Posted by dentin on April 06, 19100 at 14:52:33:
Problem number 1 - control over the target machine, the machine I install
the software on, cannot be guaranteed. If I can download the software,
then I can copy the software and run it in a protected environment. I can
figure out how it works. And, typically after a short period of time, I
can crack the copy/distribution protection on it. The software can now
be distributed for zero cost to anyone I wish, and I can resell the now
unneeded liscense to gain back my original investment.
Not only has this been proven true for software, but for general content
as well: MP3's, DVD data, encrypted web filter lists, the list goes on.
Once the data is on my machine, all bets about duplication are off.
Problem number 2 - people don't want to have big brother watching over
thier shoulder. This is one of the reasons DIVX failed so miserably: I
certainly don't want my vcr calling up the manufacturer every month to ask
for permission to stay powered on. Businesses are not going to deal with
this either. Suppose multiple bootleg copies of your liscense start
popping up all over the place - which ones does the broker grant keys to?
Which ones are legal? Who does the broker ask? And will the infobroker
decide, in thier position of significant power, to just disable all copies
since piracy is obviously happening? How would you feel if your business
could be deprived of critical software because one of your disgruntled
employees took a copy of the software with him when returning to india?
This would be a _significant_ risk to a business, especially a small one.
Problem number 3 - this relates specifically to software, not content in
general: open source software advances as fast as commercial software, if
not faster. Not only does it advance with time, but it is also cheaper
and support is absolutely guaranteed, for all time. Expandability is
also guaranteed, because you can hire from a base of workers to maintain
and add any flexibility to require.
If a proprietary company goes belly up, the outstanding liscenses suddenly
become worthless. Suddenly the support infrastructure has vanished, and
you can't do anything about it. While you may continue to use your
software for as long as you like, it will depreciate faster than a new car
and very quickly will not be up to the task.
You could argue that source code could be made available with the liscense,
but this would only serve to increase the speed at which open source
products duplicate the functionality. And if a liscensee were to make
modifications to source anyway, the changes might as well be submitted to
an open source clone that does not require liscensing fees.
In short, while an interesting concept, I see no way that this could be a
viable option without forcing users to give up ownership of thier computer
systems. There is no way to prevent infinite data copying and breaking of
the encryption schemes; there is no way to guarantee that the durable good
cannot be counterfeited or copied an infinite number of times. And there
is also the problem of maintenance when a company dies, and the currently
undecided question of whether commercial software can even compete with
the large scale open source movements currently underway.
It made me think, but I wouldn't give it much of a chance of being viable.
-dennis towne