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