Will copy protection always fail?

Locks only keep out honest people. If a system of copy protection is put in place, someone, somewhere WILL crack it! It's human nature!

Take a simple copy protection method...CD keys or licence codes...

The point of this is to only allow installation of you have the product key. So you copy the cd...then photocopy the key or write it on a bit of paper then give it to all your friends if you are that way inclined!!

Any version of Windows can be installed with any product key, so long asthe patterns match..the 5x5 Alphanumeric key introduced with 98 made it slightly harder to memorise a key, but ANY key would work, so long as you used the correct pattern (that is, an Upgrade Key wouldn't work on an OEM version, and a Full Retail version wouldn't work on an Upgrade and so on...but any OEM key would work on ANY OEM Install and likewise with the upgrade CD). Whereas ANY OEM key for 95 would install any version!!

Microsoft Office upgrade scans your hard disk for previous qualifying versions. When it doesn't find any, you browse to the installation CD drive....and it upgrades 'itself'! So why would anyone buy a 'full retail version' at twice the cost of the upgrade, when the upgrade can install the full version when you know the 'trick'?!!!

I write apps.....and we sell them for good money. You can make as many copies as you like, but without the custom hardware we fit inside a PC (and only WE manufacture), the software has no purpose!

Much I suspect has to do with the fact that once created, ten million copies can be as easily produced as the first one. Gold and diamonds, long standing items of high intrinsic value cannot be easily re-produced which is why they have the value they do.

The second issue is the perception of value. I religioulsy pay for the software I use because I recognize it represents someone's efforts (work) and they have value to me. Too often tho' distributors of this material do not price it reasonably.

I don't collect MP3s but if I did, would I pay 50 cents for them? Probably. Will I pay 2 dollars? Probably not.

From a business perspective it is generally better to sell a million of something for $1 a copy than try to sell 10 for $100,000 a copy.

Unbridled greed on the part of the distributors is part of the problem.

Thus far, the entertainment industry has failed to prevent unauthorized copying yet they continue to pump untold amounts into a seemingly black hole project.

Why has music, video, software, etc trading become so increasingly popular? Would people really buy more CDs if the prices were lower?

Instead of trying to prevent people from copying music, what about just giving it to them or charging a very nominal fee and focus on profit through added value such as concerts, theaters, exclusive clubs, etc?

Want to use my software? Go right ahead! Don't want to pay me? Fine but I don't want to help you when you have problems. :)

There will always be people that will try to get everything for free regardless of the effort and there willalways be people that will pay for everything to avoid the effort. I think the majority, however, follow the path of least resistance...if it's easier to steal it then steal it but if it's easier to buy it then buy it.

Whilst I can see that in the making of anything there are costs involved, that doesn't give people the right to restrict our freedom. I laugh at the person who agrees software costs too much agrees pirate copies are necassary then tells us he writessoftware requiring dongles - perhaps the most effective method of copy protection.

In short, industry is trying to restrict what we the consumer can have, firstly with price then copyright etc... well no matter what the do people will find a way around it.

I give you the case, Film companies want to release there films at different times throughout the world - so they produce region specific DVD's. DVD player manufactures find it is not cost effective to produce different hardware for each part of the world and so lock their systems with jumpers / software.

It didn't take long for people to work out how to make thier products region free. And having a region free DVD player I would enjoy the privelage of buying DVD at a reasonalble price the the internet from america (region 1) then paying extra to have these films shipped to britain, basically because I then get to see decent films - pre-release, at an affordable price.

Manufactures need to realise people can see the kindof money they make, bill gates is one of the richest people in the world. why does he need to charge so much for software?

Whoever (from TechRepublic) starts these discussions - the ones based on an e-newsletter - should realize that not everyone subscribes to EVERY e-newsletter they offer, nor does anyone have time to read them all. And if a person did actually subscribe to a particular one, they do get lost in the mass of emails a lot of us receive.

Starting a discussion thread like this will generate more interest than the e-newslwtter alone. If they want some INFORMED comment on an article, not just what maybe implied in a short question, a link should be provided so we can at least READ the thing.

In past discussions – presumably based on an e-newsletter – it’s been obvious that a lot of people comment on something they have not read. Keeping a discussion in its intended context is challenging enough. Why help it get off course? It's no different than someone forming an opinion - and commenting on that opinion - based only on a newspaper headline, bypassing the rest of the article.

Is it too much to ask for a link to the article? Perhaps it’s TechRepublic’s intention to limit replies to only those who subscribe to that particular e-newsletter.

(This is not my first request. I’ve made similar onesin the past, and I’m batting 1.000. No replies, no comments to any of them. I guess no one really cares about it, so why should I?)

As for my opinion on the initial question: Since I can’t make an INFORMED comment, I have no comment.
(Yes, I’m having a bad day. I bet on the stupid Raiders.)

We all agree that copy protection will always fail. That's why the European smart-card manufacturers change their TV codes a few times a year: they get cracked as fast as they're changed.

The real issue is that a private company is using the Homeland Security Act to convince the government to force Verizon to give up someone's personal information. Talk about ilegal search and seizure! These laws weren't made for this reason, but we see where that went. I think everyone using verizon should switch to another ISP, and send a message to the others. It's not whether or not file sharing is legal, it's about privacy. We all agree that piracy is wrong. A private company acting as law enforcement is also wrong. We don't need to fear terroriststaking our freedom; we do it to ourselves. Maybe we should spend less time downloading mp3's and more time reading up on what "OUR" elected officials are up to. I already thought of this situation last year when I read about this law. Hell, it worked in the Soviet Union, it worked in Nazi Germany, why shouldn't it work here?

Embrace the Internet? C'mon, now. The rest of the world is looking to us for solutions not enigmas.

The riddle is how to protect intellectual property rights while allowing digitial dissemination.

The answer is simple, and I'm surprised no onehas come up with it yet.

Questions like this are more morality than technology. Computers have been used for information theft since WWII. The very first digital computers were created to break NAZI military codes. Research grants in code breaking with computers go back to WWI. That computers can be very helpful in information theft makes a lot of sense to me.

The best solution is self government by human conscience. It is the most effective, preventative, and least expensive to our liberty. It protects grocery stores from rampant candy bar theft. It also protects us for ever more restrictive and severe laws to punish wrong doing. The money the recording industry throws at this problem will one day buy enough influence in congress, NAFTA, the E.U. or the U.N. to make ever more far reaching law.

Theft can be discouraged. But, what ever the technological term, it is theft. Moral evasion is the game and techo-bable is a weapon of the conscience stricken. Humans have had problems with theft forat least 4000 thousands of years. if not, I doubt that, ?Do not steal.", would be one of the ten commandments. But, human conscience may not be your bag.

Legal punishment of theft works. But, it is a second best solution. Insisting on outside control of our actions slowly cooks our own goose. Ever more restrictive laws get passed. Penalties become more severe, so liberty becomes a more and more distant memory.
Theft is a bad idea. Hiding behind technology does not free us from theft. Pretending that theft is a good idea is a lot closer to the real problem. Reviving the same conscience that protects candy bars also protects liberty. The grace to change, forgive and move on sets us free.

With any new technology regarding DRM, there is ALWAYS going to be someone to find a way to bypass it. With Cd's it's ripping or even copying to tape. With VCR tapes, it's Time Base Correctors and Capture devices. With theater movies, it camcorders and tape recorders. With DVD it's DeCss and other software. Face it folks, it's going to be around forever. It's called just one simple term: reverse engineering.

As far as protecting my company information, one simple word: hardcopy. If you don't put it on a computer, how is someone going to have access to it unless they break and enter your office?

In regards to the article, I give it a 5.

There is a requirement to be able to copy digital resources for preservation and/or owner personalization.

I keep all my digital resources in two stacks: masters and working copies. The masters are used only to make working or personalized copies. I make several copies for personal use which I also customize/personalize to my own standards. In the case of CDs and DVDs I keep one copy for further duplications, one copy goes in my travel bag, one copy remains at home, and another copy may go with me to work.

It doesn't take much to damage a CD or DVD, particularly one you like and use a lot, so I need to know I can make fresh copies when I accidently damage one.

Often times the content on a CD or DVD includes content I don'twant or need to see or hear, so I exclude it from the copy. At times I'll bundle several digital resources together in a single copy for more efficient use or extended use.

What is wrong to me is re-distributing someone's work without their permission. That's where the penalty should be, not the copy protection.

I also think the pricing model needs to encourage people to buy the product rather than steal it.

Look at what is happening to Intuit and the product activation scheme that they added to Turbo-Tax this year. (2002)

The addition of 'mal-ware' from Macro-Vision and C-Dilla may give them their worst Tax Season yet!

All of the PC magazines andbulletin boards are warning users of the Macro-Vision C-Dilla issue.

You have to install Macro-Vision and C-Dilla in order to activate Turbo Tax. Worse, you MUST leave both 'mal-ware' programs running until you have completed your taxes, and haveun-installed Turbo-Tax!

On CNET's software user comments page, Turbo Tax has an unprecedented 91% negative rating!!!
http://tinyurl.com/4z9h
Almost entirely from the activation scheme.

Instead of capturing revenue from "piggy-back" users, Intuit is likely to loose many of it's paying customers.

Chas

My 2 cents worth...

It seems to me that the recording as well as software industry has there technique for enforcing copyright protection completely backwards. Of course they have the right to protect their investment, but instead of trying to eliminate the ability to make copies (including legal backups), they should be focusing on how to detect illegal copies. In that way they could in fact use the internet as a tool for enforcement as opposed to a scapegoat for all their problems. Copyprotection will always fail, and as a result countless hours of wasted time will be spent on making and breaking encryption techniques. It occurs to me that this time could well be spent on more productive pursuits.

A business that does not reinvent itself will fail. The recording industry in its present form is dead unless it is reinvented to take advantage of the internet instead of fighting it. We all know that piracy will continue to exist. Instead of spending billions of dollars fighting it, the wise would invest money in researching a solution that would reduce piracy and overhead.

The main reasons music is downloaded Are 1: Price. $16.99 for a record is ridiculous. Musicians make most of their money on tour, a CD costs less than a dollar to make, so where is all of this money going? In order to make up for "stolen" (either downloaded or under the shirt) merchandise the price of the purchased media is raised. Since many aren't willing to pay $16.99 for a new CD with a handful (at best) of good songs, many choose to download.

2: Ubiquity of content. Just about any song by any artist can be found and instantly downloaded. No music store can match that.

Water takes the pathof least resistance. For now that path lies with downloads. Subconsciously we "know" that downloading music is "stealing" but what choice do we have? Sure, we could go to the store, purchase the CD (if available), rip it, and put it onto our digital players but who wants to go through that expense and hassle when instead a half hour before your evening jog you can go online, cue up the 5 songs you heard on your way home from work, download them and go.

I am thoroughly enjoying seeing the recording industry wrestle with this dilemma. The business has been taking it to the consumer for years, its about time the consumer gets something out of it. Inevitably, the industry will collapse and out of the rubble will emerge something that works for all of us.

At this time, the answer would be a yes. Copy protection will always fail. However, once you start talking about "trusted" computing, it will be near impossible to crack. A trusted computer encrypts everything traveling around in the computer. For more information, please do a google search for "Palladium".

-g