[I have been attempting to post the following for a week. My thanks to
Trey for sticking with me to work out the annoying e-mail problems.
Trey has proven to be very "customer oriented"!]
Bill AI6E wtr@mitre.org writes:
"... Now developers certainly look at pirated copies of software as
lost revenue, but this is based on the assumption that the user of a
pirated copy would under other circumstances have payed for the
software. Sometimes, users of pirated software do decide the product
is worth supporting, and buy legal copies. I maintain that if a user
really needs a product, they usually also need the support, and buy a
legal copy. Most pirate users, however, do not really need the
software, and when pressed would delete their illegal copy rather
than purchase the software. ..."
I am unable to understand how software should be considered as
somehow different from any other retail (i.e. end user) transaction. If
Bill were to substitute a typical retail product in this argument (for
example, ... Now [retailers] certainly look at [stolen televisions] as
lost revenue, but this is based on the assumption that the [thief]
would under other circumstances have paid for the [television]...), the
obvious unethical, if not indeed criminal, behavior is exposed.
There exist market mechanisms in which the entrepreneur explicitly
permits try-before-buy use of software products; this is known as
shareware. If the seller of software does not offer a product as
shareware, then even try-before-buy is illegal. The market
mechanism known as warranty also exists to address most support
issues immediately after purchase. And in case of gross
misrepresentation, there are criminal statutes.
[sri to pick on Bill; there have been several rationalizations posted.
One of the best(?) is:]
N2AA posts:
"Let me get this straight: contest organizers (ie. hobby magazines)
are going to supply lists to industry of contestants ... possible legal
action or perhaps just your run of the mill reminder not to screw with
industry.
... this KGB type crap ..."
A more market oriented approach, which would be a win-win situation
for both the contest administrator (CA) and software entrepreneur (SE),
is:
TheCA (the major ones being either profit or not-for-profit businesses,
both of which need revenue to continue publishing "hobby magazines")
could make available mailing lists of contest entrants, qualified to
whatever level the CA feels is cost effective. The SE has the option of
purchasing the list, either directly or blind through a third party, to
advertise or request registration (perhaps through a "special offer").
The availability of these lists should raise few concerns. The callsign,
and thereby the name and address, of each entrant is public knowledge
as soon as results are published. The CA, while recapturing some
administration costs, provides a "value add" by removing the need for
the SE to enter all the published callsigns, matching against an
address database, and providing other information to allow the SE to
most wisely use his meager resources. Of course, the SE -- likely an
active contester -- could just match up his log against the address
database for starters.
I strongly urge those that lean toward an enforcement approach (in
virtually any situation) to take a moment or two and think of a means to
use peoples' own perception of self interest to create a win-win.
73 from K5TM
----
Tom Morrison thm@rmc.liant.com
Liant Software Corporation
8911 Capital of Texas Highway North
Austin, TX 78759
(512) 343-1010 FAX 343-9487
>From Robert E.Naumann" <72240.1433@CompuServe.COM Wed Nov 24 15:15:51 1993
From: Robert E.Naumann" <72240.1433@CompuServe.COM (Robert E.Naumann)
Subject: CT 8.47 add'l info
Message-ID: <931124151550_72240.1433_EHK33-1@CompuServe.COM>
Th note by AD1C didn't mention that you must use the -TT command line switch
when starting CT ver8.47 to enable the "backspace in call field / auto clear
zone field" feature. The TT refers to AA6TT's suggestion for this feature. (
Good one Bill - TNX Ken)
73 and CU all in the pileups from N2RM,
Bob KR2J
>From Jay Kesterson K0GU x6826 <jayk@hpxxx.fc.hp.com> Wed Nov 24 16:14:26 1993
From: Jay Kesterson K0GU x6826 <jayk@hpxxx.fc.hp.com> (Jay Kesterson K0GU x6826)
Subject: Todays ethics question
Message-ID: <9311241614.AA24828@hpxxx.fc.hp.com>
Well here is todays question. A big station running B power in the SS
calls CQ on 75m. He get a call and works the calling station. Then he
tells the station that called to stand by for another station. The calling
station is then worked by big gun's friend who is considerably weaker
and in a lower power class. Is this OK????
73, Jay K0GU
>From William Ralston" <William_Ralston@iegate.mitre.org Wed Nov 24 11:59:06
>1993
From: William Ralston" <William_Ralston@iegate.mitre.org (William Ralston)
Subject: Software Piracy
Message-ID: <9311241702.AA21088@mbunix.mitre.org>
Reply to: RE>>Software Piracy
K5TM "thm@rmc.liant.com" wrote:
>I am unable to understand how software should be considered as
>somehow different from any other retail (i.e. end user) transaction.
Because there is no transfer of tangeable property between the software
seller and the pirate, this is not a good analogy...
>Bill were to substitute a typical retail product in this argument (for
>example, ... Now [retailers] certainly look at [stolen televisions] as
>lost revenue, but this is based on the assumption that the [thief]
>would under other circumstances have paid for the [television]...), the
>obvious unethical, if not indeed criminal, behavior is exposed.
Bad analagy. In this case, the retailer has one less television to sell (and
possibly a broken window, too), so he has clearly suffered a loss. In the
case of software, the seller does _not_ have one less copy to sell, so it can
be argued by this analogy there has been no loss.
>[sri to pick on Bill...
That's OK - it just compels me to respond...
>I strongly urge those that lean toward an enforcement approach (in
>virtually any situation) to take a moment or two and think of a means to
>use peoples' own perception of self interest to create a win-win.
I agree wholeheartedly.
My point in the original post was not to defend software piracy, but argue
that it is not a problem, in the sense of descreasing developer incentives to
produce software. Is it possible that the wide exposure some programs
receive through being pirated (or widely distributed as shareware) actually
increases the markets for those products?
73 de Bill AI6E (or AI6E/1 in DX contests...)
wtr@mitre.org
.-.-.
>From Steve Lund <stevel@hpsrfh.sr.hp.com> Wed Nov 24 17:43:34 1993
From: Steve Lund <stevel@hpsrfh.sr.hp.com> (Steve Lund)
Subject: CT & check partial
Message-ID: <9311241743.AA13336@hpsrfh.sr.hp.com>
Fellow CT users,
There were some comments about the CT check partial and super check partial.
If I understood the comments correctly, CT has a mode where the calls are
checked while you are typing them. I'm using CT 8.19 and have always used
F8 to do partial checks. How do you get the automatic partial check to
work? Is this another command line option? I'd like to try it as I liked the
feature in another Field Day contest program I used.
Thanks,
Steve WA8LLY/6
>From Jim Reisert AD1C 24-Nov-1993 1306 <reisert@wrksys.enet.dec.com> Wed Nov
>24 18:02:13 1993
From: Jim Reisert AD1C 24-Nov-1993 1306 <reisert@wrksys.enet.dec.com> (Jim
Reisert AD1C 24-Nov-1993 1306)
Subject: CT & check partial
Message-ID: <9311241802.AA23835@us1rmc.bb.dec.com>
------------------Reply to mail dated 24-NOV-1993 13:02:49.91------------------
Steve WA8LLY/6 wrote:
>There were some comments about the CT check partial and super check partial.
>If I understood the comments correctly, CT has a mode where the calls are
>checked while you are typing them. I'm using CT 8.19 and have always used
>F8 to do partial checks. How do you get the automatic partial check to
>work?
CT version 8.18 was the first to have Automatic Super Check Partial. This
only worked if you loaded the MASTER.DAT file with the -d switch.
In version 8.22, Ken added the feature that included calls from your own
log, as well as those in the MASTER.DAT file.
>From this, I theorize that if you did not load the MASTER.DAT file, you did
not get automatic SCP until version 8.22.
- Jim AD1C
>From DKMC" <dkmc@chevron.com Wed Nov 24 18:34:57 1993
From: DKMC" <dkmc@chevron.com (DKMC)
Subject: Todays ethics question
Message-ID: <CPLAN065.DKMC.1785.1993 11 24 10 32 10 32>
Microsoft Mail v3.0 IPM.Microsoft Mail.Note
From: McCarty, DK 'David'
To: OPEN ADDRESSING SERVI-OPENADDR
Subject: RE: Todays ethics question
Priority:
Message ID: 7D5D36A3
Conversation ID: 7D5D36A3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
K0GU asks:
>Well here is todays question. A big station running B power in the SS
>calls CQ on 75m. He get a call and works the calling station. Then he
>tells the station that called to stand by for another station. The calling
>station is then worked by big gun's friend who is considerably weaker
>and in a lower power class. Is this OK????
My answer is this is legal; but unethical if the weaker station counts the
contact in his SS log which he sends in to the league as an entry.
K5GN
>From Mark E. Bailey" <mebly@Glue.umd.edu Wed Nov 24 18:57:53 1993
From: Mark E. Bailey" <mebly@Glue.umd.edu (Mark E. Bailey)
Subject: Todays ethics question
Message-ID: <199311241857.NAA05722@pascal.eng.umd.edu>
I'd like to add a variant to this question. What if the same station is
being used by two operators? One makes the initial contact and then the
other station uses the station to make the same contact under a different
callsign.
This is technically legal in most (ALL?) contests if the two operators
have the same station location. I guess since the FCC is giving up on
station locations, this rule may need modification. In many contests,
this is legal regardless of station location.
Mark Bailey KD4D Motto: Life's too short to drink cheap beer.
mebly@eng.umd.edu Disclaimer: I didn't really say this.
>From David Robbins (KY1H) 413-494-6955(w) 413-655-2714(h)
><robbins@guid2.dnet.ge.com> Wed Nov 24 19:54:07 1993
From: David Robbins (KY1H) 413-494-6955(w) 413-655-2714(h)
<robbins@guid2.dnet.ge.com> (David Robbins 413-494-6955 413-655-2714 (KY1H w h))
Subject: don't throw away old ct yet
Message-ID: <9311241946.AA27555@thomas.ge.com>
i got 8.47 last night, put it on one machine and decided within about 1 minute
i wasn't going to use it. the check-country window is so small you can't
see the zone numbers of the qso status. it also goes blank when you hit
return to log a qso instead of keeping the info on screen. the check-partial
window seems to be stuck there permanently once its opened, even when partially
covered by the rate window and frequency window it still gets updated in the
backround. the check partial window also covers up most of the frequency
window.
i sent suggestion to k1ea that he add section in ct.cfg file for the size
and location of the windows so that everyone could set their own preferences
instead of being at the mercy of someone else's preferences.
73, dave
>From Robert E.Naumann" <72240.1433@CompuServe.COM Wed Nov 24 20:04:07 1993
From: Robert E.Naumann" <72240.1433@CompuServe.COM (Robert E.Naumann)
Subject: Software Ripoffs and other debates
Message-ID: <931124200406_72240.1433_EHK4-1@CompuServe.COM>
I'd like to thank K5TM for his correct explanation of the problem of copying
software as being just as illegal as stealing hardware. However, I disagree
that the contest sponsors should have anything to do with monitoring this or in
any way reporting names of suspected participants to software creators.
This single op discussion is really out of control. I think we have all lost
our perspective on this stuff. Thinking about how a lawyer would interpret the
rules (no offense intended to you lawyers) is not what the spirit of contesting
should be about. I think that fair play and ethics should be the main
influences here with maybe a little common sense thrown in.
These issues cannot be resolved with an exploration of the rules or by applying
more rules.
Every contester has to have his own sense of responsibilty for his behavior as
it relates to any type of rule or guideline. It is not the place of the contest
sponsor to check that each operator is an honest, law abiding citizen.
Nonetheless, I'm not saying that they shouldn't verify contest logs. (for you
literal interpreters)
Each of us has to have our own definition of where the line is drawn between
single operator and single operator assisted as well as between what constitutes
cheating and what does not. There really is no need to make rules up detailing
every possible way that this could be looked at. If someone cheats and wins -
what kind of a victory for him is that ? Almost ANYBODY could cheat and win.
Some may say that if someone cheats and wins, it deprives the honest operator of
the win. I agree - unfortunately, I don't think that there is any way of
assuring that someone does not cheat. Winning honestly is the goal here. Sure,
winning is great - I don't have a strong affection for coming in second place or
worse. I do feel better assuming that the other guy beat me fairly.
I may be accused of being an optimist, but I truly believe that we all should
view contesting this way.
73,
Bob KR2J
72240.1433@CompuServe.com
>From Jay Kesterson K0GU x6826 <jayk@hpxxx.fc.hp.com> Wed Nov 24 20:52:38 1993
From: Jay Kesterson K0GU x6826 <jayk@hpxxx.fc.hp.com> (Jay Kesterson K0GU x6826)
Subject: Todays ethics question (again)
Message-ID: <9311242052.AA05601@hpxxx.fc.hp.com>
> Well here is todays question. A big station running B power in the SS
> calls CQ on 75m. He gets a call and works the calling station. Then he
> tells the station that called to stand by for another station. The calling
> station is then worked by big gun's friend who is considerably weaker
> and in a lower power class. Is this OK????
>From the replys I got appearently I didn't state this very well. The B
power station was feeding the lower power station QSOs. One after another
for at least the twenty minutes I tuned around. The lower power station
will be very competitive in his class. 73, Jay K0GU
>From Tim Coad" <tim_coad@smtp.esl.com Wed Nov 24 20:53:35 1993
From: Tim Coad" <tim_coad@smtp.esl.com (Tim Coad)
Subject: NEED SSB SS SCORES
Message-ID: <9311242057.AA03863@esl.com>
Subject: Time:12:47 PM
Sorry for the bandwidth, but I had a request for the latest SS scores from WC6H
but I deleted mine. Can someone mail this to me direct.
Tnx and see you in CQWW.
Tim - NU6S
>From oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) Wed Nov 24 21:08:10 1993
From: oo7@astro.as.utexas.edu (Derek Wills) (Derek Wills)
Subject: Todays ethics question (again)
Message-ID: <9311242108.AA14537@astro.as.utexas.edu>
> Well here is todays question. A big station running B power in the SS
> calls CQ on 75m. He gets a call and works the calling station. Then he
> tells the station that called to stand by for another station. The
> calling station is then worked by big gun's friend who is considerably
> weaker and in a lower power class. Is this OK????
>From the replys I got appearently I didn't state this very well. The B
power station was feeding the lower power station QSOs. One after another
for at least the twenty minutes I tuned around. The lower power station
will be very competitive in his class. 73, Jay K0GU
I originally replied to Jay saying that it didn't seem so bad, but given
the amplification in the second para, I changed my mind. This should
disqualify the low power or QRP station (the B one should morally be
disqualified as well).
We don't want to act like policemen, but this is blatantly unfair.
It may not be forbidden in the rules, but only because the people
who wrote the rules probably never thought anyone would stoop this
low :-)
Derek aa5bt (sharpening his stolen pencil for CQWW-cw)
|