Software publishers busily installing copy protection should look to the lessons of history. That's the warning many readers sounded in response to my recent column on the DRM wars.
"Remember DBase IV?" one reader asked rhetorically. "The best copy protection scheme at the time! Maybe you know of Lotus 1-2-3? They had the best spreadsheet -- well protected -- in the market! ... I believe most of us are getting strongly annoyed by the time spent uselessly fighting customer service for a right we paid for. When companies put a copy protection scheme in their software, they prepare the way for the ones who will overthrow them. I'd pay to know exactly how much such protection costs and how much more money it really gets. In the long term, I believe they always lose."
Many readers argued that copy protection has always been counterproductive. "As an old timer who has been in the computer industry since the CPM operating system was king, I've taken an aggressive stance against protection on software I've paid for," wrote another reader. "When 'up against the wall' from abusive software publishers, I simply go to the newsgroups and download a cracked version to get back in service. I've paid for use of the software, so I don't care if I circumvent their system. I'm a Microsoft Partner and get all the Not-For-Resale software, but it's easier for me to just bypass their protection schemes. Think for a moment ... don't abusive companies make people want to install cracked versions and never buy another program from that company?"
But another self-described old timer responded that there could be drawbacks to substituting a cracked version for your licensed copy. "Unfortunately, a major drawback to this approach is that sometimes the cracked versions are not as stable as the originals," he wrote. "Paying for software that is not reliable is probably the only thing more aggravating than the activation schemes themselves."
One reader opined that copy protection is contrary to the PC tradition. "I think it's interesting that the industry is moving to a model of product licensing that we all tried to flee from under older Unix systems," the reader wrote. "Many a Unix administrator will commiserate over getting FlexLM running properly to keep all of the licenses working. And FlexLM was the easiest of the solutions out there to keep running, and that's certainly damning with faint praise. PC software flourished because of this lax licensing. The IBM PC Jr. demonstrated this quite well, as it added copy protection to an already long list of crippling features, contributing to its demise. I know software companies want to protect their investments, and I have no problem with them protecting their software against illegal usage, but transferring software between machines should not involve contacting the company."
Read and post comments about this story here or write me at Foster@gripe2ed.com.
12:33:21 AM 
|
