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