I understand .. but to attack a program that has always shown good faith for a simple security procedure that most other companies have something similar to seems a bit tedious.<<< Ghost, one final comment and then I'll let it rest before we get tired of each other. ;-) I don't think this is a "... simple security procedure..." At least not for those who, like me, are constantly upgrading their system(s). Since August of last year, I have went through four system upgrades. I am preparing for a fifth. That makes the type of security system CL is going to implement far from simple for me. In fact, it makes it an outright nuisance. And what of those times when the CL server is down? (Yes, believe it or not, the CL server has been down.) They have stated that it is "never" down for several days at a time. Well, @home basically said the same thing to me about their reliability, but for the past 5 days use of the system from where I live has been patchy at best. So, such promises are just air in the atmosphere to me. As is the promise of a "patch" or "update" to render the security system useless if CL goes down. >>>You say "And if a simple patch is going to "nuke" the security system, then how long will it be before one of the "warez-kiddies" has one floating throughout cyber-space?" but that doesn't stop other companies from implimenting security proceedures, dongles, etc.<<< True. But I never said that CL was the only one wasting their time and customer good-faith on such useless procedures.