vinsci@soft.fi (Leonard Norrgard) (06/21/90)
In Denmark, a country I believe have signed the Berne convention, public libraries have begun to lend software to private persons. Perhaps publishers should stop selling software to/in Denmark? So far the project has been a real success I hear... :-/ -- Leonard
jwwalden@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (James Walden) (06/27/90)
In article <25535@usc.edu>, papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: > In article <18721@well.sf.ca.us> farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) writes: >> >>Only in the most convoluted of computations. The difference is that shop- >>lifting results in real, physical loss - some merchandise is gone, which >>must be paid for. Piracy does NOT result in any comparable loss. All of >>the losses are theoretical, a sort of "well, if there weren't any piracy, >>we'd have sold X% more than we actually did". This is a rather hazy sort >>of loss to put on a balance sheet. > > Losses are NOT theoretical. They are quite practical. The fact that these > losses cannot be put on a balance sheet, doesn't mean that they are not there. > It simply says that they cannot be easily computed. The fact that losses > are real is really simple to prove. I hate to tell you this, but theoretical does not mean not real. I would hate to think that my work is non-real physics. You're too eager to flame on this topic, despite the many smileys after each flame. Certainly piracy causes losses, but certainly not losses equal to the total price of all pirated copies in existence. Many people pirate many things that they couldn't or wouldn't buy. (Note that I am not saying 'all' before you start flaming as you usually do). > > Wake up, dude. You must have been sleeping :-) > I've seen quite a number of studies that have quantified, foe example, the > lost sales that Micropro had of their Wordstar program. The numbers are > staggering. A one point Micropro had 100,000 registered users and an > approximate user base of 500,000. No lost sales? Give me a break, man :-) > Once again, this doesn't mean that all those people would have purchased the product, although obviously there are some losses. >>In fact, of the few >>examples I've actually seen, dropping copy protection has resulted in a >>net INCREASE in sales, not the decrease you would expect. This has been >>true of games and applications as well. > > Wake up on this one too, Mike. Take a look at the computer games that > are on the shelves of Amiga software. You'll find it VERY HARD to find one > that is NOT copy protected. If your theory were true, they'll all be NOT > copy protected, "because dropping copy protection would result in net > increase in sales". I guess few people in the industry subscribe to your > "theory" :-) Gee, they really must not have your "13 years of experience > in the industry". :-) I think that he is primarily talking about productivity software where this is definitely true, although he did not say so. Many users refuse to purchase copy protected productivity software, myself among them. Copy protection for games does stop many kids from pirating them, although of course it will be cracked and up on all the pirate BBS's within a week or less. If you don't want to attack people, don't do it. The smileys don't help. James Walden jwwalden@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu "Objective truth is a social disease" - Nietzsche
ESDYKE@MTUS5.BITNET (Erick Dyke) (06/27/90)
DAT Stuff Follows: That was the original plan, but the companies producing DATs would not give in so according to Stereo Review the latest protection is done like I said in my earlier post. All the new DATs will be able to record at the sample rate of CD players, and take direct digital input. The real kicker to all of this is at least two of the DAT manufacturers have copy protection bypass in their top players, and no one is complaining. (Nakamichi & HK) So in summary: DAT->DAT One Digital Copy Only (Prerecorded) CD->DAT Unlimited Digital Copies CD->DAT->DAT One Digital Copy Only, and No Copies of the Copy. And the new protection does use an extra bit, so there is no loss of sound quality like was in the original DAT protection. Erick -- ESDYKE at MTUS5
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (06/27/90)
In article <90176.155439ESDYKE@MTUS5.BITNET> ESDYKE@MTUS5.BITNET (Erick Dyke) writes: ><90U702Unb2ZK01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com <1990Jun25.104017.803@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> > >Kent, as far as your 'perfect' security system goes, answer yet one more >question. > >I have two Amigas networked together sharing the same harddrive and printer. >What would I have to do, with the serial number solution, to have this >system work. Gee, I'd just use the computer I bought the program for; if that is a problem for you, buy two copies, or get a site license. I'm assuming a bit of ingenuity on the part of the software producers who write this stuff to let it run with more than one serial numbered machine if that has been paid for, without duplicating the entire distribution to make that work. >I do not want two copies of a program on my harddrive, Well, nobody's forcing you to buy a second copy if you can be content with using it on just one of the machines; if not, buy a site license. >I do not want to have to pay extra for a non-protected solution, Since even the computer dealers and developers are pirating software, according to reports published here, I doubt anyone would trust you, me, or the local clergy with a non-protected solution, so your wallet is perfectly safe. >and most of all I want to be able to demonstrate my software on other >peoples machines. Why? Do what I do, carry your machine with you. The secretary of TAUG, (Tidewater Amiga Users Group) had his Amiga rigged up on a cart he could roll in, plug in, turn on and go. Usual travelling salesman's headache; but nothing that hasn't been coped with for hundreds of years. Remember the traveling anvil salesman in The Music Man? Your problems are light ones compared to his. >Many a time I have sold a customer on a package by taking my copy to >their system, and showing them how it works in their office, on their >machine. Problem is, many's the sale you lost because his buddy did the same thing before you got there, and conveniently forgot to wipe the copy off the harddisk. Wake up and smell the coffee. >On the lighter side, I have taken adventure games that I have >purchased to friends Amigas to play at their house. My copy leaves their >place without being pirated, but they usually have a better stocked >fridge. :-) Anybody's got a better stocked fridge than mine; I'm jealous. Anyway, I solve this problem by putting my console, keyboard and cables in a suitcase, my monitor in the big denim sack I sewed for the purpose, toss in a few disks, and go. No problem about bringing up software on a machine where it doesn't work and fumbling the sale away trying to troubleshoot cables, add-in cards, strange shells, buggy background software and all. I like to do the trouble shooting after I've made the good impression, not before I have a chance. Saying "this software is serial number linked, so I have to show it to you on the machine it was purchased for" excuses the time you need to set up your machine. >Dont take this as a flame, but I dont think that you are looking at some of >the many flaws in this system. I feel in some ways it hurts the user >more than any other protection. Excluding non-passthru dongles, and >drive thrashers. At least with 'type in the word' protection I can take >the manual with me. I'll say it again; I want to be able to back up my software. If I can make multiple copies (back it up) and those copies can run on multiple machines, then I can pirate the software. You have to give up one or the other to ------------------------- ------- ---------------- prevent piracy. I choose to keep backups, and give up being able to run on every machine. You may choose to keep universal executablity and give up backups, you may choose to leave piracy rampant and the software market weak. That is your choice. I simply want to suggest what I see as a better choice. Manuals photocopy cheaply, any dedicated pirate is willing to type in a photocopy-proof code sheet (Some type in whole manuals!), ditto making a table of code wheel positions. I've seen all this done, and I won't tell you how much I've done myself in an earlier incarnation, but take my word for it, it's easy, the people doing it are bored, and they have time and labor to burn. What they end up burning is your software market, whether you are a developer, a consumer, the computer vendor, or a retail marketer. >Erick -- ESDYKE AT MTUS5 Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> -- Those invincibly ignorant bastards that have been running things ... for so long, throw them all out! -- Garrison Keillor
thor@wookumz.ai.mit.edu (Victor Salaman. Ray Cromwell) (06/27/90)
All this talk of serial numbers has given me the impression that some people think software pirates are people who somehow get a copy of the original software disk and 'copy' it with a program or hardware. And this simply isn't true. Most pirated software is cracked(broken) by European pirate groups who remove protection. Serial number protection is the easiest to remove. There are atleast 100 European crack groups, most of them very dedicated. An example of their dedication to cracking, is a while ago I saw a cracked version of space ace from readysoft floating around on bbses, and the file description said the entire disk based protection system was rewritten, along with the animation and compression loader routines. This must have took alot of work to do. So certainly, no serial number is going to prevent a challenge. Lots of these European groups make stunning demos, which shows their programming ability. I attended a 'user' group meeting once, and was marvelled by some of the technical sophistication of pirates. Most of the software had been cracked, cheated, and sometimes the graphics were even changed, and it was mass copied by duplication hardware w/ lots of onboard ram. (this was years ago, on a C64) I don't like copy protection, and I think its a waste of time, no security is 100% full proof and if sooner or later if the demand is large enough, some hacker is going to set down and remove the protection from software. Also, with the serial number system, what prevents someone from buying software, copying it, and returning it (that way the copy till runs on the original machine) Sorry to sound so pessimistic, but I always beleive that if someone wants something bad enough, they will get it done somehow. -Ray
Chuck.Phillips@FtCollins.NCR.COM (Chuck.Phillips) (06/27/90)
>>>>> On 25 Jun 90 20:54:39 GMT, ESDYKE@MTUS5.BITNET (Erick Dyke) said:
Erick> Kent, as far as your 'perfect' security system goes, answer yet one more
Erick> question.
Just a tad sarcaustic, eh? :-) I don't recal Kent referring to ID based
protection as "perfect".
Erick> I have two Amigas networked together sharing the same harddrive and printer.
Erick> What would I have to do, with the serial number solution, to have this
Erick> system work. I do not want two copies of a program on my harddrive, I do
Erick> not want to have to pay extra for a non-protected solution, ...
Good question. I posted a description of an example ID PROM implementation
on 6/25. To that, add a check whether the host machine or a machine
connected to the host machine is authorized to use the software. This
would require writing an interface for the software to query a remote
machine's ID PROM. (NOTE: A "net" isn't necessary. A simple serial port
to serial port connection would be sufficient.) If you want to get fancy,
one could set up a license server that allows X number of copies of the
program to execute simultaneously. Both Apollo and Sun provide this for
their workstations, so it _can_ be done.
Erick> ...and most of all I want to be able to demonstrate my software on
Erick> other peoples machines.
Then ID PROM based protection is probably not the best choice for you. If
your customers' machines could dial up your home machine with a modem, it
would be possible to use the ID PROM method, but I'm not about to claim
that this would be the best choice for you. (At least not with a straight
face. :-) I don't recommend the ID PROM method for games for the reasons
you outlined. I do recommend it for high ticket productivity software.
The advantage of ID PROM based protection is the _combination_ of the
following:
1. Fast and painless access. You (or your retailer) only set it up once,
after that you don't have to type in any keywords or rearrange conflicting
dongles to use the software.
2. No key disk is required. This is a _big deal_ for people like me, who
may have a lot of money riding on being able to use an expensive program.
(e.g. MIDI sequencing in a recording studio with a "pro" sequencing
package) Disks wear out, and the disk grinding with this method can't
prolong the life of the disk. I consider this form of copy protection the
least appropriate of all forms of copy protection for "productivity"
software. (e.g. finance, accounting, word processing, MIDI sequencing,
etc.)
3. Difficult and/or expensive to break the copy protection. (See my
previous posting.)
The (dis)advantage is that you can't run the software on an unauthorized
machine, or at least a machine that isn't connected somehow to an
authorized machine.
Erick> Dont take this as a flame, but I dont think that you are looking at some of
Erick> the many flaws in this system.
The ID based method has some definite advantages. I also like the "name
and address" method, but some software vendors (understandably) don't care
for it. Neither the ID or any other method of copy protection is going to
suit everyone, and I don't think Kent claimed otherwise. Making the ID
method available dosn't preclude using the other forms. What I'm
suggesting is that the ID method be made _available_, not _mandantory_.
Erick> I feel in some ways it hurts the user
Erick> more than any other protection. Excluding non-passthru dongles, and
Erick> drive thrashers. At least with 'type in the word' protection I can take
Erick> the manual with me.
And it 'type in the word" _can_ be copied. Software vendors have the right
to protect their works from unauthorized users, as users have the right not
to buy copy protected software. For productivity software, I believe an ID
based method would provide the robustness the users require combined with
the protection many vendors demand.
Erick> Erick -- ESDYKE AT MTUS5
--
Chuck Phillips MS440
NCR Microelectronics Chuck.Phillips%FtCollins.NCR.com
Ft. Collins, CO. 80525 uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!bach!chuckpnew@udel.EDU (Darren New) (06/27/90)
In article <12965@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax (Dave Haynie) writes: >According to audiophiles, this notch would make CDs >unacceptible for high quality recorded music. Presumably pre-recorded DATs >would also have received this treatment. In any case, at least THAT question >magically seemed to disappear when Sony bought that record company. I heard about this on a radio talk show. I think they even wanted to put the notch on vinal (sp?) records. There was an experiment done wherein listeners could play various selections of music with and without the notch (not knowing which was which) and then attempt to say which had the notch (like "Coke" or "Pepsi"? :-). Anyway, one piece had a picollo solo completely drop notes because they were just at the right frequency. I think the experiment was run by the Senate in some sense because the recording industry was trying to get a law passed that would require DAT manufacturers to put in the notch- detection circutry. I don't think it was "magic" that made the issue disappear, but rather the fact that audiophiles could detect the differences. Heck, I could hear the differences over the radio driving home from work in traffic! -- Darren
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (06/28/90)
>In article <2494@dftsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> xrtnt@amarna.gsfc.nasa.gov writes: >>Out of curiosity...it it legal to make a backup copy for yourself and >>lend/give/sell the original? >>Is this a grey area? I was wondering what the law on backup says. If >>verbotten I'll just give her both backup and original. Marco responds: >No, this is NOT a grey area. It's illegal. Period. I guess if you could sell >your car and keep a "backup" of the original, just to drive it once a year >you probably would keep it, right? Would that rip off the auto maker? >Just think about it (forget about the laws, for a moment). >-- Marco Ok, I want to play devil's advocate (so don't flame me!) first. two points: You are allowed to make a backup copy of software. You are usually licenced to only run one copy on one machine at any given time. ok? Now... It has been said in an earlier posting that you can lend your software to a friend and it is legal for him to use it, right? Just as long as you are not using it at the same time. In other words the software is usually licensed to be used on one machine at one time. And there are many places that keep off site backups, right? In case of fire or something. So there is no law that says the backup has to be kept in the same place as the original. So... What if you gave your friend the offsite backup, and when he wanted to borrow the software, he just used the backup, but of course, you make sure that you don't use your copy (Original) while he is using the backup? Sounds pretty much a gray area here, eh? Like I said, just playing devil's advocate. (all references to "you" in the above message is generic John Q. Public) --- John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 2400bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY) sparks@corpane.UUCP | | PH: (502) 968-DISK A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of. - Ogden Nash --- John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 2400bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY) sparks@corpane.UUCP | | PH: (502) 968-DISK A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of. - Ogden Nash -- John Sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 2400bps. Accessable via Starlink (Louisville KY) sparks@corpane.UUCP | | PH: (502) 968-DISK A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of. - Ogden Nash
bagchi@dip.eecs.umich.edu (Ranjan Bagchi) (06/28/90)
In article <CHUCK.PHILLIPS.90Jun27104441@halley.FtCollins.NCR.COM> Chuck.Phillips@FtCollins.NCR.COM (Chuck.Phillips) writes: [stuff deleted] >>>>>> On 25 Jun 90 20:54:39 GMT, ESDYKE@MTUS5.BITNET (Erick Dyke) said: >Good question. I posted a description of an example ID PROM implementation >on 6/25. To that, add a check whether the host machine or a machine >connected to the host machine is authorized to use the software. This >would require writing an interface for the software to query a remote >machine's ID PROM. (NOTE: A "net" isn't necessary. A simple serial port >to serial port connection would be sufficient.) If you want to get fancy, >one could set up a license server that allows X number of copies of the >program to execute simultaneously. Both Apollo and Sun provide this for >their workstations, so it _can_ be done. As noted before, this simply widens the already present hole the in the scheme, such that a hardware hacker now doesn't have to open up the amiga, but, rather, can simply whip up a dongle-type thing that can be slapped onto the serial port. What people seem to be missing is that anything put together by human beings can be taken apart by human beings. It really is a question of how long it takes to do it. Interestingly enough, the use of a difficult (cracker's point-of-view) copy protection scheme would act as a filter so only software worth the effort of cracking gets circulated in pirate circles. Anything mediocre would get left alone, because it's "not worth the effort." >-- >Chuck Phillips MS440 >NCR Microelectronics Chuck.Phillips%FtCollins.NCR.com >Ft. Collins, CO. 80525 uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!bach!chuckp
jwwalden@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Darc Tangent) (06/28/90)
In article <22897@snow-white.udel.EDU>, kosma%human-torch@stc.lockheed.com (Monty Kosma) writes: > > The only thing that all of the "open minded, tolerant people" in this country > won't tolerate is the person who is intolerant and has moral absolutes. -- You're right! Let's go out and shoot those sons of bitches! Darc Tangent jwwalden@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu "Objective truth is a social disease." - Nietzsche
ESDYKE@MTUS5.BITNET (Erick Dyke) (06/28/90)
I could say a lot in response to your 'solutions' that you gave but it
It seems that you have an answer for everything, I'll try to keep this short
in a vain attempt to make a point.
1) You suggest buying a site-license to use a program on two machines in
my home. Just what I need, spending more money on one piece of
software. I find this more inconvienent than Disk Thrashing.
2) You say no one is going to sell non-protected software for more money.
Take a look at magazine ads, many companies do this.
3) You seem to think that the serial number stuff is going to make piracy
go away. It wont, copiers today REMOVE lookup security, so serial
number checking would probably be no big deal. The code still has to
run on a 680XX series processor, and no matter how encoded it gets it
still at sometimes has to end up as simple machine code. Which can
be examined at any time on a wonderful multitasking machine.
4) You suggest hauling my system all over town. I dont know what system
you have but lugging a full blown 2000 with harddrives across town,
to a place where there is an almost identical machine is stupid, silly
and an unnecessary risk of equipment.
To sum it up, if this new protection scheme of yours means that I as an
honest user must, pay more to run on my 2 machines, haul my equipment across
town (disconnecting it every time), or purchase a copier that will
remove the protection (while helping someone get rich off of piracy),
I rould rather let piracy run wild.
The whole idea of the type in the word method, is that it does not treat the
average user as a crook, by being as convienent as possiable. Your method
treats me as a common crook.
Erick -- Wondering why many have to pay for the actions of the few.w-stephm@microsoft.UUCP (Stephan MUELLER) (06/29/90)
I've been reading this thread so long, I just had to add my $.03 (Cdn)
In article <1990Jun27.002024.27364@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) writes:
%Gee, I'd just use the computer I bought the program for; if that is a problem
%for you, buy two copies, or get a site license. I'm assuming a bit of
%ingenuity on the part of the software producers who write this stuff to
%let it run with more than one serial numbered machine if that has been paid
%for, without duplicating the entire distribution to make that work.
I didn't buy the program for a single computer, I bought it for a single
user: me. I should be able to install it on multiple machines as long
as I ensure that it isn't used on more than one of those machines at a
time. I am not going to buy two copies or a site license if I can make
that assurance.
Additionally, IMHO, if I (one person) am in a situation where I need to
run multiple copies of the program simultaneously (as in the case of the
networked user to whom you were replying above) I shouldn't need to
buy a second copy or a site license. Am I allowed to run multiple
copies of a program on one machine? Can I compile several programs
simultaneously? Or should I be buying a copy of my C compiler for every
instance of it that I run? Where is the significant difference when I
move one of my compiles to a second computer? One copy per user, not
per computer!
%Since even the computer dealers and developers are pirating software,
%according to reports published here, I doubt anyone would trust you,
%me, or the local clergy with a non-protected solution, so your wallet
%is perfectly safe.
A problem that needs to be dealt with. More below.
%>and most of all I want to be able to demonstrate my software on other
%>peoples machines.
%
%Why? Do what I do, carry your machine with you. The secretary of TAUG,
%(Tidewater Amiga Users Group) had his Amiga rigged up on a cart he could
%roll in, plug in, turn on and go. Usual travelling salesman's headache;
%but nothing that hasn't been coped with for hundreds of years. Remember
%the traveling anvil salesman in The Music Man? Your problems are light
%ones compared to his.
I'm not able to carry my machine around with me; it's a relatively
large system with lots of components and cables and stuff. Typical
mad scientist setup :-) In any case, my software goes with me where
my machine cannot. I'm glad it works for you, but IMHO, you are the
exception, rather than the rule.
%>On the lighter side, I have taken adventure games that I have
%>purchased to friends Amigas to play at their house. My copy leaves their
%>place without being pirated, but they usually have a better stocked
%>fridge. :-)
%
%Anybody's got a better stocked fridge than mine; I'm jealous. Anyway, I
%solve this problem by putting my console, keyboard and cables in a suitcase,
%my monitor in the big denim sack I sewed for the purpose, toss in a few disks,
%and go. No problem about bringing up software on a machine where it doesn't
%work and fumbling the sale away trying to troubleshoot cables, add-in cards,
%strange shells, buggy background software and all. I like to do the trouble
%shooting after I've made the good impression, not before I have a chance.
My fridge is pretty empty, but at least there's no mystery meat.
The problem with software not working on another computer shouldn't
exist. There's been enough discussion in this newsgroup about what
good programs do and do not do. One of the things they do do is
make best use of available resources. Another issue entirely, I know,
but I don't agree that broken software is a reasonable reason for the
serial number protection scheme.
I buy software for my use, anywhere I see fit. Software is inherently
portable; this is (to coin a phrase) a feature, not a bug.
%Saying "this software is serial number linked, so I have to show it to you
%on the machine it was purchased for" excuses the time you need to set up
%your machine.
... and immediately leaves a bad impression on me.
%I'll say it again; I want to be able to back up my software. If I can make
%multiple copies (back it up) and those copies can run on multiple machines,
%then I can pirate the software. You have to give up one or the other to
% ------------------------- ------- ----------------
%prevent piracy. I choose to keep backups, and give up being able to run on
%every machine. You may choose to keep universal executablity and give up
%backups, you may choose to leave piracy rampant and the software market weak.
%That is your choice. I simply want to suggest what I see as a better choice.
I'm sorry, I need both backups and multiple machine installability. For
me, then, the only solution is to live with piracy, or, better yet,
cure it through education. Anything which inconveniences users is not
likely to gain their support. Many people in this newsgroup have stated
they won't buy protected software. Lotus, Microsoft, Borland and
WordPerfect (just a random sampling) software is no longer copy-protected,
because users demanded the protection be removed. These companies are
not exactly hurting. Apparently some people are getting the message
that software must be paid for. In the games market, it may take longer
to get the message through, but it is getting there.
<idealism follows>
In a perfect software world:
- users would be happy because they have a supply of good software which
they have acquired through lawful means and which they can use to its
fullest anywhere, with as many backups as they please. The users are
free to lend software to their friends, as they would lend a book or
a car or a compact disc, secure in the knowledge that their friends
wouldn't make a copy for themselves.
- retailers and distributors wouldn't pirate software, since their brisk
sales to all the wonderful users would make them all successful.
- developers would be successful because of the honest users and hence
would be able to always provide quality products, with good service,
free bug fixes and inexpensive upgrades.
<end of idealism>
Any solution that doesn't lead towards the above scenario is not
acceptable to me. At present, all three factions are in a position
where they can improve.
%Manuals photocopy cheaply, any dedicated pirate is willing to type in a
%photocopy-proof code sheet (Some type in whole manuals!), ditto making a
%table of code wheel positions. I've seen all this done, and I won't tell
%you how much I've done myself in an earlier incarnation, but take my word
%for it, it's easy, the people doing it are bored, and they have time and
%labor to burn.
Absolutely. So why did you (and I) cease in our less than noble
endeavours? Not because of any form of copy protection, but because
we grew up.
%Kent, the man from xanth.
%<xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
stephan(these be my words, not Microsoft's);hrlaser@crash.cts.com (Harv Laser) (06/29/90)
In article <25535@usc.edu> papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >I've seen quite a number of studies that have quantified, foe example, the >lost sales that Micropro had of their Wordstar program. The numbers are >staggering. A one point Micropro had 100,000 registered users and an >approximate user base of 500,000. No lost sales? Give me a break, man :-) > > >-- Marco > Micropro did something real interesting a couple years ago. They took out full page ads in PC World and that ilk and announced the "WordStar Upgrade Amnesty Plan." They'd just released a new MAJOR upgrade of WordStar (can't remember which version it was) which listed for $495.00. They would sell this upgrade (the FULL sales package - box, manuals, buncha disks, warranty, etc.) to anyone who provided a serial number from ANY older version of WordStar, for $79.95. YOu edidn't have to send in any old-version disks, you didn't have to send in _anything_ except a remittance and a serial number. I have no idea how their amnesty upgrade turned out nor how many new sales it generated (I'd like to know these things) but it was a novel approach to the old problem . BTW, WordStar's serial number appears onscreen each time any version of the program is run so one didn't even have to have any original label disks to get the number... it was obviously an appeal to get WordStar pirates to go legit and buy the real thing. I've never seen this done before or since by any software company. Harv People/Link: CBM*HARV
filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin) (06/30/90)
In <1990Jun26.090628.18273@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> Kent Paul Dolan wrote: >I've been programming, and had my head in the real world of computing, >from the general immaturity of your reply, a bit longer than you've >been alive. Stick _your_ head into the real world, where software >piracy bankrupts real companies whose software provides a real service >now lost to the Amiga user community, dissuades other companies from >publishing in the Amiga market, thus depriving us of good products, >and makes us all suspect as pirates, giving us the joys of copy >protected Amiga software that dies when the floppy disk wears out. I have a big problem with this method. Suppose my business depends on a piece of software. The publisher of this software goes out of business. I have to replace my computer for some reason -- it dies, is stolen, whatever. Now what? I have no recourse, no way to get that software running on the new system -- other than breaking the protection or labeling the new system with the old one's identification. This is unacceptable. The same problem comes with current copy protection schemes, but at least there are ways around the problem. With disk-based protection, I can probably get a copy program or device that will back up the disk. With word-in-the-manual, I can back the manual up if I really need to. Big-systems software protected in this fashion are not subject to this problem only because there is a higher level of confidence in the publishers of the software. This is not to say that they won't go out of business, etc., but that if they do, they will probably clean up after themselves -- hand out free keys, sell their licensing business to another firm, or whatever. Another reason this doesn't translate well from big systems was pointed out by another poster. It can be broken -- anything can be broken. It is successful on big systems not because of technical difficulty in defeating it, but due to the consequences AND LIKELIHOOD of getting caught. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Understand this: some people are always going to pirate; they will go to any length to do it. Witness the pirate clubs we're told of in Europe. (Let's not kid ourselves, anyway. I was a member of one in the US; I "released" a couple of Apple games myself, way back in the dark ages. The only reason we, as American Amiga users, can point the finger at Europe is that there are more Amigas over there so the piracy "action" is more obvious). The dedicated pirates will defeat the protection and make the software available to more casual pirates. Given this, what is the best way to prevent piracy? Discourage the dedicated pirate by making it too easy. Discourage the casual pirate by playing on his morals: For games: use very simple disk-based protection. If the protection check fails, start up with a banner describing how to buy the product -- where to write or call, how much, etc. Go into a demo mode. Allow the game to be fully played once, or for a short time, depending on the type of game. Then give the option to keep playing by entering a string such as "I AM A PIRATE AND A SCUM". The point is to make the protection too trivial to bother with, for a heavy-duty pirate, and to draw the casual pirate's attention to the fact that it IS commercial software and he IS pirating. For non-games: just don't protect it. Have a good manual, support and upgrade policies and quit whining because KAPTIN H00K has a pirated copy of your software (and every other program ever released -- none of which he knows how to use). If you must, include a small play-on-their-morals like an opening screen that reads "THANK YOU FOR PURCHASING SuperDuperPooperScooperCalc". No more. >Bela< sigh, knew I shouldn't have replied to this. I don't really want to foster this flame war. I just can't watch this blindness. Bela Lubkin * * // filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us Why do I mention CI$?? @ * * // belal@sco.com ...ucbvax!ucscc!{gorn!filbo,sco!belal} R Pentomino * \X/ Filbo @ Pyrzqxgl +1 408-476-4633, XBBS +1 408-476-4945
lngo@pikes.Colorado.EDU (Linh D. Ngo) (07/01/90)
An interesting form of copy protection I've noticed (to my dismay) is
that found on my Dungeon Master and Drakkhen. I've tried to back up my
originals and although the copy appears to work well, it dies after a
little bit of play. Drakkhen then goes on to say "don't play with pirated
software." This is very poetic, but seeing as how I'm the one who shelled
$50+ for it, it would be nice to be able to play without the fear that
my disk will get corrupted. Also, another bit of bad news: my Chambers of
the Sci-Mutant Priestess REQUIRES that the disk be unwrite-protected to
play. This is one of the worst practices, in my opinion. If the game
weren't so fun, I would've returned it long ago..
Linh Ngo/lngo@pikes.colorado.edu/Computer Science Engineering
"Thanks to be God"//
\X/cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (07/01/90)
filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us (Bela Lubkin) writes: }I have a big problem with this method. Suppose my business depends on a }piece of software. The publisher of this software goes out of business. }I have to replace my computer for some reason -- it dies, is stolen, }whatever. Now what? ... }... This is }unacceptable. I'm not sure what version of the real world you live in, but I guess you don't find very much 'acceptable' stuff. The fact of businesses depending on the continuing existence of some of their hardware and software suppliers is a *fact*of*life*. What do you do if your *hardware* supplier goes out of business, or decides to stop making/supporting your platform? The world is probably still filled with big IBM mainframes running in 1401-compatibility mode because their payroll program was written by some long-gone consultants in AutoCoder. A project I was working on *died* because we got trapped by a VMS upgrade: some stuff that we needed was _only_ available on the new system, and one of our big applications had not been ported forward yet. Out in the "real world", figuring in the prob of continued support for your hardware, software, materials, supplies, etc is just the way things are. If you bet your company on a huge Multics-based application, or the CDC6600, or on the DEC 36-bit machines, or... you're out of luck. }Big-systems software protected in this fashion are not subject to this }problem only because there is a higher level of confidence in the }publishers of the software. This is not to say that they won't go out }of business, etc., but that if they do, they will probably clean up }after themselves -- hand out free keys, sell their licensing business to }another firm, or whatever. This doesn't agree with my experience, speaking from a LONG history of working around orphaned, dead, etc, etc hardware platforms, software packages, peripherals, etc. Mostly, when your sole-supplier of *anything* goes under, you are in *deep* shit. Generally, there is no fanfare, no "free keys", no nothing: just a "sorry this number has been disconnected" when you try to call, or someone semi-politely informing you that they (or the company's successor) no longer support whatever-it-is. }Understand this: some people are always going to pirate; they will go to }any length to do it. So what is the point here? You can say *exactly* the same thing, word for for, about shoplifting. Should we follow the same policies you suggest? Make shoplifting EASY so the heavy-duty theives will get bored? The argument about morals sounds hopelessly naive: if these folks had any moral sensibilities to start with, they wouldn't be engaged in the whole activity in the first place. /Bernie\
farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) (07/02/90)
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) writes: >I've seen quite a number of studies that have quantified, foe example, the >lost sales that Micropro had of their Wordstar program. The numbers are >staggering. A one point Micropro had 100,000 registered users and an >approximate user base of 500,000. No lost sales? Give me a break, man :-) Marco, those aren't "lost sales". Show me the studies that show how many of those 400,000 folks would have bought WordStar if they didn't have a free copy. Guess what, guy - there aren't any such studies. And if there were, they wouldn't show a 400,000 copy loss. I'd guess that MicroPro would have been lucky to gain 20,000 more sales. And, by the way, I'd hesitate to accept those studies at face value - MicroPro had plenty of reason to try and "explain" why their sales weren't very good. A much better example would be WordPerfect - after all, they aren't copy protected, either, and their sales don't seem to be suffering a great deal. More to the point, they don't seem to have a particularly bad pirate problem, either. I've known five people now with pirated copies of WP - and all five have ended up paying for their copies. Could it be, do you think, that there are other things which will cause sales to increase even more than draconian copy protection schemes? >Take a look at the computer games that >are on the shelves of Amiga software. You'll find it VERY HARD to find one >that is NOT copy protected. If your theory were true, they'll all be NOT >copy protected, "because dropping copy protection would result in net >increase in sales". I guess few people in the industry subscribe to your >"theory" :-) Gee, they really must not have your "13 years of experience >in the industry". :-) No - they mostly don't. The vast majority of people in the game business have been in it less than five years. The burnout rate is horrendous - it takes a special kind of idiot to try and make a living doing computer games. And those that are in it accept, as a matter of faith, that copy protection is required. Faith, not reason. They're not interested in any other viewpoint, and part of the reason that they're not is simply because everybody else does it. They've bought into the same mindset that you have - the paranoid belief that there are thousands and thousands of people lurking right outside the doors, just waiting to rip you off. Oh, they're out there, all right - but they aren't there to steal your software as an alternative to paying for it, they're there to get free software which they would never, ever, ever pay for if they couldn't get it free. Can you really try and maintain that copy protection does any good whatsoever? If you do, you are the one who needs to wake up, not I. I have seen cracked copies of games with new and "unbreakable" copy protection schemes available on BBS systems within two or three DAYS of the product's release. I have seen kids with over a THOUSAND pirated games, and know that, if they had had to pay for their software, they would have had NONE. Pirates are pirates - there's damn few of them who are in the least bit interested in going "legit". As long as they can copy freely, they will copy freely, and all the copy protection schemes in the world aren't going to stop them; nor are they going to convert those "lost" sales into real sales. That's why I can't see calling them "lost" - you haven't lost what you never had. -- Mike Farren farren@well.sf.ca.us
FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (07/03/90)
Marco, I can't agree with you about pirating being "black and white". Legally it may be pretty easy to define who a pirate is. But intent prior knowledge, age, and possibly a few other factors paly a part in who has the high ground ethically. If software were sold like a book (oops I mean if software were produced and distributed like a book) then a lot of the grey areas would be gone. But it isn't, and they're not. Perhaps to you piracy is black and white but to a lot of people it isn't. I think education of users and easing of licensing restrictions is the best answer. You don't copy protect. If you wrote games would you keep the same viewpoint? Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com
FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (07/03/90)
Saify Lenwala says:
(paraphrased)- how about a machine serial number for software to use
as copy protection.
This will stop me from using the software on my second machine, on my
friends machine, at a user group demo, at a show demo. It is unacceptable.
I might accept it if the pricing were changed, however. Price the box, disc,
docs and one allowed serial number at $5 less than it is now. Allow extra
serial numbers at $1 each (for up to 5) at the time of purchase. Or vary
the numbers to suit but don't increase the price. Remember that you are
removing something I can do now and inconveniencing me. I want something
for what I am giving up. Maybe I could live with mailing in for extra
serial numbers when I register. Transferring serial numbers should
be at no charge except I pay for copies of whatever proof you want
and postage. Anything mailed back should be at no cost to me.
I could live with that but I fear that no one would buy hardware with
the serial number 9C9#LO`
***** line noise *****
the serial number because they wouldn't trust the software people to
not screw them worse than dongles. At least dongles can be moved to a
different machine! It would take an IFF-type standard with everybody
buying into it and warning notices on the boxes of major software
before I would be comfortable with the serial number route. At least
now if I feel a license is obnoxious, I can ignore the bad parts and
make my legal backups. It takes trust to give that up.
Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com
PS Marco talks tuff but you gotta like the copy protection he uses and
his licensing agreement.FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (07/03/90)
Kent, what about the guy who has multiple amigas? Does he have to buy multiple copies under your hardware protection scheme? How about demos at a friend's house, at a computer club, at a show? Lots of 'legitimate' uses are affected by the '1 copy per machine' rule. It isn't the way I want th world to compute, nosirree. And I think CBM's marketing people to tell any interested engineers that CBM isn't going to be interested in producing such machines since they won't sell. This humble opinion brought to you by: Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com "I don't like pirates but the solution shouldn't be worse than the problem now should it?" - me
bluneski@pogo.WV.TEK.COM (Bob Luneski) (07/04/90)
In article <18831@well.sf.ca.us> farren@well.sf.ca.us (Mike Farren) writes: >were, they wouldn't show a 400,000 copy loss. I'd guess that MicroPro >would have been lucky to gain 20,000 more sales. Even with your "expert" underestimate this is a SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF REVENUE! And yes it really does take food out of the mouths of babys. >...and thousands of people lurking right outside the doors, just waiting >to rip you off. Oh, they're out there, all right - but they aren't there >to steal your software as an alternative to paying for it, they're there >to get free software which they would never, ever, ever pay for if they >couldn't get it free. It's not free, it's STOLEN. >...I've known five people now with pirated copies of WP ... >...I have seen cracked >copies of games with new and "unbreakable" copy protection schemes available >on BBS systems within two or three DAYS of the product's release. I have >seen kids with over a THOUSAND pirated games, and know that, if they had >had to pay for their software, they would have had NONE. You appear to have an intimate knowedge of pirating activities. Have you reported any of these CRIMES to the authorities? >Pirates are pirates - there's damn few of them who are in the least bit >interested in going "legit". Wrong. Pirates who KNOWINGLY steal software are THEIVES. I think it's time to stop using euphemistic terminology and start calling them what they really are: CRIMINALS and THEIVES. >As long as they can copy freely, they will copy freely, >and all the copy protection schemes in the world aren't going to stop them; >nor are they going to convert those "lost" sales into real sales. That's >why I can't see calling them "lost" - you haven't lost what you never had. You're right, you would never get the hardcore criminals sales. BUT, it is the hardcore criminal who STEALS the software and makes it easily available to others that may otherwise pay for the software. It is these people that genuinely do represent lost sales. I am not talking about the person who buys software but violates the license agreement by using it on both his/her machines at home, or the kid who doesn't know any better. I am talking about the responsible adults who KNOWINGLY steal software. It's time to stop using the euphemism of Pirate. People who KNOWINGLY steal software are THEIVES. ____________________________________________________________________________ Bob Luneski bluneski@pogo.WV.TEK.COM The opinions expressed herein are my own and in no way reflect the opinions of Tektronix, Inc.
xanthian@zorch.SF-Bay.ORG (Kent Paul Dolan) (07/04/90)
FelineGrace@cup.portal.com writes: >Kent, what about the guy who has multiple amigas? Does he have to >buy multiple copies under your hardware protection scheme? Two points of view on this: first, there isn't really that much need for one person to be able to run one piece of software on more than one machine in the same house. If I want to play the game, and want my kid to play the game, on two computers, both at the same time, then I feel obliged to buy two copies! I am, after all, getting two complete customers' worth of use out of the software. Despite the above, I think most vendors would be willing to give you copies for more than one machine for which you can provide proof of common ownership at a very steep discount, about the price of a typical upgrade, just because it is more money for them, you only need one set of docs/fancy packaging, and you really do have the choice of taking turns playing the one copy if they won't sell you a second one cheap. >How about demos at a friend's house, at a computer club, at a show? Lots >of 'legitimate' uses are affected by the '1 copy per machine' rule. As I noted in a posting, I just carry my Amiga to club meetings, no problem! I think you can play a friend's games at his house, and invite him to your house to play your games; that's not a heavy price to play for a better software market. At a show, either you are playing the showperson's demo copy of the game, on his machine(s), or you are the showperson, and have brought along some (and therefore your) machine anyway. Not too much need for you to take your favorite game to a show to play on the newer, spiffier Amiga 4000; go to your dealer and play his sales copy on his machine. >It isn't the way I want th world to compute, nosirree. And I think >CBM's marketing people to tell any interested engineers that CBM isn't >going to be interested in producing such machines since they won't sell. Well, the mainframes are all serialized, and IBM isn't having the business slump you seem to expect. What I notice is that every problem that is brought up has a solution, but that people would rather live with the rotten software market the Amiga has than to suffer what are after all very modest inconveniences. I find the lack of robust business software for the Amiga a _major_ inconvenience, and ease of piracy the most obvious cause. >This humble opinion brought to you by: >Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com > >"I don't like pirates but the solution shouldn't be worse than the problem >now should it?" - me It wouldn't be, but too many people are unwilling to take an unprejudiced view of the proposal, attempting to find ways to make it work rather than reasons why it can't possibly work. And by the way, as a paying customer at Portal, can't you convince them to junk that garbage editor so you can fix damaged lines? Yuk! Talk about inconvenience! Kent, the man from xanth. <xanthian@Zorch.SF-Bay.ORG> <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us>
galpin@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Knight of the Mystic Sword) (07/05/90)
I think that this discussion about serial number protection on the Amiga is quite ridiculous. Even if one does not agree that this method of copy-protection would be an inconvienience, that determined pirates would find clever ways of bypassing even the most stringent of protection schemes, and that the addition of some standard form of serial number protection would cost extra $$$ that people would not be willing to spend.... THERE ARE OVER 1 MILLION AMIGA's OUT THERE WITHOUT SUCH A SCHEME! Can you really expect application programmers to begin developing Amiga software that uses this kind of protection when there would be very few users that actually have such a scheme installed? I find it hard to believe that people consider this a serious discussion. If C= had done it in 1985, then it might mean something.. but .. despite the ineffectiveness of such a policy due to persistent pirates (yes.. I call them pirates because I define a thief to be someone who steals something that directly deprives another individual of a product, while a pirate derives the creator/developer of their rightful revenue) :-) I see no way of actually implementing such a scheme, so such a discussion seems trivial. The reason that more developers don't develop for the Amiga is.. 1) There isn't a very large user base (especially in the US) 2) The Amiga market demands lower pricing then the IBM/MAC market 3) Most users of the Amiga do not buy it for advanced business applications The Wordperfect people (in a candid discussion) told me that sales simply weren't good enough to keep programmers involved in the development of Amiga WP 5.0.. which would allow the use of fonts like Macintosh WP. This is not just because of piracy.. but because many users don't need a high end word processor, so they choose one of the flashier Amiga word processors that support graphics and are less costly. I would LOVE to see Microsoft (despite AmigaBASIC), Lotus, Ashton-Tate, or Borland develop for the Amiga.. but I don't see it happening. A Borland representative explained to me that Borland was only planning to develop for MS-DOS in the near future (not even Macintosh), because the base of MS-DOS machines is SO large. So.. C= sell a couple million more Amigas.. and maybe we will finally see some of these companies change their mind. :-) Much of this is opinion loosely based on fact.. direct flames to alt.flame. -Dan -- ****************************************************************************** * Amiga // * Short (TM) Signature * DISCLAIMER: * * \\ // * galpin@UCSCB.UCSC.EDU * This space reserved for a * * \X/ Only* COMP. QUOTE: Only time will tell* clever disclaimer someday. * ******************************************************************************
Chuck.Phillips@FtCollins.NCR.COM (Chuck.Phillips) (07/05/90)
>>>>> On 5 Jul 90 03:45:37 GMT, galpin@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Knight of the Mystic Sword) said:
Knight> I think that this discussion about serial number protection on the Amiga is
Knight> quite ridiculous. ...
Knight> THERE ARE OVER 1 MILLION AMIGA's OUT THERE WITHOUT SUCH A SCHEME!
There's over 1 million Amiga's out there without 68030 accelerators. Yet
all can be upgraded at the owner's option, wallet permitting. CALM DOWN! :-)
Sheese. You'd think active circuit ID PROMS were some new, unproven
technology. It's all been done, folks. And it has been done longer than
the Amiga has existed. There are millions of workstations out there
employing just such a scheme. Now that there are Amigas with the number
crunching abilities of workstations and UNIX around the corner, it just
seems apropos that the _option_ of ID PROM based protection should exist on
the Amiga.
Knight> So.. C= sell a couple million more Amigas.. and maybe we will finally see some
Knight> of these companies change their mind. :-)
I suspect offering UNIX, a "standard" portable OS, was intended to
partially address this very issue.
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
--
Chuck Phillips MS440
NCR Microelectronics Chuck.Phillips%FtCollins.NCR.com
Ft. Collins, CO. 80525 uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!bach!chuckpkosma%human-torch@stc.lockheed.com (Monty Kosma) (07/06/90)
From: Kent Paul Dolan <xanthian@zorch.sf-bay.org> FelineGrace@cup.portal.com writes: >Kent, what about the guy who has multiple amigas? Does he have to >buy multiple copies under your hardware protection scheme? ... stuff deleted ... >How about demos at a friend's house, at a computer club, at a show? Lots >of 'legitimate' uses are affected by the '1 copy per machine' rule. As I noted in a posting, I just carry my Amiga to club meetings, no problem! okay, but how about this: the serial number is now in a PROM somewhere, so well, rather than just lug my whole computer around, I just pop the chip, and go off to my friend's house, the user group meeting, or whatever. Well, there's at least two bad things about this. I really *do* think that people will do it (pop the chips) (it's different to do that on an amiga vs. your typical unix workstation), and this may decrease reliability on the system (oops! I bent the pin on the chip!) and moreover, what's to stop the pirate from either duplicating PROMS or (probably more likely) removing or modifying the part of the code on the disk which holds the system serial number or which does the actual lookup into the prom. The pirates/ crackers are a pretty sophisticated bunch. I strongly feel that this form of protection isn't any harder for them to crack than current protection. I doubt I'm incorrect on that count, but it's possible--let me know. But anyway, I feel that the piracy which is most serious comes from these guys who crack software and then distribute it all over the world, and they will NOT be stopped by a serial number in ROM. The casual pirate (still a criminal, of course, but on a much lower scale with IMHO less harmful effects to the market than the cracker/pirates) will be affected by this type of protection, but so will the honest user (i.e. me). Seems that this solution doesn't solve the real problem.
Chuck.Phillips@FtCollins.NCR.COM (Chuck.Phillips) (07/06/90)
>>>>> On 5 Jul 90 18:49:45 GMT, kosma%human-torch@stc.lockheed.com (Monty Kosma) said:
Monty> okay, but how about this: the serial number is now in a PROM somewhere,
Monty> so well, rather than just lug my whole computer around, I just pop the
Monty> chip, and go off to my friend's house, the user group meeting, or
Monty> whatever. Well, there's at least two bad things about this. I
Monty> *do* think that really people will do it (pop the chips) ...
So do I.
Monty> ... and this may decrease reliability on the system...
...unless perhaps it is _designed_ to be removable. Alternately, (or in
addition) ID PROMS could be issued in pairs. (One for backup.) As far as
_system_ reliability, I don't think the _system_ should care whether you
have an ID PROM or not. Only protected software should, IMHO.
Monty> ...and moreover, what's to stop the pirate from either duplicating PROMS
How about if the cost of reverse engineering exceeded $10,000? See my 5/28
post about PROMS with active circuitry.
Monty> ...or (probably more likely) removing or modifying the part of the
Monty> code on the disk which holds the system serial number or which does
Monty> the actual lookup into the prom.
Better, but this can be made a lot more painful than you think. I agree
something like:
if (GetNextPromVal()!=MAGIC_NUMBER)
Fail();
Is trivial to defeat. Better would be to use sucessive values from the
active circuit/PROM to initialize many (perhaps 100s) of constants needed
for useful execution of the program. Now there are lots of calls that must
be circumvented and the cracker must determine in each case what constant
the program expected. (HINT: Not every constant need be 0 or 1.)
The most effective suggestion I've heard so far (sorry I don't recall your
name:-(), is to make a memory image of the running program. However, if
the encryption method is well designed, the resulting program will contain
the registered host ID, possibly encrypted. If the cracker keeps the
program to his/herself, they will probably never get caught, but then the
revenue loss is contained. If the cracker distributes the program, then at
the very least, the software company has the name and address of someone
for the police to contact for questioning.
Monty> The crackers are a pretty sophisticated bunch. I strongly feel that
Monty> this form of protection isn't any harder for them to crack than current
Monty> protection. I doubt I'm incorrect on that count, but it's possible--let
Monty> me know.
Harder than:
Look up word -- easily, for obvious reasons.
Disk based -- easily. Ultimately, you can duplicate the disk at a
very low level (e.g. MFM) using special hardware that will work for _any_
disk based protection scheme. Also note that disk based copy protection
often fails to allow execution if there is a significant change in CPU
performance.
Dongle -- Actually, an active circuit ID PROM _is_ a dongle. The
major difference is that the ID PROM is mapped to a user, while a dongle is
mapped to a package. Also, the ID PROM's owner is registered with the
manufacturer, and unlike most dongles, the ID PROM is _traceable_. NOTE:
ID PROM based protection has been used to guard software packages costing
over $100,000 for years. ID based protection is not perfect, but if
implemented correctly, can be very effective.
Monty> Seems that this solution doesn't solve the real problem.
It certainly doesn't solve _every_ problem, but neither do the
alternatives. As a user, my big beef is when productivity software uses
disk based protection. When the honest user needs it most, the disk fails
having been ground too many times, and there is no backup. Also, to the
professional user, time is $$ and switching dongles, typing in keywords and
reconfiguring dongles costs $$ every time the program is used. I and
others I know, avoid conventionally protected products for that very
reason, and disk based products in particular because of reliability.
Again, I don't recommend ID based protection for everything. I'm only
suggesting it be made a _choice_.
Just my own $0.02,
--
Chuck Phillips MS440
NCR Microelectronics Chuck.Phillips%FtCollins.NCR.com
Ft. Collins, CO. 80525 uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!bach!chuckpstewartw@cognos.UUCP (Stewart Winter) (07/07/90)
In article <2318@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >So... >What if you gave your friend the offsite backup, and when he wanted to >borrow the software, he just used the backup, but of course, you make sure >that you don't use your copy (Original) while he is using the backup? Bzzzt! (I couldn't resist). Backups are just that ... backups. If your using them regularily, then they aren't a backup (certainly not in the sense intended by the law). Hope this clears something up for you. -- Stewart Winter Cognos Incorporated S-mail: P.O. Box 9707 VOICE: (613) 738-1338 x3830 FAX: (613) 738-0002 3755 Riverside Drive UUCP: uunet!cognos!stewartw Ottawa, Ontario "The bird for the day is .... derbyan parakeet." CANADA K1G 3Z4
<LEEK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> (07/08/90)
In article <CHUCK.PHILLIPS.90Jul6125652@halley.FtCollins.NCR.COM>, Chuck.Phillips@FtCollins.NCR.COM (Chuck.Phillips) says: > >How about if the cost of reverse engineering exceeded $10,000? See my 5/28 >post about PROMS with active circuitry. There are quite a few ways to crack pseudo random number. Even with active circuit like shift registers or finite state machine, it is still possible to crack the design. The cost of reverse engineering would only slow down pirates. All you need is one person that crack the system and the cracked version would be spreading like wild fire (if the protected program was good in the first place.) > >Is trivial to defeat. Better would be to use sucessive values from the >active circuit/PROM to initialize many (perhaps 100s) of constants needed >for useful execution of the program. Now there are lots of calls that must >be circumvented and the cracker must determine in each case what constant >the program expected. (HINT: Not every constant need be 0 or 1.) So what constants to put in ? Wouldn't the constants be dependent on the applications ? Not everyone needs speed of light or electron rest mass in their program... > >The most effective suggestion I've heard so far (sorry I don't recall your >name:-(), is to make a memory image of the running program. However, if Kind of hard if the program is running in a shared memory style multitasking machines with half a dozen memory configuration unless it make stupid assumptions about the hardware configuration of the machine. (This is a BIG NO-NO !! ) > Just my own $0.02, >-- >Chuck Phillips MS440 >NCR Microelectronics Chuck.Phillips%FtCollins.NCR.com >Ft. Collins, CO. 80525 uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!bach!chuckp What about a new floppy drive controller that can handle variable data rates ? (This was suggested in How to read off MAC disk 5 ways a few months ago as a mean of dealing with MAC's variable disk speed formats.) It would allow users to read off almost any kind of disk (like MAC, 1.44M etc) with a standard Amiga drive. Note: Reading the floppy do no implied being able to write the floppy as the latter is really tricky and is dependent on the drive head and drive electronics. Supposing a program is written with a particular data rate than can only be read off but cannot be written (and hence duplicated) easily with a standard Amiga drive.... K. C. Lee
amhartma@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Andy Hartman (AmigaMan)) (07/08/90)
In article <8584@cognos.UUCP> stewartw@cognos.UUCP (Stewart Winter) writes: > Bzzzt! (I couldn't resist). > >Backups are just that ... backups. If your using them regularily, then >they aren't a backup (certainly not in the sense intended by the law). Bzzzt! (neither could I!) When I got my Workbench 1.3, I made a copy. I use that copy (a backup!?) everyday. I put the original away for safe keeping. The reason to keep a backup isn't so you can restore your original if it should go bad, it's so you can use a copy other than your original to be sure that nothing, in fact, DOES happen to your original. If I'm being a pirate because I use the copy to run while I keep my original safe, then come arrest me. (Please note that this is not intended to be an attack on Stewart, just his thoughts.) >Stewart Winter Cognos Incorporated S-mail: P.O. Box 9707 AMH * Andy Hartman | I'd deny half of this crap anyway!| /// * Indiana University |-----------------------------------| /// *++Construction++++++| amhartma@silver.ucs.indiana.edu | \\\/// *+++++++Zone+++++++++| AMHARTMA@rose.ucs.indiana.edu | \XX/
FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (07/09/90)
Bzzzt yourself Stwart Winter! I don't run the original disk I run the 'backup' so I can make another usable copy when the 'backup' craps out with a media error. Don't you? Doesn't everybody? Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com If this makes me a pirate, then "Yo Ho Ho"!
FelineGrace@cup.portal.com (Dana B Bourgeois) (07/09/90)
There are two classes of pirates in this discussion (well, at least two) and people seem to mix them up while talking about them. One type is the mystical 'cracker' pirate who is reputed to demolish any and all types of protection without pausing, slowing down, or breaking into a sweat, and who then casts the resulting program (sans protection) to the winds (well, onto the ring of pirate BBS that the whole world taps into) resulting in every other person getting an illegal copy of the program. The other type of pirate is everybody else who uses a copy without paying for it, gets a copy without paying for it, or uses a purchased copy on more than one CPU (depending on your exact definition). Now in my mind the first pirate is a a pest when he cracks the protection and a criminal as soon as he gives away or sells the first copy. No problem, he is a thief and is very destructive. But the second pirate is more difficult to define. In some cases I would not agree he is a thief, in others I would agree that while a thief he is not a great loss of revenue and should be educated not prosecuted, and of course there are cases where he is just as destructive as the first type of pirate. So when I refer to a pirate, I am talking about the second type. Someone like me. I make copies for my own use as backups despite what the license may say. I make copies to try out the software before I buy (and I do buy or I erase!) I use copies on more than one machine (but not at the same time). I can break copy protection but chose not to spend the time. That's the guy I would like to discuss because the first type of pirate is slime and I think we can all agree on at least that point. Dana Bourgeois @ cup.portal.com
Chuck.Phillips@FtCollins.NCR.COM (Chuck.Phillips) (07/09/90)
LEEK> There are quite a few ways to crack pseudo random number. Even with LEEK> active circuit like shift registers or finite state machine, it is LEEK> still possible to crack the design. The cost of reverse engineering LEEK> would only slow down pirates. All you need is one person that crack LEEK> the system and the cracked version would be spreading like wild fire LEEK> (if the protected program was good in the first place.) Looking for a challenge, eh? ;-) >Is trivial to defeat. Better would be to use sucessive values from the >active circuit/PROM to initialize many (perhaps 100s) of constants needed >for useful execution of the program. Now there are lots of calls that must >be circumvented and the cracker must determine in each case what constant >the program expected. (HINT: Not every constant need be 0 or 1.) LEEK> So what constants to put in ? Almost any non-toy, well written application will have many constants already. (e.g. Look through the AmigaDOS header files.) Something having the size and complexity of a "hello, world" program, I consider a "toy" program and not worth the effort of protection. LEEK> Wouldn't the constants be dependent on the applications ? Bingo. LEEK> Not everyone needs speed of light or electron rest mass LEEK> in their program... In fact, constants like "pi", "e" and "the speed of light" are exceptionally _poor_ choices for encryption precisely because they're easily guessed. >The most effective suggestion I've heard so far (sorry I don't recall your >name:-(), is to make a memory image of the running program. However, if LEEK> Kind of hard if the program is running in a shared memory style LEEK> multitasking machines with half a dozen memory configuration unless LEEK> it make stupid assumptions about the hardware configuration of the LEEK> machine. (This is a BIG NO-NO !! ) Hmm, a cracker preoccupied with portability. I admit I hadn't seriously considered the possibility. :-) Actually there has been a product _already advertised_ to create executables from memory images on the Amiga. Check out the current issue of "Amazing Computing". No, I don't own it. LEEK> What about a new floppy drive controller that can handle variable LEEK> data rates ? ... Supposing a program is written with a particular LEEK> data rate than can only be read off but cannot be written (and hence LEEK> duplicated) easily with a standard Amiga drive.... This can be circumvented by using specialized hardware, as I had pointed out. Ultimately _something_ has to be able to create the disks. I'm told you can read at a higher data density than you can write on an Amiga floppy drive, but even this can be circumvented by slowing down the drive via software. Perhaps one of the disk drive gurus out there would care to elaborate. No matter what form of disk based protection you use, disks themselves have a shelf life based partly on how often they are used. Eventually they wear out. Worse, some disk based forms of copy protection actually accelerate the process. _This_ more than any other reason, is why I object to disk based copy protection _on productivity software_. If I lose a game program, I've only lost the game. If I lose a productivity software package, I may lose man _years_ of effort. #include <std/disclaimer.h> Another $0.02 from, -- Chuck Phillips MS440 NCR Microelectronics Chuck.Phillips%FtCollins.NCR.com Ft. Collins, CO. 80525 uunet!ncrlnk!ncr-mpd!bach!chuckp
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (07/10/90)
stewartw@cognos.UUCP (Stewart Winter) writes: > Bzzzt! (I couldn't resist). >Backups are just that ... backups. If your using them regularily, then >they aren't a backup (certainly not in the sense intended by the law). > Hope this clears something up for you. BZZT! (neither could I) Backup are the ones to be used, not the Original. You make a backup, and put away the original for safe keeping. If the backup gets destroyed you take out the original and make another backup. A better word than backup would be 'duplicate', I guess. And as far as the law goes, I can make a backup and I can use the backup or the original, whichever I want. But using the original is not a bright idea. -- John Sparks | | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 2400bps. sparks@corpane.UUCP | | PH: (502) 968-DISK A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of. - Ogden Nash
hclausen@adspdk.CBMNET (Henrik Clausen) (07/11/90)
>In article <VINSCI.90Jun21020033@funic.soft.fi> vinsci@soft.fi (Leonard Norrgard) writes: > In Denmark, a country I believe have signed the Berne convention, >public libraries have begun to lend software to private persons. I'm involved in one of these projects, and it's strictly only PD stuff (Fish) The library bought an Amiga, 150 Fish disks, and invites anyone to copy. This is really great, gives people better things to play with than pirated stuff, and is one of the most successfull new initiatives of the library. > So far the project has been a real success I hear... :-/ Certainly! Machine's booked all day. -Henrik -- | Henrik Clausen, Graffiti Data (Fido: 2:230/22.33) | | ...{pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!cbmehq!adspdk!hclausen | \_______________AmigaDOS: Amiga's Divine Operating System________________/
nfs1675@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil ( Michael S Figg) (07/12/90)
In article <2524@corpane.UUCP>, sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: > stewartw@cognos.UUCP (Stewart Winter) writes: > > Backup are the ones to be used, not the Original. You make a backup, and > put away the original for safe keeping. > > John Sparks | | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 2400bps. I don't think you really mean 'backup' here. A backup as defined by Webster is "a reserve or substitute". So effectively the original would be the backup and what you are calling a backup would actually be a working copy. ---Mike, -- A man said to the Universe "Sir, I exist!" | Michael Figg DSAC-FSD "However," replied the Universe, | DLA Systems Automation Center "The fact has not created in me a | Columbus, Ohio sense of obligation."- Stephen Crane | mfigg@dsac.dla.mil CIS: 73777,360
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (07/14/90)
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: >}And as far as the law goes, I can make a backup and I can use the backup >}or the original, whichever I want. But using the original is not a bright idea. >Why is that? Why not just use the original, and use the backup as a backup. >If the original fails, you have two recourses depending on the nature of the >program: > a) you can do a 'restore' from the backup onto the original disk, and > start using it again, or > b) you can starting using the backup disk and return the original to > the manufacturer for replacement. Well, generally the license agreement says you can make a backup of the ORIGINAL disk, so making a backup of the backup, would be breaking the license agreement. But I doubt the license cops would come haul you away if you did it. also, I just feel safer putting the original away and using the backup. I know if the original worked to make one backup, and I keep it safe it will be able to let me make additional backups if I need them. And some programs will allow you to make a backup of them, but still need the original as a key disk. So you are supposed to use the backup and only use the original as a key. -- John Sparks | | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 2400bps. sparks@corpane.UUCP | | PH: (502) 968-DISK A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of. - Ogden Nash