======================================================================== THE GRIPE LINE: ED FOSTER http://www.infoworld.com ======================================================================== Tuesday, September 14, 2004
LATEST WEBLOG ENTRIES ======================================================================== * DRM and the Lessons of History * Verio Spam Filtering Isn't Optional * Terms of Comparison ADVERTISEMENT -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- INFOWORLD RESEARCH ON SECURITY Planning to replace or upgrade your corporate phone system The 2004 InfoWorld Security Survey shows IT managers are worried about the effectiveness of their security systems, with good reason. Download research highlights and find out how others are dealing with the security threat at their organizations. Sponsored by Sprint. REGISTER AND DOWNLOAD NOW http://newsletter.infoworld.com/t?ctl=8B0F2E:2B910B2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- DRM AND THE LESSONS OF HISTORY ======================================================================== Posted September 13, 11:33 PM Pacific Time Software publishers busily installing copy protection should look to the lessons of history. That's the warning many readers sounded in response to my recent column ( http://newsletter.infoworld.com/t?ctl=8B0F24:2B910B2 ) on the DRM wars. "Remember DBase IV?" one reader asked rhetorically. "The best copy protection scheme at the time! Maybe you know of Lotus 1-2-3? They had the best spreadsheet -- well protected -- in the market! ... I believe most of us are getting strongly annoyed by the time spent uselessly fighting customer service for a right we paid for. When companies put a copy protection scheme in their software, they prepare the way for the ones who will overthrow them. I'd pay to know exactly how much such protection costs and how much more money it really gets. In the long term, I believe they always lose." Many readers argued that copy protection has always been counterproductive. "As an old timer who has been in the computer industry since the CPM operating system was king, I've taken an aggressive stance against protection on software I've paid for," wrote another reader. "When 'up against the wall' from abusive software publishers, I simply go to the newsgroups and download a cracked version to get back in service. I've paid for use of the software, so I don't care if I circumvent their system. I'm a Microsoft Partner and get all the Not-For-Resale software, but it's easier for me to just bypass their protection schemes. Think for a moment ... don't abusive companies make people want to install cracked versions and never buy another program from that company?" But another self-described old timer responded that there could be drawbacks to substituting a cracked version for your licensed copy. "Unfortunately, a major drawback to this approach is that sometimes the cracked versions are not as stable as the originals," he wrote. "Paying for software that is not reliable is probably the only thing more aggravating than the activation schemes themselves." One reader opined that copy protection is contrary to the PC tradition. "I think it's interesting that the industry is moving to a model of product licensing that we all tried to flee from under older Unix systems," the reader wrote. "Many a Unix administrator will commiserate over getting FlexLM running properly to keep all of the licenses working. And FlexLM was the easiest of the solutions out there to keep running, and that's certainly damning with faint praise. PC software flourished because of this lax licensing. The IBM PC Jr. demonstrated this quite well, as it added copy protection to an already long list of crippling features, contributing to its demise. I know software companies want to protect their investments, and I have no problem with them protecting their software against illegal usage, but transferring software between machines should not involve contacting the company." Read and post comments about this story here ( http://newsletter.infoworld.com/t?ctl=8B0F25:2B910B2 ) or write me at ... For the full story: http://newsletter.infoworld.com/t?ctl=8B0F28:2B910B2 VERIO SPAM FILTERING ISN'T OPTIONAL ======================================================================== Posted September 12, 11:38 PM Pacific Time Aggressive spam filtering that generates false positives on legitimate messages is an unfortunate fact of like these days. But as one Verio customer argues, shouldn't the decision on whether to use it be up to the customer and not his web hosting service? "I've been a loyal Verio hosting customer for quite a few years -- I have two domains that I manage with them and I have three other customers with domains hosted with them," the reader wrote. "My gripe is that in the last couple of weeks, Verio has instituted a 'spam-blocking' service that cannot really be disabled. My problem is not so much them starting the spam blocking service as their particular implementation. I as a Verio-hosted user can 'Disable Spam Filtering' on my domain, but that choice doesn't really disable the filtering, it just lowers the threshold of what is determined to be spam. This change in itself is bad enough, but what is worse is that Verio's 'proprietary' spam blocking service bounces all messages that it determines to be spam without notifying me. I'm not able to authorize the individual to e-mail me, and neither is the individual able to authenticate ... For the full story: http://newsletter.infoworld.com/t?ctl=8B0F29:2B910B2 TERMS OF COMPARISON ======================================================================== Posted September 11, 8:47 PM Pacific Time We know that most End User License Agreements (EULAs) are ridiculously one-sided in favor of the software publisher, but are they all the same? If customers knew which publishers offer better terms, could we hold all publishers to a higher standard of fairness? The only way to find out is by starting our EULA reviews. This week I'm inaugurating a new "EULA Reviews" section ( http://newsletter.infoworld.com/t?ctl=8B0F2C:2B910B2 ) in the GripeLog devoted to this effort, and to kick it off we're going to undertake a comparison between the licenses of Adobe Photoshop CS and Autodesk AutoCad 2005. This is very much a work-in-progress, and before we arrive at a truly final score for Photoshop and AutoCad's terms, I'm going to need feedback and help from a number of you. One thing that I am certain of though is that, when all is said and done, we will have clearly demonstrated that some software companies play much fairer than others. Of course, it's not an accident I've chosen these two particular products. If you read my earlier "Mystery License" column ( http://newsletter.infoworld.com/t?ctl=8B0F26:2B910B2 ) about some of the outrageous terms in the AutoCad license, you can already guess who the loser is going to be. In fact, ... For the full story: http://newsletter.infoworld.com/t?ctl=8B0F27:2B910B2 Contact Ed Foster at [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Ed Foster's "Reader Advocate" column, http://newsletter.infoworld.com/t?ctl=8B0F2A:2B910B2 , can be read exclusively at his GripeLog Web site: http://newsletter.infoworld.com/t?ctl=8B0F2F:2B910B2 ======================================================================== ADVERTISE ======================================================================== For information on advertising, contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] UNSUBSCRIBE/MANAGE NEWSLETTERS ======================================================================== To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your e-mail address for any of InfoWorld's e-mail newsletters, go to: http://newsletter.infoworld.com/t?ctl=8B0F23:2B910B2 To subscribe to InfoWorld.com, or InfoWorld Print, or both, or to renew or correct a problem with any InfoWorld subscription, go to http://newsletter.infoworld.com/t?ctl=8B0F2D:2B910B2 To view InfoWorld's privacy policy, visit: http://newsletter.infoworld.com/t?ctl=8B0F2B:2B910B2 Copyright (C) 2004 InfoWorld Media Group, 501 Second St., San Francisco, CA 94107 This message was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/BCfwlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> <a href=http://English-12948197573.SpamPoison.com>Fight Spam! Click Here!</a> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/kumpulan/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
