Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site ima.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!seismo!harvard!think!ima!johnl From: johnl@ima.UUCP Newsgroups: net.micro.pc Subject: Re: Re: Copy Protection Message-ID: <131300002@ima.UUCP> Date: Sun, 8-Dec-85 18:04:00 EST Article-I.D.: ima.131300002 Posted: Sun Dec 8 18:04:00 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 11-Dec-85 03:47:39 EST References: <3624@think.UUCP> Lines: 61 Nf-ID: #R:think:-362400:ima:131300002:000:3563 Nf-From: ima!johnl Dec 8 18:04:00 1985 In article <506@uvaee.UUCP> jaj@uvaee.UUCP (James A. Jokl) writes: >A friend ... >selling a Data Base Application Designed To Run on IBM PCs and compatables, >and wishes that it be copy protected. ... Since there has been a great outpouring against copy protection here, I will try to paint the other side of the picture. Not to say that copy protection is a wonderful thing, but there are, unfortunately, good reasons why you would want to do it. First, it is certainly true that no matter how clever your copy protection is, people will figure out how to break it in a matter of months. However, just because it has been broken doesn't mean that every potential customer or even most potential customers have access to a broken copy, so copy protection does mean that many potential copiers will be deterred. I wish that I could believe that most people are honest and will not copy software illegally, but I can't. I mean, I know people who've gone into elementary schools and found that the first thing small children are taught to do with their Apples is to make illegal copies of various educational programs to use. The usual excuse is that they can't afford all of the software they want. Somehow, even the moderate level of morality that prevails today seems to go completely out the window where software is concerned. (I can't afford all of the fine oil paintings that I want, either, but that doesn't mean that I steal them from art galleries. Really, now, the cost for the canvas and paint for a painting can't be more than ten bucks, so how can they possibly justify charging $1,000 for it? Ditto for limited edition lithographs. But I digress.) Any canned copy protection scheme you can buy such as Prolok or Softguard has already been broken, so if you're serious about copy protection, you'll get at least a semi-custom one so that existing copy programs can't copy it. I can send along some names if need be. Second, you have to keep in mind the needs of the user when you implement your copy protection scheme. Allow hard disk installation, without needing the key disk to start up. Allow de-installation, so the user can move to another machine. Allow an extra install, for the poor user whose disk suddenly gets amnesia. Include a backup copy of the key disk in the package. When users call up with copy protection problems, tend to believe them. You have the names of your callers, after all. Third, good manuals go a long way toward encouraging people to buy legal copies of your program. The temptation to pirate is much greater when you know that if you got a legal copy, you wouldn't be any better off because the manual is worthless. Similarly, provide good technical support for your registered users. Let people register over the phone, if they haven't gotten around to sending in their registration card. The only things that will resolve the current copy protection mess is 1) a distribution medium that is easy to use, unlikely to fail, and hard to copy, and 2) a software market that is large enough and mature enough that authors can expect to make a living selling software for $10 to $50. We may be nearing the latter, but the former is nowhere near in sight, unless CD ROMs are an unexpected hit. John Levine, Javelin Software, Cambridge MA 617-494-1400 { decvax!cca | think | ihnp4 | cbosgd }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.ARPA The opinions above are solely those of a 12 year old hacker who has broken into my account, and not those of my employer or any other organization.