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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!mcvax!philmds!duvel!frans
From: frans@duvel.UUCP (Frans Meulenbroeks)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: software copying and protection (a personal opinion)
Message-ID: <95@duvel.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 7-Aug-85 04:54:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: duvel.95
Posted: Wed Aug  7 04:54:54 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Aug-85 00:55:09 EDT
References: <409@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: frans@duvel.UUCP (Frans Meulenbroeks)
Organization: Philips S&I MDS Eindhoven
Lines: 84
Keywords: protection dongles

Reaction on article <409@brl-tgr.ARPA> from lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA

O.k., I agree that the only foolproof method for copy-protection is to put
everyting on one chip.

I also agree that other protection schemes always can be broken if 
enough effort is invested. For instance one can just monitor the bus.

I also agree, that lots of companies and individuals are willing to pay for
their software. But the fact is that software is just too easy to copy.
Suppose you have this fine multi-user system. Suppose you've got that nice
whatever-it-must-do package. Since you're in a multi-user environment, you
might want to have more than one copy of the documentation. Fine, most
companies will be glad to sell additional copies to you. 

But next year, when your system is overloaded, and you can have another
system from your management, what do you do?
Its easy to copy the contents of your disk onto the new system. This is 
handy, because you can immediately use your new system fully.
People are used to have the package available, so when it isn't there,
you get complaints "Where is that !@#$ package!". Hardly anyone is 
going to ask "Hey mr. Systemmanager, we've got this new machine. But have
you also paid the package once again?". If you do that (as a user) then 
you are the exception to the rule :-).

It is more likely that in such case no-one bothers about it. People even 
tend to reason "Well we now have this second machine, but the package isn't
used by more people than before we got it, so I can't see any reason why
we should pay for an extra license. We're not using the package heavier
that we used to do!

Such situations arise, and when you have reached this point, it is just
very easy to keep things as they are. You have manuals. You still get
updates (or not :-)) because you have this one license, so what?

I won't say this happens everywhere, but it happens. It may start as a 
temporary matter ("we'll order a second copy soon, but we'll have to get
a copy in the States, and sending to Europe, customs etc. takes 2 months,
so lets just start using this copy") but things may soon run out of hand.

I just want some protection to avoid this. It doesn't have to be a fail-safe
method. Just a method in which trying to get an illegal copy is not cost
effective is ok. 
"Professional" copiers always find ways to make a copy. However I'm not
trying to protect myself against them. If I'll meet them, I'll try to sue
them!

I've the experience that companies hesitate to go to court in such
cases, just because they won't lose customers. Thats why I want at least
some protection.

I won't refuse to buy packages with extra protection hardware, if that
package is useful. However, I like to be able to make backup copies, so that
I do not have to wait weeks before I get a replacement copy from Nowhere, ill
if some disaster ruins mine. Thats why I like the dongle approach:
unlimited backup copies, rather low cost, rather safe against "occasional"
pirates. 

As some people have pointed out: the price of a package is as high as
the market will bear. In that case dongle protection shouldn't have any
impact on the market price!

About losing your dongle: I still want to compare it with losing your
car keys. You do not expect GM to give you free keys when you lose yours,
do you? I know that when you lose your car keys, you can still try to find
a locksmith to open your car. Also if you lose your dongle, you can still
try to find a "softwaresmith" (called guru), to "open" your package.
And the fact that a locksmith still can open your car is not an advantage,
but a disadvantage. I wish cars were more difficult to open without keys,
because then I would still have that fine car radio!

I know, not everybody is as bad as I have sketched above. I only wat to 
have some protection against the lazy and/or ignorant.

(However, I seem to have lost some of my faith in mankind lately :-))

P.S.: see for discussions on software protection also net.micro.pc


The above is a strict personal opininion.... 
-- 
	Frans Meulenbroeks, Philips Microprocessor Development Systems
		   ...!{seismo|philabs|decvax}!mcvax!philmds!frans
	*** get stoned *** drink wet cement ***