Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Date:         Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:58:45 CDT
From:         Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS@UHUPVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Information Age Goods

3 Messages, 176 Lines
*-----

From: john@math.nwu.edu (John Franks)
Subject: Re:      Information Age Goods, Pt. 2 of 2

> From: bradcox@sitevax.gmu.edu (Brad Cox 703-968-8229)
> Subject: Information Age Goods, Pt. 2 of 2
>
> Superdistribution
>
> Lets consider a different approach that might work for any
> form of computer-based information. It is based on the
> following observation. Software objects differ from tangible
> objects in being fundamentally unable to monitor their
> copying but trivially able to monitor their use.
>
> Its premise is that copy protection is exactly the wrong
> idea for intangible, easily copied goods such as software.
> Instead, superdistribution turns ease of copying into an
> asset. It actively encourages the free distribution of
> information age goods via whatever distribution mechanism
> you please. ...
>
> This generosity is possible because the software is actually
> 'meterware'. It has strings attached that make revenue
> collection independent of how the software was distributed.
> The software contains embedded instructions that make it
> useless except on machines that are equipped for this new
> kind of revenue collection.  ...
>
> In JEIDA's current prototype, these services are provided by
> a silicon chip that plugs into a Macintosh coprocessor slot.
> Electronic objects (not just applications, but active and/or
> passive objects of every granularity) that are intended for
> superdistribution invoke this hardware to ensure that the
> revenue collection hardware is present, that prior usage
> reports have been uploaded, and that prior usage fees have
> been paid.
>
> The end-user gets a monthly bill for their usage of each
> top-level component. Their payments are credited to each
> component's owner in proportion to usage. ...
>
This proposal exceeds my worst nightmare for the future of computing.
Before responding to this article, I thought for a long time about the
possibility that the proposal was a hoax or a joke.  Regretfully I came
to the conclusion that Mr. Cox is serious.  I hope I am wrong.

I won't even try to address the "Big Brother" aspects inherent in this
proposal.

I do have one question.  Why should I, as a software user, want to
enhance the incentives for programmers to create software, by
introducing enormous disincentives for people like me to use that
software?

> Review the benefits I've discussed in this column and then
> ask: Whose computers would you buy? Whose computers would
> Aunt Nellie and her friends buy?

I will NEVER voluntarily buy such a computer.  I need to quit now.  I
have to check that my membership in the EFF is paid up and I feel a
sudden urge to send a check to the Free Software Foundation.


John Franks     Dept of Math. Northwestern University
                john@math.nwu.edu
*-----

From: githeko@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Information Age Goods, Pt. 2 of 2

The issue of electronics objects and associated problems are rather interesting.
 Before I read "Information Age Goods" my thinking was that the microcomputer as
 we know it today would be swallowed up by a more advanced device of the type
 Mr. Sculley of Apple Computer, Inc. calls the "Knowledge Navigator". It is
 possible today by ftp to obtain the latest version of say, "Fetch". I see no
 reason why I would want to purchase a piece of word processor software outright
 if I could hire it from the networks to do my documents. However, in my concept
 of hired software services, there are no special hardware requirements.
 Instead, there  is a log-on procedure that leaves a record of usage and inserts
 a code in the software you access from a vendor on the network so that any
 copies of this are stamped for identification making you liable for any illegal
 copies found floating around if they bear your ID tag. This method would not
 allow the vendor to collect as much data as the Japanese hardware solution but
 it is less
 nosy and intrusive.

There is also the issue of terminology. Apparently "Electronic Objects" is too
 tame for some. "Goods" has been suggested. In my attempt to develop metaphors
 for the network age, the term I chose was "treasure". The image I tried to
 build was one of a treasure seeker traversing the "pipelines" (network) in
 search of treasure. There could be gold, silver, diamonds etc. (images,
 software, text etc.)

I chose this analogy because it would allow for symbolic reward (finding the
 treasure!!) and it could be used as a basis for building a "knowledge
 navigator" whose major functions would be to search, sort and select treasures
 from the pipeline with microcomputer functions being secondary. Such a device
 should be capable of executing multiple searches concurrently.

--xx--

Githeko, J. M. (1992, December). On-line library catalogs and other Internet
 resources: Barriers to access. (Unpublished project report available from
 author).

Jason M. Githeko
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
e-mail: j-githeko@uiuc.edu
*-----

From: Sanjay_Chadha@library.tmc.edu
Subject: Information Age Goods

I read Brad Cox's article with great interest.  It has all the elements
of Shareware, except it tends to rely on more than good will of the
heart.  Now, two ideas come to mind:

The first half of the article made a case for granular components of
software that would be marketed as goods, much as Nuts and Bolts are to
M/C tool industry, and second half presents an approach to marketing
that might make this work.  From what I could make out, the marketing
approach only addresses how the package of goods will be marketed, and
some fixed formula will determine what the share of each good is of that
revenue, ie. say I wrote an excellent print module, and somebody used it
in a package.  I presume Brad is NOT contending that everytime a routine
calls the print function, a payment be flagged for me, rather every time
the software is loaded as a whole, a count go up.  This presents our
first problem, what would constitute a use?  The fact that you load a
program or you work in it or you save your work.  (This is no big
problem and already addressed in a variety of ways by people who send
"working demos" out).  But, the main thing is, that since there is no
significant change on how the creator of goods is to be paid, the first
proposition need not be contingent upon the second one.  At least I
could not make out how it would be different from what Borland pays
today to Whitewater resource for bundling it in their software, or
Wordperfect pays Grammatik.

Which brings us to Part 2 and the second idea.  As I have said before,
this seems like shareware with built in policing, however, there are
some presumption.  Even assuming a 30 day billing cycle, one would
assume that the software will be used for 30 days before even billed.
Then at least 2 weeks will be allowed for payment.  So essentially, all
vendors must accept a free usage of 45 to 60 days for this system to
work.  (Almost all will!)  That being said, let us consider a few new
phenomenon.  One, few people will ever change BIOS on their machine, and
second, people will RARELY reformat their hard-disk on purpose.  Most
new BIOS have a long string that identifies them to OS and other
programs with version number etc. AND starting with version 5.00 of DOS
and onwards, each new DISK formatted is assigned an unique ID.  Now, if
the same metering system were to simely record the two (assuming at
least one will be present ie. if disk is not formatted in 5.0, at least
BIOS has a string) and use the combination to record how many times
software was used, disabling the software at the 30 (or any number) use,
and say ask for a payment (perhaps 2 weeks before it  will expire the
software).  If the client pays, he gets a disk (and perhaps some written
documentation) that gives him a year's license.  This keeps in line with
the common trend of upgrades once a year and minimizes the
administrative hassles.  Perhaps this is a compromise between current
state of affairs and that one Mr. Cox is proposing, but definately more
workable with minimum change.

This is the last thing that is emerging, that there are two espects of
technology, one is fundamental technology, and second functional
technology and they need to be dealt with differently.  The Japanese way
works very well with fundamental technology, but is more likely to fail
than succeed with functional technology.  American way of quick
solutions has always worked well with the fast pace of new technology,
which is where this problem is to be addressed.

Sanjay R. Chadha
sanjayc@library.tmc.edu
Systems and Networks Analyst
HAM-TMC Library, Houston
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU