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 ***