>> By the way, [copy protection] was, I'm told, "requested by our
>> foreign VAR's due to problems with extreme piracy". B.S.
>>
>>I doubt it. I know another TCP/IP vendor who receives orders for a
>>single copy from too many [foreign] distributors for them to avoid
>>the obvious conclusion.
>>
>
>Well, if you doubt that this is the _stated_ reason FTP Software implemented
>copy protection, you are wrong. That is a direct quote (ok, paraphrased
>_slightly_ since its been so long since the conversation took place) from FTP
>Software personnel. We had quite a long discussion on this issue, publicly,
>in this newsgroup.
>
>If you doubt that that is the _true_ reason copy protection was implemented
>then you and I agree.
>
>If you doubt this is B.S. then you are welcome to your opinion.
>
>--
>Paul Bash Techware Design
>bash@tware.com Boulder, CO U.S.A.
As another TCP/IP vendor, I can definately say that we are under
a lot of pressure to put some form of copy protection in our TCP/IP product.
This pressure is coming from our foreign distributors (we have had little or
no pressure from North American distributors). We even have a couple
who refuse to carry our product until it has copy protection. The reason is
that in several foreign countries, illegal copying of software is the norm.
The distributors know that if the product is not copy protected, they will only receive small orders from their customers and the customers will copy the
software left, right and center. I am not saying that one can't trust customers
to abide by the license agreements, but it seems that some distributors in
some countries feel that their customers won't.
I will say that even though I don't like copy protection, FTP Software's
duplicate copy notification is the best solution I've seen so far. It takes up
no extra Network bandwidth and probably a very small amount of memory. It
