esink@turia.dit.upm.es (06/13/91)
The February 24 edition of a Spanish newspaper here says that for every 100 computers sold [in Spain] during 1988, 16 software packages were sold. Furthermore, it mentions that actually, each microcomputer is used with 2.5 software packages, on the average. A source is not given for these stats, but if they are even close to true, software piracy is rampant in Spain. Anyone have any corresponding information in the US ? Eric W. Sink | "If no one is criticizing |Opinions Departamento de Telematica | your work, it is possible |mine - Universidad Politecnica de Madrid| that you are not doing |all of esink@turia.dit.upm.es | anything." -George Verwer |them.
gdtltr@brahms.udel.edu (gdtltr@limbo.org (The Befuddled One)) (06/14/91)
In article <1991Jun13.124814.6628@dit.upm.es> esink@turia.dit.upm.es () writes: => =>The February 24 edition of a Spanish newspaper here says that for every =>100 computers sold [in Spain] during 1988, 16 software packages were =>sold. Furthermore, it mentions that actually, each microcomputer =>is used with 2.5 software packages, on the average. A source is not =>given for these stats, but if they are even close to true, software =>piracy is rampant in Spain. Anyone have any corresponding information =>in the US ? => Or maybe everyone in Spain uses PD software. :-) Gary Duzan Time Lord Third Regeneration -- gdtltr@brahms.udel.edu _o_ ---------------------- _o_ [|o o|] To be is to be networked. [|o o|] |_o_| Disclaimer: I have no idea what I am talking about. |_o_|
tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) (06/19/91)
In article <1991Jun13.124814.6628@dit.upm.es> esink@turia.dit.upm.es writes:
The February 24 edition of a Spanish newspaper here says that for every
100 computers sold [in Spain] during 1988, 16 software packages were
sold. Furthermore, it mentions that actually, each microcomputer
is used with 2.5 software packages, on the average. A source is not
given for these stats, but if they are even close to true, software
piracy is rampant in Spain.
I have never bought any software for my 386/UNIX computer (other than
the OS, which was included). Neither have I pirated any software.
Instead, I am using TeX, Emacs, the GNU software, and the software
that I write myself.
There is no reason why anyone who buys a computer should have to buy
any commercial software to go with it: there is a lot of free or
public domain software out there that solves most people's needs.
Thomas.ericb@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Eric Berggren) (06/21/91)
Well! I just think all this anti-pirating movement is just a bunch of hooey! If fact, this communication program I'm using right not is not even registered for this compu... <click> ============================================================================== Eric Berggren | "Life is a Turing Test; Computer Science/Eng. | We're all automatons!" ericb@eecs.cs.pdx.edu | - (click, whir, buzz, chirp)
will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) (06/24/91)
Getting in on this a little late. But isn't it possible to program your software to read the serial numbers on the say (CPU and/or FPU) before the software will function. Then all you need to do is require the purchaser to do is give his/her serial numbers when purchasing the software and everyones happy. They have their software and you have a package that is non-copyable to other machines. Of course, maybe the idea is stupid. Will......
mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) (06/24/91)
will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) writes: > Getting in on this a little late. But isn't it possible to program > your software to read the serial numbers on the say (CPU and/or FPU) > before the software will function. Then all you need to do is require > the purchaser to do is give his/her serial numbers when purchasing the > software and everyones happy. Except, of course, those people who have a network of fifty machines, any one of which they might want to run their legally-owned software on. I mean, one *could* demand that everyone buying a book had to keep it chained to his bookcase at home. > Of course, maybe the idea is stupid. Yes, I think so. mathew
chappell@symcom (Glenn Chappell) (06/25/91)
In article <Zay2444w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) writes: >will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) writes: >> Getting in on this a little late. But isn't it possible to program >> your software to read the serial numbers on the say (CPU and/or FPU) >> before the software will function. Then all you need to do is require >> the purchaser to do is give his/her serial numbers when purchasing the >> software and everyones happy. > >Except, of course, those people who have a network of fifty machines, any one >of which they might want to run their legally-owned software on. Well, you're quite right in that many people would be unhappy, but the reason would be that they couldn't break the law any more. Most software companies do not actually sell their software, but rather licenses to use their software (read the fine print). If you truly own a copy of the software, you can, I suppose, legally do what you want with it. However, typically you own a license and the company owns the software. A typical (micro) software license is single user/single machine. For setups where programs are run off servers (or whatever) there are usually "site licenses" available, which cost more, but allow the software to be run legally on multiple machines. Thus, such a serial-number scheme would simply turn what is already the legal situation into a practical reality. Admittedly, much of the "fine print" in software licenses pertains to things no one cares about - not even software companies. The most extreme example of this that I've found is that it is almost always illegal to use Apple's "Multifinder" for the Macintosh (read the fine print - it's true). On the other hand, all this doesn't change the fact that if you don't like what a license says, you don't have to buy it. >I mean, one *could* demand that everyone buying a book had to keep it chained >to his bookcase at home. Except that book companies typically sell books, not licenses to use them. GGC <><
gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (06/25/91)
In article <1991Jun24.205146.3372@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> chappell@math.uiuc.edu (Glenn Chappell) writes: >A typical (micro) software license is single user/single machine. Right. However, it's not typical to have to call up the vendor and beg and plead to have them transfer your license to a different CPU because the repair guy just came by and replaced the motherboard. Fortunately, most "PC's" don't have a serial number. And fortunately, copy protection for business software seems to be either totally dead or very rare, except for niche products.
jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) (06/25/91)
In article <1991Jun24.205146.3372@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> chappell@symcom (Glenn Chappell) writes: > Except that book companies typically sell books, not licenses to use > them. I would think that with the copyright restrictions on the text, you actually only own the physical media (the book pages, cover) and only have a license to "use" the book (i.e. read it). You don't "own" the book in the sense that you are not free to do with it as you please -- ie. photocopy it and give it to all your friends. A book is effectively a single-user/single-copy licensed media. - jiro nakamura jiro@shaman.com -- Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com Shaman Consulting +1 607 277-1440 Voice/Fax/Data "Bring your dead, dying shamans here!"
marc@dumbcat.sf.ca.us (Marco S Hyman) (06/25/91)
In article <Zay2444w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) writes: > will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) writes: > > Getting in on this a little late. But isn't it possible to program > > your software to read the serial numbers on the say (CPU and/or FPU) > > before the software will function. Then all you need to do is require > > the purchaser to do is give his/her serial numbers when purchasing the > > software and everyones happy. > > Except, of course, those people who have a network of fifty machines, any > one of which they might want to run their legally-owned software on. So what. This is done. Purchase of any of the Sun based cross compiler/assembler tools from Microtek and you had (don't know if they still do it) to give them the hostid of the machine it would run on. At a place I used to work we bought two copies (licensed for different machines) so we wouldn't be at the mercy of broken hardware. If anyone other than the prime user wanted to run the software s/he had to rlogin/rsh/telnet/whatever into one of the licensed machines. As others pointed out, you are licensing the package, not buying it. BTW: I was against this package because of the use restriction. However, it did meet all technical requirements and their legal staff could agree with our legal staff on license terms, etc. Gack, I'll never work for a company where the lawyers are that powerful again. // marc -- // home: marc@dumbcat.sf.ca.us pacbell!dumbcat!marc // work: marc@ascend.com uunet!aria!marc
J.D.Coleman@newcastle.ac.uk (Julian Coleman) (06/25/91)
Zay2444w164w@mantis.co.uk writes: >will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) writes: >> Getting in on this a little late. But isn't it possible to program >> your software to read the serial numbers on the say (CPU and/or FPU) >> before the software will function. Then all you need to do is require >> the purchaser to do is give his/her serial numbers when purchasing the >> software and everyones happy. > >Except, of course, those people who have a network of fifty machines, any one >of which they might want to run their legally-owned software on. We have the Arc/Info GIS system running on our Sun network here. Each time it is started, it reads the cpu number of the machine and generates a code based on that number. A text file contains a list of cpu number and code for any number of machines. If the code is not found in the text file, the software will not run. In order to get the code, we gave the cpu numbers of the machines we wanted it to run on to the suppliers and they gave us the codes to enter into the text file. This seemed like a simple solution to me, especially for more expensive products, though I'm not sure it's applicable to 'off the shelf' packages. Julian -- Julian Coleman < J.D.Coleman@newcastle.ac.uk > -- Department of Surveying, University of Newcastle upon Tyne -- Newcastle upon Tyne, NE1 7RU, England. < +44 91 222 6739 > -- #include <std_disclaimer.h>
mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) (06/25/91)
chappell@symcom (Glenn Chappell) writes: > In article <Zay2444w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a * > >will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) writes: > >> Getting in on this a little late. But isn't it possible to program > >> your software to read the serial numbers on the say (CPU and/or FPU) > >> before the software will function. Then all you need to do is require > >> the purchaser to do is give his/her serial numbers when purchasing the > >> software and everyones happy. > > > >Except, of course, those people who have a network of fifty machines, any on > >of which they might want to run their legally-owned software on. [...] > Most software companies do not actually sell their software, but rather > licenses to use their software (read the fine print). The "fine print" is not legally binding in the UK. I actually own the software I have bought, regardless of what any shrink-wrap license may say. Of course, the situation may be different wherever you live. > A typical (micro) software license is single user/single machine. For setups > where programs are run off servers (or whatever) there are usually "site > licenses" available, which cost more, but allow the software to be run > legally on multiple machines. I'm not talking about putting the software on a server and running it on multiple machines. I'm talking about physically carrying my one original system disk with me, and using it in whichever machine I happen to be sitting in front of. Only one copy of the program is ever being run, and it is only ever being run on one machine; it's just that the matter of which machine that is might change a lot. mathew
z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson -- Seed Testing Labortory) (06/26/91)
In article <Zay2444w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) writes: >will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) writes: >> Getting in on this a little late. But isn't it possible to program >> your software to read the serial numbers on the say (CPU and/or FPU) >> before the software will function. Then all you need to do is require >> the purchaser to do is give his/her serial numbers when purchasing the >> software and everyones happy. >[stuff deleted and I feel good about it] It appears that somebody has forgotten that, no matter how wonderful the copy protection scheme, somebody is going to find a way around it. It also tends to make using the software inconvenient for the user, which will tend to disrupt sales. If it were me, I'd be quite upset to find that I could only use the software on machine "X" and not machine "Y," when software licensing agreements generally let me use it on any number of machines, though not all at the same time. How would I fix this problem? Make good copies of the original disks, of course, and then use a sector editor to search for my serial numbers. These get changed, and away I go. If this proves ineffective, I'll disassemble the program code and look for where it reads my serial number. Then I'll bypass this code and get on with _using_ the software I legitimatley bought. I'm not advocating software piracy, of course, nor am I advocating the reverse-engineering of code to bypass certain "features" that may exist. I am merely stating a reason for why this form of copy protection has not become widely used in the software industry. Flames to /dev/null, please. Conversations can go here or e-mail. __________________________________________________________________________ "What's that thing?" "Well, it's a highly technical, sensitive instrument we use in computer repair. Being a layman, you probably can't grasp exactly what it does. We call it a two-by-four." -- Jeff MacNelly, "Shoe" Dan Sorenson, z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word. -- Andrew Jackson ___________________________________________________________________________
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) (06/26/91)
In article <Fum4416w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) writes: >The "fine print" is not legally binding in the UK. I actually own the >software I have bought, regardless of what any shrink-wrap license may say. You do? Does that mean you can go into business selling copies of whatever software you've bought? Oh, so you *don't* own the software! -- Sean Eric Fagan | "What *does* that 33 do? I have no idea." sef@kithrup.COM | -- Chris Torek -----------------+ (torek@ee.lbl.gov) Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) (06/26/91)
sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: > In article <Fum4416w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a * > >The "fine print" is not legally binding in the UK. I actually own the > >software I have bought, regardless of what any shrink-wrap license may say. > > You do? Does that mean you can go into business selling copies of whatever > software you've bought? No, because that's breach of copyright. > Oh, so you *don't* own the software! Yes, I do; I just don't have the right to make copies of it bar what is permitted under "fair use" guidelines. In a similar way, I own my TV set; but I would not be allowed to create *exact duplicates* and sell them. (Although in that case it would be because of patents rather than copyrights.) mathew
chappell@symcom (Glenn Chappell) (06/26/91)
In article <Fum4416w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) writes: >The "fine print" is not legally binding in the UK. I actually own the >software I have bought, regardless of what any shrink-wrap license may say. Well, that's interesting! I wonder what the legal technicalities are behind that...perhaps you can't legally "sign a contract" by ripping a plastic wrapper in the UK as you can in the US? A blanket reply to all the people who have e-mailed me on this subject: Y'all seem to think I feel serial-number-specific programs would be a great idea. Well, that's not true, although if such a thing became common it might have one good effect (in the US, anyway): it would wake people up to just how silly many software licenses are, and they would start demanding reasonable ones. Yes, many software licenses are silly, but they are very easy to break, and so many people really don't care what their license says. The result is that many (if not most) US micro users are caught in sort of a legal limbo. In their day-to-day work, they break the law, but they don't care, the software company doesn't care, the government doesn't care, and the legal limbo continues. I'm not referring to piracy here, BTW. E.g. if you've ever transfered data (via the "clipboard") between programs on a Macintosh you've probably broken your software license. Read the fine print in the manual of any Macintosh application that comes with system software, and you'll see that it says that once you quit a program, you're not supposed to use the system software to run any other programs. (At least, that's what it said the last time I checked.) Obviously, whoever wrote this wasn't thinking straight, especially since ease of data transfer was one of the advertised features of the Mac when it was introduced, but no one cares, and the silliness remains. Now, suppose Apple released a version of System that wouldn't allow you to break the license. Would anyone use it? No, and Apple would probably realize the stupidity of the whole thing and take that clause out of their license. Yes, there are reasonable licenses out there. On the other hand, there are also many single-machine licenses. Converting those over to the serial-number-recognition scheme would make what had previously been merely illegal also very difficult - and, in the process, perhaps wake a few people up to what's really going on. GGC <><
rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun25.211142.514@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >In article <Fum4416w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) writes: >>The "fine print" is not legally binding in the UK. I actually own the >>software I have bought, regardless of what any shrink-wrap license may say. > >You do? Does that mean you can go into business selling copies of whatever >software you've bought? > >Oh, so you *don't* own the software! No, no, no, he owns the software, however he does not own the right of reproduction of the software. He can do whatever he wants with the copy of the software that he bought as long as he doesn't break any laws. The UK respects our intellectual property laws, as we do theirs. Copying it and distributing it violates the copyright laws. -- Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold
coy@ssc-vax (Stephen B Coy) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun25.211142.514@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >In article <Fum4416w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) writes: >>The "fine print" is not legally binding in the UK. I actually own the >>software I have bought, regardless of what any shrink-wrap license may say. > >You do? Does that mean you can go into business selling copies of whatever >software you've bought? > >Oh, so you *don't* own the software! Semantic sqabbling. Mathew clearly "owns" the manuals he bought and the disks with the software. The vendor "owns" the copyright on the material encoded into those media. As "owner" of the software package Mathew may make copies as long as he doesn't violate the rights of the vendor. Generally, Mathew's legal copies will fall into the following catagories: archival backups, loading the software onto his hard disk, and loading the software from the hard disk to RAM for execution. Any further copying infringes on the rights of the vendor, no shrink-wrap license necessary. Back to the question of who "owns" software. IMO software is information and information cannot be owned. The rights to control that information may be owned. The right to access/use a copy of that information may be owned. But the information itself just is. >Sean Eric Fagan | "What *does* that 33 do? I have no idea." >sef@kithrup.COM | -- Chris Torek Stephen Coy coy@ssc-vax.UUCP brain dead is forever
mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a *HUG*) (06/27/91)
chappell@symcom (Glenn Chappell) writes: > In article <Fum4416w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Giving C News a * > >The "fine print" is not legally binding in the UK. I actually own the > >software I have bought, regardless of what any shrink-wrap license may say. > > Well, that's interesting! I wonder what the legal technicalities are > behind that...perhaps you can't legally "sign a contract" by ripping > a plastic wrapper in the UK as you can in the US? Well, like most legal matters it's very complicated, and I'm not a lawyer... but like most people on Usenet, I'm quite prepared to ramble on about it anyway, having done some reading on the subject :-) Basically, there are some long-established rules in UK law about what is and what is not a fair contract. For a contract such as a license agreement to be binding, you must be made explicitly aware of it at the time of sale; it is also the case that unsigned contracts on paper cannot generally be enforced. Since software shops do not require customers to read the license agreement, do not get them to sign it, and do not verbally make the customer aware that they consider him to be agreeing to a contract, shrinkwrap licenses are almost certainly unenforcable in the UK. (There have been test cases for similar situations involving purchase of non-software products, I believe.) > Y'all seem to think I feel serial-number-specific programs would be a > great idea. Well, that's not true, although if such a thing became > common it might have one good effect (in the US, anyway): it would wake > people up to just how silly many software licenses are, and they would > start demanding reasonable ones. This is a good point. Many software licenses say completely ridiculous things. Ashton-Tate licenses are my favourite; one I saw said something to the effect that the user agreed to fund Ashton-Tate if A-T had to fix any bugs in the program! Now, you and I probably know what they *meant*, but would you *sign* a contract like that? > Yes, there are reasonable licenses out there. Yes; credit where credit is due, Borland's licenses are amongst the most reasonable I've seen. mathew
hoo@engr.ucf.edu (Hooman Shakouri) (06/27/91)
In article <292@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp> will@rins.ryukoku.ac.jp (will) writes: > > Getting in on this a little late. But isn't it possible to program > your software to read the serial numbers on the say (CPU and/or FPU) > before the software will function. Then all you need to do is require > the purchaser to do is give his/her serial numbers when purchasing the > software and everyones happy. They have their software and you have > a package that is non-copyable to other machines. > > Of course, maybe the idea is stupid. > > > Will...... Actually, there are several companies who are doing that... TMA and MicroSim are two of the companies that I know they ask for the CPU number before they send you the software. We did purchase from both companies, and what you get is what they say. The softwares only work on the specified machine and noother machine. Of course, if you need to use the package on another machine in the same premises, they can arrange the tape to be readable for both machines. They only charge an extra fee to that. The softwares are extremely expensive, and asking two separate tapes for two different machine, is going to cost you a lot of money... hooman -- --==> Have you driven a "Vector" Lately ? <==-- hooman@tiger.engr.ucf.edu hoo@engr.ucf.edu