I originally created this page back in 2002. Since then (I am writing this in December 2011), far too many software companies decided to incorporate Activation-style DRM into their products; keeping this list up-to-date would be a full-time exercise. In any case, the sensible thing to do these days is to assume that all software have DRM until you learn otherwise.
Fortunately, there are a few exceptions. In recent years, I bought a number of computer games from GOG.COM; they republish old (and not so old) titles, and do so without DRM. I am also a little bit less apprehensive about Microsoft; yes, Windows still has Activation, but it is surprisingly permissive even when no license key is ever entered. Who knows, maybe the software industry is slowly beginning to see the light much the same way as the music industry has: punishing paying customers by crippling the products they buy is not the right answer to piracy.
For the impatient: click here to jump directly to the table of Activation-protected products.
Some questions:
The answer to these questions, presumably, is no for most of us.
Then why would you buy software packages that incorporate a copy protection feature which, in essence, does all of the above and more?
This feature is called Product Activation. It has been around in various disguises over the years, but Microsoft's recent decision to add Product Activation to Windows XP suddenly legitimized this method.
Why is Product Activation wrong? For several reasons:
Although manufacturers may claim that these problems are made less severe by their policies (some of the Orwellian double-talk on their Web sites trying to convince customers of the "benefits" of Product Activation is outright frightening), one basic fact remains: you are at their mercy. If you are unable to contact them for some reason, if they refuse to activate your product, or if they are simply no longer in business, there is precious little you can do. (Taking matters into your own hands is not the answer either. At least in the United States, an attempt to defeat a copy protection measure is a felony, regardless of your reasons, courtesy of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.)
I have made it a personal policy not to use products with Product Activation on any of my computers, except for test purposes. I advise others to do the same, especially on systems they consider "mission critical". Unfortunately, software manufacturers don't seem to find it necessary to advertise in advance that their product is protected by a Product Activation feature.
For example, on the day I created this Web page (February 3, 2002) I installed the Canadian version of QuickTax 2001. I have used QuickTax for several years and, I must say, I am rather fond of the program. Unfortunately when the installation was complete, the software informed me that before it can be used, it needs to be Activated. I refused to activate the program, and I removed it from my computer. To add insult to injury, during deinstallation my QuickTax 2000 license appears to have become damaged, because that program no longer ran either. Fortunately, it was possible to reinstall QuickTax 2000 and gain access to my last year's tax files. I was then able to convert the data and import it using TAXWIZ, another Canadian tax preparation program that, thankfully, is not (yet) protected by Product Activation. I am planning to return my copy of QuickTax and ask for a full refund.
Or, to quote from an e-mail I received from a stranger in December, 2002 regarding Intuit's TurboTax: "I am sure the usage pattern is: install it, do the taxes, possibly keep it on machine for a year to plan next years taxes -- remove it -- get audit notice, reinstall it in a panick to recheck all your figures and print all the supporting forms (and hope like heck that Intuit still provides activation codes for your old version of the program, hasn't gone belly up, or been bought out by somebody, or just decided not to support old software)."
Update (January 10, 2003): the 2002 version of the tax preparation product I switched to last year, TaxWiz, also comes protected with Activation. As a result, I may have to prepare my tax returns by hand, since it appears there are no Canadian tax preparation packages left on the market that do not require Activation.
Update (February 26, 2003): I guess I learned the reason for the above: Taxamatic, the manufacturer of TaxWiz, was purchased last year by Intuit, the manufacturer of the very QuickTax that I quit using because of Activation. Argh.
Update (April 18, 2003): I decided to use ExpressInfo's MyTaxExpress. Their product works well, and it represents a marginally acceptable compromise: although the software is protected by a license key, this mechanism is used only for printing or netfiling your return. Kind of like the difference between a strip search vs. antitheft tags on merchandise... in both cases they treat you like a potential thief, but one method is a great deal less offensive than the other.
Update (December 9, 2003): I just spoke with Intuit Canada, and they explained that their product requires Activation only during the tax season, and afterwards it can be installed without restriction. However, when I pressed them for further answers, it was explained to me that even at a later time, the product will still "phone home", it is just that they will waive the license restrictions. In other words, if you're trying to reinstall it on an uninhabited island with no phone lines or Internet connection, you're out of luck. Sadly, this means that their product is not for me.
Update (February 29, 2004): This year, I'm using GriffTax. Made by a local company, and protected only by a license key, not (as far as I can tell) by a machine-specific activation code; unfortunately, the license key has to be validated through an Internet connection. In other words, ET still has to phone home. I have not tried if I can move the license files after validation to another machine and use them there; the manufacturer, however, does state that the product can be installed on multiple computers. Meanwhile, I received an e-mail from a correspondent who shall remain nameless, who writes: "I called Taxwiz support because I’d inadvertently deleted the confirmation containing the activation code. They told me I was out of luck, that I’d effectively 'deleted my software.' ('Don’t you READ the stuff? It said it was important to keep.') When I started protesting and asked to speak to a supervisor (no rude language) they hung up on me."
Are you a manufacturer who uses, or plans to use, Product Activation or some other copy protection mechanism? If so, presumably you do so in the hope of increased sales: namely in the hope that many of those who presently use bootleg copies of your product will, in fact, purchase a license when casual copying no longer works.
But consider: while you gain some customers this way, you'll also lose quite a few: legitimate customers who never intended to use bootleg copies in the first place, but are offended by the "crippleware" nature of activation and protection mechanisms, and the implication that all customers are viewed as potential crooks. Will there be a net gain in sales in the end? Even if there is a gain, will it be sufficient to justify the expense of developing and subsequently supporting a license protection feature? Will the net gain be worth the loss of good will that you cause by antagonizing your good customers (i.e., those who never intended to use other than properly licensed versions of your software)?
Yet another aspect of casual copying is the fact that casual copies often represent free advertising. Many stories are heard of people whose first encounter with a software package involved a bootleg copy, but once they tried the application and found that it met their needs, decided to not only purchase a copy, but spread the word afterwards. How significant is this with respect to your bottom line? I have no idea, and to tell the truth, I was always wary of this line of reasoning as an argument against copy protection. But when you put everything together... perhaps there is a reason why the most successful software company of all times, Microsoft, reached its peak by selling software that was not protected by technological measures at the time. (The situation is different today. But have you noticed that Microsoft doesn't seem to be growing as fast lately as it used to five or ten years ago?)
Update (March 31, 2003): I used to be an avid buyer of software. I like computer games. It was not unusual for me to browse through the games section in a computer store whenever I visited for some reason, and I occasionally picked up a game that looked promising. I don't do this anymore. You guessed it: it's because of my fear that the product may be Activation-protected. Food for thought.
Update (November 23, 2010): Recently, I began buying computer games again. Online, no less. That's because of a new site, GOG.com (GOG I believe stands for Great Old Games), that sells yesterday's titles at very low prices and free of DRM. Their games catalogue contains 20-year old titles as well as some fairly recent games. I hope they stay in business for a very long time.
To help others avoid similar nasty surprises, I decided to start this Web site, listing all products I am aware of that incorporate Product Activation. It is, without a doubt, only a teeny fraction of the programs that are on the market today and are protected by an Activation-style feature; if more are not seen here, it is because I nowadays avoid purchasing software unless I know in advance that there will not be an Activation "surprise" waiting for me in the box.
The table below summarizes what I know about the Product Activation features in specific products either from first-hand experience, or from what I've been told by users of the software. Included are links to the manufacturer's Web site, the product Web site and (if available) and the relevant Web site describing the Product Activation feature. I expect that this list will grow over time, much to my regret.
The presence of a product on this list is not meant as an indicator of quality (or lack thereof.) For instance, StarNet's X-Win32 is one of my all-time favorites; thank goodness an activation-free version is available!
Please send your notes about errors or omissions, or about any products that should be added to this list to vttoth@vttoth.com.
Disclaimer: as a software author myself, I am a strong opponent of software piracy. I use only products that I paid for, and I urge everyone to not use, or give away, unauthorized copies. My opposition to Product Activation is based on my conviction that this feature "punishes the innocent" (legitimate purchasers) and limits traditional "fair use" rights through a misuse of technology.
accesses to this Web page since February 3, 2002.
"Don't do it, daughter. Just don't do it."
"I'll think about it," she said coldly.
"I had a cat once, when I was a boy," the abbot murmured slowly. "He was a big gray tomcat with shoulders like a small bulldog and a head and neck to match, and that sort of slouchy insolence that makes some of them look like the Devil's own. He was pure cat. Do you know cats?"
"A little."
"Cat lovers don't know cats. You cant love all cats if you know cats, and the ones you love if you know them are the ones the cat lovers don't even like. Zeke was that kind of a cat."
"This has a moral, of course?" She was watching him suspiciously.
"Only that I killed him."
"Stop. Whatever you're about to say, stop."
"A truck hit him, crushed his back legs. He dragged himself under the house. Once in a while he'd make a noise like a cat fight and thrash around a little, but mostly he just lay quietly and waited. 'He ought to be destroyed,' they kept telling me. After a few hours he dragged himself from under the house. Crying for help. 'He ought to be destroyed,' they said. I wouldn't let them do it. They said it was cruel to let him live. So finally I said I'd do it myself, if it had to be done. I got a gun and a shovel and took him out to the edge of the woods. I stretched him out on the ground while I dug a hole. Then I shot him through the head. It was a small-bore rifle. Zeke thrashed a couple of times, then got up and started dragging himself toward some bushes. I shot him again. It knocked him flat, so I thought he was dead, and put him in the hole. After a couple of shovels of dirt, Zeke got up and pulled himself out of the hole and started for the bushes again. I was crying louder than the cat. I had to kill him with the shovel. I had to put him back in the hole and use the blade of the shovel like a cleaver, and while I was chopping with it, Zeke was still thrashing around. They told me later it was just spinal reflex, but I didn't believe it. I knew that cat. He wanted to get to those bushes and just lie there and wait. I wished to God that I had only let him get to those bushes and die the way a cat would if you just let it alone--with dignity. I never felt right about it. Zeke was only a cat, but--"
"Shut up!" she whispered.
"--but even the ancient pagans noticed that Nature imposes nothing on you that Nature doesn't prepare you to bear. If that is true even of a cat, then is it not more perfectly true of a creature with rational intellect and will--whatever you may believe of Heaven?"
Abbot Zerchi to a woman who suffered a fatal dose of radiation along with her daughter, and is now heading towards a euthanasia station. From A Canticle for Leibowitz, by Walter M. Miller, Jr.
Towards the end of last week, as the world's news networks were buzzing with the latest setback for Microsoft during their on-going legal battle with the US government, another important news item almost escaped my attention. A group of European hackers managed to finally break the encryption algorithm used on DVD to protect motion pictures against unauthorized copying.
This piece of news was interesting for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, it was the identity of those who did the crucial research that led to this breaking of the DVD encryption code. You see, they were not evil pirates bent on to rob the movie industry from hard-earned profits by illegally distributing bootleg copies of Star Wars or Titanic. No, it was a bunch of Linux programmers who had but one desire: they wanted to watch, on computers equipped with the Linux operating system, movies that they purchased legitimately.
The trouble is, they couldn't, and it isn't even because of an evil Microsoft conspiracy for Windows hegemony. DVD movies are encoded using a proprietary encryption algorithm that remains, to this day, the property of the DVD Consortium. This algorithm is released under strict confidentiality agreements, and licensed for a fee. These terms are incompatible with the way Linux system software, such as software drivers that would be required for DVD playback, are released. Linux and its components are protected by the GNU Public License which, simply speaking, requires that any derived work be released along with full source code. Therefore, it is fundamentally impossible to incorporate proprietary information into a Linux driver package. As for the license fees, since Linux and its system-level components are distributed for free, programmers would have no opportunity to recover the significant financial investment that such a license requires. In other words, we have a lose-lose situation.
Or do we? An enthusiastic group of Linux programmers was intent on proving otherwise. Rather than obtaining a license from the DVD Consortium, they decided to reverse engineer a DVD player. Prudently, they began to disassemble a software player rather than reverse engineer a hardware device, a much more difficult and costly exercise. As luck would have it, they hit the mother lode, so to speak; they stumbled upon a software design shortcoming that allowed them to recover not only the decryption algorithm, but a decryption key as well with laughable ease (basically, something that was supposed to be encrypted, wasn't, or so the news reports say.) This also allowed them to guess the values of many other valid decryption keys.
How was it possible, you ask? Could it be that the mighty DVD Consortium, comprised of industry giants the likes of SONY and others, goofed? Indeed, that seems to be the case; they goofed on several fronts in fact.
First, they goofed because they used a proprietary encryption algorithm. The history of cryptography clearly shows that the strongest encryption algorithms are those that have been made public, and tested thoroughly through the peer-review process. A proprietary algorithm is an algorithm with flaws that are waiting to be discovered.
They also goofed because they didn't enforce their own licensing terms with sufficient vigor; in particular, some argue that permitting the implementation of the DVD decryption algorithm in software was a mistake by itself, because it permitted easy reverse engineering.
But the biggest goof was their initial assumption: namely, that copy protection is an effective deterrent to piracy. The history of commercial software proves that this is not the case. The software industry briefly experimented with copy protection during the early 1980s. In the end it became evident: not only can dedicated pirates break copy protection with much less of an effort than it took to create the copy protection algorithms in the first place, even lay users were able to copy protected software with ease, thanks to the many disk copy programs that came into existence. "Breaking" the copy protection of a Commodore-64 or IBM PC game program was reduced to finding the right copy program from a set of a half dozen or fewer alternatives.
The movie industry apparently hasn't learned this lesson yet. They still believe that copy protection will protect their copyright assets. They still fail to realize that in reality, copy protection accomplishes only one thing: it makes the lives of legitimate customers miserable without deterring pirates the slightest.
Take, for instance, DVD region coding. It's supposed to prevent the playback of a movie on a player intended for a different world region. In the era of increasing globalization, the movie moguls decided to break the world up into six regions; in their grand vision of a brave future, a DVD you purchased in New York City becomes a useless coaster upon your return to Europe, for instance. This is supposed to protect their interests, in particular as it relates to the different release dates of movies in different parts of the world.
Except that the region code was broken with trivial ease soon after DVDs appeared on the market. Modified (code-free) receivers can be purchased with ease; modifications to DVD playback software are freely downloadable over the Web. Once again, it's the legitimate customer who suffers: when, for instance, someone returns from a year-long European assignment with an expensive DVD player purchased in Germany, said player will be useless with North American disks unless risky modifications are made.
Or take the infamous Macrovision copy protection. This protection mechanism introduces an extra signal into the video output of a player. This signal supposedly doesn't interfere with the quality of the video picture, but it does make it impossible to record the signal on a VCR. The emphasis is on the word "supposedly"; in reality, often the opposite is true. In my case, I have no difficulty recording Macrovision-encoded output on my high-end VCR, yet strange purple stripes appear on any DVD movie I attempt to play back using an analog loopback cable through my ATI tuner card in my computer. I wonder; given that I have paid good money for both my equipment and the movies I am trying to watch, is there someone I can sue? Do I smell the words class action here? (Never mind; who the devil has time for such legal nonsense?)
So what does this all have to do with the Microsoft monopoly (other than a coincidence of dates, that is), you ask? Pretty simple. One of the first major software companies that realized the futility of copy protection, and began to distribute their commercial products without such protection was none other but Microsoft Corporation. Movie moguls, take notice: Bill is richer than the rest of you put together...
Oh, but I forget. The US government says that Mr. William Gates is rich not because of anything decent he might have done, but because of an evil conspiracy for world domination. And we know that when the government says something, the government is always right, right?
