Author: Roger Brown
Date: 08:53:19 10/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
> >But when you get your cash or your car stolen, you actually lose the property. > >When someone infringes on your intellectual property, you still have it. Hello Bo, I have heard this argument which is used to make the theft of intellectual property a different thing from the theft of physical property. Personally, I think it is an absurd argument. In a decade or so are you aware that the most valuable property will be the product of our minds and not the car or the stereo or the computer? In fact I am not sure that the value of intellectual property - programs, music, literature - is not already competing with the value of tangible goods which are mere manifestations of some else's ideas incidentally. Isn't the basis of the value of a computer the intellectual property loaded on it and not really the aggregation of the parts in the screen and the monitor. Besides, would you want someone to crack *your* software and distribute it without you getting the benefit of it? Didn't think so. Inevitably, creators of intellectual property have a problem with theft. Users, well.... I will admit that I thought differently during my life but I cannot escape the nagging inner voice these days. :-) >The real problems with the copy protection is >- it adds cost to the product >- it adds additional work for issuing the keys >- it adds additional work for the buyer >- it adds potential glitches for the genuine buyers The real problem with copy protection is the behaviour of persons who will take the engine for free. > >Some people will just not buy it because of this. And they are free so to do. I have read even authors of engines complaining about protection. I have purchased Chessmaster 8000, 9000 and various Chessbase engines. I am reluctant to use Chessmaster versions in future because in order to use them in a convenient manner I have applied patches to them so that they do not require the OPK code. That creates a conscience problem as I do not like the idea of deliberately bypassing the protection scheme the author employed to protect his work. So I decided not to buy Chessmaster any more. I have made that decision not because of the copy protection but because I am not comfortable with breaching that protection in order to use the engine. Of course if the author changed it so that once I installed it then I could use it I would buy it. There is a difference with Fruit. Fruit's copy protection - as far as I understand it - does not interfere in the use of the engine once it is installed. This is not the situation with Chessmaster which requires a check everytime it is used. I find Shredder UCI highly convenient so I will buy it today and tomorrow. The copy protection does not bother me at all. Ditto for the Lokasoft products. In fact, Deep Sjeng is my idea of a nearly perfect engine. WB, UCI, personalitities, good book....love it! The chessbase line of products - which is very popular here - is copy protected in the sense that the chessplaying engine cannot be used outside of the CB gui. That has not stopped either chessbase or chessmaster from outselling the competition. > > >What we are questioning is whether this increases or decreases the net income >for the program author. Who knows?! Indeed. However judging from the complaints, I would say yes.... :-) Thanks for the discussion. Later.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.