Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 UW 5/3/83; site uw-beaver Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!info-mac From: info-mac@uw-beaver (info-mac) Newsgroups: fa.info-mac Subject: disks, copy prot., etc. Message-ID: <1049@uw-beaver> Date: Tue, 3-Jul-84 16:32:52 EDT Article-I.D.: uw-beave.1049 Posted: Tue Jul 3 16:32:52 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 4-Jul-84 23:46:31 EDT Sender: daemon@uw-beave Organization: U of Washington Computer Science Lines: 27 From: Jerry E. Pournelle One problem with copy protection from publisher view: something I hadn't thought of before. Philippe Kahn of Borland (Turbo) points out that few pirate Turbo because the documentation is needed and not more than a couple of copies per site are used anyway. With their new "Sidekick" utility (where does Borland get its ugly names fro great programs) the program is self-explanatory, no documents are needed--and big companies will buy one copy, then make fifty copies and internally distribute. Kahn sells for $50.00 (well, $49.95) a fair price for a good product; and he's right, there are large outfits that have bought disk duplicators for internal use... What should publishers do? Many big companies are streaight arrow, but some BIG ones are not, and they have EXPENSIVE lawyers. (Do not suggest that we kill all the lawyers as solution. The idea has merits, but there are implementation difficulties). I've been active in denouncing copy protected software and in general have not changed my view (at $395.00 and like that, my sympathes are with the user); but what do we do about the situation where good programs at reasonable prices are ripeed off? (Incidentlally, the Borland copy protection scheme is deliberately unsophistiacted so that hackers will have no trouble with it; if they crack it they may even get a message congratulating them; it wasn't his intent to keep hobbyists from making backup and archive copies...)