From: ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:31:15 -0800 (PST)
To: Bill Frantz <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Executing Encrypted Code
Message-ID: <v02140b08aee0befb6cdb@[192.0.2.1]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 1:29 PM 12/20/1996, Bill Frantz wrote:
>At 11:52 AM -0800 12/20/96, Peter Hendrickson wrote:
>> If it's worthwhile having a backup processor around, then you just have
>> to spend a little more to have backup software, too.

> I thought your model was cheap processors and expensive software.  I.e.,.
> The cost of the software is greater than the cost of the hardware.  Sounds
> like more than just "a little more".

There's no reason why one software package would cost more than the
machine.  I was assuming you didn't need your whole software library
to finish the report.

I would expect software prices to drop because everybody using the software
would be paying for it.  I would also expect more kinds of software to become
available.

At any rate, I just don't see this as a major problem.  Does anybody
know how often processors break down these days?  My guess is that
it is less common than getting into a car accident and much less common
than all the other factors that make reports late.

If companies started metering software, then this problem pretty much
evaporates.

>> If the old copy protection just worked, it would have been widely accepted.

> Again, there is a complex infrastructure which offers the customer no
> obvious benefit.

The obvious benefit is that when you purchase software you don't have
to pay for software development for the people who don't pay.  Few
people find this objectionable in principle.

It is not out of the question for software vendors to sell two versions
of the same software.  One is the piracy-free version and the other is
the copy-as-much-as-you-can version.  I would expect the piracy-free
version to be substantially cheaper.

(Of course, it is not out of the question that piracy boosts sales by
advertising the product.  We haven't seen a good experiment for
determining this.)

> I disagree that copy protection would have been widely accepted, even had
> it worked smoothly.  In fact, this scheme can be characterized as a scheme
> to make copy protection work.

Your characterization is accurate.  Ignoring the particulars of this
scheme, it would certainly be neat if people could sell software
without it being pirated.

Peter Hendrickson
ph@netcom.com