AW: OT: locking software to one specific machine?

[Josh Mellicker]

We use "phone home" authorization that uses machine-specific info. In  
case of a user with two computers, a hard drive crash, etc., we let  
people authorize additional computers with their email address and  
password so they always have access to what they've purchased.

We "police" our database in case someone gives out their info, we can  
"pull the plug" on any pirated installs.

Works great, in tens of thousands of customers, only encountered a  
tiny handful who were not connected to the Internet. In these cases we  
can do a "manual registration".

Cheers,

Josh

On Mar 4, 2010, at 8:59 AM, Richard Gaskin  
<ambassador at fourthworld.com> wrote:

> Tiemo Hollmann wrote:
>> In the first years our software was - in your intention - completely
>> free of copy protection, later we implemented a copy protection on  
>> some
>> programs, which were running off the CD.
>>
>> We made the experience, that nobody ever thanked us the ease of use  
>> and lack
>> of licensing. Just the opposite. Just because our target market is  
>> so small
>> and lots of people know each other, our software was copied, given  
>> away
>> without control.
>
> "Completely free of copy protection" is very different from the  
> industry-standard per-user license keys I described, and not  
> something I would advocate for any commercial product.
>
> In markets where piracy is an unusually serious consideration,  
> server-based activation can provide reasonable control over license  
> key redistribution.  If smartly implemented with grace periods,  
> "phone home" activation should pose no inconvenience to the end-user.
>
> But most successful products don't even do that, they merely use pre- 
> generated keys.  Per-user license keys have made Adobe, Microsoft,  
> Apple, and most other software vendors quite profitable.
>
> Not having any protection at all is, IMO, only appropriate for free  
> products.  The early years of the computer industry's "shareware"  
> experiments proved that convincingly.  The difference between "free  
> demo" and "full version" need not be onerous to the user, but there  
> must be some incentive to motivate the user to put in the additional  
> effort to fill out an order form.
>
> This is one reason why having PayPal as a payment option is so  
> valuable:  it reduces the payment process to just a single password  
> field and one click.
>
> --
> Richard Gaskin
> Fourth World
> Rev training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
> Webzine for Rev developers: http://www.revjournal.com
> revJournal blog: http://revjournal.com/blog.irv
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your  
> subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution