Comments on: What’s the right amount of copy protection? http://www.rogue-development.com/blog2/2007/09/whats-the-right-amount-of-copy-protection/ Comments and thoughts on technology from Marc Hughes Wed, 14 Jul 2010 19:03:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Marc http://www.rogue-development.com/blog2/2007/09/whats-the-right-amount-of-copy-protection/comment-page-1/#comment-72 Marc Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:41:00 +0000 http://rogue-development.com/blog2/?p=59#comment-72 My question hit slashdot. yay.<br/><br/>http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/11/1845204 My question hit slashdot. yay.

http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/11/1845204

]]> By: Chris Olstrom http://www.rogue-development.com/blog2/2007/09/whats-the-right-amount-of-copy-protection/comment-page-1/#comment-71 Chris Olstrom Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:03:00 +0000 http://rogue-development.com/blog2/?p=59#comment-71 A license key would be perfectly acceptable by my standards. It isn't personally identifiable information that the content owner doesn't already have. Any information a license key can provide was likely provided in order to get said key, right?<br/><br/>A software version is non-intrusive as well, since the same information is reported by most updating systems, to ensure patches get distributed to those who need them (unless the updater just queries the current version number, and compares it locally against your installed version).<br/><br/>A unique installation ID, though... since that information serves to identify the user (or the installation), and isn't directly provided to the content author, and serves minimal benefit (if any) to the end user... it just feels like data mining.<br/><br/>Regarding a threshold for disabling license keys, that really depends on how the disabling occurs. If it's automatic, then it is probably too aggressive to disable the keys for limited apparent piracy. Especially if your software is targeted at a corporate audience. Anything that slams the brakes on productivity is a good reason to start looking for another product.<br/><br/>Track the number of active installs for a given key, yes. Flag the key, absolutely. Disable it... manually?<br/><br/>Even better, locate the contact info for the offending keys, and send a friendly notification to them, offering the purchase of additional keys at a volume discount appropriate to the number of excess installations. This turns piracy into a potential sale. A license key would be perfectly acceptable by my standards. It isn’t personally identifiable information that the content owner doesn’t already have. Any information a license key can provide was likely provided in order to get said key, right?

A software version is non-intrusive as well, since the same information is reported by most updating systems, to ensure patches get distributed to those who need them (unless the updater just queries the current version number, and compares it locally against your installed version).

A unique installation ID, though… since that information serves to identify the user (or the installation), and isn’t directly provided to the content author, and serves minimal benefit (if any) to the end user… it just feels like data mining.

Regarding a threshold for disabling license keys, that really depends on how the disabling occurs. If it’s automatic, then it is probably too aggressive to disable the keys for limited apparent piracy. Especially if your software is targeted at a corporate audience. Anything that slams the brakes on productivity is a good reason to start looking for another product.

Track the number of active installs for a given key, yes. Flag the key, absolutely. Disable it… manually?

Even better, locate the contact info for the offending keys, and send a friendly notification to them, offering the purchase of additional keys at a volume discount appropriate to the number of excess installations. This turns piracy into a potential sale.

]]>