Re: Software protection
- From: tomstdenis@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 15 Apr 2006 22:13:08 -0700
Carlos Moreno wrote:
tomstdenis@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Put a simple hash based license verifier in there. Anything beyond
that and you're making the users pay for the ability to use software
they have otherwise paid for.
Huh?!!
No, seriously, I do not understand what you're trying to say...
Do you mean that anything beyond a simple hash would be so
complex that it would require considerable development time
that you would have to charge your customers for that part,
when they're really interested in paying for the *actual*
functionality and features of the product? (that would
actually be a good point, I think)
Put it this way. The guy spending the 3 minutes to post on usenet ...
that goes into the cost of his products. If I sell something that I
put 1000 hours into and say 50 of the hours were dedicated to the
anti-piracy. The users are PAYING for the 50 hours.
It's just like the labels and publishers. They buy some "legit" DRM
technology or license it for millions. You don't think that doesn't
just pass along onto the users?
Or are video games really supposed to cost $70 when new?
Tom
.
- References:
- Software protection
- From: johnrthomas756
- Re: Software protection
- From: tomstdenis
- Re: Software protection
- From: Carlos Moreno
- Software protection
- Prev by Date: Re: ECC template library
- Next by Date: Re: Software protection
- Previous by thread: Re: Software protection
- Next by thread: Re: Software protection
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|