Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Java > copy protection / IP protection

Reply
Thread Tools

copy protection / IP protection

 
 
James McGill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-19-2006
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 17:10 -0600, Luc The Perverse wrote:

> As Microsoft has discovered and employed.


Hi! We consider you and your employees to be thieves! That said, we
also think we have enough market force to make you forget about that and
buy our product anyway!



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roedy Green
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-19-2006
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:21:47 -0700, James McGill
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
who said :

>Hi! We consider you and your employees to be thieves! That said, we
>also think we have enough market force to make you forget about that and
>buy our product anyway!


First of all it is statistically most likely true that you and your
employees are thieves. People don't buy software if they can steal
it. They don't consider it stealing since they don't deprive others of
use.

It is legit to prevent theft so long as you don't inconvenience
legitimate users. Microsoft has gone to extreme lengths so antagonise
honest users making backup/restore impossible without a full
reinstall from scratch (similarly for migrating an app to a different
drive, or upgrading a hard disk.)

Second, just because I have a lock on my door does not mean I believe
everyone who comes to it intends me harm. Even if only one in 10,000
does, you still need the lock. For software, you would not need the
lock if only 1 in 100 stole, since you are not actively harmed, just
deprived of potential revenue by a theft.

There is a ratio of about 15,000 to 1 downloads to shareware
registrations if the registration is purely voluntary, with no
hobbling.



--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Roedy Green
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-19-2006
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 18:15:11 -0700, James McGill
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
who said :

> It looked like it
>locked, but sometimes you could turn the inner barrel without a key.
>I found this to be inferior security to simply removing the lock.
>Opinions vary on this, but I stand by mine.


I can see someone deterred, discouraged by the dummy lock, not
bothering to try. Under what circumstances would no lock at all be
superior to that? Is the attacker supposed to presume there must then
be some much more serious device installed?

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
 
Reply With Quote
 
James McGill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-19-2006
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 02:15 +0000, Roedy Green wrote:
>
>
> First of all it is statistically most likely true that you and your
> employees are thieves.


Perhaps, but that doesn't make it a good opener for your sales pitch.

 
Reply With Quote
 
James McGill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-19-2006
On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 02:18 +0000, Roedy Green wrote:
> Under what circumstances would no lock at all be
> superior to that?


I did not rest assured that the door appeared to be locked, even though
I knew the lock was defective. It wasn't the only lock on the house,
otherwise it would have been *an emergency*. As it happened, with the
lock removed, I did not have any excuse to pretend the door was locked,
but since it was a relatively minor risk, I could take a day or two
before going to the hardware store.

Had I left the defective lock on there, it might still be there.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Luc The Perverse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-19-2006
"James McGill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) in...
> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 02:15 +0000, Roedy Green wrote:
>>
>>
>> First of all it is statistically most likely true that you and your
>> employees are thieves.

>
> Perhaps, but that doesn't make it a good opener for your sales pitch.
>


Well they have done a good job of marketing it.

And yes - most of us are thieves - and I stopped being a thief because I was
afraid of Microsoft and didn't like hacks and stuff. It worked - and they
have probably directly gained from me.

--
LTP




 
Reply With Quote
 
Luc The Perverse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-19-2006
"James McGill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) in...
> On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 02:18 +0000, Roedy Green wrote:
>> Under what circumstances would no lock at all be
>> superior to that?

>
> I did not rest assured that the door appeared to be locked, even though
> I knew the lock was defective. It wasn't the only lock on the house,
> otherwise it would have been *an emergency*. As it happened, with the
> lock removed, I did not have any excuse to pretend the door was locked,
> but since it was a relatively minor risk, I could take a day or two
> before going to the hardware store.
>
> Had I left the defective lock on there, it might still be there.
>


I'm sorry but I think you are taking the simile a bit too far.

Some hacked copies of software are generally considered acceptable.
However, the security of a house being compromised seems a little more
serious

--
LTP




 
Reply With Quote
 
James McGill
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-19-2006
On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 21:06 -0600, Luc The Perverse wrote:
>
> Well they have done a good job of marketing it.


Only the biggest players get away with it. It's not a strategy that can
be generally adopted with any expectation of success.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Roedy Green
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-19-2006
On 17 Apr 2006 19:46:13 -0700, "g" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote,
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

>1. The code will only work for a trial period (30 days)


see http://mindprod.com/jgloss/dongle.html
http://mindprod.com/jgloss/obfuscator.html

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Luc The Perverse
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-19-2006
"James McGill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) in...
> On Tue, 2006-04-18 at 21:06 -0600, Luc The Perverse wrote:
>>
>> Well they have done a good job of marketing it.

>
> Only the biggest players get away with it. It's not a strategy that can
> be generally adopted with any expectation of success.
>


Perhaps not, but the little guy has a hard enough time just getting people
to believe his/her product is worthwhile. I hardly doubt that many people
would be returning the product if they found out it needed to be activated
after they had already paid money for it.

And if it is a shareware package as was suggested by the OP - the
registration/activation could be transparently integrated with purchasing.

--
LTP




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Copy protection software John ASP .Net 20 04-28-2009 09:00 PM
what is Deep Copy, shallow copy and bitwises copy.? saxenavaibhav17@gmail.com C++ 26 09-01-2006 09:37 PM
is dict.copy() a deep copy or a shallow copy Alex Python 2 09-05-2005 07:01 AM
Best Copy Protection Methods Max ASP .Net 4 12-15-2003 11:56 PM



Advertisments