From: richard@op.ph.ic.ac.uk (Richard Syratt )
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Piracy of software
Date: 18 Dec 92 11:27:23 GMT
Organization: Imperial College, London University
X-Posted-From: op.ph.ic.ac.uk
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <H.eg.6dtOnRYmec2@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca>, jhenders@jonh.wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) writes:
|> In <ABADDON.92Dec16112629@suprenum.uk.ac.liverpool.scm.suprenum>
|> 	abaddon@uk.ac.liverpool.scm.suprenum (Kevin o donovan) writes:
|> 
|> >Absolute rubbish. Just because you decide something is too expensive
|> >you have the right to steal it? Good one. There's this really nice
|> >video recorder in a shop by mine, but its 600 pounds and I couldn't 
|> >afford to pay that much. Perhaps I should steal a car and drive through
|> >their window and just take it? If they were selling it for 100 pounds
|> >then I wouldn't need to do this, so its their own fault. Then again, it seems
|> >silly to pay 100 pounds when I can get it for nothing...
|> 
|> 	Well, it works for people in LA. ;-)
|> 
|> 	One point left out of this discussion comparing software to VCR's is
|> that at least with a VCR, if it doesn't work, you have the right to take
|> it back and have it fixed or replaced. I'd like to see a VCR
|> manufacturer try to sell VCR's on which half the features don't work, or
|> don't work corrrectly, and then try to get more money from the purchasers
|> for an "update" that fixes the features originally advertised. I'm sure
|> that would go over well with consumers. Yet software companies have
|> somehow convinced consumers that this is acceptable in software. And if
|> the feature you needed is broken, the software is basically useless to
|> you, but can you return it? Not too likely, without being accused of
|> pirating the software. Have this happen a few times with >$100 packages,
|> and you might decide to make sure the package works as advertised before
|> getting ripped off for the money first. And that's basically what it is,
|> isn't it? If you sell someone something that doesn't work as advertised,
|> you are ripping them off. 

Yes, but it's also criminally illegal to advertise something as not
being what it is - that's why companies put comments like 'serving suggestion'
on food, and 'colour may vary' on things - so they don't get done for advertising
products as being something they're not.  You should be able to report
incidents like this to er.. um.. I think it's the local council in the UK or
is it the office of fair trading?  Anyway someone, and they'll look into the
matter - because it's a criminal offence the state will prosecute so it
doesn't cost you anything - all you have to do is convince the relevant
party that you've got a case.

|> 
|> 	So I guess that means that not only software pirates are theives,
|> so are some software companies. At least with Gnu software, if it
|> doesn't do what you want, you have access to the source, and can either
|> fix it to do what you want or pay someone else to do it. Most software
|> companies seem more interested in adding new features to software to
|> justify upgrade fees than actually fixing problems in existing software,
|> which only counts as maintenance upgrades, which they can't charge as
|> much money for. And just why should the consumer have to pay for the
|> fixing of something that shouldn't have been broken in the first place?

Yeah, and what about all this registration business.  A friend of mine
bought calligrapher gold, and the postscript driver was buggy - since this
is what he bought it for it made the product useless.  OK, he eventually
got a new driver sent, but he had to be registered.  So he should be, but should
you NEED to be?  Also, has anyone ever tried taking software back to the place
is was purchased?  What sort of reaction did you get?

|> 
|> 
|> -- 
|> 
|>  "If Rush fans were braindead, why are there so   Bruce Bufalini
|>  many people posting to alt.music.rush?"              PSU

Richard