NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/comp/sys/mac/programm/20822

Text File | 1993-01-06 | 3.8 KB | 76 lines

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!dawson
From: [e-mail] (Dawson Dean)
Subject: protection == !piracy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY 14853
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:24:41 GMT
Lines: 66


I know I really shouldn't get into this, but.....


I also know that this issue has been rehashed
countless times before, but....


   Look, we all know that software piracy is wrong. What I want
to see is manufacturers try to put some more effort into
protecting their software. NOTE: I'm NOT talking about disk based
copy protection, but companies should implement things like unique
key files which the app registers by broadcasting on the net. The
app can do this when it is launched add an INIT (that must be present
for the app to launch) and the init registers the key.

   True, not all people use networked Macs, and students especially
use isolated machines in their dorms (but not inpublic labs).
This won't stop piracy, but it will make a start. The point is
that we should continue to develop lisencing technology just like
we have been developing other aspects of an application. Of course
we want to allow backups, and of course we don't want the user to
put up with a lot of extra hassle (like typing in a secret key from
the manual every time he launches), but we should be able to at
least work on the problem. Lots of companies make users register their
copy with a name, which is one TINY step in the right direction.

   I really hate the idea that some major program by some major developer
(like MS Excel) just puts out a completely non-protected bit of software
and then moans that people copy it. Look, if I leave my wallet in an
unlocked car, somebody will eventually reach in and steal it. Sure, they
SHOULDN'T do this, but am I blameless for the loss of my wallet? There
is (I believe) precedent in intellectual property law that you have to
make some effort to protect your idea. You can't just get a patent, do nothing
to enforce it, and then 10 years later sue to protect it. Ask Xerox. When
I was an engineer at Xerox, somebody once asked a bigwig why they
didn't sue Apple for the Mac look and he replied that they had basically
let the patent go unprotected too long and that issue (along with lots of
untested precedent about look-n-feel) made the case look unwinnable.

   Besides, IMHO, some copy protection makes the customer feel better
about paying for the software. You're paying because its the right thing
to do, but also because you get the other benefits of registered software
INCLUDING the fact that you don't have to keep your machine clock set to
8/3/89 or make sure nobody else in the building is using the same copy
or whatever you do to defeat the protection. Paying for the software
has a clear user benefit and shareware should also use this idea more.
I really like the registration screen on StuffIt Lite. You still have
free use of the program, but for 25 bucks the dialog will stop
bothering you. It seems to be close to the just right level of bother
to make the program usable but still coerce people to register.

   Why don't people cook up a standard library for simple protection?
What about you TopSoft people or some of the other people who want to
embark on group projects? You need a library (with reasonable api)
for implementing the protection as well as a manufacturing program
(like diskMaker) that easily lets people create unique key files for
each disk. Instead of flaming about this, why don't we start building
tools to attack the problem?


--
 ________________________________________________________________
| Dawson Dean                    Internet: [e-mail] |
| Cornell Computer Science       Office:   [phone]        |
|________________________________________________________________|