I have said this before on this subject.
To summarize:
Place useless code within your base code.
Take thief to court.
Show the judge the same useless code in their EPROM.
The copy protection your looking for is in the court system.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
- - - PLJack - - -
Perfection in design is not achieved when there is nothing left to add. It is achieved when there is nothing left to take away.
Bean (Hitt Consulting) wrote:
I would dare say, that the propeller MAY be excluding itself from production products if there is no way to protect the firmware.
Chip Gracey (Parallax) said...
perhaps millions of identical cell-phones are in confined areas. It seems like it's been outmoded and the monitoring would be much better done from within the cell-phone infrastructure.
I recall reading on the early 2000's of anti-spoofing tech for cell phone companies that did basically the same thing for cell phones. Using the slight variances of each units signal to identify them and then disable the spoofed phones.
So, not sure but I figure someone has thought of this besides me.. But this is what I plan on using for this problem. http://www.maxim-ic.com/quick_view2.cfm/qv_pk/2903
I would have to say, NEVER underestimate someone who wants to hack something. People will spend a tremendous amount of manhours to acheive something that seems silly to someone else, if only to prove that they can. Here is where many pay the price for ignorance. Saying something is not possible, or that it will take too much time or it isn't worth the time is the same as telling them not to do it... a challenge they can't refuse.
On copy protection I have certain views that share the "blame".
First the consumer has been indoctrinated for more than 20 years that publishers(initially of game software then commercial programs, music, video,etc.) dont trust them and apply punitive costing for thier product to cover the cost of theft. This has led to the public perception that theft of electronic data or "piracy" is OK. So an "us and them" mentality exists and coupled with the previous perception makes casual or opportunistic theft the norm.
It will take many years to undo that damage to the public's perceptions but no major commercial enterprises seem to be attempting to repair the relationship between consumer and seller. So nothing is going to change until a major player starts the trend and that change is not going to be overnight.
So concentrate on commercial pirates, of software and hardware. As stated by many others in this thread implimenting sophisticated protection schemes are a flare lit chalenge to someone to prove they are smarter! so why waste money and time on something that will fail eventually. It is a better use of resources to eliminate casual theft and include indicators to intent.
Use a unique ID system that simply, deters casual theft. For example if the product uses an SD/MMC card then using the CardID unique to each card and factory written as the decode key that would complicate things but not be much of a challenge for a hacker. If the data or code was then copied or pirated then it would be simple to prove an "intent to steal" in court and hopelully reduce the cost of defending IP rights.
The other end of this is as has been pointed out before, make the product as cost effective as possible and allow the customer to see through support services and direct contact that a "trust" is being shared between the consumer and producer. The commercial model of commerce assumes that there is no ongoing "relationship" between buyer and seller(including warranty) so get as much return as possible now!
Small and medium companies like Parallax survive because of the relationship they foster with thier clients. They interact and support them and often listen and respond to other opportunities raised within the "community". This trust shared between the producer and buyer I charaterise as a "Humanist model of commerce" and I think is what is ment when people say "let the market decide". But with the commercial model emphasizing "the bottom line" and with a $=ME=NOW attitude prevailing a human being has little chance of being heard and even less of being listened to.
Back onto the point, an individual would rather buy a legal version if given the opportunity and if "they" believe(or perceive) it is at a fair price. If the perception persists that punitive pricing is the policy and an opportunity arises then piracy runs rampant. With only incidental protection to prove intent and effective support for clients then the developing trust will ensure that the majority of consumers will view piracy as a crime or at least as objectionable.
So this is a pontification to be wary of but this is in fact a striped down version of what I think is wrong with things but what can an individual do!
Frans...
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Read a book, under a lamp and think what it took to get here.
bibliotech said...
This has led to the public perception that theft of electronic data or "piracy" is OK. So an "us and them" mentality exists and coupled with the previous perception makes casual or opportunistic theft the norm.
Wow. I hope you won't take offense when I say that I prefer my circle of friends to yours. No, that's too strong, because I don't know your friends, but I definitely prefer the attitude on this subject among my own·friends. This 'norm' you perceive is not a general one. Stealing is stealing whether you do it with a computer or a lock pick. I don't know anyone who gets excited about it happening, because theft has been with us for millennia, but I also don't know anyone who thinks it is 'okay'. At least not face to face I don't.
I'm not sure where the perception of punitive pricing arises, though it sounds like something that might be asserted outside business circles by people who equate profit with evil. Setting price points entails a complex of several business issues, but I've never met a business manager so wrong-headed as to want to punish paying customers for the hypothetical sins of non-customers. In the first place, you don't want to punish anyone who is a customer, and in the second place it is well understood that setting the wrong price only punishes the seller by reducing the total profit.
It's not a strategy I recommend to anyone developing products.
I admit the pricing on mid-range software products can seem high compared to volume commercial products like those from Microsoft, or low-volume single-programmer products like most downloaded code. But people in the mid-range like Sun or Autocad have a completely different cost roll-up than either of those two extremes, in addition to the obvious differences in market strategy. This applies to all industries, not just computers. A wee fan in my wife's car cost nearly $400 last year, because it is a very low production item, basically fabricated in prototype quantities. I can buy a similar fan for a computer off the shelf for $4, but the stock item wouldn't fit the role of the one in her car. In no sense is the factory trying to 'punish' her for buying the car. It's just the economics of production at work.
I do agree that the best way to deal with a perceived threat of software theft is to take precautions of minimum cost that will not annoy paying customers, while still making it clear to a hypothetical court that you did not invite theft of the code. A certain level of protection is shrugged off as routine by reasonable customers. Things like the five seconds required·to go through a "yes I agree" license dialog at installation. This sort of thing blocks large scale theft while effectively smiling at the customer and saying "We both know thieves will ignore this, but let's get on with life."
Anything that interferes with normal use of the product is definitely punishing yourself as the seller, because it will reduce the total sales volume.
Well, I'll just toss this into the fray, only because it's true:
Stealing is Stealing. Period, end of report. I own the source cd's for darn near EVERY mp3 I have (over 5700 and growing), as well as the oiginal VHS or DVD of the movies I have. Software, it's the same thing. Now, I have pushed the "trial", and "demo" to it's limits, but in the end, the software that I use I purchased. I would hope to guess I'm in the same class as some 82% of the consumers, but then, one will never know. Every one here has posted PRO's and CON's to both sides of the issue, but I'd like to just draw a defining line that really brings it home. There is NO software / hardware protection that can't be beat. To invert that statement: ALL Software / Hardware protection scheams can be beat. Period. With out exception. End of Line. End of Report. The only true safe code is code that is never executed, or distrubuted. This can't work, so the next level is to make the code so no one really wants to break it. There are many ways of doing this, but the end result is the same. You will have a "healthier" user base of your product. Yes, their will always be that 18% of users that will simply leech a copy of your code, and attempt to do what it is you are doing, imattion is highly flatering, but, the end result is your companies responsiveness, friendleness and usefullness.
Ok, thanks for reading my opion. Hope no one gets too ticked or thrilled. No, it's not a challange against any one, mearly regertating the facts as learned, done and watched.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller + Hardware - extra bits for the bit bucket =· 1 Coffeeless KaosKidd
·
No offence taken Harbor.
Its public perceptions I'm outlining here and extreme views at that but I think my point still stands.
BTW I do not advocate theft or the attitude that condones theft but am trying to understand how the current situation has arisen.
(had a section here bolstering my position but was too long winded)
"punitive pricing policies"·is a term I use to describe very poor marketing stategies used during the 80s and early 90s. There are few extreme examples but they have served to perpetuate this perception. Deserved or not ALL software or data publishers are tainted by those few bad apples.
The consumer rarely comprehends the time, effort and resources needed to produce a working product. In particular if all they receive for a substantial amout of money is a box with a 40 page manual and 1-2 floppy disks, then·reinforce this misunderstaning with widely publisized and sensationalised examples of bad pricing behavior.
The example with the fan is valid but only for manufacturing or traditional industries. Information industries have a different set of circumstances to cope with. Instead of a physical product like a fan with traditional production and·distribution processes they have a largely intangible and highly portable product that can use a variety of distribution chanels both legitimate and illegitimate.
I also share Kaos Kidds "opion".
Don't agonize·over copy protection just plan to prosecute if you need to.
··· Frans...
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Read a book, under a lamp and think what it took to get here.
Comments
To summarize:
Place useless code within your base code.
Take thief to court.
Show the judge the same useless code in their EPROM.
The copy protection your looking for is in the court system.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
- - - PLJack - - -
Perfection in design is not achieved when there is nothing left to add.
It is achieved when there is nothing left to take away.
I would dare say, that the propeller MAY be excluding itself from production products if there is no way to protect the firmware.
My opinion to...
Regards
Pedro
I recall reading on the early 2000's of anti-spoofing tech for cell phone companies that did basically the same thing for cell phones. Using the slight variances of each units signal to identify them and then disable the spoofed phones.
Seth
http://www.maxim-ic.com/quick_view2.cfm/qv_pk/2903
I would have to say, NEVER underestimate someone who wants to hack something. People will spend a tremendous amount of manhours to acheive something that seems silly to someone else, if only to prove that they can. Here is where many pay the price for ignorance. Saying something is not possible, or that it will take too much time or it isn't worth the time is the same as telling them not to do it... a challenge they can't refuse.
First the consumer has been indoctrinated for more than 20 years that publishers(initially of game software then commercial programs, music, video,etc.) dont trust them and apply punitive costing for thier product to cover the cost of theft. This has led to the public perception that theft of electronic data or "piracy" is OK. So an "us and them" mentality exists and coupled with the previous perception makes casual or opportunistic theft the norm.
It will take many years to undo that damage to the public's perceptions but no major commercial enterprises seem to be attempting to repair the relationship between consumer and seller. So nothing is going to change until a major player starts the trend and that change is not going to be overnight.
So concentrate on commercial pirates, of software and hardware. As stated by many others in this thread implimenting sophisticated protection schemes are a flare lit chalenge to someone to prove they are smarter! so why waste money and time on something that will fail eventually. It is a better use of resources to eliminate casual theft and include indicators to intent.
Use a unique ID system that simply, deters casual theft. For example if the product uses an SD/MMC card then using the CardID unique to each card and factory written as the decode key that would complicate things but not be much of a challenge for a hacker. If the data or code was then copied or pirated then it would be simple to prove an "intent to steal" in court and hopelully reduce the cost of defending IP rights.
The other end of this is as has been pointed out before, make the product as cost effective as possible and allow the customer to see through support services and direct contact that a "trust" is being shared between the consumer and producer. The commercial model of commerce assumes that there is no ongoing "relationship" between buyer and seller(including warranty) so get as much return as possible now!
Small and medium companies like Parallax survive because of the relationship they foster with thier clients. They interact and support them and often listen and respond to other opportunities raised within the "community". This trust shared between the producer and buyer I charaterise as a "Humanist model of commerce" and I think is what is ment when people say "let the market decide". But with the commercial model emphasizing "the bottom line" and with a $=ME=NOW attitude prevailing a human being has little chance of being heard and even less of being listened to.
Back onto the point, an individual would rather buy a legal version if given the opportunity and if "they" believe(or perceive) it is at a fair price. If the perception persists that punitive pricing is the policy and an opportunity arises then piracy runs rampant. With only incidental protection to prove intent and effective support for clients then the developing trust will ensure that the majority of consumers will view piracy as a crime or at least as objectionable.
So this is a pontification to be wary of but this is in fact a striped down version of what I think is wrong with things but what can an individual do!
Frans...
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Read a book, under a lamp and think what it took to get here.
I'm not sure where the perception of punitive pricing arises, though it sounds like something that might be asserted outside business circles by people who equate profit with evil. Setting price points entails a complex of several business issues, but I've never met a business manager so wrong-headed as to want to punish paying customers for the hypothetical sins of non-customers. In the first place, you don't want to punish anyone who is a customer, and in the second place it is well understood that setting the wrong price only punishes the seller by reducing the total profit.
It's not a strategy I recommend to anyone developing products.
I admit the pricing on mid-range software products can seem high compared to volume commercial products like those from Microsoft, or low-volume single-programmer products like most downloaded code. But people in the mid-range like Sun or Autocad have a completely different cost roll-up than either of those two extremes, in addition to the obvious differences in market strategy. This applies to all industries, not just computers. A wee fan in my wife's car cost nearly $400 last year, because it is a very low production item, basically fabricated in prototype quantities. I can buy a similar fan for a computer off the shelf for $4, but the stock item wouldn't fit the role of the one in her car. In no sense is the factory trying to 'punish' her for buying the car. It's just the economics of production at work.
I do agree that the best way to deal with a perceived threat of software theft is to take precautions of minimum cost that will not annoy paying customers, while still making it clear to a hypothetical court that you did not invite theft of the code. A certain level of protection is shrugged off as routine by reasonable customers. Things like the five seconds required·to go through a "yes I agree" license dialog at installation. This sort of thing blocks large scale theft while effectively smiling at the customer and saying "We both know thieves will ignore this, but let's get on with life."
Anything that interferes with normal use of the product is definitely punishing yourself as the seller, because it will reduce the total sales volume.
Stealing is Stealing. Period, end of report. I own the source cd's for darn near EVERY mp3 I have (over 5700 and growing), as well as the oiginal VHS or DVD of the movies I have. Software, it's the same thing. Now, I have pushed the "trial", and "demo" to it's limits, but in the end, the software that I use I purchased. I would hope to guess I'm in the same class as some 82% of the consumers, but then, one will never know. Every one here has posted PRO's and CON's to both sides of the issue, but I'd like to just draw a defining line that really brings it home. There is NO software / hardware protection that can't be beat. To invert that statement: ALL Software / Hardware protection scheams can be beat. Period. With out exception. End of Line. End of Report. The only true safe code is code that is never executed, or distrubuted. This can't work, so the next level is to make the code so no one really wants to break it. There are many ways of doing this, but the end result is the same. You will have a "healthier" user base of your product. Yes, their will always be that 18% of users that will simply leech a copy of your code, and attempt to do what it is you are doing, imattion is highly flatering, but, the end result is your companies responsiveness, friendleness and usefullness.
Ok, thanks for reading my opion. Hope no one gets too ticked or thrilled. No, it's not a challange against any one, mearly regertating the facts as learned, done and watched.
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Propeller + Hardware - extra bits for the bit bucket =· 1 Coffeeless KaosKidd
·
Its public perceptions I'm outlining here and extreme views at that but I think my point still stands.
BTW I do not advocate theft or the attitude that condones theft but am trying to understand how the current situation has arisen.
(had a section here bolstering my position but was too long winded)
"punitive pricing policies"·is a term I use to describe very poor marketing stategies used during the 80s and early 90s. There are few extreme examples but they have served to perpetuate this perception. Deserved or not ALL software or data publishers are tainted by those few bad apples.
The consumer rarely comprehends the time, effort and resources needed to produce a working product. In particular if all they receive for a substantial amout of money is a box with a 40 page manual and 1-2 floppy disks, then·reinforce this misunderstaning with widely publisized and sensationalised examples of bad pricing behavior.
The example with the fan is valid but only for manufacturing or traditional industries. Information industries have a different set of circumstances to cope with. Instead of a physical product like a fan with traditional production and·distribution processes they have a largely intangible and highly portable product that can use a variety of distribution chanels both legitimate and illegitimate.
I also share Kaos Kidds "opion".
Don't agonize·over copy protection just plan to prosecute if you need to.
··· Frans...
▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Read a book, under a lamp and think what it took to get here.