🚀 go-pugleaf

 pv0b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Pomona Anupol Valero) writes:

PAV> i agree with eric douglas, "you can't blame a company for trying 
PAV> to protect its software." 
PAV> and don't knock a software package because of some minor marketing 
PAV> scheme and their method of copy-protection. in the long run, 
PAV> you'll be saving more time and headaches if you utilize quark's 
PAV> features over pagemaker's.

I can indeed blame a company for assuming that its customers, who shelled out $500 or so for the program, are willing to blatantly ignore the license agreement and give copies away to anyone they please.  For Quark to assume by default that its customers are crooks and therefore the program needs some sort of protection--ANY sort of protection--against such thieves is, IMHO, a crass act, not a class act.

And to you and others who insist that "Yeah, sure, it's copy protected and that causes problems, but look at all those great features!", I say those features are entirely useless if the copy protection scheme forces a situation where the user doesn't have access to them.

And any sort of copy-protection scheme which _requires_ the user to insert an unlocked master is inherently faulty, unless the company absolutely and without question understands the risks of such an action and is **willing** (this is the most important part) to take care of damaged/partially erased/whatever masters IMMEDIATELY and WITH MINIMUM HASSLES.  But by its nature, handling the problem of a damaged master disk means several days wait by the customer, who at that point probably isn't going to be ver



y pleased.  So I see no good (for the user) coming out of any scheme which requires an unlocked master disk be put into a floppy drive.

Quark might do itself a little better by loosening up a bit.  Assuming that your customers are crooks is not good.

--Adam--
 
--  
Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH
UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!20.18!Adam.Frix
INET: Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG