On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 12:55:23AM -0400, Herbert Graf wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-03-24 at 15:30 +1200, Jinx wrote:
> > > I'll go with the vendor that doesn't treat me like a criminal
> > 
> > I don't think this is a monumental stretch - look at all the
> > security measures in the world today. 
> 
> > Tamper-proof lids,
> > searches at airports, 
> > police booze patrols, 

Others snipped...

> It doesn't. EVERY case you've given (except the car/house alarm) are
> precautions taken to increase public safety. 
> ...certain level of "rights abuses" to increase public safety. Sometimes
> these efforts go too far IMHO (i.e. not being able to take a nail file
> on a plane), but they at least have public safety (or at least perceived
> public safety) as a reason for existing.

> Adding anti copying measures that remove my rights as a consumer (i.e.
> fair use rights for music) are a COMPLETELY different situation, and
> none of your examples are IMHO applicable.

> Note I have NO problem with efforts that try to prevent copying that do
> not remove any of my rights, and won't cause me problems in the future.
> A serial number approach is perfectly fine IMHO. 

The problem is that any such efforts are so trivially broken as to be
worthless.

> Online activation, dongles and the like are NOT acceptable to me, and I
> actively ensure zero of my money goes to ANY product that uses these
> tactics.

So what will you do when all commercial software products employ such 
protections?

> At work we use several tools with a floating license system. Over the
> past few years we have lost HUNDREDS of man hours due to license issues
> (i.e. license server going down, new software needing new license
> daemon, vendor forgetting to update our license, etc.). 

All the license and protection stuff are certainly a hassle and a nuisance.
You're not the target of such protections, simply the victim.

> The fact is, no matter WHAT protection you try to put on your product,
> it WILL be broken, so why bother going insane with it?

Because the longer the interval between the product being introduced and the
protection broken, the more likely that the company will make money. And as
is being argued in another thread, usually companies are in business to make
money.

> Put something
> simple to curtail casual copying and leave it at that.

Doesn't work. If you curtail casual copying, then high level crackers will
crack that "protection" like an egg. Zero day exploits and all that good stuff.
Closing the protection interval to zero is just like not having protection
at all.

In this area is has become a guilty until proven innocent world. And the reason
is that there are so many guilty parties, that frankly the innocent ones don't
matter anymore.

> Stop wasting my money on technology that will never work.

I firmly believe that if this trend continues, where companies cannot secure
the value of their work, they will simply stop producing the work.

Then what will you do with your money, if there's nothing to spend it on?

> The best example is the copy protection on HDDVD and BluRay. They spent
> MILLIONS on this technology, money consumers will be paying, and the
> system has been breached, quite easily. A HUGE amount of money for
> absolutely nothing. Why bother?

Just because it was done improperly doesn't mean that you stop trying. 

> Just my opinion. TTYL

It makes sense. But the system is broken. 

BAJ
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist