perkins@bnrmtv.UUCP (Henry Perkins) (07/20/87)
"Dongle" is the generic name for a class of hardware-based
copy-protection access keys. The idea is that you attach to
a PC port a hardware "black box" which implements part of some
copy-protection mechanism. The software routes some critical
function through the black box, which looks for a corresponding
dongle. Typically one black box may support something like 4-6
dongles. The copy-protection mechanism uses the black box plus
the unique dongle to give the appropriate response to the
software.
The remedy for dongle-based copy-protection is to patch the
software to remove the dongle code; if the code to access the
black box + dongle is removed, you don't need the hardware any
more. Naturally, this is slow and tedious work. The dongle
sellers are betting that it'll be less hassle for you to carry
dongles around in your pocket than to patch each version of the
program you get. While they may be correct on that point, it's
MUCH EASIER to buy some competing unprotected product instead.
I don't see much future for copy-protection; games will probably
be holdouts for a while, though. I'd expect a two-tier pricing
system instead: the cheap price gives you a copy of the current
version of the program; the expensive price gives you that plus
support and discounts on upgrades to later versions.
--
{hplabs,amdahl,3comvax}!bnrmtv!perkins --Henry Perkins
It is better never to have been born. But who among us has such luck?
One in a million, perhaps.fmr@cwi.nl (Frank Rahmani) (07/22/87)
In article <2230@bnrmtv.UUCP>, perkins@bnrmtv.UUCP (Henry Perkins) writes: > The remedy for dongle-based copy-protection is to patch the > software to remove the dongle code; if the code to access the > black box + dongle is removed, you don't need the hardware any > more. Naturally, this is slow and tedious work. Its not half as tedious as looking for hours all over my place to find the f***ing thing, just to discover that I left it at work. Once the code is removed you can make a million 'backup' copies, by the way :-) :-) >The dongle sellers are betting that it'll be less hassle for you to carry > dongles around in your pocket than to patch each version of the > program you get. While they may be correct on that point, it's > MUCH EASIER to buy some competing unprotected product instead. If I hate _ONE_ thing in life its other people bothering about what is best for me ! The sellers seem to forget that I _BOUGHT_ their product, so its my property and I should be able to use it my way. Yes, let's all boycot unreasonable copy protection so the producers can whistle after the money they invested in inventing their dark schemes. > > It is better never to have been born. But who among us has such luck? I really _LOVE_ this line!! Just hope there is no copyright on it! > One in a million, perhaps. -- It is better never to have been born. But who among us has such luck?
mikep@ism780c.UUCP (Michael A. Petonic) (07/23/87)
In article <305@sering.cwi.nl> fmr@cwi.nl (Frank Rahmani) writes: > If I hate _ONE_ thing in life its other people bothering > about what is best for me ! The sellers seem to forget > that I _BOUGHT_ their product, so its my property and I > should be able to use it my way. Well, that's not so true. When you go to a store and pick up a copy of say Lotus 123, you didn't buy that package but a liscense to use the software that is enclosed. I don't understand all the implications, but I do know that there are a hell of a lot of legal spaghetti in the liscensing agreements (except for Borland's). MikeP -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= The company and all my associates and friends and ESPECIALLY the government put me up to say all this useless trash. MikeP {seismo|sdcrdcf}!ism780c!mikep "Some of my best friends are Bigots..."
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (07/26/87)
in article <6965@ism780c.UUCP>, mikep@ism780c.UUCP (Michael A. Petonic) says: > Well, that's not so true. When you go to a store and pick up a copy > of say Lotus 123, you didn't buy that package but a liscense to use > the software that is enclosed. I don't understand all the implications, > but I do know that there are a hell of a lot of legal spaghetti in the > liscensing agreements (except for Borland's). I'll have to remember that. Maybe we should all get together and file suit against Lotus for FRAUD. Consider. I go to a software store. Lotus 123 is sitting on the shelf. I buy it, and give the store owner my $499 check. Then I get home, and find that I didn't buy it, at all, because a little note tucked in the first couple of pages of the manual says that Lotus owns the program, and is just letting me rent it for awhile, until I do something they don't agree with. That isn't what I paid for. I thought I was buying it. These people defrauded me! -- 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
rupp@cod.UUCP (William L. Rupp) (07/29/87)
Come, come, the concept of licensing a product vs. outright sale of a product can't be that hard to understand. Ford Motor Company sells Fords outright because there is no danger of anyone replicating automobiles in their garages. Software is different. "Buying" software is much like buying a book. If you buy a book, do you "own" the book? Well, yes and no. You do own that particular copy of the book, but you do not own the right to make copies of it and sell them to others. In fact, I have seen books (though not lately) which displayed a prohibition against reselling that praticular copy. Obviously, that stricture is unreasonable, and I don't think any publisher tries to enforce it anymore. Xerox a few copies and try to sell them at the local swap-meet, on the other hand, and you are in trouble. Software is copyrighted, as are books. When you buy Lotus 123, you are in fact buying the disk. You are not, however, buying the rights to replicate and sell copies of the program stored on that disk. I don't like a lot of the details of software licensing, but I recognize that nobody would bother to create software if the licensing protection did not exist. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- My comments and thoughts are totally my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other person or organization....How's that, Gary? -------------------------------------------------------------------------
mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (07/30/87)
In article <776@cod.UUCP> rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes:
<replicate and sell copies of the program stored on that disk. I don't
<like a lot of the details of software licensing, but I recognize that
<nobody would bother to create software if the licensing protection did
<not exist.
So why is there some much PD and PA software? Why are the PD
programming tools on micros better than the commercial competition?
Why does the Free Software Foundation exist?
No, you're wrong. People would continue to create software even if
there was no copyright protection. The people motivated by curiosity
and need for better tools, not greed, would still be motivated. And
those are probably the best people creating software.
<mike
--
I'm gonna lasso you with my rubberband lazer, Mike Meyer
Pull you closer to me, and look right to the moon. mwm@berkeley.edu
Ride side by side when worlds collide, ucbvax!mwm
And slip into the Martian tide. mwm@ucbjade.BITNETralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu (Ralph Hyre) (07/31/87)
In article <776@cod.UUCP> rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes: >like a lot of the details of software licensing, but I recognize that >nobody would bother to create software if the licensing protection did >not exist. I disagree - the profit motive for selling software may be reduced if licensing protection didn't exist, but people would still create software. Without the licensing loophole, computer software might fall under the Uniform Commercial Code, and software producers could be help liable for products that fail to perform as described. So without licensing, maybe Lotus Development Corporation wouldn't exist. So what? Others would continue to create software, people who do it as a hobby or because they want other people to appreciate their work. People and companies who aren't so greedy as to try to squeeze every potential penny out of a product would continue to create software. -- - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu Phone:(412)268-{2847,3275} CMU-{BUGS,DARK} Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (08/01/87)
The amount of misleading information here is surprising. In article <776@cod.UUCP> rupp@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (William L. Rupp) writes: >Software is copyrighted, as are books. Well, software that bears a proper copyright notice is copyrighted. It's not clear that "Copyrighted as an unpublished work" in a published work is a proper copyright notice, since it contradicts reality. >I don't >like a lot of the details of software licensing, but I recognize that >nobody would bother to create software if the licensing protection did >not exist. Not true. Copyright law is very strong today. If software is properly registered with the US Patent Office, and if it bears a proper notice, copyright law even promises to compensate the copyright owner for attorney's fees in a successful lawsuit. Copyright violations are a criminal offense. The penalty can be up to $50,000 for *each* violation. If you have a good enough case, the FBI will investigate it. This is far more than a shrink-wrap license agreement could ever do, even if it could be shown to be enforcible. Violation of a software license agreement is a private matter between the two parties, so it's a much weaker thing as far as enforcement goes. The people who write the shrink-wrap license agreements know perfectly well they are worth nothing. That is why they always try to back them up with a copyright notice. With a proper binding license agreement the copyright status of the software is irrelevant. Unfortunately a lot of people will believe anything they see printed, especially if it has an impressive title like "LICENSE AGREEMENT". I think what has happened is that the software industry developed so suddenly that there were not enough lawyers around who had expertise in the field. The result was a scare created by these lawyers who were novices in this field, which led to paranoia amongst the software publishers. This led to these unenforcible license agreements. Now your typical software publisher's lawyer isn't about to say, "Gee, what a silly thing I did, the shrink-wrap license agreement I wrote up for you is meanignless, and you wasted a lot of money paying me for it." On the other hand, your naive average consumer is taken in by the license agreement, and doesn't bother contesting it even if he can afford to do so. Thus the myth is perpetuated. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (08/01/87)
in article <776@cod.UUCP>, rupp@cod.UUCP (William L. Rupp) says: > > Come, come, the concept of licensing a product vs. outright sale of > a product can't be that hard to understand. Ford Motor Company sells > Fords outright because there is no danger of anyone replicating > automobiles in their garages. Software is different. "Buying" software > is much like buying a book. Exactly. When I buy Steven Brust's latest creation at the local B. Dalton, I can loan it to my friends, I can sell it to someone else, etc. However, under the Copyright Act of 1978, I cannot make and distribute copies (except for "fair use", which has generally been interpreted as meaning reviewers can use excerpts in their reviews, profs can quote parts of copyrighted technical papers, etc.). The copyright owner has full rights of reproduction, marketing, modification, and sundry other such things. It is not necessary to invoke a ficticious contract between you and the purchaser, when the purchaser went up to a software store and bought the software just like he buys tomatoes and bread at the local supermarket. That's a sale. To quote a former judge, "if it talks like a dog, barks like a dog, and walks like a dog, by gum, it IS a dog!". Every product that Bayou Telecommunications sells is protected by copyright. We have no need for ficticious contracts which aren't worth the paper they're written on.... -- Eric Green elg%usl.CSNET Ollie North for President: {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg A man we can believe (in). Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 Lafayette, LA 70509 BBS phone #: 318-984-3854 300/1200 baud
rupp@cod.UUCP (William L. Rupp) (08/03/87)
Good point; a lot of very useful software is public domain. But surely you do not mean that Ashton-Tate would have put all the money and effort into developing DBase if they had no copyright protection on it? Can you point to public domain programs that are as good as DBase III in the data base field? And why is a person "greedy" to want to make a profit from his/her work? I know we are getting into philosophical areas here, but I think we should be realistic about why men and women put forth productive effort. Record companies do not give away phonograph records, and yet most people do not call them "greedy" for not doing so. ------------------------------------------------------------ My postings represent my views only : How's that, Gary? ------------------------------------------------------------
kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) (08/04/87)
Another purpose for the license agreement, and this may be more
important than any perceived protection provided by the agreement, is
that it tends to cast the software as a service and not a "utilitarian
object" (a hammer is a utilitarian object.) If this strategy works, it
protects the manufacturer from implied warranties, like the implied
warranty of fitness for use. A hammer comes with an implied warranty
that it is good for pounding things. If it breaks under normal use or
is useless for hammering due to a manufacturing defect, you have legal
recourse against the manufacturer. If a spreadsheet was a utilitarian
object, there would be an implied warranty that it calculated things
correctly. If there was a bug in the spreadsheet and it caused an
important financial projection to be incorrect, and a company lost a
lot of money, they would be able to go after the software manufacturer
in a vigorous way. Almost everybody thinks bugs are inevitable. You
can imagine how insecure Lotus would feel if their products were util-
itarian objects.
Services are not subject to this legal danger. They are covered by
contract law, and people can disclaim warranties (sort of. I'm not a
lawyer).
Intellectual property (books, recipes, etc.) are also not subject to
warranties of fitness for use. A copyright notice casts the software
as intellectual property. However, I guess people are worried that
since it comes on a physical medium (floppy), it might be mistaken for
a utilitarian object. So they add another layer of protection.
Lawyers are like that, arguing in strange sentences that include every
possibility up front ("He's not guilty. But even if he's guilty, he
was insane. But even if he wasn't insane, it was self defense. But
even if it wasn't self defense, this court doesn't have jurisdiction.
But...").