注意：游戏制造商仍然坚持尝试使 CD 成为硬件加密狗的一种形式，这可能会给消费者带来很大的挫败感，因为他们使用的方法可能会使 CD 在某些驱动器中难以（如果不是不可能的话）读取，并且通常在系统上安装许多可疑的“设备驱动程序”以尝试阻止变通办法。
下一个最具侵入性的方法是在线激活，尽管实施起来要便宜得多。 该软件通常会为其安装的 PC 生成一个唯一的标识符代码，并将其发送到激活服务器，激活服务器将为其提供解锁代码，使其只能在该计算机上运行。 Windows XP 就是一个例子。 虽然没有任何硬件可以制造、丢失或损坏，但该方案仍然给用户带来了问题。 每当他们需要将软件移动到新机器或重新安装当前的电脑，甚至更改足够的硬件配置时，他们都需要重新激活。 此外，如果他们无法访问互联网（是的，这种情况仍然会发生！），您需要一个备份方案，例如呼叫中心，他们可以在电话中输入机器代码，并让操作员读取他们的解锁代码。 该方案还意味着，如果您的公司关闭或关闭激活服务器，那么除非保护被破解，否则该软件实际上已经死了。
I think you need to weigh up a number of factors in deciding on software protection, and how invasive or inconvenient the measures will be.
The most invasive (and expensive to implement) measure is the hardware dongle. I doubt this is used much any more because of the huge cost and inconvenience. You need to manufacture a piece of hardware for every machine the software will run on. Legitimate users can be left in the dark should their dongle malfunction, or should they lose or break the dongle. You then need to ship them a replacement. Finally, skilled crackers can patch the portions of your software that query the dongle, rendering the scheme useless. This was typically used in the most expensive software products (AutoCAD for example). From the user point of view this means their software can expire at any time, and if your company goes out of business, eventually the software can no longer be used (legally anyway).
Note: Games manufacturers are still persisting in trying to make the CD a form of hardware dongle, and this can create much consumer frustration, as the methods they use can make the CD hard (if not impossible) to read in some drives, and usually install many shady "device drivers" onto the system to try and prevent workarounds.
The next most invasive, although much cheaper to implement, is on-line activation. The software will typically generate a unique identifier code for the PC it is installed upon, and will send this to the activation server which will give it an unlock code, allowing it to run only on this machine. Windows XP is an example of this. While there is not a piece of hardware to manufacture, lose, or break, this scheme still poses problems for users. Any time they need to move the software to a new machine or re-install their current PC, or even change the hardware configuration enough, they need to re-activate. Also, if they don't have internet access (Yes, this does still happen!) you need a backup scheme, like a call center, where they can phone in their Machine code and have an operator read them their unlock code. This scheme also means that if your company closes or shuts down the activation servers, the software is effectively dead in the water unless the protection is cracked.
Less invasive still is a one-time unlock code that can be applied to the software regardless of the machine it is on. This has a number of advantages for both the user and the software distributor. Firstly, much less support is required since the only problem that can arise is the user losing this code, which you can automatically e-mail them again or read over the phone. This does make piracy a lot easier, but you can mitigate this by branding their name or company name into an obvious place on the software, making it easy to tell whether it has been pirated or not. This method also means that your software can never "expire" on the user as long as they keep the unlock code.
Least invasive is no protection at all. I think that if you are trying to sell a commercial product, this is not going to work. Piracy may increase legitimate sales, since the more people are using the product, the more are likely to buy it, but this same effect can be achieved by allowing a 30 day (or other reasonable period) unlimited trial of the software, and then requiring the activation code. Yes, this can be bypassed, but the people who are prepared to pay for the software are usually not going to go to the effort of bypassing your unlock scheme.
Bottom line: there is no foolproof protection mechanism, and the more foolproof you try and make your mechanism, the more you will irritate your legitimate buyers, and the more support you will need to give, thus making your whole operation less profitable.
End of the very long rant. (Steve Yegge, you now have competition! At least in terms of word count.)
I truly believe that nowadays (and probably, before) software value is based more on the support and agregated services than it is on the code itself. It may very well deppend uppon the kind of software you are building so, if your piece of software is mainstream (read: Operative System, Design software etc.) chances are that your software will be used ilegally more than a specialized accounting application or an e-government software.
For companies like Microsoft, Autodesk, Adobe etc its harder because there are tons of forums, pdf's, screencasts, ebooks and videos (sometimes "pirated", too) that you can rely on to make good use of the software so you might not need "the support" of the company.
In the case of ISV's and small software companies the software is very specific for a market and most of the times crackers and people in general who make a living of ilegal software won't care too much of your application since users are more akin to look for, say, windows vista, than for your "x-company accounting software" therefore, they won't spend time to crack your software because 99.8% of the market just would not care.
As for the "big" companies I think they live from the "real" customers. The average user, the one that surfs the web and download stuff will probably be using unlicensed versions of a plethora of software because... well they just don't care, they use the computer as amusement but for someone that uses the software as a tool in order to generate revenue they will see this software as an investment and they know for sure that they better pay their licenses so the day the server goes down they have someone to call instead of waiting for a cracked patch while you loose customers/sales.
It may very well deppend on the budget of your company, most companies don't have the time or resources to create anti-piracy solutions or buy them, but I guess that for ISV's it may be safe to ship your product without it, at the end, if someone's want to use your software without paying they will, on the other hand, those who understand that your product is a tool and not something you download from cnet know that the added value (support number, manuals, updates, etc) is what the human resources of your company can do for them that, for me, is the 50% of the final product.
In my company, we don't use it. We operate in a niche market with a small number (10-20) of customers, so there is a high transparency. Our management believes that we would find out if some customers used unlicensed copies.
In order to decide if you want invest into a protection (either your time by developing one yourself, or your money by buing one), you need to see if it is worth the effort financially.
For any protected software used by more than a few hundred people, you can find a cracked version. So far, every protection scheme can be tampered with. On the other hand, not every (potential) customer knows how to find the cracked versions, so using a protection scheme will probably reduce the number of pirated version.
The big unknowns are:
Will those that do not use the cracked version buy a license from you?
Will the use of the protection scheme keep anybody from buing a license, that would have bought one if the software was not protected?
发布评论
评论（4）
我认为在决定软件保护时您需要权衡许多因素，以及这些措施的侵入性或不便程度。
最具侵入性（且实施成本昂贵）的措施是硬件加密狗。 我怀疑这种方法是否会被更多地使用，因为成本巨大且不便。 您需要为运行该软件的每台机器制造一个硬件。 如果加密狗出现故障，或者丢失或损坏加密狗，合法用户可能会被蒙在鼓里。 然后您需要给他们寄一个替换品。 最后，熟练的破解者可以修补软件中查询加密狗的部分，从而使该方案变得毫无用处。 这通常用于最昂贵的软件产品（例如 AutoCAD）。 从用户的角度来看，这意味着他们的软件可能随时过期，如果您的公司倒闭，最终该软件将无法再使用（无论如何都是合法的）。
注意：游戏制造商仍然坚持尝试使 CD 成为硬件加密狗的一种形式，这可能会给消费者带来很大的挫败感，因为他们使用的方法可能会使 CD 在某些驱动器中难以（如果不是不可能的话）读取，并且通常在系统上安装许多可疑的“设备驱动程序”以尝试阻止变通办法。
下一个最具侵入性的方法是在线激活，尽管实施起来要便宜得多。 该软件通常会为其安装的 PC 生成一个唯一的标识符代码，并将其发送到激活服务器，激活服务器将为其提供解锁代码，使其只能在该计算机上运行。 Windows XP 就是一个例子。 虽然没有任何硬件可以制造、丢失或损坏，但该方案仍然给用户带来了问题。 每当他们需要将软件移动到新机器或重新安装当前的电脑，甚至更改足够的硬件配置时，他们都需要重新激活。 此外，如果他们无法访问互联网（是的，这种情况仍然会发生！），您需要一个备份方案，例如呼叫中心，他们可以在电话中输入机器代码，并让操作员读取他们的解锁代码。 该方案还意味着，如果您的公司关闭或关闭激活服务器，那么除非保护被破解，否则该软件实际上已经死了。
侵入性较小的仍然是一次性解锁代码，无论该软件位于哪台机器上，都可以应用于该软件。 这对于用户和软件分销商来说都有许多优点。 首先，需要的支持要少得多，因为可能出现的唯一问题是用户丢失此代码，您可以自动再次通过电子邮件发送或通过电话阅读该代码。 这确实使盗版变得更加容易，但您可以通过将他们的名称或公司名称标记到软件上的明显位置来缓解这种情况，从而轻松判断它是否被盗版。 此方法还意味着只要用户保留解锁代码，您的软件就永远不会“过期”。
侵入性最小的是根本没有保护。 我认为如果你想销售商业产品，这是行不通的。 盗版可能会增加合法销售，因为使用该产品的人越多，购买该产品的可能性就越大，但通过允许 30 天（或其他合理期限）无限制试用该软件，然后要求激活码。 是的，这是可以绕过的，但是准备付费购买软件的人通常不会花力气绕过您的解锁方案。
底线：不存在万无一失的保护机制，你越是尝试让你的机制万无一失，你就越会激怒你的合法买家，你就越需要提供更多的支持，从而使你的整个运营利润减少。
很长的咆哮结束了。 （Steve Yegge，你现在有竞争了！至少在字数方面是这样。）
I think you need to weigh up a number of factors in deciding on software protection, and how invasive or inconvenient the measures will be.
The most invasive (and expensive to implement) measure is the hardware dongle. I doubt this is used much any more because of the huge cost and inconvenience. You need to manufacture a piece of hardware for every machine the software will run on. Legitimate users can be left in the dark should their dongle malfunction, or should they lose or break the dongle. You then need to ship them a replacement. Finally, skilled crackers can patch the portions of your software that query the dongle, rendering the scheme useless. This was typically used in the most expensive software products (AutoCAD for example). From the user point of view this means their software can expire at any time, and if your company goes out of business, eventually the software can no longer be used (legally anyway).
Note: Games manufacturers are still persisting in trying to make the CD a form of hardware dongle, and this can create much consumer frustration, as the methods they use can make the CD hard (if not impossible) to read in some drives, and usually install many shady "device drivers" onto the system to try and prevent workarounds.
The next most invasive, although much cheaper to implement, is on-line activation. The software will typically generate a unique identifier code for the PC it is installed upon, and will send this to the activation server which will give it an unlock code, allowing it to run only on this machine. Windows XP is an example of this. While there is not a piece of hardware to manufacture, lose, or break, this scheme still poses problems for users. Any time they need to move the software to a new machine or re-install their current PC, or even change the hardware configuration enough, they need to re-activate. Also, if they don't have internet access (Yes, this does still happen!) you need a backup scheme, like a call center, where they can phone in their Machine code and have an operator read them their unlock code. This scheme also means that if your company closes or shuts down the activation servers, the software is effectively dead in the water unless the protection is cracked.
Less invasive still is a one-time unlock code that can be applied to the software regardless of the machine it is on. This has a number of advantages for both the user and the software distributor. Firstly, much less support is required since the only problem that can arise is the user losing this code, which you can automatically e-mail them again or read over the phone. This does make piracy a lot easier, but you can mitigate this by branding their name or company name into an obvious place on the software, making it easy to tell whether it has been pirated or not. This method also means that your software can never "expire" on the user as long as they keep the unlock code.
Least invasive is no protection at all. I think that if you are trying to sell a commercial product, this is not going to work. Piracy may increase legitimate sales, since the more people are using the product, the more are likely to buy it, but this same effect can be achieved by allowing a 30 day (or other reasonable period) unlimited trial of the software, and then requiring the activation code. Yes, this can be bypassed, but the people who are prepared to pay for the software are usually not going to go to the effort of bypassing your unlock scheme.
Bottom line: there is no foolproof protection mechanism, and the more foolproof you try and make your mechanism, the more you will irritate your legitimate buyers, and the more support you will need to give, thus making your whole operation less profitable.
End of the very long rant. (Steve Yegge, you now have competition! At least in terms of word count.)
我坚信，现在（或许以前）软件价值更多地基于支持和聚合服务，而不是代码本身。 这很可能取决于您正在构建的软件类型，因此，如果您的软件是主流（阅读：操作系统、设计软件等），那么您的软件被非法使用的可能性可能会超过专门的会计应用程序或软件电子政务软件。
对于 Microsoft、Autodesk、Adobe 等公司来说，这更困难，因为有大量的论坛、pdf、截屏视频、电子书和视频（有时也是“盗版”），您可以依靠它们来充分利用该软件，因此您可能不需要公司的“支持”。
对于 ISV 和小型软件公司来说，该软件是针对特定市场的，大多数情况下，破解者和以非法软件为生的一般人不会太关心您的应用程序，因为用户更倾向于查看例如，对于 Windows Vista，而不是您的“x 公司会计软件”，因此，他们不会花时间破解您的软件，因为 99.8% 的市场根本不会关心。
至于“大”公司，我认为它们靠“真正”的客户生存。 普通用户，即上网冲浪和下载东西的用户可能会使用大量软件的未经许可版本，因为……好吧，他们只是不在乎，他们使用计算机作为娱乐，但对于使用该软件的人来说一个为了产生收入的工具，他们会将这个软件视为一项投资，并且他们确信他们最好支付许可证费用，这样当服务器出现故障的那天，他们就可以打电话给某人，而不是在失去客户时等待破解补丁/销售量。
这很可能取决于您公司的预算，大多数公司没有时间或资源来创建反盗版解决方案或购买它们，但我想对于 ISV 来说，在没有它的情况下交付您的产品可能是安全的，最后，如果有人想在不付费的情况下使用你的软件，另一方面，那些了解你的产品是一个工具而不是你从 cnet 下载的东西的人会知道附加值（支持号码、手册、更新等） ）是贵公司的人力资源可以为他们做的事情，对我来说，是最终产品的 50%。
I truly believe that nowadays (and probably, before) software value is based more on the support and agregated services than it is on the code itself. It may very well deppend uppon the kind of software you are building so, if your piece of software is mainstream (read: Operative System, Design software etc.) chances are that your software will be used ilegally more than a specialized accounting application or an e-government software.
For companies like Microsoft, Autodesk, Adobe etc its harder because there are tons of forums, pdf's, screencasts, ebooks and videos (sometimes "pirated", too) that you can rely on to make good use of the software so you might not need "the support" of the company.
In the case of ISV's and small software companies the software is very specific for a market and most of the times crackers and people in general who make a living of ilegal software won't care too much of your application since users are more akin to look for, say, windows vista, than for your "x-company accounting software" therefore, they won't spend time to crack your software because 99.8% of the market just would not care.
As for the "big" companies I think they live from the "real" customers. The average user, the one that surfs the web and download stuff will probably be using unlicensed versions of a plethora of software because... well they just don't care, they use the computer as amusement but for someone that uses the software as a tool in order to generate revenue they will see this software as an investment and they know for sure that they better pay their licenses so the day the server goes down they have someone to call instead of waiting for a cracked patch while you loose customers/sales.
It may very well deppend on the budget of your company, most companies don't have the time or resources to create anti-piracy solutions or buy them, but I guess that for ISV's it may be safe to ship your product without it, at the end, if someone's want to use your software without paying they will, on the other hand, those who understand that your product is a tool and not something you download from cnet know that the added value (support number, manuals, updates, etc) is what the human resources of your company can do for them that, for me, is the 50% of the final product.
提供软件即服务，不再关心盗版。 这是唯一可行的商业模式。 其他一切都是愚昧无知。
人为地制造一些可以轻松复制的位和字节的东西是非常不合逻辑的。
但我想一般的象牙塔经理疯子永远不会理解这一点。
Provide software as a service and never care about piracy again. Thats the only business model that WILL work. Everything else is stupidly ignorant.
It's highly illogical to create an artifical shortage of something that is only bits and bytes that can be copied easily.
But I guess the average ivory tower manager crackpot will never understand that.
在我的公司，我们不使用它。 我们在利基市场运营，客户数量较少（10-20），因此透明度很高。 我们的管理层相信我们会查明是否某些客户使用了未经许可的副本。
为了决定您是否想要投资一项保护（无论是您自己开发一项保护的时间，还是购买一项保护的金钱），您需要看看在经济上是否值得付出努力。
对于任何超过数百人使用的受保护软件，您都可以找到破解版本。 到目前为止，每个保护方案都可以被篡改。
另一方面，并非每个（潜在）客户都知道如何找到破解版本，因此使用保护方案可能会减少盗版版本的数量。
最大的未知数是：
In my company, we don't use it. We operate in a niche market with a small number (10-20) of customers, so there is a high transparency. Our management believes that we would find out if some customers used unlicensed copies.
In order to decide if you want invest into a protection (either your time by developing one yourself, or your money by buing one), you need to see if it is worth the effort financially.
For any protected software used by more than a few hundred people, you can find a cracked version. So far, every protection scheme can be tampered with.
On the other hand, not every (potential) customer knows how to find the cracked versions, so using a protection scheme will probably reduce the number of pirated version.
The big unknowns are: