chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) (01/25/88)
In article <1869@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >As much as I hate copy protection schemes, I appreciate why they exist -- >I've worked with far too many people over the years who think nothing of >buying a program, then offering everyone they know a copy of it. The >rationalization is usually, "I wanted it, and it was overpriced." I >usually respond with, "A Mercedes is overpriced also. Are you planning >to steal one?" The conversation usually ends right there. Indeed. But as it happens, I have constructed a matter duplicator. If you will provide the raw materials---an equivalent mass of copper will do---and a borrowed Mercedes or Jag (or whatever you prefer), I will fire it up, and in a few minutes you will have two. And therein lies the problem. You can return the borrowed car, yet still have your own. Fortunately, my matter duplicator just dissolved back into a pile of imaginary particles, so I need not face that one now. :-) -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163) Domain: chris@mimsy.umd.edu Path: uunet!mimsy!chris
msb@sq.uucp (Mark Brader) (01/28/88)
Chris Torek (chris@mimsy.UUCP) writes: > And therein lies the problem. You can return the borrowed car, yet > still have your own. Or as Morris West put it in the novel Harlequin years ago: Computer information is like sex. Mark Brader "Every new technology carries with it SoftQuad Inc., Toronto an opportunity to invent a new crime" utzoo!sq!msb, msb@sq.com -- Laurence A. Urgenson
gupta@cullsj.UUCP (Yogesh Gupta) (02/02/88)
In article <10332@mimsy.UUCP>, chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes: > > Fortunately, my matter duplicator just dissolved back into a pile > of imaginary particles, so I need not face that one now. :-) > What! And you hadn't duplicated it and made a backup copy? Well, that should teach you! 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) -- Yogesh Gupta | If you think my company will let me Cullinet Software, Inc. | speak for them, you must be joking.
dkatz@zaphod.UUCP (Dave Katz) (02/19/88)
In article <10332@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes: >Indeed. But as it happens, I have constructed a matter duplicator. >If you will provide the raw materials---an equivalent mass of copper >will do---and a borrowed Mercedes or Jag (or whatever you prefer), >I will fire it up, and in a few minutes you will have two. ### # And now # have a disintegrator, and I'm going to disintegrate Chris ### and take his matter duplicator and duplicate ME and my DISINTEGRATOR and then WE are going to enslave everyone else on the net and make them dig up "equivalent masses of copper" so that WE can have ALL of the Merc's WE want (and you can't have any). Chris seems to think that just because he has the ability, he has the right. Before anyone flames because I omitted the part where the original owner gets back his Merc (Jag, Rollerskates), that was never the point. The point is the people whose livelihood comes from designing/building/selling (...) the Merc (etc) in the first place. The point is also that if you could duplicate things, then the incentive to create and improve products and to prosper from doing so would disappear. Can you imagine a world where no one was motivated to produce a better tool than MicroSoft Word? So far in this discussion, the primary reasons that have been aired to discredit software protection schemes are that they are inconvenient, that they prevent people from creating legitimate back-ups, that they inhibit use of the software in a network server environment, and a blessed few who will honestly say that they don't want to or can't pay to get an honest copy. The question I put to all of the net is: +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | | | If a software protection scheme existed that produced | | no hardships to the honest user and only acted to prevent | | people from obtaining the software by means other than | | purchasing it, would you support that form of software | | protection? | | | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ [I have two kids and am used to long-winded answers to questions other than the one(s) I ask. If your answer is anything other than 'YES' or 'NO' re-read the question. It is very clearly stated and only asks one thing. After you have decided how to answer THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED, feel free to explain yourself.] If you wish to answer via e-mail, I will tabulate the results until the end of February and post a follow-up. -- Dave Katz, Data Processing Manager Develcon Electronics Ltd +-------------------------------------------------+ 856 51st Street East |Innovative High Performance Data Delivery Systems| Saskatoon, Sask., CANADA +-------------------------------------------------+
mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (02/21/88)
In article <2239@zaphod.UUCP> dkatz@zaphod.UUCP (Dave Katz) writes:
<Before anyone flames because I omitted the part where the
<original owner gets back his Merc (Jag, Rollerskates), that was never
<the point. The point is the people whose livelihood comes from
<designing/building/selling (...) the Merc (etc) in the first place. The
<point is also that if you could duplicate things, then the incentive to
<create and improve products and to prosper from doing so would
<disappear. Can you imagine a world where no one was motivated to
<produce a better tool than MicroSoft Word?
Anyone who's used MicroSoft Word has a motivation to produce a better
tool. Many people also have the ability and energy to do so - that's
why there are so many PD editors, text formatters and word processing
systems.
People also design and build cars for reasons other than expecting to
make a living selling them to other people. For most forms of
creativity, the ability to sell lots of copies motivates only a small
minority of the people engaged in that form of creativy.
<mike
--
Come all you rolling minstrels, Mike Meyer
And together we will try, mwm@berkeley.edu
To rouse the spirit of the air, ucbvax!mwm
And move the rolling sky. mwm@ucbjade.BITNETlim@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu (Kian-Tat Lim) (02/22/88)
In article <2239@zaphod.UUCP> dkatz@zaphod.UUCP (Dave Katz) writes: > +----------------------------------------------------------------+ > | | > | If a software protection scheme existed that produced | > | no hardships to the honest user and only acted to prevent | > | people from obtaining the software by means other than | > | purchasing it, would you support that form of software | > | protection? | > | | > +----------------------------------------------------------------+ YES. *BUT* there are some interpretation questions: 1. No hardships to the honest user should include the ability to see the software in action before purchase, either through a demo version, or at a dealer, or otherwise. It is a hardship to have to purchase expensive (to me, a student, expensive is > $10) software without any guarantees that it will fulfill the need I have for it. 2. "No hardships" means *NO* (zero, nada, zilch) hardships (within reason). If a system error steps on the executable, it shouldn't decide that I'm a career pirate and eat my hard disk. I should be able to back up my program in any way I choose, and retain the ability to restore it in a fully functional form without having to write or call the company for another original copy. The program should remain easy to use (ruling out "protection" schemes in which the program is incomprehensible without the 800 page manual). I think that satisfying these two requirements (especially the latter) will be extremely difficult. The only practical way of achieving this idealistic goal is, at least currently, to provide excellent service to registered users only, with no other copy protection. -- Kian-Tat Lim (ktl@wagvax.caltech.edu, GEnie: K.LIM1)
alibaba@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (73539000) (02/22/88)
What is wrong with the scheme used by Claris, Microsoft, and Symmantec's MORE product for the Mac??? They just ask you for your name the first time you boot the software. IT imbeds your name and Company in it. Every time you start it, it tells you who you are. Although this is easy to bypass (copy it before you run it.) It still works. Anybody who goes to the extent of doing this is obviosuly a career pirate, and thereofre wouldn't have bought the program in the first place, so a sale isn't lost. Follow??? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ Alexander M. Rosenberg ~ INTERNET: alibaba@ucscb.ucsc.edu ~ Yoyodyne ~ ~ Crown College, UCSC ~ UUCP:...!ucbvax!ucscc!ucscb!alibaba~ Propulsion ~ ~ Santa Cruz, CA 95064 ~ BITNET:alibaba%ucscb@ucscc.BITNET ~ Systems ~ ~ (408) 426-8869 ~ Disclaimer: Nobody is my employer ~ :-) ~ ~ ~ so nobody cares what I say. ~ ~
rcb@rti.UUCP (Random) (02/24/88)
In article <2062@saturn.ucsc.edu> alibaba@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Alexander M. Rosenberg) writes: >... Although this is easy to bypass (copy it before >you run it.) It still works. Anybody who goes to the extent of doing this is >obviosuly a career pirate, and thereofre wouldn't have bought the program in >the first place, so a sale isn't lost. Follow??? I would have to disagree with this conclusion. When I buy software, the VERY FIRST thing I do is -lock the disk -copy the disk -put original away -Try out copy to see if/how it works. -- Randy Buckland (919)-541-7103 Research Triangle Institute rcb@rti.rti.org [128.109.139.2] {decvax,ihnp4}!mcnc!rti!rcb
terry@wsccs.UUCP (terry) (03/02/88)
In article <2239@zaphod.UUCP>, dkatz@zaphod.UUCP (Dave Katz) asks: > +----------------------------------------------------------------+ > | | > | If a software protection scheme existed that produced | > | no hardships to the honest user and only acted to prevent | > | people from obtaining the software by means other than | > | purchasing it, would you support that form of software | > | protection? | > | | > +----------------------------------------------------------------+ Yes. We have one. I still think obtrusive copy protection is stupid. If I wanted to hear calypso music, I would put it on the stereo, *not* my disk drive ...stick in the alignment disk, stick in the calypso disk, stick in the alignment disk, stick in the calypso disk... DOWN WITH CALYPSO DISKS! | Terry Lambert UUCP: ...!decvax!utah-cs!century!terry | | @ Century Software or : ...utah-cs!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wsccs!terry | | SLC, Utah | | These opinions are not my companies, but if you find them | | useful, send a $20.00 donation to Brisbane Australia... | | 'There are monkey boys in the facility. Do not be alarmed; you are secure' |
mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) (03/13/88)
In article <2239@zaphod.UUCP>, dkatz@zaphod.UUCP (Dave Katz) writes: > In article <10332@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes: >> [upgrading the Mercedes analogy with a (hypothetical, I hope!) >> matter duplicator] > The point is the people whose livelihood comes from > designing/building/selling (...) the Merc (etc) in the first place. So? What about all the whale-oil lamp companies that went under when electrical lighting came in? What about their livelihood? What about all the carriage companies that the auto makers put out of business? Do you also oppose attempts to ban nuclear weapons because it would take away the livelihood of those who make them? > The point is also that if you could duplicate things, then the > incentive to create and improve products and to prosper from doing so > would disappear. Oh nonsense. Look at how many gadgets were invented, how much software was written, simply because the inventor/author felt like it. In the case of software, consider all the free software. Whatever motivated the creation of that software is clearly not such as to disappear in the world we are imagining. > Can you imagine a world where no one was motivated to produce a > better tool than MicroSoft Word? No. I daresay anyone who's used it would be so motivated (I cannot recall even one program I've used that I have not been motivated to improve). Unfortunately only a very few have the skill to do so. > The question I put to all of the net is: > If a software protection scheme existed that produced no hardships to > the honest user and only acted to prevent people from obtaining the > software by means other than purchasing it, would you support that > form of software protection? No, I think. You are asking me to decide without seeing the scheme, which makes it more difficult. Also, I believe your hypothetical scheme cannot exist because you have placed mutually incompatible conditions on it. Why no? Because the notion of purchasing copies of information feels wrong. I am more or less in agreement with Mike "My watch has windows" Meyer's arguments on this. der Mouse uucp: mouse@mcgill-vision.uucp arpa: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu