Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cunews!bnrgate!bwdls61.bnr.ca!bwdls56!fortinp
From: fortinp@bwdls56.bnr.ca (Pierre Fortin)
Subject: Re: copy protection
Message-ID: <1991Jan30.061306.26631@bwdls61>
Sender: usenet@bwdls61 (Use Net)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
References: <9101272223.AA08327@desktalk.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 91 06:13:06 GMT

In article <9101272223.AA08327@desktalk.com>, rlg@BIOBIO.DESKTALK.COM (Richard L. Gralnik) writes:

[stuff about illegal copying deleted]
>                                             Trying to make the vendor
> into the bad guy is a poor attempt at self-justification/rationalization.
> 
> If you want to live on share-ware go ahead, but to say that people 
> should boycott a company that tries to keep you from making unauthorized 
> copies of their software is like saying you shouldn't go to the 
> supermarket because they prosecute shoplifters.
> 
> Richard
> (rlg@desktalk.com)
> 
> p.s. Tops also implements a networked serial number comparison scheme.  

I have no problem with vendors trying to protect their investment, but where
should the line be drawn?  Checking serial numbers over the network (as is 
the case with some Mac software) does not always scale; worse, if it chews 
up lots of intercity bandwidth and causes me to have to increase the size of
my links to handle this type of traffic, then I will contact my Purchasing
and Legal departments to try and have this "network manace" blacklisted.  

If this type of copy protection scheme is deemed necessary, then lets get 
some concrete proposals on the table which are network and administrator 
friendly.  From there, why not have an RFC describing the process/protocol
and make it a standard.  After all, isn't this just another flavor of the 
larger "security" issues?

Cheers,                      
Pierre Fortin       fortinp@bnr.ca         (613)763-2598