denbeste@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM (Steven Den Beste) (07/15/87)
affects of various copy protections schemes.
Assume that I am a company with a software package to sell. I view the market
as dividing into the following groups:
A. HONEST USERS who will buy the product regardless.
B. BORROWERS who will copy it if they can and buy it otherwise. Mostly these
people are doing so simply because it is easy. Common examples of this are
school districts, office mates, relatively inexperienced hobbyists. They
aren't usually aware of (or at least don't concern themselves with) the
copyright protection - they do it because it is easier than buying a copy.
[For purposes of this discussion, I define this group to be people who will
switch to buying the program if they can't copy it easily.]
C. SOFT-CORE PIRATES will copy the program if there is an easy way to crack
the copy protection. If there isn't, they may buy and they may not.
D. HARD-CORE PIRATES will bend heaven and earth to copy the program, but will
never buy it regardless. They can never be customers (again, by definition)
but are important because they may feed copies to the soft-core pirates.
E. NON-CUSTOMERS aren't interested in my program regardless. I include it for
completeness, but they don't affect the rest of the discussion, so won't be
mentioned again.
Here are my potential tactics, and the effects:
NO PROTECTION OF ANY KIND except maybe a plea on the package, the manual
and/or a pull-down menu choice not to pirate.
MY ENGINEERING EXPENSE: minimal.
INCREASED MANUFACTURING EXPENSE: minimal.
CUSTOMER EFFORT TO MAKE A COPY: minimal.
CUSTOMER EFFECT:
A. Honest users buy.
B. Borrowers borrow and don't buy.
C. Soft-core pirates borrow and don't buy.
D. Hard-core pirates borrow and don't buy.
[I've heard a lot of rhetoric here about people that say that they will steal
a copy-protected program and buy a non-protected program, but I stand by my
judgement here. The people who will actually do that (as opposed to just
talking about it) are such a small number that they make very little
financial difference compared to the quantity of Borrowers and Soft-core
pirates who will steal.]
My customer base is only A.
ZAPPED-SECTOR PROTECTION
MY ENGINEERING EXPENSE: about 3 weeks for one person
INCREASED MANUFACTURING EXPENSE: It may require a special way to make the
disks - could increase setup time and take longer to duplicate.
CUSTOMER EFFORT TO MAKE A COPY: Depends on the availability of commercial
copying aids. Without help the average copier is stuck. However, with
the availability of programs like Marauder this approach will only
prevent unknowledgeable users from getting copies.
CUSTOMER EFFECT:
A. Honest users buy (but get somewhat annoyed)
B. Borrowers buy (but get somewhat annoyed)
C. Soft-core pirates copy and don't buy.
D. Hard-core pirates copy and don't buy.
My customer base is A + B.
LOOK-UP-THE-WORD PROTECTION
MY ENGINEERING EXPENSE: Not very great, but it means that the manual must be
frozen before I manufacture the disks.
INCREASED MANUFACTURING EXPENSE: The manual should be printed/bound in such a
way that it can't easily be photocopied. Likely the manual writer is told
to pad it extensively, it is probably bound so that it breaks apart when
photocopied, and if I am serious about this I print in light blue ink.
CUSTOMER EFFORT TO MAKE A COPY: The disk is very easy to copy, since it isn't
protected. The manual may be easy or hard to copy, ideally hard. Depending
on how hard a hard-core pirate works, he may come up with a way of patching
my program to remove the protection code. This can be made more difficult
with a bit of code-obfuscation, slightly increasing the engineering expense.
However, this cannot be prevented entirely.
CUSTOMER EFFECT:
A. Honest users buy. Occasional honest users may be annoyed by the
technique, and I may lose a few return sales on other products in
the future. I think this is a very small proportion.
B. Some borrowers buy, some pass the manual around constantly if they
work together and are willing to put up with the annoyance.
C. Some soft-core pirates buy, some do without.
D. Most hard-core pirates do without, some may patch the program. They
will scream and yell and talk about a boycott - but I don't care
about what they say because they wouldn't buy from me anyway.
My customer base is A + much of B + much of C.
THE GIZMO: This is a computer-readable gadget which must be plugged into the
machine either when the program first runs, or the entire time it runs. On
PC's and Mac's it usually attaches to the parallel port. On the Amiga, I think
it would go into the second-joystick port on the front. It is easy to engineer
- it consists of a DB-9 connector, a very small circuit board, a good PAL, and
a plastic case. (The PAL shouldn't be CMOS because of the chance of it getting
blown.)
MY ENGINEERING EXPENSE: I have to design the thing, and obfuscate-hide the
code which checks for it.
INCREASED MANUFACTURING EXPENSE: I should be able to get them made for me in
quantity for less than $5 each - maybe much less, considering that there are
only 5 parts to it, one of which must be programmed. My manufacturing cost
for the disk is about $4, for the manual about $2, so it almost doubles my
manufacturing expense - but the sales price of software doesn't depend very
highly on the manufacturing cost. It probably adds $10 to the sales price.
CUSTOMER EFFORT TO MAKE A COPY: Virtually impossible. Unlike "enter-the-word"
protection, which happens once and has visible and traceable effects,
I can make my code check the gizmo many times during initialization and
in many ways - and throughout the code if I require it to stay attached.
The gizmo itself is essentially impossible to duplicate without
industrial espionage (the PAL equations).
Before you say "The pirate can find all the places and patch them out",
how about if there are 100 places, all of which treat the gizmo in a
different way and are coded differently? I don't see how it can be done.
CUSTOMER EFFECT:
A. Honest users buy.
B. Borrowers buy.
C. Soft-core pirates buy or do without.
D. Hard-core pirates scream a lot. Screw 'em.
My customer base is A + B + much of C.
At this point we leave the realm of game theory and enter marketing - one has
to make a judgement about how large each group is for my particular product.
However, based on this analysis, no-protection-at-all loses to the other three
regardless. I therefore make the cold business decision to copy-protect my
product.
Zapped-sector versus look-up-the-word is a tougher decision - it depends on
the size of the B and C groups, the number of each which will buy if I have
look-up-the-word protection, and the availability and ease of super-copier
programs. On balance since the super-copiers are easy and available and
well-known, I think I would prefer look-up-the-word.
The GIZMO beats all of these. Consider its advantages: It is almost impossible
to subvert or defeat. It is convenient for the customer (no manual to search).
It allows unlimited backup-copies, and works just fine from a hard-drive. The
only draw-back is that it requires me to manufacture it. (Also an occasional
customer will lose it.)
I may try to get together with some company making hardware for the Amiga and
talk them into making the gizmos for me. I would give them license to sell
them to other companies as well - this cuts down my my expense through greater
volume.
A good company to approach would be that company in Texas that makes the "TIC"
clock, which already has the plastic and manufacturing set up. (By the way, I
own one of these, and a fine product it is, too.)
-----------------------------
OK, I am back out of pretending to be in business. In fact I am not in the
consumer software market (I work for an industrial engineering firm). But
I think too many of the people who have been trying to talk about piracy here
recently have been either projecting what they want, or simply ignoring the
numbers, which is the way the company will look at it. Consider some cases:
1. Boycott the copy-protecters: Just how many people will really do this,
anyway? Lots of talk, but a serious wide spread boycott is extremely
far-fetched. I will deal with it when and if it happens. Even if it did, just
how many people would be involved? In order for it to be a serious problem for
me it has to involve more of group A than I gain from groups B and C by adding
copy-protection, and since I suspect that either zapped-sector or
look-up-the-word just about double my sales, the boycott would have to involve
a hell of a lot of folks. My best guess is that most of the people joining the
boycott would be from groups D and E anyway, about whom I don't care.
2. Angry customers who refuse to buy again: Again, I suspect there is more
wind than rain here - a lot of people will bluster and blow, but if my product
is good enough and unique enough, they'll buy anyway, or at least enough of
them will to make me a reasonable profit. In fact, again I need to lose more
people from group A than I gain from groups B and C - and I don't think I
will.
3. Customer loses the gizmo and needs another one: How do I tell this guy from
a clever pirate trying to sneak in the back door? In fact I cannot, and my
reaction to this is to tell him to search harder for the gizmo. I may lose
some repeat sales, but that's how it goes. This is more than made up by the
fact that my product is virtually unpiratable.
I want to emphasize that I am still trying to keep neutral on the subject of
piracy and copy-protection. I have opinions on both subjects, but I don't
consider them of interest to the public.
Every time I really analyze it, I come up with the answer that the companies
should be searching for more effective copy protection, not less of it.
Local blustering and threats to the contrary, I can see no benefit for any
company to relax the copy-protection on their product. Every analysis I make
shows that more effective copy-protection results in more total sales.
If I was an entrepreneur, I'd go into the business of making the
joystick-gizmos. As it is I freely offer the idea into the public domain - it
should make everyone except the pirates happy. And as to the pirates,
Screw 'em.
--
Steven C. Den Beste
Bolt Beranek & Newman, Cambridge MA
denbeste@bbn.com (ARPA or CSNET)atheybey@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU (07/17/87)
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.edudavidlo@madvax.UUCP (David Lo) (07/17/87)
In article <207@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM>, denbeste@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM (Steven Den Beste) writes: > affects of various copy protections schemes. > > Assume that I am a company with a software package to sell. I view the market > as dividing into the following groups: > > ZAPPED-SECTOR PROTECTION > > THE GIZMO: This is a computer-readable gadget which must be plugged into the A missing element from the model - the sales lost to a competing software which neither use a zapped-section nor a gizmo protection. For instance, I bought PageSetter because it is not protected. ( vs. Publisher 1000 that uses the "gizmoz" protection scheme. ) Also, sales may lost because of customers' internal regulation - e.g. I believe DOD has, or has had, a rule that not buying copy protected software. That was one of the major driving forces for Lotus and Aston-Tate to drop their copy protection. -- David Lo (415)939-2400 /\ o Varian Instruments, 2700 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 \/ {ptsfa,lll-crg,zehntel,dual,amd,fortune,ista,rtech,csi,normac}varian!davidlo
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (07/18/87)
In article <8707171737.AA01789@THYME.LCS.MIT.EDU> atheybey@ptt.lcs.mit.edu writes: >Great. So what happens in this mythical happy world where all >software comes with gizmos?... Right. Let's pretend that ASDG took Electronic Arts' or (god help us) Activision's attitude towards copy protection and user support. Better yet, let's suppose that you had to use a dongle before facc would work. Would people praise ASDG for having a fantastic attitude? Would people think they are a benefit to the Amiga community? Most importantly, would people be leaning on the edge of their seats waiting for the next ASDG product announcement so that they could *buy* it? I think software companies are fooling themselves about copy protection. What I predict is going to happen is that more and more people are going to write software. Competition will eventually favor those that deliver a good, guaranteed (no, you are not dreaming), non-copy protected, well supported product. Maybe this won't happen. Predictions don't necessarily come true. I'll say this much: manufacturers aren't getting any of my money until they act responsible to me instead of just responsible to themselves. Remember, you are paying (or not paying) their paychecks. Sean -- == Sean Casey uucp: cbosgd!ukma!sean csnet: sean@ms.uky.csnet == arpa: ukma!sean@anl-mcs.arpa bitnet: sean@ukma.bitnet == == We want... a shrubbery!
mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (07/18/87)
In article <207@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM> denbeste@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM (Steven Den Beste) writes:
<affects of various copy protections schemes.
Not a bad analysis. But I think you underestimate the affects of people
refusing to buy cp software, and loss of repeat sales. *Especially* if
there is some competition.
What I found most disturbing comes out in one paragraph:
<3. Customer loses the gizmo and needs another one: How do I tell this guy from
<a clever pirate trying to sneak in the back door? In fact I cannot, and my
<reaction to this is to tell him to search harder for the gizmo. I may lose
<some repeat sales, but that's how it goes. This is more than made up by the
<fact that my product is virtually unpiratable.
In other words "Fuck the customer. Just so long as I have more profit,
who cares." And I got flamed at for complaining that *this* was the
attitude that copy protection presented.
The only good argument I've seen for copy protection was that *dealers*
preferred it. That I'm willing to believe. And not buying the stuff
from them should convince them not to carry it.
<Every time I really analyze it, I come up with the answer that the companies
<should be searching for more effective copy protection, not less of it.
And I keep arriving at the conclusion that the entire market should
look at what's going on on mainframes and minis. No "dangle" or
whatever you want to call it to loose. Every machine *comes* with one,
built in. It's called a serial number. All you have to do is figure
out how to adapt that for the micro market.
One approach would beto patch your software to use the customers
"dangle." Providing a program to do that, and instructions too "run
patch-me first, then back up the disk," where patch-me reads the
serial number, patches the on-disk program and then deletes itself
would work well.
That would tend to cause your groups A and B to buy, and maybe some of
C. D and E would just steal it, but they'd do that anyway.
<mike
--
How many times do you have to fall Mike Meyer
While people stand there gawking? mwm@berkeley.edu
How many times do you have to fall ucbvax!mwm
Before you end up walking? mwm@ucbjade.BITNETbryce@COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU (Bryce Nesbitt) (07/18/87)
> The GIZMO beats all of these. Consider its advantages: [...] Consider the disadvantages. This is a multi-tasking machine, are users with lots of gizmo operated programs going to need to hire a full time gizmo inserter to keep up with the extra human burden of task switching?? :-) I can see it now... extensions to the OS, ObtainGizmoPhore(), GizmoLock() and AttemptLockLayerGizmo()!!! :-) :-) :-) I used to design "gizmos" and reader code for the Commodore-64 (we called them "dongles" or "keys"). For that machine it was acceptable. For the Amiga it really gets in the way. I would not design an dongle destined for use on the Amiga. > I can make my code check the gizmo many times during initialization and > in many ways - and throughout the code if I require it to stay attached. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Perhaps if you take over the entire machine that would be ok... but you really should not be taking over the entire machine! The real pi**ers are those dongled protected programs that CRASH if you pull their pacifier out from under them. AT LEAST bring up a AutoRequester that says "I want my dongle!". Better from a user perspective is to check only at the start. If you want the reason why I'll sentence you to two hours of passing data back and forth between two dongle-protected programs. If you are still undecided I'll up that the FOUR. (and toss REXX into the bargain :-) Copy protection is a tough issue. Things get worst when you feel compelled to increase the cost, and reduce the quality of the product to include it. Witness that in the name of copy protection the record industry wants to ruin the near-perfect sound of a compact disk!! As far as I'm concerned disk protection is OUT for ANY uses. Copy protection is OK for games, a real pain for application software and absolutely unacceptable for utilities. If I'm shopping for software copy protection can easily be the swing vote between two otherwise equal or nearly equal choices. > > [The gizmo] It is almost impossible to subvert or defeat. > Ha! ....... Dream on... (To avert missunderstanding, that was not malicious, but rather realistic. There are *lots* of good ways of subverting dongles. I came up with quite a few while dongle-protecting Commodore-64 programs...) What's needed is a talk.copy.protection group... We could start the war by asking "What if there where a totally uncrackable method of protecting {software, records, video tape, sat. downlinks, etc.}?" ----------------------------- |\ /| . Ack! (NAK, EOT, SOH) {o O} . ( " ) bryce@cogsci.berkeley.EDU -or- ucbvax!cogsci!bryce U "Success leads to stagnation; stagnation leads to failure."
sat@unicus.UUCP (S.A. Thurlow) (07/18/87)
I think that we are having this debate at all shows that the computer
software industry has gotten its priorities all confused.
Firstly, we should remember that software companies exist to help users,
not the other way around. Customers will not buy a product unless
it helps to solve a problem. By selling a package to a customer, a company is
helping him to solve problems more efficiently than he could otherwise.
By copy protecting software, a company is making the assumption that the
customer is an evil thing they harness for their benefit. This is bad.
How many people go back for more abuse if they can avoid it?
Secondly, for any serious software, the "customers" will tend to be
corporations. Corporations tend to like things like "site licenses" and
"support". They like to manage their internal software distribution
and will tend to be responsible about controlling the illegal
copying problem. Corporations would much rather pay real money for a
product and *know* that you will be there to help when there is a problem
rather than become dependent on something that is unsupported (like
an illegal copy of a program). After all, what good is a productivity
enhancer if you can't use it? Corporations also make nice big legal
targets, so it is not in their best interests to expose themselve by making
illegal copies of anything, software included. Of course there will be the
occasional user who makes an illegal copy of a program he uses at the office
to use at home. But he generally makes up a small number compared to the
size of a corporate customer and would probably not buy the software anyway.
There is no excuse for copy protecting serious software.
In short, a company sells software to help others, and copy protection
generally strips reliability (what do I do if the disk dies, I lose the
gizmo, or the manual) from software and makes it a less attractive problem
solver. I may just be naive, but I don't think so. If a company tries to
help customers rather than inconvenience them, customers will remember and
back (that is why IBM is such a big name), especially if a solution works.
In case you're wondering, I am *NOT* a pirate.
Scott.
Disclaimer: This is my opinion only. My company may, or may not, share it.
--
Scott A. Thurlow Unicus Corporation
InterNet: sat@Unicus.COM (on a good day)
UUCP: {seismo!mentor,utzoo!utcsri}!unicus!sat (on a bad day)
ARPA: mnetor!unicus!sat@seismo.CSS.GOV (on a REALLY bad day)elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (07/19/87)
in article <207@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM>, denbeste@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM (Steven Den Beste) says: > 3. Customer loses the gizmo and needs another one: How do I tell this guy from > a clever pirate trying to sneak in the back door? In fact I cannot, and my > reaction to this is to tell him to search harder for the gizmo. I may lose > some repeat sales, but that's how it goes. This is more than made up by the > fact that my product is virtually unpiratable. Wow. You are really a cool marketing dude, y'know? Obviously you haven't been inside The Computer Clutter (my back room, with two walls covered with workbenches and shelves, and about 2 feet of printouts piled beside each chair alongside moldy old pizzas and fermenting 7-Up). I'm still searching for the dongle to the last gizmo'ed program I got (which was a horse-betting program that costed $9 at a clearance sale). Last I saw, the package was in the bottom of the steel bookcase, but apparently the dongle fell out somewhere, 'cause it weren't there. That is NOT a very good track record. One dongleized program, one unusable program. It does NOT put me in a good mood for buying any other donglized program. Especially when manufactures have such sh*tty attitudes... "well, sh*t-fer-brains, you'll have to buy another copy of my great program, huh? That's what you get for being such an ignorant stupid dirty pirate thief SOB!". Very disturbing to a normal legall user.... for example, a friend lost his MicroSloth "C" manuals when moving from Georgia to here. Call Microsoft.... "I'm sorry, but we do not ship manuals" (leaving unsaid the phrase "dirty pirate thief SOB", but you could hear it in the overtones). He eventually ended up copying it from his place of employment... took him three hours to copy those huge manuals. The rule of thumb in retail is "the customer is always right". That's why Sears will refund your money cheefully if you bring it back to them, no matter for what reason. Sure, they get ripped, occasionally, but how many people do you know who'd go to a store that said "you're all dirty thiefs trying to rip us off"? Very insulting to the average Honest Schmoe.... Eric Green elg%usl.CSNET Ron Headrest: A President {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg for the Electronic Age! Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 BBS phone #: 318-984-3854 300/1200 baud
hah@mipon3.intel.com (Hans Hansen) (07/19/87)
In article <207@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM> denbeste@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM (Steven Den Beste) writes: >affects of various copy protections schemes. > [some ideas about costumer bases and copy protection] >The GIZMO beats all of these. Consider its advantages: It is almost impossible >to subvert or defeat. It is convenient for the customer (no manual to search). >It allows unlimited backup-copies, and works just fine from a hard-drive. The >only draw-back is that it requires me to manufacture it. (Also an occasional >customer will lose it.) Extreamly BAD idea..... this will prevent more than one of these types of protected programs from being used concurrently... rember you bought your Amiga because it could MULTI-TASK! >3. Customer loses the gizmo and needs another one: How do I tell this guy from >a clever pirate trying to sneak in the back door? In fact I cannot, and my >reaction to this is to tell him to search harder for the gizmo. I may lose >some repeat sales, but that's how it goes. This is more than made up by the >fact that my product is virtually unpiratable. BULL SH*T !!! The first time you try to tell the customer that you will not repalce the GIZMO he/she/it will screem all over the nets to their local user group and to anybody else. Your product will be black listed faster you can say "LOOK HARDER" !!! Not only that but I feel that the customer would be perfectly justified to take the program minus the GIZMO back to the dealer and, after explaining your response to the dealer, demand a full refund !!! > Steven C. Den Beste While I in most part agree that it is not fair to the software developer to have their work pirated. I feel that the real place for software protection lies with Commodore. The Amiga should have had an ID ROM in each machine that is unique from all others. All programmers that felt the need to protect their programs would then burry the cusotmers ID within the program the first time it was loaded. Hans
john13@garfield.UUCP (07/19/87)
In article <207@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM>, denbeste@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM (Steven Den Beste) writes: > THE GIZMO: This is a computer-readable gadget which must be plugged into the > machine either when the program first runs, or the entire time it runs. On > PC's and Mac's it usually attaches to the parallel port. On the Amiga, I think > it would go into the second-joystick port on the front. It is easy to engineer > - it consists of a DB-9 connector, a very small circuit board, a good PAL, and > a plastic case. (The PAL shouldn't be CMOS because of the chance of it getting > blown.) Slight problem: Mr. Multitask wants to run Publisher 1000 (dongle-protected) and Superbase (dongle-protected) at the same time. Perhaps he has a small library of such programs, each of which mutually excludes all the others while running. Way back in the early days of the 64, I thought this was the most effective form of protection. However, Paperclip 64 was protected like this, and the program code was very well scrambled (I believe the unscramble code was written in undocumented 6502 opcodes), and did get broken. Then Leaderboard Golf on the 64 tried with the dongle on the cassette port. It used no PAL, just a single resistor, so anyone who did electronics 101 (or had a cassette) could pirate it if they chose to. I think the consensus would have to be "if you choose to protect your program (and thereby risk losing the business of N people who boycott protected software), do it with a look-in-the-manual scheme". Speaking of protection, I inserted the Barbarian disk (from Psygnosis, excellent animation and illustration) in the drive while booted up under another Workbench, and got quite a start when the disk began to grind away! But it still worked fine when inserted at the Workbench prompt, so I presume that is just their protection scheme. John PS: The Deja Vu original now works properly when booted off another Workbench, as long as that Workbench has the font files installed. -- "Some people consider long statements to be speeches." -- Daniel Inouye, reaching a level of sarcasm that most can only dream of. "Obviously safety is always the prime consideration." -- Sportscaster Bernie Smilovitz on hydroplane racing.
sbauer@pnet02.CTS.COM (Scott Bauer) (07/20/87)
[Eat This!]
The flaw in your reasoning is in regard to the hardware/GIZMO type of
protection. Quite simply, this type of protection will cut down your sales
EXTREMELY if your program is one that does not take over the entire machine
(and if it does that, you are already losing sales.)
In a multi-tasking environment, a hardware GIZMO prevents you from
multi-tasking (well, from multi-tasking TWO such programs, which would be the
case if everyone went with such protection.)
So any program that uses these GIZMOS (called DONGLES, BTW) will be useless if
run with any other program that requires a DONGLE (or uses the joystick port
for any other reason.) Perhaps this is why programs such as Logistix and Super
Base (both of which are DONGLE protected, I believe) have not set the Amiga
marketplace on fire. -- Scott Bauer
---
UUCP: {ihnp4!crash, hplabs!hp-sdd!crash}!gryphon!pnet02!sbauer
INET: sbauer@pnet02.CTS.COM
---
DONGLES? Just say "You gotta be kidding!!"ralph@mit-atrp.UUCP (Amiga-Man) (07/20/87)
In article <892@omepd> hah@mipon3.UUCP (Hans Hansen) writes: >While I in most part agree that it is not fair to the software developer to >have their work pirated. I feel that the real place for software protection >lies with Commodore. The Amiga should have had an ID ROM in each machine >that is unique from all others. All programmers that felt the need to protect >their programs would then burry the cusotmers ID within the program the first >time it was loaded. > Hmmm.... now this seems to be a fair way to go about things. Anyone know if CBM has included such a thing ? There are the autoboot ID's for expansion cards, which can include a serial number of the card. Perhaps the Amiga motherboard has such an ID and serial number ? And, secondarily, how about this idea: each person buys a *single* dongle which only contains a user "serial" number. It's the only one plugged into the machine, and all programs use it the same. When you first get the disk it is all copy protected to heck, and you perform a simple "installation" which makes note of you serial number and makes the software only work with that serial. Now if you want to visit your buddies and show them some programs you just *bought*, you merely bring along yer dongle (sounds wierd :-) ). If you loose it, no problem. It's just like car keys. You have the serial number someplace, and you get a new set of keys (dongle) cut (made). The dongle can have some cheap programmable logic array in it. Now, sure, people could duplicate dongles, but they'd have to do a different one for *each* program they pirate. This makes it hard for the pirates, easy for the owners. Isn't that fair ? And multitasking and visiting work fine. Jest an idea. I believe various micro manufacturers use this kind of technique. Anybody know more about it ? I am steadfastly against copy protection unless it doesn't hinder the *owner* at all in using the program and backing it up.
dleigh@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Darren Leigh) (07/21/87)
In article <1393@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>, ralph@mit-atrp.UUCP (Amiga-Man) writes: > In article <892@omepd> hah@mipon3.UUCP (Hans Hansen) writes: > >lies with Commodore. The Amiga should have had an ID ROM in each machine > >that is unique from all others. All programmers that felt the need to protect > >their programs would then burry the cusotmers ID within the program the first > >time it was loaded. > [ . . . ] > And, secondarily, how about this idea: each person buys a *single* dongle > which only contains a user "serial" number. It's the only one plugged > into the machine, and all programs use it the same. When you first get the > disk it is all copy protected to heck, and you perform a simple "installation" > which makes note of you serial number and makes the software only work > with that serial. Now if you want to visit your buddies and show them some > programs you just *bought*, you merely bring along yer dongle (sounds > wierd :-) ). If you loose it, no problem. It's just like car keys. You have > the serial number someplace, and you get a new set of keys (dongle) cut (made). Having some sort of unmodifiable code number internal to the computer itself is probably the best solution I've heard yet. It would allow for very good copy protection and, with some cute hacking, could be made virtually uncrackable (code number checks at random times, subtly altering the program so that it uses the code number as data and runs wrong if the data is wrong; i.e. it should be more than a go/no-go check). The only real problems I can see with this are: 1. Some user set-up time the first time the program is run. (Really not a problem) 2. Being unable to run your bought software on a friend's machine. Amiga-man's idea of a single, personal dongle is probably not a good one. Very soon after the system's introduction someone will start marketing dongles with switches for manually keying in the code numbers (for software development and testing purposes of course :-). All the pirates will have to do is post the proper code numbers along with the programs. And since pirates are not stupid, there will undoubtedly be standard "pirate" code numbers to keep the software theives from having to change numbers all the time. There is, and can be, no perfect copy protection method. Anything can be cracked. Even an internal code can be faked or modified, but not as easily or safely as a disk or a dongle. I think potential pirates would be very deterred by the thought of blowing up their own hardware in an attempt to change the internal password. I, too, am in favor of copy protection only when it doesn't inconvenience the legitimate user. I am very much against software that comes on mangled disks or that requires a mangled disk as a key. It sure would be nice to live in a world with no copy protection, and where the source code comes in the box. Sigh. Damn theives. Darren Leigh dleigh@hplabs.hp.com or dlleigh@media-lab.mit.edu DISCLAIMER: The preceding opinions are mine, but may be freely shared by anyone. WHINE: I want an Amiga! Somebody please buy my XT clone so that I can afford one. Please! I'll write lots of great PD software, I promise!
jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) (07/21/87)
There was considerable interest in an industry standard copy protection
device for IBM software during 1986, with the Software Publisher's Association
plugging for such a scheme. This was to be a card with an external box which
would accept electronic keys of some sort. But during 1986, most of the
major IBM software vendors dropped copy protection, and the push behind this
scheme ran out of steam; it's now totally dead.
A serial number in the machine is only useful for expensive products,
since the manufacturer must stamp the software with your machine's serial
number before shipping it to you. This prevents distribution through
retail channels. However, many products for SUNs are protected in this way.
One very promising solution is software on compact disks. Just make it
so big that no one can afford enough hard disk to store a copy; including
uncompressed color images of the manual keyed to the help system should
do it.higgin@cbmvax.UUCP (07/21/87)
In article <207@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM> denbeste@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM (Steven Den Beste) writes:
$[an analysis of the affects of various copy protections schemes.]
$ Steven C. Den Beste
First of all, thank you for an intelligent, in depth analysis of copy
protection methods. I was tired of reading "religious ramblings".
However, having done contract software work during 1986, and having
wrestled with the protection issue from a commercial standpoint, I'd
like to add my $.02.
From an individual company's standpoint, I agree with you, the "dongle"
or "gizmo" (as you call it) approach cannot be beaten. BUT, the only
snafu with these is that if a LOT of companies went with this approach
then the user's game port is going to wear out FAST due to the constant
pulling in and out of different gizmos. Also, it defeats the purpose
of the multi-tasking element of the Amiga is these devices cannot be
daisy-chained. One company might be able to make a range of chainable
dongles for it's range of products, but users will often buy products
from a number of vendors. I think this is the only flaw with dongles.
Again, thanks for the rational analysis.
Paul.
Disclaimer: these opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent
the company I work for.kagle@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Jonathan C. Kagle) (07/21/87)
In article <575@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM> dleigh@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Darren Leigh) writes: !In article <1393@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>, ralph@mit-atrp.UUCP (Amiga-Man) writes: !> In article <892@omepd> hah@mipon3.UUCP (Hans Hansen) writes: !> >lies with Commodore. The Amiga should have had an ID ROM in each machine !> >that is unique from all others. All programmers that felt the need to protect !> >their programs would then burry the cusotmers ID within the program the first !> >time it was loaded. ! !> [ . . . ] This method was used in the Lisa (later Lisa 2 and Mac XL :-). I think that high production costs and the below problems caused Apple to discard this concept on their Macintosh. Any comments Apple? !Having some sort of unmodifiable code number internal to the computer !itself is probably the best solution I've heard yet. It would allow !for very good copy protection and, with some cute hacking, could be !made virtually uncrackable (code number checks at random times, subtly !altering the program so that it uses the code number as data and runs !wrong if the data is wrong; i.e. it should be more than a go/no-go !check). The only real problems I can see with this are: ! !1. Some user set-up time the first time the program is run. ! (Really not a problem) ! !2. Being unable to run your bought software on a friend's [or colleague's] ! machine. ! ! 3. Being unable to run software on a loaner machine, if your machine breaks down. 4. Being unable to run software on a replacement machine, if your machine dies. 5. Being unable to run software on an "upgrade" machine (e.g. a business decides NOT to upgrade to an A2000 because he'd have to get new soft- ware or wait for a replacement copy). 6. Dealers wouldn't be able to "demo" software if it installs itself upon booting. 7. If disks are accidentally switched (not unlikely when there are several Amigas in the same office :-), and the software, say a word processor "works wrong" and won't save your document, well... Though no Copy Protection (I prefer to call it Copy Delaying) scheme is "perfect" in stopping piracy, nearly all cause inconvenience to end users. In the end, CUSTOMERS will get an inferior program compared to the unprotect- ed version distributed by pirates. Pirates laugh, "You have to look up a word in the manual, and you paid all that money for that program!" -Jonathan ___________________________________________________________________________ -- Jonathan C. Kagle Cornell Theory Center kagle@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu/kagle@crnlthry/!decvax!cornell!batcomputer!kagle "Union Carbide is proud to be the official supplier of tear gas for the 1988 Summer Olympic Games"
keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (07/21/87)
In article <892@omepd> hah@mipon3.UUCP (Hans Hansen) writes: >While I in most part agree that it is not fair to the software developer to >have their work pirated. I feel that the real place for software protection >lies with Commodore. The Amiga should have had an ID ROM in each machine >that is unique from all others. All programmers that felt the need to protect >their programs would then burry the cusotmers ID within the program the first >time it was loaded. And if something ever happens to his machine and he has to get another one, all of his software is rendered useless and he has to re-buy it. Wonderful. And guess what guy, it is not in the best interest of a computer manufacturer to provide special hardware support for copy protection, pirating actually sells more machines. Though a manufacturer certainly can't come out in favor of piracy, you'll notice that none of them have ever taken any steps to aid the software developers in preventing it. I remember when the Lisa first came out. One of the first questions I asked the Apple guy, is if they had set it up so that disks with certain serial numbers were not copyable by any of the system disk copy routines. A manufacturer could always bury the copy code and disk code in a seperate prom based micro and only allow the main processor to send it high level commands, with all the copy commands set to refuse to copy disks with certain characteristics. Though it would only foster a market for special 'proms' anyway, and would be a short-term solution (remember the Atari 800's 'happy' drive?). It's similar to the DAT issue. Such hardware copy-protection assistance just prohibits legitimate users from excersizing his 'fair-use' as already established by the courts. Hardware manufacturers do not benefit by supporting such measures. It removes LEGAL features from LEGAL owners, and obytheway piracy sells more machines anyway. Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd # cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa Contel Business Systems 213-323-8170
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (07/21/87)
in article <207@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM>, denbeste@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM (Steven Den Beste) says: > > The GIZMO beats all of these. Consider its advantages: It is almost impossible > to subvert or defeat. It is convenient for the customer (no manual to search). > It allows unlimited backup-copies, and works just fine from a hard-drive. The > only draw-back is that it requires me to manufacture it. (Also an occasional > customer will lose it.) I agree the GIZMO is difficult to impossible to defeat, depending on expense, and in some cases it provides the least annoyance to the legit user (other than no CP at all). When the problems do arise are when I've got five programs that each want their own GIZMO, each in the second mouse port. At best, I have to remember which goes with with application, and do some plug swapping whenever I run the particular application (though a good one will gracefully remind me to inset the proper GIZMO). At worst, the GIZMO will force me to run single tasking, as each program, as you said, may do 100 different GIZMO tests at different times in the program, effectively limiting me to one GIZMOed program per session. This I would find totally unacceptable. Some minicomputers use a different version of this, in which every different host computer has essentially one GIZMO. When you order an application package, you tell them the external code number of the GIZMO, and that is hard coded into the object code you receive. Thus, your one GIZMO lets any number of compatible programs run at once (perhaps through the GIZMO.device) only on the once machine. This does limit the software-as-a-book analogy; I can only run my software on the one machine, not several packages, each one at a time on different machines (then again, I don't suppose there are all thet may folks out there with extra machines about). The disadvantage is of course that each individual copy of the program must be patched somehow to contain you GIZMO codes. It also means the the internal workings of the GIZMO, as they're spread around to different developers, are going to leak out the the #4 crowd and possibly allow them to defeat the scheme. > Steven C. Den Beste > Bolt Beranek & Newman, Cambridge MA -- Dave Haynie Commodore-Amiga Usenet: {ihnp4|caip|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh "The A2000 Guy" PLINK : D-DAVE H BIX : hazy "Catch a wave and you're sittin' on top of the world" -Beach Boys
schein@cbmvax.UUCP (Dan Schein MAGAZINES) (07/21/87)
In article <8707180924.AA05844@cogsci.berkeley.edu> bryce@COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU (Bryce Nesbitt) writes: > > > >What's needed is a talk.copy.protection group... We could start the war >by asking "What if there where a totally uncrackable method of protecting >{software, records, video tape, sat. downlinks, etc.}?" This is by FAR one of the most usefull and pratical ideas to come out of the on-going protection debate (debate ?). Then we can get back to reading about AMY without all the interruptions from our sponsers. This is as bad as public TV. >----------------------------- >|\ /| . Ack! (NAK, EOT, SOH) >{o O} . >( " ) bryce@cogsci.berkeley.EDU -or- ucbvax!cogsci!bryce > U "Success leads to stagnation; stagnation leads to failure." -- <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Dan Schein >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Working for, but in no way officially representing Commodore Business Machines 1200 Wilson Drive uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|caip}!cbmvax!schein West Chester, PA 19380 arpa: cbmvax!schein@seismo.css.GOV (215) 431-9384 or schein@cbmvax.UUCP@{seismo|harvard} Quote: Those who worked the hardest Gary Ward - Oklahoma State are the last to surrender baseball coach
fgd3@jc3b21.UUCP (Fabbian G. Dufoe) (07/22/87)
In article <1393@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>, ralph@mit-atrp.UUCP writes: > In article <892@omepd> hah@mipon3.UUCP (Hans Hansen) writes: > >The Amiga should have had an ID ROM in each machine > >that is unique from all others. All programmers that felt the need to protect > >their programs would then burry the cusotmers ID within the program the first > >time it was loaded. > > > Hmmm.... now this seems to be a fair way to go about things. Anyone know > if CBM has included such a thing ? > And, secondarily, how about this idea: each person buys a *single* dongle > which only contains a user "serial" number. It's the only one plugged > into the machine, and all programs use it the same. When you first get the > disk it is all copy protected to heck, and you perform a simple "installation" > which makes note of you serial number and makes the software only work > with that serial. Now if you want to visit your buddies and show them some > programs you just *bought*, you merely bring along yer dongle (sounds > wierd :-) ). If you loose it, no problem. It's just like car keys. You have > the serial number someplace, and you get a new set of keys (dongle) cut (made). I really liked the license agreement Borland used with Turbo Pascal. It said treat this program as you would a book. You may use it on any computer. You may loan it to someone else. But only one person may use it at a time. Building a serial number into the computer limits you to using only a single machine. What if you have to replace it? What if you want to take a program to the office? The serial-number-in-a-dongle is a better idea. It allows you to use a different computer. But if you lend your program to someone else (with the dongle) you won't be able to use your other programs (your friend has the dongle, remember?). Dongles for each program lose because they only allow you to run one program at a time. That isn't why I bought a multi-tasking computer. I hate to see schemes which would increase the manufacturing cost of software. Any copy protection scheme I've seen makes the program more cumbersome to use. Dongles do that, but they also increase the cost of producing it. --Fabbian Dufoe 350 Ling-A-Mor Terrace South St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 813-823-2350 UUCP: ...seismo!akgua!usfvax2!jc3b21!fgd3
rap@dana.UUCP (Rob Peck) (07/23/87)
Re copy protection ... I don't know how others would feel about this, but if a company might institute something like "dealer must customize the product on purchase" things might be easier for the customer. For example, lets say there is a copy-protected version of a disk sent out to a dealer who prefers copy protection, along with his orders of real honest-to-goodness program disks, each missing a critical file, that is, the program itself (data files, overlays or whatever, are already on this non copy protected disk). The customer hands over his Visa, M/C, Amex or check, and the dealer runs the personalization program that encodes this data with the customer's name into something that causes this info to appear onscreen each time the program is booted or packed into an on-the-fly-created requester in response to an "about-this-program" request. The personalization file is written to the non copy protected disk, completing the product. Now if the user chooses, he/she can make as many backups as desired. If they give it away to all of their friends, they also give away their personal charge information, which isn't exactly a good idea. The pirate would still find a way to locate and defeat this method, but it could at least make the casual giver-of-software think twice about what was being given away (besides the copy-rights of the originator, that is). Same could go for mail order sales. Yes it requires more work, but maybe it'd be a little better for all concerned? Just a thought. Rob Peck ...ihnp4!hplabs!dana!rap
planting@colby.WISC.EDU ( W. Harry Plantinga) (07/23/87)
>Dongles for each program lose because they only allow you to run >one program at a time. I have seen this comment any number of times, together with complaints about switching dongles. Would all of you be perfectly happy with dongles if you could plug them all in at once (plug each in to the back of the previous one) and leave them plugged in? This is how the ADAPSO (or whatever) standard dongle works. Also, it is interesting to note that Apple's desktop bus (ADB) on the Mac SE and Mac II (which has keyboards, mice, trackballs, etc. plugged into it) can also have several dongles plugged into it. Personally, I don't buy software with any kind of copy protection.
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (07/23/87)
In article <197@dana.UUCP> rap@dana.UUCP (Rob Peck) writes: >The personalization file is written to the non copy protected disk, >completing the product. Now if the user chooses, he/she can make >as many backups as desired. If they give it away to all of their >friends, they also give away their personal charge information, >which isn't exactly a good idea. Would you buy software that does this? Would anyone? -- == Sean Casey uucp: cbosgd!ukma!sean csnet: sean@ms.uky.csnet == arpa: ukma!sean@anl-mcs.arpa bitnet: sean@ukma.bitnet == == We want... a shrubbery!
herrmann@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Conrad Herrmann) (07/24/87)
In article <1756@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> kagle@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Jonathan C. Kagle) writes:
[problems with ID code systems, such as system replacement]
On the other hand, when I was working for a large Massachussetts
workstation manufacturer that _had_ taken this approach (still does!),
it allowed us to keep all sorts of programs on the corporate network
on disk servers somewhere, and the program would look up your workstation's
ID in an encrypted user list in order to let you use it. That way,
we didn't have to worry about installation, upgrades, or anything. It
was done for us on the server. Also, if we _did_ have our own copy
of the program (a WYSIWIG word processor), it would look for our
workstation's user permission in the *network's* user list.
So, I think that these ideas are very useful when you're dealing with
a well-integrated networked environment, if not in a home computer.
Conrad
herrmann@corylsr@apple.UUCP (Larry Rosenstein) (07/24/87)
In article <1756@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> kagle@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Jonathan C. Kagle) writes: > > This method was used in the Lisa (later Lisa 2 and Mac XL :-). I think >that high production costs and the below problems caused Apple to discard this >concept on their Macintosh. Any comments Apple? > Sure thing. Let me pull out my Lisa O/S manual. The Lisa hardware did have unique serial numbers in the machines. The O/S supported protected operations on a file. In particular you could make any file be a protected master. The system shells both supported protected masters. When the user copied a protected master, it became permanently tied to that machine. (Note that every disk that went out was identical ie, not tied to a particular machine). If a file was protected, then the O/S Open call would fail unless the machine ID matched the ID stored in the file. As someone mentioned before, this scheme does not prevent someone from doing a bit copy on the master diskette to make 2 protected masters. Also, you would think that this would be the ideal form of copy protection, but in reality, users didn't like it either. For example, if they had 2 machines, they had to keep track of which disks belonged to which machine. The Macintosh was designed by a whole different group. I don't know why they did not use hardware serial numbers. It probably was a combination of cost and philosophic opposition to copy protection. -- Larry Rosenstein Object Specialist Apple Computer AppleLink: Rosenstein1 UUCP: {sun, voder, nsc, mtxinu, dual}!apple!lsr CSNET: lsr@Apple.com
rusty@vertigo.UUCP (M.W.HADDOCK) (07/24/87)
In article <197@dana.UUCP> rap@dana.UUCP writes: >Re copy protection ... I don't know how others would feel about this, >but if a company might institute something like "dealer must customize >the product on purchase" things might be easier for the customer. Since when are department stores and discount houses (Federated and the like on which I base most of this "discussion"), concerned about making life easier for their customers? They're there to pump as much stuff out that door as they can. If they can't do this with [a company's] software product they'll drop it like a hot rock and find other software to sell that demands less of a hassle to peddle. In the situation like the Amiga, I would think that sales are everything if this machine is to survive past the next coupla years. You don't wanna get your distributors,wholesalers,retailerss P-O'ed at yo, now do you? >For example, lets say there is a copy-protected version of a disk >sent out to a dealer who prefers copy protection, along with his >orders of real honest-to-goodness program disks, each missing >a critical file, that is, the program itself (data files, overlays >or whatever, are already on this non copy protected disk). > >The customer hands over his Visa, M/C, Amex or check, and the dealer >runs the personalization program that encodes this data with the customer's >name into something that causes this info to appear onscreen each time >the program is booted or packed into an on-the-fly-created requester >in response to an "about-this-program" request. This is far too much to expect for anything but a small dealer. This will also ALWAYS require hardware the appropriate h/w around with which to do this sorta thing. This will be a definite bite in the you-know-what for s/w only stores/distributors. > >The personalization file is written to the non copy protected disk, >completing the product. ... > >Same could go for mail order sales. Yes it requires more work, but >maybe it'd be a little better for all concerned? > .... and I suspect too much work for the differential in sales it ``may'' foster. I believe that the major or people buying software nowadays doesn't give too much of a hoot about copy protection unless it prevents him/her from getting work/play done. This type of person GENERAL is the type that buys the computer as an appliance and not something to play with 'til the wee hours of the following morning... say until around noon or so. :-) Considering the salespeople I've encountered in my life so far, I feel that very few of them could handle inserting a disk into an Amiga to "complete a product" much less turning the machine on! And to do this during a Christmas shopping rush? Right.... And I'm sure the mail order people will wanna take the time, slow output (unless they can afford or want to hire still more people) just to personalize software. > >Just a thought. > Same here too and it's just past noon. :-) >Rob Peck ...ihnp4!hplabs!dana!rap -- Rusty Haddock AT&T Consumer Products Laboratories Holmdel, New Joysey {ihnp4,cbosgd,rutgers!moss}!vertigo!rusty
rusty@vertigo.UUCP (M.W.HADDOCK) (07/24/87)
In article <197@dana.UUCP> rap@dana.UUCP writes: >Re copy protection ... I don't know how others would feel about this, >but if a company might institute something like "dealer must customize >the product on purchase" things might be easier for the customer. Since when are department stores and discount houses (Federated and the like on which I base most of this "discussion"), concerned about making life easier for their customers? They're there to pump as much stuff out that door as they can. If they can't do this with [a company's] software product they'll drop it like a hot rock and find other software to sell that demands less of a hassle to peddle. In the situation like the Amiga, I would think that sales are everything if this machine is to survive past the next coupla years. You don't wanna get your distributors,wholesalers,retailerss P-O'ed at yo, now do you? >For example, lets say there is a copy-protected version of a disk >sent out to a dealer who prefers copy protection, along with his >orders of real honest-to-goodness program disks, each missing >a critical file, that is, the program itself (data files, overlays >or whatever, are already on this non copy protected disk). > >The customer hands over his Visa, M/C, Amex or check, and the dealer >runs the personalization program that encodes this data with the customer's >name into something that causes this info to appear onscreen each time >the program is booted or packed into an on-the-fly-created requester >in response to an "about-this-program" request. This is far too much to expect for anything but a small dealer. This will also ALWAYS require hardware the appropriate h/w around with which to do this sorta thing. This will be a definite bite in the you-know-what for s/w only stores/distributors. > >The personalization file is written to the non copy protected disk, >completing the product. ... > >Same could go for mail order sales. Yes it requires more work, but >maybe it'd be a little better for all concerned? > .... and I suspect too much work for the differential in sales it ``may'' foster. I believe that the major or people buying software nowadays doesn't give too much of a hoot about copy protection unless it prevents him/her from getting work/play done. This type of person GENERAL is the type that buys the computer as an appliance and not something to play with 'til the wee hours of the following morning... say until around noon or so. :-) Considering the salespeople I've encountered in my life so far, I feel that very few of them could handle inserting a disk into an Amiga to "complete a product" much less turning the machine on! And to do this during a Christmas shopping rush? Right.... And I'm sure the mail order people will wanna take the time, slow output (unless they can afford or want to hire still more people) just to personalize software. > >Just a thought. > Same here too and it's just past noon. :-) >Rob Peck ...ihnp4!hplabs!dana!rap Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: Copy protection: A marketing analysis Summary: Expires: References: <207@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM> <4386@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> <197@dana.UUCP> Sender: Reply-To: rusty@vertigo.UUCP (91341-M.W.HADDOCK) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: AT&T Consumer Products Laboratories Keywords: In article <197@dana.UUCP> rap@dana.UUCP writes: >Re copy protection ... I don't know how others would feel about this, >but if a company might institute something like "dealer must customize >the product on purchase" things might be easier for the customer. > >For example, lets say there is a copy-protected version of a disk >sent out to a dealer who prefers copy protection, along with his >orders of real honest-to-goodness program disks, each missing >a critical file, that is, the program itself (data files, overlays >or whatever, are already on this non copy protected disk). > >The customer hands over his Visa, M/C, Amex or check, and the dealer >runs the personalization program that encodes this data with the customer's >name into something that causes this info to appear onscreen each time >the program is booted or packed into an on-the-fly-created requester >in response to an "about-this-program" request. > >The personalization file is written to the non copy protected disk, >completing the product. Now if the user chooses, he/she can make >as many backups as desired. If they give it away to all of their >friends, they also give away their personal charge information, >which isn't exactly a good idea. The pirate would still find a >way to locate and defeat this method, but it could at least >make the casual giver-of-software think twice about what was >being given away (besides the copy-rights of the originator, that is). > >Same could go for mail order sales. Yes it requires more work, but >maybe it'd be a little better for all concerned? > > >Just a thought. > >Rob Peck ...ihnp4!hplabs!dana!rap Rusty Haddock AT&T Consumer Products Laboratories Holmdel, New Joysey {ihnp4,cbosgd,rutgers!moss}!vertigo!rusty -- Rusty Haddock AT&T Consumer Products Laboratories Holmdel, New Joysey {ihnp4,cbosgd,rutgers!moss}!vertigo!rusty
martin@iros1.UUCP (Daniel Martin) (07/25/87)
In article <8707171737.AA01789@THYME.LCS.MIT.EDU> atheybey@ptt.lcs.mit.edu writes: >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? Well, first we all label our disk don't we? Soo we can have some usefull GIZMO label.. Moreover someone will certainly lose a bit of it's time to create a standard and design the PASS thru GIZMO hardware interface (1/2 -:) ). It will certainly look like the wall plug of your xmas tree, but there's some cheap way to allow more than one protected software to run at once. > ... 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." Of course, it's not at the advantage of a company to tell it's customer to wear a pair of glasses, although it will certainly have a BIG visual effect on the Customer Service expense! :-) There's something that troubles me.. I haven't seen any users yet who claimed to have lost their program disk. Maybe with the right accesories (Gizmo Box, Gizmo Key Holder, Gizmo Cleaner ect.) and with the cooperation of the end-user, we will be able to keep those losses at a minimum. (Please read all the above with a big :-) on it). Of course the above method of protecting softwares do have major lacks. Numerous messages stated those, but I would point out that for a company it's a relatively cheap way of to have a good protection without much inconvenience for the user. If the Gizmo Pass Thru is just a dream, we were proposed with a nice feasable replacement. The Amiga-Gizmo, a device that could easily be attach to your computer, giving him a unique status. It's not a new idea, but having the key movable (not burden in hardware) is. It solve most if not all of the problems, including the hot issue of "Multi-Tasking" and allowing the user to use the software on different machine. It would certainly make the life a bit harder for the Pirate, but they'll certainly come out with a Super-Dongle-AutoConfig-Adaptor, that will emulate any serial number you want. It a never ending chase.. Bye, Daniel Martin, uucp: seismo!utai!musocs!iros1!martin.
karl@sugar.UUCP (Karl Lehenbauer) (07/28/87)
In article <8707171737.AA01789@THYME.LCS.MIT.EDU>, atheybey@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU writes: > 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? ... If everyone or most companies agreed on using dongles for copy protection, it would conceivably be possible to have only one dongle per computer. You would send your gizmo ID number along with your payment to the company whose software you're buying. They then send you a copy customized for your dongle. This is the way the Video Cipher II works. You send HBO your VC-II number and they send you a monthly authorization code for HBO based on your number and the number they are downloading to all the boxes each month. This has some obvious drawbacks, which I will go on and list along with what I think is the amount of impact: 1) No instant gratification. You have to mail your payment to the company and wait for your special version of the program to arrive before using it. (major) 2) The company has to be able to write individually different versions of the disk. This wipes out mass duplication by existing means. (major) 3) The company has to trust that groups of the buyers don't have hacked dongles (with the same ID) and pass the program around. (minor) 4) Pirates will still hack the program to run without the dongle. (major)
peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (07/29/87)
You forgot category B2: Will not buy a protected program, will buy a non-protected program, or will buy a non-protected version given a choice. Then non-copy-protection becomes a marketing decision: how many people will by my Usercalc rather than their Nastycalc. You don't care how people get Nastycalc: they're not going to be buying your software anyway (how many spreadsheets can a guy use, anyway)? Result: once a significant amount of competition occurs, protected software will find itself at a competitive disadvantage. Unless you're Lotus you're going to find it hard to stay protected. The IBM-PC software market has just reached this point. So the bottom line is... who cares what your analysis is. Copy protection is a short-term phenomenon. It's also bad for the computer... the last thing we want at this point is another incentive to buy an IBM-PC instead of an Amiga. -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter (I said, NO PHOTOS!)