lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA (08/04/85)
There clearly is one pretty much fullproof method for copy-protecting software. You put everything on one chip. Code, CPU, memory, the works. Expensive? Sure, at least for now. Practical? Maybe for some applications, not for all, certainly. Desirable? Well, that's another matter entirely. But the point is that it COULD be done. But... Short of the one-chip "solution," my personal feeling is that copy-protection is pretty much a waste of time. From what I can see at this point, dongles seem like an awful lot of hassle and may prove to be less secure than many proponents would suggest at this time. Disk-based copy-protection could always be beaten if someone put enough time or effort into the job, and after that oodles of copies could be made from the one cracked copy. Luckily, most people in our culture are comparatively reasonable about being willing to pay for something they consider useful. Software isn't the sort of thing (unlike food and shelter) that you absolutely cannot live without! I personally feel that any company that puts forth a good product, and provides useful and ongoing support has comparatively little to worry about regarding "software piracy." Some illicit copying will go on, of course. But there are enough individuals and companies who feel that a good product and good support is a package that has true worth, and is worthy of being paid for, to provide such software manufacturers with a very reasonable return to help pay the rent, feed the kids, and fund the time required for future development and support itself. My opinion, anyway. --Lauren--
lear@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU (eliot lear) (08/07/85)
I believe the best protection scheme that I have seen must be the one that
the makers of SOFTERM for the Apple use. Not only would you need to copy a
disk, but you would also have to reproduce the hardware that comes with
software! If you get beyond that point successfully, you still have to
figure out how to use SOFTERM II or III without the manual! (I have a hard
enough time using SOFTERM WITH the manual!)
eliot lear
[lear@topaz.ARPA]
[{allegra,seismo,inhp4}!topaz!lear]frans@duvel.UUCP (Frans Meulenbroeks) (08/07/85)
Reaction on article <409@brl-tgr.ARPA> from lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA
O.k., I agree that the only foolproof method for copy-protection is to put
everyting on one chip.
I also agree that other protection schemes always can be broken if
enough effort is invested. For instance one can just monitor the bus.
I also agree, that lots of companies and individuals are willing to pay for
their software. But the fact is that software is just too easy to copy.
Suppose you have this fine multi-user system. Suppose you've got that nice
whatever-it-must-do package. Since you're in a multi-user environment, you
might want to have more than one copy of the documentation. Fine, most
companies will be glad to sell additional copies to you.
But next year, when your system is overloaded, and you can have another
system from your management, what do you do?
Its easy to copy the contents of your disk onto the new system. This is
handy, because you can immediately use your new system fully.
People are used to have the package available, so when it isn't there,
you get complaints "Where is that !@#$ package!". Hardly anyone is
going to ask "Hey mr. Systemmanager, we've got this new machine. But have
you also paid the package once again?". If you do that (as a user) then
you are the exception to the rule :-).
It is more likely that in such case no-one bothers about it. People even
tend to reason "Well we now have this second machine, but the package isn't
used by more people than before we got it, so I can't see any reason why
we should pay for an extra license. We're not using the package heavier
that we used to do!
Such situations arise, and when you have reached this point, it is just
very easy to keep things as they are. You have manuals. You still get
updates (or not :-)) because you have this one license, so what?
I won't say this happens everywhere, but it happens. It may start as a
temporary matter ("we'll order a second copy soon, but we'll have to get
a copy in the States, and sending to Europe, customs etc. takes 2 months,
so lets just start using this copy") but things may soon run out of hand.
I just want some protection to avoid this. It doesn't have to be a fail-safe
method. Just a method in which trying to get an illegal copy is not cost
effective is ok.
"Professional" copiers always find ways to make a copy. However I'm not
trying to protect myself against them. If I'll meet them, I'll try to sue
them!
I've the experience that companies hesitate to go to court in such
cases, just because they won't lose customers. Thats why I want at least
some protection.
I won't refuse to buy packages with extra protection hardware, if that
package is useful. However, I like to be able to make backup copies, so that
I do not have to wait weeks before I get a replacement copy from Nowhere, ill
if some disaster ruins mine. Thats why I like the dongle approach:
unlimited backup copies, rather low cost, rather safe against "occasional"
pirates.
As some people have pointed out: the price of a package is as high as
the market will bear. In that case dongle protection shouldn't have any
impact on the market price!
About losing your dongle: I still want to compare it with losing your
car keys. You do not expect GM to give you free keys when you lose yours,
do you? I know that when you lose your car keys, you can still try to find
a locksmith to open your car. Also if you lose your dongle, you can still
try to find a "softwaresmith" (called guru), to "open" your package.
And the fact that a locksmith still can open your car is not an advantage,
but a disadvantage. I wish cars were more difficult to open without keys,
because then I would still have that fine car radio!
I know, not everybody is as bad as I have sketched above. I only wat to
have some protection against the lazy and/or ignorant.
(However, I seem to have lost some of my faith in mankind lately :-))
P.S.: see for discussions on software protection also net.micro.pc
The above is a strict personal opininion....
--
Frans Meulenbroeks, Philips Microprocessor Development Systems
...!{seismo|philabs|decvax}!mcvax!philmds!frans
*** get stoned *** drink wet cement ***peter@kitty.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) (08/07/85)
> Suppose you have this fine multi-user system. Suppose you've got that nice > whatever-it-must-do package. Since you're in a multi-user environment, you > might want to have more than one copy of the documentation. Fine, most > companies will be glad to sell additional copies to you. > > But next year, when your system is overloaded, and you can have another > system from your management, what do you do? > Its easy to copy the contents of your disk onto the new system. This is > handy, because you can immediately use your new system fully. > People are used to have the package available, so when it isn't there, > you get complaints "Where is that !@#$ package!". Hardly anyone is > going to ask "Hey mr. Systemmanager, we've got this new machine. But have > you also paid the package once again?". If you do that (as a user) then > you are the exception to the rule :-). Is this a second system or a replacement system? If it's a replacement then you damned well have the right (or should have the right) to use whatever- it-is on the new one. If it's a second system then you should get a site license.
clif@intelca.UUCP (Clif Purkiser) (08/09/85)
> I also agree, that lots of companies and individuals are willing to pay for > their software. But the fact is that software is just too easy to copy. > Suppose you have this fine multi-user system. Suppose you've got that nice > whatever-it-must-do package. Since you're in a multi-user environment, you > might want to have more than one copy of the documentation. Fine, most > companies will be glad to sell additional copies to you. > > Frans Meulenbroeks, Philips Microprocessor Development Systems > ...!{seismo|philabs|decvax}!mcvax!philmds!frans > I am just taking one (and a few other comments) of the many good points Frans made in his lengthy discussion; Software is too easy to copy. I have owned an Apple II+ since 1979, and over the years have collected a large amount of software, some of the software has been bought much of it hasn't been bought . I am not advocating pirating software, nor attempting to defend my actions. I personally place individual software piracy as crime more serious than intentionally driving faster than 55 MPH and less serious than shoplifting. It is exactly equivalent to copying records with tape decks or movies on a VCR. Over the years of collecting an interesting phenomona (sp) has occured. The ratio of my pirated programs to bought programs has decreased substanially from 20-1 in 1979 to 1-1 in 1985 eventhough I am much less interested in Apple II programs since I bought my Macintosh. I attribute this to six factors: 1. My income has increased. (It was hard to afford too many $30-$60 game programs or a $200 compiler, when I was in college.) 2. The cost of Apple game software has decreased, I now find that I can by most Apple game programs for $7.50 - $20. via record stores mail house, or clearance sales. 3. The huge number of programs for the Apple II has resulted in the good programs achieving widespread distribution and the bad programs disappearing. For instance, I have yet to see a new game release by Electronic Arts that isn't very high quality. Software Publishing PFS has also consistently come out with good products at reasonable prices. It seems to me that my chances of buying a turkey program for the Apple II are much less than they were in 1979, before the channels of distribution were saturated. 4. Manuals and updates are becoming more worthwhile, even for game programs, Try playing a game from Strategic Simulation Inc (SSI) without a manual. 5. Having worked for a software publishing house (VisiCorp) as a software engineer I've become more aware that pirating hurts people. 6. Programs are becoming harder to copy for the Apple II. When Woz, decided to make the Apple II disk controller totally software driven he did a great service to software publishers. (Because, the Apple II disk drive is totally software driven, you can play all kinds of incrediable tricks to copy protect your software) In the old days, when I found a new medicore game that was copy-protected, all I had to do was pull out my latest Bit copy program and in a few minutes I had saved myself $40 bucks. Now days with many Apple II games, using 1/2 or 1/4 tracking, sychronizing tracks, preserving track lengths etc, trying to copy an excellent game may take 2 hours or several days. If I can buy the game for $10-20 and help feed the author who spent so long developing it, I am inclined to buy it instead of copy it. I think the key to surviving in the software market, is to sell an excellent product at a reasonable price $20 for a game under $100 for everything else. It is also important to make it more convenient for the average person to buy your product than to copy it. If this means updates, or manuals which are hard to copy, or copy protection, so be it I think anything is fair. I believe most people don't thing pirating is really a crime, and therefore manufacturers have to try to protect their interests. I have yet to meet a single computer owner who would not take a pirated program if was offered to him. (I believe I'm rather atypical in that I have on several occasions purchased programs which I already had pirated copies of because I felt the programs should be bought) I have also not meet many people who have tape decks or VCR who don't have illegal copies of records, movies, or cable TV shows. Eventhough, I think copy-protection is needed to ensure the survival of the software business. I think software publishers should not try to cheat the public. The standard license agreement is atrocious (sp). "This product is not guaranteed to do anything, despite the claims of our salesmen and advertising. but we will replace the disk for a shipping and handling fee (generous aren't they :-)." I could live with a copy protection scheme as long as I could do the following: For a game program get a replacement disk, and/or update for $10. For a business package, I must be able to install it on my hard disk. I want to only have to insert my key disk when I bring up the program. I am given two copies of the program so if I one fails I can still work. The company must be willing to replace my defective disk for a nominal fee. Finally, and most important I want a money-back guarantee. If I buy, a kitchen appliance , a pair of pants, a set of Ginju knives advertised on TV, or almost anything else in America and I don't like it I can take it back and get my money back. Why can't I do this for software? I believe that money-back guarantee are rare in software for several reasons. Software houses, don't have faith in their products, they are too greedy, and finally they are afraid that people will buy it, copy it, and return it. I am surprised at many of the people on the net who believe that software should be free, or not copy-protected. I believe that much of the software is overpriced because, publishers are greedy, and piracy tends to drive the price up. It is a classic chicken and the egg situation but I think people should complain about overpriced software, not copy protection. -- Clif Purkiser, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca. HIGH PERFORMANCE MICROPROCESSORS {pur-ee,hplabs,amd,scgvaxd,dual,idi,omsvax}!intelca!clif {standard disclaimer about how these views are mine and may not reflect the views of Intel, my boss , or USNET goes here. }
slerner@sesame.UUCP (Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner) (08/12/85)
Cliff Purkiser writes: >... > Finally, and most important I want a money-back guarantee. If I buy, a > kitchen appliance , a pair of pants, a set of Ginju knives advertised on TV, > or almost anything else in America and I don't like it I can take it back > and get my money back. Why can't I do this for software? > > I believe that money-back guarantee are rare in software for several reasons. > Software houses, don't have faith in their products, they are too greedy, > and finally they are afraid that people will buy it, copy it, and return it. > I left my flame-thrower at the office, so this will have to do: I won't argue about the greed issue mentioned above, except to note that low price software (<<$100) is being ripped of at the same rate as more expensive software. In regards to the trust issue, given the ease of copying disks, do you really expect to get your money back once you have broken the seal? Give the vendor a secure enough system that he doesn't have to fear being robbed (like the ADAPSO key/keyring system :-) and you will see software returns/rentals/trials etc being accepted by many vendors. You may even see disks being given away (!!), but they will either only run in a demo mode or be partially disabled until you buy a key to unlock it. (CD ROM makers - are you listening?) I'll make you a deal, you give me your mastercard and i'll give you my disk...i'll give you back your card, and you'll ignore the ink impression marks, and i'll ignore the broken disk seal :-> -- Opinions expressed are public domain, and do not belong to Lotus Development Corp. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simcha-Yitzchak Lerner {genrad|ihnp4|ima}!wjh12!talcott!sesame!slerner {cbosgd|harvard}!talcott!sesame!slerner slerner%sesame@harvard.ARPA
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/14/85)
> you really expect to get your money back once you have broken the > seal? Give the vendor a secure enough system that he doesn't have > to fear being robbed (like the ADAPSO key/keyring system :-) and you > will see software returns/rentals/trials etc being accepted by many > vendors. You may even see disks being given away (!!), but they I've seen both of these. Look at the ad for the brief editor in the latest Dr. Dobbs. I guess us software professionals can be trusted :->. Or maybe it's paranoia? -- Peter da Silva (the mad Australian) UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (08/16/85)
> I have yet to meet a single computer owner who would not take a pirated > program if was offered to him. I think you're a little naive. I've been offered and turned down pirated copies of software on several occasions, usually dispensing a lecture at the same time (ask anyone who knows me what a pain I am!). > I have also not meet many people who have tape decks or VCR who don't have > illegal copies of records, movies, or cable TV shows. There is nothing illegal about taping a record album you own or make a videotape of a television program. Other than those two comments, I tend to agree with everything you said. It's especially noteworthy that you acknowledge that making copying difficult is a major impediment to piracy, and that one way of doing this is with a necessary and hard-to-copy manual. That might discourage user-friendly software, but perhaps it's better than copy protection (which nobody likes, even when they understand the justification). -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
john@hp-pcd.UUCP (john) (08/16/85)
<<< >... > Finally, and most important I want a money-back guarantee. If I buy, a > kitchen appliance , a pair of pants, a set of Ginju knives advertised on TV, > or almost anything else in America and I don't like it I can take it back > and get my money back. Why can't I do this for software? > Sure!!! If you are dissatified with our software for any reason simply return the unused portion of the program and we will return the unused portion of your money. Better yet, find a record store that will sell you Kate Bush's new album and let you return it the next day for a full refund. (" I only played it once"). Best of all, make sure the program that you are about to pluck dowm $795 for actually does everything you think it will BEFORE you buy it. (Not a trivia task by any means but worth it in the long run) John Eaton !hplabs!hp-pcd!john
jabusch@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (08/20/85)
I expect to get my money back if the software doesn't meet my standards, or if it is insufficient for the job at hand, or if it is bug-ridden, or if I feel it doesn't live up to the boasting claims of the author(s). After all, that's something you can be able to do with anything else. Given the current price of commercial software, I expect it to be warranteed just the same as the book, tire, diskette, computer, television, or anything else that I buy. I can't afford to take a risk for the prices asked. If there is no guarantee, there is no sale. I am sure that if I buy something with a rubber check, the vendor would want that replaced with cash. Software that doesn't do what it claims or that is not guaranteed to work is the same as a rubber check or an expired Mastercard. I have yet to find a vendor who would take my promise for money in exchange for software, and how do I know the vendor isn't going to run off a bunch of extra charges against my Mastercard account when I charge something? I trust the vendor enough to buy the package, but Mr. Lerner suggests that the vendor should not trust me once the package is opened... How am I supposed to know if it is going to work if I can't even read the manual? I have seen little commercial software that has the manual outside the shrink wrap and the diskette inside, although there is some out there. As always, greed and distrust are the two factors that the innocent consumer faces with software firms. John W. Jabusch
dmt@mtgzz.UUCP (d.m.tutelman) (08/21/85)
> <<< > >... > > Finally, and most important I want a money-back guarantee. If I buy, a > > kitchen appliance , a pair of pants, a set of Ginju knives advertised on TV, > > or almost anything else in America and I don't like it I can take it back > > and get my money back. Why can't I do this for software? > > > Better yet, find a record store that will sell you Kate Bush's new album > and let you return it the next day for a full refund. (" I only played it > once"). I have had experience with a local record store that accepted (on more than one occasion) return of a cassette for a full refund. In each case: - The tape had some audio-quality defect that disturbed me. (Only one of the returns was for a quality defect that the sales person in the store admitted to hearing, but they accepted my dissatisfaction as fact.) - I didn't make a copy that I kept. Why should I? It was defective. If I knew it were defective, I wouldn't have bought it in the first place. And if it weren't defective, I'd have kept it. The analogy is relevant; we're looking for the SAME ATTITUDE from software suppliers. The record store knows the abuses that an honorable attitude will invite from dishonorable customers. But they assume they are dealing with mostly honorable customers. And I don't see them losing money! <end reply> <begin soapbox> I don't know what the ultimate solution to the software piracy problem is, but it can't be based on: - the notion that the vast majority of potential customers are crooks. - the notion that customers can't try something out - extensively - before they decide they want it. - an inconvenient and restrictive mode of use for legitimate paying customers. Note that I DON'T have any hangups that we need to punish software suppliers for their greed. That would be a pretty silly position for someone making his livelihood from software development. I just believe that the market for software is still maturing, and has yet to establish a practical set of norms. It will probably be market norms (and not some hi-tech protection) that eventually solves the problem. <end soapbox. sorry!> Dave Tutelman Physical - AT&T Information Systems Holmdel, NJ 07733 Logical - ...ihnp4!mtuxo!mtgzz!dmt Audible - (201)-834-2895
cem@intelca.UUCP (Chuck McManis) (08/21/85)
> > It's especially noteworthy that you acknowledge that making copying > difficult is a major impediment to piracy, and that one way of doing > this is with a necessary and hard-to-copy manual. That might discourage > user-friendly software, but perhaps it's better than copy protection > (which nobody likes, even when they understand the justification). > -- > D Gary Grady > Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 I once saw a manual that was done in two colors, the text was your standard black and why but the examples (with the key information) were light blue. This had the effect of making the manual uncopyable with existing xerographic technology. Copiers still have problems with this but it is not as difficult as it once was. I thought it quite ingenius at the time. --Chuck -- - - - D I S C L A I M E R - - - {ihnp4,fortune}!dual\ All opinions expressed herein are my {qantel,idi}-> !intelca!cem own and not those of my employer, my {ucbvax,hao}!hplabs/ friends, or my avocado plant. :-}
jabusch@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (08/26/85)
Hmm.... IBM makes a lot of two-color manuals, using light green instead of blue. I know people who have copied pages from them, and the text, including the green, comes out fine. Of course, they didn't copy with an IBM copier... perhaps that makes a difference. By the way, the copying that I referred to was done in support of research for IBM, so don't bother flaming. John Jabusch
clif@intelca.UUCP (Clif Purkiser) (08/29/85)
> <<< >> >... > > > Finally, and most important I want a money-back guarantee. If I buy, a > > > kitchen appliance , a pair of pants, a set of Ginju knives advertised on TV, > > > or almost anything else in America and I don't like it I can take it back > > > and get my money back. Why can't I do this for software? > > > by myself many weeks ago Actually to be fair, many software companies are giving money-back guarantees. I know I Strategic Simulations Inc (SSI) is now advertising a 14-day return policy (which I have used) Also C-Ware (DeSmet C compiler) will return the money if the person wants it back, and I have read of other companies. > Better yet, find a record store that will sell you Kate Bush's new album > and let you return it the next day for a full refund. (" I only played it > once"). Author Unknown I just bought some records from Rasputian's records (sp) in Berkeley. They will allow me to return any record I bought if I don't like the music for a $1.99 handling fee. I liked the policy so well that I bought a bunch of albums (5) from new groups. I am normally very hestitant to buy albums from new groups because I hate wasting $7-8 bucks on album I only listen to once. However, due to Rasputian's policy I'd only lose $2 which is worth the risk. > > I have had experience with a local record store that accepted (on more > than one occasion) return of a cassette for a full refund. In each case: > - The tape had some audio-quality defect that disturbed me. (Only > one of the returns was for a quality defect that the sales > person in the store admitted to hearing, but they accepted > my dissatisfaction as fact.) > - I didn't make a copy that I kept. Why should I? It was defective. > If I knew it were defective, I wouldn't have bought it in the > first place. And if it weren't defective, I'd have kept it. > > Dave Tutelman > Physical - AT&T Information Systems > Holmdel, NJ 07733 > Logical - ...ihnp4!mtuxo!mtgzz!dmt > Audible - (201)-834-2895 I suspect that most record stores are like Dave's and will refund your money for audio defects. Gosh, even software companies will replace defective disks :-). Money-back guarantees are really a win-win situation. Companies with good products benefit because more consumers are willing to try them. Consumers win because they don't get stuck with turkey products. I guess the only people that would be hurt are slimy software companies that make overpriced buggy products. -- Clif Purkiser, Intel, Santa Clara, Ca. HIGH PERFORMANCE MICROPROCESSORS {pur-ee,hplabs,amd,scgvaxd,dual,idi,omsvax}!intelca!clif {standard disclaimer about how these views are mine and may not reflect the views of Intel, my boss , or USNET goes here. }
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/31/85)
> I once saw a manual that was done in two colors, the text was your standard > black and white but the examples (with the key information) were light blue. > This had the effect of making the manual uncopyable with existing > xerographic technology. Copiers still have problems with this but it > is not as difficult as it once was. I thought it quite ingenius at the time. > > --Chuck This also makes the manual hard to read, and a red filter will make it quite copyable even on older machines. Black Lightning used to use this technique on their lecture notes. -- Peter (Made in Australia) da Silva UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076