1996-12-20 - Re: Executing Encrypted Code

Header Data

From: Andrew Loewenstern <andrew_loewenstern@il.us.swissbank.com>
To: Hal Finney <hal@rain.org>
Message Hash: bd674b9b45f4721c67e795bd08d0364bac2b3258e055094ef2ca692dd0f03bbc
Message ID: <9612202119.AA00892@ch1d157nwk>
Reply To: <199612201543.HAA02076@crypt.hfinney.com>
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-20 21:19:32 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:19:32 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Andrew Loewenstern <andrew_loewenstern@il.us.swissbank.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 13:19:32 -0800 (PST)
To: Hal Finney <hal@rain.org>
Subject: Re: Executing Encrypted Code
In-Reply-To: <199612201543.HAA02076@crypt.hfinney.com>
Message-ID: <9612202119.AA00892@ch1d157nwk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Hal Finney writes:
>  The answer presumably is that the software manufacturer will
>  sell software with such limits for much less than he will sell
>  unlimited software.  That's because software piracy is such
>  a major problem, and this way he can be protected against
>  piracy from this copy of his program.  So people with these
>  CPU's can buy their software a lot cheaper.

I believe this is a pipedream.  As it stands now, virtually all of the  
software that requires special hardware dongles is ridiculously expensive,  
even compared to similar offerings from other companies.