Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:11569 comp.misc:1761
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!think!ames!aurora!labrea!decwrl!pyramid!voder!kontron!optilink!cramer
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Copy protection and the consumer (dongles)
Message-ID: <1869@optilink.UUCP>
Date: 22 Jan 88 16:47:07 GMT
References: <4663@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <22628@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <1852@optilink.UUCP> <6622@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 29

> In article <1852@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> <At least that's the theory [behind dongles], and if they worked, they
> <would be a perfectly acceptable way of copy protecting very expensive
> <software
> 
> No, they aren't. You really want me to have to swap dongles every time
> some piece of my carefully selected donglified software running on my
> multi-tasking system wants a different dongle?
> 
> Worse yet, you want me to anticipate when that software is going to
> want a dongle?
> 

The software I've seen using dongles only needs it to start up.  In a 
multitasking system, you start up all your dongled software first.

I'm not claiming I like the idea of copy protection, but if a company is
going to have it, dongles SHOULD (if they worked) be a better approach
than a "key disk" or one-time installation.  (The same problem about
multitasking software appears with "key disks".)

As much as I hate copy protection schemes, I appreciate why they exist --
I've worked with far too many people over the years who think nothing of
buying a program, then offering everyone they know a copy of it.  The
rationalization is usually, "I wanted it, and it was overpriced."  I
usually respond with, "A Mercedes is overpriced also.  Are you planning
to steal one?"  The conversation usually ends right there.

Clayton E. Cramer