 50% of the people trying to install Snapz used pirated codes -- and that this stopped them (at least temporarily). If you can't concede this point, then clearly we have irreconcilable differences.

Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.

[Brazuca]

I think that some here miss the point of Millenium's complaint and haven't followed the exhaustive discussion we've had in the previous forum (too late for me to look for the link).

(Correct me if I'm wrong Millenium):

Millenium's, and some of us also, disagree with the scheme's violation of the rights of consumers and some valid points have also been made about the current scheme undermining the very idea of copyrights. We all agree that Ambrosia's implementation is probably as painless as it gets, but that it not the point we are arguing.

We are also not afraid that Ambrosia is collecting data on us (::looks around suspiciously :: ).

Just imagine that Ambrosia goes out of business next month. What happens to your legally purchased software if you happen to need to reenter the license? Who will you turn to? Under the current scheme users will always depend on Ambrosia to get a new code, and despite this being admittedly rare, fundamentally it violates our rights as consumers. At least that is what we content (if the others allow me to speak for them here).

In any case, it's late and I've only glanced at the document. I'll check it out when it's less 2:15 am than it is now.


(I simply loooove OW's spell checking support)

[ 02-02-2002: Message edited by: Brazuca ]

[Brazuca]

Originally posted by fprefect:
<STRONG>

The fairest way would be that someone's account would automatically be debited for the software (or music or whatever) they used -- making piracy impossible. How this would affect product demos and pricing is anyone's guess, but I think the numbers would be much more equitable for everyone involved.

As for logically unsound, I think the numbers presented show pretty convincingly that 50% of the people trying to install Snapz used pirated codes -- and that this stopped them (at least temporarily). If you can't concede this point, then clearly we have irreconcilable differences.

Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.</STRONG>

My question: How many of these actually bought the code after they couldn't pirate it?
My point is that the demand for a product only includes those willing and able to purchase it. If those 50% wouldn't be using the software otherwise, then this "piracy" can only do Ambrosia good since pirated software does not preclude others from using it legitimately. It only has the potential of increasing the user base (ie: I will buy it when I can afford it; or I like some of the features and I want to use them, but for now I can' justify paying full price). Things like that.

So I ask, is there proof that this scheme acts to prevent would-be legitimate users from casual pirating? Does the benefit make up for the cost?

I still think that while an interesting question for the market for piracy, it is still a moot point since I have fundamental disagreements with the implementation of the scheme.

[moki]

Originally posted by Brazuca:
<STRONG>Just imagine that Ambrosia goes out of business next month. What happens to your legally purchased software if you happen to need to reenter the license? Who will you turn to? Under the current scheme users will always depend on Ambrosia to get a new code, and despite this being admittedly rare, fundamentally it violates our rights as consumers. At least that is what we content (if the others allow me to speak for them here).</STRONG>

Most people do not keep their license codes -- it is just a fact we've learned from experience. But let's assume that you do. Let's assume you keep a nice organized database in FileMaker with your various serial numbers in it.

Then your hard drive crashes. Total loss -- you have no backups. What recourse do you have if *any* company that issued you a serial number -- shareware, commercial, whatever -- goes under?

Or another take on it. What if a company that makes a cool piece of software you use goes out of business, and then you upgrade your OS, and that software no longer works with it. What is your recourse there?

We're really arguing this as if it is something new, but it isn't -- the problem, if you're paranoid, has existed for years.

I will state right now that I have no problem with the idea of putting critical pieces of code into escrow, so that in the very unlikely event that we go away, our paying customers are not affected. Doesn't bother me in the slightest to do something like that -- I don't think it'll make a realistic difference, but if it helps people sleep better at night, so be it.

[moki]

Originally posted by Brazuca:
<STRONG>My question: How many of these actually bought the code after they couldn't pirate it?
My point is that the demand for a product only includes those willing and able to purchase it. If those 50% wouldn't be using the software otherwise, then this "piracy" can only do Ambrosia good since pirated software does not preclude others from using it legitimately. It only has the potential of increasing the user base (ie: I will buy it when I can afford it; or I like some of the features and I want to use them, but for now I can' justify paying full price). Things like that.

So I ask, is there proof that this scheme acts to prevent would-be legitimate users from casual pirating? Does the benefit make up for the cost?</STRONG>

I dunno, do you think security camera and security guards help to deter shoplifting? I sure do...

But to directly address your question, I actually got an eMail from someone today who said he tried to use a pirated code, it got rejected, he read our article, and ended up buying the product the same day.

Clearly these people think the product is worthwhile -- they can use it for weeks with no limitations whatever to evaluate it, and yet, they decide to go out of their way to obtain an illegitimate license code so that they can pirate it. Why?

Why go through the bother to do that if the product doesn't have some value for you? They could have determined whether the product was worth it or not to them during the trial period, yet they decided they wanted the full version in perpetuity.

That to me says there is some value in the product to at least a good chunk of these people. Will some of them just say "Well, screw it, I don't need it anyway"? Sure! Will some of them decide that they actually do want the product, and if they can't casually pirate it, they'll pay for it? I think so.

Just how you'd propose gaining actual stats on this, though, i have no idea. It would be about as accurate as polling people about their sexual habits.

I do think that the case I made about people's motivations, and that a product must have _some_ value to them if they'll try to steal it makes sense, though.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Brazuca:

My question: How many of these actually bought the code after they couldn't pirate it?
My point is that the demand for a product only includes those willing and able to purchase it. If those 50% wouldn't be using the software otherwise, then this "piracy" can only do Ambrosia good since pirated software does not preclude others from using it legitimately. It only has the potential of increasing the user base (ie: I will buy it when I can afford it; or I like some of the features and I want to use them, but for now I can' justify paying full price). Things like that.

I really hate this argument (because I'm personally affected). I'll take another software product as an example:

Let's say for every purchased copy of Adobe PhotoShop 10 copies are pirated. I then often hear, that this doesn't do any harm to Adobe, because those people wouldn't have purchased PhotoShop anyway. But those people obviously have the need for an image editor, and if they couldn't have pirated PhotoShop they would have bought a cheaper product (maybe a shareware image editor) that maybe even suits their needs better than PhotoShop. But now they haven't to, because they already have pirated PhotoShop, and ly to themselves thinking they didn't do any harm.

So piracy actually does do harm, especially to smaller developers. Due to piracy you have absolutely no chance to get into the market for image editors or office suits for example.

[s o l i d s t e e l]

I work in an academic environment, where the price of 95+% of software - for Macs and Windows is heavily subsidized - the educational licence - but I still see many pirated copies of software - and the thought that "I have bought one licence - so I can install and run as many copies of this software as I like". Yet these same people take the greatest offence when their research material is reproduced without permission.

The mind truely boggles - they don't mind breaching copyright and licence terms to save themselves money, but when it comes to thier own work it is a different story.

I manage all the software licences for my group and ensure that we have licences to cover our usage.

It says something when some in the academic community don't even respect intellectual property rights, copyright and the need to buy licences.

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>Note to moderators: I am posting this here because there was a rather large discussion on this exact topic here a few weeks ago.

.....

Ambrosia Software's own Bitwise Operator, Matt Slot, has written an insightful and interesting piece on software piracy from the perspective of a software publisher. It relates Ambrosia's own experience with software piracy, license codes systems, and shows, unfortunately, how rampant piracy is in the sofware business.

There are numerous web sites, newsgroups and hotline servers devoted to software piracy, and the reality is that this has an impact on people who make a living writing software. Check out the full article here for details.</STRONG>

[The Evener]

Following up on solidsteel,

You're right about causal piracy in academic settings, which also goes for other work settings. But then you have a big proponent of product activation -- Microsoft -- distributing copies of 'enterprise' XP *without* product activation. I can only surmise that some big corporations apparently were able to bend Microsoft's ear about the hassles of validation on individual systems, upgrades, maintenance, etc. So, in the end, a fairly big arena of piracy -- the workplace -- is left alone, while consumers get to experience the joys of calling up MS to get their purchased software working. I can only conclude that consumers were not spared the process of activation because they simply could not muster a strong enough collective response against such a practice. After all, as a de facto monopoly, it isn't like most people will consider 'taking their business elsewhere' thanks to fear-mongering about compatibility, etc.

At the same time, I understand Ambrosia is not in the same boat as MS! Size and history aside, the former relies on the Internet for distribution as opposed to the retail channel, and that part of former's distribution includes a "trial" period as a form of advertising (ie. hands-on experience). Nonetheless, I think the point about companies going under while utilizing time-specific licenses for their software is a legitimate concern from a consumer perspective, and I'd appreciate hearing how this escrow would work -- would a "third party" volunteer to run the activation server for a pre-disclosed period of time? From a consumer's vantage point, date-activated licenses mean that my 'final' purchase really isn't final. And as for the fact there isn't any insurance against losing serial numbers for commercial software after Company XYZ goes under, at least the final code that came with the instructions or that I printed out and stuffed in my dictionary will work, which isn't the case with the current activation scheme being used with Snapz Pro X -- no Ambrosia means no further use of software, notwithstanding moki's intention to stay in business, of course.

At the same time, as moki suggests, statistics are murky about the impact on denting piracy, etc. There's lots of anecdotal evidence on either side ("A former pirate purchased a copy" vs "I'm not buying from them again"). I think all will agree, however, that there will always be a core of people that pirate purely for sport -- those that copy because they can, and if they can't very easily, they move on to the next piece of software. I suppose the crux of the matter is causal piracy -- those who make copies and use software (and find it useful) without paying for their license. It's clear that Ambrosia has gone a long way to making the licensing arrangement as painless as possible, and I'm sure many users are grateful for that.

In the end, however, I do have a great respect for those who suggest that personal privacy should not be sold due to convenience. In the American context, rights are 'inalienable' so governments cannot remove them at will, and so they can't be 'given' away by an acquiescent population. Of course, the exchange between consumers and sellers makes 'rights' a two-sided issue that addresses in this case the rights of software makers to protect their investments/intellectual property and recoup money from those same investments.

[P]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>
I will state right now that I have no problem with the idea of putting critical pieces of code into escrow, so that in the very unlikely event that we go away, our paying customers are not affected. Doesn't bother me in the slightest to do something like that -- I don't think it'll make a realistic difference, but if it helps people sleep better at night, so be it.</STRONG>

Yes, I think that would ease people's minds a bit. If you don't have a problem with it, then please do.

[P]

Originally posted by Brazuca:
<STRONG>

My question: How many of these actually bought the code after they couldn't pirate it?
My point is that the demand for a product only includes those willing and able to purchase it. If those 50% wouldn't be using the software otherwise, then this "piracy" can only do Ambrosia good since pirated software does not preclude others from using it legitimately. It only has the potential of increasing the user base (ie: I will buy it when I can afford it; or I like some of the features and I want to use them, but for now I can' justify paying full price). Things like that.
</STRONG>

This is the original piracy argument, type 1a. The problem is that if there is no nag box, people will forget that they didn't pay, and when they do get the money, they still won't pay.

The way it worked before, casual piracy was too easy (as has been proven before) and something had to be done about that. Would you prefer getting nag boxes (but full features) when the program was registered?

[Developer]

====&gt; Back to the Future!

[dogzilla]

Originally posted by moki:
<STRONG>

That has nothing to do with capitalization -- it is just a design consistency for us to have the home page forward to /news/</STRONG>

No, you misunderstand. Instead of forwarding to http://www.ambrosiasw.com/news , you forward to http://www.AmbrosiaSW.com/news . And all the internal links on your site use the same capitalization instead of being all lowercase. As I said, this causes problems with some browsers. ResExcellence also does this, meaning that I have to copy links to the clipboard, edit them, and paste them in.

Maybe it's just a problem with my browser or my DNS, but I think these should all properly be lowercase anyway.

[graffix]

Speak for yourself. I still believe that your Activation-esque method is unacceptable, and that better and fairer ways to accomplish what you want to do exist.

So then why don't you outline a few of these so you can prove your point... or at least give up this incessant bitching, because it's getting old...

You still haven't said what other methods were considered (if other methods even were) and why algorithms that don't require this invasion of privacy aren't as good.

Hrm... so a polynomial equation is an invasion of privacy... I guess that would mean that the pythagorean theorem is akin to rape, eh? I guess that opens up math teachers to all sorts of lawsuits. Jinkies... all this posturing yet no substance...

In short, by all the evidence you've given us, the only logical conclusion is that you've thought only about your own rights, and rationalized the trampling of the rights of your users.

That's a logical conclusion? I think 'logic' has more to do with a 'sound' thought process rather than whether or not 'Millennium' likes or dislikes a protection scheme... from what it looks like to me, there's no undue restriction put on the users of the product, only a minor annoyance in the highly unlikely event that they even need to reinstall the application in the future, and this is only if the hard drive has been wiped clean (which in OSX is a definite possibility).

And that is unethical.

And that is bullsh*t...

It's not the moki I know, not the Ambrosia I knew, who kept their operations on the up-and-up and respected their userbase in a way that few companies do nowadays.

So you prefer the moki that makes hardly any money because he's banking on the honesty of end-users? Yeah, right... now if we lived in an honest society, where people weren't always trying to get something for nothing, you'd possibly have an argument, but moki has proven time and time again that this isn't the case (and it's shown in the red and white .gif on the page in question).

I honestly believe this is just an ethical slip on the part of Ambrosia.

Once again, the 'E' word rears it's ugly head... please explain how this is unethical on Ambrosia's part...
Do you allow your guests to walk directly in the front door of your house? Or do you make them knock first before you answer the door? By your logic, it's unethical for you to even HAVE a door because that obviously makes your guests feel unwelcome because their first impression of your house is the fact that your door is shut (hence, they're unwelcome there). Gimme a break...

But I can't let it slide. You're Gatesing your users needlessly.

Oooh.... the truth finally comes out. You're drawing too many parallels between what Ambrosia's doing and MicroSoft. The funny thing is both parties are welcome to do what they wish with their own product, and of course, you as the consumer are free not to buy it if you feel they are unnecessarily restrictive and find an alternative. Or are you FORCED to only buy Ambrosia software?

Yes, piracy is wrong. Yes, you deserve to make money for your products. And yes, you have the right to take steps to ensure that you get that money from people who use your software.

Ah, finally something you say I can agree with...

But you have no right -no right at all- to infringe on the rights of legitimate users in order to do it. When I buy a license from you, that license is mine, and there is no reason I should have to come back to you to keep using the license I've bought and paid for.

...and then you go and blow it with this diatribe...
THERE IS NO INFRINGEMENT ON THE RIGHTS OF THE END USER! (I'm not yelling, just putting it in all caps with the hopes that it will be big enough for you to actually comprehend). The only infringement is the fact that you can't easily pirate the application anymore... is this really what's pissing you off? That's sure what it looks like to me (and a few others here it appears).

This will probably sound inflammatory. I'm sorry for that.

Hrm... now that I think about it, my post probably does too, so I'm sorry about that...

I will only change my point of view if you tell me why there is any reason to change it, ie that this is the fairest, most ethical method our there of preventing piracy.

Well, moki HAS explained it OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER, and you're so caught up in posturing yourself as the 'Anti-MS Activation Scheme' Don Quixote, that you simply aren't listening to his explanation. I personally think Andrew and Ambrosia did a fantastic job of covering all their bases... maybe you should ask those people who were successful in retrieving their license after the 10.1.2 upgrade (those 4 people shown in the sea of red) if it actually was the major inconvenience you're making it out to be... otherwise you're just blowing hot air...

and this article does nothing but rehash old and logically-unsound arguments.

Um... the only one that appears to be rehashing logically unsound arguments is yourself... you only buy the LICENSE to use the software... if you feel that license is unusually or unfairly restrictive (which you still haven't proven in this case), then you are free to not buy it.
It's not like Ambrosia is only allowing you to use SPX on the 2nd Tuesday of every month or something... they just want to make sure that the least amount of people are casually pirating their apps, so they have the maximum possible return on their investment...
It's pretty clear to me anyway... it's too bad you've decided that Ambrosia is somehow sinister for it. It's your loss I guess.
Anyway, cheers Andrew... that article was great, and actually made me go through my computer looking for all my old 'borrow-ware', which I either decided to delete 'then and there' or to register it (in the case of Ircle, Windowshade X, and FruitMenu).
I guess after a point we all begin buying into the 'online ethic' that since we hadn't planned on purchasing the app anyway, the software author isn't losing any money... I now see how delusional that thought is...
Thanks again, moki.
g.

[chatwood2]

Forgive me if I missed the answer to this question, but I didnt see it.

What happens if (god forbid) Ambrosia goes out of busniess and I want to reinstall Snaps after I wipe my OS (which I do do to remove clutter)? Will my original reg code still work? What if I have lost the code?

I have no problem with Ambrosia's activation in terms of piracy, what I care about is the ability to use a product that I have purchased no matter what. It just bothers me to know that software that I use and need might stop working if the company I bought it from goes under.

- Chris

[brachiator]

I think what Milenium means (correct me if I'm wrong!) about being "unethical" and "trampling on the rights of consumers" is that the copyright bargain is that the creator gets an enforceable right to control reproduction of his work, in exchange for the buyer's unfettered ability to use the work so long as he doesn't reproduce the work himself (except for "fair uses")... I think Millenium's point is that the activation scheme fetters the buyer's use, and thus violates the bargain...

Copyright violations are really not analogous to theft of tangible objects, because the violation does not directly deprive anyone of the use or possession of anything, unlike theft. (Nor is it really analogous to whether guests need knock before entering your home...;-)

The issue here is how to prevent free riders (pirates) from obtaining something that is non-rivalrous and non-exclusive -- i.e., any additional person's enjoyment of it does not directly detract from the enjoyment of anyone else, and once it is out there how to exclude the non payers.

Copyright's solution is to provide a legal right of action against unaauthorized reproducers, but when the cost of reproduction, so to speak, is nil, and the cost of litigation and enforcement is very high, that solution is useless to the very little creator copyrihgt should protect...

So, maybe copyright is not the way to go, and technical solutions are. IT would be like the choice between patent protection (in which case you have to disclose your secret) or trade secret protection (whch lasts for as long as you can keep a secret, as opposed to the shorter life of a patent... maybe you shouldnt have to chosse, the economics would selectfy -- big , wealty comopanies would have to rely on copyright, while little firms could opt for technological protections...

[moki]

Originally posted by chatwood2:
<STRONG>Forgive me if I missed the answer to this question, but I didnt see it.

What happens if (god forbid) Ambrosia goes out of busniess and I want to reinstall Snaps after I wipe my OS (which I do do to remove clutter)? Will my original reg code still work? What if I have lost the code?

I have no problem with Ambrosia's activation in terms of piracy, what I care about is the ability to use a product that I have purchased no matter what. It just bothers me to know that software that I use and need might stop working if the company I bought it from goes under.

- Chris</STRONG>

Yes, I did already post about this in this thread -- here is the original response:

.....

Most people do not keep their license codes -- it is just a fact we've learned from experience. But let's assume that you do. Let's assume you keep a nice organized database in FileMaker with your various serial numbers in it.

Then your hard drive crashes. Total loss -- you have no backups. What recourse do you have if *any* company that issued you a serial number -- shareware, commercial, whatever -- goes under?

Or another take on it. What if a company that makes a cool piece of software you use goes out of business, and then you upgrade your OS, and that software no longer works with it. What is your recourse there?

We're really arguing this as if it is something new, but it isn't -- the problem, if you're paranoid, has existed for years.

I will state right now that I have no problem with the idea of putting critical pieces of code into escrow, so that in the very unlikely event that we go away, our paying customers are not affected. Doesn't bother me in the slightest to do something like that -- I don't think it'll make a realistic difference, but if it helps people sleep better at night, so be it.

[Tarabella]

My point is that the demand for a product only includes those willing and able to purchase it. If those 50% wouldn't be using the software otherwise, then this "piracy" can only do Ambrosia good since pirated software does not preclude others from using it legitimately. It only has the potential of increasing the user base (ie: I will buy it when I can afford it; or I like some of the features and I want to use them, but for now I can' justify paying full price).

OK, Socrates, replace your software references with another digital technology.

My point is that the demand for satellite TV service only includes those willing and able to purchase it. If those 50% wouldn�t be using the TV service otherwise, then this piracy can only do DirecTV good since pirated satellite TV service does not preclude others from using it legitimately. It only has the potential of increasing the user base (ie: I will buy it when I can afford it; or I like some of the features and I want to use them, but for now I can' justify paying full price).

All of a sudden your argument sounds a lot like stealing. Oh, that�s right � it is stealing. Don�t they have laws against this? But I digress.

So you are stating that those who cannot �afford� to purchase a license but need or want to use the product are performing a service by increasing the user base. What a lovely and enlightened concept.

I can�t afford a new digital camcorder but I�d really like to capture my son�s first basketball game on tape. Perhaps Sony should give me one since it will increase their user base. I can�t justify paying full price right now (you see it has certain features that I don�t need and won�t use). But I will buy it when I can afford it.

Why is this argument absurd, in light of your well developed thesis on software licensing?

Just imagine that Ambrosia goes out of business next month. What happens to your legally purchased software if you happen to need to reenter the license? Who will you turn to?

I bought a DeLorean but they went out of business. Who can I turn to for replacement parts? My ReplayTV receiver came with a �lifetime� subscription for their service, but now my receiver doesn�t work. Even though it is out of warranty, who can I turn to for a replacement since they still owe me the lifetime service? When I filled my gas tank, I also bought a ticket for a car wash (the code was good for seven days), but after four days the gas station burned to the ground. Who will I turn to?

You pay your money and you take your chances. Shut up and pay the shareware fee. Ambrosia's been around a lot longer than many software companies. Here�s a tip - follow the instructions and don�t lose the activation code.

[Brazuca]

Originally posted by Tarabella:
<STRONG>

I bought a DeLorean but they went out of business. Who can I turn to for replacement parts? My ReplayTV receiver came with a �lifetime� subscription for their service, but now my receiver doesn�t work. Even though it is out of warranty, who can I turn to for a replacement since they still owe me the lifetime service? When I filled my gas tank, I also bought a ticket for a car wash (the code was good for seven days), but after four days the gas station burned to the ground. Who will I turn to?

You pay your money and you take your chances. Shut up and pay the shareware fee. Ambrosia's been around a lot longer than many software companies. Here�s a tip - follow the instructions and don�t lose the activation code.</STRONG>

I think that the few posts above should be enough to dismiss this analogy. The difference between a camcorder, a car, or any other "tangible" product and software is that one's use of software does not prevent others from using it also. If Sony let you use a camcorder for free, someone else wouldn't be able to pay for it unless they make an extra one, which costs money and resources.

Regardless, the assumption that people won't bother to pay for the software once they get money to pay for it is dubious at best. At the very least new versions will require new numbers which will then allow he who can now afford to pay to enter the realm of legitimate users. This has many more layers on it, but there really is no need to "nag".

About measurement, it's actually not that hard and I'm not asking the question to try to prove moki wrong. I have a legitimate curiosity as to the cost of casual piracy.
Take a look at new registrations before and after the new scheme. Keep in mind that you have to factor in the fact that Snapz is now bundled with new Macs. If you see a big difference in the proportion of pirated/legitimate registrations you will be able to quantify the cost/benefit.
There are statistical ways of making the data valid.
(see: econometrics 101)

[Developer]

I think that the few posts above should be enough to dismiss this analogy. The difference between a camcorder, a car, or any other "tangible" product and software is that one's use of software does not prevent others from using it also.

Good, a pirated Office doesn't harm Microsoft, since you couldn't afford it anyway.

But a pirated Office means one sale less for Nisus Writer or Mariner Write, since you could have afforded one of these but don't need them any more. So you actually do harm somebody!

Is that fine for you?

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: Developer ]

[cpt kangarooski]

I bought a DeLorean but they went out of business. Who can I turn to for replacement parts? My ReplayTV receiver came with a �lifetime� subscription for their service, but now my receiver doesn�t work. Even though it is out of warranty, who can I turn to for a replacement since they still owe me the lifetime service? When I filled my gas tank, I also bought a ticket for a car wash (the code was good for seven days), but after four days the gas station burned to the ground. Who will I turn to?

You pay your money and you take your chances. Shut up and pay the shareware fee. Ambrosia's been around a lot longer than many software companies. Here�s a tip - follow the instructions and don�t lose the activation code.

Fortunately, there is far less need for concern for information. It is quite difficult to keep a car working, but copying information is pretty easy. Plato lived thousands of years ago, yet his works live on -- not because they are the copies he himself prepared, but because people did whatever they wanted to with them.

We have established a system of copyright laws, and granted Ambrosia a copyright for their software, in part, to tilt the scales towards preserving the creative work that they do. If we foolishly trusted them, why would we insist that the copyright they have been given expire after a set amount of time? Or that people other than the copyright holder would nevertheless be able to do certain things which directly harmed the holder, but were beneficial for society?

Indeed, if it seems that Ambrosia will not honor their duty to make their work available to the public from the outset, that they have done nothing to merit a copyright. Note VERY well, that I am absolutely not saying that the software has to be freely given away. (although I suspect it may be presently) But rather, that it must be available for people to inspect and archive. You can look at a book and based on that, copy it out verbatim. That it is important to be able to so look, and that it is important to preserve the work, does not mean you can always legally copy it prior to the term expiration.

Ambrosia's out to cheat the public. This isn't surprising; most developers seem to be, by claiming copyrights on works that are never made available, which will never see use. Copies of their source code and binaries ought to be deposited at the Library of Congress, where anyone can see. This doesn't mean anyone can copy the software and sell it as their own. Only that the arts and sciences will be advanced, much as people write books that are in response to other books, or study art in order to make new art.

Meanwhile of course, Andrew still won't even answer a simple question such as why Ambrosia licenses software, instead of selling it. (please check out the previous thread first however, as there has already been some discussion over possible reasons; no sense in being repetitive) If he can't answer such a minor thing, why do you think that he'd harm his own business, even if it meant complying with the letter and spirit of the law?

[Developer]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:

it seems that Ambrosia will not honor their duty to make their work available to the public

I never heard of such a duty. It definitely doesn't exist in Europe. I own a copy of German copyright law and it's certainly not in there. Can you post a link to the according law?

[cpt kangarooski]

This is not surprising. US copyright law is fundementally different from virtually any other nation's copyright law. Given that ours predates very many of them, it's a little surprising.

Anyway, the model is a utilitarian one, in which the primary purpose for copyright is public benefit. Maximum public benefit comes from totally free use of the work; something that cannot happen as long as Ambrosia holds the keys. Of course, even if there were no code, this doesn't mean Ambrosia has no protections -- they can still sue. Indeed, that's really the most effective protection they have. Certainly it is the only desirable one, for neither a mere mechanism such as they have devised, nor Ambrosia themselves, can authoritatively determine what users are and are not allowed to do legally. It's a job for the courts.

Check out this, particularly the 2d quote in the SunTrust decision. Then ask yourself whether what Ambrosia has released up to now is or is not circumventing the "public's right of access and use."

Their future actions are unpredictable: Who knows what will happen in the next ~70 years. Ambrosia could lose the information, could maliciously decide not to reveal it, etc. Certainly their interests are served by denying the public their right, which would put any author in an ill light. That it is a common practice just makes me depressed, it doesn't excuse it.

[Tarabella]

Ambrosia's out to cheat the public. This isn't surprising; most developers seem to be, by claiming copyrights on works that are never made available, which will never see use. Copies of their source code and binaries ought to be deposited at the Library of Congress, where anyone can see. This doesn't mean anyone can copy the software and sell it as their own. Only that the arts and sciences will be advanced, much as people write books that are in response to other books, or study art in order to make new art.

Not quite.

This is the most remarkable pantload I have read in some time. It ignores the fact that a published copy of a book is a near perfect embodiment of the concurrent use license typical in software. I may purchase a book for my use, loan it to a friend, or donate it to a library. You cannot read the book while I am reading the book. Neither of us may make a copy of the book without permission from the author. And by the way, the author is not required to deposit his working notes and outlines (which he may reuse for sequels) with the Library of Congress.

It sounds as though the earlier poster might agree with the following:

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.�

This, of course is the widely recognized motto of Communism. In case you just woke up, Communism has not been the most successful economic system to come along in past thousand years. If Ambrosia Software, or any other software company wishes to give away its intellectual property, or any work product, for that matter, they are welcome to do so. However, there is no requirement that they do so. Do you seriously expect them to continue to develop their software products, and to as you say "advance the art" if they are not compensated for their art?

Of course there is plenty of discussion that states that as long as some people pay, that it's OK if some don't. (back to the Marxian reference) I assume by your statements, that it's OK if you are among the priveleged non-payers.

The bottom line is that Andrew and his team are not out to cheat the public. They are out to make a living. The "public" has absolutely nothing to do with it. Whether you agree with their chosen policy for licensing or not, the fact remains that it is their right to choose their own policies. It is not your right.

Cheating the "public" is far more sinister than simply asking people not to steal from them.

The difference between a camcorder, a car, or any other "tangible" product and software is that one's use of software does not prevent others from using it also. If Sony let you use a camcorder for free, someone else wouldn't be able to pay for it unless they make an extra one, which costs money and resources.

I notice that the poster chose to respond only to comparisons with "tangible" products, ignoring my comparison with non-tangible products such as DirecTV service. It seems that one's pirating of DirecTV service fits the poster's requirement of not preventing others from using the service (or product) also. I would bet a dollar that very few, if any, of the people who are currently pirating DirecTV service would ante up the monthly fees if they suddenly came across an extra $50 of montly disposable income. Maybe I'm wrong.

Which brings us full circle back to the excellent Ambrosia article. The data showed that the developer can earn more money by simply requiring users to register the software. This is day-one Economics 101 stuff. If developers make more money, developers will create more and better products. End of story.

[Brazuca]

Originally posted by Developer:
<STRONG>

Good, a pirated Office doesn't harm Microsoft, since you couldn't afford it anyway.

But a pirated Office means one sale less for Nisus Writer or Mariner Write, since you could have afforded one of these but don't need them any more. So you actually do harm somebody!

Is that fine for you?

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: Developer ]</STRONG>

Sigh....we revert yet again to analogies.

A bit of economics for you:

If any other software suffices, why would I be in the market for Office anyways? But I do understand your point. It gets down to competition. Other software vendors have a huge opportunity to grab market share and new users by simply dropping the price of their product. You can see this by "competitive upgrades" offered by many software vendors.
So, no, using your analogy, a pirated copy of MS Office can actually help other vendors to gain users.

The problem with "examples" like this one is that they rely on assumptions and very constraining conditions for them to make sense. This is why common sense often leads to wrong economic decisions (see "comparative advantage theory" and "cascading tariff structures" for two very simple examples).

Something that "makes sense" often is simply wrong. I actually am interested in numbers that show the real cost of casual piracy. But insofar as Ambrosia's scheme is concerned, I am interested in the philosophical debate that others are engaged in. So please, stop trying to prove points solely by using analogies and examples.

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, I read your post Tarabella, let's hope you read mine.
(incidentally, could you please rephrase what you mean by "the fact that a published copy of a book is a near perfect embodiment of the concurrent use license typical in software," because I'm not entirely sure if you mean what I think you mean, and I'd like this clarified before I respond to it.

Anyway, on to the meat:

End of story.

Sadly, it is not. Certainly, my argument is not one which can be validly painted with a Red brush. It may be more capitalistic than you expect. I adopt the same utilitarian outlook which is prevalent in both the American copyright model, and the model of real property that is fairly common in, at least, all countries with law deriving from England.

Ultimately, this commonly accepted model pits authors and readers against one another, in a competition for resources. Consider the classic price-demand curve of Economics 101. The manufacturers are equivalent to our authors; their interest is to make the greatest possible profit. Ideally, if we considered only their wishes, they would charge an infinite amount for a particular good, expend no resources of their own in the process, and succeed marvelously.

It doesn't work like this, because their ability to realize their goals is opposed by a roughly 'equal and opposite force' -- the desire of the consumer to realize _their_ goals: products for which they pay nothing, are available to all, and perfectly satisfy their needs.

Certainly it is _possible_ for one extreme or the other to be realized. Until circa 1700, no author anywhere "owned" their work, in the way we might now say such a thing (fallaciously, but I'll use the common meaning here, just this once). The works were free for all to use, enjoy, and all without any compensation to the author after the work had been created.

Generally, I think few people will argue that there was a lack of art between the dawn of mankind and the dawn of the 18th century. Homer, Michaelangelo, Shakespeare -- these aren't just pikers, and there were a lot of them. Not to mention the innumerable local artisans who tended to decorate all sorts of things, from metal jewelry to simple clay pots.

DEMONSTRABLY a world in which authors are not compensated for works already created can function, and this has been the norm throughout human history. Please, please don't claim that a loss of copyright would result in cats and dogs living together, and people battling it out in the Municipal Thunderdome. History doesn't just say otherwise, it has slapped you around like a red-headed stepchild.

However.

I have NOT been advocating the abolishment of copyright law. Lord knows I've had to say so, again and again and again. I only advocate two things. First, that all parties involved respect the copyright scheme to its fullest, even recognizing that it is not geared exclusively to their benefit. Second, that the copyright scheme be reformed so as to settle upon the optimum point that it must rest upon.

Utilitarian copyright law -- what we ACTUALLY have -- is like this:

There are two competing groups: Authors, and Readers.

Authors have one goal, but there are a couple of corallaries branching off of it. The authorial goal is A1) Make the most money possible. There are of course other goals that many authors hold, e.g. creating art for art's sake, notoriety, etc., however these may in fact be impaired by a copyright scheme, and they certainly don't require it. We'll stick with money; it is, at least, the goal Ambrosia has brought up itself.

The corallaries:
A1a) Authors can increase the amount of money they make by increasing the price for the work.
A1b) Authors can further increase the amount of money they make by decreasing the effort and expenditure of resources put into creating a work.
A1c) Authors can prevent unsightly decreases to the amount of money they make by monopolizing the ability to make money off of their work.

The end result of this is that authors, ideally, would like to take someone someone else has created, put their name on it, and charge a fortune, without anyone else being able to do the same to them.

However, if all authors hold these interests and do not compromise, they will find that their A1b activities (using others' works) conflict with their own A1c desires (preventing others from using their own works, or the works they used from others).

Already, authors have an incentive to compromise. It's still too much work to do everything from scratch (which would include creating a new language -- languages are creative works that someone invented!) so a balance is struck between when it is and is not acceptable to use another's work, or have one's own work used, and in what respects.

Let's move on to Readers. Readers have two goals: R1) To make full and unencumbered use of another's work, and; R2) To have an effectively infinite amount of breadth (subjects) and depth (variations on the same subject) as possible.

Some reader corallaries:
R1a) Readers want to be able to do anything under the sun with works, including using them, modifying them (really the A1b goal!), disseminating them, etc.
R2a) Readers do not want to have to pay for works. If they had to pay, fewer works would be available to them, limited by how much money they had.


We've already established that authors are inevitably going to get into fights with other authors because the A1b and A1c goals are in direct conflict. Furthermore, the A1b and R1a goals are IDENTICAL. (with a pinch of R2a thrown in) And the A1 and R2a goals are in direct conflict.


You may be wondering, how do we make both groups happy? Especially given as how virtually all authors are ALSO readers. (if this wasn't already made clear by the A1b/R1a factor, merely consider how it works in real life)

The answer is not to be found in force, really. It is in mutual compromise. If all parties come to terms with one another, they will be able to find a magical 'optimum point.' That is, the single point where each side's happiness (the degree to which their goals are satisfied) is as great as it is going to get, without the other side's happiness being reduced, and vice-versa.

However, the great big condition on which this is premised is that NEITHER SIDE will ever sacrifice something where the reward is less than the loss. You've already realized this to a certain extent with regards to authors: "Do you seriously expect them to continue to develop their software products, and to as you say 'advance the art' if they are not compensated for their art?"

You simply need to realize that this door swings both ways. Readers have no incentive in self-abrogating their right to freely use works unless doing so encourages authors to make such a number of worthwhile new works that readers are more greatly satisfied than before.

Do you understand this?

Do you see that this is fundementally how all property rights function?
Where there are two neighbors, each claiming a parcel of land as his own, the only way to ensure that people respect your claim is to make it worth their while to do so. That is, to BRIBE them with some benefit in return, such as a mutual recognition of the other person's claim.

Here, readers bribe authors to create more works (and satisfy the R2 goal) by paying with the R1 goal. Authors bribe readers to give up their R1 rights (satisfying the A1c goal) by producing more works of breadth and depth for reasonable prices, paying with the A1a and A1b goals.

So, for the record, I AM ALL IN FAVOR OF COPYRIGHTS. I am simply not in favor of any system of copyrights which fails to maintain equilibrium at the optimum point. I do not believe that we are at that point at present -- if we were, there would likely be little piracy, partially because there would be little incentive for anyone to pirate works, and because the definition of piracy would be narrower. (it used to be piracy to run a computer program you owned -- now it's not -- the balancing function at work)


The remaining pieces of the puzzle are swiftly dealt with:
From where does the reader's right to do as he wants with a work derive? Traditional concepts of property law (regarding the object itself) and free speech (regarding the God-given capability we all enjoy to say things, even if only parroting others)

From where does the author's right to attempt to limit the reader's rights to the author's work derive?
The author's ability to 'blackmail' readers by failing to produce works encourages readers to limit themselves in response to authors.

What support do I offer that author's rights are inherently limited, aside from the fairly well established utilitarian proof above?
The Constitution reads: "The Congress shall have Power ... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

The first bolded section indicates that while Congress has the power to establish a system of copyrights, they are under no compulsion to do so. Where Congress does not act in creating copyright law, there simply is no copyright law whatsoever, and the normal mode of behavior runs free.

The second bolded section indicates that the intent of copyright is exclusively to promote the progress of the arts and sciences. It is not intended to promote the private interests of authors, save where these two interests might coincide. In support of this contention, I submit the quotes I had merely referred to before:

The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are neither unlimited nor primarily designed to provide a special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired.
Sony v. Universal, 464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984)

The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.
Fox v. Doyle, 286 US 123, 127 (1932)

The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but 'to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.'
Feist v. Rural, 499 U.S. 340, 349 (1991)

The second goal of the Copyright Clause is to ensure that works enter the public domain after an author's rights, exclusive, but limited, have expired. ... The public is protected in two ways: the grant of a copyright encourages authors to create new works, ... and the limitation ensures that the works will eventually enter the public domain, which protects the public's right of access and use.
SunTrust v. Houghton Mifflin, 268 F.3d 1257, 1262 (11th Cir., 2001)

"The copyright is not a natural right inherent in authorship. If it were, the impact on market values would be irrelevant; any unauthorized taking would be obnoxious."
Pierre Leval, Towards a Fair Use Standard, 105 Harv. L. Rev. 1105, 1124 (1990).

So here we have three Supreme Court cases, a case by a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Harvard Law Review supporting the contention that authors have no inherent right qua authors, that it is coming from somewhere. And that somewhere is establishing these rights solely with the public interest in mind; not the author's interests, not insofar as they conflict.

This isn't quite Marx, I don't think.

[Brazuca]

Originally posted by Tarabella:
<STRONG>

I notice that the poster chose to respond only to comparisons with "tangible" products, ignoring my comparison with non-tangible products such as DirecTV service. It seems that one's pirating of DirecTV service fits the poster's requirement of not preventing others from using the service (or product) also. I would bet a dollar that very few, if any, of the people who are currently pirating DirecTV service would ante up the monthly fees if they suddenly came across an extra $50 of montly disposable income. Maybe I'm wrong.

Which brings us full circle back to the excellent Ambrosia article. The data showed that the developer can earn more money by simply requiring users to register the software. This is day-one Economics 101 stuff. If developers make more money, developers will create more and better products. End of story.</STRONG>

My apologies if I didn't answer to your example of the DirectTV service. I did not think of it when I was writing my earlier post.
The DirectTV argument is a bit more interesting. Now we are simply getting to whether a casual pirate who decided to get the illegal service (box?) would stop "stealing" it and become a legal user once they can. How many millionaires you know that steal cable/satellite service? You see, it becomes a matter of degree. Maybe an extra $50 won't make him pay for the service since he may simply need the money for other more important things. But if you can afford it, why take the risk of getting caught? Remember that in order to be a part of the demand for the product, one must be both willing and able to purchase it.
It is an interesting argument nonetheless.

About your economics argument: If developers make better products, they would make more money. Demand is the dog, Supply is it's tail. Profits are not a justification for illegal corporate behavior (not implying that Ambrosia's scheme is illegal), so there are limits. I bet you like the Bush tax cut also, huh? And btw, this is NOT the end of the story. I would love to sit here and argue about the economics of the software industry. Actually, the reason why I want to know the cost of piracy is so that I can better understand the cost/benefit of anti-piracy measures.
But I think a more interesting argument is the philosophical debate that Cpt. Kangorooski and Millenium are pointing out.

BTW: a company doesn't simply choose the highest price it can possibly charge. The balancing act actually is very well defined and profits will be maximized where Marginal revenue=marginal cost. Any company not doing this won't me maximizing profits.
The only thing a company can do to change that is to reduce cost or somehow increase demand. It is the latter that you seem to be advocating without consideration to limits.
Heck, why not force everyone with a mac to buy Snapz? That way Ambrosia would make a ton of money and we would get better software, right? Do you work for Microsoft?

You know, I seem to be having Deja vu all over again. I think we've already covered all these points in another thread, quite well.
I read both moki's points and the capt/millenium's. Frankly, all moki could say was that it wasn't terribly inconvenient for users. But the problems had to do with violating the spirit of copyrights and that it is tantamount to bullying. I have become firmly entrenched, with open ears, that the scheme is unfair to say the least.

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: Brazuca ]

[Tarabella]

Well said, all. Extra credit for your supporting references.

Beyond my short-tempered dismissals to simply �shut up and pay the fee� (which I still believe), I should mention that I have a dog in this fight.

I work for a company that makes vertical market applications. Although our products have been very expensive, we have benefited in recent years as the classic shareware or trialware distribution model has been easily adapted to more expensive products.

Yes, I registered Snapz and FruitMenu and even paid for OmniWeb. There is real value in these programs. Shame on all of you who go to extraordinary measures to avoid paying these small fees.

Developers and users alike benefit from a secure, well-developed distribution model that allows our users a reasonable free trial, coupled with a secure method of closing the license sale. We recognize that the parties, the �author� and the �reader� have more to lose when the costs are so much higher. The popularity of various �test drive� versions of expensive software proves this.

If you are not our current customer, you are our potential customer. We want your business and are glad to let you try our product for free as a cost of earning your business. But we also know that there comes a time when we must ask for the sale and close the deal.

The market teaches us, (as does the poster in references to the �reader� who wishes to �do anything under the sun with works� including not paying for them) that we must do whatever we can to protect our property.

So knowing that users naturally desire to obtain our product for as little money as possible, we begin from a position of weakness. We cannot and will not put our interests in peril, yet we need your business to survive. So we are Machiavellian. Our guarded cynicism stems from a belief that a position of trust is only available from a position of strength. Our strength comes from knowing that our products and the fruit of our labors is not easily transferable through typical pirate channels. Toward this end we applaud the research, experience, and efforts of valued members of the software community like Ambrosia to strike a balance between their financial interests and the interests of users.

Our goodwill and free trial stops at the reasonable point at such time when a potential customer decides not to purchase a license for our product. At that time, if you choose not to purchase a license, we wish you well, but we also require that you do not continue to benefit from our labor. We hope that we have struck the appropriate balance and have given you a reasonable trial period. If you cannot afford our product, we hope your circumstances will change or perhaps you will recommend our product to someone who can afford it. Perhaps we will develop a lower cost product in the future to address your needs.

But in further response to the issues of fair use and copyrights, I believe the poster is confusing the issue of copyright and patent with the issue of a trade secret. Of course the patent and copyright laws require disclosure to achieve the protection that the law allows. This is true in various degrees depending on where you file your patent or copyright application. But the issue of disclosure is a non-issue with respect to trade secrets. The �eleven herbs and spices� -- to cite a common example.

Had the Colonel thought it necessary to protect his recipe via patent, the rest of the chicken-eating world would now have access to Col. Sanders� secret recipe. I mention this because authors, inventors, and businessmen can freely choose among the various methods available to protect their ideas and in turn, their income.

Patents and copyrights are not necessarily the answer. But we will try our best to assure that when we are ready to release a low cost product that our potential market is not already all using pirated copies of our flagship products.

[fprefect]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski: <STRONG>So, for the record, I AM ALL IN FAVOR OF
COPYRIGHTS. I am simply not in favor of any system of copyrights which fails to maintain equilibrium
at the optimum point..</STRONG>

I am stunned. Despite all our previous arguments, we are in complete agreement on this one point. I
guess, then, your problem is not so much with Ambrosia as simply the way the laws are currently
defined (long terms, strict limitations).

<STRONG>It must be available for people to inspect and archive. You can look at a book and based
on that, copy it out verbatim. That it is important to be able to so look, and that it is important
to preserve the work, does not mean you can always legally copy it prior to the term expiration.

Ambrosia's out to cheat the public. This isn't surprising; most developers seem to be, by claiming
copyrights on works that are never made available, which will never see use. Copies of their source
code and binaries ought to be deposited at the Library of Congress, where anyone can
see.</STRONG>

Well, here we diverge again. I see absolutely no indication that this is necessary under US Law. The
fact that the public has a right to the product when our term expires gives them no right to dictate
how we manage it in the meantime. Exposing trade secrets is only the tip of the iceberg (but an
excellent point by Tarabella).

<STRONG>Meanwhile of course, Andrew still won't even answer a simple question such as why
Ambrosia licenses software</STRONG>

C'mon, there are very few companies that explain their corporate policy in any detail. We're willing
to answer pertinent questions about how our registration system works, we even gave some insight into our
motives by writing a long article, but we're not going to invite you to a conference call with our
lawyers. The wording of our license, the way we pick a pricetag, and technical documentation for our
registration system are trade secrets, and none of your business.

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: fprefect ]

[fprefect]

Originally posted by Brazuca: <STRONG>The difference between a camcorder, a car, or any other "tangible" product and software is that one's use of software does not prevent others from using it also. If Sony let you use a camcorder for free, someone else wouldn't be able to pay for it unless they make an extra one, which costs money and resources.</STRONG>

So, it's your argument that it's only wrong when someone takes something of intrinsic value without fair compensation?

Let's say a company releases a product for $50. Now say that a user doesn't want to pay that much for the software (doesn't have the cash, doesn't think it's worth the money, doesn't like the icon). So he takes it, maybe uses it a few times, but certainly not enough to warrant the pricetag -- he feels justified.

Now, you argue that the company lost nothing of value since they didn't lose a sale to this person. Yet, he did get something of value from the "exchange" -- some service that he didn't have before. He only needed to take $2 worth of screen grabs, and probably would have paid for the product if it cost just $2 (making everyone happy). But unless he actually pays that amount, the software company has lost something: a potential sale, even 4% of one. Now, that sounds ridiculous to those used to tangible all or nothing sales, but why doesn't it hold for intangible ones? There is no caveat that potential sales *must* be the measured in whole units, because even fractional payment is compensation, and without that, there is indeed a loss. (Seriously, if you used a pirated code for Snapz and got $5 use out of it, then send us the $5 in good faith.)

Now, the fact remains that that a seller determines the price of a product. For tangible products, this includes the cost of materials, physical labor, packaging and distribution, plus a little extra for profit. For intangible products, the author has to purchase a compiler, spend 2 months developing it, making an installer, and paying someone for Internet hosting. The only difference is that the first person pays recurring costs for each product, but both have fixed costs *and* add a premium to the product so that they make profit.

You don't begrudge Sony for not giving people have a camcorder "at cost", so why should you begrudge a software author for wanting to cover his costs and get his deserved bit of profit?

So, next comes the "deprivation" argument -- my copy of the software doesn't diminish anyone else's. Except that if 100 people pay $10 for the software, 1000 people could be paying $1.10 and everyone would benefit. The cost is amortized over the number of people who pay for it, so by using without paying, you increase the burden on everyone else. Indeed, in a market where supply is infinite, the demand sets the price (and therefore the value) of the product.

One counter argument is that it's the software company that sets the initial price not the market. Still, their price must reflect the overall sales trends and expected revenues, because in a stable market any outrageous pricing scheme would fail ($1000 for a screensaver?).

Thus, your argument is fallacious:

1) Piracy means software companies aren't paid for the use of their product.
2) By using the product, you meet some need (entertainment or utility).
3) The value of software is not intrinsic.
4) The value of software is based on market demand.

Since the pirates have a need, and the value of the software is based on the amount of need in the world, they are taking *something* of value. As it turns out, not only only is the software company not being compensated, the people who pay for the software itself are deprived as well.


Let's be honest, most piracy is about rationalization and lack of consequences. You have a need, or perhaps just a passing interest, so that when the opportunity presents itself you take it. If it were shoplifting, you might be seen and arrested, but piracy is easy, silent, and and done with the click of a mouse. Maybe over time you use the product enough to justify the cost, but why bother paying then, since you already have it. I believe that most pirates wouldn't pay for software even if it were priced at $1, because they don't respect it as a product deserving compensation.

Finally, copying (most) software is illegal. It's that way for a reason: to ensure the promotion of the arts and sciences by compensating authors for their work. It's the same driving force behind any element of the free market: to survive the author must make or do something useful. If you find the software useful, even in the slightest, then you know that you should be paying for it -- anything else is unethical as well as illegal.

[Developer]

Originally posted by Brazuca:

A bit of economics for you:
[...]
A pirated copy of MS Office can actually help other vendors to gain users.

Huh? Can you explain to me how that should work?

[nickm]

Hmmm, these philosophical discussions are interesting. I particularly like Developer's argument about how pirating photoshop hurts smaller developers, not Adobe; It makes me glad I have a license for GraphicConverter. In fact, I have licenses for almost all the shareware I use regularly save one. I was started down this path by purchasing Malestrom back in 1993 or so when I was in high school; it may very well be the first piece of software I bought myself (and I had to MAIL in my registration, by gum!).

Anyway, I have a technical question about Ambrosia's new licensing software. If I install a piece of software with the new validation scheme, enter the license code, use it for six months or so, and then do a fresh install of the system and application, but restore my old Users:myname:Library directory, will I have to contact Ambrosia for an updated license? That is, does the activation live with the application itself, or in the user's personal preferences?

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, in the absence of meaningful copyright reform by legislative act or judicial interpretation, having actual actors within the system trying to approximate the balance willingly is the best substitute. Ambrosia has merely been singled out because a) they're the nominal subject of the thread and I'd like to stay on point, and b) they post here in a manner that may be somewhat official.

Voluntary limitations are also probably a good way to improve people's opinions -- rather like recycling, which isn't necessary but looks good. I'd be quite pleased if Ambrosia locked itself into, say, releasing their copyrights after 5-10 years, rather than waiting for the expiration towards the end of the century. I have a suspicion that Ambrosia, like a lot of software companies, does not sell much software after its a certain age, simply due to how fast this industry moves; would it stand to lose so much? Would the community goodwill not be worth it? That Maelstrom is GPL'ed is a good first step, so someone inside is already thinking about these things, it seems.

As for the trade secrets...
I find it very nearly impossible to believe that the license agreement is a trade secret. By necessity Ambrosia MUST be presenting this to customers, and customers MUST have the opportunity to reject the terms. While you can agree to a contract without having undertaken the effort to properly read it, I don't hold out much hope for the enforcability of a contract which is secret, and which you are not _allowed_ to read.

The licence agreement -- the EULA -- is likely not a trade secret. Certainly I haven't seen such a EULA before. Even MS isn't so bold. It's copyrighted of course, but that's intended to ensure publication.

This leaves the policy decision to license software, instead of selling it. Certainly this could qualify. However, given that it is standard practice throughout the software industry (for AFAIK historical reasons which have been criticized by judges as anachronistic) to license, I would not be surprised if the decision was merely treated as a given, with no real thought invovled.

I'm not interested in the details of the registration system. I should make that clear. Not only would I probably not understand it, it is just easier to imagine it as a black box that is tangental to the discussion.

I just want to know why Ambrosia distributes software under the terms of an adhesive contract, and not as a plain sale of goods. What is the benefit being sought? It's a question that would be just as applicable prior to the introduction of this new registration scheme. It's one that any software developer who licenses their software ought to be able to easily answer (even if it is 'no reason; followed prevailing practice) and it is so absolutely commonplace that I doubt Ambrosia has found some secret benefit in doing so that they hesitate to reveal to the world.


Nick--
While not the easiest thing in the world, if you make a read only copy of your mounted partitions prior to and after installation/registration(and mount only the bare minimum number of partitions during that time) it shouldn't be impossible to look for the comparatively few different files located on the disk. I once looked for the MacAST registration data this way, and it wasn't difficult to discover. I leave actually doing this as an exercise for the reader however, and who knows if it will actually be of any immediate use.

[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: cpt kangarooski ]

[fprefect]

Originally posted by nickm:
<STRONG> If I install a piece of software with the new validation scheme, enter the license code, use it for six months or so, and then do a fresh install of the system and application, but restore my old Users:myname:Library directory, will I have to contact Ambrosia for an updated license? That is, does the activation live with the application itself, or in the user's personal preferences?</STRONG>

The license file is stored in the user preferences folder, so yes, saving/restoring the user's Library folder will preserve the license.

[fprefect]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
<STRONG>Well, in the absence of meaningful copyright reform by legislative act or judicial interpretation, having actual actors within the system trying to approximate the balance willingly is the best substitute. Voluntary limitations are also probably a good way to improve people's opinions -- rather like recycling, which isn't necessary but looks good.</STRONG>

OK, as long as that's clear. You are asking that we (or anyone) do more than is required by law, but you shouldn't blame us for not doing so. That's like blaming Microsoft for not putting their software under GPL.

<STRONG>I just want to know why Ambrosia distributes software under the terms of an adhesive contract, and not as a plain sale of goods.</STRONG>

We don't need to explain why we price our product at a given figure, because the formula and the data we use are trade secrets. Similarly for the way we choose which products to develop and the way we establish other company policies. Most of the decisions we make as a company are our own business, and not subject to public scrutiny.

We've tried to be a little politic about it, as we don't want to stir up animosity, but basically it comes down to "mind your own business."

<STRONG>However, given that it is standard practice throughout the software industry (for AFAIK historical reasons which have been criticized by judges as anachronistic) to license, I would not be surprised if the decision was merely treated as a given, with no real thought involved.</STRONG>

There you go, that's a viable theory that fits the available facts nicely.[/LIST]
[ 02-06-2002: Message edited by: fprefect ]

[cpt kangarooski]

Pardon me, I wasn't being clear. I am not agreeing that there is no affirmative duty. I am simply saying that even where there is no affirmative duty -- which I do not believe is a settled question -- that it is nevertheless a good idea.

I think that it is very possible that between the Constitution, the statutory law enacted by Congress, and the judicial interpretations of the two, considering the general policy goals of copyright, that even today there are requirements that Ambrosia may not be fulfilling. Certainly this has been more clear in the past, and may again be clarified in the future. I do not mean to say that there certainly are no such requirements, I was only making an observation that would be applicable regardless.

I apologize for the confusion.


Regarding a peek into Ambrosia's internal operations, you're absolutely right. I can of course develop theories as to what is going on behind those closed doors, and these theories may not put Ambrosia into the best light. It certainly behooves Ambrosia to be a little open to avoid unflattering opinions.

There is just as little reason for me to believe that the 'prevailing practice' theory as already put forward is correct, as there is an alternative theory that Ambrosia is aware of the intent of copyright as a means of public benefit and seeks to both immorally and perhaps illegally evade its responsibilities, and alter the system so that it benefits itself to the exclusion of others.

Until an Ambrosia representative actually comes forth, neither of these theories can be discarded as inferior. I can't see how this is a desirable state of affairs for anyone, or why, given the willingness of communication that has previously been expressed even by starting this tread, it would be allowed to persist.

I'm not really sure of how pricing schemes enter into this: I would imagine that the price of a sale of some software would be identical to the price of a license of the same software, given the difficulty in distinguishing a license from a sale of goods these days. (especially given the trend in the courts of late to find that licenses ARE in fact sales of goods, regardless of the language the seller/licensor tries to disguise it in, e.g. the Softman case)

[Tarabella]

I just want to know why Ambrosia distributes software under the terms of an adhesive contract, and not as a plain sale of goods. What is the benefit being sought?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't a plain sale of goods entitle the purchaser to unrestricted rights to do as he pleases with the product? I believe that it is beneficial to developers to retain some degree of control over what users are allowed to do with software.

[cpt kangarooski]

This is true, but it would nevertheless be protected by copyright.

One user could, for example, sell his copy to a different user. Users could make and keep backup copies (but only provided they still owned the original!).

It's virtually indistinguishable from the ownership of other copyrighted works, such as books, or CDs, or videotapes.

Of course, the law AFAIK tends to enjoy simplifying things. Sort of giving creedence to the idea that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. So licenses and the arrangements surrounding them that are very much like the sale of goods are in fact sales of goods, even though both parties might profess that it is a contractual arrangement. Neither party can make official statements of law, so what they think is rather irrelevant. Again, this was recently seen in the Softman case, and also, in a way that might be significant for Ambrosia, in the Netscape Smart Download case.

Software licenses appear to have come about through historical accident. I have not yet heard a reason for a continued need for them in 99.44% of cases that properly took into account the law as it stands now. Oddities such as site licensing, or a license for a set period of time are exceptions, and I've got no problem with licenses there, but this does not appear to be the case usually.

[Brazuca]

fprefect:

Your point about paying $5 for $5 worth of utility is good. But as you surely understand pricing is often discrete, unless the company sets up a "donation-ware" scheme or the like.
The point is how exactly does the company benefit from preventing me from using software that I wouldn't have used otherwise at a certain price. You address that, so lets get to it.

First, the seller does not determine anything. The seller is nothing but a form of machine. It takes its production function, its constraints, and maximizes it by choosing the optimal price. In a sense they have no leeway at any given point in time. They can try to change the constraints and/or production function, but there is a definite point where price will maximize profits.

I am also not begrudging anyone for wanting to earn a profit. The point I was making is that there are limits to what a firm may do to try to increase demand for its product (which is all it can try to do short of changing the cost structure). For example, M$ cannot use it's monopoly power to affect the market demand for its product. My point is that Ambrosia's seeming violation of the spirit of copyright laws is TOO FAR simply to boost the demand curve and earn more profits.

Your point about 100 ppl paying $10 and 1000 people paying $1.10 seems to go against a little thing called the LAW OF DEMAND. Maybe you got confused with the causality in demand theory. To put it simply, if there were 1000 people demanding a product, Ambrosia would be able to charge more, not less, ceteris paribus. Of course, you probably mean that the excessive profits would induce entry into the market which in turn would drive costs and thus price and profit down. But the software industry is not a purely competitive market. It's more akin to monopolistic competition as the products are heterogeneous, thus market entry can be dealt with by having enough product differentiation (eg. the features of Snapz).

But I think that more importantly, the price of the product will be set where the price elasticity of demand equals 1. In other words, the price will be set where a 1% decrease in price will lead to a 1% increase in quantity demanded. This also happens to be where marginal cost equals marginal revenue, so as I said, the company doesn't get to decide on the price. It sets a price that maximizes profits given its cost structures and a demand curve. The only relevant actions that a firm can take are to reduce cost and/or try to increase demand (marketing, more features, forcing everyone alive to buy Snapz at gunpoint, etc).

Having said that, I do not think that firms don't have a right to try to boost demand for their product. Actually this is a major mover of change. I am arguing that there are limits to what a company can do to achieve this. Ambrosia's scheme goes beyond what a company should (is?) allowed to do under copyright law as argued by the captain ( /pointing to the guy with the marsupial pouch / )

So again, my argument is not fallacious (actually, you didn't point out where the fallacy lies...but it's ok).

1)while piracy does mean that companies aren't paid for the use of their product, an argument can be made showing that piracy also doesn't prevent companies from realizing the full amount of their profits, even if all the pirates were taken out and shot. This only breaks down if the empirics show that pirates actually are willing and able to pay for software, but choose not to, due to some inherent desire to pirate. This is why I asked how much has revenue gone up by since the introduction of the scheme (again taking into account that Snapz is not bundled in new macs).

2) By using the product you do meet some need, but since pricing isn't continuous, it's discretionary, I cannot send $7.78 to Ambrosia and get legitimate use. It's all or nothing and consumers weight the benefits versus the cost.

3) The value of the software is not intrinsic....[to itself?]. True, it is determined by consumers. But the cost of the software is exogenous to demand.

4) read #3

Again, the economics of software piracy is murky and complex, if not fascinating. We haven't even touched upon the issue of externalities in this thread, though you can search for the other one and find my comments there. As you will see, it is POSSIBLE that some piracy may actually benefit Ambrosia. This is not an assertion of fact, but an issue that should constrain moki's arguments. To bad I'm not writing my dissertation on this topic.

Going back to the issue of copyrights (somehow I think that I won't be able to), It has been very well argued that Ambrosia's licensing scheme goes too far in attempting to collect what we all think is their right (?) to earn a profit.

I do agree that piracy has a lot to do with rationalization. But Ambrosia has no right to assume that all potential users will "shoplift" simply because they can. And regardless, a storeowner still cannot require that I bring back all my clothes to the store whenever I choose to have them altered. There is a limit that Ambrosia crosses when they infringe on my rights as a consumer.

Finally, copying software is only illegal while the author holds the copyright, and even then there is the issue of fair use. But for that I will refer you to the marsupial-totting captain over there. He seems to have a handle on the argument.

And if I had the option of paying only for the use I get from the software, I wouldn't pay $400 for office, but they have a monopoly, and it's why the gov't WAS trying to do something about it.

hehe..."my argument is fallacious"....heh

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: Brazuca ]

[Brazuca]

Originally posted by Developer:
<STRONG>

Huh? Can you explain to me how that should work?</STRONG>

I'll try,

The point was that a pirated copy would prevent competitors from attracting other users.

My only point is that there is the possibility (notice the word CAN) that users who find it "profitable" to pirate will opt not to do so if there is an alternative that offers the same benefits at a lower cost. Thus a company can have a "sale" and attract users to its platform.
Thus significant pirating of one software can be a signal and an opportunity for competitors that users are finding the cost/benefit equation to be unbalanced and are looking for options.

Q.E.D.

This was meant only as a possible counter-argument, not as a theory, though it is compelling.

[ 02-07-2002: Message edited by: Brazuca ]