dartus@datlog.co.uk ( David Artus) (03/20/90)
We wish to evaluate possible copy protection methods that could be used for PC software. One option we have examined is the use of a "dongle", could anybody suggest alternative methods (or references to articles which discuss them) which might not need the use of specific hardware. Please reply by email and I will summarise to the net if there is sufficient interest. Thanks. -- Regards, Dave Artus <djna@datlog.co.uk or mcvax!datlog!djna>
dlow@hpspcoi.HP.COM (Danny Low) (03/22/90)
>We wish to evaluate possible copy protection methods that could >be used for PC software. One option we have examined is the use of >a "dongle", could anybody suggest alternative methods (or references to >articles which discuss them) which might not need the use of specific >hardware. >Regards, > Dave Artus <djna@datlog.co.uk or mcvax!datlog!djna> This is like asking for the best way to commit suicide. I will not buy or recommend any work software that is copy protected. No If's And's or But's. I have encountered too many problems in the past with protected software that I was forced to used. In the USA, copy protection is virtually unknown except for games. The last holdout of any size, Lotus, has dropped copy protection and even sell a protection breaker for people with older copies of their software. Even with games, most companies are going to a document based protection scheme (e.g. Type in 5th word in 1st paragraph on page 10.) Copy protection is not very compatible with networks. So that is an entire market that is locked out by any copy protection scheme. Danny Low "Question Authority and the Authorities will question You" Valley of Hearts Delight, Silicon Valley HP SPCD dlow%hpspcoi@hplabs.hp.com ...!hplabs!hpspcoi!dlow
CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu (Charles Hannum) (03/22/90)
In article <2796@dlvax2.datlog.co.uk>, dartus@datlog.co.uk ( David Artus) says: > >We wish to evaluate possible copy protection methods that could >be used for PC software. One option we have examined is the use of >a "dongle", could anybody suggest alternative methods (or references to >articles which discuss them) which might not need the use of specific >hardware. I only have one piece of advice: No copy protection scheme is safe. Virtually, - Charles Martin Hannum II "Klein bottle for sale ... inquire within." (That's Charles to you!) "To life immortal!" cmh117@psuvm.{bitnet,psu.edu} "No noozzzz izzz netzzzsnoozzzzz..." c9h@psuecl.{bitnet,psu.edu} "Mem'ry, all alone in the moonlight ..."
cms2839@ultb.isc.rit.edu (C.M. Stuntz) (03/23/90)
In article <90080.140503CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu> CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu (Charles Hannum) writes: > >In article <2796@dlvax2.datlog.co.uk>, dartus@datlog.co.uk ( David Artus) says: >> >>We wish to evaluate possible copy protection methods that could >>be used for PC software. > >I only have one piece of advice: No copy protection scheme is safe. and considering that . *please* spare us users the immense irritation that invariably comes with copy protection . although dongles claim to be transparent , they almost never are , meaning that you've just forced the user to buy a data switch . and software - based encoding doesn't work , and makes using a hard drive a pain . add to that the fact that i doubt that even if copy protection were perfect , i doubt that you'd sell a single extra copy of software ; most people who pirate probably wouldn't go out an buy it , even if it couldn't be copied . copy protection is such an enormous headache that it is a major factor in deciding what software to purchase . if there are two packages that are roughly equal , i guarintee you i'll buy the one without the copy protection every time . thanks for your consideration . remember AutoCAD and Lotus 1-2-3 ... -a.stranger -- @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ @ "Imagination keeps the shadows away - Xymox @ @~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@ @ a.stranger - CMS2839%RITVAX.BITNET@cunyvm.cuny.edu @
dbinette@van-bc.UUCP (Dave Binette) (03/23/90)
>We wish to evaluate possible copy protection methods that could >be used for PC software. One option we have examined is the use of >a "dongle", could anybody suggest alternative methods (or references to >articles which discuss them) which might not need the use of specific >hardware. >Regards, > Dave Artus <djna@datlog.co.uk or mcvax!datlog!djna> If I get your s/w and it has a "dongle" included, I'll send it back with a tube of "KY jelly". With instructions.
gsm@sequoia.execu.com (Scott Mather) (03/23/90)
Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease let's not start a silly copy protection discussion. by now we all know its advantages/problems. in spite of what the net's consensus MAY be there are still a number of valid reasons for it. why don't we just help the man out. for a number of our products we use copy protection. most all of these versions of our products are for sale in european markets. for whatever reason, our CLIENTS (i.e. customers/buyers) REQUEST that we put copy protection on them! In spite of this obviously DAMN good reason for using copy protection, we'd prefer not to do it. Anyway, sometimes copy protection is a requirement of the market AND its a fact of life... Anyway, we use a group called SOFT GUARD - i'm sorry but i don't have their address/telephone number (the guy that handles this for us is currently unavailable for me to quiz further). Its not the best but it is adequate for our purposes. i doubt that i even care that the protection can be easily broken or not. it works and meets our needs. one drawback is that the scheme that is employed uses up a considerable amount of disk space. sometimes this forces us to distribute 2 disks where we only need distribute 1 of the non-copy protected versions. Summary: sometimes the market dictates that CP is required. later! Scott Mather .
kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) (03/24/90)
In article <11676@sequoia.execu.com> gsm@execu.com () writes: >Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease let's not start a silly copy protection >discussion. by now we all know its advantages/problems. > >in spite of what the net's consensus MAY be there are still a number >of valid reasons for it. why don't we just help the man out. ********************* I concur, if some foolish organization wants to waste good money on a copy protection system, let them. The *free* market will fix their wagon; no one will buy their product, and their investment in not just the copy protection, but also in product development will be a complete waste. They'll go bankrupt, and hopefully will learn a valuable lesson about the marketplace. Thus endeth the economics lesson. kaleb@mars.jpl.nasa.gov Jet Propeller Labs Kaleb Keithley spelling and grammar flames > /dev/null
jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) (03/24/90)
In article <11676@sequoia.execu.com> gsm@execu.com () writes: >for a number of our products we use copy protection. most all of these >versions of our products are for sale in european markets. for whatever >reason, our CLIENTS (i.e. customers/buyers) REQUEST that we put copy >protection on them! > >Summary: sometimes the market dictates that CP is required. We are in a very different software market situation here in the US from what it is in Europe. I don't claim to be an expert, but I have lived there some, and it is pretty pathetic. Software in Europe costs about 4 times what it does in the US. As a result, piracy is a big progblem. As a result of the piracy, the countries have passed laws protecting the vendors that are many times stiffer that we have. I believe that you in some countries can be convicted of a felony for copying games, or at least for passing them on to someone else. So the vendors want copy protection, because they have plenty of legal support for their extortion schemes. There is also a gray market for US software purchased in the US and imported into Europe. The main reason it doesn't do better is that a lot of Europeans don't know English, and they feel more comfortable with programs that are in their own language. -- John Dudeck "You want to read the code closely..." jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu -- C. Staley, in OS course, teaching ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549 Tanenbaum's MINIX operating system.
cosheff@netmbx.UUCP (Charles Shefflette) (03/24/90)
CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu (Charles Hannum) writes: >In article <2796@dlvax2.datlog.co.uk>, dartus@datlog.co.uk ( David Artus) says: >> >>We wish to evaluate possible copy protection methods that could >>be used for PC software. One option we have examined is the use of >>a "dongle", could anybody suggest alternative methods (or references to >>articles which discuss them) which might not need the use of specific >>hardware. >I only have one piece of advice: No copy protection scheme is safe. Here, here!! Make sure you post what software you decide to copy protect so that we DON'T ACCIDENTLY PURCHASE IT! I make it a FIRM POLICY for my private software and the software we purchase at work NOT to purchase a package that is copy protected if we can find ANYTHING ELSE which will serve even a similar purpose! The bottom line: copy protection is something we can all live without, ***** JUST SAY NO!! ***** Charles Shefflette System Engineer
tris@alzabo.uucp (Tris Orendorff) (03/25/90)
CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu (Charles Hannum) writes: >In article <2796@dlvax2.datlog.co.uk>, dartus@datlog.co.uk ( David Artus) says: >> >>We wish to evaluate possible copy protection methods that could >>be used for PC software. One option we have examined is the use of >>a "dongle", could anybody suggest alternative methods (or references to >>articles which discuss them) which might not need the use of specific >>hardware. >I only have one piece of advice: No copy protection scheme is safe. Here's another: You won't need copy protection if your product is truly useful. People will be glad to buy it rather than steal it. -- Sincerely Yours Tris Orendorff tris@alzabo.uucp ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ALGERNON: The doctors found out that Bunbury could not live ... so Bunbury died. LADY BRACKNELL: He seems to have had great confidence in the opinion of his physicians.
kebera@alzabo.uucp (Krishna E. Bera) (03/25/90)
tris@alzabo.uucp (Tris Orendorff) writes: >CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu (Charles Hannum) writes: >>>dartus@datlog.co.uk ( David Artus) says: >>>[looking for non-hardware-based pc software copy-protection] >>I only have one piece of advice: No copy protection scheme is safe. >Here's another: You won't need copy protection if your product is truly >useful. People will be glad to buy it rather than steal it. Exactly! Also, potential software buyers like to see complete easy-to-read documentation, customer support and rights to discounts on future upgrades. A bonus with the first two is that they cannot be pirated. I will not buy hardware-copy-protected software unless I must. -- Krishna E. Bera "Programmer on the loose" ytopya!kebera@alzabo.UUCP nrcaer!alzabo!kebera@uunet.uu.net
ralf@b.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Ralf Brown) (03/25/90)
In article <395@netmbx.UUCP> cosheff@netmbx.UUCP (Charles Shefflette) writes: }CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu (Charles Hannum) writes: } } }>In article <2796@dlvax2.datlog.co.uk>, dartus@datlog.co.uk ( David Artus) says: }>> }>>We wish to evaluate possible copy protection methods that could }>>be used for PC software. One option we have examined is the use of } }>I only have one piece of advice: No copy protection scheme is safe. } }Here, here!! Make sure you post what software you decide to copy protect }so that we DON'T ACCIDENTLY PURCHASE IT! I make it a FIRM POLICY for }my private software and the software we purchase at work NOT to purchase }a package that is copy protected if we can find ANYTHING ELSE which will }serve even a similar purpose! A case study: when Borland released the first update of the original Sidekick (which had been copy protected), it offered a choice of copy-protected for $50 and non-copy-protected for $80. Even though the non-copy-protected version cost 60% more, it outsold the copy-protected version by something like five to one! -- {backbone}!cs.cmu.edu!ralf ARPA: RALF@CS.CMU.EDU FIDO: Ralf Brown 1:129/46 BITnet: RALF%CS.CMU.EDU@CMUCCVMA AT&Tnet: (412)268-3053 (school) FAX: ask DISCLAIMER? | _How_to_Prove_It_ by Dana Angluin 3. by vigorous handwaving: What's that?| Works well in a classroom or seminar setting.
frisk@rhi.hi.is (Fridrik Skulason) (03/26/90)
The original posting sure seems to have generated a lot of anti- copy-protection flames. I normally try to stay away from copy-protected software, but occasionally I may buy a copy-protected game, if it is good enough, which happens maybe once every year - Tetris being the latest example. Sometimes one may be forced to use copy-protection. As a matter of fact, I was designing such a program last week. Why ? Well, a person here at the university is writing Icelandic versions of some educational programs for elementary school. The original publisher requires us to make the diskettes copy protected, so she turned to me for help. The method used is fairly simple - just formatting track 40 with some insane parameters. DISKCOPY will appear to work, as it only copies tracks 0-39, but the copy will not work. Like any other software-based copy-protection, this one can be easily defeated by a good disk-copy utility, which makes the copy-protection practically useless, but as I said - it was required from us. If the original publisher is stupid enough to demand copy-protection on his software - well, that is his problem.. -- Fridrik Skulason University of Iceland | Technical Editor of the Virus Bulletin (UK) | Reserved for future expansion E-Mail: frisk@rhi.hi.is Fax: 354-1-28801 |
acm@grendal.Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae) (03/30/90)
In article <1990Mar24.214340.13668@alzabo.uucp> tris@alzabo.uucp (Tris Orendorff) writes: >Here's another: You won't need copy protection if your product is truly >useful. People will be glad to buy it rather than steal it. Not wishing to start a flame war, but... I can't imagine how you could substantiate a statement like that. In my experience, the more popular a program is, the more copies I see that have not been paid for.
CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu (Charles Hannum) (03/30/90)
In article <1087@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>, acm@grendal.Sun.COM (Andrew MacRae) says: > >In article <1990Mar24.214340.13668@alzabo.uucp> tris@alzabo.uucp (Tris >Orendorff) writes: >>Here's another: You won't need copy protection if your product is truly >>useful. People will be glad to buy it rather than steal it. > >Not wishing to start a flame war, but... > >I can't imagine how you could substantiate a statement like that. In my >experience, the more popular a program is, the more copies I see that have >not been paid for. No. I usually find that programs that people are *forced* to use, but don't really want to are pirated more. Take DOS and Lotus 1-2-3 as examples. Virtually, - Charles Martin Hannum II "Klein bottle for sale ... inquire within." (That's Charles to you!) "To life immortal!" cmh117@psuvm.{bitnet,psu.edu} "No noozzzz izzz netzzzsnoozzzzz..." c9h@psuecl.{bitnet,psu.edu} "Mem'ry, all alone in the moonlight ..."