Tigger asking you to please make good on your pledge.
And if you haven't yet made a pledge to WBAI, now is the time.
Just make out your tax-deductible check to Pacifica WBAI.
Send it to WBAI Post Office Box 12345.
Hey, isn't that a handy number?
12345 Church Street Station, New York, 10249.
That's a little harder to remember, 10249.
Church Street Station, New York, 10249.
Support independent, listener-supported, non-commercial community radio in New York.
People's Radio, for us and our future.
This is Pete Seegerstill. Thanks.
Yes, yes, y'all. Hey, hey. To the beat, y'all. Hey, hey. And you don't stop. Hey, hey, hey.
Yo, freeze, scumbag. Now drop that squeegee and put your hands against the wall.
Come on, spread them. Hey, I wasn't doing nothing, man. I was just holding it for a friend.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's what they all say. You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can be held against your wall.
Oh, man. Six hours out of here. Two bucks to show for it. Now a night in jail.
There's got to be a better way.
There is a better way. Just listen to our mayor, Rudolph Giuliano.
There are plenty of jobs available. A person who's a squeegee operator could work in a restaurant.
That's right, Rudy. And here at the Acme Technical School of Culinary Sanitation,
you can learn all the skills you need to start an exciting new career as a restaurant dishwasher.
In just three short months of daytime classes or six months of night school,
you'll learn the techniques that will put you in control of your future.
Skills like scraping, pre-rinsing, silverware maintenance, and dish stacking,
all in our modern, state-of-the-art, stimulated restaurant kitchen.
Our highly qualified teachers are seasoned professionals.
They'll teach you how to use the skills of the trade,
and at the end of your training, the complete toolkit will be yours to keep.
Upon graduation, you'll be given...
All right, all right, all right, all right.
We just found out this goes for another five minutes.
We don't have the time for it, but it is very interesting nonetheless.
It's time now for Off the Hook here on WBAI.
The telephone keeps ringing, so I ripped it off the wall.
I cut myself while shaving, now I can't make a cough.
It couldn't get much worse, but if they could, they would.
Bum, did it bom for the best, expect the worst.
I hope that's understood, but didn't it bom?
And good evening to everybody.
This is Emanuel Goldstein.
The program is Off the Hook, where we talk about the latest in telecommunications
and computer happenings, high-tech, and the future as far as freedom of speech,
First Amendment, and all that kind of thing.
We have some interesting stories today.
We'll be taking some phone calls a little later on,
and just updating you on what's been happening since we were here last.
And a couple of you may have actually been listening to various radio stations,
reading newspapers.
You might have seen something kind of funny, well, funny from a consumer point of view,
involving something that 9X did last week.
Happened right about this time, actually.
They sent out a mailing to encourage people to use their calling cards.
It was called the Only in New York Sweepstakes,
and it was intended by 9X to encourage calling card use,
generating additional revenue for the company,
especially with those nifty little surcharges they stick on every single call you make.
Every local call made with a calling card from April 4th to May 31st
automatically qualifies a cardholder for one entry in the sweepstakes,
which offers $150,000 in prizes from a $50,000 New York municipal bond to movie tickets.
And according to the New York Times, the mailing was sent first class,
but it came as a folded card glued at two corners rather than in a more secure envelope.
And if you happen to open up that card,
well, you get the person's PIN number for their calling card.
Yeah, they printed everybody's PINs on these throwaway cards.
And of course, it's a trivial matter to get somebody's phone number
when you already have the name and address printed there.
So, if you really wanted to,
you could perhaps jump into a dumpster and find hundreds of these things.
Get hundreds of PIN codes, hundreds of names and addresses,
and simply look up the names and addresses and you'd have a bona fide calling card.
This promotion was the brainchild of executives at 9X's product management group
who oversee the marketing of calling cards.
It was developed with Wilkin Promotion and Advertising.
In case any of you are interested in similar such promotions,
they're a direct mail marketing company in Wayzata, Minnesota.
Only out of a place called Wayzata could you get something like this.
Wayzata, yeah.
According to 9X, Steve Marcus, a spokesman,
we were concerned about the security of the PINs
and we thought we took prudent steps.
He said the mailing materials had been reviewed by postal authorities.
In hindsight, he added,
maybe we should have done it differently.
We'd have to do it again.
We'd give it more thought.
Yeah.
They tell us to keep our calling cards safe
and then they go and they plaster them out on mailings,
mass mailings to everybody.
What are these people thinking?
So, right now about,
I'd say several hundred PINs have been changed
because people have called up to complain.
You know, you don't know who was supposed to get this little card
and who wasn't.
I didn't get one.
Maybe mine was stolen.
Maybe everybody's was stolen.
So, really the only thing you can do is call up 9X
and complain and have your PIN changed.
What else are you going to do?
Okay, but the big story this week
has got nothing to do with calling cards
or even 9X has got to do with the internet,
has to do with copyright infringement,
has to do with the First Amendment,
has to do with the whole future
and how it's going to affect all of us.
And you know,
the more you look at it,
the more grim it appears sometimes.
This is something that made the front page
of virtually every newspaper around here.
Made the front page of the Times,
made the front page of even Newsday, I think.
And it's kind of a scary story
when you read between the lines,
when you see where things are going.
First, we'll take a look at what the Times had to say
and then we'll look at
what some people close to the case are saying.
And then, of course,
we'll listen to what you have to say.
A federal grand jury has accused
a student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
MIT,
of using university computers
to distribute more than $1 million worth
of pirated software over the internet.
In announcing an indictment last Thursday,
the United States Attorney in Boston,
Donald K. Stern,
called it the nation's largest single case
of software piracy to date.
The indictment says that David LaMachia,
a 20-year-old electrical engineering
and computer science student
from Rockville, Maryland,
in effect transformed two MIT computers
into electronic bulletin boards
on which internet users could place copies
of commercial programs,
allowing other users to receive illegal copies.
The indictment says Mr. LaMachia was one of the system operators
or sysops of the bulletin boards,
which were called
Senosher 1 and Senosher 2,
I hope I'm pronouncing that right,
and established in November 1993.
They were shut down on January 5th of this year.
The indictment also cited messages
in which users posted requests
for specific programs
which cost as much as $300 or more each.
My, my.
The Software Publishers Association,
which is a terrorist...
Sorry, did I really say that?
A trade association
that represents more than 1,000
personal computer software makers,
estimates,
and this is only an estimate, mind you,
that software piracy
within American businesses
cost software makers
$1.57 billion last year.
Oh, that's a hefty loss, isn't it?
$1.57 billion.
We'll talk about that
in just a little while.
In response to complaints
from software makers
that existing copyright laws
were too lax
in an era when computers
can make exact copies
of books, programs,
and musical compositions
in seconds,
Congress,
in their infinite wisdom
back in 1992
decided to make it a felony
to copy 10 programs
or to distribute
or copy
programs worth
$2,500 or more.
That's according to
the people that sell the programs
how much they're worth.
So,
if you do that 10 times,
copy a program without
having permission to do that.
Do it 10 times,
it's a felony.
Not a misdemeanor,
mind you.
No, this is tough talk.
A felony.
Oh, yeah.
So, okay,
we have that to look at.
Now, we have somebody
that's being charged
with something
pretty serious,
and we also have
the whole basic way
of looking at
this particular issue.
Is it flawed
or is it
the right way
to look at it?
That's what we're going to
explore
in the time
we have today.
Now,
we're going to look at
a publication
called Computer Underground
Digest,
which comes out
electronically.
The latest issue
has a piece
from the
legal people,
the people that are
representing
David LaMaccia.
Silverglade and Good
is the legal firm.
And this is a posting
that they submitted
that kind of
presents their point
of view
as far as this
kind of thing goes.
And we'll look at this
and then we'll
analyze it
a little bit.
The charge
in the indictment.
The indictment
charges that
David LaMaccia,
by operating
a computer bulletin
board system,
or BBS
to many of you,
at MIT
during a period
of some six weeks,
thereby permitted
and facilitated
the illegal copying
and distribution
of copyrighted
software by other
unknown persons,
presumably the many
computer users
who logged onto
the BBS.
It is further alleged
that LaMaccia knew
that others were
using his system
for such a purpose,
although it is not
alleged that the BBS
was not used
for other lawful
communication purposes
as well.
In other words,
the BBS was a
perfectly legitimate
BBS.
Nobody is denying that.
Okay.
There is no
allegation
that LaMaccia
himself uploaded,
downloaded,
sold,
profited from,
used,
or actually
transmitted
any such software.
The government
does not allege
that LaMaccia
violated the
federal copyright
or computer fraud
statutes.
Rather,
the prosecution
has charged him
with engaging
in a criminal
conspiracy
to violate
the federal
wire fraud
statute,
which was
enacted in 1952
to prevent
the use
of the
telephone
wires
in interstate
fraud schemes.
Simple enough.
This is not
a case
about whether
software piracy
is illegal
under federal law.
Both sides
in the case
are proceeding
and will proceed
on the assumption
that it is not
lawful to make
and distribute
copies of copyrighted
computer software
without paying
a licensing
or royalty fee
to the copyright
owner.
According to
illegal people,
this is not
about software
piracy.
We'll get back
to that.
David LaMaccia
is not alleged
in the indictment
to have uploaded
or downloaded
to anyone
or even used
personally any
copyrighted software
on the computer
bulletin board
system.
He's not alleged
to have sold
any copyrighted
software nor
profited one penny
from the copying
or distribution
of such software.
And it is not
alleged that the
computer BBS
was used exclusively
to transfer
copyrighted software.
The indictment
alleges that part
of the conspiracy
was to transmit
files and messages
on the system,
part was to create
a library of
software,
and that part
of the scheme
was to allow
some users
to unlawfully
download copyrighted
software.
This case raises
the following
significant issues
in the overall
larger question
of whether
and how
the principles
underlying
freedom of speech
and of the press,
the First Amendment,
will be applied
to the world
of computer
communications.
For instance,
under current
criminal statutes,
may a systems
operator of a
computer BBS
be held criminally
responsible for
what users of
the system do
while logged
onto the network,
including the
exchange of
copyrighted software
or the publication
of other copyrighted
materials.
If current
criminal statutes,
including the
wire fraud statute
that LaMachie
has alleged to
have conspired
to violate,
are interpreted
to reach the
CISOP,
who does not
himself upload,
download,
copy,
use,
or sell
copyrighted
software,
do those
statutes,
as so interpreted,
violate the
First Amendment,
and are they
therefore unconstitutional?
Now,
this is interesting
because if we
look at this
with regards to
other parts
of society,
we'll see
something pretty
interesting.
Here are a few
examples.
It is well
known that
certain classified
advertisements for
dating services,
found commonly
in some newspapers,
are really covers
for high-class
prostitution rings.
Yeah,
yet only the
people who
actually run
the prostitution
services are
prosecuted for
those violations
of law.
Editors and
publishers of
the newspapers
are not
prosecuted on
some legal
theory that
their classified
sections,
and therefore
they themselves,
somehow aided or
conspired with the
prostitution rings in
the criminal
prostitution enterprise,
even if the editors
and publishers were
well aware of the
fact that their
newspapers were being
misused for an
illegal purpose.
The problem isn't
being poor, the
problem is, the
answer is...
It is well
known that
gambling numbers
syndicate,
syndicates rather,
utilize newspaper
reports of scores
of the outcomes of
certain athletic
events as the
basis for illegal
sports betting
operations.
Only the bookies
are criminally
prosecuted for such
gambling activity.
The newspapers,
the editors,
publishers, and
reporters included
are never criminally
prosecuted for the
illegal activities of
those who thus use the
published sports
reports.
In nearly every lending
library in the country,
there are one or more
photocopying machines
sitting in the midst of
large numbers of books,
many of which are
copyrighted.
Librarians surely
understand that a
certain number of
people who make
photocopies on those
machines are copying
copyrighted material,
perhaps in violation of
the copyright laws.
There does not appear to
be a criminal prosecution
of any such librarians for
aiding or facilitating
breaches of the copyright
laws.
Finally, the owner or
manager of a bookstore
may not be criminally
prosecuted for the
distribution of obscene
material if, in a
bookstore carrying a wide
variety of printed
materials, a certain
quantity of those
materials contain obscene
portions.
It doesn't even matter
whether the bookstore
owner or manager
suspects that some of
the material in the
store may contain
obscene matter.
It is not his or her
legal responsibility to
monitor and censor
such materials that,
according to the
United States Supreme
Court.
All right, so this is
where I wind up
disagreeing with the
representatives here,
the legal people that
are representing Dave
LaMaccia, because I
think this is very much
about software piracy.
Maybe not so much as Dave
LaMaccia is concerned, but
certainly it's because of
our crazy way of looking at
copying software.
It's because of that that
this kind of thing can be
gotten away with, where
somebody can actually be
charged with some sort of a
crime for running a
bulletin board where people
might be able to copy
software.
Let's look at the facts.
Software is copyable.
It's meant to be copied.
You're given a disk, and
there's no way to prevent
somebody from copying that
disk onto another disk.
Now, because some company,
and because the SPA decides
to back this up, says that
their particular program is
worth $10,000, well, that
means that we're going to be
charged with stealing $10,000
if we copy a program from one
disk to another.
It just doesn't hold up.
It's a leap of logic, a very
big leap of logic, maybe even
two leaps of logic to reach
that conclusion.
It just doesn't make sense.
People are going to be copying
all kinds of things, and
despite the reign of terror
that the SPA is interested in
imposing upon us, it's going
to continue.
People will copy programs from
their places of business and
bring them home to their
computers and use them there.
College students will copy
programs from the sync site,
wherever it is they happen to
be using computers to use on
their personal computers.
Now, instead of prosecuting
people for doing this, instead
of putting the fear of the
Lord into them and making
them feel like criminals and
hence make them start acting
like criminals, instead of
that, maybe we should be happy
that people are actually using
software, educating themselves
on computers, designing things.
You know, we think reading
books is a good thing.
We encourage people to read
books if they have no money, but
if somebody wants to use
WordPerfect, well, they've got
to cough up $300 before they
can even hit start.
It's just not right, because
the technological age will go
nowhere if we create a whole
society of haves and have-nots.
And unfortunately, I think the issue
here is really about greed.
It's the same kind of greed that
you see with record companies.
Record companies that boycott
stores that sell used CDs.
Yeah, used CDs.
They don't want people to buy CDs
again.
They've already sold them.
They've already sold them once,
and they want to make it so people
don't ever buy them again.
Only buy them new.
But you can't resell it.
Now imagine if General Motors
felt that way.
You know, they sold you a car,
and they wouldn't let you sell it
again.
They wanted to sell the person who
would buy from you a brand new car
at much more money.
You know, it wouldn't make sense,
but these record company people
think they can make a maximum
amount of money by not encouraging
people to buy used CDs.
It's the same kind of mentality,
except worse, with software companies
because they seem to think that
everybody should pay list price,
which is some outrageous number.
I mean, how many college students
do we know that can afford to pay
$300 for a word processor?
I don't think I've ever met one.
It's not something we're going to
see very soon.
So of course, college students are
going to copy programs so that
they can use them.
The alternative, and I've heard
people from the SPA say this,
the alternative is to simply
not have access.
You can't afford it?
Okay, you just don't buy it then.
You're not allowed to use it.
I mean, come on.
This is the 1990s.
Everybody's got a computer.
Everybody's playing with something.
Everybody is trying to figure
things out.
It's all a big adventure.
We're all playing.
You can't expect people to just
turn and walk away and not
participate because they can't
afford it.
And by the same token, you can't
expect people to believe that
copying a file is the same thing
as stealing a file.
Stealing means taking an object
that does not belong to you and
removing it from where it belongs
and keeping it for yourself.
That's the interpretation I've been
brought up on as far as what
stealing means.
Now, this half-cocked notion of
any time you copy a file, you're
stealing the full value of the file
and you have to believe whatever
it is they come up with.
It just doesn't wash.
Maybe if the word processing
programs and all the other
programs were available for an
affordable price, people would buy
those.
In the case of the point, game
software.
Now, games tend to be a lot
cheaper than various applications.
A lot of people wind up buying games
because it costs $20.
It costs $30.
You get the documentation.
You get the hint book.
You get whatever else you need.
It's worth it.
Just like if you read a book in a
library and you really, really like
it a lot, you'll go out and you'll
buy your own.
You'll have your own copy.
If you listen to a cassette of a
Nirvana CD because it happens to be
in the news recently and you decide,
hey, I really like that, you know, and
I want to have my own copy and I want
to have the pictures and the lyrics,
even though they never printed the
lyrics, all that kind of thing.
I want to have that all.
You'll go out and you'll buy your own.
It might be a used one, but you'll still
go out and you'll buy it and you'll be
supporting the people that either put
out the record or wrote the software
in whatever way, but when you make it
so that it's impossible for people to
buy things, when you make it so it's
so incredibly expensive and also where
you don't really get anything from
buying it that you wouldn't get from
copying it, well, you can't really be
surprised.
Now, for instance, if you want to use a
piece of software, you have to know
that it's what you want.
Now, how do you know that a particular
piece of software is what you want
unless you try it out?
If you buy software from a computer
store, many times there's a little
disclaimer on there claiming that they
are not responsible if the software
doesn't work, if it doesn't work on
your machine, if it doesn't do what you
want it to do.
They're not responsible.
You got the software.
That's it.
They wash their hands.
You spend several hundred bucks on
something and it's not what you want.
You're out of luck.
Now, with that kind of attitude, how can
anybody be surprised when people copy
software and use it for their own
testing purposes?
Well, that's my opinion on all this.
And I think it very much ties into the
LaMacchia case because that's what this
is about.
This is about software piracy, quote
unquote, and just who the pirates really
are, who it is that's really gouging the
market for all it's worth.
I think we have to rewrite some assumptions
here.
It's just, it just doesn't seem logical.
I'd like to know if there's people out
there that agree or disagree.
Our number is 279-3400, area code 212.
It just seems to me that we're criminalizing
a lot of actions that really should not be
criminalized and creating a very scary
society in the process.
Because what are people going to do when
they have to worry about the SPA or the
federal authorities kicking in their door and
demanding all kinds of paperwork, proof that
they bought all the programs that are on their
computer system?
Not a very trustworthy society, is it?
I'd also like to know how many software
houses have gone out of business because of
piracy.
I don't really know if any have.
And I think when you charge huge amounts of
money, you tend to break even, even if only a
couple of people pay full price.
All right.
Again, our phone number is 212-279-3400.
If you agree or violently disagree, please
give us a call.
Good evening.
You're on.
Hi.
I'd like to tell you my opinion on that, but
I first want to tell you one important...
But first you're going to say something that's
completely off the subject, right?
Right?
That's what you always do?
No?
Go ahead.
I just wanted to make sure.
I just wanted to...
Well, yeah, but...
Okay.
Fine.
Go right ahead.
No, I just wanted to make sure that's what
you were going to do.
I'm going to say something on the subject, but
I just want to say this one thing first.
Okay.
I've noticed that there's a company called
RCI Long Distance, which is in Rochester,
New York, RCI, which their carry access
says 10211.
I noticed that in order to place a call,
you dial that plus zero, the area code number,
and when I've noticed that they wanted to
take a survey on their operator services,
I think that that was a trap because I feel
that they were recording my voice and that
they're going to call all the numbers that I
called and play my voice to them and say,
do you recognize this person's voice?
And that's how they'll catch fraud.
Well, why would they want to be trapping you?
Because they...
Because I was going to a third number.
You're going to a third number?
Yeah.
And that's probably the way they are...
Who was paying for the calls you were making?
All right.
Now, let me just get this straight.
I was placing a third number call.
Now, they didn't call for acceptance.
Uh-huh.
I was doing this on a pay phone,
and they were not calling for acceptance.
10211, oh, the area code number.
They didn't call for acceptance,
but one day they said, we're taking a survey.
So they asked me questions like,
how fast do you think the operators go?
Well, I don't see why they'd have to do that
when you call so regularly here.
They could just listen to the radio
and record your voice that way.
In Rochester, New York?
Well, I mean, you've admitted to virtually everything
from chemical banks to destroying pay phones,
and now RCI,
so I don't think anybody has to look very far, do they?
Well, I don't know if they get the station
in Rochester, New York, but...
Well, maybe they have friends in New York
that can tape it for them and send it up to them,
but I think, basically,
you're pretty much giving them
everything they need anyway.
...my voice on that survey.
Do they do that?
Would they take a tactic like that?
Well, sure, why not?
You mean, if they called you up and said,
hey, we'd like to play you a tape of somebody's voice,
can you tell us whether you recognize this person?
If they, look, if you're,
I'm not saying you are,
but if you are doing something to hurt this company,
then more power to them
for trying to trick you into revealing who you are.
Absolutely.
But just by my voice.
Not by my name,
they don't have my name,
they don't have my number of...
Well, Sprint has a program right now
of voice-activated phone cards,
and it works pretty well
as far as differentiating one voice from another.
The technology is there.
They can do it.
Well, I...
I sense from that silence
that you're thinking of moving to another city now.
You understand what I'm trying to say.
I think I do, but I'm not sure.
Well, what I'm trying to say is that
can they take a person's voice,
tape record someone's voice,
send it to their security department, let's say,
and then if there was fraudulent calls made,
can they, let's say,
take the numbers that were called fraudulently
and call those numbers and say,
can you recognize this person's voice, that call?
They're not violating any law by doing that.
You're calling them.
They're recording your voice.
They're not doing anything sneaky.
They're calling the person, asking them a question.
Yeah, they can do all that.
Will they do all that?
I don't know,
but you're in an excellent position to find out.
And when you do, let us know.
Let's go to another call.
Good evening.
Yeah, WBII?
Yes.
You're on the air.
Okay, yeah.
I agree with your position, Emmanuel,
on software piracy and all that,
but here's the thing.
In all fairness to the software companies,
what about companies like Apogee,
who at least release a game
and say if you want to get the full version,
pay $30 or whatever like that?
Right.
That's good because then you have a way of playing it,
of seeing if it works in your system,
seeing what the colors look like
and how the controls work.
And if you really like it,
yeah, you'll pay the $30 to get the documentation
and to get a better version, sure.
Yeah, and what about the Amiga owners?
I mean, they've got to call 3,000 miles away
to get any software.
Uh-huh.
Because far be it from Commodore to support anyone.
Yeah, I've heard nasty things about Commodore support.
Amiga people are an excellent example.
They generally take care of themselves
as far as supplying software,
and they form some kind of a community
where they basically just trade all kinds of things,
but they all tweak the programs,
they improve upon them,
they release their own versions,
and that's really what computers are all about.
It's being creative as you go.
And, you know, I think the people
that put out the software are doing just fine.
I mean, maybe I'm horribly wrong on this,
but I don't think software companies
are going out of business
because of what nasty pirates and hackers are doing.
I think actually what they're doing
is being enhanced by that.
Yeah, true, especially in the Amiga community.
But one other company who had that problem, too,
was Atari.
Uh-huh.
And those Atari people are, you know,
all out of luck.
Well, I think the Atari just was a lousy machine,
wasn't it?
Not really.
I mean, it wasn't a bad machine
if you ever played with the Atari STs.
Uh-huh.
Well, I'm thinking of the Atari 2600 and all that.
I'm thinking.
Yeah.
But anyway, are you going to be at the Trenton Show?
When is that?
16th and 17th this Saturday.
Probably not.
It doesn't look good.
But why don't you tell the folks about it
so that anybody listening can go.
Yeah, this is the,
they're going to have the Trenton Computer Show
April 16th and 17th
at Mercer County College.
Right.
I mean, they just have some very good seminars
and a lot of Amiga people
under the scenes are going to be there.
A lot of good things to buy, too.
Exactly.
I wish I could go,
but this has been a crazy couple of weeks for me.
I'm going to try to make it next year, though.
Oh, definitely.
Yeah, we usually do some sort of
a hacker debate kind of a thing.
We just didn't have the time.
Oh, yeah, there is a lot of that
going around.
Computer crime and the First Amendment
at 3.30 on Saturday.
Do you know who's on that?
Unfortunately, no.
That's why I wanted to see.
Somebody said you may have been on that.
Well, no, they wanted me to,
but it's just a question of logistics.
There's just too many things going on.
Oh, okay.
Well, thanks, Emmanuel.
You keep up the good work out there, okay?
Okay, thanks for calling.
Say hello to Mark.
I will.
Bye-bye.
212-279-3400.
Good evening.
You're on.
Yes, Emmanuel.
I wanted to ask you something
a little off the topic.
I got a Western Union in the mail today
from 9X.
A telegram?
Well, it was first-class mail.
It wasn't specifically a telegram.
Okay.
I'll just read off the top to you.
Dear 9X customer,
recently we sent you a sweepstakes mailing
as a reminder of the value
of your 9X calling card.
Also included,
your personal identification number,
PIN.
Some customers, however,
have expressed concern
over the security of this mailing.
Please be assured
that the customer privacy
is a major priority to us,
and we have acted
with only the best of our intentions.
And it goes on to
an 800 number you can call
to report any problems with that
or unauthorized calls on your card.
Uh-huh.
Um.
That's great.
So they had to send a telegram
or whatever that Western Union thing was.
It's actually a telegram, per se.
Is it Western Union
or is it another kind of thing?
It says Western Union.
It didn't actually,
it came through U.S. mail, though.
Okay.
I guess it's just to get your attention
or something.
Yeah.
I don't know what the Western Union
has to do with it, but, uh.
Do they have your phone number on this?
Um, no.
Just my name and address.
And not your PIN?
Not my PIN on this one.
This is a, uh,
this is a, um, apology.
Yeah.
See, they can learn.
They can learn.
So they sent you out another mailing
that doesn't have your PIN on it.
Well, the thing is
that I never saw this first one.
Uh-oh.
I probably thought it was junk mail
and just threw it in the garbage.
Or maybe you didn't see it at all.
Maybe your mailman got it.
Well, yeah, maybe.
I don't remember getting it,
but anything like that,
sweepstakes or whatever,
I just throw in the garbage.
If we see a massive
calling card fraud scheme
hatched in the post office,
I think we're going to know
how it got there.
You know?
That's, uh, well, I,
what I would do if I were you,
since you know you were supposed
to get one of these things,
and since it got into the trash
one way or the other,
I just have it changed.
I mean, do you use
a calling card ever?
Well, the funny thing is
that, um,
I,
I don't even know
what my PIN is.
I don't use the calling card.
It's too expensive.
Yeah, it is.
You're right about that.
And, uh,
to the best of my knowledge,
I don't even think I have one.
Well, you probably do.
Or they gave you one
or something, but, uh,
if you don't use it,
you can't be held liable.
Just watch your bill
to make sure that
no calling card calls come up.
If, you know, some,
the advantage to not changing it
is you can see
just where the weak point was
and who's using it.
Um, but if you worry
about that kind of thing,
you should change it.
Great.
Uh, one quick thing.
Yeah.
I was wondering
when your, uh,
next conjugal visit
with fiber optic is?
Well, I think maybe
you've been misinformed
as to the nature
of the visits,
but, uh,
it'll be fairly soon,
I think.
Hopefully, uh,
hopefully within
the next two weeks.
Although, as I've been saying,
it's been a crazy couple of weeks.
Let's go back to the phones.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Yeah, hi.
I don't think, um,
I don't think you mentioned
that some companies
will, um,
give discounts to students,
some software companies.
And, um...
I've heard about that,
but I haven't seen specifics.
Do you know
the nature of the discount?
Well, I think Borland
will give discounts
to students who want to buy,
like, Turbo Pascal
or Turbo C.
Uh-huh.
And I haven't really
kept up with it
because I'm not a student,
but, um,
I'm sure there are plenty
of other companies,
and even if they don't
publicize it widely,
I'm sure if you call them up
and ask them and say,
I'm a student,
how can I get a discount?
Uh-huh.
They'll accommodate you.
Again, though,
the only way to know,
I mean, for a student,
20 bucks is still a lot of money.
You still have to know
it's what you want,
you know?
So there has to be
a period of testing somewhere.
Well, you know,
most students have friends
that have software already,
and, you know,
they can try it out,
and ideally,
they would then purchase it
if they used it,
but, of course,
everyone knows
that most people
won't do that,
students or not.
Right.
Well, they would obviously
copy it from their friends
and use it that way.
The incentive to
buying their own copy
would be to get something
that you really can't reproduce,
like a nice book
or something like that,
or just customer support
where you can call
any time to ask a question.
Well, exactly.
I think customer support
is what the company
ends up paying for
because there's many other,
third parties or what have you
that will write books
that are in some cases
even better than the manual,
and, you know,
why spend $300
on a piece of software
if you can pirate it for free
and get a third-party book
for $20?
Exactly.
Yeah, I think it's a flaw
in thinking
in the basic marketing of it.
Well, I also think
that you're a little bit harsh
on the software companies
because what costs them the most,
I would guess,
would be the tech support,
the toll-free tech support,
and even if it's not toll-free,
they have to have people
staffing those lines
and pay them.
And on top of that,
they've got to pay
for the printing
and distribution
of the manuals,
which I understand
is the most expensive part
of the whole operation.
More expensive
than actually putting out
the software.
Oh, yeah.
The software,
you just distribute,
you just get the disk copied,
which is like, you know,
$0.25 a shot or something,
but the manual
is actually printing them up,
and if you look
at some of the manuals,
they're, you know,
as thick as a couple
of phone books,
and that's where
the costs are,
I think it's...
Well, you see,
that's where they can
charge more money then,
because...
You have to charge more money.
I mean, they can't charge you
$30 for a piece of software
if it costs them $30
right there
just to print the manuals.
Yeah, but I'm saying,
the...
you can't charge
$30 for a piece of software
if it's just copying,
you know,
copying something
onto a disk.
But usually...
People will pay
for a big phone book
filled with documentation
that they can't get
except if they photocopy
1,000 pages themselves.
So that's obviously
where they can charge
a little more
and people will probably
pay for it.
Right.
Not for the program itself,
you see,
because people...
All right,
there'll be all these people
out there with programs
without the documentation.
Oh, there's the program itself
because there's the research
and development cost
of getting the program
to the point where it is
and the two and three years
of getting it to the point
where it's bug-free enough.
Right.
But in the end,
I mean,
you don't pay for all the cost
of recording an album
and for, you know,
paying people's yearly salaries
and sound engineers
and things like that
when you buy a record.
You pay for the CD,
you know?
Well, the CD's
a little bit different,
you know?
But look at the way it works.
You pay the same amount
virtually,
whether it's Pink Floyd
or, you know,
a band that's just
out of a garage somewhere.
You're paying for the product.
You're not paying
for all the time
they spent on it.
You see what I'm saying?
Well, yeah.
Well, I think the artist
is being subsidized
by the record companies
to some extent.
Right.
I think, you know,
a similar type of thinking
in that regard
would be helpful
where, you know,
you buy a disc
and you can expect
to pay this amount
of money for the disc.
You know,
and if the program there
is what you're looking for,
all the better.
Yeah, well,
it only works
if people don't
start copying.
Uh-huh.
Well, it works
if people get something
besides the disc
when they buy it.
You know,
something that makes
it worthwhile
to have the original
and not just a copy.
Yeah, well,
the part of the problem
is that each publisher
has to have the resources
to print the manuals
and, you know,
it's like a duplicated effort
if every company
is doing that themselves.
Uh-huh.
Well, yeah,
it's a problem,
I admit.
It's definitely something
that needs to be addressed.
I just don't think
the way they're addressing it now,
having these strong-arm tactics
with the SPA,
I don't think
that's going to get anywhere.
It's just going to hurt
a lot of people.
Yeah, I suppose.
Anything else?
Well, no,
I'm just speaking
from the side
of a programmer
who, uh-huh.
I don't really have
to make a living
by selling my programs
door-to-door,
so to speak,
but I've read a bit
about what it costs
to do this kind of stuff.
Well, you know,
you can still have things
like corporate prices,
corporate licenses,
things like that,
and a lot of companies
out there
will just pay it
without any second thought
because they can afford to.
Yeah.
So I don't think
programmers
or software companies
are really going
to be in danger
because of this kind
of activity.
Oh, I'll tell you right now,
if I were to want
to write a program
and sell it to the masses,
there's no way I could,
even if it was
a great program
because I'd have to
be a marketer
first and foremost.
Right, yeah,
as an individual
it would be very difficult
to do that,
but once you have
the support of a company
and they're doing
the marketing for you,
I don't think
you'd be in danger yourself.
No, but then I have
the cost of the entire company
and that's why
I have to start charging
a hundred bucks
for my software.
Uh-huh.
Well, you think
you'd be able to charge less
if you went through a company?
Um, no.
I mean, I don't know.
To make a living,
I might have to.
I really have to.
Well, it's like
writing a book or something.
You know, you get somebody
to distribute it for you.
You don't do all
that work yourself.
You're the programmer.
You're somebody
who just should be programming.
Right.
Not worrying about
the business aspects of it.
You hire somebody else
to do that.
Yeah, ideally.
Yeah.
Yeah, well, that's it.
Okay, thanks for your call.
Sure.
Good evening, you're on.
Hello, I got one of those
letters that look
more or less
like a telegram also.
Really?
A lot of them going around.
Yeah, and the carrier route
pre-sort,
so obviously
they've mailed out
quite a few.
I called up,
well, I called up
the operator
to find out
what the surcharge
would be in a calling card.
The operator told me
50 cents,
and I said,
this advertisement says
local.
How local is local?
She said, no,
so I called up
the business office,
and they told me
the surcharge
was 40 cents.
I said, wait a minute,
the operator told me
it was 50.
I said, well,
I'll have to check
into that.
I said, oh,
and how local
is local?
He said, just area code
212 and 718.
He said, yeah,
I think it is.
I said, how about 917?
The guy says,
well, I don't think so.
I said, well,
917 is local,
isn't it?
Well, first of all,
when I called up
the business office,
I said, I'm calling
about that calling card
of which I'm sure
you've heard so much about.
He said, oh, no problem,
just give me your number,
we'll take care of that.
I said, I don't have
any complaints,
except for the fact
that the promotion
didn't give enough
information regarding
the charges.
Anyhow, they kept me
on hold so long
to try and find out
917 is a local number
or not.
I just finally hung up.
Wow.
It's amazing that they
do a mailing like this
and they don't put down
what the costs are
to use the card
and when you call up
the operator,
you get one rate,
you call up the business
office, you get another rate
and the business office
doesn't even know
if 917 is one of the
local numbers
that you can dial
with that card.
Well, you see,
when they send out
those advertisements,
they're not sending them
out with people
like you and mine,
they're sending them
out with people
like, they'll see
the sweepstakes,
they'll see a trip
to the Caribbean
or wherever the prize was.
It's for imbeciles.
Right, and their eyes
will light up with
dollar bills
and they'll just
start making calls
thinking that they're
going to win something
by making calls.
They don't want people
to ask questions
like what you're asking
because that just
sort of makes it
difficult for them
to explain their
way out of it.
It's like a New York
State lottery.
It's a tax.
It's a tax on stupidity.
Absolutely.
But in this particular case,
you're spending, what,
40, 50 cents more
per call for the right
to use this thing?
It's absurd.
If it's a local call,
just put a quarter
in a pay phone.
If that much.
If you make it
from your house,
it's less than that.
And, you know,
that might even be
too much.
But if I could call
914, for example,
or if I am in
191...
They can tell me
whether or not
it's a local call
and how much it costs.
But they don't know.
Yeah, they don't.
And they're not
lying about that.
They really don't know.
They don't take the time
to learn about
this kind of thing.
They're not encouraged to.
You know,
the company's there
to make money.
The company's there
to just bring in
endless revenue
by tricking people
into dialing
star 6-9
and 900 numbers
and what have you.
They don't want people
asking too many questions.
When I would use
a star 6-9,
I found out
that in most cases
they were legitimate
wrong numbers.
That people had dialed
and hung up
at the last moment.
Hung up after it rang
a couple of times.
Yeah, it really creates
kind of a hostile environment
when you call somebody up
and demand to know
why they just called you.
Well, it certainly
is a way of generating
extra revenue.
Yeah, 75 cents
even if it doesn't work.
That's that software
publishing house
mentality there.
All right,
thanks for your call.
Good luck.
So we need people out there
asking lots of questions,
being persistent.
I mean,
they hate it
when you do that,
but that's why
it's so effective.
Good evening.
You're on.
Manuel, good evening.
How are you?
Good.
I hate to almost,
actually the previous
callers kind of
stole my thunder,
but if you're being
a bit hard on
at least WordPerfect,
you can get as a student
a copy of the
newest version of it
for under $100,
which I think
is pretty fair market value.
Well,
I've used WordPerfect
quite a bit
and I don't know.
I wouldn't give you
20 bucks for it
to be honest,
but that's my opinion.
I mean,
if there are people out there
that can afford it,
fine,
but you have to understand
that a lot of people,
$100 is still
a lot of money
to buy a program
even if you don't know
what it does
or if it works,
so people are going
to copy it
to evaluate it.
Yeah,
but I mean,
how do you propose,
I mean,
it's true there are
some companies
that offer the ability
to try a program out
for, I don't know,
10 days or something,
but I mean,
what are you proposing?
You're proposing
this kind of utopian world
where profit isn't important
and it's just
not very realistic.
Well,
it's also not realistic
to think that people
aren't going to
simply do something
that's so easy to do.
If we really want
to keep people
from copying things
then maybe we should
have a CD-ROM
that has to be present
in the machine
so that people
can't run the program
unless they have it.
I mean,
that will stop people
from copying it,
but right now
you have a system
where the program
is there,
it's able to be copied,
and we can't prosecute people
because they type
a few commands
on their computer,
on their own computer,
and copy a program
that's meant to be copied,
and it is meant
to be copied,
that's why it's done
that way.
It's true,
but I think the point
of the lawsuit
in practicality
is that the guy
was basically announcing it.
I mean,
I've made dozens
of copies of other software
and I'm sure
a huge percentage
of the population
does that as well,
but when you start
advertising it,
when you start
institutionalizing it,
I mean,
someone has to
start doing something
about it.
It just,
I mean...
They're alleging
that he was part
of a conspiracy
of some sort
to distribute
this kind of thing.
I disagree with you
that you consider
this just software piracy.
I think that
if you keep it
as the analogy
with the librarian
or someone else
who makes accessible
the possibility
of copying
and leave it at that,
then I think
he should not
be prosecuted.
On a lighter note,
I think,
with this 9X
pin number thing,
I think it would be
pretty funny
and kind of
an updated version
of that scene
in Woody Allen's
radio days
if people start
winning prizes
based on fraudulent
calls.
In other words,
supposedly,
according to this
contest,
the more calls
you make,
the more you
have the possibility
of winning.
What I would do
is advise people
not to change
their pin number
until the contest
is over
and then claim
your prize.
That's interesting.
Yeah.
Great show.
Keep up the
interesting work.
Okay, thanks for
taking a call.
Sure.
That's an interesting
idea.
I wonder if 9X
executives will
decide to use
a sense of humor
on this.
Good evening.
You're on the air.
Hey, Manuel.
How are you doing?
Okay, how are you?
Good.
I just have one
comment and just
two questions.
Can you just
speak up a little bit?
I'm just going
to ask my questions
and then I'll hang
up and let you
answer it off the
end.
Okay, go ahead.
Okay, first of all,
just a quick comment.
For some reason,
there are three
numbers.
There's like
1-800-MESSAGE,
1-800-NY-CALL-ID,
and then 1-800-THE-TONE
and they all seem
to have the same
ending number.
In other words,
you call them all
and you get
the same office.
The weird thing is
when I called
the caller
at the NY-CALL-ID
office,
I got a recording
7 o'clock
saying it was closed
and it was open
until 8 o'clock.
Uh-huh.
Then I called
1-800-THE-TONE
which is the exact
same office
and I got through.
How do you know
it's the exact
same office?
Because I got
the exact same
operator with two
different numbers.
Okay.
That's, uh,
those 800 numbers
are kind of weird
because they ask you
to ask for a
particular operator.
If you want
touch-tone service,
yeah, ask for
operator 366
or something.
Yeah, they asked
for my operator
code and I wasn't
exactly sure.
Yeah, it sounds
so official.
Yeah.
But they don't,
sometimes they don't
even transfer you.
They just answer
the question there.
It's basically
just like a way
of saying what
it is you want
quickly.
And the next
thing is, um,
just questions.
Um, first of all,
do disclaimers
work?
There are a bunch
of disclaimers
floating around
out there which,
you know, are used
on bulletin boards
and they say
stuff like, um,
first, like, like,
uh, I don't know,
they say if you're
a law enforcement
agent, agent, work
for a software
company, you must
leave.
No, they don't
work at all.
I've seen, I've
seen court documents
where, uh, they've
been introduced
into evidence,
bulletin board
printouts have been
introduced into
evidence, and the
person, the arresting
officer has always
answered no to that
question and the
judge does not
even blink.
It's, uh, it's
admitted.
The disclaimers
does absolutely no
good whatsoever.
Why is that?
I mean, why,
they, they don't
have to go by it?
Well, if they
believe that you're
breaking the law,
uh, they're, they're
not going to turn
around and walk away
because you say, if
you, if you're going
to prosecute me for
breaking the law, you
have to leave now
because basically in
their eyes, you have
absolutely no right to
tell them what to do.
That's really what it
boils down to.
And the second
question I forgot, so
I'll talk to you
later.
Okay.
Thanks for calling.
212-279-3400 off
the hook.
We're here for about
another 12 minutes or so.
Good evening.
You're on.
Oh, hi.
How are you?
Um, Emmanuel.
Yes.
Um, I'm kind of upset
with, um, the way
you're going on tonight
with the piracy
business.
Okay.
Um, to begin with,
uh, the first call
talked about the
Amiga and the
Atari.
The Atari, uh,
world died primarily
because of piracy.
In the Amiga world,
uh, forgetting
Commodore, screwing
everything up, is
also killing the
Amiga world because
small base and
developers such as
myself don't want to
write code for it
when as soon as you
write something, it
goes out on the
boards.
Okay?
Mm-hmm.
And, um, a lot of
companies, and when I
wrote code, we would
have demos, you know,
with, um, the save or
whatnot, the save, well,
so you could have a
demo copy and try it
out.
All right?
Right.
And when I invest, um,
hundreds and hundreds
of hours writing code,
it, it, it, it hurts
me to see my work come
on a board afterwards.
Okay?
Because I'm doing this
for a living.
I mean, I'm not
philanthropic, you know?
Uh-huh.
So, you seem to see
this is okay.
Well, I'm not saying
this is okay per se,
especially with regards
to, to your point of
view here, but we have
to understand that there's
literally no way to stop
it in the way it is
presently, and to expect
people to simply live
by these, by these rules
that are, that are set
down by SPA people, I
don't think it's realistic.
I don't think you can
tell people this is worth
a thousand dollars if you
copy this, you're stealing
a thousand dollars.
I think that's crazy.
Well, it's worth
whatever it would cost
you to buy it, you know,
across the open market.
Now, if I, if I put a
list price of a thousand
dollars and the retailer
sells it for two hundred,
you know, I mean, then
that is what the value is.
Okay?
If you were to turn
around and copy it,
and say, well, I'm
doing this because, as
you said, companies
gouge the people, you
know, I mean, this is
not a music CD where you
may, you may sell a
million copies or two
million copies where
they have a gold record
and platinum and
whatnot.
You're talking about a
limited base of users.
Not everyone is going
to need Quark Express.
Okay?
Yeah, but there's all
kinds of...
You see, that's what
also determines price
is volume.
You know, if I sold a
million copies of the
program, then the price
comes down.
Okay?
But if you sell three or
four or a thousand, then
the price is going to
remain high.
But even so, for example,
WordPerfect, like one guy
brought up that you can
get a hundred dollar
version of it, you know,
for students, if you buy
the original package and
then keep up with the
upgrades, the upgrades
are $50, $25, which is
affordable.
Okay?
I mean, so for you to
say, well, this software
is made to be copied, it's
not.
We have to put in keyword
encryption.
We have to put in, like
on the old Commodore days,
copy protection schemes that
would bang the hell out of
drive, and people were
pissed, and rightly so.
But we're trying to
protect our product.
I mean, there are
copyright laws which
guarantee my intellectual
property.
Yeah, but what I'm trying
to point out is that those
laws are completely, they
have no effect because how
are you going to enforce
something like that?
To bring back the analogy
of music, though, let's look
at a very small band that's
just putting out their
first record or even a
cassette.
And I know people that are
in this situation.
people copy it, people
pass it around.
It, you know, it doesn't
result in more sales for
the band, but at least
their music is getting
out, at least it will lead
to something bigger for
them at some point, maybe.
But it's also people, if
they want to support the
band, they will buy the
original record so that the
band actually gets money.
And I think we need the
same kind of mentality in
the software world where if
you believe in something,
you want to support it so
you buy the original and
you get the support and
you get upgrades at an
affordable price.
You turn around and have
the attitude of, well,
software companies are
gouging, which is a very
common theme.
Well, many times they are.
Well, but again, how do you
define gouging?
I mean, you know, when you
spend thousands of man
hours, you know, writing
code, debugging code, I
mean, this is an investment.
You know, I mean, you can't
turn around and say, well,
gee, I've spent, you know,
3,000 hours writing code and
you can have it for 50
bucks.
You know, it just does.
Yeah, but you see, if you
sell your program to a number
of people, I think that's a
very fair price because you're
certainly getting compensated
by the number of people that
buy the program.
Yeah, but when you have the
attitude it's okay to copy it,
then, you know, it's that
extra step is like, well, I'll
copy it and I'll try it out
now and then I'll buy the
copy down the road, okay,
legitimate copy.
It never happens.
Well, how would you expect
people to know that your
program is what they want?
Well, we, first off, we give
demo copies.
Uh-huh.
Have certain key functions
disabled.
For example, I'm working on a
utility right now where you
can do everything but save it.
Okay.
You know, it's just, it's not
there.
So, for the cost of a disk,
which is like $3, you can try
the program out.
You'll like it.
Fine.
Send in, you know, send in the
order form, we'll send you a
fully enabled copy.
You don't like it, format the
disk.
Uh-huh.
You know, give it to your
friend, fling it out the
window.
Uh-huh.
I mean, that's it.
Or else we go into a keyword
encryption, which nobody likes.
You know.
But I'm trying to protect my
property.
Right.
The thing is, though, I mean,
if your property is priced
fairly, you're not going to have
a problem.
But if it's priced beyond the
reach of people that want to
use it.
You do for a living.
I mean, do you write code?
Do you design?
Okay.
Good example.
Good example.
I'm a publisher.
I publish a magazine.
Right.
People copy our magazine all
the time.
I mean, it gets Xeroxed and
passed around.
It's not that big a deal because
we're still selling the magazine.
We're still able to support
the magazine.
If it became a big deal where
more copies were out there than
originals, then it would be a
problem.
But I don't see that in the
software world.
I don't see that in the
publishing world.
But it is a problem.
It can be a problem.
If it becomes out of control, it
can be a problem.
But you have to ask yourself,
why would somebody prefer a copy
over the original?
You know, surely there must be
more to the original than just
the program itself.
And if not, then there should be
because that's what people will
buy it for.
Tech support.
If you don't understand the
program, there's a number that
you can call.
Right.
Okay.
That price gives you the right
to pick my brains.
Okay.
That's for my help.
Well, that's something then.
Okay.
In addition to once you become a
registered user, well then, when I
do find bugs or else there is an
upgrade, I'm going to be notified of
it.
Okay.
Right.
There are advantages.
And I mean, you also will keep me,
you know, you'll give me the impetus
to keep developing the programs.
Okay.
Okay.
So you've named three things and I
think those are three very important
things.
They have to mean enough to the end
user for them to want to invest the
money into it.
And what I'm saying is right now with
commercial software, with a lot of
commercial software, it doesn't mean
that much to them.
So they don't want to invest that.
We need to change that aspect of it
and not simply charge people with
stealing huge amounts of money if
they copy a program.
You see, you're putting the software
publishers, it's like these big
mega corporations where we can
absorb these losses.
And I tell you the truth, a lot of
software publishers are small houses.
You would be shocked at how few
people there are that make up a
quote-unquote publishing house.
Well, when you're represented by
companies like SPA, you tend to get a
negative image.
Well, again, where is my recourse?
Okay?
Well, I think the recourse here, as I've
said, is to look at the situation in a
realistic way and to realize that there's
something fundamentally wrong with
simply expecting people to pay full
price because that's what you want them
to do and ignore the fact that they can
get it for free and virtually untraceable.
I think there's something fundamentally
wrong with that logic.
Well, there are one or two valid points
which a lot of users do bring up, is
that sometimes what is basically a beta
version of a program will go out.
And I've seen that.
And there you've got a valid argument.
But the bulk of the publishing houses
work on a very slim margin.
Okay?
I mean, I'm not Microsoft.
I know why I'm stretching that.
So I don't have that type of funding.
I don't have the material.
I don't have the manpower.
So for every copy that gets put onto a
bulletin board, you're hurting me.
And that means that I'm going to be less
inclined to support what I've already
done, which hurts the users who have
bought.
Okay?
So, I mean, that's basically the bottom.
I mean, I'm trying to...
Well, the thing is, you have to make that
clear to the degree where people won't do
that because it hurts you.
They have to see the connection.
I'm not the only one that's saying this.
Okay?
Right.
There are other software houses that say
the same thing.
Piracy hurts the end user.
It's the guy who's willing to play by the
rules, quote-unquote, and put down his
money, all right?
Anybody who puts down his money and buys
the product deserves all the help that
they need to get the program working.
Right.
Well, now, you're speaking on behalf of
small software publishers.
What about the larger ones?
Well, what about them?
I mean...
Do you think they're completely innocent
in this?
Yes and no.
I mean, they work on...
They're another...
They're a different end of the business.
Okay?
Mm-hmm.
But again, they also work on small profit
margins.
And, you know, they have greater costs than
I have.
And they, you know...
I don't know.
It's hard for me to, like, bend Microsoft.
I mean, you know...
I don't want to be in that position,
but I can understand that they also have
salaries to pay and development time to
fund, you know, beta to...
I mean, printing.
It...
Somebody has to pay for it.
Mm-hmm.
You know, or else...
Well, it's just there...
I see a collision between two worlds here.
I see the corporate world, and I see
individuals, and they just...
They can't be expected to pay in the
same way.
That's what I'm trying to tell you.
Corporate world.
I mean, corporate world is made of
individuals.
Right, but...
Boring salaries who are raising
families, you know.
I mean, it's not that cold-blooded
which you seem to make it out.
Yeah, but a corporation can pay $1,000
for a piece of software, whereas very
few individuals will ever be able to
do that.
Well...
See, you can't really expect the same
rules to apply to both.
There should be some sort of a medium.
Maybe you should charge different
prices for companies that use your
products, and certainly more people
will have access to it then.
And lower prices for individuals
so that more of them will have
access and be less inclined to go
out to a bulletin board to get it.
Well, I think people who are
inclined to go out to a bulletin
board will go regardless of what the
price is.
I was...
Because I used to be an Amiga user
and a developer, and I still get
one of the English magazines, and I
was reading that...
Well, the thing is, not to cut you
off on anything, but we already have
time.
But let me make one point.
Yeah.
They reissue games.
Like, they'll start at, like, $40, and
then they'll reissue them down to, like,
$10.
And they're finding that even the games
that are issued out at $10 are still
being pirated.
Mm-hmm.
So I think there's this class of people
who will pirate...
Yeah, there probably is, but they're
also the serious users that will want
the original, and I don't think you're
going to lose them because lots of
other people are doing it a particular
way.
I don't think you're ever going to lose
them completely.
Thanks for the call, though.
Okay.
All right.
Good luck.
And that's just about all the time we
have tonight.
This has been Off the Hook.
It's been an interesting show, and we're
going to be talking about this for quite
some time to come.
This is something that I think has been
brewing on a lot of people's minds for
many a year now, and maybe this
LaMacchia case will make it finally
come to the forefront.
Even though it's not really a case
about software piracy, it's more about
conspiracy, but these issues are going
to come up.
Something that we need to address,
something we need to solve if we want
this whole computer thing to work out.
This is Emmanuel Goldstein.
I'll be back again next week with
another exciting edition of Off the
Hook.
Stay tuned for the evening news.
WBAI, New York.
Good night.
Good evening.
In the news tonight, more violence in the
Middle East as an alleged suicide bomber
blows himself up in northern Israel.
Congress begins working on the updated
version of the crime bill.
And in New York, more protests over the
mayor's budget cuts, and David Sears looks
at the international implications of a
major environmental court action against
Texaco.
With these and other stories, I'm Jose
Santiago in New York with Verna Avery
Brown in Washington, and this is the news
for Wednesday, April 13, 1994.
First to Washington for the Pacifica National
News, six Israelis were killed and about 30
injured as a bomb exploded on an Israeli
bus in the town of Hedera.
Daoud Kutab reports from East Jerusalem.
The explosion took place on the eve of the
four to six independence day of Israel.
A spokesman for the Islamic Hamas movement in
Jordan said that this is the second in five
attacks that will take place against Israelis
in revenge for the Hebron massacre.
Palestinian leaders, including PLO chairman
Yasser Arafat, quickly rejected and condemned
this attack against civilians and called for
the need to speed up the peace process as the
best way to end the cycle of violence.
Tuesday, a pregnant Palestinian woman was killed
by a Jewish settler, and the home of a prominent
physician was blown up.
Israeli politicians opposed to the peace process
called for a suspension to this process.
Opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud
said that the attacks against Israeli civilians
showed that there is a terror process, not a peace
process.
Israeli government, which had carried out extreme
precautionary security steps, felt embarrassed by
the attack, but insisted that the peace process will
continue nevertheless.
For Pacifica Network News, this is Daoud Kutab
reporting from East Jerusalem.
In Western Germany, four right-wing youths accused
of the arson murders of five Turkish women and girls
last year went on trial.
Two of the defendants maintained they had no role in the
fire.
Alexa DeVorsen reports from Cologne.
It's been nearly a year since the arson attack in the
Dusseldorf suburb of Zollingen hurled Germany's plague
of neo-Nazi violence to a horrifying dimension.
The four youths, aged 16 to 24, stand accused of the worst
racial attack since German unification in 1990.
Prosecutor Dirk Farnholz told the Pact court that the
defendants saw themselves as rightists, identified with
slogans like Germany for the Germans, and killed the five
Turks and threatened the lives of 14 others out of hatred for
foreigners, particularly Turks.
The prosecutor said the youths were drunk when they set fire to a
house owned by a Turkish family who had lived in Zollingen for
twenty years. Twenty-four-year-old defendant Marcus Gardman, who has
confessed to the arson attack, faces life imprisonment if convicted.
Two other youths, and possibly a third, are charged as juveniles and face a
maximum of ten years in prison if convicted.
The trial is expected to last until October.
For Pacifica Radio News, this is Alexa DeVorsen in Cologne.
Another legal challenge this week against a state for refusing to follow the
federal Medicaid law, Jack Campbell has details from Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Twenty-year-old Celia Courage of Tulsa filed a federal lawsuit to get
Oklahoma to conform to Congress' Hyde Amendment and allow Medicaid-eligible
abortions for rape and incest.
Sherry Finnick of Tulsa's Reproductive Services says the state presently allows
Medicaid abortions only when the woman's life is in danger.
It's just very difficult from a personal and a professional standpoint to have to
explain to them that the state of Oklahoma is so callous and cruel that it will
turn its back on these women and not allow them to receive the medical care that
they need and help them with that financial responsibility.
The lawsuit is being handled through the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy.
Courage's pregnancy is the result of incest.
For Pacifica Network News, this is Jack Campbell in Tulsa.
U.S. tobacco companies have revealed the 599 chemicals they add to cigarettes.
The list had been on file with the federal government but had been kept under wraps
because the tobacco companies said they were trade secrets.
Now tobacco companies say they are making public the list because critics, in the words of one
company, have attempted to discredit the industry by using false information.
This comes just one day before U.S. tobacco company executives are to testify on Capitol Hill
about the safety of cigarettes.
And those are the stories topping the news.
The scientific community came under fire on Capitol Hill today over 13 years of fraudulent data produced for a major breast cancer study.
The government says despite the fraud, the results of the study are still valid.
But a House Congressional Subcommittee made it clear today that the credibility of the scientific community was at stake.
Pacifica's Don Rush was there and files this report.
The story began back in the 1970s when the most often used technique for breast cancer was a mastectomy.
A push was underway to find a less radical procedure and produced a technique known as a lumpectomy.
In 1977, Dr. Roger Poussin began funneling patients into a study that combined a lumpectomy with a follow-up procedure of radiation and chemotherapy.
It was not until 1990 that a researcher accidentally discovered that Poussin had actually falsified documents to get some of his patients into the program.
A series of government agencies were brought in to investigate the situation over the next four years,
including the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute.
They concluded that despite the falsified documents, the lumpectomy procedure was still a valid treatment.
32-year-old Jill Siegel underwent the procedure six months ago, and she told the subcommittee this was still not very reassuring.
If my cancer returns, it is likely to come back in my liver, my lungs, or my bones.
My doctors tell me that if this happens, my cancer cannot be cured and I will die.
If this happens, my family and friends will never know if my cancer had spread prior to my operation
and there really wasn't much that anybody could do,
or whether the reoccurrence was due to the fact that I had a lumpectomy instead of a mastectomy.
And she told the subcommittee, knowing what she knows now, she would have opted for a mastectomy.
This is not the only recent incident of its kind.
There is a new treatment for women who are at a high risk for breast cancer.
The drug is called tamoxifen and has been used to treat women who have undergone procedures for breast cancer.
Specifically, it is designed to prevent cancer from developing in the second breast.
But over the last few years, it has been found to raise the risk of cancer of the uterus.
National Cancer Institute officials admit scientists were aware of the problem two years ago,
and they are only now notifying women involved in the tests.
The message from health officials was, these things can be corrected.
But advocacy groups say, that's not enough.
They want more input from women into the research process.
Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition.
I've been told not to overreact.
Not to question too much.
You know, we didn't perform fraud.
We didn't neglect to uncover fraud for 13 years.
We didn't delay reanalysis of data.
We didn't keep information from the public.
The scientific community did that.
And we have every right, and indeed a responsibility, to call them to task for this.
So how did these scandals come about?
The problems, say officials, lay with the prestige of the physicians involved.
Dr. Bernard Fisher, who oversaw the lumpectomy study at the University of Pittsburgh,
was a preeminent figure in his field.
Government officials just recently ordered his dismissal as head of the center doing such studies.
NCI Chief Samuel Broder.
We clearly understand the principle that we cannot allow a grantee's formidable reputation,
history of prior accomplishments, or service in science to stand in the way of prompt,
corrective action at oversight.
Prior achievements do not render individuals immune to what we must get from them.
We cannot and will not ever defer or appear to defer to the timetable of a grantee of whatever preeminence
in reporting fraud and fabrication to the public.
But Broder told the subcommittee that women should not be alarmed about the lumpectomy scandal.
He said there were other studies that supported its continued use.
But Colorado Representative Patricia Schroeder told her colleagues it was incidents like these
that left women wondering about the scientific community.
Somebody felt, eh, it wasn't that important.
They could sit on this falsified data, not do anything with it,
and by the way, it didn't matter anyway because they had some other data.
And is it any wonder sometimes we women think that we're not getting a decent, decent deal
and that our health is not being treated with the same respect that other people are?
Don Rush, Pacific Network News, Washington.
Members of the United Farm Workers Union retracing the steps of the late Cesar Chavez
and across California pilgrimage have reached the halfway mark.
The president of the group says the spirit of Cesar is with them and grows stronger every day.
Hundreds of farm workers have joined the 350-mile trek from Delano to Sacramento
in an attempt to recruit new members for the oldest farm workers union in the country.
UFW co-founder Dolores Werter participated in the original march with Chavez
and is making the pilgrimage again.
So at this point we've traveled over about 180 miles,
so we're like over the halfway point on the way to Sacramento.
And it's been a very, very exciting time.
Every evening we have these rallies where we have had up to almost 1,000 people every single night,
and in some places 2,000 people.
And we have had to date over 11,000 people who have joined the march as we've gone along.
And, you know, we've had a lot of people signing the authorization cards.
We now have close to 6,000 authorization cards that people have signed for the union to represent them.
So it's been very, very exciting.
So at least 6,000 new members at this point.
Yes, uh-huh.
Now, you bring a special perspective to this march in that you participated in the original march with Cesar Chavez.
Any moments of deja vu for you?
Well, yes, in some ways it's good to see some of the, you know, people who were there at the very beginning
and many of them who became active in the union after that first pilgrimage that was done back in 1966.
And, of course, then going through some of the same fields that we went to before.
And then, of course, seeing that some of the conditions of the workers have deteriorated
so that they're almost back to the place that they were back then in 1966.
And, of course, that's very sad, and it makes us feel kind of bad
to know that there are workers that are now suffering some of those same conditions,
even though there have been a lot of improvements made over the years.
The basic fact that they are still earning very low wages, of course, makes us feel...