Subject: Re: How to the disks copy protected.
From: sjmadsen@nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu (Steve Madsen)
Nntp-Posting-Host: nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 65

Kuo-Sheng (Kasey) Chang (kschang@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu) wrote:
> In article <1993Apr23.102935.17390@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>
> sjmadsen@nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu (Steve Madsen) writes: 

> > This is not a good idea.. I upgraded my motherboard last fall.  I >would
> have been quite pissed at any software that would have forced me to
> >reinstall simply because I changed motherboards. >

> Opinion is understandable.  :-)  I assume you have a tape drive?  Not all
> of us have about 200 floppies around for backup, you know.  

	Actually, no I don't have a tape drive.  In the event of a total
hard disk failure, I reinstall the apps from originals, and restore the data
from the backups I keep of that.  With upwards of 100Mb of stuff on my hard
disk, there is no way I'm going to try and back it all up without a tape
drive. :)  Would be nice to have one though!

> RAM is something you add all the time, so no.  It's more like BIOS
> manufacturer and/or processor type (386/486/etc).  Data cannot be used,
> esp with these new Flash ROM BIOS machines with updates on a diskette.

	Maybe, maybe not.  Today it doesn't happen as often (I would hope),
but then if a BIOS is buggy and the user gets an upgrade, the BIOS
information is going to change, at least the date anyway.  Tagging the BIOS
manufacturer is still going to falsely tag those users who upgrade the
motherboard.  This type of upgrade doesn't require a hard disk
backup/restore.

> On the other hand, to make this LESS intrusive it could be disguised as
> "Please Insert Original Disk #XX as I need file YYYYYY for update".  :-) 
> It would be perfectly reasonable...  Sort of.

	As long as it wasn't done too terribly often.  Otherwise I think it
would get annoying and the user would go looking for other software.

> > > This is silly.  It's much easier to loan disks to a friend and let
> >them do an install than to backup your copy already on disk, and then
> give >them that.  Your scheme isn't going to stop anyone. 

> Of course it is easier.  Are you saying then the originals SHOULD allow
> only one install?  What is your point?

	Of course not.  If something gets corrupted and my app needs to be
reinstalled, the *worst* thing I want that software telling me is "this
software has already been registered to <blank> and it is against the law to
install it on other machines."  Or something similar; Access for Windows
does this and it only requires a click on "OK" to go away.  Pretty
non-intrusive, but it gets the point across.

> What I said was the program should have certain restriction (such as the
> restrict-to-one-machine) UNTIL the program is registered with the
> manufacturer.  The manufacturer will then supply the
> then-proven-legitimate-user with a patch that will disable the restriction
> and PROUDLY PROCLAIM the legal copy with the "Registered to XXX" screen.

	This is a great idea.  I like the key system that some shareware
products use.  The only problem is that it will be difficult for big
software companies to implement this without it getting very
cost-ineffective for them and more of a burden than a benefit to the users.

--
Steve Madsen
sjmadsen@nextsrv.cas.muohio.edu

Ask me about Linux, the free 386 unix!
