Are there any recent examples of copy protection implemented in Lisp?
I know AllegroLisp has a license encryption system, but I was wondering
if any schemes go any deeper, as far as actually hiding license info.
Also, and it seems this would be true, is it more difficult to 'crack'
copy protection written in Lisp, given the additional complexity of the
compiled code?
Jonathon
"jonathon" <···········@bigfoot.com> writes:
> Are there any recent examples of copy protection implemented in Lisp?
> I know AllegroLisp has a license encryption system, but I was wondering
> if any schemes go any deeper, as far as actually hiding license info.
> Also, and it seems this would be true, is it more difficult to 'crack'
> copy protection written in Lisp, given the additional complexity of the
> compiled code?
Copyprotection is only a name for the number and kind of turtles you
stack. It serves no real purpose since it doesn't make any difference
whether you have blue turtles or red turtles: it's all turtles downward.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
You never feed me.
Perhaps I'll sleep on your face.
That will sure show you.
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> Copyprotection is only a name for the number and kind of turtles you
> stack. It serves no real purpose since it doesn't make any difference
> whether you have blue turtles or red turtles: it's all turtles downward.
I have to say, this is totally over my head. What exactly are you
getting at?
On 2005-10-01 11:59:42 -0400, "jonathon" <···········@bigfoot.com> said:
> I have to say, this is totally over my head. What exactly are you
> getting at?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down>
the implication here by Pascal being that copy protection of any sort
is just another thing for crackers to crack. You can put up as many of
these barriers as you want and they will serve only to provide an
interesting challenge to clever crackers who will then post the
copy-protection-free cracked version of your software where everyone
can download and use it without charge.
On the other hand, if you don't treat your paying customers like
criminals and, for example, merely ask them to register your software
with a serial number after a trial period, several things are most
likely to happen:
1. Serious crackers will have no interest in your software since it is
trivial to crack. They may or may not go out of their way to crack your
software, but they certainly won't see it as a challenge to them which
they *must* crack and distribute widely.
2. People who wouldn't have paid for your software still won't pay -
they'll just put up with the nag dialog or find a cracked version to
download.
3. People who would have paid for your software will buy it and just as
importantly, they won't be annoyed with you for making them jump
through excessive hoops to use something they've already paid for. This
last group of people is the only one you should be concerned about
because they are your paying customers - don't treat them like
criminals. Everyone else is irrelevant - they're unlikely to buy your
software no matter how many layers of copy protection you put in.
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>
> On the other hand, if you don't treat your paying customers like
> criminals and, for example, merely ask them to register your software
> with a serial number after a trial period, several things are most
> likely to happen:
You're making a very rash assumption that your paying customers are not
criminals: generally, they are. They don't *think* of themselves as
criminals of course - that unlicensed copy of Office isn't really
breaking the law as such, you see, because Microsoft are this big bad
monopoly and that makes it really OK to just not pay for their
software. And all that music and those movies which are eating disk
space, they're OK too, because the movie companies & record labels,
why, they're big bad monopolies too, and it's OK to just not pay for
their product too. After all, it's really hard and boring to try and
get the monopoly problem fixed: better to just not think. And those
30MPH speed limits? Optional, of course: I've never knocked someone
down so it must be safe. And I have really good reflexes (it's all
those downloaded video games).
--tim
"Tim Bradshaw" <··········@tfeb.org> writes:
> Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>
> >
> > On the other hand, if you don't treat your paying customers like
> > criminals and, for example, merely ask them to register your software
> > with a serial number after a trial period, several things are most
> > likely to happen:
>
> You're making a very rash assumption that your paying customers are not
> criminals: generally, they are. They don't *think* of themselves as
> criminals of course - that unlicensed copy of Office isn't really
> breaking the law as such, you see, because Microsoft are this big bad
> monopoly and that makes it really OK to just not pay for their
> software. And all that music and those movies which are eating disk
> space, they're OK too, because the movie companies & record labels,
> why, they're big bad monopolies too, and it's OK to just not pay for
> their product too. After all, it's really hard and boring to try and
> get the monopoly problem fixed: better to just not think. And those
> 30MPH speed limits? Optional, of course: I've never knocked someone
> down so it must be safe. And I have really good reflexes (it's all
> those downloaded video games).
If you target Mac users, it's easy: convenience an asthetics generally
trump criminality for them. Make it more pleasant and prettier to do
the legal thing, and they'll pay. That's why iTunes is so successful
in a world of peer-to-peer networks, and why I personally have a few
pieces of pin-striped aqua shareware. Now *that* would be a nasty
trick: make your software change to brushed metal when the trial expires.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | Free Mumia Abu-Jamal! |
,--' _,' | Abolish the racist |
/ / | death penalty! |
( -. | `-----------------------'
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
···@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes:
> If you target Mac users, it's easy: convenience an asthetics generally
> trump criminality for them. Make it more pleasant and prettier to do
> the legal thing, and they'll pay. That's why iTunes is so successful
> in a world of peer-to-peer networks, and why I personally have a few
> pieces of pin-striped aqua shareware. Now *that* would be a nasty
> trick: make your software change to brushed metal when the trial expires.
Good idea, and the more they use it, the more the look degrades, down
to a shanty.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not
want merely because you think it would be good for him. -- Robert Heinlein
Thomas F. Burdick wrote:
> If you target Mac users, it's easy: convenience an asthetics generally
> trump criminality for them. Make it more pleasant and prettier to do
> the legal thing, and they'll pay. That's why iTunes is so successful
IMHO Mac OS X isn't at all about aesthetics (maybe OS 9 was). It's just
quite good at keeping out of the way, and that includes window borders,
and excessively buttoned dialog windows.
> in a world of peer-to-peer networks, and why I personally have a few
> pieces of pin-striped aqua shareware. Now *that* would be a nasty
> trick: make your software change to brushed metal when the trial expires.
Woohoo, the first time I couldn't wait to let the trial expire ;)
--
We're glad that graduates already know Java,
so we only have to teach them how to program.
somewhere in a German company
(credit to M. Felleisen and M. Sperber)
On 2005-10-03 07:31:37 -0400, "Tim Bradshaw" <··········@tfeb.org> said:
> You're making a very rash assumption that your paying customers are not
> criminals: generally, they are. They don't *think* of themselves as
> criminals of course - that unlicensed copy of Office isn't really
> breaking the law as such, you see, because Microsoft are this big bad
> monopoly and that makes it really OK to just not pay for their
> software.
I don't recall ever mentioning how they think of themselves. Anyone who
uses an unlicensed copy of a piece of software is, by definition, *not*
a paying customer of that firm.
The people who pay for your software are the ones behaving legally.
Don't treat *them* like criminals.
People who are not paying for your software and don't *think* of
themselves as criminals are *not* your paying customers. Don't tailor
your product to them. Tailor it to your paying customers.
regards
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 22:59:10 -0400, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> The people who pay for your software are the ones behaving legally.
> Don't treat *them* like criminals.
Unfortunately the crimminals don't wear ID tags.
On 2005-10-03 23:22:19 -0400, BR <··········@comcast.net> said:
> Unfortunately the crimminals don't wear ID tags.
So you have to write your software as if *everyone* were one of your
paying customers because you don't *care* what those who don't pay
think about how your software, support, etc. work, but you care very
much what paying customers think about how your software, support, etc.
work.
From a purely economic perspective, users of your software can be
neatly separated into two groups:
1. Those who will pay for it, a.k.a. "paying customers."
2. Those who will not - everything from casual unlicensed users who "do
not think of themselves as criminals" to full blown crackers.
If you want group 1 to buy from you again (upgrades, support,
additional licenses) or to recommend your software to others, do not
treat them as if they were part of group 2 by subjecting them to the
futile annoyances of copy protection.
The only way to do this is to write your software as if the only people
using it were group 1. *Ignore* group 2. They will *never* pay you, no
matter how much copy protection you put into your software. With any
luck, they may one day earn enough money to become part of group 1.
Until then they are, at best, free word of mouth advertising for your
product to others who might be more scrupulous/have more means than
they do.
regards
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 00:09:01 -0400, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> The only way to do this is to write your software as if the only people
> using it were group 1.
I think you missed the point. There's no observable mark between a
"crimminal" and a "non-crimminal". And group two usually engages in
behaviour that reduces any observable differences.
BR <··········@comcast.net> writes:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 00:09:01 -0400, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>
>> The only way to do this is to write your software as if the only people
>> using it were group 1.
>
> I think you missed the point. There's no observable mark between a
> "crimminal" and a "non-crimminal". And group two usually engages in
> behaviour that reduces any observable differences.
I don't see no "Thou shall not copy words." in the Ten Commandments,
so I'd say there's no real criminals here, only artificial name calling.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Nobody can fix the economy. Nobody can be trusted with their finger
on the button. Nobody's perfect. VOTE FOR NOBODY.
Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>> I think you missed the point. There's no observable mark between a
>> "crimminal" and a "non-crimminal". And group two usually engages in
>> behaviour that reduces any observable differences.
>
>
> I don't see no "Thou shall not copy words." in the Ten Commandments,
> so I'd say there's no real criminals here, only artificial name calling.
I won't say my opinion of the Ten Commandments (or any Christian
superstition). But are you saying that it's legal/moral/ok to pirate
software that's not offered as free, just because the vendor has enough
money anyway?
Call it crime, call it unauthorized use of something, but I think there
is a reason why software costs money sometimes, and people that don't
like that should just use free (beer) software.
--
We're glad that graduates already know Java,
so we only have to teach them how to program.
somewhere in a German company
(credit to M. Felleisen and M. Sperber)
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>>> I think you missed the point. There's no observable mark between a
>>> "crimminal" and a "non-crimminal". And group two usually engages in
>>> behaviour that reduces any observable differences.
>> I don't see no "Thou shall not copy words." in the Ten Commandments,
>> so I'd say there's no real criminals here, only artificial name calling.
>
> I won't say my opinion of the Ten Commandments (or any Christian
> superstition). But are you saying that it's legal/moral/ok to pirate
> software that's not offered as free, just because the vendor has
> enough money anyway?
No. This has nothing to do with the money the vendor has or has not.
> Call it crime, call it unauthorized use of something, but I think
> there is a reason why software costs money sometimes, and people that
> don't like that should just use free (beer) software.
Indeed. I can't understand why some people use unlicensed commercial
software (OS, word processors, spreadsheets, etc) when there are
perfectly good equivalent or better freedom software.
--
"You question the worthiness of my code? I should kill you where you
stand!"
Matthias Buelow wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> freedom software.
>
> Is that something like "freedom fries"?
It wouldn't surprise me if Pascal does prefer French software that's
equivalent or better than commercial stuff. :)
--
We're glad that graduates already know Java,
so we only have to teach them how to program.
somewhere in a German company
(credit to M. Felleisen and M. Sperber)
Matthias Buelow <···@incubus.de> writes:
> Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>>freedom software.
>
> Is that something like "freedom fries"?
I use "freedom" instead of "free" to avoid the ambiguity of free beer
vs. free speach.
Freedom software is software that preserves (some of) user's freedoms.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Cats meow out of angst
"Thumbs! If only we had thumbs!
We could break so much!"
Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>I use "freedom" instead of "free" to avoid the ambiguity of free beer
>vs. free speach.
>Freedom software is software that preserves (some of) user's freedoms.
This is Stallmanesque hogwash. Software itself cannot take away
someone's freedom(s), unless one defines that as software being
used by the government (or anyone else able to restrict your freedom)
against you. The simple proof for this is that, generally, noone
is obliged to use some particular software, and if you don't use
it, nothing happens.
mkb.
Matthias Buelow wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> >I use "freedom" instead of "free" to avoid the ambiguity of free beer
> >vs. free speach.
> >Freedom software is software that preserves (some of) user's freedoms.
>
> This is Stallmanesque hogwash.
While this is a transparent attempt to begin a non-Lisp flamewar... For
those serious about learning more about Pascal's perspective, I think a
good starting point is Prof. Lessig. On the broader economic issues,
Hahnel's _The ABCs of Political Economy_ discusses the "free rider
problem" of public goods, which is useful to understanding intellectual
property.
For those interested in learning more about trolling techniques, here's
a good link:
http://linux.nullcode.org/troll.txt
A particularly useful technique is to include little barbs to encourage
responses.
Tayssir
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> While this is a transparent attempt to begin a non-Lisp flamewar... For
> those serious about learning more about Pascal's perspective, I think a
> good starting point is Prof. Lessig. On the broader economic issues,
> Hahnel's _The ABCs of Political Economy_ discusses the "free rider
> problem" of public goods, which is useful to understanding intellectual
> property.
I don't bother to read the ABCs, but I know the free rider problem.
However, I can't see in what way this is relevant to intellectual property.
Everybody is (or should be) free to only lease his media to anybody. If
potential buyers feel harrassed then, and choose not to buy, that's the
vendor's problem. Other vendors choose to live with the fact of free
riders (Tim O'Reilly wrote something about free riders being equivalent
to progressive taxation for digital media) and sell much more.
In general, IF people are willing to pay for something, there is a way
that it'll come to life, and IF nobody is willing to pay, it won't.
Free riders don't change anything about this, and I don't see why
anybody should really care, if he isn't harmed in any way.
> For those interested in learning more about trolling techniques, here's
> a good link:
> http://linux.nullcode.org/troll.txt
>
> A particularly useful technique is to include little barbs to encourage
> responses.
Argh, far too many posts already as it is.
--
We're glad that graduates already know Java,
so we only have to teach them how to program.
somewhere in a German company
(credit to M. Felleisen and M. Sperber)
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> > While this is a transparent attempt to begin a non-Lisp flamewar... For
> > those serious about learning more about Pascal's perspective, I think a
> > good starting point is Prof. Lessig. On the broader economic issues,
> > Hahnel's _The ABCs of Political Economy_ discusses the "free rider
> > problem" of public goods, which is useful to understanding intellectual
> > property.
>
> I don't bother to read the ABCs, but I know the free rider problem.
> However, I can't see in what way this is relevant to intellectual property.
>
> Everybody is (or should be) free to only lease his media to anybody. If
> potential buyers feel harrassed then, and choose not to buy, that's the
> vendor's problem. Other vendors choose to live with the fact of free
> riders (Tim O'Reilly wrote something about free riders being equivalent
> to progressive taxation for digital media) and sell much more.
>
> In general, IF people are willing to pay for something, there is a way
> that it'll come to life, and IF nobody is willing to pay, it won't.
> Free riders don't change anything about this, and I don't see why
> anybody should really care, if he isn't harmed in any way.
The free rider problem is the reason for intellectual property. Public
goods (which everyone is free to "consume" and your consumption doesn't
really diminish mine) don't work well on a free market. People have an
incentive to ride as cheaply as possible. Which creates disincentives
against producing public goods despite a collective demand.
(So we know what a "market" is, it's an institution with two roles:
buyer and seller. The seller has some antagonistic incentive to gain
the most while giving up the least to the buyer, and vice versa. We can
see that benefits/costs to others, who aren't playing one of those two
roles, generally aren't represented in a given market transaction.)
Take national defense spending, another public good. Microsoft has the
incentive to try riding free, and it turns out that some years it
manages to pay zero federal taxes. (The WTO last month ruled against
these massive subsidies.) So it tries not to pay for its defense, or
the educational system which added value to its employees, etc.
With ideas, texts and software, a pure freemarket system poses similar
problems. So taxes paid for the costly inventions of Lisp, computing
and the internet. Private software production is bolstered by
legislation/enforcement of intellectual property. (And anti-copying
schemes.) We're outside real capitalism when it comes to intellectual
property laws.
For those interested, Hahnel's ABCs book explains in detail why free
markets are unable to deliver these public goods efficiently.
Tayssir
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> Take national defense spending, another public good. Microsoft has the
> incentive to try riding free, and it turns out that some years it
> manages to pay zero federal taxes. (The WTO last month ruled against
> these massive subsidies.) So it tries not to pay for its defense, or
> the educational system which added value to its employees, etc.
Funny, other public goods (e.g. water & sewer, vaccinations, primary
education) have a per-person amount which most people can agree is
appropriate. How much national defense spending per person is
appropriate? It's a strange "public good" that people who generally like
larger government want less of and people who want small government
often prefer more of. Maybe we should reduce it by half and see what
happens, as an experiment.
> With ideas, texts and software, a pure freemarket system poses similar
> problems. So taxes paid for the costly inventions of Lisp, computing
> and the internet.
Umm, wasn't Lisp invented with private money and subsequently
implemented on a shoestring government budget of tens of grad-student
months?
How much did inventing the Internet cost? This isn't meant to be a
facaetious question, merely to highlight the difficulty of research
budgeting and the tendency to add the cost of all the failures to the
budgets of the successes, whether justified or not. If the net hadn't
been invented by government, don't you think private industry would have
created something functionally equivalent within a decade? I'd argue
that Ethernet (a private creation) was at least as important in the
growth of the Internet as was TCP/IP.
> Private software production is bolstered by
> legislation/enforcement of intellectual property. (And anti-copying
> schemes.) We're outside real capitalism when it comes to intellectual
> property laws.
>
> For those interested, Hahnel's ABCs book explains in detail why free
> markets are unable to deliver these public goods efficiently.
Does it cover what happens when intellectual property revenue streams
become concentrated and portions of them are used to redirect lawmakers'
efforts toward creating stronger and more permanent IP protection, thus
nullifying the original quid pro quo upon which IP laws were based?
Maybe we could refer to this effect as the "Mouse Trap."
OK that's enough marginally topical stuff from me.
Cameron MacKinnon wrote:
> Umm, wasn't Lisp invented with private money and subsequently
> implemented on a shoestring government budget of tens of grad-student
> months?
>
> How much did inventing the Internet cost? This isn't meant to be a
> facaetious question, merely to highlight the difficulty of research
> budgeting and the tendency to add the cost of all the failures to the
> budgets of the successes, whether justified or not.
A quick backgrounder (including a quote by Lisp inventor John McCarthy
for those interested):
http://lazowska.cs.washington.edu/nyt.darpa.pdf
Search the following for "arpa" (or look at acknowledgements sections
of Lisp papers):
http://www.dreamsongs.com/NewFiles/HOPL2-Uncut.pdf
The gov't either develops these innovations or heavily subsidizes them
until they're able to be profitable on the free market. (One way is to
outright purchase the products of tech companies in large quantities.)
I can offer more in-depth sources for those interested over email.
> > For those interested, Hahnel's ABCs book explains in detail why free
> > markets are unable to deliver these public goods efficiently.
>
> Does it cover what happens when intellectual property revenue streams
> become concentrated and portions of them are used to redirect lawmakers'
> efforts toward creating stronger and more permanent IP protection, thus
> nullifying the original quid pro quo upon which IP laws were based?
> Maybe we could refer to this effect as the "Mouse Trap."
It takes such market distortions as givens. I don't recall it has much
to say on IP issues specifically, though it does mention tech companies
in passing, such as tech giants buying capital-poor ones (which Paul
Graham expands upon frequently) and some of Microsoft's tactics. It's a
slim book which doesn't go in-depth on the tech industry.
Tayssir
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> Cameron MacKinnon wrote:
>>> So taxes paid for the costly inventions of Lisp
>>Umm, wasn't Lisp invented with private money and subsequently
>>implemented on a shoestring government budget of tens of grad-student
>>months?
>
> Search the following for "arpa" (or look at acknowledgements sections
> of Lisp papers):
> http://www.dreamsongs.com/NewFiles/HOPL2-Uncut.pdf
That paper says "We pick up where McCarthy�s paper in the first HOPL
conference left off." Those interested in the invention of Lisp might be
surprised at how much outstanding talent $13,500 could rent in 1956. The
funding was private:
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html
I submit that your claim that the invention of Lisp was costly and
government funded to be about as factual as the claim that Al Gore
invented the Internet: A wild mischaracterization of an involvement that
was in no way seminal.
Cameron MacKinnon wrote:
> Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> > Search the following for "arpa" (or look at acknowledgements sections
> > of Lisp papers):
> > http://www.dreamsongs.com/NewFiles/HOPL2-Uncut.pdf
> >
> > The gov't either develops these innovations or heavily subsidizes them
> > until they're able to be profitable on the free market. (One way is to
> > outright purchase the products of tech companies in large quantities.)
>
> That paper says "We pick up where McCarthy's paper in the first HOPL
> conference left off." Those interested in the invention of Lisp might be
> surprised at how much outstanding talent $13,500 could rent in 1956. The
> funding was private:
> http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html
>
> I submit that your claim that the invention of Lisp was costly and
> government funded to be about as factual as the claim that Al Gore
> invented the Internet: A wild mischaracterization of an involvement that
> was in no way seminal.
You "submit"? I'm not interested in turning this Lisp forum into a
debate sandbox. ;) As I pointed out before, email me to clarify before
spending everyone's time.
I invite people to find out why you disingenuously selected that
Dartmouth link, and I'll make things more clear below, as you
intentionally ignored my citations.
* From HOPL2:
"2.10 Early Common Lisp
If there were no consolidation in the Lisp community at this point,
Lisp might have died. ARPA was not interested in funding a variety of
needlessly competing and gratuitously different Lisp projects. And
there was no commercial arena - yet."
http://www.dreamsongs.com/NewFiles/HOPL2-Uncut.pdf
* From what McCarthy calls "the original paper on LISP":
"The group was supported by the M.I.T. Computation Center, and by the
M.I.T. Research Laboratory of Electronics (which is supported in part
by the the U.S. Army (Signal Corps), the U.S. Air Force (Office of
Scientific Research, Air Research and Development Command), and the
U.S. Navy (Office of Naval Research)). The author also wishes to
acknowledge the personal financial support of the Alfred P. Sloan
Foundation."
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/recursive/node7.html
Tayssir
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> The gov't either develops these innovations or heavily subsidizes them
> until they're able to be profitable on the free market. (One way is to
> outright purchase the products of tech companies in large quantities.)
Maybe the internet was ARPA-funded, but that doesn't mean that
developing something like TCP is rocket science.
Often it just takes a good idea for something to develop, like
cooperating. Examples are the Apache foundation, which was sponsored by
several companies, or Dylan. Nobody says that one company has to fund
all development of anything. Many modern high-tech investments (chip
manufacturing) are carried by cooperating large corporations.
--
State, the new religion from the friendly guys who brought you fascism.
Tayssir John Gabbour wrote:
> Take national defense spending, another public good. Microsoft has the
> incentive to try riding free, and it turns out that some years it
> manages to pay zero federal taxes. (The WTO last month ruled against
> these massive subsidies.) So it tries not to pay for its defense, or
> the educational system which added value to its employees, etc.
Concerning defense: maybe if everybody else who doesn't care would stop
funding the military (ok, the state forces them to...), then MS *would*
care and spend money on defense against terrorists or foreign military.
The result would be a maybe nationwide company that other companies
would also help fund. Of course those companies wouldn't want to spend
billions to have their defense agency go to war in a foreign country,
which is a nice side effect.
Concerning education: actually companies DO help fund education. They
sponsor parts of German universities, as far as these are relevant to
them getting educated people (Volkswagen does it to get engineers, I
suppose others too). Again, if public funding would start to go away,
they'd certainly jump in. But even if that weren't the case, I'd be
willing to pay for an education, assuming it'd be better than the crap
that is today's (free) German high school and university system.
> With ideas, texts and software, a pure freemarket system poses similar
> problems. So taxes paid for the costly inventions of Lisp, computing
> and the internet. Private software production is bolstered by
But who distributed those taxes? Who decides how much taxes to extort
from your citizens and how much to spend on individual ventures? Why
not let interested parties create an organization for that? Corruption
will be much lower than today, as will bureaucracy.
> legislation/enforcement of intellectual property. (And anti-copying
> schemes.) We're outside real capitalism when it comes to intellectual
> property laws.
Waaay outside. When I came back to Germany from the US it almost felt
like (the way I picture modern) Socialism. The perhaps-to-be German
chancellor Merkel said something very similar in an interview a couple
of months ago (which doesn't mean I sympathize with her).
> For those interested, Hahnel's ABCs book explains in detail why free
> markets are unable to deliver these public goods efficiently.
When somebody wants something and pays, he'll probably get it. Maybe
the state can provide education, but it costs much more than private
funding, and the quality is abysmal (YYMV), because there's no money
control at all.
Anyway, this is getting waaay off-topic. On copy protection let me say
that apparently no amount of state-enforced IP laws has actually
prevented copying. Technology does, but as others have said it might
scare away your potential customers. You might also try to bundle
services with your software, like T-Shirts, posters, installation
service, free bug-fixes for a year (while only putting older versions on
the 'net), etc.
--
State, the new religion from the friendly guys who brought you fascism.
Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> Concerning defense: maybe if everybody else who doesn't care would stop
> funding the military (ok, the state forces them to...), then MS *would*
> care and spend money on defense against terrorists or foreign military.
> The result would be a maybe nationwide company that other companies
> would also help fund. Of course those companies wouldn't want to spend
> billions to have their defense agency go to war in a foreign country,
> which is a nice side effect.
wouldn't that depend on the expected return?
hs
Hartmann Schaffer wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
>> Concerning defense: maybe if everybody else who doesn't care would
>> stop funding the military (ok, the state forces them to...), then MS
>> *would* care and spend money on defense against terrorists or foreign
>> military. The result would be a maybe nationwide company that other
>> companies would also help fund. Of course those companies wouldn't
>> want to spend billions to have their defense agency go to war in a
>> foreign country, which is a nice side effect.
>
> wouldn't that depend on the expected return?
Sure, but high-tech weapons are *really* expensive, while the returns
may not be. Either way, the other side isn't just sitting there, but
probably also has their share of defense/insurance companies watching
over oil fountains, so there will be some opposition. Also, expect
defense companies/insurers to pool their resources as well to minimize
financial risk if some gang of Mafia madmen turns loose.
--
State, the new religion from the friendly guys who brought you fascism.
>>>>> "TJG" == Tayssir John Gabbour <···········@yahoo.com> writes:
[...]
TJG> For those interested, Hahnel's ABCs book explains in detail
TJG> why free markets are unable to deliver these public goods
TJG> efficiently. [...]
Speaking of free riders: I believe you can get the gist of what that
book might be about by googling around the zmag.org site. Or reading
free books from there: http://www.zmag.org/books/polpar.htm
I'd recommend The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law by
Landes and Posner for a decent economic analysis of IP issues as they
exist today. Here's the amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674012046
cheers,
BM
Matthias Buelow wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon <····@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
>> I use "freedom" instead of "free" to avoid the ambiguity of free beer
>> vs. free speach.
>> Freedom software is software that preserves (some of) user's freedoms.
>
> This is Stallmanesque hogwash. Software itself cannot take away
> someone's freedom(s), unless one defines that as software being
> used by the government (or anyone else able to restrict your freedom)
> against you. The simple proof for this is that, generally, noone
> is obliged to use some particular software, and if you don't use
> it, nothing happens.
Just like fries don't take away freedom, and even Freedom Fries can't
give it to you.
--
We're glad that graduates already know Java,
so we only have to teach them how to program.
somewhere in a German company
(credit to M. Felleisen and M. Sperber)
BR <··········@comcast.net> writes:
> I think you missed the point. There's no observable mark between a
> "crimminal" and a "non-crimminal". And group two usually engages in
> behaviour that reduces any observable differences.
I think _you_ missed the point, that the observable difference
between the paying and non paying customers is... the former
group sends you a check.
On 2005-10-04 02:57:23 -0400, Alain Picard <············@memetrics.com> said:
> BR <··········@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> I think you missed the point. There's no observable mark between a
>> "crimminal" and a "non-crimminal". And group two usually engages in
>> behaviour that reduces any observable differences.
>
> I think _you_ missed the point, that the observable difference
> between the paying and non paying customers is... the former
> group sends you a check.
Exactly as you say Alain. This being the case, one should tailor one's
software offerings and business practices to people who send checks,
since they're the people most likely to do so again in the future.
regards
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> The people who pay for your software are the ones behaving legally.
> Don't treat *them* like criminals.
No, they are the people who are paying for some copies of it, but using
a lot more, unless you arrange life so they can't do that. They're the
people who have a few machines on maintenance, and then swap failed
parts into them from the machines they don't have on maintenance,
unless you stop them doing that.
People, in general, are liars, cheats and thieves. The most important
lie is the one they tell themselves: that they are none of these
things, or that what they do is justified.
--tim
On 2005-10-05 08:47:01 -0400, "Tim Bradshaw" <··········@tfeb.org> said:
> People, in general, are liars, cheats and thieves.
Your dim view of human nature, even if true of many people, fails to
take account of the fact that many others pay for things even when they
*know* that what they are paying for is available without cost. The
mere knowledge that they would be acquiring something illegally is
enough to make many people pay. The least expensive effective form of
copy protection comes from the same place as the least expensive
effective law enforcement - people's own internal standards of behavior.
Those who would cheat you will never pay for your software anyway.
Focus on those who do, since they're where your next check is coming
from.
On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 11:54:21 -0400, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> The least expensive effective form of copy protection comes from the
> same place as the least expensive effective law enforcement - people's
> own internal standards of behavior.
Situational ethics, as opposed to "Thou shall not steal"...no ifs, ands,
or buts.
On 2005-10-07 14:39:06 -0400, BR <··········@comcast.net> said:
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 11:54:21 -0400, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>
>> The least expensive effective form of copy protection comes from the
>> same place as the least expensive effective law enforcement - people's
>> own internal standards of behavior.
>
> Situational ethics, as opposed to "Thou shall not steal"...no ifs, ands,
> or buts.
No doubt, but for many people the calculus of situational ethics tips
in favor of paying. The reward for using a cracked copy of a piece of
software that sells for $100.00 is saving $100.00 The risks and
inconveniences can include: being shamed by if found out by ones
neighbors, peers, or the authorites, lack of access to certain forms of
support if needed, nagging guilt, even possible civil or criminal
action (though these latter legal consequences are unlikely). For
people who can afford to pay $100.00 for a piece of software, the risks
are not worth the reward. For some of those people who can't afford to
pay $100.00 for a piece of software, the reward is worth it, so they
use an unauthorized copy. But note that even if you have perfect copy
protection, this latter group is not going to buy your software anyway
- they just can't afford it.
You won't get people who can't afford your software to pay for it, and
for many people who can afford to pay for it, it's not worth the risks
and/or hassles to use it without paying, so they pay. Those who pay are
your sole revenue source, and the most likely pool of future customers.
You should design the user experience of your product for them. Paying
customers want any copy protection to be as unintrusive as possible and
smart software firms keep it that way.
OK, let's see if I can summarize the positions here.
Unlike Raffael, I actually see three potential groups of people.
1) Users who would always pay for your software.
2) Users who would never pay for your software.
3) Users who would not pay for your software if it were easy to not
pay, but would pay if unauthorized use were not easy.
I think as large part of the dispute centers around just how big or
significant the pool of people in group #3 is. And that really seems to
be what would drive the economics.
If group 3 were much larger than group 1, copy protection would seem a
rational choice.
If group 3 were much smaller than group 1, copy protection would be
counter-productive. Raffael Cavallaro makes eloquent arguments for why
this would be counter-productive.
I would imagine the groupings depend on the target audience for the
software, so there would not be a one-size-fits-all solution. It would
need to be assessed base on the target audience. I suspect, but have
no proof, that the more mass-market the software, the more likely it is
that group 3 grows. I would expect more specialized software to have a
much smaller group 3.
--
Thomas A. Russ, USC/Information Sciences Institute
···@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) writes:
> OK, let's see if I can summarize the positions here.
>
> Unlike Raffael, I actually see three potential groups of people.
>
> 1) Users who would always pay for your software.
> 2) Users who would never pay for your software.
> 3) Users who would not pay for your software if it were easy to not
> pay, but would pay if unauthorized use were not easy.
Well, if you're going to extend it that way you need to extend it one
more:
4) Users who would pay for your software unless they are put off by
the mechanisms you put in place to encourage group 3 to pay.
-Peter
--
Peter Seibel * ·····@gigamonkeys.com
Gigamonkeys Consulting * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/
Practical Common Lisp * http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
On 2005-10-10 13:30:12 -0400, ···@sevak.isi.edu (Thomas A. Russ) said:
>
> OK, let's see if I can summarize the positions here.
>
> Unlike Raffael, I actually see three potential groups of people.
>
> 1) Users who would always pay for your software.
> 2) Users who would never pay for your software.
> 3) Users who would not pay for your software if it were easy to not
> pay, but would pay if unauthorized use were not easy.
You're right - I left out the shameless - those who can afford to pay
for something but don't. See below for why they end up looking just
like those who can't afford to pay (a subset of group 2).
>
> I think as large part of the dispute centers around just how big or
> significant the pool of people in group #3 is. And that really seems to
> be what would drive the economics.
>
> If group 3 were much larger than group 1, copy protection would seem a
> rational choice.
I think it was Pascal B's original argument that no matter how clever
the copy protection is, in practice group 3 almost never has to pay.
Software authors keep believing they can get money out of group 3 if
they just make the copy protection strong enough and clever crackers
keep relieving group 3 of the necessity to pay.
>
> If group 3 were much smaller than group 1, copy protection would be
> counter-productive. Raffael Cavallaro makes eloquent arguments for why
> this would be counter-productive.
<blush>
Thanks for the compliment. Unfortunately I think the relevant factor is
not so much the size of group 3, but their difficulty in obtaining and
using an unauthorized copy. Right now it seems fairly easy, even with
elaborate copy protection schemes.
>
> I would imagine the groupings depend on the target audience for the
> software, so there would not be a one-size-fits-all solution. It would
> need to be assessed base on the target audience. I suspect, but have
> no proof, that the more mass-market the software, the more likely it is
> that group 3 grows. I would expect more specialized software to have a
> much smaller group 3.
That would be my belief as well at least in part because mass market
means lower price - development costs can be shared more widely - and
lower price means greater willingness to pony up the cash if there's no
other option.
regards
Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> On the other hand, if you don't treat your paying customers like
> criminals and, for example, merely ask them to register your software
> with a serial number after a trial period, several things are most
> likely to happen:
Actually, one of the products that got me thinking about all this is
AllegroLisp. It has the license file which must be renewed every
couple of months, and has your info encrypted inside it. It's not
*strictly* copy protection, but it does help enforce accountability,
right?
Or maybe they just do it to track how many trial users are out there.
"jonathon" <···········@bigfoot.com> writes:
> Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> > On the other hand, if you don't treat your paying customers like
> > criminals and, for example, merely ask them to register your software
> > with a serial number after a trial period, several things are most
> > likely to happen:
>
> Actually, one of the products that got me thinking about all this is
> AllegroLisp. It has the license file which must be renewed every
> couple of months, and has your info encrypted inside it. It's not
> *strictly* copy protection, but it does help enforce accountability,
> right?
>
> Or maybe they just do it to track how many trial users are out there.
IMHO, the second sounds more plausible :)
"jonathon" <···········@bigfoot.com> writes:
> Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
>> On the other hand, if you don't treat your paying customers like
>> criminals and, for example, merely ask them to register your software
>> with a serial number after a trial period, several things are most
>> likely to happen:
>
> Actually, one of the products that got me thinking about all this is
> AllegroLisp. It has the license file which must be renewed every
> couple of months, and has your info encrypted inside it. It's not
> *strictly* copy protection, but it does help enforce accountability,
> right?
You have to renew your commercial license, too. At least the students
version's. But when we are at it: It would be nice to get some money
off when you buy licenses for multiple platforms. It's unbearable to
have no CL some of the machines I have access to which include some
Irix and Linux/Itanium boxes. I guess I could get CLISP working, but
it's not really useful on these number crunching machines. Maybe
ECL...
Regards,
--
Julian Stecklina
When someone says "I want a programming language in which I
need only say what I wish done," give him a lollipop. - Alan Perlis
jonathon wrote:
> Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
>
>>Copyprotection is only a name for the number and kind of turtles you
>>stack. It serves no real purpose since it doesn't make any difference
>>whether you have blue turtles or red turtles: it's all turtles downward.
>
> I have to say, this is totally over my head. What exactly are you
> getting at?
It's a (IMO very clever) reference to a short story that is quite well
known since it appeared in "A Briefer History of Time":
Some decades ago, a well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand
Russell) gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth
orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center
of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the
lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said:
"What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate
supported on the back of a giant turtle." The scientist gave a superior
smile before replying, "What is the turtle standing on?" "You're very
clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles
all the way down!"
The Steam way of copyprotection works in Lisp too. Are there any other
working copy protection schemes?
Patrick Frankenberger <···············@gmx.net> writes:
> The Steam way of copyprotection works in Lisp too. Are there any other
> working copy protection schemes?
The copy protection schemes that work best, until hardware printers
and scanner become usual OTS, is to embed some essential algorithm
and/or secret data into hardware (that is, using some lower turtles).
But this is nothing a smart electronician or physicist cannot
circumvent.
See for example, credit cards with chips (and how a smart
electronician found bugs and otherwise circumvented them) or
encryption hardware, and how crucial informations can leak thru
consummed power or other radiations.
When software was still distributed on floppy, some copy-protection
schemes involved having some ROM data on a track. The software would
erase the track and read back and if data was still available, the
support was identified. Since the the Wozniak machine was a "thin"
chip allowing rather low level access to the floppy signal and was
directly accessible by the software it would seems that it was a hard
to circumvent copy-protection scheme. Well, it should be obvious that
one can easily write an emulator for any hardware, and in any case,
that didn't prevent a friend of mine to reproduce the ROM track by
hand with a pin.
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Kitty like plastic.
Confuses for litter box.
Don't leave tarp around.
jonathon <···········@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Are there any recent examples of copy protection implemented in Lisp?
Are your users really so awful that you want to inflict that on them?
Copy "protection" doesn't stop the determined cracker, but many forms of
it do seriously inconvenience the ordinary user -- whether by:
* making the original media difficult to back up;
* requiring them to maintain a file of license numbers;
* locking the software to a single computer (or other hardware
such as an Ethernet card) that is certain to eventually break
down;
* requiring "phone home" or "registration" processes per
machine, so when you go out of business, the user can no
longer use the software they paid for.
--
Karl A. Krueger <········@example.edu> { s/example/whoi/ }
"Karl A. Krueger" <········@example.edu> writes:
> jonathon <···········@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > Are there any recent examples of copy protection implemented in Lisp?
>
> Are your users really so awful that you want to inflict that on them?
>
> Copy "protection" doesn't stop the determined cracker, but many forms of
> it do seriously inconvenience the ordinary user -- whether by:
>
> * making the original media difficult to back up;
> * requiring them to maintain a file of license numbers;
> * locking the software to a single computer (or other hardware
> such as an Ethernet card) that is certain to eventually break
> down;
> * requiring "phone home" or "registration" processes per
> machine, so when you go out of business, the user can no
> longer use the software they paid for.
>
Exactly right. It is vary rare that copy protection actually achieves
what you desire - either it presents a challenge to crackers and/or a
frustration to legitimate users.
some years ago, I needed some very specialised software. There were
two main providers - one which had been around for years and a new
provider. The old provider had a copy protection system which required
an enabling key/serial number. The other didn't require any enabling
key. I initially purchased the established and well supported (both by
the vendor and a large user community) software. However, the software
key proved to be a real hassle. It interfeared with some virus
detection software and I ended up losing all my keys (you got three
when you purchased the product) either due to the anti-virus software
or due to hard drive failure. The company was not helpful and insisted
I spent nearly as much as the software cost me to purchase additional
keys, despite the fact I was a registered user, had identified a bug
in their software which destroyed 1 key and had explained about the
anti-virus software conflict that destroyed my second key.
I ended up dropping that vendor and changed to their competition and
have never looked back. The functionality of the competing product was
equivelent (perhaps even superior in some respects) and the support
from the vendor was a LOT better - a better attitude generally.
Result - I use the software legitimately and don't pirate it, I
recommend it to other users who need similar functionality and I bag
the first vendor to anyone who will listen!
The second vendor without the copy protection is now a major
competitor of the original vendor witht he copy protection and has
taken a significant portion of their market share.
bottom line - copy protection rarely buys you much and is more often
counter productive in establishing a market share. At best, it only
really works if you are the only vendor in the domain and have no real
competition. You are usually far better off putting the effort into
customer support and services which are only available to users who
can prove they have a legitimately purchased copy.
Tim
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 14:49:58 +1000, Tim X wrote:
> bottom line - copy protection rarely buys you much and is more often
> counter productive in establishing a market share.
Bottom line - technological solutions don't solve social problems.
> At best, it only really works if you are the only vendor in the domain
> and have no real competition.
Naming no names? :)
> You are usually far better off putting the effort into customer support
> and services which are only available to users who can prove they have a
> legitimately purchased copy.
You mean like you did?
BR <··········@comcast.net> writes:
> On Sun, 02 Oct 2005 14:49:58 +1000, Tim X wrote:
>
> > bottom line - copy protection rarely buys you much and is more often
> > counter productive in establishing a market share.
>
> Bottom line - technological solutions don't solve social problems.
>
> > At best, it only really works if you are the only vendor in the domain
> > and have no real competition.
>
> Naming no names? :)
>
> > You are usually far better off putting the effort into customer support
> > and services which are only available to users who can prove they have a
> > legitimately purchased copy.
>
> You mean like you did?
Yes, I mean exactly like I did. I moved from the vendor using a copy
protected version to their competitor who was not using copy
protection and found the competitor offers far better customer
support. Despite having paid a lot for the original vendors copy
protection, it was worth switching to the competitor and spending
additional funds to avoid the hassles with the copy protection
software. the improved customer service was an additional bonus.
Do you have a problem with that and if not, whats your point?
Tim
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
On Mon, 03 Oct 2005 10:27:56 +1000, Tim X wrote:
> Do you have a problem with that and if not, whats your point?
The point is that copy-protection bears only a superficial correlation
with quality of service. In both of your examples one has to prove that
they're a legitimate customer in order to get something. What comes after
is more a function of corporate culture than anything.
On 2005-10-02 21:32:23 -0400, BR <··········@comcast.net> said:
> The point is that copy-protection bears only a superficial correlation
> with quality of service.
No, they are highly correlated in that the absence of copy-protection
is, in and of itself, a superior user experience than copy protection.
Moreover, firms that treat their customers with respect are less likely
to use onerous copy protection because they know it pisses customers
off. These firms are more likely to deal with their support requests
courteously and effectively than firms who think of customers as
devious criminals who would all download a cracked version if not for
the firm's "clever" (and extremely annoying) copy protection.
The reality is that just about anything available in electronic form
can be obtained and used without a valid license. This being the case,
software firms should and do rely on the fact that there exist a
substantial percentage of people who feel it is wrong to use something
without paying for it. How else can one explain the success of online
music sales? After all, iPods are agnostic as to file source - they'll
play an illegally downloaded mp3 just as well as one purchased at the
iTunes online music store. Yet millions of people spend tens or
hundreds of dollars each on music that they could have obtained for
free illegally.
The fact that stealing is easy does not make the whole world thieves.
Therefore, do not treat paying customers like criminals because the
very act of paying for your product has shown that they are not.
On Tue, 04 Oct 2005 00:21:37 -0400, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> No, they are highly correlated in that the absence of copy-protection
> is, in and of itself, a superior user experience than copy protection.
>
>
That would be more a commentary on implimentation than on copy protection
itself.
> Moreover, firms that treat their customers with respect are less likely
> to use onerous copy protection because they know it pisses customers
> off. These firms are more likely to deal with their support requests
> courteously and effectively than firms who think of customers as devious
> criminals who would all download a cracked version if not for the firm's
> "clever" (and extremely annoying) copy protection.
You're assuming that the reason companies do copyright protection is out
of a sense of maliciousness towards customers, rather than the negative
effects illegal copyright violations have on the company.
> The reality is that just about anything available in electronic form can
> be obtained and used without a valid license. This being the case,
> software firms should and do rely on the fact that there exist a
> substantial percentage of people who feel it is wrong to use something
> without paying for it. How else can one explain the success of online
> music sales? After all, iPods are agnostic as to file source - they'll
> play an illegally downloaded mp3 just as well as one purchased at the
> iTunes online music store. Yet millions of people spend tens or hundreds
> of dollars each on music that they could have obtained for free
> illegally.
So basically the honest have to carry the burden of the dishonest. Maybe
the one's you should be outraged about isn't the companies that have to
impliment copy-protection. But the "crimminals" who through their actions
put everyone else in a difficult position.
> The fact that stealing is easy does not make the whole world thieves.
> Therefore, do not treat paying customers like criminals because the very
> act of paying for your product has shown that they are not.
And as I pointed out. One still has to *prove* that they're a paying
customer.
BR wrote:
> You're assuming that the reason companies do copyright protection is out
> of a sense of maliciousness towards customers, rather than the negative
> effects illegal copyright violations have on the company.
Never attribute to maliciousness what can easily be explained by
incompetence. Read this:
http://www.gdconf.com/archives/2004/simon_erik.pdf
Useless copy protection doesn't help against copyright violations. So
only incompetence or maliciousness are left as reasons to use the
commonly used copy protection schemes.
> And as I pointed out. One still has to *prove* that they're a paying
> customer.
That is impossible to implement with 0% failure rate with current
hardware and without expensive custom bundle hardware sold with the
software. If this proof is vital for you you can't sell games.
Most current schemes have a huge failure rate with allowing illegal use
despite copy protection and a noticably failure rate with bugging paying
users.
> Most current schemes have a huge failure rate with allowing illegal use
> despite copy protection and a noticably failure rate with bugging paying
> users.
The tricky part is to find the point where income is maximal. Making
your sofware easy to obtain, install and use (reagardless of whether
the user has paid or not) is not the optimal strategy in most cases.
On 2005-10-04 05:31:04 -0400, "carlitos" <············@bluewin.ch> said:
> Making
> your sofware easy to obtain, install and use (reagardless of whether
> the user has paid or not) is not the optimal strategy in most cases.
But easy to obtain, install and use is not the end of the story. There
are still many valuable services (support, online user communities,
etc.) which will only be accessible to those who are registered users.
There's no need for onerous copy protection when the base install
doesn't by iteself gain access to all that paying cutomers are entitled
to.
Raffael Cavallaro <················@pas-d'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com> writes:
> On 2005-10-04 05:31:04 -0400, "carlitos" <············@bluewin.ch> said:
>
> > Making
> > your sofware easy to obtain, install and use (reagardless of whether
> > the user has paid or not) is not the optimal strategy in most cases.
>
> But easy to obtain, install and use is not the end of the story. There
> are still many valuable services (support, online user communities,
> etc.) which will only be accessible to those who are registered
> users. There's no need for onerous copy protection when the base
> install doesn't by iteself gain access to all that paying cutomers are
> entitled to.
It may have been mentione already and if so, I apologize. Even with
"pirated" versions floating around, you as an ISV are likely to still
benefit from the network effect. For example, say you have a digital
image processing system with an available SDK for third party plugins
that is so popular that people use the name of the product when they
refer to an image that has been touched up or otherwise manipulated.
At that point, you don't even need to spend money advertising your
product. You can announce new versions with a mere press release and
let the trades talk it up.
When the poor student who can't afford to pay for the product starts
using it in a professional capacity to make money using it or creating
plugins, you will start getting more checks.
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
The UnBlog | Lisp on OS X topics for the most part
Click all the links you want. I'll make more!
On 2005-10-04 00:56:59 -0400, BR <··········@comcast.net> said:
> You're assuming that the reason companies do copyright protection is out
> of a sense of maliciousness towards customers, rather than the negative
> effects illegal copyright violations have on the company.
It's somewhat more subtle than this. Companies want to respond to
copyright violations and fall into the trap of designing their user
experience for people who haven't actually paid for the software. In
effect, the anger software companies feel toward those comitting
copyright violations is visited on paying customers, a group of people
who should be the very last users the company wants to alienate.
On 2005-10-04 00:56:59 -0400, BR <··········@comcast.net> said:
> So basically the honest have to carry the burden of the dishonest.
It was ever thus, no?
> Maybe
> the one's you should be outraged about isn't the companies that have to
> impliment copy-protection.
I'm not outraged at companies that fall into this trap, merely annoyed.
I think they're alienating current paying customers who are potential
repeat customers and that they should stop shooting themselves in the
foot. I find it annoying because it's so easily preventable - just
don't design software for people who don't pay for it.
Tim X wrote:
> bottom line - copy protection rarely buys you much and is more often
> counter productive in establishing a market share.
Yep. We all know how Windows really got its market- and mindshare, not
the least in countries where almost nobody buys it ;)
A friend of mine works for an IT service provider, and they have one of
these dongle software things. After they required the user to have the
USB dongle plugged in, lots of their clients suddenly showed an
increased demand for licenses :D
Your mentioned software was bad because the implementation sucked, not
because it needed a USB dongle I think.
It depends.
--
We're glad that graduates already know Java,
so we only have to teach them how to program.
somewhere in a German company
(credit to M. Felleisen and M. Sperber)
Ulrich Hobelmann <···········@web.de> writes:
> Tim X wrote:
> > bottom line - copy protection rarely buys you much and is more often
> > counter productive in establishing a market share.
>
> Yep. We all know how Windows really got its market- and mindshare,
> not the least in countries where almost nobody buys it ;)
>
> A friend of mine works for an IT service provider, and they have one
> of these dongle software things. After they required the user to have
> the USB dongle plugged in, lots of their clients suddenly showed an
> increased demand for licenses :D
>
> Your mentioned software was bad because the implementation sucked, not
> because it needed a USB dongle I think.
>
> It depends.
>
It does depend, but I've not encountered copy protection which wasn't
a hassle in one way or the other. I don't have a problem paying for a
legitimate copy of the software, but I do have a problem, if after
purchasing the software, I constantly encounter problems with using
the product because of their copy protection. Perhaps I've been
unlucky, but I've encountered problems caused by nearly every copy
protected software I've ever purchased - either issues witht he
registration codes, conflicts with other software, or copy protection
schemes used by other software, hassles getting new registration codes
after upgrading hardware or replacing hardware due to faults, etc.
If someone can provide copy protected software which does not cause
additional time and resources for me to maintain, then fine, I don't
have an issue. However, I've yet to experience this with any of the
copy protection schemes I've been exposed to.
The issue of being treated witht he basic assumption that if copy
protection is not forced on me I will use the software illegally is
also distasteful, but a lesser issue for me. My main complaint with
copy protection is that too often, it results in me having to put in
additional time, effort and money into maintaining the vendors copy
protection after purchasing a legitimate copy of the software. for
this reason, if there is a choice between vendors providing software
of similar functionality and one is copy protected while the other is
not, I will go with the one that is not because my experience has been
it requires less maintenance and the vendor's support tends to be
better.
Tim
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!