SCN: Copy protection

[Steve]

x-no-archive: yes

========================

by David Coursey, Executive Editor, ZDNet AnchorDesk


To: Steve Ballmer, President/CEO, Microsoft

Re: Stupid Copy Protection Schemes


Let me make sure I understand this: Now that Microsoft has beaten 
back all the competition -- using what a U.S. District Court judge 
says are monopoly tactics -- the company is pressing ahead with an 
anti-piracy scheme aimed at casual copying? Like people buying a 
new PC for their home and wanting to run Office on it?  

Brace yourself, Steve. People are already kicking up. And if there 
hasn't been a bigger outcry it's only because most people haven't 
run into your new Product Activation technology, currently only 
shipping on the current retail release of Office2000 (SR-1) in the 
United States and six other countries.  

But as more programs -- and your next-generation "Whistler" 
operating system -- get copy protection, the screaming will rapidly 
take on the tenor of the Napster users vs. the recording industry 
fight (i.e. "Aren't you pigs rich enough already?").  

Especially when Microsoft revenue goes through the roof, as I would 
expect it to do if even a moderate percentage of pirated software 
goes legit. Of course, the real criminals will find a way around this -- 
they always seem to -- meaning it's the little guys who will bear the 
brunt of your anti-piracy campaign.  

Don't get me wrong. People should pay for software and if Microsoft 
didn't charge a small fortune for a new copy of Office we might not 
be having this discussion. Individuals, companies and countries 
that are illegally copying software -- for profit -- should be stopped.  

But with the Office Standard Edition selling for $450, I wonder how 
many families will purchase one to go with their third PC? My 
understanding is that since your license only allows two 
installations -- intended for a single owner's PC and laptop -- that 
additional installations require purchase of a new copy of the 
software.  

So while I fully support Microsoft's right to copy protect, I think wide-
scale copy protection looks better on paper than it will in the 
marketplace. Never mind the bellyaching from users like me. 
Doesn't this play right into the government's argument that 
Microsoft needs to be broken up?  

People have been making copies of Microsoft Office for as long as 
the product suite has existed. These illegal copies -- in homes, 
offices, and on portables -- doubtless make up a significant part of 
the installed base. But the equation has worked to Microsoft's 
advantage.  

They may also have been responsible for making Office the 
standard it has become.  

Let me explain: If Microsoft had instituted copy protection before 
WordPerfect and Lotus were effectively eliminated from the 
marketplace, your penetration would have been limited or a price 
war would have ensued. My bet is MS Office would still have 
emerged on top, but with a significantly smaller share of the 
marketplace. And you'd still have Lotus and WordPerfect to factor 
into your plans.  

Having earned your market dominance atop illegal copies, and then 
having used that position to quash competitors, it strikes me as a 
tad disingenuous for Microsoft to bring on copy protection at such a 
late date.  

The only way you will get away with this is by drastically lowering 
prices. It is easy to justify the illegal copies of Office that exist today 
-- especially in homes -- because the program is so expensive. If 
Office cost $99-a-copy people would feel a lot better about paying 
up. At that price a yearly subscription with better customer support 
options probably becomes viable.  

BUT IF YOU leave the price alone and just make it impossible for 
people to make copies they feel they need, people will perceive you 
as even more of a "bad guy" company than they already do. It will 
also give competitors like WordPerfect, Lotus, and Sun's StarOffice 
freeware a real lift.  

Since you will also copy protect operating systems, and given my 
almost universally bad experience upgrading from the old OS to the 
next-big-thing, I'd imagine customers will just learn to live with the 
OS they have. Likewise the application upgrades, which will have to 
meet an even tougher standard if people really have to pay for all 
the copies they need.  

Is Microsoft really ready to stagnate the market in exchange for 
copy protection?  

Logic tells me this is just the first stage in a plan that's hatching in 
Redmond. Is this supposed to make us happy software subscribers 
once your Microsoft.Net software-as-a-service program becomes 
real?  

Does this mean Microsoft is giving up on upgrade revenue because 
it's too hard to create upgrades people will really pay for? Is this 
some sort of positioning for a post-break-up Microsoft?  

Anyway, I'd love to hear from you on this. I'm sure AnchorDesk 
readers would like an explanation, too. By the way, feel free to make 
as many copies of this as you wish to pass around.  

Copyright 2001 ZD Inc.  




* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  From the Listowner  * * * * * * * * * * * *
.	To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to:
majordomo at scn.org		In the body of the message, type:
unsubscribe scn
==== Messages posted on this list are also available on the web at: ====
* * * * * * *     http://www.scn.org/volunteers/scn-l/     * * * * * * *