Best options for protecting software from piracy?

[Ronald S. Cook]

If I wanted to prevent someone from purchasing my Windows software and then
giving to friends, I'm wondering what the top 3 or so options are these days
and pros/cons of each.

I appreciate any responses,
Ron

[Egghead]

haha, we need to know the natural of your app.
anyway, if you have $$$ to burn, there are few company spec in those
material.

--
cheers,
RL
"Ronald S. Cook" <rc***@westinis.comwrote in message
news:Om**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

If I wanted to prevent someone from purchasing my Windows software and
then giving to friends, I'm wondering what the top 3 or so options are
these days and pros/cons of each.

I appreciate any responses,
Ron

[Ronald S. Cook]

No, I want to code something myself. My Windows app will be published via
ClickOnce. I was just wondering what the most common mecahnisms were these
days.

I was thinking that a user would have to register and be approved on our
site in order to get to the download. But then be issued a key to activate.
But then if they get a new computer and re-install, I guess they'd have to
contact us again for a new key?

We just want to prevent the app from being passed around in the world and
usable. Like I said, I was just looking for the few most common approaches.

Thanks,
Ron
"Egghead" <robertlo@NO_SHAW.CAwrote in message
news:um**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

haha, we need to know the natural of your app.
anyway, if you have $$$ to burn, there are few company spec in those
material.

--
cheers,
RL
"Ronald S. Cook" <rc***@westinis.comwrote in message
news:Om**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>If I wanted to prevent someone from purchasing my Windows software and
then giving to friends, I'm wondering what the top 3 or so options are
these days and pros/cons of each.

I appreciate any responses,
Ron

[Barfy the Wonder Camel]

On Jun 1, 8:23 am, "Ronald S. Cook" <[e-mail]:

No, I want to code something myself. My Windows app will be published via
ClickOnce. I was just wondering what the most common mecahnisms were these
days.

I was thinking that a user would have to register and be approved on our
site in order to get to the download. But then be issued a key to activate.
But then if they get a new computer and re-install, I guess they'd have to
contact us again for a new key?

We just want to prevent the app from being passed around in the world and
usable. Like I said, I was just looking for the few most common approaches.

Thanks,
Ron

"Egghead" <robertlo@NO_SHAW.CAwrote in message

news:um**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

haha, we need to know the natural of your app.
anyway, if you have $$$ to burn, there are few company spec in those
material.

--
cheers,
RL
"Ronald S. Cook" <[e-mail] in message
news:Om**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

If I wanted to prevent someone from purchasing my Windows software and
then giving to friends, I'm wondering what the top 3 or so options are
these days and pros/cons of each.

I appreciate any responses,
Ron- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

First, use the 80/20 rule. You're not going to get 100% prevention, so
just try for "casual" prevention. Most people who use a program
without paying for it would either scrap it or pay for it if it was a
little harder to use for free. The diehards who refuse to ever pay for
something will either crack it, find a keygen, or move on.

IMO, the easiest way to get that 80% is to require purchase of a
license key that consists of a registered name and a license number,
with the license number using some kind of hash to ensure that it only
works with that exact registered name. Sure, some people (not Bob)
will still use software that says "registered to Bob Smith", but
they'll be reminded every time they run it that they're being
dishonest. If they're ok with that, as I said before you're not going
to extract cash from them anyway.

[Egghead]

If you sure your clients have internet access, why not do what installshield
did?
That is Mickey :)
--
cheers,
RL
"Ronald S. Cook" <rc***@westinis.comwrote in message
news:ed*************@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

No, I want to code something myself. My Windows app will be published via
ClickOnce. I was just wondering what the most common mecahnisms were
these days.

I was thinking that a user would have to register and be approved on our
site in order to get to the download. But then be issued a key to
activate. But then if they get a new computer and re-install, I guess
they'd have to contact us again for a new key?

We just want to prevent the app from being passed around in the world and
usable. Like I said, I was just looking for the few most common
approaches.

Thanks,
Ron
"Egghead" <robertlo@NO_SHAW.CAwrote in message
news:um**************@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>haha, we need to know the natural of your app.
anyway, if you have $$$ to burn, there are few company spec in those
material.

--
cheers,
RL
"Ronald S. Cook" <rc***@westinis.comwrote in message
news:Om**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>If I wanted to prevent someone from purchasing my Windows software and
then giving to friends, I'm wondering what the top 3 or so options are
these days and pros/cons of each.

I appreciate any responses,
Ron

[PS]

"Ronald S. Cook" <rc***@westinis.comwrote in message
news:Om**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

If I wanted to prevent someone from purchasing my Windows software and
then giving to friends, I'm wondering what the top 3 or so options are
these days and pros/cons of each.

A good approach is to use an activation server although this requires
internet access but I am guessing that the buyer is purchasing the software
off the internet anyway.
After the purchase the buyer gets a license key that is required to activate
the software. Activation connects to your activation server and only allows
that license to be used once. Use of the same license key can be allowed but
this then deactivates the other installations (assuming that they connect to
the internet while using the software). You would still limit the number of
license changes in a year but this way you are not bothered with users who
have computers that crashed or purchased a new computer.

Have a look at desaware.com. They have something like this I believe.

PS

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Ronald S. Cook wrote:

If I wanted to prevent someone from purchasing my Windows software and then
giving to friends, I'm wondering what the top 3 or so options are these days
and pros/cons of each.

If there were a good way, then don't you think Microsoft, IBM,
Oracle etc. would all be using it ?

:-)

You can try with some online registration and serial number
verification.

But I think you should consider whether it is worth the
effort.

Instead you could think if you could change your business
model. Instead of having people pay 5X for the software,
then have them pay X for the software and X per year for updates
and support.

Arne

[JR]

See
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...etBulletin.doc

JR

"Arne Vajhøj" <ar**@vajhoej.dk???
??????:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk.. .

Ronald S. Cook wrote:

>If I wanted to prevent someone from purchasing my Windows software and
then giving to friends, I'm wondering what the top 3 or so options are
these days and pros/cons of each.

If there were a good way, then don't you think Microsoft, IBM,
Oracle etc. would all be using it ?

:-)

You can try with some online registration and serial number
verification.

But I think you should consider whether it is worth the
effort.

Instead you could think if you could change your business
model. Instead of having people pay 5X for the software,
then have them pay X for the software and X per year for updates
and support.

Arne

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

JR wrote:

See
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...etBulletin.doc

See what ?

Arne

[Peter Duniho]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 11:29:41 -0700, Arne Vajhøj <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote:

JR wrote:

>See
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...etBulletin.doc

See what ?

I think his point is that Microsoft *does* attempt to prevent piracy.

It's debatable as to whether Microsoft's Product Activation "feature" in
Windows and Office actually accomplishes the stated goal. But Microsoft
does try.

Personally, the way I read your post was "there's no good way, so
Microsoft instead uses a bad way". But that's just me. :) someone else
may question why you imply that Microsoft doesn't in fact do exactly what
the OP is asking about.

Pete

[Michael A. Covington]

The *best* way is to make the customer feel that he's gotten a fair deal.
That was the lesson of Turbo Pascal, which came out with a good $49.95
compiler in 1983 at a time when compilers normally cost $300 and performed
poorly. The other thing Turbo Pascal did right was to have a "no-nonsense
license agreement" that basically said "you bought one copy, you use one
copy, anywhere you want to, any time, so long as you don't have multiple
copies in use at the same time." That is, the license agreement was
eminently reasonable and did not try to interfere with the normal use of the
product.

[=?UTF-8?B?QXJuZSBWYWpow7hq?=]

Peter Duniho wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 11:29:41 -0700, Arne Vajhøj <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote:

>JR wrote:

>>See
http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...etBulletin.doc

See what ?

I think his point is that Microsoft *does* attempt to prevent piracy.

If JR beliveed I had never heard about Windows serial numbers, then
I can see the point.

But ...

It's debatable as to whether Microsoft's Product Activation "feature" in
Windows and Office actually accomplishes the stated goal. But Microsoft
does try.

Everybody knows that it is not efficient.

And they are only doing it for a very small part of their products.

Personally, the way I read your post was "there's no good way, so
Microsoft instead uses a bad way". But that's just me. :) someone
else may question why you imply that Microsoft doesn't in fact do
exactly what the OP is asking about.

Hm.

How many software products does the 3 companies I mention (MS, IBM and
Oracle) sell ?

How many of those use online verification ?

I seriously doubt that it would be worth for the original poster
to go this route from a pure dollar perspective.

And no - I am not even convinced that Windows activation is a smart
move by MS. I believe the black hats find ways around it every time
MS changes it - and it is an annoyance for the people who actually has
bought it and just have replaced some hardware. You can call in
and the people who handle it are always nice, but still a hassle.

Arne

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Michael A. Covington wrote:

The *best* way is to make the customer feel that he's gotten a fair deal.
That was the lesson of Turbo Pascal, which came out with a good $49.95
compiler in 1983 at a time when compilers normally cost $300 and performed
poorly. The other thing Turbo Pascal did right was to have a "no-nonsense
license agreement" that basically said "you bought one copy, you use one
copy, anywhere you want to, any time, so long as you don't have multiple
copies in use at the same time." That is, the license agreement was
eminently reasonable and did not try to interfere with the normal use of the
product.

TP had another advantage.

Photocopying the manual would cost more than the product.

Unfortunately the increase in doc size, the multitasking OS's and
online documentation has made that irrelevant.

Arne

[Peter Duniho]

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 14:52:41 -0700, Arne Vajhøj <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote:

If JR beliveed I had never heard about Windows serial numbers, then
I can see the point.

Frankly, your post was pretty opaque. I chose to interpret it one way, as
an attempt at humor. But I can easily see how someone else could have
interpreted it as an honest "these companies haven't done so, so it must
not be possible".

I was simply trying to explain to you, in answer to your "See what?",
since you apparently were not able to see how your own post was confusing
(not uncommon, as the person who wrote something is usually the last
person to be able to see alternate interpretations of it).

I'm sorry you still cannot see my point, nor JR's. But the points do
exist, regardless.

But ...

>It's debatable as to whether Microsoft's Product Activation "feature"
in Windows and Office actually accomplishes the stated goal. But
Microsoft does try.

Everybody knows that it is not efficient.

It's not even effective. I can't imagine the word "efficient" and "copy
protection" ever going hand in hand, since by its very nature copy
protection always incurs some overhead, in many cases significant overhead
as well as actually interfering with the user's normal use of their
legitimately purchased products.

And they are only doing it for a very small part of their products.

So? They do copy protect other products in different ways. They've just
chosen to limit (for now) the Product Activation variety of protection to
their cash cow products. No big surprise there, nor does it change
anything that's been written here.

[...]
How many software products does the 3 companies I mention (MS, IBM and
Oracle) sell ?

I don't see how that's relevant.

How many of those use online verification ?

I don't see how that's relevant.

I seriously doubt that it would be worth for the original poster
to go this route from a pure dollar perspective.

As do I. But then, I believe that to be true for pretty much any copy
protection scheme. I think software publishers that copy protect their
software are seriously misguided. I haven't seen a single copy protection
scheme that actually reliably prevents people from copying something.

And no - I am not even convinced that Windows activation is a smart
move by MS.

Nor am I. Having had my own problems just getting Windows and Office to
even run, because of the Product Activation features, I have personal
experience with how they infuriate the paid user. At the same time, had I
really wished to, I could have avoided all of my problems simply by buying
a pirated copy of that software.

I believe the black hats find ways around it every time
MS changes it - and it is an annoyance for the people who actually has
bought it and just have replaced some hardware. You can call in
and the people who handle it are always nice, but still a hassle.

Exactly.

More to the point, it not only is an annoyance to legitimate users, it is
NOT an annoyance to users of pirated versions of the software. Microsoft
invests huge sums of money and resources into implementing and maintaining
Product Activation (along with the incredibly lame Windows Genuine
Advantage), and I doubt it comes close to recovering enough sales to pay
for the work *and* offset sales lost to people who won't or can't use
products with their Product Activation.

Pete

[=?UTF-8?B?QXJuZSBWYWpow7hq?=]

Peter Duniho wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 14:52:41 -0700, Arne Vajhøj <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote:
Frankly, your post was pretty opaque. I chose to interpret it one way,
as an attempt at humor. But I can easily see how someone else could
have interpreted it as an honest "these companies haven't done so, so it
must not be possible".

I think it was rather clear. If there were a good way of implementing
copy protection then all the big guys in software would be using it.
And for all their software. They are not. And that is a pretty good
indication that the concept is bad.

I was simply trying to explain to you, in answer to your "See what?",
since you apparently were not able to see how your own post was
confusing (not uncommon, as the person who wrote something is usually
the last person to be able to see alternate interpretations of it).

I'm sorry you still cannot see my point, nor JR's. But the points do
exist, regardless.

Not really.

Unless JR really thought I had never heard of Windows activation.

>And they are only doing it for a very small part of their products.

So? They do copy protect other products in different ways. They've
just chosen to limit (for now) the Product Activation variety of
protection to their cash cow products. No big surprise there, nor does
it change anything that's been written here.

It is the whole point I am trying to explain.

>How many software products does the 3 companies I mention (MS, IBM and
Oracle) sell ?

I don't see how that's relevant.

>How many of those use online verification ?

I don't see how that's relevant.

Then let me try an explain it: if 3 of the biggest software companies
in the world either don't use it or only use it for a few of their
products, then it is a good indication of that it will not be good
for the original poster either.

Arne

[JR]

The original question was:

"If I wanted to prevent someone from purchasing my Windows software and then
giving to friends, I'm wondering what the top 3 or so options are these days
and pros/cons of each.

I appreciate any responses,
Ron"

The algorithm described in the MS Technical Market Bulletin is a reasonable
solution for identifying a computer.

Mr. Vajh?j is not the OP.

Venlig hilsen

JR

"Arne Vajh?j" <ar**@vajhoej.dkëúá
áäåãòä:46***********************@news.sunsite.dk.. .

Peter Duniho wrote:

>On Sat, 02 Jun 2007 14:52:41 -0700, Arne Vajh?j <ar**@vajhoej.dkwrote:
Frankly, your post was pretty opaque. I chose to interpret it one way,
as an attempt at humor. But I can easily see how someone else could have
interpreted it as an honest "these companies haven't done so, so it must
not be possible".

I think it was rather clear. If there were a good way of implementing
copy protection then all the big guys in software would be using it.
And for all their software. They are not. And that is a pretty good
indication that the concept is bad.

>I was simply trying to explain to you, in answer to your "See what?",
since you apparently were not able to see how your own post was confusing
(not uncommon, as the person who wrote something is usually the last
person to be able to see alternate interpretations of it).

I'm sorry you still cannot see my point, nor JR's. But the points do
exist, regardless.

Not really.

Unless JR really thought I had never heard of Windows activation.

>>And they are only doing it for a very small part of their products.

So? They do copy protect other products in different ways. They've just
chosen to limit (for now) the Product Activation variety of protection to
their cash cow products. No big surprise there, nor does it change
anything that's been written here.

It is the whole point I am trying to explain.

>>How many software products does the 3 companies I mention (MS, IBM and
Oracle) sell ?

I don't see how that's relevant.

>>How many of those use online verification ?

I don't see how that's relevant.

Then let me try an explain it: if 3 of the biggest software companies
in the world either don't use it or only use it for a few of their
products, then it is a good indication of that it will not be good
for the original poster either.

Arne