haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) (01/04/88)
I am sorry to all those whom I have offended by suggesting
that software piracy was unusually high in the Amiga Market.
Software piracy is rampant throughout the home and buisness
markets!
Why has't some provision to protect software been included in
the hardware? Does C= think protectable software would hurt the
Amiga in some way?
Thanks,
Wade.
UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex
ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil
INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COMsean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (01/04/88)
In article <2258@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: > Why has't some provision to protect software been included in > the hardware? Does C= think protectable software would hurt the > Amiga in some way? Commodore would do well to think that hardware protection would hurt their market. Then, people like me wouldn't buy their machines. Would you? Sean -- -- Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@UKMA.BITNET -- (the Empire guy) {rutgers,uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!sean -- University of Kentucky in Lexington Kentucky, USA -- "My feet are wet."
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) (01/04/88)
In article <2258@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: > > Why has't some provision to protect software been included in > the hardware? Does C= think protectable software would hurt the > Amiga in some way? Ok, you're on... What precisely is it that we should be doing in the hardware? Remember: 1) The software has to somehow interact with the hardware "protection" and the crackers can bypass that check as easily as any other. 2) The hardware serialization scheme has drawbacks in that either it's too easy to change the serial, or too hard wherein you get scewed if you change machines. 3) The consumer software licences are generally oriented towards a user and his machine, not some specific machine. 4) Most software vendors/distributors aren't willing to undergo the expense of diskette serialization/encryption or any scheme whereby the consumer must call in with the serial number and receive a key. 5) No matter how detailed and devious the protection, the benefit lasts only until a cracked, unprotected version starts doing the rounds. Please, there are no simple solutions to the copy protection/piracy issues or you could be sure that IBM would have implemented them on the PS/2 series. There is an underlying social problem in that significant percentage of computer users do not respect the software provider's view of value and intellectual property. Unless you can provide some adjustment of this situation you are stuck with various accommodations and stategems. BTW, I've arrived at the conclusion, that by reimplementing the Amiga and omitting RAM and using cheap, read-only disk drives, the virus problem can be eliminated and all Amiga owners will be safe and content ever-after! -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|ihnp4|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@uunet.uu.net Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)
haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) (01/04/88)
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: >In article <2258@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: >> Why has't some provision to protect software been included in >> the hardware? Does C= think protectable software would hurt the >> Amiga in some way? > >Commodore would do well to think that hardware protection would hurt their >market. Then, people like me wouldn't buy their machines. Would you? > >Sean Why wouldn't you buy a system that supported some kinda of hardware protection? Lets suppose that the machine had a port on it made for a dongle, and that multiple dongles could be stacked upon one another. The software publisher then buys a dongle assignment from the manufacturer (maybe recieves the dongles and an encoder program from them). To run the software you must have the dongle. The computer manufacture could make the dongles expensive to copy in small quantities so that few would consider breaking the system through hardware. Assuming this would be feasible (I have not really thought it all the way through) it would mean A) cheaper software - because theft would be less of a factor and B) more software - because the buying market would be bigger. Both of which, in my mind, would be benificial. Also, no one would have to protect their software, so PD/PA would still be as it is. Thanks, Wade. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM
pdb@sei.cmu.edu (Patrick Barron) (01/05/88)
In article <2266@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: > Lets suppose that the machine had a port on it made for a > dongle, and that multiple dongles could be stacked upon one > another. The software publisher then buys a dongle assignment > from the manufacturer (maybe recieves the dongles and an encoder > program from them). > To run the software you must have the dongle. The computer > manufacture could make the dongles expensive to copy in small > quantities so that few would consider breaking the system through > hardware. I've used software that required a dongle. I'm not sure I'd ever consider buying such a package again. The dongle in question: a) Used one of my only two serial ports, b) Required its own power supply, and c) Had to be replaced several times due to malfunction. After several months of suffering with the thing, I went into DEBUG and patched it so it never looked for the dongle again. At his point, I would not use a package requiring a dongle unless: a) It did not make any of my hardware useless (like taking up a serial port), b) Did not require any external power, c) If it were to break, the vendor guarantees that I will have a new one "absolutely, positively overnight", d) The vendor guarantees that their dongle will not interfere with any other vendors, so that I may run as many dongle-protected packages as I want, simultaneously, and e) There was a patch that could be applied to run the software without the dongle, which would be provided to me by the vendor if they ever went out of business or something like that. --Pat.
haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) (01/05/88)
>In article <3072@cbmvax.UUCP> grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) writes: >>[part of one of my postings] >> Why has't some provision to protect software been included in >> the hardware? Does C= think protectable software would hurt the >> Amiga in some way? > >Ok, you're on... > >What precisely is it that we should be doing in the hardware? > I was thinking of factory dongles. A slot on the front of the machine into which dongles could be inserted, preferably stacked upon one another, up to some limit (say 8). Then C= (or whoever) would provide "factory dongles" to the software publisher. Because of the volume the manufacturer could do this at a lower price than anyone else. >Remember: > >1) The software has to somehow interact with the hardware "protection" > and the crackers can bypass that check as easily as any other. Rather than checking something, I was thinking it would use the hardware. Perhaps the dongle would be required to decode instructions, or return needed functional results, or ??? A number of games could be played with the read/write status of the pins, or sequencing of input/output, etc... >2) The hardware serialization scheme has drawbacks in that either it's > too easy to change the serial, or too hard wherein you get scewed if > you change machines. I'm not terribly in favor of serialization, but it would still be nice if it were there for the publisher to use if they wished. Not having it leaves no option but not to incorporate it. >3) The consumer software licences are generally oriented towards a user > and his machine, not some specific machine. With a dongle, you could switch machines. >4) Most software vendors/distributors aren't willing to undergo the expense > of diskette serialization/encryption or any scheme whereby the consumer > must call in with the serial number and receive a key. If serialization were provided, publisers/vendors/distrubutors would not be required to utilize it. Likewise, if a factory dongle solution were used, it would constitute an option, not a requirment. >5) No matter how detailed and devious the protection, the benefit lasts > only until a cracked, unprotected version starts doing the rounds. Yes, but if it is expensive or extremely time consuming to crack a program, it is less likely to be done. With a dongle the number of people who would attempt cracking the protection would be limited to those with specialized equiptment. Since there is not a lot of profit potential in this it would not be so likely to happen. Furthermore, if done correctly, a program could notice if it were operating without it's dongle and subtly torpedo the pirate. Perhaps waiting until a choice moment to strike, kind of like a virus. In this way, a pirated dongle-protected program would be a risk to use for anything serious. Confidence in the cracker would be required, and since most people wouldn't know who did the cracking... >Please, there are no simple solutions to the copy protection/piracy issues >or you could be sure that IBM would have implemented them on the PS/2 series. >There is an underlying social problem in that significant percentage of >computer users do not respect the software provider's view of value and >intellectual property. Unless you can provide some adjustment of this >situation you are stuck with various accommodations and stategems. I did not mean to imply that it was a simple problem. But I am sure that relying on peoples' "honesty" will not work. I have a friend at C= (they call him "Mr. Commodore") who was talking of offering rewards for info leading to the conviction of "Pirate BBS's". This also seems like a partial solution. Have you heard anything about this? Thanks, Wade. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM
shah1@houxa.UUCP (J.SHAH) (01/05/88)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
There have been a number of advocates of hardware copy protection schemes
on this group. May be these are SW developers who do not care
how user friendly their product is; to them protection is the only game
in town. Protection schemes make software very unfriendly (even the
software you buy legally). Why should I be encumbered with these schemes
after paying a reasonable amount of money for acquiring your software.
Besides there will always be a way to break copy protection schemes. C-64
software vendors used dongles (Batteries Included for example) but only
to find out that some hardworking hackers produced a freely copyable version
of their heavyly protected software. I have seen hardware devices that
assist in the copying of protected software ( Snapshot, and Icepic for the
C-64). In the IBM world there are programs (Copywrit, Copyiipc, and
Unlock) which copy 99% of the copy protected software. THe vendors of these
IBM-PC products allow you to copy their own products. IN the AMIGA world, some
of the copying software vendors are hypocritical e.g. you can use Marauder II
to copy everybody elses product except theirs e.g. it would not copy some
of the Discovery products.
Most of the software in the IBM world is not copy protected and the software
vendors are still making money. Most of the good C-64 software is copy
protected but the programs like Fasthack'em have made the protection
schemes useless. My main point is protection will be always be broken.
Copy protection never ensures software revenue protection.
Some people have hinted that A500 users are the real culprits. That is pure
nonsense. The suggestion that the elite A1000 and A2000 community never
copied each others software is as realistic as the fact that the sole use
of Marauder II is to backup your own legal software. What this people
are saying is like ensuring the honesty and integrity of a large group
of people. With the availability of A500 the software market for AMIGA
has expanded and now vendors should be able to sell good software at a
reasonable price. Suggesting that A500 owners are pirates (and the An000 owners
are not) is like saying that all Cadillac owners obey all the traffic
regulations but the chevy owners do not. Honesty is not a function of what
you own. This has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have heard on the
net.
Do not get me wrong. I am emphatetic to software developers. Every body has a
right to enjoy the fruit of their labor. Copy protection is not the solution.
They would have to learn how to do better marketing, to provide better
product support, offer frequent upgrades, crisp documentation, and above all
sell software at c-64 software price level.
Large scale software piracy in the IBM or C64 world has not hurt the sales
of the respective vendors and so why should they worry about it. The
solution to software piracy should
be a partnership of the software vendors and end users based on mutual
needs, trust, and general goodwill.
Shah Jahan
AT&T Bell Labs
Disclaimer: These are strictly personal opinions and are in noway endorsed
by AT&T Bell Laboratories.bishop@skat.usc.edu (Brian Bishop) (01/07/88)
In article <2273@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: > > Furthermore, if done correctly, a program could notice if it > were operating without it's dongle and subtly torpedo the pirate. > Perhaps waiting until a choice moment to strike, kind of like a > virus. In this way, a pirated dongle-protected program would be > a risk to use for anything serious. Confidence in the cracker > would be required, and since most people wouldn't know who did > the cracking... > > BZZT! First off...I immediately question the wisdom of creating something "kind of like a virus". The creator of the (first) virus claims he meant no harm. Look what happened. Now we will create a virus that will only harm a certain set of people. Think about it. Think about how well some copy protection works today (like Garrison, for instance). I don't find it at all far-fetched that some innocent people would be hurt, and I, for one, would not use such a setup. > > I have a friend at C= (they call him "Mr. Commodore") > who was talking of offering rewards for info leading to the > conviction of "Pirate BBS's". This also seems like a partial > solution. Have you heard anything about this? > This seems like a much better solution to me. In a court of law you have to prove your accusations. A copy protection scheme that subtly destroys your work when it decides you are guilty does not appeal to me. (The Wyatt Earp dongle!) Brian Bishop Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: About Software Piracy! Summary: Expires: References: <2273@crash.cts.com> Sender: Reply-To: bishop@skat.usc.edu (Brian Bishop) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA Keywords:
soo@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Chong L Soo) (01/07/88)
In article <1962@houxa.UUCP> shah1@houxa.UUCP (J.SHAH) writes: > >Some people have hinted that A500 users are the real culprits. That is pure >nonsense. The suggestion that the elite A1000 and A2000 community never >copied each others software is as realistic as the fact that the sole use >of Marauder II is to backup your own legal software. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is exactly what I use it for. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chong Soo (Amiga nut) soo@beach.cis.ufl.edu ARPANET/INTERNET soo%ufcsg.ufl.edu@relay.cs.net BITNET soo%ufcsg.ufl.edu%relay.cs.net@wiscvm
richc@vaxwaller.UUCP (Rich Commins) (01/08/88)
In article <1962@houxa.UUCP>, shah1@houxa.UUCP (J.SHAH) writes: > software you buy legally). Why should I be encumbered with these schemes > after paying a reasonable amount of money for acquiring your software. > Besides there will always be a way to break copy protection schemes. C-64 > software vendors used dongles (Batteries Included for example) but only > to find out that some hardworking hackers produced a freely copyable version ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > of their heavyly protected software. I have seen hardware devices that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > assist in the copying of protected software ( Snapshot, and Icepic for the If a person BUYS a copy of program X and then downloads a copy of program X that is not copyprotected from a hacker's BBS to use on a harddisk or for making backups, is he still considered a pirate? -- -- Rich Commins (415)939-2400 \ /\ Varian Instruments, 2700 Mitchell Drive, Walnut Creek, CA 94598 \/--\ {ptsfa,lll-crg,zehntel,dual,amd,fortune,ista,rtech,csi,normac}varian!richc
kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) (01/09/88)
> Large scale software piracy in the IBM or C64 world has not hurt the sales > of the respective vendors and so why should they worry about it. What you mean is that in spite of the major level of piracy, enough people buy software that software companies can continue to make a profit. If there were no illegal copying, the market would be maybe five times larger, and there would be more competitive products and a higher general quality level, since a given level of effort would pay off five times as much. > The solution to software piracy should be a partnership of the software > vendors and end users based on mutual needs, trust, and general goodwill. But users do not show honesty or goodwill. > Shah Jahan > AT&T Bell Labs A serial-number based software protection scheme does not need to be user unfriendly. Disks containing serialized software are freely copyable and do not need to be damaged, since it is the software that is encoded or protected, not the disk. A user can make infinite backups, can keep the software on any media s/he chooses, and can even move it to another machine if s/he can move the serial number. This is no more user unfriendly than the license plate on every automobile. Perhaps computers should be licensed by the state, the way cars are, and serial encodings made standard. This would not eliminate theft, but it would make theft more heinous, more obvious to parents of teen hackers and the computer illiterate masses, and generally put things in the perspective of familiar day-to-day things. AACCKK! What am I saying? State regulation of computation? Big Brother watching my private use of data? Herasy! But it might happen, and it would be effective. Consider this a prediction of the future, say 20 years from now.
haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) (01/09/88)
bishop@skat.usc.edu (Brian Bishop) writes: >In article <2273@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: >> >> Furthermore, if done correctly, a program could notice if it >> were operating without it's dongle and subtly torpedo the pirate. >> Perhaps waiting until a choice moment to strike, kind of like a >> virus. In this way, a pirated dongle-protected program would be >> a risk to use for anything serious. Confidence in the cracker >> would be required, and since most people wouldn't know who did >> the cracking... >> >> > BZZT! First off...I immediately question the wisdom of creating something >"kind of like a virus". The creator of the (first) virus claims he meant no >harm. Look what happened. Now we will create a virus that will only harm a >certain set of people. Think about it. Think about how well some copy >protection works today (like Garrison, for instance). I don't find it at all >far-fetched that some innocent people would be hurt, and I, for one, would not >use such a setup. This would be virus-like in that it would run "underneath" the main program logic. However, it would have no reproductive capability, and it would only damage data relevant to the progam it is protecting, and only when it determines no dongle is present or that an attempt to by-pass the dongle chech had been installed. Since the dongle would be a factory item, why worry about its failing? There are any number of parts of our systems that can fail at any time and cause the reliablility problems anyway. If a program such as WordPerfect were protected in this manner, they could sell it for half, maybe a third of what it currently sells for. Sure, some of the people who would pirate it would not pay for it even at the lower price, but many would. And we could expect better support for the product because there would be a bigger (paying) customer base, and more profit potential, and more threat of competition. I once had a job with an engineering/manufacturing company I'll not name because I don't want to get dragged into court (and have no supporting evidence anyway). My bosses wife's work purchased WordPerfect. She photo copied the manule and he showed up with it at work. He made a copy for the company V.P. and the technical service rep., and who knows who else. I've seen a few other cases of this type of thing and it makes me sick! ========================================================= Is there a technical difficulty in implementing a dongle such as I've described? I am not a hardware engineer so maybe I've made a mistake. If so would someone please explain? Thanks, Wade. UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COM
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (01/09/88)
In article <1356@vaxwaller.UUCP> (Rich Commins) writes: > If a person BUYS a copy of program X and then downloads a copy of > program X that is not copyprotected from a hacker's BBS to use on a > harddisk or for making backups, is he still considered a pirate? This sounds like one of those philosophical questions that one can argue so easily both ways. Technically, when you download the program you are receiving stolen goods, which is a criminal offense in the U.S. of A. On the other hand, the manufacturer has not 'lost' anything because you did indeed buy the product from him. So morally, I think you could get away with this (at least it wouldn't bother me. :-)). But on a more realistic note, with all the discussions about digital social diseases, would you trust a program if you didn't know where it lost it's virginity? [Are analogies great? :-) ] --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (01/09/88)
In article <2615@fluke.COM> kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth) writes: >AACCKK! What am I saying? State regulation of computation? Big Brother >watching my private use of data? Herasy! But it might happen, and it would >be effective. Consider this a prediction of the future, say 20 years from now. Well, I thought of something that might help cut down some of the pirating stuff, but I am not sure it is feasible. It seems to me that pirate copies of software propogate in two ways, though pirate clubs, and on pirate bbs'. Now, it is well known that these two are related as well. My idea is that if we can shut down the pirate BBSes then we will have made a good step toward reducing the problem. What we need is incentive and a neighborhood watch program. It works like this ... The government offers a reward of $2000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of a software pirate. There is a confidential hotline one could call if they had discovered or knew of a pirate bbs. The authorities log in, (and this is the hard part), determine if gross pirating is going on. This could be done either by signing up as an interested user or by monitoring the phone line. If they determine that the board is indeed a pirate bbs, they charge the miscreant slime with using the phone system to run an illegal business or something. Grand Larceny also comes to mind since they total software pirated may be over $5000. They convict the kid, and *as a minimum* confiscate all of the computer equipment used. And optionally, fine him. In addition, they leave the parents liable for damages from the software companies! Before you implement this law/activity you have a 6 month campaign of ad's telling people a) it is illegal to give copies of commercial software to anyone without permission of the author, and b) Tell the parents that if their kid is found to be running a BBS with their computer that *they* will be held liable so watch out. Then do it. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (01/10/88)
I want to put in my two cents worth on piracy, and then fade away -
it's an issue that will probably never be resolved, certainly not
in this forum.
It seems to me (and always has, through almost 10 years in the
microcomputer software business) that the evil piracy does to the
software industry is wildly overblown. Nobody has yet been able
to show me any sort of real figures which indicate the real harm
piracy does to the industry; generally, companies are much too
busy being paranoid about piracy to do anything as simple as an
in-depth study of the situation. It's just taken as a given that
piracy is everywhere, and is a severe threat to the economic
health of the software industry.
I would put only one question to everyone: if piracy is such a
threat, why is it that the company which produces (arguably) the
single most pirated product in the industry, Lotus, is also one
of the top money-makers in the industry, second only (in some
years) to Microsoft? How could it have been that the first micro-
computer game I ever wrote (the Apple ][ version of Epyx's Temple
of Apshai) brought in enough money over the course of four years
to provide me with thousands of dollars in royalties (at a low, low
royalty rate, mind you - this was only a port) and to allow Epyx to
expand from its former two-room offices to a large building, hiring
between five and seven people in the process? Especially since this,
too, was widely pirated?
Piracy is everywhere. This is granted, along with the assumption
that piracy represents theft and lost sales. My point is that
the amount of time, energy, and talent spent on various methods
for defeating piracy have only cost the company that time, energy
and talent - they haven't stopped piracy, and they probably never
will. I have yet to see a situation where piracy has resulted in
a company going under, and have yet to see a software developer
come up with a truly outstanding concept they didn't sell because
of piracy. And make a lot of money doing it, sometimes.
If the only goal of a software company is to get the maximum number
of dollars from the public, then piracy is a big issue. If the goal
is to produce the best possible software, then it becomes only another
entry in the long list of things which affect sales efficiency, and
not one to worry about. I say this: write the best possible software
you can. Make it original, make it useful, and make it work. If you
do that, and have a decent marketing staff, it'll sell, and you'll
make money. Don't worry about the pirates; devote that energy to
making your software even better. You'll win in the long run, and
what the hell difference does it really make if some unscrupulous
and/or immature folk out there get a freebie? Maybe, in the worst
case, there are more dishonest folk than honest out there. It doesn't
matter a whit - you will survive, and, given some talent and luck,
even thrive.
--
Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just
{ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate
unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday."
gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame john13@garfield.UUCP (John Russell) (01/10/88)
>>In article <2273@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: >>> Furthermore, if done correctly, a program could notice if it >>> were operating without it's dongle and subtly torpedo the pirate. You would trust some anonymous programmer to do that? Remember this is the Amiga we're talking about... do we really want to have Workbench unloaded from Kickstart to make room for ReadDongle()? From the furor that resulted over peeking the joystick locations(1), I wouldn't want to be the one trying to program it in a friendly, multitasking atmosphere (LockDongleRom()? AllocDongle()?). -- (1) I won't mention how I sometimes read a chip location for a simple & fast random number. Just for my own use though. Anyone else notice RangeRand returns values with a definite pattern? -- True story- Me showing a potential customer a calculator program for the C64, from Pioneer Software (booting from the original disk, of course): "The reason the words 'SECURITY VIOLATION' are flashing all over the screen, and the program is locked up, is... ah..." Didn't sell it. I believe it went in the trash. John -- "She's sort of a 'pit baby', with interlocking jaws. We feed her on chicken parts." "But baby-fighting has been outlawed, hasn't it?" -- Tracy Ullman describing her infant daughter to David Letterman
farren@gethen.UUCP (Michael J. Farren) (01/10/88)
In article <2308@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: > If a program such as WordPerfect were protected in this manner, >they could sell it for half, maybe a third of what it currently sells for. One of the most common misconceptions around is that, if there were simply no more software piracy, software prices would be only (half, one-third, one percent) of what they are now. This is simply untrue. The experience of the software industry has shown, time and time again, that the most elaborate protection schemes have little effect on the number of copies of a program which is sold. What little real evidence there is, in fact, seems to show that if a program is protected, and subsequently sold in an unprotected version, sales will actually increase, which would indicate that piracy alone cannot account for sales figure decreases. If WordPerfect were protected with a dongle, I would expect sales to actually decrease, rather than triple. Most of the users of WP, just like most users of most sophisticated software, will not put up with the inconvenience, hassle, and just plain unreliability of dongle-protected software, and especially not when there are other alternatives available without the associated problems. -- Michael J. Farren | "INVESTIGATE your point of view, don't just {ucbvax, uunet, hoptoad}! | dogmatize it! Reflect on it and re-evaluate unisoft!gethen!farren | it. You may want to change your mind someday." gethen!farren@lll-winken.llnl.gov ----- Tom Reingold, from alt.flame
ccplumb@watmath.waterloo.edu (Colin Plumb) (01/12/88)
In article <4362@garfield.UUCP> john13@garfield.UUCP (John Russell) writes: >In article <2273@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: >> Furthermore, if done correctly, a program could notice if it >> were operating without it's dongle and subtly torpedo the pirate. > >True story- > >Me showing a potential customer a calculator program for the C64, from >Pioneer Software (booting from the original disk, of course): > >"The reason the words 'SECURITY VIOLATION' are flashing all over the screen, > and the program is locked up, is... ah..." > >Didn't sell it. I believe it went in the trash. It's like a story I once heard about Microsoft. May be apocryphal, but could easily happen. Once, a junior programmer put a routine into the copy protection Microsoft used in all its products. It printed a `cute' message when it detected it was being booted from a crudely copied disk. Then, one day, a legitimate and naive user of some program got a damaged master disk. He tried to boot with this thing, and the copy protection didn't find the proper magic sector or whatever. On the screen appeared: The tree of evil bears bitter fruit. Now trashing program disk. It didn't actually *do* anything, but, since the disk was bad, it seemed like it had carried out its threat. Boom! Microsoft now has one *very* irate ex-customer. Now can you imagine this happening with a virus? Like the ProLok people once threatened? Disclaimer or no, they're gonna end up in court. Let's keep this silliness with IBM, where it belongs. -- -Colin (ccplumb@watmath)
itkin@stsci.EDU (Elliot Itkin) (01/12/88)
Concerning dongle required software that destroys itself (or more):
1) If it destroyed more than itself, the company may be liable for damages.
2) What about the poor guy who forgot to put in his dongle?
3) Or someone like me, with a 2.5 year-old who can't stay away from my
computer while I'm at work, who slightly jars it so a pin or two is un-
connected that I don't notice.
Wouldn't it be better for the software merely to say, "Unauthorized
use, no dongle" and stop executing?
POINT:
A lot of piracy will go away when the Amiga becomes primarily an
end-user product. Most end-users do not want to play with copying
etc. They go to the computer store, buy the H/W and S/W that does what
they want. They don't know about clubs, BBS's, networks, etc. After
all, imagine you just spent $3000 for a machine. You will use that
machine to make $10,000 a month. How much effort will you go to to
save $50 on software? And that's assuming they even know they can.
--
Elliot S. Itkin Space Telescope Science Institute, Baltimore, MD 21218
UUCP: {arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4}!noao!stsci!itkin
ARPA: itkin@stsci.edu
SPAN: {SCIVAX,KEPLER}::ITKINpeter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (01/12/88)
In article <1356@vaxwaller.UUCP> (Rich Commins) writes: > If a person BUYS a copy of program X and then downloads a copy of > program X that is not copyprotected from a hacker's BBS to use on a > harddisk or for making backups, is he still considered a pirate? Well, back when I was using Apple-2s an, um, friend of mine bought Wizardry. It didn't last long. The copy protection scheme was so tight that the master disk just stopped working after a while. Made Silent Service look like a wimp :->. Anyway, after getting the disk replaced it died again. My, um, friend got a broken version of the disk with no copy protection. Worked fine... much more reliable than the original.
lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Christopher Lishka) (01/13/88)
In article <4362@garfield.UUCP> john13@garfield.UUCP (John Russell) writes: >>>In article <2273@crash.cts.com> haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) writes: >>>> Furthermore, if done correctly, a program could notice if it >>>> were operating without it's dongle and subtly torpedo the pirate. > >You would trust some anonymous programmer to do that? Remember this is the >Amiga we're talking about... It seems to me that this has already been done before, with disasterous results. A few years back some programmer (at a LARGE software house) got a little disgruntled with pirates and put some code into the program to see if the version had been copied. If the program determined that it was pirated, then it would trash your disk. The only problem was the program started doing this on disks that were NOT priated, which got many a legitamate customer angry. Imagine your horror when, all of a sudden, the program (upon bootup) thinks your disk is illegal and then destroys itself and all of your work. I also remember seeing a compatibility test (to see how compatible a certain clone was to true IBM PC's) where the reviewer put in a legitimate version of the above mentioned software, got the message that disk was about to be erased, and quickly removed the floppy before it was erased. Pretty good compatibility test! -Chris -- Chris Lishka /lishka@uwslh.uucp Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene <-lishka%uwslh.uucp@rsch.wisc.edu "What, me, serious? Get real!" \{seismo, harvard,topaz,...}!uwvax!uwslh!lishka
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (01/13/88)
In article <300@uwslh.UUCP> lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Christopher Lishka) writes: > It seems to me that this has already been done before, with >disasterous results. A few years back some programmer (at a LARGE >software house) got a little disgruntled with pirates and put some >code into the program to see if the version had been copied. If the >program determined that it was pirated, then it would trash your disk. I don't remember the exact software involved, but Microsoft had something like this happen a couple of years back. Quite a few people got trashed disks. Sean -- -- Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitneT -- (the Empire guy) {rutgers,uunet,cbosgd}!ukma!sean -- University of Kentucky in Lexington Kentucky, USA -- "If something can go will, it wrong."
haitex@pnet01.cts.com (Wade Bickel) (01/15/88)
Please!!! This was a hypothetical suggestion.
If you look, in detail, at the entire posting, I thing
(think) you will agree that there is little chance of the program
trashing a non-pirated copy. After all, a non-pirated copy would
not run at all without the dongle, and the destructive part of the
code would lie in some post-begin program segments. Several of these
segments would need to all concur that the program were pirated, and
then it would shut itself down. IT WOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT PROPOGATE ITSELF!
Since the original posting I have discussed this dongle idea with
a chip designer, an EE, and a couple of programmers in detail. All agree
that the concept is implementable (~$6.00/chip for 100,000) and that it
would be unfeasable to break a protected program. Of course this dongle
mechanism would have to be included in a new machine at it's conception.
Guess I'll have to wait for some new processor technology to evolve.
Thanks,
Wade.
[PS: I wonder if the Government would be interested in this for
security purposes???]
UUCP: {cbosgd, hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, nosc}!crash!pnet01!haitex
ARPA: crash!pnet01!haitex@nosc.mil
INET: haitex@pnet01.CTS.COMbilbo@pnet02.cts.com (Bill Daggett) (01/16/88)
And here is my 2 cents. The problem of piracy is the same problem of drugs.
It represents a breakdown in morality of our society. I like the neighborhood
watch idea. Outside of that and strengthening societies moral convictions not
to pirate we are stuck. It could get worse before it gets better because we
are inclinded to have someone else legislate (courts, congress, etc.) our
lives rather then recognizing something being "wrong" and not participating in
it by our own recognition.
*Bilbo*
UUCP: {ihnp4!scgvaxd!cadovax rutgers!marque}!gryphon!pnet02!bilbo
INET: bilbo@pnet02.cts.comrjk107@pawl14.pawl.rpi.edu (Robert J. Kudla) (01/22/88)
In article <2161@gryphon.CTS.COM> bilbo@pnet02.cts.com (Bill Daggett) writes: >And here is my 2 cents. The problem of piracy is the same problem of drugs. >It represents a breakdown in morality of our society. I like the neighborhood >watch idea. Outside of that and strengthening societies moral convictions not >to pirate we are stuck. It could get worse before it gets better because we >are inclinded to have someone else legislate (courts, congress, etc.) our >lives rather then recognizing something being "wrong" and not participating in >it by our own recognition. > Well, if it's a breakdown of morality in this society, it's surely about time, in view of the past decade or so's reversion to "good morals" as practiced 3 or 400 years ago.... Just when I thought there was really no good reason to pirate. Thanks for strengthening my spirit. :)
peter@nuchat.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (01/22/88)
In article <8037@g.ms.uky.edu>, sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: > In article <300@uwslh.UUCP> lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Christopher Lishka) writes: > >[ Rumor: large software house put killer copy protect in ] > I don't remember the exact software involved, but Microsoft had something > like this happen a couple of years back. Quite a few people got trashed > disks. Sounds like the Arf Arf bluff story. The only people bitten by this dog are the ones who panicked and hit the power switch while writes were going on. It was a complete bluff, "put in by a student programmer". Sure. -- -- a clone of Peter (have you hugged your wolf today) da Silva `-_-' -- normally ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter U -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions... these are *values*.
desmarai@ouareau.iro.umontreal.ca (Stephane Desmarais) (01/29/88)
Wade Bickel proposed the idea of a dongle, and suggested something that
looked like this:
1) if the dongle isn't there when you try to load of the program, don't
load it (and don't do any damage (after all, some could have forgotten to
put is dongle in place (put I suppose usually everybody would leave his
dongle in place all the time (too many parentheses :-)))) (funny face
with quadruple chin)
2) If the dongle isn't detected later during the execution, supposedly meaning
sombody tried to pirate the software, erase some files (only files related
to the same program)
Let me describe a problem with 2). I have an *old* C-64, and I use a disk
drive accelerator on a cartridge. The pins on the expansion port are really
worn out. So, sometimes, in the middle of a session, there is a false contact
which makes the computer think that there isn't any cartrige.
I can really see the same thing appenning to dongles...
Don't take me wrong. I'm not against dongles (a unique dongle for each
computer, not one for each software), but I'm against the 2) idea.
---
--
cccc 666 4 Stephane Desmarais
c c 6 44 Departement d'informatique
c == 6666 4 4 Universite de Montreal
c c 6 6 44444 uunet!utai!musocs!iros1!desmarai
cccc 666 4 <desmarais%iro.udem.cdn@ubc.csnet>
Avis: Sante et bien-etre social Canada considere que le danger croit
avec l'usage.