>Bonnie,
>
>As I said, I don't use copy protection schemes. They only serve to keep honest people honest, hackers who want to make a copy will figure out how and do it. So, in my opinion, the only poeple that copy protection affects are the ones who wouldn't make the copy in the first place, my good clients. And coipy protection is an inconvience to them that I don't wan them to have to dela with.
>
>If someone copies illegally one of my applications I will fight them in court if I have some appreciable loss due to it. If I have no appreciable loss I won't waste my energy worrying about it.
>
>My message said that "If I ever was to use a copy protection scheme, I would use the dongle", why, because IMO it is the least obtrusive of all of the copy protection methods.

Actually there is a simple "non-instrusive" copy protection scheme that is not usually thought of as a copy protection scheme. Microsoft uses it as a standard practice in all their products. When you enter that little CD-key you are "branding" your copy. If you let someelse borrow the CD, and Microsoft happens to catch them, they will be able to tell whose CD it was copied from . Unless of course, you buy the product and don't register ...

Yeah I know. Hackers can figure out how to spoof the CD. But it works about as well as any copy protections. Not all pirates are geniuses, so you have some chance of catching pirates if they cost you money. And unlike other CP schemes there is no significant inconvenenience to the user.