Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.5 $; site uiucdcsb
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsb!seefromline
From: jabusch@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.micro.pc
Subject: Re: software protection - dongles
Message-ID: <5100078@uiucdcsb>
Date: Sat, 6-Jul-85 12:39:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.5100078
Posted: Sat Jul  6 12:39:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 8-Jul-85 00:44:39 EDT
References: <566@alberta.UUCP>
Lines: 122
Nf-ID: #R:alberta.UUCP:-56600:uiucdcsb:5100078:000:7713
Nf-From: uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA!jabusch    Jul  6 11:39:00 1985



	I agree that software protection is probably not the major cost in
development, but look at recent developments like "ADAPSO", which is a new
organization designed to combat piracy.  I can understand their concern, in
that they might not be making as much money as they could if no piracy exis-
ted.  However, there was a recent survey done (I think by Lotus Development,
but I'm not positive), aimed at determining the amount of piracy going on
out there.  Their claim was that more than 50% of software out there is
pirated!  I seriously doubt that they took into account all of the public
domain software, or else their sample questionaire probably had something
like:    How many software packages do you own/use?
	 How many of the above did you pay for?
	 How many of the above did you copy from someone else?

	I find it very hard to believe that it might have gone deeper than
this, because the purpose of the survey was to support the need for legal
recourse for piracy, else it never would have been funded by those who did
it.
	Look more closely at "ADAPSO".  I am looking at an ad from a new
"Lotus" Magazine, Vol. 1 number 3, which has been in our office for a couple
of days.  There is a full-page spread describing the illegalities behind
software piracy.  They are offering free pamphlets if you call or write.
Where is all this money coming from?  I seem to recall that this organi-
zation was put together by Ashton-Tate (dBASE II/III) and Lotus and a few
other major software vendors, although I might have mixed these up.
	Nonetheless, it takes capital to start this, and where could it 
have come from but from the profits of some software vendors and other
interested parties.  One of the earlier articles I read on ADAPSO stated
that ADAPSO would be combating piracy and researching new copy protection
methods.  This falls into the same category as spending a lot of money
on protection and increasing the overall price of the package, even if
the research and design that went into the package was only slightly 
effected by the protection scheme.
	ADAPSO also claims "There are legal, moral and economic impera-
tives forbidding theft of copyrighted software."  I agree with this, of
course.  I too would like to make a profit on software that I develop.
I tend to think that Borland has the right approach, though.  A short
article in a recent PC magazine claims that before Borland came along
ith Turbo Pascal, there were market surveys that indicated a total
market potential for 30,000 pascal compilers.  That was based on the
available compilers and development systems then available, which ranged
from $300 to $700.  Then along comes Borland, and sells over 300,000
copies!  Doubtlessly there are pirated copies of Turbo floating around
out there, but how many people would bother to steal a copy when they
can have a legitimate copy plus a real manual, etc. for around $50?
	I know there are the die-hard pirates, but it doesn't matter 
what anyone attempts to do, they'll find a way to undo it.  Corporate
pirating is a more serious matter, as it is done by a company simply
because the software can cost easily twice the price of the machine.
How many software vendors out there that carry very popular packages
support site-licensing?  I can tell you the answer from my own research:
very, very few!  I have put together a quantity of business systems
recently, and the average cost of the hardware for IBM-type machines
has been around $5000 to $6000.  Notice that I said "average".  The
software prices have ranged from $1500 to $8000.  Software developers
have an even higher cost, as they need to either purchase a good set
of development tools or write their own.
	If a company could get a site license, such as is available with
the Unix license, then they could add more machines to increase their
level of automation and still pay the same price.  Usually the concern is
to provide enough machinery for the level of automation desired, and 
then very little is left over for software, respectively.  This happens
all to frequently when a company with no experience in automation tries
to make these types of decisions without qualified help.
	I could see providing software on a site license and then selling
manuals and other niceties like keyboard overlays at quantity discounts.
This is a great way to prevent piracy.  If a company has a site license,
then it is indeed hard to make extra copies of the software to use at
that site and call that piracy.  The vendor gets the desired money, and
can sell manuals at decent prices for those who need them.  Even the most
expensive manual around would probably cost less than $75 if it fits into
a single 6"x9" binder.  
	How about moral issues?  I have seen some of the most immoral
things going on recently in software sales.  Look at IBM's shrink-wrap
agreement, or Lotus', or MicroCad's, or ...,  etc.   Most of them have
the same thing in common:  *no* guarantee that there is software on the
diskette!  Legally, if the shrink-wrap issue becomes law, then any of 
these that are left this way cannot be pursued by the legal system, in
case of actual problems, depending of course, on regional laws governing
consumer protection.  You can claim all you like that no company would
refuse you a second copy of the product if the disk is blank, but think
about that.  What if they did?  What is your recourse?  What if you get
a buggy version that trashes your hard disk?  Again, recourse?
	Myself, I resent paying upwards of $300 for a diskette that is
guaranteed against physical failure and a manual!  I want the software
and some sort of update policy for fixes!  I don't want to have to argue
with a vendor that their software has a bug and is unacceptable, I want
to be able to discuss the fixes in a reasonable manner and be sent a low-
cost replacement.  If you bought a book and it had a page missing, the 
bookstore would replace it.  If you bought a stereo and the tuner died
in a two days, then you would take it back and have it fixed under war-
ranty.  The warrantees for items like this are printed right in the
owner's manual, while the warranty for software that comes with the 
packages mentioned is really a disclaimer for liability of any kind.
	It's easy to give warranties for physical properties of diskettes
when that is supported by the disk's original manufacturer!  How about
guarantees of your own product?  If I made something for someone and
sold it to them, and it failed in a very unreasonably short time, then
I would feel obliged to fix it!  If I made a large quantity, I would
then be selling them with a written warranty, with a reasonable time
limit for expiration.  A lot of these vendors are doing just the
opposite.  There is no implied or expressed guarantee that their soft-
ware owrks or is accurate or will do the job they claim or is even on
the disk.  That is *the most immoral thing* I can see in the industry.
It extends beyond the immorality of piracy, if you can argue by degree.
And yet the vendors claim that they are being hurt!  Who's offering any
protection or care for, or professional pride in their dealings with the
consumer?
	In my opinion there is far more at stake here than piracy, even
though it is indeed a major concern.  Copy- and consumer- protection
are being placed on opposing sides, with the innocent user bearing the
brunt of the punishment.
	These are my opinions, and others have the right to agree or 
disagree, etc.  (all of the usual disclaimers)


John W. Jabusch
        CSNET:	jabusch%uiuc@csnet-relay.ARPA
	UUCP:	{ihnp4,convex,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!jabusch
        USENET:	...!{pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!jabusch
        ARPA:	jabusch@uiuc.arpa