Charging the net....

[Kent Paul Dolan]

kyle at WENDY-FATE.UU.NET (Kyle Jones) writes:
> Brad Templeton writes:

 [...]

>> There are enough enemies of the shareware concept on the net who will
>> ignore the law and say, "You sent it to me, I don't have to pay." It
>> doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, they will do this, and you
>> can't stop them in any convenient way. As such, they have made
>> shareware a non-feasable distribution method on USENET. Too bad,
>> because the grass-roots nature of shareware fits well with the
>> grass-roots nature of usenet, except with those who think it is a sin
>> for programmers to charge for their work.

It helps to remember when reading this and all of Brad's propaganda that
he is infamous for using the net to make money, mostly from other
people's work, without compensation to the author, and so of course he
is going to promote using the net to make a living as an OK thing to do.

It doesn't make him wrong in all cases, but it colors his judgement past
the point where he can be trusted as an unbiased critic on this issue.

> It's not _just_ that the "shareware" authors are charging money for
> their work, it's that they are using the existing USENET transport
> infrastructure to eliminate much of the distribution, copying and
> advertising costs of running a software house

As does any other shareware distribution net, from local BBSs to
sneakernet floppy transport and copying to the paid commercial networks
that don't charge time charges for uploads.

This has nothing to do with USENet's peculiar non-commercial status, it
is common to the whole concept of shareware -- putting a $150 commercial
product into the end user's hands for the $15 author's royalty by
cutting out the packagers and distributors and making the end user pay
media costs.

This _is_ a benefit to author and end user, though not to the missing
middlemen, but only if the fees are actually paid. Otherwise the author
gets nothing for the product, and the end user gets no more "cheap but
good" software from that author.

> and yet they still want _more_ money.

And this makes no sense at all, Kyle. Aside from the same waste of
bandwidth and operating expenses that any posting accrues, there has
been no money involved unless the shareware fee is paid, so it isn't a
matter of _more_ money, it's a matter of _any_ money.

Lots of folks put tremendous effort into works of the software art; for
most it is done out of love of the doing, for many in hopes of glory,
for some in hopes of a monetary gain as well. USENet is not the only,
nor even an important, network channel for shareware distribution, but
it is the most convenient one for many new programmers who have no other
way to turn their "not yet commercial grade" skills to potential cash.

The reality is that shareware is, for those without a keen business
sense, a poor to worthless way to earn money. The few successes are
those who have conducted an exquisite balancing act between putting out
too little to make their product attractive, and putting out too much to
make 'registering" the product worth the cost.

Those who resort to threats and bluster, as in the shareware that began
this thread, are not the ones who get a steady income from their
shareware; that is limited to those who provide additional value in
exchange for money received, in the traditional method of market
economies.

> We all ride the backs of others when we post to USENET, but enough is
> enough.

Like you, I mostly just write what I write and give it away, as in my
most recent effort (townmaze), but I'd like the right to make a living
at it if that were possible, without being thought a bad net citizen,
and widely excoriated for daring to put "shareware" in the software I
post.

However, until more than half a dozen people indicate that they are
taking what I post and putting it to use, I'm not writing software good
(in the sense of attracting users) enough even to be shareware, so it
keeps going out free while I practice harder.

I think USENet _can_ be used as a shareware distribution channel,
although not successfully by those who bluster and threaten, but I also
think that if I had a "not quite commercially distributable but still
valuable" product that was returning a small return here on USENet, I'd
quickly move it to the paid nets where folks addicted in a free ride are
less prevalent, and I'd expect to do much better on those other nets.

Kent, the man from xanth.
<xanthian at Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian at well.sf.ca.us>