purchase and price based on use 28 october, 2000 by johnmichael patrick monty monteith

As a computer programmer and a playwright, I have a great deal of sympathy for those on the losing end of piracy. Whether that piracy is of computer software, music, or photocopied books, I empathize because I am on that losing end myself. At the same time, I also believe that some software publishers, and certainly the recording and publishing industries, have stolen from the public for years. The true answer for copyright dilemmas on the Internet is for both sides to realize the other does not appreciate being stolen from, and to come to a middle ground. Until then, no one will feel guilty logging onto Napster to make a CD of pirated works.

There is no question that the general public has stolen from authors. Software programmers, novelists, musicians, you name it - they have all had significant dollars taken away from them. It is so easy to do, and so many just cannot resist the temptation to not pay for something they use. How many illegal copies of Microsoft Office are out there? How many times have published works been photocopied, or "borrowed". How many illegal CD's have been created? Countless. And I doubt anyone with common sense would disagree with the premise that if you use something, it should be paid for. Whether that use is purchasing Microsoft Office, or a CD, or a novel.

The other half of the equation is easy for publishing companies to ignore, however. That equation is, if a person does not use the product, they should be given a refund. Ay, there's the rub.

How many programs have you purchased that you never use? How many CD's have you bought that turned out to be crap and now sit in your collection never to be listened to again? How many books have you purchased that you did not like, and perhaps never even finished?

When I was thirteen and programming on a Commodore 64, I made a bit of money writing computer bulletin boards for the little eight-bit system. Because hundreds of people were illegally using my software, I had no concern about illegally copying hundreds of pieces of software myself. From games to word processing software and utilities - I made illegal copies of everything and purchased very little. Basically, I was my own worst enemy.

A few years later when I started working in a software store, I dropped that habit, and started purchasing every piece of software I use. Now, I have a license for every program I have. So, if the Software Publishers Association were to knock on my door, I am confident they would give me a gold star. The only problem is, this habit of purchasing everything I use has meant I have spent a considerable amount on products I never use. From various MP3 programs, to hard drive recovery utilities, to Corel Office, to Microsoft Front Page and Publisher - dozens of programs paid for that have been used once, and thrown aside because they do not serve a purpose.

Due to piracy issues, I have yet to find a software publisher that will allow a person to return a product they did not find useful. Lets face it, even with demo copies, chances are that we all will purchase software at one time or another that we will not use. If you purchase a mouse, or a hard drive, or a printer that you do not use, it is easy to return it. How do you get your money back on software? You can not, unless you rip off the next software publisher by illegally copying their work.

The problem is even worse when you consider buying a new computer. How many of these computers come pre-packaged with countless pieces of software you will never use? At my place of employment we are often building Linux servers - but just try to purchase a computer without Windows ME/2000 and Microsoft Office pre-installed and paid for in the sticker price. Then try to get them to refund you the money when you tell them that you just formatted the hard drive and installed Red Hat 6.1. Good luck.

Then there are the tens of thousands of computer users that use these programs so seldom to make the pricing scheme seem ridiculous. My grandmother that might write a letter in Word twice a year and never use it otherwise should not have to pay $400 for Microsoft Office. Yes, the Internet and Java API's were going to be the answer to this problem, but that answer seems like a promise that will never be seen to those spending thousands on products that are so rarely used today.

Then there is the less-than-loved recording industry. They have forced all of us to pay for full CD's and LP's for years, when all we really want is a single song. Worse yet, those of us that bought the new Paul Simon CD expecting another Graceland and instead might have found a CD that we will never listen to again. Can I return it? Of course not. Seventeen dollars wasted, and the recording industry laughs all the way to the bank.

Yet, this problem could be so easily corrected. Napster could be made meaningless if the recording industry would just embrace the delivery system Napster created. Charge everyone fifty cents per low-quality MP3 file for a download, and then if the person likes it, they can download a high quality WAV version (or other format) for a $1 or $2 more. It would make finding music much easier, and the quality of downloads consistent, plus the artists (and recording industry) could make as much money, if not more.

Then there is the issue of a bad CD. If indeed we are merely paying for a license to use the software, or a license to listen to the music, than if the CD goes bad it should be replaced for no more than the price of the CD. (Which, right now, is about fifty cents.) I have lost my Microsoft Office CD, yet have a license for the software, and been unable to get a replacement copy of the CD from Microsoft for a reasonable cost. Although, to Microsoft's credit, at least they will replace it for a lesser cost than the full product. If your Tori Amos CD gets a scratch in it, your only solution is to go buy a new copy. So, I ask, who is robbing who?

If these industries are going to expect all of us to pay for everything we use, a very reasonable expectation, they must also put systems in place to make certain consumers are not ripped off. While I agree that significant dollars have been lost due to piracy, they have also robbed us thanks to policies of not making pricing based on use. Currently, pricing and systems are based on making as much money from the consumer as possible. And they wonder why no one feels guilty logging into Napster?