Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site duvel.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!mcvax!philmds!duvel!frans From: frans@duvel.UUCP (Frans Meulenbroeks) Newsgroups: net.micro.pc Subject: Re: software protection - dongles Message-ID: <89@duvel.UUCP> Date: Wed, 10-Jul-85 04:09:30 EDT Article-I.D.: duvel.89 Posted: Wed Jul 10 04:09:30 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jul-85 04:32:17 EDT References: <566@alberta.UUCP> <5100078@uiucdcsb> Reply-To: frans@philmds.UUCP (Frans Meulenbroeks) Organization: Philips S&I MDS Eindhoven Lines: 62 Let me give my *very personal* opinion: I've heard estimates that for every popular program 1 to 5 pirated copies exist. While I don't believe the latter, the former may be quite accurate! I think there is a hell lot of copying going on in some areas. In some countries copying software even seems to be legally allowed. Of course not every owner of a pirated copy would have bought one, if he/she had to pay the full price for it. But still I think a lot of pirated copies remain. I think that some protection must be there, especially for the more advanced/expensive packages. It takes a long time to develop and test such a package, and the company who makes such a piece of software should be paid for it. I, at least, wouldn't accept that people stole the profit, I worked so hard for. (Isn't that the way an American newspaper boy becomes millionaire? :-).) I know that developing protection mechanisms costs time and money. However, I don't think that it is the money of the customer. Protection is in his advantage, because it reduces piracy, and thus boosts package sales. This may actually lead to price reductions! (Remember the old economics law: greater volumes; lower prices). Of course, I think that time spent on developing mechanisms could be used better. But if a product is undersold due to piracy, the company which developed such product may cease to exist, instead of developing better products. Also, I think that a customer needs backup copies (just in case that one spills coffee over it). Therefore I think that the dongle approach is much better than schemes that rely on physical copy protection. Of course one can also lose ones dongle (or it can be chewn up by ones dog). That's a problem, but it shouldn't be overemphasized. If you lose your dongle that's just bad luck. (Compare it with cars: Do you expect that G.M. gives you a free car just because you lost the previous one?? Why expect a different policy from software companies?) If you want to be really safe, then you'll have to buy more copies, just like you need to buy more cars, if you *must* have access to a car at any time. I think that protection is just needed, for the time being. Of course, I would like the disappearance of the need for protection. And yes, I am for freeware, but I think, that freeware doesn't work in case of rather expensive; specialized packages. One final note: shrink-wrap agreements are just not valid in a lot of coutries yet. I'm really not sure if they are legal in the Netherlands or not. However in any case I'm pretty sure that all shrink-wrap agreements in English won't be valid in the Netherlands, just because dutch people are not required to speak English.P.S.: Does someone know a good book concerning protection mechanisms; the advantages and disadvantages of various methods and so on? (or do I have to write my own :-)) -- Frans Meulenbroeks, Philips Microprocessor Development Systems ...!{seismo|philabs|decvax}!mcvax!philmds!frans