hardin@hpindda.HP.COM (John Hardin) (01/12/89)
/ hpindda:comp.sys.ibm.pc / wew@naucse.UUCP (Bill Wilson) writes: > A pax on people who use copy protection! ^^^ Pax = Peace. If you mean "pox", then I heartily agree!
berger@clio.las.uiuc.edu (01/13/89)
The company that made prolock is out of business - I don't know if
anybody bought up the product line.
Prolock was a particularly tricky copy protection scheme. Prolock'd
disks have a unique laser burn fingerprint. I've had lots of
trouble getting some prolock-protected disks to work on some
machines, and I'm not enamored with the idea of having my disk
drive heads run over an intentionally-damaged part of the diskette.
Prolock can be circumvented by a special version of the
Central Point Systems Option Board.
Mike Berger
Department of Statistics
University of Illinois
berger@clio.las.uiuc.edu
{convex | pur-ee}!uiucuxc!clio!bergerpete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) (01/21/89)
Just to play devil's advocate for a sec: there is one good reason I can
think of for copy protection (although a hardware key is probably ok in
this case):
If you are making a custom system (small quantity type thing, including
hardware usually), you can't afford to have it get stolen. There are some
interesting new machine-lock mechanisms that make sense, as long as the
manufacturer of the software is willing to do heavy-duty support at times:
1) hardware key: you can do anything you want with the software, but must
have the hardware key attached to the system in order to use it
2) software key: the original disk is copy protected. Once installed, the
software 'knows' which machine it is installed on, and can't be
installed on any other. Mfg must give a new copy if your mboard or
hard disk controller is changed, I think...
--
OOO __| ___ Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises
OOOOOOO___/ _______ USPS: 19611 La Mar Court, Cupertino, CA 95014
OOOOO \___/ UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete
___| \_____ Phone: 408/996-7746mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (01/22/89)
>Just to play devil's advocate for a sec: there is one good reason I can >think of for copy protection (although a hardware key is probably ok in >this case): >If you are making a custom system (small quantity type thing, including >hardware usually), you can't afford to have it get stolen. There are some >interesting new machine-lock mechanisms that make sense, as long as the >manufacturer of the software is willing to do heavy-duty support at times: >1) hardware key: you can do anything you want with the software, but must > have the hardware key attached to the system in order to use it >2) software key: the original disk is copy protected. Once installed, the > software 'knows' which machine it is installed on, and can't be > installed on any other. Mfg must give a new copy if your mboard or > hard disk controller is changed, I think... And there are EVEN BETTER reasons why no one in their right mind would PAY MONEY for such "volatileware": If the hardware key or the proprietary "install once" disk get lost or broken (i.e. dog eats dongle - this happened to a friend) your software won't work. And, if indeed it is a small quantity custom system, when that happens the maker likely has gone out of business, or, if it was a big company, has gone out of THAT particular business, and you are simply out of luck. With genuine hardware (i.e. custom boards that actually do something) there really is no good solution. But for software, there is: don't buy copy protected stuff. Period.
johnl@ima.ima.isc.com (John R. Levine) (01/23/89)
In article <484@octopus.UUCP> pete@octopus.UUCP (Pete Holzmann) writes: >If you are making a custom system (small quantity type thing, including >hardware usually), you can't afford to have it get stolen. ... Huh? If your system includes hardware, why would you need to copy protect anything? Presumably without the hardware, a stolen copy of the software wouldn't do anything useful. Also, there are the usual arguments that the people who steal the software are as likely to turn around and buy a copy of the program that they wouldn't otherwise have known about, as to be cheapskates who are a lost sale. -- John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 492 3869 { bbn | spdcc | decvax | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.something You're never too old to have a happy childhood.
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (01/25/89)
Marketing weenies that decide that their companies' software products need the likes of prolock deserve the sam fate as Ted Bundy. Well maybe that is a little strong; no maybe not. One time prolock trashed the FAT of a hard disk that I was installing a program on. Needless to say I was miffed when I reformatted, and it trahsed the FAT again. Another funny example was Graph In The Box 1.1 which used "super prolock 300". The distribution disk could be copied freely with diskcopy, but refused to install on a hard disk. New England Software was very upset when I called then and explained the error. GB2.0 was susbequently released without copy protection. If your compnay insists on copy protection, you deserve what you get: irate users and lost sales. You'll lose other sales because users will pirate your software because they feel that it is fair to punish you for copy-proofing your software. (Not that it is fair, mind you.) Dongles really aren't much better than key disks. I've run into dongle compatibility problems on some 'turbo' AT clones and the like. Don't believe what Rainbow Technologies says in their ads. It isn't too hard to patch around dongle checking code in most programs anyway. It's usually easier to buy a non-dongleized program from a different vendor anyway. Using a specialized piece of hardware is a little more fair than using a dongle for the sake of the dongle alone. You're better off selling an expenxive product, but providing technical support of a quality that justifies the price. Users will then want to buy your product so that they can be registered users. Word Perfect is a case in point. Of course, providing decent support is work and expense for you. --Bill