Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!gatech!bloom-beacon!atheybey From: atheybey@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Copy protection: A marketing analysis Message-ID: <8707171737.AA01789@THYME.LCS.MIT.EDU> Date: Fri, 17-Jul-87 13:37:02 EDT Article-I.D.: THYME.8707171737.AA01789 Posted: Fri Jul 17 13:37:02 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jul-87 14:46:08 EDT Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU Reply-To: atheybey@ptt.lcs.mit.edu Lines: 26 Summary: Bah! To: nntp-poster In-Reply-To: denbeste@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM's message of 14 Jul 87 22:54:20 GMT Repository: PTT Originating-Client: flower Steven C. Den Beste wrote: [Analysis of the software market from companies point of view. Conclusion: Copy protection is great for software companies, and the "gizmo" type is the best of all.] ------ Great. So what happens in this mythical happy world where all software comes with gizmos? What if I own 10 programs, each of which came with a gizmo, and the gizmos are unmarked? Do I have to try all ten to see which one will work? What if (as you wrote) the programs each check for the gizmo in 100 different ways, and I am running several different programs at once (remember, this is a multi-tasking machine). If I happen to have to wrong gizmo plugged into the port when one of the programs checks for it, what happens? The program crashes, or maybe someone will invent a new type of requester--a gizmo requester. "Please insert gizmo 'database' in any mouse port." I don't believe your analysis. It makes sense initially, but I believe that copy protection *will* eventually get enough users mad at a company to have an effect on sales. Copy protection might be acceptable on games, but not on serious software. I will find ways to lose gizmos, especially if I have more than one of them, and I will get very mad if a company tells me to "look harder for it." Andrew Heybey atheybey@ptt.lcs.mit.edu