[Tfug] OT : Site Scaper

[Bexley Hall]

--- On Tue, 5/19/09, Joe Roberts <deepspace at dataswamp.net> wrote:

> Bexley Hall <bexley401 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > Then, they spend energy *increasing* the costs of their products to
> > support protection mechanisms (DRM, RCE, Macrovision, etc.).
> 
> Which has been a disaster, obviously, in that you wind up irritating
> paying customers who want to platform-shift or something while the
> pirates just go around it.

Exactly.  Spend your energies moving your product forward -- instead
of trying to keep others from copying it.  Put value in *support*
instead of the product itself (i.e., you buy the product, you get
support.  You steal it, feel free to provide your own).

Ages ago (think CP/M), JRT Pascal was released at $19.95.  It
could be easily copied.  But, the cost/time of copying the manual
itself made the $19.95 price a bargain!

In the same timeframe, it was not uncommon to be able to get
schematics for most electronics kit.  Including high end devices.
Often including artwork for the PCBs.  Why pay thousands of
dollars for a high end amplifier when you can *copy* the design
yourself?!  Well, if you wanted the amplifier because you were
a hifi officianado (and not just someone who likes toys), then
you also wanted it known to *meet* its published specifications
(i.e., any "select at test" components had critical values that
weren't obvious on a schematic and the process by which they
were selected may not be included in the documentation).  So,
you just paid "retail" for the device and were happy with it.

I've found that delaying releases until you are "a good way along"
on the next release is a good compromise.  By the time folks are
upgrading (through thievery) to the "current" release, you are
getting ready with the *next* release.  It just gets to be
impractical trying to play catch-up (note this assumes there is a
cost -- time/money -- associated with the theft.  not true when
copying a web page -- unless there is a lot of server-side
magic involved that has to be reverse engineered).
 
> > OTOH, things like "shareware" invariably get poor returns -- even
> > when the "product" is widely used (I have a friend who authored a
> > widely used product who claims to have received exactly *one*
> > "donation"; as a result, he simply stopped supporting it.  Folks
> > who liked the original found themselves with a dead-end product...
> > and probably grumbled when there were no bug-fix updates, etc.)
> 
> I think one thing we do need in the free software world is a "support
> your favorite free software project" holiday whereby the whole
> community encourages, maybe for a week a year, donating to your
> favorite projects.

But, you can't count on that.  In business-speak, it's not a
reliable business model.

For example, the open source tools that I use I have "taken ownership
of".  I am responsible for "supporting my use".  I fix the bugs that
I encounter and add the features that I need so the tool keeps working
for *me*.  While I feed these fixes back to the "real" maintainers,
they, eventually, lose value as the release that I am supporting
becomes outdated.  <shrug>

> Shareware is a little different because it's still much like closed
> commercial software, except you get to try it out.  I wonder whether
> or not in the long run you could make more money just releasing things
> for free and taking donations.

That was my friend's point.  People could essentially use his
program "for free".  It was up to their own concience as to whether
or not they wanted to "pay/contribute".  (i.e., the software wasn't
locked in any way).  And, exactly one soul felt compelled to do so.

> For awhile I've been a proponent of bountyware, which is a system
> whereby a software author could release updates when bounty thresholds
> were met.  This could apply to music as well.

Ah, this is a clever idea!  But, it relies on the project being
largely closed (otherwise some other group could adopt supporting
it and eliminate the need for "bounty" payments)

> The idea would be that once the bounty was met, the software (or
> music) would be free for everyone.  So for example, a musician could
> say something like, OK, I'm going around the record companies (which I
> think we'll see more of as they fade into irrelevancy), and I have a
> new album here, and here's a place you can contribute money, and when
> I hit the threshold I set, this gets released for free to the public -
> to everyone.

The Dead have largely adopted this model with their concert materials.
Officially, I think policy is they frown on paid redistribution.
But, for the most part, encourage "tape swapping".  Ages ago, it
was often possible to get a tap off the sound board when making
your *own* live recording at one of their gigs.

> Software updates could work this way, too.  It would make people into
> patrons rather than consumers.  There are some precedents for this
> whereby the community has gotten together and bought old commercial
> software and released it as free software.
> 
> I'm all for people doing hard work being compensated but the way it is
> now it just not functional anymore.

I don't think there is a one size fits all solution.  Even within
a particular industry.  In my world, support has a lot of leverage.
Steal from me and I probably won't seek legal redress.  But, when
you get to a point when you need my *help*, you'll find that I
won't return your phone calls.  If what you stole is something that
you, in turn, are making money off of (by selling to your
customers), then you'll quickly feel the cost of your crime
and have no legal recourse to pressure me to "make you whole".

Steal from a casino and they just blacklist you.  I.e., the
means you are using to support yourself are suddenly being denied
to you.  Sooner or later, you look elsewhere.

> > Of course!  I'm sure MS has been keenly aware of the copying
> > problem they face(d).  And, I am sure there are much more
> > robust mechanisms that they could have employed to cut down on
> > that copying.  Yet, they obviously decided that X% loss was
> > worth bearing when the alternative was to divert manpower to
> > come up with protection mechanisms, etc.
> 
> Also piracy has contributed to making Windows ubiquitous.  I'm not

Of course!  It has been alleged that MS deliberately looked the
other way for much of this.  Of course, now that they own the
market, theft is more important to them! :>

> saying this is a rationale for piracy, but it is a curious
> side-effect.  Same with Photoshop to a large degree.