| Robert M Wright |
January 9th, 2010 12:59 PM |
I sort of wonder why software makers go to the extremes they do, to "protect" their software.
Years ago, I remember reading about a study concluding that copy-protection actually reduces sales of properly licensed software, for a number of reasons. First, copy-protection can dramatically reduce the number of people who get directly exposed to using the software, which means fewer people try it out, like the experience and then go on to purchase a license, as well as people trying it out and talking/writing about their experiences (muzzles word of mouth advertising, in essence). Then of course, there's the hassles (sometimes absurd) heaped on the backs of folks who do purchase licenses for "protected" software (like dongles, hoops to jump through for re-installing when getting a new computer, etc.) which tend to dampen the user's experience, leading to lesser-than-ideal word-of-mouth advertising, and an increased likelihood of not purchasing an upgrade, or another product, from the vendor at some point in the future.
"Copy protection" of major motion picture releases on DVD (and Blu-Ray) is another thing that really puzzles me. The technology is expensive to develop and implement, and just plain doesn't really work. Big counterfeiting operations aren't even slowed down at all by it, and a heck of a lot of us regular folks have the knowledge to easily defeat it as well. The only thing it really stops, is the little guy who's basically almost computer illiterate, and might copy something on occasion to give to a friend (very small time). Even folks with almost no technical aptitude or knowledge can pretty easily download a copy of just about anything from the internet anyway.
|
