rlg@BIOBIO.DESKTALK.COM (Richard L. Gralnik) (01/28/91)
Fellow networkers, While I agree that copy protection can make life less than fun for an administrator trying to make sure he/she restores the correct unique set of floppies on a trashed machine, I don't understand why people feel the vendor has no right to protect their (usually considerable) investment in product development from rip-off artists. And note that that term includes offices where everyone passes a copy around as much as people who take the floppies home overnight to make one for their personal use. I'm not pointing fingers. Probably everyone has done it at some time. But the fact remains, if you didn't pay for it, and it isn't freebie public domain software, then you stole it. Trying to make the vendor into the bad guy is a poor attempt at self-justification/rationalization. If you want to live on share-ware go ahead, but to say that people should boycott a company that tries to keep you from making unauthorized copies of their software is like saying you shouldn't go to the supermarket because they prosecute shoplifters. Richard (rlg@desktalk.com) p.s. Tops also implements a networked serial number comparison scheme.
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (01/29/91)
*** BOGUS ANALOGY ALERT *** In article <9101272223.AA08327@desktalk.com> rlg@BIOBIO.DESKTALK.COM (Richard L. Gralnik) writes: >If you want to live on share-ware go ahead, but to say that people >should boycott a company that tries to keep you from making unauthorized >copies of their software is like saying you shouldn't go to the >supermarket because they prosecute shoplifters. Bzzt. Sorry, but you blew it. Saying that people should boycott a company that uses copy protection is like saying that you should change supermarkets when the one you're in attaches bowling balls to the TV dinners to keep you from shoplifting them. >p.s. Tops also implements a networked serial number comparison scheme. Thanks for passing that along. Yet another product to avoid. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "Today is different from yesterday." -- State Department spokesman Margaret Tutwiler, 17 Jan 91, explaining why they won't negotiate with Saddam Hussein
jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (01/29/91)
rlg@BIOBIO.DESKTALK.COM (Richard L. Gralnik) writes: >Fellow networkers, >While I agree that copy protection can make life less than fun for an >administrator trying to make sure he/she restores the correct unique >set of floppies on a trashed machine, I don't understand why people >feel the vendor has no right to protect their (usually considerable) >investment in product development from rip-off artists. And note that >that term includes offices where everyone passes a copy around as much >as people who take the floppies home overnight to make one for their >personal use. >If you want to live on share-ware go ahead, but to say that people >should boycott a company that tries to keep you from making unauthorized >copies of their software is like saying you shouldn't go to the >supermarket because they prosecute shoplifters. NO!! This is like saying that the supermarket prosecutes every customer because they have a paranoia based on an imagined but not detected thief. As the owner of a small software and (real soon to be) hardware company, I gotta comment. On my soapbox. The reason copy protection of any kind is obscene is that it is merely a symptom of an attitude disease in the vendor company. Instead of viewing the customer as the source of his wealth and cultivating him accordingly, the vendor views the customer as simply a source of money who is to be milked to the extent possible. Ever notice how copy protection-using vendors talk about those evil pirates with the same disgusted tone reserved for cheating spouses, child rapers and politicians? It has nothing to do with a few disks being passed around. Wealth in a business context means far more than the money collected on a sale. Business wealth means sales revenues, customer good will, word-of mouth advertising, followon sales, upgrade and new product purchases, customer understanding when bugs and/or bad features are found (which may mean the difference between a polite phone call to customer support and a massive flamage to this net and/or every magazine they can address a letter to,) tolerance of corporate mistakes by regulators, and (close to the hearts of the protectionists) customer reporting of flagrant copyright or contract violations. It really is an attitude problem on the part of the vendor. I look upon incidental copying (which I define as the insignificant copying to take home, to give to a friend or similiar activity.) as absolutely free advertising. If I offer good customer support, fair pricing, and a decent upgrade policy, so-called "incidental pirates" will either grow bored with the program or will buy a package in order to get all the above benefits. And if they don't buy? Well, I've not really lost anything because that person probably would not have bought in any event and it is not like he had reached in my pocket and taken money out. I simply failed to sell this person. I do, of course, have serious problems with real piracy, such as corporate copying or pirate resellers or bulk give-aways. But we have more than adequate legal remedies to address these problems. If I treat my customers as collegues and trusted friends instead of money pits, it is likely that one of them will call and report large scale piracy. After all, it is in all our benefits that we all stay around over the long term. Didya ever notice that there is usually an inverse relationship between the quality of software and the degree of copy protection. Some of the absolutely worst software I've ever used (EE Designer) was a heavily protected CAD package. This package was written in MS BASIC, for christsake. Yet the graphics device driver which contains the copy protection code employs a multitasker to allow the copy protection dongle to be checked in real time (couldn't have a *paying customer* start the program and then *gasp* switch the dongle to another machine so that work could continue while the first PC drives a plotter for 6 hours.) Conversely, some of the best software (OrCad, WordPerfect) have absolutely no protection. Indeed, WordPerfect will take a support call on their 800 number from so-called pirates. The original source of this thread, SCO Unix is a classic example. Their Unix implementation is IHMO a piece of shit. Not only is it buggy in general, the copy protection locks up the machine if it thinks it discoverd a *GASP* pirate. No warnings, no controlled shutdown, just a lockup. It's the company's Deputy Dipshit instinct revealing itself. While SCO is huddling in their hovels in an emotional corporate crisis, companies like IBM who DO understand customers (and coincidently how to make money from them) are giving RS/6000s with nary a sign of copy protection (yet, at least) to potential customers. Wonder whether there are now more AIX or SCO Unix application platforms out there now? I have one client who is a MAJOR SCO VAR and reseller drop SCO and go with AIX because of this crap. I wonder how many more customers are out there? Is the small system Unix market going to hand the market to IBM? Looks like.. Here are some keys to "protecting your development investments" by keeping customers happy: * Provide a good product at a fair price. If you have a $50 product that you are trying to sell for $500, then don't be surprised that copying goes on. Exhibit A: Lotus 123. If you think you have a product worth thousands, then prove it to your customers. If you REALLY think that copying is a threat, have the customer sign a contract before delivering the product. * Provide plenty of easy to use technical support. Sure, users are dorks but they are also the ones who pay your salary and who can either give you tremendous free advertising or more bad press than you can ever overcome. * Provide free bug fixes and provide free upgrades to those who report bugs. After all, the bug is your f*ckup, not the customer's. * Provide real value for the money in upgrades. Don't call bugfix releases upgrades in order to charge for them. Telebit is one of the worst companies in this regard. $150 for bugfixs. Jeez! Of course, they increment the major version number to make it look like an upgrade. * If you sell a shrink-wrapped product, put in a copyright statement that won't make customers laugh as they throw it in the garbage. You can do much worse than to copy Boreland's copyright statement. Oh, and do not make it worse by calling it a "license agreement". * Provide a way for your potential customers to "try before you buy". Incidental copying is a very legitimate way to do this, as is shareware. Orcad takes a different and inovative approach. Call an Orcad sales office and ask for a demo product. What you will get is a fully functional version of the product but with a dongle. Use it as long as you wish. When you buy, you get an unprotected version. Customer Service will make or break your product. You'd damn well better plan for it as an integral feature of your product, fully as important as the software not crashing. Here's an example of how to and how not to do customer support. I have used 2 brands of intelligent async cards in Unix systems for my customers. One brand is Comtrol and the other is Stargate. I no longer use Stargate because of customer support. When I opened the first Comtrol box, the first thing I saw was a plastic gold card just like a credit card. On this card was printed the 800 toll free support number AND the names and direct dial numbers for the General Manager, the Engineering Manager, the Hardware Tech Support manager, the Software Tech Support manager, the Production manager, the Marketing manager and the Sales manager. Above this list of numbers is this statement: "Our committment to you doesn't stop with our products. We give you the support and the extra service you want. IT's because your satisfaction is our #1 priority. COMTROL is only a phone call away. You have full access to all COMTROL personnel. For your convenience, primary department contacts are listed below:" I've had one occasion to use the support number. A board arrived one evening DOA. I called just at closing time. COMTROL had someone drive a board down to Delta DASH and I got it in a few hours. They told me to return the DOA one when convenient and not to worry about shipping back the (very good) documentation. My Stargate experience was a bit different. I inherited my first card in some surplus stock I bought. The card uses address decode PALs that are specific for each OS. My card was equipped for Xenix and I needed a PAL for ISC Unix. I called up Stargate and reached a rather sullen tech support technician. I was told that a new PAL cost $150!!! I passed on the PAL and obtained one from a friend but ordered a driver disk for ISC. When it got here, it was accompanied by some Nth-generation xeroxed dot-matrix printed documentation that was practically unreadable and it would not install. It did not meet the specifications of ISC's installpkg facility. I copied the disk onto the system and installed it manually. Later, I needed to get an upgraded driver for a new version of the OS. I called Stargate for the upgrade, somewhat expecting to pay for it. I was told that I would either have to write (!) to the sales department who would investigate me as a customer and if I passed, would give me the secret password to their BBS where I could download the upgrade. Or I could write and include some money and get a disk. Write a letter in order to access a BBS indeed! Could they have been afraid that I had wirewrapped a board in my basement and wanted to steal the driver to make it work? Who knows. Now both boards work pretty well equally. But I'll never fool with Stargate again while I recommend COMTROL whenever the opportunity arises. The difference is service. I perceived a better value from COMTROL even though it cost more. I firmly believe that if companies would get their heads out of where the sun never shines and focus the energy they put into copy protection into product quality, so-called piracy would cease to be an issue and their profits would soar. As my company grows, I'm going to do the best of my ability to prove this theory correct yet again. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm) Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm) Marietta, Ga | {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd |"Politically InCorrect.. And damn proud of it
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (01/29/91)
Has this strayed far enough from TCP/IP yet?
jacob@gore.com (Jacob Gore) (01/30/91)
/ comp.protocols.tcp-ip / rlg@BIOBIO.DESKTALK.COM (Richard L. Gralnik) / Jan 27, 1991 / >While I agree that copy protection can make life less than fun for an >administrator trying to make sure he/she restores the correct unique >set of floppies on a trashed machine, I don't understand why people >feel the vendor has no right to protect their (usually considerable) >investment in product development from rip-off artists. Of course they have that right. But I'm under no obligation to buy from them, am I? >the fact remains, if you didn't pay for it, and it isn't freebie >public domain software, then you stole it. Trying to make the vendor >into the bad guy is a poor attempt at self-justification/rationalization. I don't like the vendor making me into the bad guy after I do pay for his software according to his terms. That's why I don't buy copy-protected products. >If you want to live on share-ware go ahead, but to say that people >should boycott a company that tries to keep you from making unauthorized >copies of their software... I don't boycott the company, I only avoid copy-protected products. When I boycott a company, I buy nothing from them, use nothing from them, and try not to promote them or their products in any way. Avoiding bad products is not boycotting. >...is like saying you shouldn't go to the >supermarket because they prosecute shoplifters. No, it's like saying you shouldn't go to a supermarket that strip-searches all of its customers. (Unless you're into that kind of stuff...) Jacob -- Jacob Gore Jacob@Gore.Com boulder!gore!jacob
don@nic.the.net (Donald L. Nash) (01/30/91)
In article <4605@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >>p.s. Tops also implements a networked serial number comparison >scheme. > >Thanks for passing that along. Yet another product to avoid. The copy protection scheme used by Tops is very inobtrusive. It uses AppleTalk Name Binding protocol to register its serial number as a named entity on the network. NBP automatically makes sure that there is no other identical name in the same AppleTalk zone (duplicate names in the same zone are not allowed). If the NBP RegisterName operation fails, then this means someone else is using a copy of Tops with your serial number, so Tops refuses to run. I wouldn't exactly call this "attach[ing] bowling balls to the TV dinners to keep you from shoplifting them." This is more like those magnetic targets which clothing stores use to trip their alarm systems when someone trys to take a piece of clothing out the door without having the target removed by the cashier. They don't get in the way if you are honest, since the cashier removes the target when you pay for the clothes. But they do keep you from being dishonest. BTW, for those of you not familiar with NBP, it does use broadcasts to perform name lookups. So when you register a name, you cause a broadcast to occur when NBP looks up your name first to verify its uniqueness. However, if you are using AppleTalk already then you are already living with NBP broadcasts. They are just something that happens when you use AppleTalk. As far as Tops is concerned, it only causes broadcasts when it starts up and registers its name. To my knowledge, it does not periodically poll to see if someone else is using its serial number, which is in contrast to what the SCO/Lachman cpd program does. I wouldn't use the Lachman stuff if it continually broadcasts like that. I have no problem using Tops, since it does not contribute unnecessarily to network traffic and since it does not prevent me from making backup copies of my disk. And since I'm honest and pay for my software, it doesn't prevent me from getting my work done. Donald L. Nash The University of Texas System Office of Telecommunication Services Internet: D.Nash@utexas.edu THEnet: THENIC::DON BITNET: DON@THENIC PSI Mail: 311051200131::DON
0004219666@MCIMAIL.COM (Bob Stine) (01/30/91)
Please, oh please, could we not argue over copy protection in this forum?
RMRichardson.OSBU_North@XEROX.COM (01/30/91)
> ... but to say that people should boycott a company that tries to keep > you from making unauthorized copies of their software is like saying you > shouldn't go to the supermarket because they prosecute shoplifters. No, ... not quite. I think saying people should avoid a company that tries to keep you from making unauthorized copies of their software with annoying protections is like saying you shouldn't go to the supermarket that tries to prevent shoplifting by pat searching every customer as they exit the store. If a supermarket thinks it's customer base needs to searched to prevent shoplifting, I don't want to be in that customer base. If a software company thinks it's customer base needs to be harassed to prevent piracy, I don't want to be in that customer base either. Rich
fortinp@bwdls56.bnr.ca (Pierre Fortin) (01/30/91)
In article <9101272223.AA08327@desktalk.com>, rlg@BIOBIO.DESKTALK.COM (Richard L. Gralnik) writes: [stuff about illegal copying deleted] > Trying to make the vendor > into the bad guy is a poor attempt at self-justification/rationalization. > > If you want to live on share-ware go ahead, but to say that people > should boycott a company that tries to keep you from making unauthorized > copies of their software is like saying you shouldn't go to the > supermarket because they prosecute shoplifters. > > Richard > (rlg@desktalk.com) > > p.s. Tops also implements a networked serial number comparison scheme. I have no problem with vendors trying to protect their investment, but where should the line be drawn? Checking serial numbers over the network (as is the case with some Mac software) does not always scale; worse, if it chews up lots of intercity bandwidth and causes me to have to increase the size of my links to handle this type of traffic, then I will contact my Purchasing and Legal departments to try and have this "network manace" blacklisted. If this type of copy protection scheme is deemed necessary, then lets get some concrete proposals on the table which are network and administrator friendly. From there, why not have an RFC describing the process/protocol and make it a standard. After all, isn't this just another flavor of the larger "security" issues? Cheers, Pierre Fortin fortinp@bnr.ca (613)763-2598
bob@MorningStar.Com (01/30/91)
(I told myself I wouldn't get drawn into this non-TCP/IP related discussion, but this pushed a button...) From: don@nic.the.net (Donald L. Nash) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Date: 29 Jan 91 19:43:30 GMT In article <4605@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: p.s. Tops also implements a networked serial number comparison scheme. Thanks for passing that along. Yet another product to avoid. The copy protection scheme used by Tops is very inobtrusive. ...They don't get in the way if you are honest, since the cashier removes the target when you pay for the clothes. But they do keep you from being dishonest. ... I have no problem using Tops, since it does not contribute unnecessarily to network traffic and since it does not prevent me from making backup copies of my disk. And since I'm honest and pay for my software, it doesn't prevent me from getting my work done. You missed the point. The problem isn't just the network load, it's the copy protection scheme itself. You obviously haven't tried to run a lab of 100 Macintoshes using TOPS for file service from a large UNIX machine. Every time an undergrad bombs h{is,er} Macintosh they must approach the help desk for help rebooting. The lab monitor must then ascertain which particular Mac the student was using (often requiring a trip out into the carrels and back), and get its specific TOPS boot disk from the drawer. The monitor must then go out into the carrels (perhaps for the second time) and assist the student in booting the Macintosh. During each of these trips, the monitor is vulnerable to interruption by other users, which creates additional delay in servicing the original user's request. Then the boot disk must be returned to the drawer so that it can be found and used the next time. This is an example of an honest user being hamstrung by legitimate use of a copy-protected product, in fact using it in a way that the product's marketing stressed as a way to reap the major advantages from the product. This certainly does prevent honest users from getting their work done. Several years ago when I was on the facilities staff and helping set this stuff up at OSU CIS, the president of Centram (which developed TOPS before it was bought by Sun) sat in a conference room and told us to our faces that they would provide us with a non-copy-protected version of the software. Based on that promise we purchased hundreds of copies of TOPS, expecting the hassles I described above to be only a temporary inconvenience until the new version arrived. Needless to say, it never did, and last I heard Sun hasn't honored that promise either (not that there's any reason to expect them to - Sun's not Centram, and Sun didn't make the promise). Is it OK to slam a company that doesn't exist any more? :-)
root@ES-CIT.ESUSDA.GOV (Everett Dowd) (01/31/91)
> Please, oh please, could we not argue over copy protection in this forum?
Yes I agree! I thought this was for discussion of tcp-ip related items,
not copy protection! bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (02/01/91)
In article <9101301523.AA08491@volitans.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com writes:
From: don@nic.the.net (Donald L. Nash)
Date: 29 Jan 91 19:43:30 GMT
...
You missed the point... You obviously haven't tried...
I apologize for my harsh comments against Mr Nash in a public forum,
and an inappropriate forum at that. I should learn to sit on my
hands.ericd@sco.COM (Eric Davis) (02/01/91)
Dear Netlanders
Some of the information in this post is incorrect. I do not want to
use network bandwidth to explain the issues, however I would be more
than willing to email concerned individuals directly about the the
copy protection scheme and how it affects system adminstration and users.
From a techinical and adminstrative point of view SCO's implementation
of a copy protection scheme it is not the limiting monster that it is
thought to be. Please take time to understand the facts.
Eric Davis
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Eric Davis () INTERNET -=+ ericd@sco.COM
Technical Support Engineer II () UUCP -=+ {uunet|sun|att|ucsc}!sco!ericd
() VOX -=+ US + 408 425 7222
() FAX -=+ US + 408 427 5443
() TWX -=+ 910-598-4510 sco sacz
() HOME -=+ ericd@bumby.santa-cruz.ca.US
The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. ()=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
399 Encinal Street () "We are the people our parents warned us
Santa Cruz, California 95061 () about" -Jimmy Buffett
attn: ericd () #include <legal/network/disclamer.h+
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
In article <6207@rsiatl.Dixie.Com+ jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes:
+rlg@BIOBIO.DESKTALK.COM (Richard L. Gralnik) writes:
+
+>Fellow networkers,
+
+>While I agree that copy protection can make life less than fun for an
+>administrator trying to make sure he/she restores the correct unique
+>set of floppies on a trashed machine, I don't understand why people
+>feel the vendor has no right to protect their (usually considerable)
+>investment in product development from rip-off artists. And note that
+>that term includes offices where everyone passes a copy around as much
+>as people who take the floppies home overnight to make one for their
+>personal use.
+
+>If you want to live on share-ware go ahead, but to say that people
+>should boycott a company that tries to keep you from making unauthorized
+>copies of their software is like saying you shouldn't go to the
+>supermarket because they prosecute shoplifters.
+
+NO!! This is like saying that the supermarket prosecutes every customer
+because they have a paranoia based on an imagined but not detected thief.
+
+As the owner of a small software and (real soon to be) hardware company,
+I gotta comment. On my soapbox.
+
+The reason copy protection of any kind is obscene is that it is merely a
+symptom of an attitude disease in the vendor company. Instead of viewing
+the customer as the source of his wealth and cultivating him accordingly,
+the vendor views the customer as simply a source of money who is to be
+milked to the extent possible. Ever notice how copy protection-using
+vendors talk about those evil pirates with the same disgusted tone
+reserved for cheating spouses, child rapers and politicians? It has
+nothing to do with a few disks being passed around.
+
+Wealth in a business context means far more than the money collected on a
+sale. Business wealth means sales revenues, customer good will, word-of
+mouth advertising, followon sales, upgrade and new product purchases,
+customer understanding when bugs and/or bad features are found (which may
+mean the difference between a polite phone call to customer support and a
+massive flamage to this net and/or every magazine they can address a
+letter to,) tolerance of corporate mistakes by regulators, and (close to
+the hearts of the protectionists) customer reporting of flagrant
+copyright or contract violations.
+
+It really is an attitude problem on the part of the vendor. I look upon
+incidental copying (which I define as the insignificant copying to take
+home, to give to a friend or similiar activity.) as absolutely free
+advertising. If I offer good customer support, fair pricing, and a
+decent upgrade policy, so-called "incidental pirates" will either grow
+bored with the program or will buy a package in order to get all the
+above benefits. And if they don't buy? Well, I've not really lost
+anything because that person probably would not have bought in any
+event and it is not like he had reached in my pocket and taken money
+out. I simply failed to sell this person.
+
+I do, of course, have serious problems with real piracy, such
+as corporate copying or pirate resellers or bulk give-aways. But we have
+more than adequate legal remedies to address these problems. If I treat
+my customers as collegues and trusted friends instead of money pits, it
+is likely that one of them will call and report large scale piracy. After
+all, it is in all our benefits that we all stay around over the long term.
+
+Didya ever notice that there is usually an inverse relationship between
+the quality of software and the degree of copy protection. Some of the
+absolutely worst software I've ever used (EE Designer) was a heavily
+protected CAD package. This package was written in MS BASIC, for
+christsake. Yet the graphics device driver which contains the copy
+protection code employs a multitasker to allow the copy protection dongle
+to be checked in real time (couldn't have a *paying customer* start the
+program and then *gasp* switch the dongle to another machine so that work
+could continue while the first PC drives a plotter for 6 hours.)
+Conversely, some of the best software (OrCad, WordPerfect) have
+absolutely no protection. Indeed, WordPerfect will take a support call
+on their 800 number from so-called pirates.
+
+The original source of this thread, SCO Unix is a classic example. Their
+Unix implementation is IHMO a piece of shit. Not only is it buggy in
+general, the copy protection locks up the machine if it thinks it
+discoverd a *GASP* pirate. No warnings, no controlled shutdown, just a
+lockup. It's the company's Deputy Dipshit instinct revealing itself.
+While SCO is huddling in their hovels in an emotional corporate crisis,
+companies like IBM who DO understand customers (and coincidently how to
+make money from them) are giving RS/6000s with nary a sign of copy
+protection (yet, at least) to potential customers. Wonder whether there
+are now more AIX or SCO Unix application platforms out there now? I
+have one client who is a MAJOR SCO VAR and reseller drop SCO and go with
+AIX because of this crap. I wonder how many more customers are out
+there? Is the small system Unix market going to hand the market to IBM?
+Looks like..
+
+Here are some keys to "protecting your development investments" by
+keeping customers happy:
+
+* Provide a good product at a fair price. If you have a $50 product
+ that you are trying to sell for $500, then don't be surprised that
+ copying goes on. Exhibit A: Lotus 123. If you think you have a
+ product worth thousands, then prove it to your customers. If you
+ REALLY think that copying is a threat, have the customer sign
+ a contract before delivering the product.
+
+* Provide plenty of easy to use technical support. Sure, users are
+ dorks but they are also the ones who pay your salary and who
+ can either give you tremendous free advertising or more bad press
+ than you can ever overcome.
+
+* Provide free bug fixes and provide free upgrades to those who report bugs.
+ After all, the bug is your f*ckup, not the customer's.
+
+* Provide real value for the money in upgrades. Don't call bugfix releases
+ upgrades in order to charge for them. Telebit is one of the worst
+ companies in this regard. $150 for bugfixs. Jeez! Of course,
+ they increment the major version number to make it look like an upgrade.
+
+* If you sell a shrink-wrapped product, put in a copyright statement that
+ won't make customers laugh as they throw it in the garbage. You can
+ do much worse than to copy Boreland's copyright statement. Oh, and
+ do not make it worse by calling it a "license agreement".
+
+* Provide a way for your potential customers to "try before you buy".
+ Incidental copying is a very legitimate way to do this, as is shareware.
+ Orcad takes a different and inovative approach. Call an Orcad sales
+ office and ask for a demo product. What you will get is a fully
+ functional version of the product but with a dongle. Use it as
+ long as you wish. When you buy, you get an unprotected version.
+
+Customer Service will make or break your product. You'd damn well better
+plan for it as an integral feature of your product, fully as important
+as the software not crashing. Here's an example of how to and how not to
+do customer support. I have used 2 brands of intelligent async cards in
+Unix systems for my customers. One brand is Comtrol and the other is
+Stargate. I no longer use Stargate because of customer support.
+
+When I opened the first Comtrol box, the first thing I saw was a plastic gold
+card just like a credit card. On this card was printed the 800 toll free
+support number AND the names and direct dial numbers for the General Manager,
+the Engineering Manager, the Hardware Tech Support manager, the Software
+Tech Support manager, the Production manager, the Marketing manager and
+the Sales manager. Above this list of numbers is this statement:
+
+ "Our committment to you doesn't stop with our products. We give
+ you the support and the extra service you want. IT's because your
+ satisfaction is our #1 priority. COMTROL is only a phone call away.
+ You have full access to all COMTROL personnel. For your convenience,
+ primary department contacts are listed below:"
+
+I've had one occasion to use the support number. A board arrived one
+evening DOA. I called just at closing time. COMTROL had someone drive
+a board down to Delta DASH and I got it in a few hours. They told me
+to return the DOA one when convenient and not to worry about shipping
+back the (very good) documentation.
+
+My Stargate experience was a bit different. I inherited my first card
+in some surplus stock I bought. The card uses address decode PALs that
+are specific for each OS. My card was equipped for Xenix and I needed a
+PAL for ISC Unix. I called up Stargate and reached a rather sullen tech
+support technician. I was told that a new PAL cost $150!!! I passed on
+the PAL and obtained one from a friend but ordered a driver disk for
+ISC. When it got here, it was accompanied by some Nth-generation xeroxed
+dot-matrix printed documentation that was practically unreadable and it
+would not install. It did not meet the specifications of ISC's
+installpkg facility. I copied the disk onto the system and installed it
+manually.
+
+Later, I needed to get an upgraded driver for a new version of the OS.
+I called Stargate for the upgrade, somewhat expecting to pay for it.
+I was told that I would either have to write (!) to the sales department
+who would investigate me as a customer and if I passed, would give me
+the secret password to their BBS where I could download the upgrade.
+Or I could write and include some money and get a disk. Write a letter
+in order to access a BBS indeed! Could they have been afraid that I
+had wirewrapped a board in my basement and wanted to steal the driver
+to make it work? Who knows.
+
+Now both boards work pretty well equally. But I'll never fool with
+Stargate again while I recommend COMTROL whenever the opportunity arises.
+The difference is service. I perceived a better value from COMTROL even
+though it cost more.
+
+I firmly believe that if companies would get their heads out of where the
+sun never shines and focus the energy they put into copy protection into
+product quality, so-called piracy would cease to be an issue and their
+profits would soar. As my company grows, I'm going to do the best of my
+ability to prove this theory correct yet again.
+
+John
+
+--
+John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm)
+Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm)
+Marietta, Ga |
+{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd |"Politically InCorrect.. And damn proud of it
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: copy protection
Summary:
Expires:
References: <9101272223.AA08327@desktalk.com+ <6207@rsiatl.Dixie.Com>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Keywords:
In article <6207@rsiatl.Dixie.Com+ jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes:
+rlg@BIOBIO.DESKTALK.COM (Richard L. Gralnik) writes:
+
+>Fellow networkers,
+
+>While I agree that copy protection can make life less than fun for an
+>administrator trying to make sure he/she restores the correct unique
+>set of floppies on a trashed machine, I don't understand why people
+>feel the vendor has no right to protect their (usually considerable)
+>investment in product development from rip-off artists. And note that
+>that term includes offices where everyone passes a copy around as much
+>as people who take the floppies home overnight to make one for their
+>personal use.
+
+>If you want to live on share-ware go ahead, but to say that people
+>should boycott a company that tries to keep you from making unauthorized
+>copies of their software is like saying you shouldn't go to the
+>supermarket because they prosecute shoplifters.
+
+NO!! This is like saying that the supermarket prosecutes every customer
+because they have a paranoia based on an imagined but not detected thief.
+
+As the owner of a small software and (real soon to be) hardware company,
+I gotta comment. On my soapbox.
+
+The reason copy protection of any kind is obscene is that it is merely a
+symptom of an attitude disease in the vendor company. Instead of viewing
+the customer as the source of his wealth and cultivating him accordingly,
+the vendor views the customer as simply a source of money who is to be
+milked to the extent possible. Ever notice how copy protection-using
+vendors talk about those evil pirates with the same disgusted tone
+reserved for cheating spouses, child rapers and politicians? It has
+nothing to do with a few disks being passed around.
+
+Wealth in a business context means far more than the money collected on a
+sale. Business wealth means sales revenues, customer good will, word-of
+mouth advertising, followon sales, upgrade and new product purchases,
+customer understanding when bugs and/or bad features are found (which may
+mean the difference between a polite phone call to customer support and a
+massive flamage to this net and/or every magazine they can address a
+letter to,) tolerance of corporate mistakes by regulators, and (close to
+the hearts of the protectionists) customer reporting of flagrant
+copyright or contract violations.
+
+It really is an attitude problem on the part of the vendor. I look upon
+incidental copying (which I define as the insignificant copying to take
+home, to give to a friend or similiar activity.) as absolutely free
+advertising. If I offer good customer support, fair pricing, and a
+decent upgrade policy, so-called "incidental pirates" will either grow
+bored with the program or will buy a package in order to get all the
+above benefits. And if they don't buy? Well, I've not really lost
+anything because that person probably would not have bought in any
+event and it is not like he had reached in my pocket and taken money
+out. I simply failed to sell this person.
+
+I do, of course, have serious problems with real piracy, such
+as corporate copying or pirate resellers or bulk give-aways. But we have
+more than adequate legal remedies to address these problems. If I treat
+my customers as collegues and trusted friends instead of money pits, it
+is likely that one of them will call and report large scale piracy. After
+all, it is in all our benefits that we all stay around over the long term.
+
+Didya ever notice that there is usually an inverse relationship between
+the quality of software and the degree of copy protection. Some of the
+absolutely worst software I've ever used (EE Designer) was a heavily
+protected CAD package. This package was written in MS BASIC, for
+christsake. Yet the graphics device driver which contains the copy
+protection code employs a multitasker to allow the copy protection dongle
+to be checked in real time (couldn't have a *paying customer* start the
+program and then *gasp* switch the dongle to another machine so that work
+could continue while the first PC drives a plotter for 6 hours.)
+Conversely, some of the best software (OrCad, WordPerfect) have
+absolutely no protection. Indeed, WordPerfect will take a support call
+on their 800 number from so-called pirates.
+
+The original source of this thread, SCO Unix is a classic example. Their
+Unix implementation is IHMO a piece of shit. Not only is it buggy in
+general, the copy protection locks up the machine if it thinks it
+discoverd a *GASP* pirate. No warnings, no controlled shutdown, just a
+lockup. It's the company's Deputy Dipshit instinct revealing itself.
+While SCO is huddling in their hovels in an emotional corporate crisis,
+companies like IBM who DO understand customers (and coincidently how to
+make money from them) are giving RS/6000s with nary a sign of copy
+protection (yet, at least) to potential customers. Wonder whether there
+are now more AIX or SCO Unix application platforms out there now? I
+have one client who is a MAJOR SCO VAR and reseller drop SCO and go with
+AIX because of this crap. I wonder how many more customers are out
+there? Is the small system Unix market going to hand the market to IBM?
+Looks like..
+
+Here are some keys to "protecting your development investments" by
+keeping customers happy:
+
+* Provide a good product at a fair price. If you have a $50 product
+ that you are trying to sell for $500, then don't be surprised that
+ copying goes on. Exhibit A: Lotus 123. If you think you have a
+ product worth thousands, then prove it to your customers. If you
+ REALLY think that copying is a threat, have the customer sign
+ a contract before delivering the product.
+
+* Provide plenty of easy to use technical support. Sure, users are
+ dorks but they are also the ones who pay your salary and who
+ can either give you tremendous free advertising or more bad press
+ than you can ever overcome.
+
+* Provide free bug fixes and provide free upgrades to those who report bugs.
+ After all, the bug is your f*ckup, not the customer's.
+
+* Provide real value for the money in upgrades. Don't call bugfix releases
+ upgrades in order to charge for them. Telebit is one of the worst
+ companies in this regard. $150 for bugfixs. Jeez! Of course,
+ they increment the major version number to make it look like an upgrade.
+
+* If you sell a shrink-wrapped product, put in a copyright statement that
+ won't make customers laugh as they throw it in the garbage. You can
+ do much worse than to copy Boreland's copyright statement. Oh, and
+ do not make it worse by calling it a "license agreement".
+
+* Provide a way for your potential customers to "try before you buy".
+ Incidental copying is a very legitimate way to do this, as is shareware.
+ Orcad takes a different and inovative approach. Call an Orcad sales
+ office and ask for a demo product. What you will get is a fully
+ functional version of the product but with a dongle. Use it as
+ long as you wish. When you buy, you get an unprotected version.
+
+Customer Service will make or break your product. You'd damn well better
+plan for it as an integral feature of your product, fully as important
+as the software not crashing. Here's an example of how to and how not to
+do customer support. I have used 2 brands of intelligent async cards in
+Unix systems for my customers. One brand is Comtrol and the other is
+Stargate. I no longer use Stargate because of customer support.
+
+When I opened the first Comtrol box, the first thing I saw was a plastic gold
+card just like a credit card. On this card was printed the 800 toll free
+support number AND the names and direct dial numbers for the General Manager,
+the Engineering Manager, the Hardware Tech Support manager, the Software
+Tech Support manager, the Production manager, the Marketing manager and
+the Sales manager. Above this list of numbers is this statement:
+
+ "Our committment to you doesn't stop with our products. We give
+ you the support and the extra service you want. IT's because your
+ satisfaction is our #1 priority. COMTROL is only a phone call away.
+ You have full access to all COMTROL personnel. For your convenience,
+ primary department contacts are listed below:"
+
+I've had one occasion to use the support number. A board arrived one
+evening DOA. I called just at closing time. COMTROL had someone drive
+a board down to Delta DASH and I got it in a few hours. They told me
+to return the DOA one when convenient and not to worry about shipping
+back the (very good) documentation.
+
+My Stargate experience was a bit different. I inherited my first card
+in some surplus stock I bought. The card uses address decode PALs that
+are specific for each OS. My card was equipped for Xenix and I needed a
+PAL for ISC Unix. I called up Stargate and reached a rather sullen tech
+support technician. I was told that a new PAL cost $150!!! I passed on
+the PAL and obtained one from a friend but ordered a driver disk for
+ISC. When it got here, it was accompanied by some Nth-generation xeroxed
+dot-matrix printed documentation that was practically unreadable and it
+would not install. It did not meet the specifications of ISC's
+installpkg facility. I copied the disk onto the system and installed it
+manually.
+
+Later, I needed to get an upgraded driver for a new version of the OS.
+I called Stargate for the upgrade, somewhat expecting to pay for it.
+I was told that I would either have to write (!) to the sales department
+who would investigate me as a customer and if I passed, would give me
+the secret password to their BBS where I could download the upgrade.
+Or I could write and include some money and get a disk. Write a letter
+in order to access a BBS indeed! Could they have been afraid that I
+had wirewrapped a board in my basement and wanted to steal the driver
+to make it work? Who knows.
+
+Now both boards work pretty well equally. But I'll never fool with
+Stargate again while I recommend COMTROL whenever the opportunity arises.
+The difference is service. I perceived a better value from COMTROL even
+though it cost more.
+
+I firmly believe that if companies would get their heads out of where the
+sun never shines and focus the energy they put into copy protection into
+product quality, so-called piracy would cease to be an issue and their
+profits would soar. As my company grows, I'm going to do the best of my
+ability to prove this theory correct yet again.
+
+John
+
+--
+John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm)
+Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm)
+Marietta, Ga |
+{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd |"Politically InCorrect.. And damn proud of it casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) (02/03/91)
| From: ericd@sco.COM (Eric Davis) | | Some of the information in this post is incorrect. I do not want to use | network bandwidth to explain the issues, however I would be more than | willing to email concerned individuals directly about the the copy | protection scheme and how it affects system adminstration and users. | From a techinical and adminstrative point of view SCO's implementation of | a copy protection scheme it is not the limiting monster that it is | thought to be. Please take time to understand the facts. You didn't help your case in the least with those two incredibly large and redundant postings. First, all the material you quoted had already hit TCP-IP. You didn't add any new information in your posting. If all you wanted to do was to take the discussion out of a public forum by offering to discuss the issues privately with individuals, that's all you should have said. Including the vast amount of already posted material is just going to piss people off. Second you sent the note out twice, but I'll assume that was merely a mistake on your part. As for wanting to take the discussion off of TCP-IP, there have been a few complaints about the appropriateness of discussing network copy protection / licensing on TCP-IP from a few people, but since it really *IS* a network issue, I think that a majority of TCP-IP readers are probably tolerant of, if not actively interested, the subject. I for one would like to see SCO defend its use of network licensing via broadcast messages. I have to admit being biased towards disliking it intensively, but I'd like to hear SCO's arguments. It may result in some very productive discussion and decisions. Casey
tcsc@tcsc3b2.tcsc.com (The Computer Solution Co.) (02/03/91)
jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: >rlg@BIOBIO.DESKTALK.COM (Richard L. Gralnik) writes: >>Fellow networkers, [ much good stuff deleted ... hope you already saw it ] >Customer Service will make or break your product. You'd damn well better >plan for it as an integral feature of your product, fully as important >as the software not crashing. Here's an example of how to and how not to >do customer support. I have used 2 brands of intelligent async cards in >Unix systems for my customers. One brand is Comtrol and the other is >Stargate. I no longer use Stargate because of customer support. >When I opened the first Comtrol box, the first thing I saw was a plastic gold >card just like a credit card. On this card was printed the 800 toll free >support number AND the names and direct dial numbers for the General Manager, >the Engineering Manager, the Hardware Tech Support manager, the Software >Tech Support manager, the Production manager, the Marketing manager and >the Sales manager. Above this list of numbers is this statement: > "Our committment to you doesn't stop with our products. We give > you the support and the extra service you want. IT's because your > satisfaction is our #1 priority. COMTROL is only a phone call away. > You have full access to all COMTROL personnel. For your convenience, > primary department contacts are listed below:" [ more deletions for brevity ] >Now both boards work pretty well equally. But I'll never fool with >Stargate again while I recommend COMTROL whenever the opportunity arises. >The difference is service. I perceived a better value from COMTROL even >though it cost more. I have used Comtrol boards for several years now for exactly the same reason. When I provide support to my customers, I hope to do as well as Comtrol. I hope I'm not allowing the feline to escape the confinement when I say that I am consulting with Comtrol to develop integrated electronic delivery of customer support. Customers will be provided with a BBS, primarily for DOS and Pick users. They will also provide uunet and mailserver access for us networkers. Fellow networkers ... we should support such companies who really are trying to do it right at least as strongly as we flame those who botch it up. I have no connection with Comtrol, except as a very satisfied customer for nearly 4 years. Our consulting engagement for provision of electronic customer support delivery nets no financial gain to our company. _______________________________________________________________________________ David P. Romig INTERNET: tcsc@tcsc3b2.tcsc.com The Computer Solution Co. USENET: ...!tcsc3b2!tcsc P.O. Box 716 ATTMAIL: attmail!tcsc3b2!tcsc 831 Grove Road CompuServe: 74116,2345 Midlothian, VA 23113-0716 UUCP: tcsc3b2!tcsc (804)794-1514 Voice: 804-794-3491 x31 Fax: (804)794-6194 _______________________________________________________________________________
mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) (02/04/91)
Can copy-protection or license-protection systems such as SCO's be
used for a denial-of-service and/or harassment type of attack?
_____ | ____ ___|___ /__ Mark ("Gaijin") Crispin "Gaijin! Gaijin!"
_|_|_ -|- || __|__ / / R90/6 pilot, DoD #0105 "Gaijin ha doko?"
|_|_|_| |\-++- |===| / / Atheist & Proud "Niichan ha gaijin."
--|-- /| |||| |___| /\ (206) 842-2385/543-5762 "Chigau. Omae ha gaijin."
/|\ | |/\| _______ / \ FAX: (206) 543-3909 "Iie, boku ha nihonjin."
/ | \ | |__| / \ / \MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU "Souka. Yappari gaijin!"
Hee, dakedo UNIX nanka wo tsukatte, umaku ikanaku temo shiranai yo.adelman@TGV.COM (Kenneth Adelman) (02/04/91)
> Can copy-protection or license-protection systems such as SCO's be > used for a denial-of-service and/or harassment type of attack? Presumably yes, and very easily. Just run a UDP ECHO server on port 60000. This might also be a good way of "suppressing" machines which do these broadcasts from ever getting on your network. Ken
eps@SUTRO.SFSU.EDU (Eric P. Scott) (02/04/91)
In article <15702@milton.u.washington.edu> MRC@CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes: >Can copy-protection or license-protection systems such as SCO's be >used for a denial-of-service and/or harassment type of attack? Do I detect a missing smiley-face? -=EPS=-
ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) (02/04/91)
mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes: > Can copy-protection or license-protection systems such as SCO's be > used for a denial-of-service and/or harassment type of attack? Should be. The serial numbers are broadcast in cleartext. Just log all udp broadcasts to port 60000 on any net with SCO stuff on it and see ... You need to just look at the format of the udp packets, broadcast the same serial numbers from your own ip address, and that should have the desired effect of making you extremely unpopular. Repeat this process at enough Government sites where SCO have their big moneymaking contracts and /etc/cpd will disappear from the next release :-) -- Ronald Khoo <ronald@robobar.co.uk> +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)
FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (02/05/91)
This question is about application licensing. I am in the process of
planning a 35 node network with PCs running Sun PC-NFS. One thing I
would really like to do is to buy 5-10 copies of the popular PC
applications like Microsoft Word and Lotus 123. I want to put just one
copy on the network server and let users download/execute the application
via PC-NFS. The problem is with potential licet(n}it(cS~e violations.
Is there a way to enforce the maximum number of simultaneous users?
On Novell Networks there is a product that does this from Rainbow
Software. But they don't have anything for Unix/TCP/IP networks.{_
Anybody know of a solution so I can satisfy the software license
restrictions?
Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com
ojbvb@FTP.COM (James B. Van Bokkelen) (02/07/91)
mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes: > Can copy-protection or license-protection systems such as SCO's be > used for a denial-of-service and/or harassment type of attack? You need to just look at the format of the udp packets, broadcast the same serial numbers from your own ip address, and that should have the desired effect of making you extremely unpopular. The big question is whether 'cpd' checks the source IP address - if it doesn't (and the check would have to be complicated due to 0 vs. 1 and subnet issues), then you can do this from anywhere in the Internet, but you can only hack one machine at a time. Of course, you'd need to know (or probe for) the relevant serial numbers... James B. VanBokkelen 26 Princess St., Wakefield, MA 01880 FTP Software Inc. voice: (617) 246-0900 fax: (617) 246-0901
fitz@wang.com (Tom Fitzgerald) (02/08/91)
> You need to just look at the format of the udp packets, broadcast the > same serial numbers from your own ip address, and that should have the > desired effect of making you extremely unpopular. jbvb@FTP.COM (James B. Van Bokkelen) writes: > The big question is whether 'cpd' checks the source IP address - if it > doesn't (and the check would have to be complicated due to 0 vs. 1 and > subnet issues), then you can do this from anywhere in the Internet... ??? Isn't it possible to forge the source IP address to be a random node on the same subnet as the victim? The destination certainly won't be sending any responses back.... On the other hand, don't most routers across the Internet disable directed broadcasts? --- Tom Fitzgerald Wang Labs fitz@wang.com 1-508-967-5278 Lowell MA, USA ...!uunet!wang!fitz
leo@unipalm.uucp (E.J. Leoni-Smith) (02/08/91)
As a director of a company taht makes its entire revenue from reselling (mainly TCP/IP) software, I think I have some valid input:- 1/. If it were just the odd copy, at the odd educational site - no problem. 2/. The worst offenders are large corporates and small dealers. 3/. I have been on a site where 100 users were running software supplied by us on a 20 copy licence basis - we were unable to 'prove' this legally - since by the time we contacted the user 'officially' he declared that the 'software was faulty and had been thrown out'. Sideways contact into the company indicated that this was not the case.... 4/. Software Piracy cost the end user. Particularly the small end user. If every copy of Wordstar in use was paid for, I reckon they could knock it out at about $50 per copy. 5/. I LIKE the way SUN chose to copy protect PC-NFS - you can copy as many times as you like - you just can't get two copies up on the same LAN simultaneously. 6/. I have come late into this discussion (news only just up inhouse) but if SCO are using the same mechanism - good luck. 7/. I am also definittely in favour of the scheme that a company called Phase II in boston use - to limit either( customers choice) total number of logins allowed OR concurrent users. This seems a very fair way. SOMEONE has to pay for the man years invested in software: Network policing sreems a very good way of ensuring that people only use what they have contracted to use, and that inadvertent over use of a product results in clear signalling of that fact. I would welcome any solution that ensures that :- (a) Thew customer is not penalised by any copy prootection scheme in any way. (b) Unless he knowingly or unknowingly exceeds the USE TO WHICH HE HAS CONTRACTED WITH THE VENDOR. That is the crux: If a copy protection makes the product (effectively and/or practically) unuseable, then people will not buy it. Conversely if it is widely copied, the only way the vendor and manufacturer can control it is by constantly bringing out new releases/bug fixes, then you will get maybe a lot of buggy code released, so that at least you have to quote your serial number before they will support you! Not a good idea:-) What I as a vendor like to see is time bombed evaluation code - You can give it away, knowing that it won't last - and copy protected software that will restrict multiple copies on a single network to the licenced maximum. That is until we get a government grant to sell and support software :-)
john.lorenc@canrem.uucp (john lorenc) (02/11/91)
To: ericd@sco.COM ED>Some of the information, regarding TCP/IP from SCO, in this post is incorrect. ED>I do not want to use network bandwidth to explain the issues, however I ED>would be more than willing to Email concerned individuals directly about the ED>the copy protection scheme and how it affects system adminstration and users. I am cursious to see your explanation. I do find it a nuisance to use those "activation keys" john.lorenc@canrem.uucp John Lorenc --- ~ DeLuxe}ab #1061 ~ Live Long and Prosper.. -- Canada Remote Systems. Toronto, Ontario NorthAmeriNet Host