Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!cmh117
From: CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu (Charles Hannum)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.programmer
Subject: Re: Copy Protection
Message-ID: <90088.185649CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: 29 Mar 90 23:56:49 GMT
References: <2796@dlvax2.datlog.co.uk> <90080.140503CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1990Mar24.214340.13668@alzabo.uucp> <1087@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM>
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 23


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 ..."