szmanda@aluxp.UUCP (szmanda) (01/06/85)
I am posting an MS-Basic nibble copier to net.sources. It seems to be able
to circumvent the copy protection on all of the disks I have tried to copy.
As written, the program requires two disk drives, but I was able to hack my
own version so that only one disk drive is required. I should warn you that
a one disk version requires 80 swaps to copy a single disk - so be sure to
pack a lunch.
This program, written by Dennis Brothers, is being posted because of the recent
interest in backing up protected software. It is intended **only** for use
by persons who wish to exercise their legal right to produce archival copies
of software that they have purchased. It is **not** intended that this program
be used for unlawful purposes.
Chuck Szmanda
aluxp!szmanda
AT&T Bell Laboratories
Allentown PAbrad@gcc-opus.ARPA (Brad Parker) (01/08/85)
In article <195@aluxp.UUCP> szmanda@aluxp.UUCP (szmanda) writes: >I am posting an MS-Basic nibble copier to net.sources. It seems to be able >to circumvent the copy protection on all of the disks I have tried to copy. > >This program, written by Dennis Brothers, is being posted because of therecent >interest in backing up protected software. It is intended **only** for use >by persons who wish to exercise their legal right to produce archival copies >of software that they have purchased. It is **not* intended that this program >be used for unlawful purposes. > Chuck Szmanda As someone who makes their living off copy protected Mac software, I'm offended by your claim that this is "**not** intended that this program be used for unlawful purposes". Let's call a spade a spade. This program WILL be used to duplicate copy protected software, not always for backup purposes. Software WILL be ripped off by this program. I just had to set that straight. -- J Bradford Parker uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-opus!brad otherwise: what else is there ? "Say something once, Why say it again ?" - David Burne
ir408@sdcc6.UUCP (ir408) (01/11/85)
> > As someone who makes their living off copy protected Mac software, I'm offended > by your claim that this is "**not** intended that this program be used for > unlawful purposes". > > Let's call a spade a spade. This program WILL be used to duplicate copy > protected software, not always for backup purposes. Software WILL be > ripped off by this program. > > I just had to set that straight. > -- > > J Bradford Parker > uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-opus!brad > otherwise: what else is there ? > > "Say something once, Why say it again ?" > - David Burne As someone who has wasted a large amount of time (an invaluable commodity to some of us) replacing protected software, I find the cavalier attitude of Mr. Parker contemptable. As a "toolmaker" I know that I cannot control the purpose to which my tools are put, and am realistic enough to know that I cannot dictate morality to those who use the information I impart to them. I have one sure solution to the problem of having your ideas "ripped off". Don't have any. Judging by your most recent example, we will not be missing out on much. Jeff E Mandel MD SDCC6!IR408 UCSD Anesthesia Research P.S. - The person who wrote the song "Psycho Killer" spells his name David BYRNE.
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (01/12/85)
> As someone who makes their living off copy protected Mac software, I'm offended > by your claim that this is "**not** intended that this program be used for > unlawful purposes". > > Let's call a spade a spade. OK...Anyone who makes his living off copy protected software is making a living by ripping off his customers. Not all (perhaps not even most) software pirates are consumers. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
gnu@sun.uucp (John Gilmore) (01/14/85)
In article <314159@foo.UUCP> bar@hack.UUCP (nUxi) writes: >I am posting a fast Unix dump program to net.sources. It seems to be able >to circumvent the permission bits on all of the disks I have tried to copy. > >This program, written by a friend, is being posted because of the recent >interest in backing up protected software. It is intended **only** for use >by persons who wish to exercise their legal right to produce archival copies >of software that they have purchased. It is **not* intended that this program >be used for unlawful purposes. > nUxi-matic As someone who makes their living off trade secret protected Unix software, I'm offended by your claim that this is "**not** intended that this program be used for unlawful purposes". Let's call a spade a spade. This program WILL be used to duplicate trade secret protected software, not always for backup purposes. Software WILL be ripped off by this program. I just had to set that straight. J C Gnu X-}
darryl@ISM780.UUCP (01/14/85)
>As someone who makes their living off copy protected Mac software, I'm offended >by your claim that this is "**not** intended that this program be used for >unlawful purposes". I'm offended too. But I'm offended because you (and many others) feel the need in the first place. It's too bad, and I certainly don't have a solution. But, given the choice, I'll buy an unprotected program over a relatively equivalent protected one. I give my support ($$) to those that serve me best, and part of that service is the ability to build backups and system disks in a rational way. --Darryl Richman, INTERACTIVE Systems Inc. ...!cca!ima!ism780!darryl The views expressed above are my opinions only.
brad@gcc-opus.ARPA (Brad Parker) (01/14/85)
In article <1858@sdcc6.UUCP> ir408@sdcc6.UUCP (ir408) writes: >As someone who has wasted a large amount of time (an invaluable >commodity to some of us) replacing protected software, I find the >cavalier attitude of Mr. Parker contemptable. As a "toolmaker" I know >that I cannot control the purpose to which my tools are put, and am >realistic enough to know that I cannot dictate morality to those who use >the information I impart to them. I have one sure solution to the >problem of having your ideas "ripped off". Don't have any. Judging by >your most recent example, we will not be missing out on much. > >Jeff E Mandel MD >SDCC6!IR408 >UCSD Anesthesia Research > In reply, I hardly think I'm trying to dictate morality. I simply think that posting such a program to a public net might not be responcible. As to my ideas, you don't know me, so I doubt you could give an accurate synopsis. Thanks for the kind words. ps: you're right, it's Byrne. Sorry David. -- J Bradford Parker uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-opus!brad otherwise: what else is there ? "Say something once, Why say it again ?" - David Byrne
bill@haddock.UUCP (01/15/85)
I once bought a program with a plastic shrink-wrap around the licensing conditions. The conditions were so long that they continued on page 2, invisible since they were INSIDE the plastic wrap. The (lack of) logic displayed there still amuses me. -- Bill Torcaso "Anyone who wants these opinions can have them. They don't belong to my company."
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuqui Q. Koala) (01/16/85)
>>As someone who makes their living off copy protected Mac software, I'm offended >>by your claim that this is "**not** intended that this program be used for >>unlawful purposes". > >I'm offended too. But I'm offended because you (and many others) feel the >need in the first place. It's too bad, and I certainly don't have a >solution. I've seen a potential solution that I really like. Consulair, makers of Mac C, send out their product copy protected. If you want an unprotected version, you send them $25 and an additional licensing agreement that basically affirms you won't copy it illegally (and you sign it, so they have something legal to beat you up with if you do...). This allows the users that don't care about copy protection to have the software, but also allows those of us who need free access to the software a way of getting it while STILL protecting the manufacturers from abuse. Consulair, by the way, seems to have a good quality product and is trying to make it available in a way fair to everyone. I recommend it highly! chuq -- From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA Do not wait until tomorrow to tell someone you care. Tomorrow doesn't always come.
bill@haddock.UUCP (01/17/85)
Well, this is a complicated problem and I'm not sure what I really think
about piracy versus program protection.
I know that ${Jordan Marsh:-your local department store} raises its price
somewhat on each item sold to compensate itself for shoplifting. Is Jordan
Marsh ripping me off when I buy a shirt there? Am I being ripped off when
they install buzzer-gizmos to reduce shoplifting? In what way is commerce
in software fundamentally different or fundamentally the same as the above?
-- Bill Torcasobrad@gcc-opus.ARPA (Brad Parker) (01/17/85)
In article <1941@sun.uucp> gnu@sun.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: >In article <314159@foo.UUCP> bar@hack.UUCP (nUxi) writes: >>I am posting a fast Unix dump program to net.sources. It seems to be able >>to circumvent the permission bits on all of the disks I have tried to copy. >> >>This program, written by a friend, is being posted because of the recent >>interest in backing up protected software. It is intended **only** for use >>by persons who wish to exercise their legal right to produce archival copies >>of software that they have purchased. It is **not* intended that this program >>be used for unlawful purposes. >> nUxi-matic > >As someone who makes their living off trade secret protected Unix >software, I'm offended by your claim that this is "**not** intended >that this program be used for unlawful purposes". > >Let's call a spade a spade. This program WILL be used to duplicate >trade secret protected software, not always for backup purposes. >Software WILL be ripped off by this program. > >I just had to set that straight. > >J C Gnu X-} Reading this over, I can't believe I sound that way. :-) -- J Bradford Parker uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-opus!brad otherwise: what else is there ? "Say something once, Why say it again ?" - David Byrne
cjn@calmasd.UUCP (Cheryl Nemeth) (01/18/85)
How much of the cost of a program represents the copy protection scheme? Would it make sense to stop protecting, lower prices, and expect to sell more copies? -- Cheryl Nemeth All opinions expressed in this article are my own, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Calma Company or my cats. "Life is a series of rude awakenings" R. V. Winkle [Robert Asprin]
shor@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Melinda Shore) (01/20/85)
>From Bill Torcaso: >Am I being ripped off when >they install buzzer-gizmos to reduce shoplifting? In what way is commerce >in software fundamentally different or fundamentally the same as the above? When you buy a shirt, the buzzer-gizmo comes off. Melinda
szmanda@aluxp.UUCP (szmanda) (01/20/85)
> In article <1941@sun.uucp> gnu@sun.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > >In article <314159@foo.UUCP> bar@hack.UUCP (nUxi) writes: > >>I am posting a fast Unix dump program to net.sources. It seems to be able > >>to circumvent the permission bits on all of the disks I have tried to copy. > >> > >>This program, written by a friend, is being posted because of the recent > >>interest in backing up protected software. It is intended **only** for use > >>by persons who wish to exercise their legal right to produce archival copies > >>of software that they have purchased. It is **not* intended that this program > >>be used for unlawful purposes. > >> nUxi-matic > > > >As someone who makes their living off trade secret protected Unix > >software, I'm offended by your claim that this is "**not** intended > >that this program be used for unlawful purposes". > > > >Let's call a spade a spade. This program WILL be used to duplicate > >trade secret protected software, not always for backup purposes. > >Software WILL be ripped off by this program. > > > >I just had to set that straight. > > > >J C Gnu X-} > > Reading this over, I can't believe I sound that way. :-) > -- > > J Bradford Parker > uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-opus!brad > otherwise: what else is there ? > > "Say something once, Why say it again ?" > - David Byrne As the guy who started this exchange, I can't either. Peace, Chuck Szmanda aluxp!szmanda
ward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (01/23/85)
> > >From Bill Torcaso: > >Am I being ripped off when > >they install buzzer-gizmos to reduce shoplifting? In what way is commerce > >in software fundamentally different or fundamentally the same as the above? > > When you buy a shirt, the buzzer-gizmo comes off. > > Melinda When you buy a shirt, you don't have to worry about it turning into an empty box without warning, and you (generally) don't pay >$200 for a shirt. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307
bill@haddock.UUCP (01/30/85)
> >>From Bill Torcaso: >>Am I being ripped off when >>they install buzzer-gizmos to reduce shoplifting? In what way is commerce >>in software fundamentally different or fundamentally the same as the above? > >When you buy a shirt, the buzzer-gizmo comes off. > >Melinda Yes, but only because shirts are hard to copy. They are relatively easy to steal individually. The price of the protection is included in the price of the shirt, making it more expensive than it would be if people didn't steal shirts. I guess I don't see your point. -- Bill Torcaso