I am NOT a dupe!

K6LL at delphi.com K6LL at delphi.com
Wed Nov 17 21:18:17 EST 1993

Hi Bill. What's the best way to handle a station who is in the log twice
because he insists that he is not a dupe? Just leave it in twice with the
second one scored as a dupe? Is there a danger of a 3 qso penalty if he
doesn't have the first qso in his log? Would it be safer to delete both
qsos? What do you think?

k6ll at delphi.com

>From Takao Kumagai <je1cka at asuka.aerospace-lab.go.jp>  Thu Nov 18 12:33:20 1993
From: Takao Kumagai <je1cka at asuka.aerospace-lab.go.jp> (Takao Kumagai)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 93 12:33:20 JST
Subject: Contest Video Wanted
Message-ID: <9311180333.AA17793 at asuka.aerospace-lab.go.jp>

Dear Contesters

We, Japan Crazy Contesters Club, will hold the annual contesters meeting
in Tokyo at Dec. 18(Sat.). In last year, we had about 80(-) crazy 
contesters and had CT+DVP/PED/CT-modoki demonstration and the contest
related video shows.

Does anyone rent us the contest video for our meeting?
(ofcourse we owe the all shipping charge etc. If you want to see
our past KH0AM operation video, we can exchange)
Do YCCC,PVRC,FRC or NCCC have their pomotion videos?

Your email will be appreciated.

>From Ward Silver <hwardsil at sumax.seattleu.edu>  Thu Nov 18 06:18:25 1993
From: Ward Silver <hwardsil at sumax.seattleu.edu> (Ward Silver)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 93 22:18:25 -0800
Subject: pirated software
Message-ID: <9311180618.AA22326 at sumax.seattleu.edu>

de Ward, N0AX
It would be a reasonable compromise that if the sponsor detects an unregistered
submission, a postcard might be sent back to the submittee.  It wouldn't have
to be judgemental at all, just a note saying something to the effect:
"Software package XX is shareware and is supported by registration fees.  If
users of this package register their copy, it supports further development of
the program.  Thank you for your support of XX."  Or some such.
Like W7EL says in his ELNEC prologue: If such a notice doesn't make the little
teeth on your conscience gear dig in a little, then they're probably worn off
anyway and nothing will do any good.

>From Wayne E. Wright" <71034.3544 at CompuServe.COM  Thu Nov 18 13:46:59 1993
From: Wayne E. Wright" <71034.3544 at CompuServe.COM (Wayne E. Wright)
Date: 18 Nov 93 08:46:59 EST
Subject: Software Piracy
Message-ID: <931118134658_71034.3544_CHJ22-1 at CompuServe.COM>

A reasonable contest software logging package written by a commercial 
software house would have at least 3 or 4 person years in it counting 
software development, documentation, and distribution. That would represent 
an investment of at least $500K. The contest community consists of maybe 
10K users. If I sold a copy to every one of you for $50 I would have wasted 
my time.  And do you think you're going to get updates when rules change?

Therefore, the contest community is relying on volunteers (like me) to 
write their software.

I have a very significant investment of leisure time over the past 5 years 
in a contest logging program. Its shareware (WriteLog) and I have no way of 
knowing whether it has been pirated or not. But I am convinced that there 
is NO WAY that I will ever receive reasonable compensation from users. I do 
it because CT, NA, etc. are in the software stone age. I'd drop my work and 
use theirs if they moved into the current decade. The registration fee is 
there just in case there is enough interest to provide me incentive to 
upgrade it and fix the the things they don't like.

So, my opinion is that there's no point in using anything but peer pressure 
to enforce software copyrights. I am certainly not going to invest any 
effort in copy protection, nor do I expect CQ or ARRL to help me with this 
either. They are organizations with limited budgets--let them spend their 
money on things they can actually do something about.

Wayne, W5XD 

>From n2ic at longs.att.com (Steven M London +1 303 538 4763)  Thu Nov 18 14:41:09 1993
From: n2ic at longs.att.com (Steven M London +1 303 538 4763) (Steven M London +1 303 538 4763)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 93 07:41:09 MST
Subject: CT and Super Check Partial
Message-ID: <9311181441.AA11703 at bighorn.dr.att.com>

Yes, there is a "secret" startup switch to disable the auto check partial
on CT.  Unfortunately, on my XT, it puts garbage characters on the
screen, and locks up the keyboard.  Works fine on a 486, however (but why
disable auto check partial on a 486 ??).  Since it does not work right, I
would rather not divulge the "secret".

My recent communication with Ken indicates we have gotten his attention on
this problem.  QRX for a fix !

Steve, N2IC/0   <------ the "portable zero" really helps to bust pileups !

>From Smith, Pete" <PSmith at codei.hq.nasa.gov  Thu Nov 18 18:46:00 1993
From: Smith, Pete" <PSmith at codei.hq.nasa.gov (Smith, Pete)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 93 10:46:00 PST
Subject: Bootleg software
Message-ID: <2CEBC30A at ms.hq.nasa.gov>

Since I'm (sorta) in the software business, let me just endorse Jim's 
(AD1C's) comment about "marking" software with the registered user's call. 
 The keyboard software I market has the owner's call emblazoned in the first 
screen he/she sees every time the software is started.  I know I'd be 
embarrassed (particularly if I had someone else in the shack) to have it 
clearly  indicated for the world to see that  I was using pirated software. 
 Call it shame factor -- so far it seems to have worked.  

>From Robert E.Naumann" <72240.1433 at CompuServe.COM  Thu Nov 18 15:42:10 1993
From: Robert E.Naumann" <72240.1433 at CompuServe.COM (Robert E.Naumann)
Date: 18 Nov 93 10:42:10 EST
Subject: Illegal Software
Message-ID: <931118154210_72240.1433_EHK22-1 at CompuServe.COM>

>From AI6E:
" but this is based on the assumption that the user of a pirated copy would
under other
circumstances have payed for the software. "... " Most pirate users, however, do
not really
need the software, and when pressed would delete their illegal copy rather
than purchase the software."

This is exactly the point.  The USE of the pirated copy is ILLEGAL.  The U.S.
Copyright Laws are very simple.  Deleting it doesn't change anything.  It
doesn't matter if it may or may not have been paid for under different
circumstances.  It is a violation of the Law to use the software.  

In the business world there is an organization called the "Software Publishers
Association" (SPA).  The SPA will go to a company (a suspected violater of
Copyright Laws) and ask to take an inventory of their software.  If they are
found to have illegal copies of software, they are given the opportunity to pay
for it at that time or go to court and take their chances.  Most opt to pay.

Since software is so easily duplicated, it's difficult to compare it to most
other types of products.  But the fact remains that it is a violation of the
U.S. Copyright Laws to use an illegal copy of software.

Since it's unlikely the SPA will be knocking on doors of anyones' residence,
this issue is one of personal conscience and responsibility.  If it doesn't
bother you to knowingly violate the law, then feel free to continue.

73,  Bob KR2J
72240.1433 at CompuServe.com

>From dcurtis at mipos2.intel.com (Dave Curtis)  Thu Nov 18 16:14:05 1993
From: dcurtis at mipos2.intel.com (Dave Curtis) (Dave Curtis)
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 93 08:14:05 PST
Subject: bootleg software
Message-ID: <9311181614.AA01554 at climax.intel.com>

call it what it is: stolen property.  you don't use stolen radios.
you don't run 1600W.  don't use stolen software.

a practical(?) suggestion: give away software, but have 900-number support.

73, Dave ng0x (sometimes /6 "aww, I thought you were a *real* zero")

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list