I was going to stop there, but I've decided to make a stab at delineating where I think the discussion stands. I expect that you will want to respond to this; then I suggest we let it lie. Perhaps other customers will step in and add their two cents. I believe we agree on each of these points: * The creator of something has a right to decide what happens to it. If they are selling it for money, they have a right to insist that those who use it, pay for it. * Software protection sucks. It has important costs. Therefore, if it is used, there had better be a damn good reason. I think this is why you want to see hard evidence. You would like to judge for yourself whether the vendor is simply being "lazy" in choosing "software protection" as the way to go. * Software protection is a conflict between customer and vendor because the vendor reaps the (alleged) direct benefit - protecting their sales, and the customer bears the worst costs - inconvenience at best, inability to use what they paid good money for at worst. You question whether the vendor has rationally assessed the benefit they are receiving. * This is a business transaction. The vendor is offering a product/service. The customer is offering money. Neither party is obligated to be altruistic. The goal is a win-win trade between two parties. It would be nice to have both sides feel friendly towards the other afterwards, but both vendors and customers have repeatedly shown that when push comes to shove they will act in their own self-interests. I think this is where vendors went astray. Rather than stating absurd cry-baby statistics about how much money they were losing to piracy, they should have taken a more direct businesslike approach: The Vendor: I've decided it is in my interests to use software protection. It is none of your business how many sales that saved me. Oh, you think that IS your business? You mean, if I can prove that it saves me countless sales, you'd suddenly be happier about what software protection costs you? Are you really that altruistic? Now, lets focus on the transaction: do we have a deal or don't we? The Customer: You have underestimated how much software protection costs ME. Here is why: [ insert the points that have been raised about how this harms the customer, including potential harm in scenarios such as vendor going out of business. ] The Vendor: I understand. Here is what I am doing to lessen those costs: [ the discussion I have been attempting to hold with you ] The Customer: Not good enough. I want you to drop software protection. The Vendor: No. Given what I have done to lessen those costs, do we have a deal yet? Most Customers: I'm not thrilled, but since you are the vendor offering what is closest to what I want, I will accept your deal. But be forewarned, I will be keeping an eye out for other vendors. A Few Customers: No. - - - - - Speculation: Look more closely at what you are feeling. Is part of the issue "this is unfair"? The vendor has chosen a solution that they believe protects them. There isn't a damn thing you can do about it. This won't change, unless the market grows large enough to support multiple vendors. At some point, one vendor may decide to try the "no software protection" deal. If not, that's life. They aren't obligated to meet your terms; you aren't obligated to buy anything. If you know how to run a business more effectively than they, then do so. If you are right, you will reap the benefits. If you are wrong, you will pay the costs. If you are clear-headed, you will quickly decide in uncertain cases to take the less risky course. Given a highly connected world, protecting intellectual property, even imperfectly, is less risky than not. All you have at stake is: one little piece of software might stop being available to you. A vendor has MUCH more at stake than that. Think about it. - - - - - Nuts. I went on farther than I meant to. I hope I don't push any of your buttons and make you defensive. I spent some time considering whether to delete that previous section, but I've decided to let it stand. Signing off for now (I will read your response, but I won't respond this week), -- ToolmakerSteve