Not trying to be demeaning, but trying to understand a seemingly contradictory statement. "#2* A stringent and trouble-prone registration system." "I would use such a scheme if I dared." As a software developer yourself, and your obvious opinion that some form of protection is needed, why do you state that you have not used such a system if it is overly effective and beneficial? Again, I do not think that anyone desires that CL, or any software developer, stops trying to protect their investments. However, in light of the financial struggles that have been alluded to, and the apparent ease of circumventing such "protection schemes", is it not wise to wait until "some scheme or another is going to prevail"? Personally, I think the competence of the "Software Liberators" is greatly underestimated. Any technological advances that are available to generate some form of protection are also going to be available for those who wish to circumvent it. The fight to protect software has raged on since software was first released. Every attempt thus far has been circumvented in one way or another. I do not foresee any universal solution in sight. I find it hard to believe that any system that is developed will ever sufficiently deter others from finding ways around it. That is not to say that developers should stop trying, there is a market for such protection, just that until a successful scheme is derived any attempt to use those schemes ends up being futile. "The person who might otherwise make a copy or two for friends, who then might give away copies ... sometimes snowballs to many copies in use per legit copy - that's who this discourages, not the hard-core pirates." There is nothing that is stopping people from repackaging the "cracked/hacked" version and distributing it as well. Therefore, the insinuated effectiveness of the protection scheme is a false sense of security, IMHO. If someone was willing to give away "free" copies based off their "legit" copy, they are equally as likely to distribute the cracked/hacked version as well. I really do feel for those whose livelihoods and IP are adversely effected by criminal activities. But, logically, I do not see where any "protection scheme" at this stage of the game is a beneficial addition if, with a little help, they can be easily circumvented.