Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!ucsd!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hplabsz!taylor
From: demers@beowulf.UCSD.EDU (David E Demers)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Re: Soap Software, Stolen Software, Sojourn
Message-ID: <1763@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM>
Date: 25 Mar 88 02:43:22 GMT
Sender: taylor@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM
Organization: EE/CS Dept. The University of California at San Diego
Lines: 30
Approved: taylor@hplabs

Michael  Farren wrote:

>> ...no such studies were felt to be necessary - it was accepted without
>> data that copy protection was necessary, even with the full knowledge
>> that our games were being cracked within days of their release.

to which Julian Gomez replied:

> Having thought about this for a few days, I must admit that I am
> still baffled.  At the risk of starting a "discussion", can you
> explain the reasoning behind that conclusion?

I'm not sure exactly what Mr. Farren had in mind; however, when I 
was with a major (at the time :-) software company, we used copy
protection on the rationale that there is a continuum of piracy.
Some people will NEVER buy anything if they can steal it.  Others
will steal software if it doesn't take much work.  And others are
honest, and won't use pirated software even if it is offered to 
them by a friend.  This is a bit of a simplification...  However,
for those in the first and third groups, copy protection is 
meaningless; while for those in the second, it is a deterrent to
theft.  

To analogize, nothing can prevent a determined car thief from
stealing your car.  But an alarm, or steering wheel lock, 
(or always removing the distributor cap, as a friend of mine
who lives in East Oakland does...) may prevent the non-pro    
thief from making off with your wheels.

David E. DeMers