Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia!gsm
From: gsm@sequoia.execu.com (Scott Mather)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer
Subject: re: copy protection
Message-ID: <11676@sequoia.execu.com>
Date: 23 Mar 90 15:00:45 GMT
Reply-To: gsm@execu.com ()
Distribution: usa
Organization: Execucom Systems Corp., Austin, Texas
Lines: 29

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
.