Replies Received to Extending Evaluation Periods

John W. Osborne (
Mon, 13 May 1996 18:57:48 +-1000

Fellow CuSeeMe'ers....

I've received several responses to my post about people artificially
extending the -commercial- White Pine software. Who could have
tought that saying something which boils down to 'I don't think
theft is right' could have been controversial.

Several of the replies were not posted back to the
list. I've removed the names but left the domains intact.

First off, from we have....

=>I think programmers who upload their new software on the Net ask way
=>too much money. Generally, they have no overhead, no publishers or
=>distributors to pay, no publicists and they ask from $20 to $70.
=>Their greed irritate me. They are part of the ripoff. If they would
=>charge from $6.99 to $9.99 (tops), they would sell a lot more of their
=>products and make more money. They would also serve the community
=>much better.

I guess what this means is that if this person thinks a company charges
too much, then this entitles theft. As to "serving the community", we are
talking about -commercial- software here. While the "commercialisation of
the 'Net" may offend some people, it is fact of life, and the Internet is
now another distribution channel.

and from

=>Guys, guys... Chill out... Man.. I was only wondering about extending
=>the evaluation period because I am leaving on vacation for the summer,
=>and will miss out on the evaluation time.. I was not attempting anything
=> Save the scrupules do-gooding for someone who deserves it..

Frankly, I'm not really interested in the -reason- for not paying up. As for
my scruples, they are intact. Perhaps this poster's scruples could use some

from we have this offering....

=> Isnt the internet all about getting free stuff? Everybodys out there
=>looking for free stuff. I think if they didnt want people to keep the eval.
=>versions they wouldnt put them out there. Nobody forced them to.

*Sigh*...the "Internet" is about a myriad of things. And yes, some of it is
about getting "free" software. The -commercial- version of White Pine's
CuSeeMe software isn't in this category.

and then there was the 'dichotomy' argument from
I've abbreviated it severely, but the crux of the author's argument was (I believe)....

=>From their [ the phone companies' ] perspective we are making a
=>local call but talking anywhere in the world on our big desktop telephone.
=>Aren't WE stealing when we do this? Why is it okay to cheat the phone
=>companies out of money (maybe not so much today, but who would EVER use a
=>telephone 20 years from now) but cheating White Pine is unthinkable?

No, one is not stealing in this context. When you signed up with your phone
company (or companies if your long distance carrier is distinct from your local
one) you signed an agreement. As long as you live within that agreement
you are on safe turf, legally as well as morally. Personally, I don't feel it is "ok"
to steal from anyone, no matter how much cash they have, and there are plenty
that have more than I do. This doesn't make me a saint, just a product of
(successful) social conditioning that permits me to distinguish good from bad acts.

and last, and probably least, but my personal favourite. The language is a bit
rough, but I don't think you will learn any new words. Apparently the author has
and was dying to use them....

>From we have this observation.......

=>Why don't you shut up and quit crying outload in public.
=>If you don't like what you percieve as some being dishonest, well,
=>all I can say is TOUGH! ahhahahhahaha
=>Go distribute your rich's to the poor, and be some morally high
=>person, as for the rest of us, shut the fuck up, and leave us alone,
=>ok? :)

Not too much I can say about this this one, except to offer the (selfish)
observation that I hope he/she/it lives closer to -your- neighborhood
than mine.

I won't belabour the issue any longer, but I thought you might be interested.

Regards, John