sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (05/27/90)
new@udel.EDU (Darren New) writes: >In article <960@tau.sm.luth.se> Karl-Gunnar Hultland <d87-khd@tau.luth.se> writes: >>But if a connect two 3.5 inchers through a black box and do a RAW mfm copy >>my Amiga wouldn't even have to be connected. >Certainly. But what percent of current pirates are going to have such a box >compared to the number that don't have such a box? Especially since the disks >could still be serialized or whatever. Sure, you could even have a disk duplicating >machine like big places have. But it's much less likely. All it takes is one such person to make an unprotected copy and that copy will be spread around. There is no perfect solution, there are not even any really good solutions. Whatever can be done, can be undone. The best solution is no copy protection IMHO. Since any copy protection development is just going to cut into the profit margin of the developer, and it will be defeated anyway if someone wants to defeat it. >>>I think a great number of current pirates would not >>>want to be cutting traces on their motherboards or whatever to defeat this. >>You'd be amazed if you knew what "devoted" pirates would do! If a computer company (like CBM, Atari, etc) went to the trouble to make the hardware itself be copy protection, I would not buy such a computer. It's INSULTING! The computer manufacterer is saying "we don't trust you, so we are going to stop you just in case." I don't need no steenking (TM) big brother to hold my hand and make sure I am honest or not. If they don't trust me, then fine, I won't buy there stuff , be it hardware or software. Heck, the harder you make it for someone to copy a program, the more likely it will be that someone *WILL* pirate it, just for the challenge of it. > Hardware support just cuts down the number of >pirates to the point where it is worth going after them with the FBI or >something. Like I said above, it only takes one *dedicated* pirate to break a piece of software, from that point onward, the result is that the software developer might have saved himself the trouble of putting copy protection on the disk cuz it doesn't matter any more. The only thing from that point forward that the copy protection effects is the honest purchasers, who can't make a decent backup, or install it on a hard drive because of the CP. And the way I feel about hardware support is that they might as well put a camera and tape recorder in the machine so they can do a really good job of playing big brother, eh? Ptui! -- 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
karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (05/27/90)
In <1861@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes: >If a computer company (like CBM, Atari, etc) went to the trouble to make >the hardware itself be copy protection, I would not buy such a computer. >It's INSULTING! The computer manufacterer is saying "we don't trust you, >so we are going to stop you just in case." >I don't need no steenking (TM) big brother to hold my hand and make sure I >am honest or not. If they don't trust me, then fine, I won't buy there stuff >, be it hardware or software. I see the possibilities of a low-cost, high-capacity read-only medium and the widespread use of inexpensive players (CD-ROM) stopping most piracy, at least for the era it is dominant in, if any. Once high capacity read-write optical of equal or higher capacity achieved substantial market penetration, all bets would again be off. -- -- uunet!sugar!karl -- Usenet access: (713) 438-5018