Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!ucbvax!DECWRL.DEC.COM!mwm
From: mwm@DECWRL.DEC.COM (Mike  Meyer, Real Amigas have keyboard garages)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: RE Feedback on Computer Crime - Apology
Message-ID: <9008281745.AA06726@raven.pa.dec.com>
Date: 28 Aug 90 17:45:42 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 50

>> Autodesk got bitten badly by the hypocrisy and inherent contradictions of
>> the software market when it attempted to ship a hardware lock with Release
>> 9 (I think) AutoCAD.  The lock was designed well, it worked on all but a
>> fraction of machines, and it in general provided a solution to the "open
>> diamond containers" problem.  It _worked_.

There are a number of problems with dongles (generic name for such a
creatures). The worst one is that you may have to swap dongles for
every program, or you have to have one port for every such program, or
there has to be some form of extendion bus. None of these is really
satisfactory once you have even a relatively small number of such
programs. I'm not sure what you mean by the "open diamond containers"
problem. If it's the above, I'd be interested in knowing what the
solution was that "_worked_". If it's not the above, then I'd like to
know what the problem is, and probably how it was solved. Also how the
AutoDesk solution solved the above problem.

>> I think CPU IDs are the way to go.

That's what looks like the best solution to the first problem. But it
leaves the interesting problem that it makes legitimate changes of
hardware painful. I've had four different CPUs on my desk in the last
three months due to upgrades. If I'd had to wait N weeks for all/most
of my commercial software - or even a few critical pieces - after
those upgrades, I would have been tempted not to make them.

This also means I can't run software protected in such a way both at
work and at home (such useage is well within the bounds of the
copyright laws), and have to drag my machine anyplace I want to do a
demo that needs said software. This can be a real pain in the ass.

>> One CPU, one copy of AutoCAD... it doesn't sound so bad, does it? 

I think I've demonstrated that the real world isn't that simple. There
are legitimate reasons for wanting to run one copy on machines other
than a specific one. Since copy protection only stops causal copying,
and not serious pirates, what's the justification for making users
lifes miserable?

>> But Autodesk was portrayed as a company hostile
>> to users, authoritarian, and generally bad, simply because they were
>> attempting to do the reasonable thing with regard to the problem of piracy!

Based on what I've seen here, I'd say it was deserved. They apparently
took an action that did user no good and caused them noticable pain,
just for the bottom line. Sounds "hostile to users and generally bad"
to me. They also restricted what users can do under the same
conditions. Sounds authoritarian.

	<mike