4640la@uf-csg.UUCP (Leor Amikam [cop4640]) (09/12/84)
I was wondering if anybody was interested about a copy protection scheme for PC-DOS using sector re-formatting. I am also interested in any other protection schemes that might be possible.
jaj@uvaee.UUCP (James A. Jokl) (12/04/85)
A friend who is not on the net asked me to post this. He is about to begin
selling a data base application designed to run on IBM PCs and compatables,
and wishes that it be copy protected. Will anyone with information on where
to purchase such copy protection software/hardware please respond to me by
mail. If there is sufficient interest, I will summarize to the net.
James Jokl
CSNET: jaj@virginia
ARPANET: jaj%virginia@csnet-relay.ARPA
USENET: ....!decvax!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!uvaee!jaj
....!ucbvax!calma!edison!uvaee!jajbrown@nicmad.UUCP (12/06/85)
In article <506@uvaee.UUCP> jaj@uvaee.UUCP (James A. Jokl) writes: > >A friend who is not on the net asked me to post this. He is about to begin >selling a data base application designed to run on IBM PCs and compatables, >and wishes that it be copy protected. Will anyone with information on where >to purchase such copy protection software/hardware please respond to me by >mail. If there is sufficient interest, I will summarize to the net. I realize that you wanted e-mail about this, but I do want to get this point on to everyone. Now, this is personal opinion, so take that in mind. If I were you, I would tell your friend to forget it. Some companies all ready have. Because of hard disks, and the fact that they do fail, any copy protection scheme that puts something up there (like Softguard on Lotus 123, and others), will have problems if the disk fails. You will have to either reformat or replace it. The protection information is then lost. More trouble than it is worth. But, here is the biggest reason of all. Copy protection doesn't really protect anything. Why? Because soon after a new copy protection scheme is put onto a diskette, someone in computer land figures it out and gets around it. The cure is then placed upon BBS systems around the country. Case in point: Lotus 123, version 2.0, contains Softguard copy protection, version 2.03A. The way around it has been on BBSs for quite awhile now. Do you really think that it is worth the extra expense putting copy protection on a program (using professionally generated protection schemes like Softguard), when someone out there will break it? Sell it at a reasonable price and you won't have to. End of opinion. [Here come the flames :-(] -- ihnp4------\ harvard-\ \ Mr. Video seismo!uwvax!nicmad!brown topaz-/ / decvax------/
kim@mips.UUCP (Kim DeVaughn) (12/07/85)
[ ... go ahead, eat my bits ... ] > A friend who is not on the net asked me to post this. He is about to begin > selling a data base application designed to run on IBM PCs and compatables, > and wishes that it be copy protected. Will anyone with information on where > to purchase such copy protection software/hardware please respond to me by > mail. If there is sufficient interest, I will summarize to the net. I would advise your friend to take a page from the Borland Success Story, and put copy protection where it belongs ... in GOOD documentation, and GOOD technical support (i.e., you only provide technical support and/or product upgrades to Registered owners), with special "site" licenses for corporations and schools, if the product warrents it. [ climbing onto the soapbox, again ... ] This prevents Hard-Disk Hassles, reduces product cost, improves reliability, improves customer relations, and promotes good-will. ANY copy-protection scheme (or, more accurately, execution-protection scheme) can and will be be "cracked". This is a fact of life. The rational approach is to make the best of a stuation that cannot be changed (unless you find a way to alter human nature), and to find ways of cutting your losses ... WITHOUT BURDENING YOUR CUSTOMERS, OR ASSUMING THEY ARE ALL THIEVES! I'm sure that Borland *has* lost some sales, but then nearly every company that sells a product has some "shoplifting" to contend with ... its a fact of life, and is factored into their markup. All in all, I don't think they (Borland) has done too badly ... you ought to see their offices in Scotts Valley! Copy-protection only harms the honest user ... if one wants to break ANY scheme, one can (and that includes Dongles). Kind of reminds me of the East vs. West arms race, and is just as stupid! [ steps down off soapbox ... ] Please tell your friend to at least consider the Borland Methodology as an alternative. /kim Disclaimer: Not necessarily the opinion of my employer ... but then, they DON'T buy software that's copy-protected, either! Gotcha: This has been a "Licensed" posting. If you have read even so much as the first line, you have agreed to agree with whatever I want you to agree with. The fact that you are reading THIS line is construed to be an indication of your acceptance of this Agreement. The fact that you did not know you were doing this at the time is of no importance whatsoever, and is just your bad luck. Specifically, you are prohibited from "disassembling" or otherwise "reverse engineering" this posting. You may not use any words contained herein in any manner whatsoever without the written permission of the Author. Likewise, you may not correct any misspellings, gramatical errors, or otherwise alter any character or string of characters in this posting. Participating in (or aiding in the participation of) one of the above acts will compromise valuable Trade Secrets of the Author, and will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Easter Bunny. I, on the other hand, have agreed to nothing, and make no promises of any kind to you or your agents or representitives. I provide no Guarantee, Warranty, or any other form of Encumbrance upon myself to do anything for you at all. If you have questions or comments concerning this License, you are encouraged to call me at 1-900-555-9979; if the music repeats itself more than 19 times, my line is probably out-of-service, so just try again later. Please have the Message number, Path, and Mailer revision number of this posting available. Also, your name, address, telephone number, credit-card number, age, sex, marital-status, birth-certificate number, and passport number will be required. You are advised not to call unless this information is available, as I will insist that you call back. Only one call per reader per posting per month will be permitted. Thank you for selecting this posting to read; I hope you will enjoy it! -- UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!mips!kim DDD: 415-960-1200 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems Inc, 1330 Charleston Rd, Mt View, CA 94043
reintom@rocky2.UUCP (Tom Reingold) (12/07/85)
>A friend who is not on the net asked me to post this. He is about to begin >selling a data base application designed to run on IBM PCs and compatables, >and wishes that it be copy protected. Will anyone with information on where >to purchase such copy protection software/hardware please respond to me by >mail. If there is sufficient interest, I will summarize to the net. > > James Jokl Tell your friend that if he wants his program to continue to sell, he should not copy protect it. Think of this: Copy protection may be an arguable measure from the vendor's point of view, but what does the customer gain from it? Is there a reason to conduct ANY business transaction if the CUSTOMER is not well served? Remember the lesson from Economics 101: The value of a good or service is not what it cost to produce but by what you can get for it. Tom Reingold
ejb@think.ARPA (Erik Bailey) (12/07/85)
In article <456@nicmad.UUCP> brown@nicmad.UUCP (Mr. Video) writes: >In article <506@uvaee.UUCP> jaj@uvaee.UUCP (James A. Jokl) writes: >> >>A friend ... >>selling a daTa Base Application Designed To Run on IBM PCs and compatables, >>and wishes that it be copy protected. ... > > . . . > >If I were you, I would tell your friend to forget it. ... Consider the motion seconded. >But, here is the biggest reason of all. Copy protection doesn't really >protect anything. ... Couldn't have said it better myself... :-) >... The cure is then placed upon BBS systems around the country. There are MANY BBSs with entire file sections devoted to unprotects. My favorite is prounlok, which permantly mangles PROLOK protection. But seriously, the lag time from release to hack is not long - maybe a month or so. Then the hack gets distributed and people implement it as if the software wasn't protected at all, and like the unprotect is some sort of dumb setup program. From then on: protection, NO. Pain in the *ss, *YES*. Point made. >End of opinion. [Here come the flames :-(] No flame here... -- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_- -_- -_- -_- -_- -_- -_- -_- -_- -_- -_- -_- -_- -_- -_- -_- -_- -_- Erik Bailey -- 7 Oak Knoll (USENET courtesy of ihnp4!godot!ejb Arlington, MA 02174 Thinking Machines Corp. ejb@think.com.arpa (617) 643-0732 Cambridge, MA) "I was walking in a forest one day and a tree fell in front of me, and I didn't hear it."
kvk@ihlpm.UUCP (Kevin) (12/08/85)
> > A friend who is not on the net asked me to post this. He is about to begin > selling a data base application designed to run on IBM PCs and compatables, > and wishes that it be copy protected. Will anyone with information on where > to purchase such copy protection software/hardware please respond to me by > mail. If there is sufficient interest, I will summarize to the net. > > James Jokl The December PC Tech Journal has an excellent article entitled "The Futility of Copy Protection" by David Small, which discusses numerous protection methods and how companies/people have gotten around them. Ignoring the issue of whether software should be copy-protected or not, I think from reading the article you can 1) Get an idea of what methods haven't worked so far, 2) Get an idea of how to copy-protect your own software using an existing method, and 3) deduce that no matter what you do, the best you can hope for is to keep your product copy-proof for 3-6 months. Kevin Kinder ihnp4!ihlpm!kvk The above comments are solely my own, and are not those of my employer, my family, or my dog Woody, although Woody agrees with me on most things.
johnl@ima.UUCP (12/09/85)
In article <506@uvaee.UUCP> jaj@uvaee.UUCP (James A. Jokl) writes: >A friend ... >selling a Data Base Application Designed To Run on IBM PCs and compatables, >and wishes that it be copy protected. ... Since there has been a great outpouring against copy protection here, I will try to paint the other side of the picture. Not to say that copy protection is a wonderful thing, but there are, unfortunately, good reasons why you would want to do it. First, it is certainly true that no matter how clever your copy protection is, people will figure out how to break it in a matter of months. However, just because it has been broken doesn't mean that every potential customer or even most potential customers have access to a broken copy, so copy protection does mean that many potential copiers will be deterred. I wish that I could believe that most people are honest and will not copy software illegally, but I can't. I mean, I know people who've gone into elementary schools and found that the first thing small children are taught to do with their Apples is to make illegal copies of various educational programs to use. The usual excuse is that they can't afford all of the software they want. Somehow, even the moderate level of morality that prevails today seems to go completely out the window where software is concerned. (I can't afford all of the fine oil paintings that I want, either, but that doesn't mean that I steal them from art galleries. Really, now, the cost for the canvas and paint for a painting can't be more than ten bucks, so how can they possibly justify charging $1,000 for it? Ditto for limited edition lithographs. But I digress.) Any canned copy protection scheme you can buy such as Prolok or Softguard has already been broken, so if you're serious about copy protection, you'll get at least a semi-custom one so that existing copy programs can't copy it. I can send along some names if need be. Second, you have to keep in mind the needs of the user when you implement your copy protection scheme. Allow hard disk installation, without needing the key disk to start up. Allow de-installation, so the user can move to another machine. Allow an extra install, for the poor user whose disk suddenly gets amnesia. Include a backup copy of the key disk in the package. When users call up with copy protection problems, tend to believe them. You have the names of your callers, after all. Third, good manuals go a long way toward encouraging people to buy legal copies of your program. The temptation to pirate is much greater when you know that if you got a legal copy, you wouldn't be any better off because the manual is worthless. Similarly, provide good technical support for your registered users. Let people register over the phone, if they haven't gotten around to sending in their registration card. The only things that will resolve the current copy protection mess is 1) a distribution medium that is easy to use, unlikely to fail, and hard to copy, and 2) a software market that is large enough and mature enough that authors can expect to make a living selling software for $10 to $50. We may be nearing the latter, but the former is nowhere near in sight, unless CD ROMs are an unexpected hit. John Levine, Javelin Software, Cambridge MA 617-494-1400 { decvax!cca | think | ihnp4 | cbosgd }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.ARPA The opinions above are solely those of a 12 year old hacker who has broken into my account, and not those of my employer or any other organization.
dgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (12/10/85)
While I don't like copy protection either, some of the myths posted
merit a response.
Myth 1: Since copy protection schemes are broken soon and the technique
posted on BBSs within a few weeks, they serve no purpose.
Fact: Copy protection schemes don't deter sophisticated users who call
BBSs and so forth, but they deter the overwhelming majority of
unsophisticated, lazy users. They don't stop theft but they do
slow it up.
Myth 2: Companies who copy protect their software think all their
customers are crooks.
Fact: Nope, they just know a lot of them are. And if you think
they're mistaken, look around.
Myth 3: If companies would price their products within reason, it would
deter piracy.
Fact: How much does the Microsoft Flight Simulator cost? How many
pirated copies have you seen? I rest my case.
I repeat that I'm AGAINST copy protection, but I understand why
companies resort to it (it's an inconvenience and an expense to them,
too, you know). Someone said something about it reminding him of the
arms race. Right ho! And just as difficult to see a solution that
doesn't involve re-engineering human nature.
--
D Gary Grady
Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706
(919) 684-3695
USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgarydgary@ecsvax.UUCP (D Gary Grady) (12/10/85)
In article <131300002@ima.UUCP> johnl@ima.UUCP writes: >Third, good manuals go a long way toward encouraging people to buy legal >copies of your program. The temptation to pirate is much greater when you >know that if you got a legal copy, you wouldn't be any better off because >the manual is worthless. Note that user-friendly, intuitive programs that don't NEED manuals encourage copying. I think this is why more and more games are designed to be unplayable without the manual. -- D Gary Grady Duke U Comp Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-3695 USENET: {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) (12/10/85)
> In article <131300002@ima.UUCP> johnl@ima.UUCP writes: > >Third, good manuals go a long way toward encouraging people to buy legal > >copies of your program. The temptation to pirate is much greater when you > >know that if you got a legal copy, you wouldn't be any better off because > >the manual is worthless. > > Note that user-friendly, intuitive programs that don't NEED manuals > encourage copying. I think this is why more and more games are designed > to be unplayable without the manual. > -- > D Gary Grady NOW I realize what is happening. A necessary manual is a dongle which doesn't have to be (electrically) plugged into the CPU. --henry schaffer
gbs@voder.UUCP (George Smith) (12/10/85)
In article <131300002@ima.UUCP>, johnl@ima.UUCP writes: > > Since there has been a great outpouring against copy protection here, I will > try to paint the other side of the picture. Not to say that copy protection > is a wonderful thing, but there are, unfortunately, good reasons why you > would want to do it. > > ... you have to keep in mind the needs of the user when you implement > your copy protection scheme. AHH! This is the heart of the matter. The poor soul who pays their hard earned cash is THE ONE THAT IS PUNISHED! Not the people who break legal and moral laws. The person that paid for the software has to put up with stupid key desks, never knowing when the master disk is about to go bad (always at a critical time). The person that steals the software has no such worries. Copy protection just hinders the legal purchaser in using the software and they are the ones who deserve far better. Hasn't Borland shown software vendors the light yet? > > ... good manuals go a long way toward encouraging people to buy legal > copies of your program. Another point that Borland has taken care of very nicely. The format that they use for their manuals is pretty much copy resistant for thiefs (note the correct term for a thief is "thief" - not "pirate" or "copier"). And their manuals are easy to produce in quantity, easy to package for shipment, easy to store, convenient to keep by the computer, etc, etc. > The only things that will resolve the current copy protection mess is ... > ... a software market that is large enough and mature enough that authors > can expect to make a living selling software for $10 to $50. Again, Borland has already shown the World that the time is ALREADY here. Borland products list anywhere from $35 to $99 but are readily available at large discounts. From all accounts in newspapers, magazines, and even television, Borland is doing QUITE well (thank goodness there is some sense in the world). > > John Levine, Javelin Software, Cambridge MA 617-494-1400 > { decvax!cca | think | ihnp4 | cbosgd }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.ARPA > > The opinions above are solely those of a 12 year old hacker who has broken > into my account, and not those of my employer or any other organization.
kim@mips.UUCP (Kim DeVaughn) (12/11/85)
> Allow hard disk installation, without needing > the key disk to start up. Allow de-installation, so the user can move to > another machine. Allow an extra install, for the poor user whose disk > suddenly gets amnesia. Include a backup copy of the key disk in the > package. All this should *only* add $40-$50 at the retail level, and increase the development time of the s/w, and decrease the reliability of the s/w, and make testing the s/w that much more difficult, AND BE COPIABLE WITHIN 3 MONTHS OR LESS ANYWAY! Oh yes, and *many* people, particularly corporations, simply will not buy it. Seems kinda silly to me ... Only my opinions, /kim -- UUCP: {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!mips!kim DDD: 415-960-1200 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems Inc, 1330 Charleston Rd, Mt View, CA 94043
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (12/11/85)
> The only things that will resolve the current copy protection mess is 1) a > distribution medium that is easy to use, unlikely to fail, and hard to copy, > and 2) a software market that is large enough and mature enough that authors > can expect to make a living selling software for $10 to $50. We may be nearing > the latter, but the former is nowhere near in sight, unless CD ROMs are an > unexpected hit. The only thing that will resolve the current copy protection mess is a new morality that recognizes the fact that information is (a) valuable, and (b) capable of being copied EXACTLY. Present morality regards theft as evil because it deprives others of property that they rightfully own. It is clear that copying something is really a different kind of action from stealing it, and until we have formed a consistent philosophical basis for reasoning what to do about such actions, these problems will persist. In re-reading this last paragraph, I realize it might look like I am saying that copying information owned by others should be permitted in general. I am not. I am, however, saying that the existence of valuable information poses moral problems which we have so far failed to address clearly.
33500911@sdcc13.UUCP ({|lit}) (12/13/85)
I've seen some interesting devices used on a friends computer. (Dare I mention it's a Commodore 64.) He has two programs from "Batteries Included" called Paper Clip and Spell Pack. To use them, he must insert a little blue thing into the joystick port. For the PC, I've seen a C compiler (Genesis, I think) that wouldn't run until part of itself was loaded from a little box plugged into the serial port. I heard a rumor at last January's CES in Las Vegas to the effect that IBM purchased a Sh**load of SONY CD MECHANISMS. That might make pirating (call it by it's real name) more difficult! Lets redirect the discussion from "WRONG/RIGHT" to alternate methods. --
jennings@aero.ARPA (Richard K. Jennings) (12/13/85)
I have been trying to get my PC-AT to transfer files using MS-Kermit versions 2.26-8. Things are fine over the phone to other PC's, but I can't get files transferred to a VAX running C-Kermit. There is a nasty TAC (which eats '@') between the PC and the VAX, and I suspect Kermit uses '@' for something. Is their a quick and easy fix to my problem, and if so what is it? Thanks, Rich.
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (12/13/85)
In article <131300002@ima.UUCP> johnl@ima.UUCP writes: > >In article <506@uvaee.UUCP> jaj@uvaee.UUCP (James A. Jokl) writes: >>A friend ... >>selling a Data Base Application Designed To Run on IBM PCs and compatables, >>and wishes that it be copy protected. ... > >Since there has been a great outpouring against copy protection here, I will >try to paint the other side of the picture. > >Second, you have to keep in mind the needs of the user when you implement >your copy protection scheme. Allow hard disk installation, without needing >the key disk to start up. Allow de-installation, so the user can move to >another machine. Allow an extra install, for the poor user whose disk >suddenly gets amnesia. Include a backup copy of the key disk in the >package. > This is *vital*, I will *not* buy a program that does not meet these *minimum* qualifications, that is unless I already have the copy protection breaker so I can install it on my hard disk rationally! Note that I am not talking about using the breaker to get an illegal copy, I am talking about using it to get my legally purchased program converted into a useable form. >Third, good manuals go a long way toward encouraging people to buy legal >copies of your program.... Similarly, provide good technical support for >your registered users. Let people register over the phone, if they haven't >gotten around to sending in their registration card. > Oh, and provide updates to registered users *very* cheaply, especially if the update involves a significant bug fix. (When I say very cheply, I am talking about only a small mark-up from the price of the medium - like maybe $10). >The only things that will resolve the current copy protection mess is 1) a >distribution medium that is easy to use, unlikely to fail, and hard to copy, >and 2) a software market that is large enough and mature enough that authors >can expect to make a living selling software for $10 to $50. We may be nearing >the latter, but the former is nowhere near in sight, unless CD ROMs are an >unexpected hit. > Actually, I find #1 unacceptable, as you said above it is important to allow machine migration and installation on hard disk. It is also vital that the user *not* be required to insert some special object to run the program, if a person owns more than a handful of such programs the pain of juggling the inserts will get out of hand. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (12/13/85)
In article <392@sdcc13.UUCP> 33500911@sdcc13.UUCP (Jim Hayes) writes: >I've seen some interesting devices used on a friends computer. (Dare I mention >it's a Commodore 64.) He has two programs from "Batteries Included" called >Paper Clip and Spell Pack. To use them, he must insert a little blue thing >into the joystick port. > >For the PC, I've seen a C compiler (Genesis, I think) that wouldn't >run until part of itself was loaded from a little box plugged into the >serial port. > Not acceptable, this is *no* different than requiring a key disk for the program to run. Look, when I am working on a project i commonly/regularly switch back and forth among an extended set of programs. If they all required this sort of an insert I would be shuffling the inserts all the time. What a PAIN, especially since my main reson for getting a hard disk was to *avoid* that very activity. I repeat, I *will* *not* *purchase* *any* program that requires any sort of a locking device to operate, period! When I *buy* a program I want to use it *freely*, without hinderence. If you can come up with a copy protection scheme that imposes *no* limits *whatever* on legitimate users it might be acceptable. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
c55-hc@ucbbuddy.BERKELEY.EDU (Brent Chapman) (12/15/85)
I'd be interested in hearing some comments on how the coming of read-only laser disks to the market will affect the copy protection situation. It seems to me that these disks would be reasonably hard to duplicate. If manufacturers can bring the prices down, we may yet have a viable alternative to copy protection, other than totally open software. Personally, for most of the work I do, I prefer not just unprotected disks, but source code, as well. In the micro world, about the only place you can get source is public domain, or from certain companies such as Beagle Brothers. While the quality of Beagle Bros. software is excellent, that is unfortunately untrue for most of the public domain source I have encountered (I have a fairly extensive collection of PD Pascal stuff for the IBM). Brent Chapman ucbvax!ucbugs!chapman
jra@jc3b21.UUCP (Jay R. Ashworth) (12/20/85)
Stanley Friesen writes:
... if a person owns more than two or three such packages, the pain of juggling
the inserts will get out of hand.
Also, consider the plight of the user who is running several packages at once,
under, say, TopView or GEM. How does he get 5 disks into his a: drive at
once?
-- jra
(Disclaimer: TopView is a trademark of IBM, and GEM of DRI. Neither of
them pays me any money.)
--
Jay R. Ashworth Proma Software jra@jc3b22.UUCP
Programmer/Analyst 9189 Park Blvd. (813) 399-1045
Boy Genius (:-) Seminole FL 33544 (So they tell me)
<Disclaimer> <Disclaimer-Disclaimer>