4 ms·
I agree, actually, that this sort of thing is a silly restriction. Or, rather, single machine licenses are counter-productive and silly (I'd be happy to see 2-5
by ErrantX 16y ago
I agree, actually, that this sort of thing is a silly restriction. Or, rather, single machine licenses are counter-productive and silly (I'd be happy to see 2-5 machine licenses etc. but I can understand limiting above that).
But is this why people pirate?
Generally speaking I would suggest not.
- johngunderman 16y agoI think the point he is trying to make is a bit more general than the number of licenses. I read it more as "People pirate because of poorly implemented DRM that negatively impacts the legitimate user."
- marcamillion 16y agoLess 'poorly implemented' DRM, rather any 'feature' that restricts natural use cases by legitimate users. The equivalent in the real world would be, buying a fork and being told you can only eat rice with it. Suppose you wanted to eat ice cream, or soup ? It would not be a good use case, but it's your fork. If you want to eat ice cream or soup with it, then you should be able to do whatever you want with it. That's the point. If I want to install the software on all of my computers to improve my workflow, I should be able to do that.
- anthonyb 16y agoExcept that that's likely to cannibalise sales, ie. in the case where people or businesses would have bought multiple licences.