AW: OT: locking software to one specific machine?

Andre Garzia andre at andregarzia.com
Thu Mar 4 14:17:11 EST 2010


I was going to make my software refuse to run 15% of the time due to bad
licensing and then catch some smart hackers just due to statistic
misfortune.

I was going to call the system the "Schrodingers Quantum Copy Protection
Lock System" patent it and win billions from holywood and RIAA!

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Josh Mellicker <josh at dvcreators.net> wrote:

> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
http://www.andregarzia.com All We Do Is Code.



More information about the use-livecode mailing list