Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.5 $; site uiucdcsb Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsb!seefromline From: jabusch@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA Newsgroups: net.micro.pc Subject: Re: software protection - dongles Message-ID: <5100083@uiucdcsb> Date: Sat, 13-Jul-85 11:44:00 EDT Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.5100083 Posted: Sat Jul 13 11:44:00 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 15-Jul-85 01:32:21 EDT References: <566@alberta.UUCP> Lines: 81 Nf-ID: #R:alberta.UUCP:-56600:uiucdcsb:5100083:000:5045 Nf-From: uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA!jabusch Jul 13 10:44:00 1985 I agree with Lester Waters. The age-old economic laws also state that greater demand for a given product causes competition for that product, yielding higher prices until the supply of that product is raised sufficiently to reduce competition or until demand decreases. When com- petition between consumers for a product or service is low, then consump- ion of the product or service decreases and prices decrease in an attempt to increase sales. Consumers do indeed see the results of copy protection costs to the vendor. Who else is going to pay the price? Vendors don't get their money from trees. The money always comes from the consumer, whether it is easily seen or not. It works like this: Vendor invents software... large design and development costs. Then vendor tests software. Then vendor invents copy protection scheme or uses licensed version from some- one else. This costs the vendor, no matter how it is done. Now vendor has a product to market, but needs to decide on cost for consumer. First, vendor estimates what the software cost to develop, package and market. Next, the vendor estimates total market for the product. (how many might be sold) Third, the total costs for the product, plus advertising is spread out over all estimated copies sold. This might work out to be a high or low number, depending on how specialized the product is or how high the development costs were, etc. This value is used as a low-end price estimate, since it is necessary to make at least this to clear a profit. Lastly, the vendor then tries to estimate how high a price the market will bear. This is usually used as a more realistic price, and almost always comes out higher than the cost of the product, since other- wise the product is not profitable to market. Then the price is actually placed on the product. It is not always as high as the market will bear, just to help with larger quantity of sales. However, remember that the software market is not truly elastic. Anyway, it *is* the consumer that pays for the protection. It *is* the consumer that puts up with the protection. It *is* the consumer that cannot make sufficient backups. It *is* the consumer who gets no flexibility in his/her system configuration, due to protection schemes. It *is* the consumer who is forced to buy extra protection-hardware. It *is* the consumer who has to have a floppy disk on his/her system. How many of you out there would buy a small Unix-based system if all the products (software) which you wished to run required that a key- floppy be in the floppy drive? Wouldn't this just tend to get in your way, too? I am not saying that there is no reason for copy-protection, but that since there is no reasonable scheme which allows all users to make do with a package, then there should be no protection on that package. It is utterly ridiculous to think of a book with a lock on it. It is also ridiculous to simply submit to these protection schemes which force you to make do with a less-than-desirable system. What good does it do to have a hard disk if you still have to have the floppy to load files? (or to check?) The hard disk has a purpose to most buyers: faster file access, larger storage capabilities, escape from cumbersome floppies, escape from disk-swapping, etc. These have all been hurt somewhat by various protection schemes. Software that won't load onto the hard disk is useless for this type of user, but how is he/she to tell unless the package indicates what type of protection is in the software? Too many tales of this kind abound. To meet their requirements, some consumers buy the 'backup' copying packages. Of course, pirates do, also. Nonetheless, there is no real reason for the innocent consumer not to do so. If you, the consumer, wanted to keep a quote from a book readily at hand, you might copy it and place it in a file. If the book was a professional book which you referred to often, you might be seriously delayed or your productivity might be decreased if your copy was accidentally marred or irretrievably lost. Software is *far* more volatile than paper. If your software is lost due to disk error or whatever, then you have to either return the diskette, hoping for a reasonable reaction from your local retailer, or mail it to the vendor, again hoping for a reasonable reaction and quick response, or more appropriately, just get out your backup copy and continue working. As it stands, the solutions are far from adequate for both the consumer and the vendor. However, it is the innocent consumer that has to absorb the brunt of the problems with costs and copy-protection schemes, etc. I'm glad that not all vendors support copy protection and I'll continue to support them as long as humanly possible. These are my views, not those of my employers, etc. 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