1996-12-20 - Re: Executing Encrypted Code

Header Data

From: ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)
To: Andrew Loewenstern <hal@rain.org>
Message Hash: c2d944de76a0a28b7f5aa13986bf48e7ab5d069670900655d5ceeb24bfd40260
Message ID: <v02140b07aee0be8c52d2@[192.0.2.1]>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1996-12-20 22:29:22 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:29:22 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: ph@netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:29:22 -0800 (PST)
To: Andrew Loewenstern <hal@rain.org>
Subject: Re: Executing Encrypted Code
Message-ID: <v02140b07aee0be8c52d2@[192.0.2.1]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 3:19 PM 12/20/1996, Andrew Loewenstern wrote:
>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.

Why do you think this is?  I don't understand why I would buy a more
expensive package that required a dongle rather than a less expensive
package which does not.  This is mysterious.

Peter Hendrickson
ph@netcom.com







Thread