mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (07/03/87)
In article <4826@sgi.SGI.COM> hal@pigiron.SGI.COM (John Hallesy) writes:
<Copy protection basically keeps honest people honest; a pirate will
<eventually crack anything on the market.
Copy protection also keeps honest people from making backups, and
intelligent non-desperate ones from buying your product.
Having bought one copy-protected program after getting tired of
waiting for the competition, I'm *never* going to do it again. No
program can be worth the headaches associated with copy protection.
I hope others join me in boycotting any company that cares so little
for their customers as to market software that depends on one specific
disk being readable.
<mike
--
My feet are set for dancing, Mike Meyer
Won't you turn your music on. mwm@berkeley.edu
My heart is like a loaded gun, ucbvax!mwm
Won't you let the water run. mwm@ucbjade.BITNETrjg@nis.NIS.MN.ORG (Robert J. Granvin) (07/04/87)
>I hope others join me in boycotting any company that cares so little >for their customers as to market software that depends on one specific >disk being readable. You're apparently going to rely on a very small amount of software, and public domain software, then. Of course, using this philosophy, you'll save your checkbook a lot of minor coronaries. :-) It's unfortunate, but companies will continue to copy protect software, as long as the public continues to copy and distribute them. While copy protection doesn't stop the problem it slows it. While a world without copy protection would be all nice and rosy, it'll probably never happen until human nature itself changes. The company that owns the software has every right to protect it's products. Software is poorly protected by the law, at least compared to other consumer products. All support for a copy-protection-less world. Only, someone will have to convince me first that it's possible. Sigh. -- Robert J. Granvin UNIVERSE: rjg@NIS.MN.ORG Programmer/Analyst - Technical Services UUCP: ihnp4!meccts!nis!rjg National Information Systems, Inc. ATT: (612) 894-9494 "Look out - Muppets!"
mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (07/05/87)
In article <640@nis.NIS.MN.ORG> rjg@nis.NIS.MN.ORG (Robert J. Granvin) writes:
<You're apparently going to rely on a very small amount of software,
<and public domain software, then. Of course, using this philosophy,
<you'll save your checkbook a lot of minor coronaries. :-)
Very small? Gee, that's odd. As long as I avoid companies that sell
games as the bulk of their products, I don't have problems with things
being copy protected. But I tend to stay with programmers & CLI tools,
and not business applications and games.
<It's unfortunate, but companies will continue to copy protect software,
<as long as the public continues to copy and distribute them.
No, there's one other condition that will cause companies to stop copy
protecting their software. That's if nobody buys it. They'll either
stop, or go out of business.
Rather than saying "the world is lousy, so why work on making it
better," why not do the politically correct thing, and not buy copy
protected software. Besides being politically correct, it saves you
headaches (if it didn't, I'd have no beef with copy protected
software).
<All support for a copy-protection-less world. Only, someone will have
<to convince me first that it's possible. Sigh.
The CP/M world seemed to get along just fine without copy protection,
until it got displaced by newer technology. Ergo, it must be possible.
All we've got to do is convince manufacturers that the loss of sales
because of copy protection is greater than the loss of sales because
of pirated copies.
Gee, I may be turning into a radical. 'S what I get for moving to
Berkeley, I guess.
<mike
--
But I'll survive, no you won't catch me, Mike Meyer
I'll resist the urge that is tempting me, ucbvax!mwm
I'll avert my eyes, keep you off my knee, mwm@berkeley.edu
But it feels so good when you talk to me. mwm@ucbjade.BITNEThadeishi@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (mitsuharu hadeishi) (07/06/87)
In article <4259@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >Very small? Gee, that's odd. As long as I avoid companies that sell >games as the bulk of their products, I don't have problems with things >being copy protected. But I tend to stay with programmers & CLI tools, >and not business applications and games. That's fine for you (and me) Mike, but if you are interested in getting software out to the masses, which I am, then I'm afraid we're all going to have to live with copy protection. In order for large-scale projects such as the ones envisioned by the consumer software companies to get off the ground, some type of copy deterrent is going to be required, or the consumer software industry could not survive. And I feel it is necessary for these kinds of products to get out there, and for the companies that market them to stay in business. Of course exorbitant prices for software tools is abhorrent, but I find that much more abhorrent than copy protection per se. I often use copy protected software (games) and I am satisfied with them. Companies such as Borland and Electronic Arts make their tools available on a two-tier basis; the first level is a copy-protected version, and the second level is an unprotected version for a nominal fee. I think this is an effective system to both reduce illicit copying and allow users with hard disk subsystems or whatever to be able to use their products without hassle. >No, there's one other condition that will cause companies to stop copy >protecting their software. That's if nobody buys it. They'll either >stop, or go out of business. What will happen is if games are distributed without copy protection to the mass market (I exclude the Amiga from "mass market since it tends to be a hacker's machine, and there is a kind of hacker ethic which precludes illicit copying) is that the game manufacturers will be unable to stay in business because of loss of hard-earned remuneration for their work due to illicit copying. >Rather than saying "the world is lousy, so why work on making it >better," why not do the politically correct thing, and not buy copy >protected software. Besides being politically correct, it saves you >headaches (if it didn't, I'd have no beef with copy protected >software). You may get headaches from copy-protected software, but developers can lose their jobs without it. I agree that unprotected versions of tools should always be available; I wouldn't penalize a company that had such a policy just because of the "headache" of having to pay $20 more for an unprotected version. That is the utmost in selfishness (yes, to save me a little hassle I'd rather let the software companies go out of business.) The point is that we need to take care of each other, and consider other points of view than our own. Some products, such as programmer's editors, should not be copy protected. Others, such as games, should be. Those on the edge, like mass-market productivity tools, should give the buyer an option. There is nothing morally wrong with copy protection when it is necessary for the ongoing viability of a company; the user's point of view needs to be considered as well, but there shouldn't be a feeling of "US" and "THEM". Companies are vulnerable to the vagaries of the mass market, and they deserve to be protected. They also need to listen to users (thus the two-tier copy protection scheme mentioned earlier.) I think we can all agree that we want a viable, growing, vibrant software industry that produces products that are useful and responsive to user needs. I think there is a role for copy protection in maintaining and improving on this vision. -his ph
hugo@gnome.cs.cmu.edu (Peter Su) (07/07/87)
In article <2470@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes: > That's fine for you (and me) Mike, but if you are interested >in getting software out to the masses, which I am, then I'm afraid >we're all going to have to live with copy protection. In order for >large-scale projects such as the ones envisioned by the consumer >software companies to get off the ground, some type of copy deterrent >is going to be required, or the consumer software industry could not >survive. Horse hockey! There are dozens upon dozens of "mass-market" software manufacturerers for the Mac, and none of them uses copy protection. To wit: Borland Microsoft Think Technologies Silicon Beach Living VideoText Infocom Cricket Sofware and on and on. For the software industry to survive, it has to do two simple things, 1) Make a good product 2) Make it worth being a registered user of said product. These means *gasp*, that they should take responsibility for anything the thing does wrong, and FIX it! They should give free updates (or cheap ones anyway) to registered users, they should LISTEN to their users and add features that people want. Having watched the Mac software market grow, it has struck me that the companies that copy protected their software have NOT survived, while those that didn't thrived and made loads of money. Personally, I buy software that is worth the price, and from good companies that support their products. I pirate software that is copy protected... :-) Pete -- ARPA: hugo@gnome.cs.cmu.edu UUCP: ...!{ucbvax,ihnp4,cmucspt}!hugo@gnome.cs.cmu.edu "There are reports that many executives make their decisions by flipping coins or by throwing darts, etc. It is also rumored that some college professors prepare their grades on such a basis." - Donald Knuth
barry@aurora.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (07/07/87)
In article <2470@husc6.UUCP>, hadeishi@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes: >In order for >large-scale projects such as the ones envisioned by the consumer >software companies to get off the ground, some type of copy deterrent >is going to be required, or the consumer software industry could not >survive. I see two problems with this reasoning. First, many commercial products which were *not* copy-protected have enjoyed immense success. The first example that comes to mind is Wordstar, which first achieved its original enormous popularity as a CP/M program. Like virtually all CP/M software, it was not copy-protected. Even in its IBM incarnation, I don't believe it has been protected. If memory serves, Micropro experimented briefly with protecting it, then gave it up as a bad idea. The other, greater problem with copy-protection, is that it fails to accomplish its purpose. I started out my computer hobby on Apple ][s, where both copy protection and piracy were rampant. I used to get offered copies of games before they had even been marketed! Kids stripped the copy-protects of games as a hobby. Of the hundreds of copy-protected games I encountered, there was only one where I never saw a deprotected, pirate version in common circulation, and that one was still copied routinely, with bit-copy programs. > What will happen is if games are distributed without copy >protection to the mass market (I exclude the Amiga from "mass market >since it tends to be a hacker's machine, and there is a kind of >hacker ethic which precludes illicit copying) is that the game >manufacturers will be unable to stay in business because of loss >of hard-earned remuneration for their work due to illicit copying. The record says otherwise. Until the Apple ][ succumbed to obselescence and competition from IBM, the major vendors of Apple ][ game software were making very big bucks, despite the widespread availability of pirated versions. My impression is that most pirated software was in the hands of folks who would not have bought the programs anyway. In any case, the copy protection did not inconvenience pirates one whit. Only the legitimate users were hurt. I will tolerate copy-protection on game software, but it's still an utter waste of time for the vendors. The only effective counter to piracy I know of, is to make the extras that accompany the program as valuable as the executable - good, useful manuals, and vendor support. And if a game's so simple that manuals and support are unnecessary, the price should be too low to make piracy attractive anyway. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {hplabs,seismo,dual,ihnp4}!ames!aurora!barry
farren@hoptoad.uucp (Mike Farren) (07/07/87)
In article <2470@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes: > > That's fine for you (and me) Mike, but if you are interested >in getting software out to the masses, which I am, then I'm afraid >we're all going to have to live with copy protection. In order for >large-scale projects such as the ones envisioned by the consumer >software companies to get off the ground, some type of copy deterrent >is going to be required, or the consumer software industry could not >survive. I would like to see real data which indicates that this is the case. So far, all I've seen are suppositions and self-serving statements from companies on both sides of the copy-protection fence. My personal experience in the games industry is that copy protection doesn't give you all that much benefit, but I would like to see real, objective studies done. > What will happen is if games are distributed without copy >protection to the mass market (I exclude the Amiga from "mass market >since it tends to be a hacker's machine, and there is a kind of >hacker ethic which precludes illicit copying) is that the game >manufacturers will be unable to stay in business because of loss >of hard-earned remuneration for their work due to illicit copying. You've bought into EA's line hook, line, and sinker. I don't believe it, and never have. I cite my own experiences - when I worked for Epyx, Inc., I was present when copy protection was first added to their products. There was no significant change in either sales or the number of illicit copies of our games that I saw. We added copy protection more from a "well, everyone else is doing it, why don't we, too" attitude than from any documented proof that it was necessary. I have never seen any such proof since that time. I also point to Penguin Software, who dropped copy protection from their games and actually reported an increase in sales. Also Beagle Bros. software, long the most popular Apple utility software available, who have always maintained that copy protection just wasn't necessary, and appear to have done very well for themselves. My final argument: I have seen pirated copies of every EA game available. Often, the pirated copies have been available before the game had reached the local stores. As long as copy protection can be broken, it will be, and as long as there are those who want to pirate games, there will be illicit copies of games, protected or not. It doesn't seem to have killed the game industry yet, and I do not believe that it will. If anything, the annoyance of copy protection, especially the Draconian schemes that EA and Activision use, will cause a drop in sales because of the sheer frustration of the users. I know of at least 10 people who will not buy another EA product, no matter how good, because of the experience they have had with the existing products, and their frustration and anger at products which are annoying to use. -- ---------------- "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness Mike Farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." hoptoad!farren Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"
mwm@eris.UUCP (07/07/87)
In article <2470@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes: <In article <4259@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: <>Very small? Gee, that's odd. As long as I avoid companies that sell <>games as the bulk of their products, I don't have problems with things <>being copy protected. But I tend to stay with programmers & CLI tools, <>and not business applications and games. < < That's fine for you (and me) Mike, but if you are interested <in getting software out to the masses, which I am, then I'm afraid <we're all going to have to live with copy protection. In order for <large-scale projects such as the ones envisioned by the consumer <software companies to get off the ground, some type of copy deterrent <is going to be required, or the consumer software industry could not <survive. Can you prove this? Especially in the face of a CP/M market that never had copy protection, and an OS/9 market that doesn't have copy protection, and mini and mainframe markets that don't have copy protection (and do have piracy!), and Amiga software developers who don't use copy protection that aren't going bankrupt? <I often use copy protected software (games) and I am satisfied with <them. All of my EA games (copy protected, of course) no longer boot. Hurray for copy protection - it lets you test something out, and only have to hassle to keep a working version if you like it. Or it makes you buy more copies of software you like, thus making the software company more money. <Companies such as Borland and Electronic Arts <make their tools available on a two-tier basis; the first level <is a copy-protected version, and the second level is an unprotected <version for a nominal fee. I hardly consider 25% of the purchase price of a product to be "nominal." Especially when I can get a CD or two at the price, and get more enjoyment out of it. Likewise the practice of advertising something as "only $80" when the price of a useable copy is $100 plus a two week wait is kinda slimey. < What will happen is if games are distributed without copy <protection to the mass market (I exclude the Amiga from "mass market <since it tends to be a hacker's machine, and there is a kind of <hacker ethic which precludes illicit copying) is that the game <manufacturers will be unable to stay in business because of loss <of hard-earned remuneration for their work due to illicit copying. And why shouldn't it be like the CP/M game market, where the companies stayed in business until the CP/M market itself died in the face of newer, better advertised technology? <That is the <utmost in selfishness (yes, to save me a little hassle I'd rather <let the software companies go out of business.) Gee, by the same logic, I ought to buy software with known, nasty bugs in it, as it'll only cost me a little hassle, and it'll keep the company in business. After all, the hassles of working around bugs are similar to the hassles of copy protection. And two weeks lost on a deadline because your tool died and ate a disk isn't any longer than two weeks waiting for a new copy of the protected disk. Thanx, but no thanx. BTW, thanx for the neat slogan. Look for it above my signature. < The point is that we need to take care of each other, and <consider other points of view than our own. Some products, such <as programmer's editors, should not be copy protected. Others, <such as games, should be. Those on the edge, like mass-market <productivity tools, should give the buyer an option. *Should* have headaches added? Nothing _should_ be made harder for the user to use on purpose. I'll concede that adding headaches to games and other graphics demos isn't nearly as nasty as adding headaches to tools. But why do you consider programmers editors different from mass-market tools? Doesn't look like you are considering the view of the people who have to use them. Could it be that you use programmers editors regularly, but not other tools? After all, since the cost is about the same, and the sales on programmers editors is so much lower than other tools, it would make more sense to copy protect them than other tools. Of course, shooting anyone who puts a programmers editor in the PA would also seem appropriate. After all, the software companies make more money that way :-). [Warning - entering analogy mode - warning] <There is nothing morally wrong with copy protection when it is There is nothing morally wrong with produciton in SA when it is <necessary for the ongoing viability of a company; the user's point of necessary for the ongoing viability of a company; the black's point of <view needs to be considered as well, but there shouldn't be a feeling view needs to be considered as well, but there shouldn't be a feeling <of "US" and "THEM". Companies are vulnerable to the vagaries of the of "US" and "THEM". Companies are vulnerable to the vagaries of the <mass market, and they deserve to be protected. They also need to mass market, and they deserve to be protected. They also need to <listen to users (thus the two-tier copy protection scheme mentioned listen to Blacks (thus the limited vote) [End of analogy mode] <I think we can all agree that we want a viable, <growing, vibrant software industry that produces products that are <useful and responsive to user needs. I think there is a role for <copy protection in maintaining and improving on this vision. Yes, we all agree that we want a glowing, vibrant software industry etc. However, your assumption that the software terrorism (thanx to RMS for that phrase!) and guilty-until-proven-innocent assumptions of copy protection are needed for that to happen seems bogus. Until I bought an Amiga, I thought copy protection was a great joke, and those who bought toy computers on which it was possible were getting exactly what they deserved. Now that I've had to deal with it, I realize how mistaken I was. Copy protection is a statement on the part of a company that 1) We don't trust our customers (so why are you doing business with them?) and 2) we don't care how much trouble they have, so long as we make $$'s at it. I resent the first implication, and find the second morally repugnant. Answer-the-question type copy protection is a major step forward. All the problems I have with key disk (and similar) schemes are gone. There are some problems, like when the q/a list was written by someone who doesn't understand the product, and so writes nonsensical questions. I'll reserve judgement. Of course, such idiocy in a tool - as opposed to a graphics demo or a game - would raise a cry from everyone. The ball is in your court. Bat it back, or toss it to RMS, and find out what a *real* software socialist thinks of copy protection. Those who haven't seen the GNU manifesto, ask me for a copy. Copy protection: consider it a bug, not a feature! <mike -- Must have walked those streets for hours, Mike Meyer In the dark and in the cold, mwm@berkeley.edu Before I really could accept, ucbvax!mwm There's no place called hope road. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (07/07/87)
In article <2374@hoptoad.uucp> farren@hoptoad.UUCP (Mike Farren) writes: > [ quotes experience with companies with copy protection that does not > indicate that it is necessary, i.e., Epyx, Penguin, and Beagle Bros. ] I do not dispute your experiences, Mike. I, too, greatly appreciate Beagle Bros. tools. Epyx added copy protection a LONG time ago (as you know) and at the time their games were often distributed on tape (thus making it rather trivial to make copies, no matter what copy protection scheme you used), if I'm not mistaken (please correct me if I'm wrong.) As for Penguin, I reserve judgement. However, it is clear that game manufacturers have a hard time making enough money to survive, and it is also clear that they lose money to software piracy. Quite a few game companies have gone out of business recently or been bought out (by EA, typically :-). Copy protection was a deterrent, at least for me, to copy games; when I was a kid I simply said I would always buy a copy of any piece of software that I would use regularly (shareware ethic). Copy protection, by making it difficult to copy software, makes you think before pirating; I happen to think that it should NOT be done, no matter what your excuses are, if you are going to use the product. If you're not going to use it, go without. That is the honorable thing to do. I don't think people are in disagreement that piracy is a wrong thing to do. The programmer deserves the money! That is basically my point. I don't buy the argument that copy protection makes games unusable (unless it is STUPID protection, i.e., if it writes to the disk or something unutterably dumb like that---note that EA products, for all their "frustrations" do NOT write to the master disk EVER.) >I know of at least 10 people who will not buy another EA product, no >matter how good, because of the experience they have had with the >existing products, and their frustration and anger at products which >are annoying to use. Again, I don't buy it. Many technical people were angry at EA because they perceived EA as this big, bad company that was out to rip people off or something. This is totally ridiculous. I work there, and I know that EA is made up of thoughtful, good people, just like you and me, and to "punish" them by not buying their products is the kind of "us-them" mentality which has often been the downfall of nations. What is annoying about having copy protection on your copy of Marble Madness? I mean, do you seriously expect to play that game so much that the disk fails? (I certainly haven't.) You can get a replacement from EA if it does fail. What more do you want? As for unprotected tools, as I mentioned before, EA quickly responded to user pressure and provided unprotected versions of ALL of its productivity tools, in a manner similar to Borland. I don't see people saying "I'll never buy another Borland product"! I'm not saying that copy protected games are not less convenient than unprotected games, just that it is ridiculous to penalize them by not buying ANY future products, whether or not they offer unprotected versions, whether or not the programmers who worked on them deserve the sales, whether or not the programs are useful, fun, or imaginative, just because they, like MOST game software manufacturers, happen to protect their game software. This is simply small-minded vindictiveness, of the same sort that causes feuds to last for generations, that causes violence between the Sikhs and the Hindus, the Tamils and the Buddhists, the prejudice between whites and blacks. I do not expect to change your mind or the minds of your friends, I am simply saddened to hear about it. It reduces my hope for humanity. However, I hope there are enough forgiving souls out there who do not make such snap judgements about the hundreds of people who happen to work under the shared appellation "Electronic Arts." -Mitsu
jmpiazza@sunybcs.UUCP (07/07/87)
In article <761@aurora.UUCP> barry@aurora.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes: [ ... and so well that it's worth repeating ...] >... In any case, the copy protection did not inconvenience >pirates one whit. Only the legitimate users were hurt. [... so for real work applications, copy protection does much more harm than good and therefore shouldn't be used.] > I will tolerate copy-protection on game software, but it's still >an utter waste of time for the vendors. The only effective counter to >piracy I know of, is to make the extras that accompany the program as >valuable as the executable - good, useful manuals, and vendor support. >And if a game's so simple that manuals and support are unnecessary, the >price should be too low to make piracy attractive anyway. > >- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry > NASA-Ames Research Center > Moffett Field, CA I don't normally like to post inflammatory statements but, please post all other noise somewhere else. Flip side, joe piazza --- Cogito ergo equus sum.
hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (07/07/87)
In article <4289@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >In article <2470@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes: >Can you prove this? Especially in the face of a CP/M market that never >had copy protection, and an OS/9 market that doesn't have copy >protection, and mini and mainframe markets that don't have copy >protection (and do have piracy!), and Amiga software developers who >don't use copy protection that aren't going bankrupt? None of those three systems were "mass-market" systems. Not CP/M, not OS/9, not Amiga. Notice how successful OS/9 software houses are :-). Again, I did not say copy protection was necessary on all software. >All of my EA games (copy protected, of course) no longer boot. Hurray >for copy protection - it lets you test something out, and only have to >hassle to keep a working version if you like it. Or it makes you buy >more copies of software you like, thus making the software company >more money. All of my EA games (copy protected, of course) still boot. So there. Even DPaint I (not a game, but copy protected anyway) still boots, despite the dangerous form of copy protection where any user who tried to write to the disk could kill the program. >I hardly consider 25% of the purchase price of a product to be >"nominal." Especially when I can get a CD or two at the price, and get >more enjoyment out of it. Likewise the practice of advertising >something as "only $80" when the price of a useable copy is $100 plus >a two week wait is kinda slimey. EA clearly labels its products with stickers indicating the form of copy protection. Many users do not need to get unprotected copies. Note that DPaint II IS copyable, it simply requires a "key disk" (which is certainly an improvement from the DPaint I days.) However, I admit that copy protecting DPaint is probably unnecessary. Still, I would not liken the practice of using "key disk" copy protection to that of supporting the Apartheid regime in South Africa or causing millions of deaths of human beings in death camps. Note that until recently IBM sold computers in South Africa. Did you boycott IBM during this period? I hope that before you start throwing insulting moralistic invective about (as you do below) you look to yourself first. You may live in Berkeley, but I live in a coop in Cambridge (and I lived in Berkeley last year), so there! :-) >Gee, by the same logic, I ought to buy software with known, nasty bugs >in it, as it'll only cost me a little hassle, and it'll keep the >company in business. After all, the hassles of working around bugs are >similar to the hassles of copy protection. And two weeks lost on a >deadline because your tool died and ate a disk isn't any longer than >two weeks waiting for a new copy of the protected disk. Thanx, but no >thanx. There are MANY tools out there with known, nasty bugs in them, and I would still buy them and use them. It is highly unprofessional of the companies that put them out, but if they are useful enough I would buy and use them, and, yes, prepare for the bugs. Computers, even with perfect software are prone to disaster, and unless a company has an ingrained "fuck the consumer" attitude (like Atari) I would continue to patronize them, knowing they are doing their job. You are like the parent who will never be satisfied until their child is getting straight A's and never talks back. Everything must be convenient for YOU, or you get all upset. I feel this attitude, however righteous, is actually destructive and divisive. You would be the one fighting Gandhi in the Congress Party, saying that the British should be fought with guns, not nonviolence. Gandhi said that the British were human beings and should simply be corrected from their bad behavior. >*Should* have headaches added? Nothing _should_ be made harder for the >user to use on purpose. I'll concede that adding headaches to games >and other graphics demos isn't nearly as nasty as adding headaches to >tools. But why do you consider programmers editors different from >mass-market tools? Doesn't look like you are considering the view of >the people who have to use them. Could it be that you use programmers >editors regularly, but not other tools? After all, since the cost is >about the same, and the sales on programmers editors is so much lower >than other tools, it would make more sense to copy protect them than >other tools. You are looking at it from the coldly economic point of view, whereas I am considering the behavior of the human beings involved. Programmer's editors need not be copy protected because programmers tend not to pirate software tools. They are also fewer and farther apart making it more difficult for piracy to occur. They also tend to realize the value of the tools and thus are willing to pay for them. Also, in my coop there are several people who have Macs and who use a copy-protected version of Word all the time. They don't even blink when asked to insert the key disk. These are non-computer-people, just ordinary students who need to use the machine to get the work done. Not one of them has even suggested that they find the key disk scheme "morally repugnant" or that it makes Word "unusable." Unlike you and I, they are not computer technocrats, they are simply users who need to get the job done, and Word does it for them. This is not to say that Word SHOULD be copy protected, just that it doesn't seem to make it "unusable" in the eyes of normal people. Your position, I maintain, is not that of the people, but that of the technocrat or "power user" who wants things done HIS way, and any company that disagrees or uses a different technique (which does NOT, I assert, make that software "unusable") should just "go out of business." This is much more representative of a terrorist approach than the rather mild forms of copy protection/unprotected versions for $20 techniques used by both Borland AND Electronic Arts (ironically enough, since Borland began as the great champion of unprotected tools, whereas EA has always protected its software, and yet now they have virtually the SAME policies in this area. To me, this is evidence that the policy is a reasonable one, and certainly isn't overwhelming evidence that those companies deserve to "go out of business.") Again, I should note that Word has some major bugs which cause the thing to bomb REGULARLY. Other people have lost their entire thesis because they did not back up their work on another disk. So I tell EVERYBODY that you MUST back up your work, or risk losing it. This can occur even if the software is flawless. The woman who lost her whole thesis was not using buggy software, she just somehow formatted the whole disk (probably the disk was corrupted and she hit the Initialize requester button). So ALL computer tools are unreliable and you must guard against blow-ups. So does this mean Microsoft should be boycotted? I don't think so. They are clearly concerned about the bugs and are doing their damndednest to fix them. Big programs have flaws. Big companies put out big, flawed products. Little tools can be flawless, but they are little. VMS was frozen with the documented buglist in the thousands. Do we boycott DEC? If DEC (like Atari) just had a "fuck the user" attitude, I'd say YES! But they don't. Of course, the same argument can be made that games can go bad, so they shouldn't be copy-protected. My counter- argument is that games have a limited lifetime of use, and thus it is unlikely that you will play a game until you kill the disk. (Obviously you have Mike, but I haven't, and I don't think most consumers do.) Kids tend to get games, and because they don't have much money, they tend to pirate them. Without copy protection I think it would just be a lot easier for kids to pirate them and many more would. Perhaps this is incorrect. However, it is no reason to advocate the killing of a company. I note that EA has a much more effective copying scheme than most (i.e., many ][ games could be pirated by simply using Locksmith 5.1 or something; EA's games in general were resistant to these techniques, thus I believe they tended to be pirated much less. And thus EA made more sales. And thus EA is still alive, able to support its creative people, and other companies, perhaps, are not.) >Yes, we all agree that we want a glowing, vibrant software industry >etc. However, your assumption that the software terrorism (thanx to >RMS for that phrase!) and guilty-until-proven-innocent assumptions of >copy protection are needed for that to happen seems bogus. Until I Come on. It is well known that kids pirate games like there was no tomorrow. Kids don't have the resources to buy the amount of games they pirate, even if they were only $25. These kids are guilty, there is no doubt about it. I am sure that the EA copy protection schemes (which, by the way, are nowhere near as nasty as that used in games like Silent Service, which not only was copy protected but tended to die very rapidly. EA copy protection is quite reliable, i.e., it does not shorten the life of the game disk unless you try to write to it, and EA games DO NOT WRITE TO THE MASTER DISK) have thwarted all but the most hard-core pirates. I recall in my old kiddie days in LA that most of the pirated games were NOT EA games, and that said something about the effectiveness, if not airtightness, of their copy protection schemes. Again, I am not including Amiga software in this. Because not enough kids have Amigas, piracy is probably a minor problem for Amiga developers whether or not they use copy protection. For mass-market machines, piracy IS a big problem, mainly because of the nature of kids and their budgets. >we don't care how much trouble they have, so long as we make $$'s at >it. I resent the first implication, and find the second morally >repugnant. If this were the attitude, then I would also find it morally repugnant. However, there is a cost/benefit ratio: EA (again, I have to use EA since I know about them) DOES care how much trouble the user has (and this varies, of course, from developer to developer - - - I should also point out that EA is composed of hundreds of people, it is not a monolithic "company". Dan Silva, for example, is particularly conscientious about the usability of DPaint.) However, they feel that for games, most users do not find the copy protection to be a problem. I find this is generally true (as noted above). For tools, people find it to be a major problem (especially when the tool is unbackupable.) So they remedied that, not only by making the disk that comes in the box copyable (but with a key disk scheme) but by offering a completely unprotected version for the people who felt very strongly about it (but putting in a $20 hit to make sure that only people who did feel strongly about it, like me, for instance, would go to the trouble of asking for it, and thus reducing the number of unprotected copies to the people who needed it and would likely not make illicit copies of it.) Borland, as I've noted TIME AND AGAIN, also uses this strategy. This is a responsible, reasonable, and effective strategy. Of course, it may be overkill for the Amiga, which has such low sales (relatively) but who can say whether the Amiga might not take off at some point as a consumer machine? I would certainly not work for a company that had no respect for its customers; however EA is not such a company. I don't see the evidence that would convince me to boycott EA; this would amount to "assholism" (as Stony might say :-). -Mitsu
mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) (07/08/87)
In article <2479@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes:
< None of those three systems were "mass-market" systems.
<Not CP/M, not OS/9, not Amiga. Notice how successful OS/9 software
<houses are :-). Again, I did not say copy protection was necessary
<on all software.
The OS/9 software houses seem to be doing OK. One of them you've
probably heard of - Tandy Computers. They do other things, too,
though.
And why do I get the impression that "mass market" == "game machines"?
< EA clearly labels its products with stickers indicating the
<form of copy protection.
That's new. EA has taken great strides forward since I last bought
software from them. But I still *refuse* to buy copy-protected
software. Software that requires buying a copy and then waiting for
the copy-protected version before I can use it (I want *my*
startup-sequence, for a variety of good reasons) starts at a major
disadvantage to any competion. If EA can get past those two hurlds
with software I want to buy, I'll buy it.
<Still, I would not liken the practice of using "key disk" copy protection
<to that of supporting the Apartheid regime in South Africa or
Did I do that? No - I just compared it to having production facilities
in SA. Not the same thing as supporting the regime. Just an indication
that profit is probably more important than humanity.
< There are MANY tools out there with known, nasty bugs in them,
<and I would still buy them and use them. It is highly unprofessional
<of the companies that put them out, but if they are useful enough
<I would buy and use them, and, yes, prepare for the bugs.
That is your right. I'm glad that you agree that copy protected
software is like buggy software.
<unless a
<company has an ingrained "fuck the consumer" attitude (like Atari)
<I would continue to patronize them, knowing they are doing their
<job.
Gee, but copy protection *is* a "fuck the consumer" attitude, as far
as I'm concerned. At least the consumers of that product.
<You are like the parent who will never be satisfied until their
<child is getting straight A's and never talks back. Everything must
<be convenient for YOU, or you get all upset.
Oh, horse puckey. If that were true, I would have quit using computers
a *long* time ago. Like the first time a power surge crashed our
Interdata 7/16. I use tools that are buggy - nuts, I *write* some,
not being perfect. When the pain of using a tool outwieghs it's
usefullness, then I throw it out. And refuse to buy more that have the
same problem.
<Gandhi said
<that the British were human beings and should simply be corrected
<from their bad behavior.
This sounds like my attitude towards copy protected software. Or can
you think of a *better* way to keep people from trying to sell copy
protected software than not buying it? If you can, I'd like to hear
it.
<"unusable" in the eyes of normal people. Your position, I maintain,
<is not that of the people, but that of the technocrat or "power user"
<who wants things done HIS way, and any company that disagrees or
<uses a different technique (which does NOT, I assert, make that
<software "unusable") should just "go out of business."
I said that companies that persist in selling only copy protected
software should go out of business *unless they change their ways*. A
drop in sales from people not buying your software is an indication
you're doing something wrong. I didn't say *any* company that doesn't
do things the way I want them done should go out of businesss. I know
better than to assume that the right tool for me is the right tool for
everyone. I just reserve the right not to buy the tools if they aren't
useful to me. I claim that copy protected software isn't useful to
anyone, and shouldn't be bought.
<have virtually the SAME policies in this area. To me, this is evidence
<that the policy is a reasonable one, and certainly isn't overwhelming
<evidence that those companies deserve to "go out of business.")
Sigh. Go back and read what I said. Companies that sell good, useable
software deserve to stay in business - though not all will. Companies
that sell unusable software desrerve to go out of business - though
not all will. Companies that sell useable software through contorted
paths (like having to buy a copy and then wait for the useable
version) deserve to have a harder time staying in business - though
not all will.
< Again, I should note that Word has some major bugs which cause
<the thing to bomb REGULARLY.
I'm glad to see that MicroShaft hasn't changed any since I stopped
dealing with them. I stopped dealing with them because they
persistently and publicly ignored complaints of bugs in their
software, and in at least one case stated (in public!) that they
didn't consider the problem to be a bug (the problem was a FORTRAN IV
feature that didn't work in what they advertised as a full featured
FORTRAN IV compiler). Since every product of theirs I dealt with had
funny bugs in it that cost me time and money, I gave up and went to
other companies - and got software that worked.
<So I tell EVERYBODY that you MUST back up your work, or risk losing it.
But of course. That's the price you pay for using computers. It's
inconvenient, but far less so than not having the computer two work
with at all.
That's what led me to buying DPAINT I - I finally decided that not
having a paint program was worse than having one that was copy
protected. Turned out I was wrong - copy protection made the product
unusable for more than a day or two at a stretch before having to deal
with the disk again.
<So does this mean Microsoft should be boycotted?
That all computer tools are unreliable, no. That MicroShaft
consistently markets tools that make it worse, yes. So I do. But
they are a *company*, not a concept. I urge people not to buy buggy
software, and will tell them that the specific products I bought from
MicroShaft were buggy, *and* that other MicroShaft prroducts may not
be buggy.
<Little tools can be flawless, but they are little. VMS was frozen
<with the documented buglist in the thousands. Do we boycott DEC?
<If DEC (like Atari) just had a "fuck the user" attitude, I'd say YES!
DEC *does* have a "fuck the user" attitude. If I could swap my VAXen
for CCI boxes and my ra81s for Eagles, I do it in an instant. Not
merely because the VAXen and ra81s are from DEC, but because the CCIs
and Eagles are less buggy than the DEC products, and DEC only does
something about fixing it when backed into a corner. DEC knows this,
so their new line of boxes have a proprietary bus. Only idiots (like
the one who makes the buy decisions for the hardware I run) and people
stuck with VMS are buying the things.
Remember who the "See Figure 1" document was aimed at.
<it is unlikely that you will play a game until you kill the disk.
<(Obviously you have Mike, but I haven't, and I don't think most
<consumers do.)
You mean most consumers don't boot their games more than about a dozen
times? That's what I got out of my EA games (both of them) and DPAINT
I - until I bought the useable version.
<However, it is no reason to advocate the killing of a company.
Can you name *one* company that I've advocated killing by name?
< Come on. It is well known that kids pirate games like there
<was no tomorrow. Kids don't have the resources to buy the amount of
<games they pirate, even if they were only $25. These kids are
<guilty, there is no doubt about it.
Right, those kids are guilty. So why am *I* being punished? Because
it's assumed that I'm guilty, until I sign some papers and send in
more money to proof that I'm innocent. And I don't even have that
option for some products.
<EA copy protection is quite reliable,
<i.e., it does not shorten the life of the game disk unless you try to
<write to it, and EA games DO NOT WRITE TO THE MASTER DISK) have
<thwarted all but the most hard-core pirates.
That's why there's a program to copy EA disks on one of the Fish
disks? Because you don't need backups, and because only the most
hard-core pirates will have the Fish disks? Gimme a break.
<[lots more stuff about how EA ain't such bad guys after all.]
I think you're working for EA has biased you towards them, and copy
protection in general. They are a major force in the Amiga market. Them
going out of business would be a moderatly bad thing for the Amiga
market. Them not copy protecting their software would be a *very* good
thing, as others would then have to compete with high-quality, non
copy protected software.
<I don't see the evidence that would convince me to boycott EA;
I *never* asked anyone to boycott EA, or any other company. I asked
people to boycott copy protected software. I hope you aren't so tied to
EA that you can't see the difference.
[from elsewhere, but still Mitsu.]
< However, it is clear that game manufacturers have a hard time
<making enough money to survive, and it is also clear that they lose
<money to software piracy.
Ah, so you think the Amiga is a game machine, then. Or you want the
populace to percieve it that way.
<>I know of at least 10 people who will not buy another EA product, no
<>matter how good, because of the experience they have had with the
<>existing products, and their frustration and anger at products which
<>are annoying to use.
<
< Again, I don't buy it. Many technical people were angry at
<EA because they perceived EA as this big, bad company that was out to
<rip people off or something. This is totally ridiculous. I work there,
<and I know that EA is made up of thoughtful, good people, just like you
<and me, and to "punish" them by not buying their products is the
<kind of "us-them" mentality which has often been the downfall of
<nations.
You're saying that, even though these people have had serious problems
with software from some company, they should continue buying software
from that compnay, because not to do so is bad for the world? If
you've eaten at a resteraunt several times, and gotten sick each time,
do you go back to it so they won't go out of business, because that's
good for the economy? Talk about ridiculous.
That's exactly the kind of blind following that's lead to the downfall
of nations. Remember - Question Authority.
<I'm not saying that copy protected games are not less convenient than
<unprotected games, just that it is ridiculous to penalize them
<by not buying ANY future products, whether or not they offer
<unprotected versions, whether or not the programmers who worked on
<them deserve the sales, whether or not the programs are useful, fun,
<or imaginative, just because they, like MOST game software manufacturers,
<happen to protect their game software.
I've never urged people not to buy all products from any specific
company. However, if *every* product they buy from a company is
garbage, then that's a good indication that they shouldn't oughta buy
any more software from that company. And imaginative, fun, etc. don't
matter if it don't work. As for "deserving" sales, there isn't any
such thing.
And that MOST game software is copy protected is merely an indication
of the sorry state of the games market.
<This is simply small-minded vindictiveness, of the same sort that
<causes feuds to last for generations, that causes violence between the
<Sikhs and the Hindus, the Tamils and the Buddhists, the prejudice
<between whites and blacks.
Blindly buying from some company because having them fail would be bad
for the market is the kind of unquestioning attitude that led to
slavery and attempted genocide.
Blast it, not buying from a company that's screwed you over repeatedly
isn't "small-minded vindictiveness", it's common sense. Refusing to
deal with them at all because some part of their products are copy
protected is small-minded vindictiveness. Buying the copy protected
software lies somewhere between naivette and stupidity.
<However, I hope there are enough forgiving souls out there who do not
<make such snap judgements about the hundreds of people who happen to
<work under the shared appellation "Electronic Arts."
I don't care *how* many people share the appellation "Electronics
Arts." I don't care if EA is nothing more than a publishing house.
Things are marketed under it's name, so it shares a responsibility for
them, and for seeing that they meet some minimum standard. Like, for
instance, the not writing to the Key Disk you were bragging about
earlier. If all games you've gotten from such a company are unuseable,
then obviously that companies minimum standard is below yours. It
therefore behooves you to avoid them.
Likewise, you, as a part of the company, are responsible for seeing to
it that software products from the company meet *your* minimum
standards. Not just your products, but any you come in contact with.
For instance, I just started on a project for a software company, and
they gave me a copy of something already on the market that had
problems with it. I'm going to go back to them, and try and convince
them to upgrade the product. Both because I think consumers deserve
better, and because such action will help sales of *my* product.
And yes, the thing I'm working on will be copy protected - by the
keyword scheme. This is a computerized version of a common board game,
and I intend to see to it that anyone who knows the board game can
answer the questions. Due to the state of the manual, this will amount
to little more than making sure that the questions *make sense* if you
know the game.
<mike
--
How many times do you have to fall Mike Meyer
While people stand there gawking? mwm@berkeley.edu
How many times do you have to fall ucbvax!mwm
Before you end up walking? mwm@ucbjade.BITNEThsgj@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Dan Green) (07/08/87)
In article <2478@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes: >[...] I don't buy the argument that copy protection >makes games unusable (unless it is STUPID protection, i.e., if it > >>I know of at least 10 people who will not buy another EA product, no >>matter how good, because of the experience they have had with the >>existing products, and their frustration and anger at products which >>are annoying to use. > >[..] What is annoying about having copy protection on your >copy of Marble Madness? I mean, do you seriously expect to >play that game so much that the disk fails? (I certainly haven't.) >You can get a replacement from EA if it does fail. What more do you >want? > -Mitsu BULL SH-T, to be exceedingly polite. I owned a C-64 for several years. Loading Electronic Arts games on that machine, particularly "Archon" took forever, made annoying clicking noises with the disk drive, and ruined the disk alignment by banging the disk head around. Approximate load time was 4 minutes. I viewed (but did not take) a pirated version of Archon that had KwikLoad installed. This version, which of course was the same game, took only 20 seconds (!!!) to load, did not make annoying sounds on the disk, and did not ruin the drive. There goes your argument that copy protection is unobtrusive and harmless. To get back to the Amiga realm, I bought Adventure Constrution Set when I first got my machine. The *Worst* port in the history of porting, this game looks just like the C-64 version. Yes 320 by 200 with dismal tinny muzak and scrub graphics. And I paid $35 for this trash? Ahh but the copy protection is the best part. The stupid game won't go on my RAM: or my Hard disk. Ohh, but I thought copy protection from EA was unobtrusive? I don't buy any more EA software. Who needs something that locks you into floppies when you have over $1800 worth of expansion hardware? Bah! -- Dan Green -- ARPA: hsgj@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu UUCP: ihnp4!cornell!batcomputer!hsgj BITNET: hsgj@cornecorn
hadeishi@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (mitsuharu hadeishi) (07/08/87)
In article <1636@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> hsgj@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Dan Green) writes: >BULL SH-T, to be exceedingly polite. I owned a C-64 for several years. >Loading Electronic Arts games on that machine, particularly "Archon" >took forever, made annoying clicking noises with the disk drive, and >ruined the disk alignment by banging the disk head around. Approximate >load time was 4 minutes. I viewed (but did not take) a pirated version >of Archon that had KwikLoad installed. This version, which of course >was the same game, took only 20 seconds (!!!) to load, did not make >annoying sounds on the disk, and did not ruin the drive. There goes your >argument that copy protection is unobtrusive and harmless. This "debate" has gone too far. Let's keep the flame level down. I hope you folks realize that it is possible for two reasonable and thoughtful people to hold opposite points of view on this issue. I owned a C-64, and, yes, Archon, way back in my kiddie days, and, unlike you, I was perfectly satisfied with the 4 minute load time because Archon was such a great game (for its time). At the time most games had poor design and were little more than shoot-em-ups with OK graphics and poor sound. There were exceptions, like Epyx games and Infocom games (though Infocom games were excrutiatingly slow on the old unaccelerated 1541's). As far as ruining the drive, those old 1541s would die if you breathed on them too hard (the new ones seem to be OK.) My bro' and I loved Electronic Arts then (as a user) and I still love them (as an employee for the time being). So it is clear that perceptions differ on this issue. Of course, if you judge a product by its load time alone, I can understand your feelings regarding EA. >To get back to the Amiga realm, I bought Adventure Constrution Set when I >first got my machine. The *Worst* port in the history of porting, this >game looks just like the C-64 version. Yes 320 by 200 with dismal tinny >muzak and scrub graphics. And I paid $35 for this trash? Ahh but the >copy protection is the best part. The stupid game won't go on my RAM: >or my Hard disk. Ohh, but I thought copy protection from EA was unobtrusive? I didn't say unobtrusive, I said tolerable. I should apologize for ACS; the reason it is such a problematic port is that it was originally written in FORTH on the C-64 and it would have taken a few years to port it if totally rewritten, and the guy who ported it didn't want to spend the next few years of his life porting ACS to the Amiga. So they ported FORTH first, and then tinkered with the code to get it to run. Unfortunately, this meant the graphics and limitations of ACS came along from the C-64 to the Amiga version (originally the ACS port was supposed to be a simple exercise in porting, just to fill out the initial Amiga software library; it turned out to be more of a problem than they expected, so it was released later along with "real" products, so it might have been confused with a "real" product when it was really supposed to be a port to go with some of the other 8-bit ports.) >I don't buy any more EA software. I'm truly sorry to hear that. I hope in future you reconsider, given a careful study of what's available for the machine. -Mitsu
hadeishi@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (mitsuharu hadeishi) (07/08/87)
iety of good reasons) starts at a major >disadvantage to any competion. If EA can get past those two hurlds >with software I want to buy, I'll buy it. Well, that is your choice. I personally prefer key-disk copy protection to "lookup-word-in-the-manual" copy protection because it is faster and easier without sacrificing backupability or having to lug around a fat manual. I should note that nothing in this copy protection method prevents you from using your own startup-sequence, your own boot environment, whatever. And two weeks later you can even throw away the key disk. How this makes DPaint II "unusable" for two weeks you'll have to explain to me. >I said that companies that persist in selling only copy protected >software should go out of business *unless they change their ways*. A Again, I think EA at least has acted in good faith and has tried to eliminate the primary problems with copy protection, and it did so very rapidly, formulating a new policy within a couple weeks of hearing user complaints (it took some time to implement it; it had to wait until new products were introduced.) I know, because I was one of the people who relayed the complaints (with which I agreed, particularly as regards tools like DPaint). People complained that: 1. You could kill the tools (like DPaint) by writing to the original disk. 2. You could not back it up. 3. You could not copy it to a hard disk or ram disk. 4. You could not use your own environment (boot disk, startup-seq) with it. All of these complaints are answered in the key disk scheme EA came up with (again, within a couple weeks of hearing the complaints), and in addition they provided completely unprotected copies to the user community for a charge of $20, similar to Borland. The scheme answers user complaints, gives options, while retaining a copy deterrent situation. This is called "compromise". Perhaps if you were in charge, things would be done always your way, with no consideration for the other points of view. This is a typically white-male style of negotiation (i.e., no compromise negotiation.) >Sigh. Go back and read what I said. Companies that sell good, useable >software deserve to stay in business - though not all will. Companies >that sell unusable software desrerve to go out of business - though >not all will. Companies that sell useable software through contorted >paths (like having to buy a copy and then wait for the useable >version) deserve to have a harder time staying in business - though >not all will. We agree on this one! >< Again, I should note that Word has some major bugs which cause ><the thing to bomb REGULARLY. > >I'm glad to see that MicroShaft hasn't changed any since I stopped >dealing with them. I stopped dealing with them because they >persistently and publicly ignored complaints of bugs in their >software, and in at least one case stated (in public!) that they >didn't consider the problem to be a bug (the problem was a FORTRAN IV >feature that didn't work in what they advertised as a full featured >FORTRAN IV compiler). Since every product of theirs I dealt with had >funny bugs in it that cost me time and money, I gave up and went to >other companies - and got software that worked. Yes, I agree, MicroS--- is highly unprofessional. But Word is still the best WP for the Mac, and reports from people who know MS insiders say they are trying to fix all reported bugs ASAP. Of course, they shouldn't have been let out in the first place, but who else had written something as good as Word? Even my Mac hacker friends use Word, despite the bugs. My personal preference is to kill ALL bugs before release. I can't stand the thought of a naive user, in the normal process of using my tool, having to talk with the GURU. It is generally possible to catch most bugs in small products; I am fairly sure my current project is bug-free in the older functions (I haven't yet fully tested all permutations of the newer functions). But I realize how difficult it is to produce bug-free code, and despite the shortcomings of Word (and I swear at MS too) I would use it and recommend it to my friends (with reservations). However, I can understand not wanting to deal with the bugs, and chucking Word. In my experience, however, it is possible to write theses and other long documents with Word, and much easier than with MacWrite. >they are a *company*, not a concept. I urge people not to buy buggy >software, and will tell them that the specific products I bought from >MicroShaft were buggy, *and* that other MicroShaft prroducts may not >be buggy. I agree with this. >You mean most consumers don't boot their games more than about a dozen >times? That's what I got out of my EA games (both of them) and DPAINT >I - until I bought the useable version. I'll report this to EA. I've had no problems, but if you had those problems with three disks it's pretty good evidence that the CP scheme needs to be looked at for reliability problems. >Right, those kids are guilty. So why am *I* being punished? Because >it's assumed that I'm guilty, until I sign some papers and send in >more money to proof that I'm innocent. And I don't even have that >option for some products. You're beginning to sound like a conservative economist. There are certainly good arguments that certain measures which "penalize" the whole slightly are justified for the treatment of individual injustice. Social Security, insurance policies, air bag legislation, health and safety regulations, these all place restrictions and make life more difficult for everybody so that certain worst-case injustices are deterred. As long as the measures do not go too far or are not too inconvenient, there is certainly a good argument for them. >I think you're working for EA has biased you towards them, and copy >protection in general. They are a major force in the Amiga market. Them >going out of business would be a moderatly bad thing for the Amiga Not to mention a terrible thing for the people who work there. Oops, I forgot, we're only considering one side of the issue here. >< However, it is clear that game manufacturers have a hard time ><making enough money to survive, and it is also clear that they lose ><money to software piracy. > >Ah, so you think the Amiga is a game machine, then. Or you want the >populace to percieve it that way. Non sequitur. >That's exactly the kind of blind following that's lead to the downfall >of nations. Remember - Question Authority. Right on! (I'm just questioning Your authority in this case.) >I've never urged people not to buy all products from any specific >company. But some people do. I'm just objecting to that blanket stance without actually looking at how EA has responded to criticism (again, referring not to you, Mike, but to the "people who would never again buy an EA product.") Well, I think I've said everything I care to say on this topic. I would appreciate continuing this discussion via email, since everyone is probably getting bored of it by now. Apologies to those who feel this is a waste of bandwidth; I just wanted to clarify a few points before taking the discussion off the net. -Mitsu
cmcmanis@pepper.UUCP (07/08/87)
[Whew! Lots of heat, some info, and mucho smoke and opinion]
I try to keep out of the copy protection debate, primarily because I can
argue it from both sides. Either way someone, the manufacturer or the user
thinks they are getting screwed. But my one point that I try to get across
that no one has brought up yet, and I think is more important for a new
machine like the Amiga is this :
One hopes that by Christmas there will be twice as many non-technical
people using the Amiga as there are now. These people will buy software and
will inevitably get copy protected software. When the copy protection is
done poorly (as in the case of MicroProse's Silent Service) the program will
break. What happens next is the sad part, the user BLAMES THE AMIGA! Yes,
thats right, the user say's "This stupid machine can't even run a program
three times without corrupting a disk!" Which is TOTALLY UNTRUE. And I
personally feel that this is an unforgivable sin. Here a perfectly wonderful
machine is denigrated because some copy protection worked to well, (it made
the disk unreadable after all, and thus hard to copy). I have heard stories
where naive customers bring back machines because there machine can't make
a copy of their DPaint disk but their friend copies his copy all the time.
(You see they don't know about the extra $20 for the unprotected version).
Anyway, the bottom line is this. When copy protection makes an otherwise
useful program unreliable the Naive user blames the machine not the software.
This is a bad thing.
--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.michael@stb.UUCP (07/08/87)
*** Flame ON *** ************************************************************************** --- flame off --- In article <2470@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes: > > That's fine for you (and me) Mike, but if you are interested >in getting software out to the masses, which I am, then I'm afraid >we're all going to have to live with copy protection. In order for >large-scale projects such as the ones envisioned by the consumer >software companies to get off the ground, some type of copy deterrent >is going to be required, or the consumer software industry could not >survive. And I feel it is necessary for these kinds of products >to get out there, and for the companies that market them to >stay in business. Of course exorbitant prices for software tools is >abhorrent, but I find that much more abhorrent than copy protection >per se. I often use copy protected software (games) and I am >satisfied with them. Companies such as Borland and Electronic Arts I used to use copy protected software. Why not anymore? 1. The copy protection routines die under 1.2 even when booted from the originals. I mean the protection routines, not the game itself-- it doesn't even make it to the start of the game, and dies with a different guru from 'illegal copy'. This is true of EA's eariler games, AND RECENT games such as sinBAD. Tell owners of the 2000 and 500 that they have to either change ROM's or not use the games availible on the "100% compatible" sister machine 2. The programs don't allow you to do other things. Now we have the ability to kill programs and recover rescources (partially). So, we can start doing something, decide that we want to take a break, play the game, amiga-n, kill the game, and continue work. No can do with most protected software. > >>No, there's one other condition that will cause companies to stop copy >>protecting their software. That's if nobody buys it. They'll either >>stop, or go out of business. > > What will happen is if games are distributed without copy >protection to the mass market (I exclude the Amiga from "mass market >since it tends to be a hacker's machine, and there is a kind of >hacker ethic which precludes illicit copying) is that the game >manufacturers will be unable to stay in business because of loss >of hard-earned remuneration for their work due to illicit copying. It happens even with copy protection. Look at the apple 2, atari 800, or c-64 markets. People not only crack the games, they put ADS for themselves in the cracked games. Heck, I did it on the model 1 also (long long time ago, back when I still had time for such things) > The point is that we need to take care of each other, and >consider other points of view than our own. Some products, such >as programmer's editors, should not be copy protected. Others, >such as games, should be. Those on the edge, like mass-market >productivity tools, should give the buyer an option. There is >nothing morally wrong with copy protection when it is necessary for >the ongoing viability of a company; the user's point of view >needs to be considered as well, but there shouldn't be a feeling >of "US" and "THEM". Companies are vulnerable to the vagaries of >the mass market, and they deserve to be protected. They also need >to listen to users (thus the two-tier copy protection scheme mentioned >earlier.) I think we can all agree that we want a viable, >growing, vibrant software industry that produces products that are >useful and responsive to user needs. I think there is a role for >copy protection in maintaining and improving on this vision. > > -Mitsu Ok, here's what I think we need as far as games go. Personally, I won't buy any product (game, tool, compiler, or whatever) until it passes these 1. Not copy protected 2. Supports multitasking (NO BUSY WAITS) 3. If it hogs the machine, then a pause button will unhog (for games; see mindwalker) 4. Internally consistent (now we're on games) Such as: If you visit a native city and get 5 bearers, visiting your ship and picking up 250 men should not give you 1250 more bearers. And if you have to eat, those bearers should have to eat as well. 5. Good user interface. Do not force me to rotate my joystick, do not turn straight moves into diagonal moves. If you use a mouse as a trackball, either provide an optional filter for the discontinuities when the mouse is raised and put down, or else use the standard input.device chain so that we can provide our own. 6. Work under 1.2 with expanded memory. There is NO game on the market that passes all of these; there are a few that passed 1-5; there are many PD or PA games that pass 1-6. #6 is the most important given the ROM'd kickstart on new machines. This is where copy protections seem to love to die. -- : Michael Gersten seismo!scgvaxd!stb!michael : Copy protection? Just say Pirate!
mwm@eris.UUCP (07/09/87)
To those wishing this would go away: I think it's winding down. If you
really want it to go away, suggest a *serious* other newsgroup. I'll
gladly move it there.
In article <2489@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes:
<away the key disk. How this makes DPaint II "unusable" for two weeks
<you'll have to explain to me.
I never dealt with DPAINT II; I went straight from the unprotected
DPAIN I (which came out about the time I was going to call EA and
insist on my money back so I could send it to Aegis) to the
unprotected DPAINT II. EA did that upgrade right.
<no consideration for the other points of view. This is a typically
<white-male style of negotiation (i.e., no compromise negotiation.)
Actually, this is closer to the typical left-wing style of negotiation
"we think it's bad, make it go away!" Except I'm more willing to
compromise than they are - you're free to try and sell as much
unusable software as you want; and I'm free to not buy it.
< I'll report this to EA. I've had no problems, but if you
<had those problems with three disks it's pretty good evidence that the CP
<scheme needs to be looked at for reliability problems.
Do that. The games are SkyFox and 1-on-1. Both were purchased at the
'86 Commodore show in SF. If you can get either money back, or working
copies, it'd be nice. But don't work to hard - neither one was worth
me calling EA to get fixed.
< You're beginning to sound like a conservative economist.
Since I tend to be a conservative when it comes to economics, that's
not surprising. I've yet to hear a good argument along the lines of
"forcing everyone to do this means fewer people get hurt, at small
inconvenience to everyone." The correct answer is almost always
"consider it evolution in action." That includes copy protection.
<>I think you're working for EA has biased you towards them, and copy
<>protection in general. They are a major force in the Amiga market. Them
<>going out of business would be a moderatly bad thing for the Amiga
<
< Not to mention a terrible thing for the people who work there.
<Oops, I forgot, we're only considering one side of the issue here.
Right. the side of the consumer. If EA doesn't do anything to justify
there continued existence, then they don't deserve to continue to
exist at the expense of others, no matter *how* painful them going out
of business would be to the people who work there. That makes the
people who work there do something to justify their existence, and
they do some good for society. That's one of the benifits of
capitalism.
<>Ah, so you think the Amiga is a game machine, then. Or you want the
<>populace to percieve it that way.
<
< Non sequitur.
No, it isn't, you keep yammering about games. If the Amiga isn't a
game machine, then game makers should be a small part of the market.
If they are an important part of the market, then it's a game machine.
<>That's exactly the kind of blind following that's lead to the downfall
<>of nations. Remember - Question Authority.
<
< Right on! (I'm just questioning Your authority in this case.)
What Authority? I haven't given any commands, just urged people not to
buy broken software. I didn't make any pleas about not buying the copy
protected software being a disservice to the community, I didn't call
refusing to deal with a company that consistenlty sells broken
software "small-minded vindictiveness", and didn't try to play on
peoples moral sense by pointing out that some company could (horrors)
go out of business if people didn't do their duty by buying buggy or
copy protected software. About the worst I did was call not buying
copy protected software "politically correct" twice. [See, I can walk
on the thin line of the ad-hominem attack, too.]
<>I've never urged people not to buy all products from any specific
<>company.
<
< But some people do.
About the worst I've seen is people claiming that other people have
quit buying software from companies because they keep getting burned.
That's legitimate information to pass on about a company.
<mike
--
ICUROK2C, ICUROK2. Mike Meyer
ICUROK2C, ICWR2. mwm@berkeley.edu
URAQT, I WANT U2. ucbvax!mwm
OO2EZ, I WANT U2. mwm@ucbjade.BITNETfarren@hoptoad.UUCP (07/09/87)
This will be the last thing I have to say publicly on the subject(s) of copy protection and EA. As Mitsu says, more discussion via email is welcome. In article <2489@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes: >I'm just objecting to that blanket stance [of rejecting all EA >products] without actually looking at how EA has responded to >criticism (again, referring not to you, Mike, but to the "people >who would never again buy an EA product.") O.K., then, let's look at how EA has responded to criticism: 1) By ignoring it. EA has very consistently refused to respond, publicly and officially, to most, if not all, of the criticisms of its problems, bugs, or annoyances. 2) By dealing with it "on the sly" by giving fixed updates of their products to those who complain about the bugs, while leaving the rest of the public, especially those who are timid about such things, unaware that fixes even exist. 3) NOT by increasing QA procedures - recent EA products are just as buggy as the early ones were, and the copy protect schemes just as drastic. In short, not by behaving as I would wish a professional software house would. My opinion of EA was once quite high - their line of games for the Atari 800 are, in my opinion, unsurpassed by anyone short of LucasFilm. I would unhesitatingly recommend ANY of EA's first year or so's releases. Fine games, lovingly created. Sometime in the intervening time, though, things changed. While EA still has some of the best game concepts around in games like StarFlight, Amnesia, and Rommel vs. Patton, their corporate policy now seems to be oriented strictly towards making a buck, whether or not that is done on the backs of the unfortunate buyer. If and when EA decides to go back to its original policy of producing the best games in the best manner, with the utmost attention to ALL aspects of customer satisfaction, I will cheerfully recommend them again. Right now, though, I will stand by my statement that I cannot recommend, and will not buy, another game from EA. -- ---------------- "... if the church put in half the time on covetousness Mike Farren that it does on lust, this would be a better world ..." hoptoad!farren Garrison Keillor, "Lake Wobegon Days"
scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) (07/10/87)
In article <2374@hoptoad.uucp> farren@hoptoad.UUCP (Mike Farren) writes: >I would like to see real data which indicates that this is the case. >So far, all I've seen are suppositions and self-serving statements >from companies on both sides of the copy-protection fence. My I've personally taken to calling these schemes that companies cookup "User Traps" rather than copy protection. Because they certainly DO NOT prevent copying, and they certainly can supply users with surprises much like sticking ones hands under the sofa and finding that missing mouse trap, still set and waiting just for you. :) I also think they should be outlawed. Much like man traps are outlawed. And for the same reason, they will more often hurt innocent people than their intended targets. Today the pirates are so sophisticated that they can EASILY side step any traps laid for them. They aren't the ones being stopped, but rather the innocent user. I can find ANY NUMBER of users who have been caught by user traps at one time or another, but I'd be hard pressed to come up with anything that has stopped pirates dead. How much longer can we allow these companies to injure innocent users as they fumble around trying to stop the pirates? How much longer can software companies dodge being sued over an episode with a user trap? Most companies duck liability as a matter of course for protection against "bugs". But what court would let them duck liability for something that was INTENTIONAL? And how much longer will it be before someone DIES over a user trap? comp.risks has been fascinating to me in this regard, I keep an eye peeled. I can just imagine some poor user using oh say a book keeping package that uses a dongle and having the "boss" drop by one morning with the "gang" and demand to see the books. And the boss crush the dongle as he stomps in (ANYTHING can fall on the floor :) and when the user can't produce the books the boss orders him tossed in the river with some nice cement booties. Moral, if you use user trapped software make sure the boss is forgiving. :-) But user traps are a symptom of a problem, not the real problem. Emotions have run high and egos put on the line. Maginot lines have been built and then over run. New technology has been introduced and the tables stakes have increased. Programmers don't plant user traps for free, they cost $$$. Lots of time and money are being spent to cause human suffering, when if we would all just cooperate none of it would be needed. Sound familiar? Yes, it's "normal" human warfare as usual just in the software arena. Getting back to the original message, even if hard data was produced I doubt it would make any difference at this point. What will make a difference is making people stop and take a look at what they are doing to their fellow humans. ON BOTH sides of the "fence". Scott Turner -- UUCP-stick: stride!l5comp!scotty | If you want to injure my goldfish just make UUCP-auto: scotty@l5comp.UUCP | sure I don't run up a vet bill. GEnie: JST | "The bombs drop in 5 minutes" R. Reagan Disclaimer? I own L5 Computing. Isn't that enough?
ewhac@well.UUCP (07/10/87)
In article <1634@stb.UUCP> michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) writes:
:Ok, here's what I think we need as far as games go. Personally, I won't buy any
:product (game, tool, compiler, or whatever) until it passes these
:1. Not copy protected
:2. Supports multitasking (NO BUSY WAITS)
:3. If it hogs the machine, then a pause button will unhog (for games; see
: mindwalker)
:4. Internally consistent (now we're on games)
: ...if you have to eat, those bearers should have to eat as well.
:5. Good user interface. Do not force me to rotate my joystick, [ etc. ]
:6. Work under 1.2 with expanded memory.
:
:There is NO game on the market that passes all of these; there are a few that
:^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:passed 1-5; there are many PD or PA games that pass 1-6.
:
I have an ASDG MR-C with two megs of RAM, and regularly use 1.2
release. My copy of MindWalker (circa Oct '85, or thereabouts) works
perfectly, thank you, and appears to satisfy all six of your conditions.
Do you know something I don't?
My *copy* of MindWalker works great, too (MindWalker is unprotected,
remember).
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Leo L. Schwab -- The Guy in The Cape ihnp4!ptsfa -\
\_ -_ Bike shrunk by popular demand, dual ---> !{well,unicom}!ewhac
O----^o But it's still the only way to fly. hplabs / (pronounced "AE-wack")
"Work FOR? I don't work FOR anybody! I'm just having fun." -- The Doctorelg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (07/10/87)
in article <2470@husc6.UUCP>, hadeishi@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (mitsuharu hadeishi) says: > > In article <4259@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.BERKELEY.EDU (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes: >>Very small? Gee, that's odd. As long as I avoid companies that sell >>games as the bulk of their products, I don't have problems with things >>being copy protected. But I tend to stay with programmers & CLI tools, >>and not business applications and games. > > That's fine for you (and me) Mike, but if you are interested > in getting software out to the masses, which I am, then I'm afraid > we're all going to have to live with copy protection. I must agree that copy protection IS necessary for consumer software. HOWEVER, in most instances of non-trivial software, disk-based copy protection or "keyword"-type copy protection is not necessary. Any software package with an 80 page or larger manual will be, via the vagarities of the software pirating industry, "protected" (assuming that the manual actually is necessary for the operation of the program, and isn't just "glitz"). Most people, when they want to copy something, are quite discouraged to find out they'll have to place each and every one of these little sheets of paper on a little glass plate and feed nickels to it for half a day (assuming, of course, you're not the print shop manager -- if you are, you just plunk it into the automagical document feeder, and whiz away!). The most popular BBS program for the Commodore 64 is named "C-NET". I know of at least 30 C-NET boards in Houston, Texas. Maybe FIVE of them are legal. This is how bad things are in the consumer market, where the big volume is -- for every 5 you sell, you have 30 pirated. How effective is manual-based protection? VERY. I know of several pirated copies of Bayou Telecommunication's latest product in Houston. Legal ICE owners have reported that they get calls from users who ask them "for help setting up the program". You see, there's several charts in the manual, where you must read numbers from for various modem types (heheh)....... anyhow, NONE of those pirated copies have yet to appear on the carrier waves, and probably won't until some kid gets the bright idea of getting the whole gang together for $5 apiece and going into the manual-copying business.... which I suspect they'll tire of immediately (nothing more fickle than a kid -- sitting in front of a copying machine feeding nickles into the thing is enough to get ANYONE impatient, much less a 15 year old!). I agree that programming tools should not be copy protected. But consumer software and games are a different story indeed. -- Eric Green elg%usl.CSNET CS student, University of SW Louisiana {cbosgd,ihnp4}!killer!elg Apprentice Haquer, Bayou Telecommunications Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191 BBS phone #: 318-984-3854 300/1200 baud Lafayette, LA 70509 I disclaim my existence, and yours, too.
cg@myrias.UUCP (Chris Gray) (07/10/87)
Just finished reading Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer's long posting
regarding copy protection. A major claim that he seems to make is that
copy protection makes a program unusable. He mentions having 2 games and
1 utility (DPaint I), all copy protected, and all having failed after some
small number of uses. Perhaps Mike has faulty disk drives? I've got a dozen
or more games, and both DPaint I and DPaint II. The only one that has ever
failed is "MindShadow" which insists on writing to the master disk. I agree
that that scheme can quickly make a program unusable - it did to mine. A
friend and I have spent MANY hours playing one game in particular (Bard's
Tale) and the disk still boots fine. Throughout the games, the main complaints
we have had have been about the games themselves or sometimes their
implementations.
I get upset about programs which won't run under 1.2 (most do now), or that
don't work with fast ram (becoming fewer, thankfully). I would be happy if
I could get updates to overcome these problems (if the game is any good, I'm
willing to pay, say, $10.00 for the update; if the game isn't any good, I
wouldn't bother to get the update even if it were free). I'm planning on a
getting a hard disk, and I would like to be able to put all of the games and
tools onto it. For that purpose I would probably get a copy-protection
breaking program, but I will NOT give away copies to others (I have already
refused to both give and accept pirated copies). I am fairly happy with
this compromise that has evolved in the industry, but am greatly concerned
about the continuing viability of the Amiga software market (since I might
want to get into it myself. Programmers MUST make reasonable money at it
or they will stop doing it.
Another question is that of whether copy protection is useful to the game
producer. I would be VERY interested in seeing some real numbers from
someone in the game industry, but I'm willing to make some estimates (note
that I'm talking about the Amiga here, not Apples or MSDOS machines):
approximate number of machines - 150,000
approximate percentage of owners that could be expected to
buy a given game - 1% (probably over generous)
approximate sales of game - 1500
approximate cost of producing the game - $50,000 (probably low)
therefore, required PROFIT per game - $50,000 / 1500 = $33.33
therefore, reasonable cost per game - $50.00
which is pretty close to what they are.
Now, if the game is not copy protected, my personal guess is that sales
would go down, perhaps by as much as a factor of 3. Suddenly, it is no
longer possible to survive in the market - your price has just doubled.
Mike would probably argue that removing the copy protection would increase
the sales. I just don't believe this would happen in the Amiga market.
--
Chris Gray Myrias Research, Edmonton +1 403 432 1616
{seismo!mnetor,ubc-vision,watmath,vax135}!alberta!myrias!cgbts@sas.UUCP (Brian T. Schellenberger) (07/12/87)
I have not yet bought any copy-protected software for my Amiga. (My wife bought I game with the look-up-the-word, but it is an adventure game that features a computer, so it actually fits into the action quite naturally.) You just have to: 1. Look a little harder. 2. Ask before you buy, and 3. Not be into games too much. BTW, for those of you looking for a decent spelling checker, (I understand there aren't too many good ones out, and I've stumbled across one): look into LexCheck, by CDA. $37.98 from Computer Discount [303-825-2943]; has a 100,000-word dictionary with a fairly diverse (and a bit random) set of words. Nice, interactive, `real-Amiga' user-interface. Biggest problem: it has a nasty habit of writing to $0 and then *reading* from it, so you must *not* run it with MemWatch. Otherwise, quite nice. I wrote them but haven't heard back. Need I say I have no connection with the company? Need I say also that it has no copy protection?
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (07/13/87)
In article <2478@husc6.UUCP> hadeishi@husc4.UUCP (mitsuharu hadeishi) writes: > Again, I don't buy it. Many technical people were angry at >EA because they perceived EA as this big, bad company that was out to >rip people off or something. This is totally ridiculous. Maybe they aren't big or bad, but they don't trust their paying customers. >This is simply small-minded >vindictiveness, of the same sort that causes feuds to last for generations, >that causes violence between the Sikhs and the Hindus, the Tamils >and the Buddhists, the prejudice between whites and blacks. No, it's called THE POWER OF THE CONSUMER. Simply put, I am paying your paycheck. If I choose not to do so, then maybe EA will change it's mind. I know a *lot* of Amiga users who are now boycotting CP software. Sean -- --- Sean Casey UUCP: cbosgd!ukma!sean CSNET: sean@ms.uky.csnet --- ARPA: ukma!sean@anl-mcs.arpa BITNET: sean@UKMA.BITNET --- We want... a shrubbery!
elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) (07/13/87)
in article <291@l5comp.UUCP>, scotty@l5comp.UUCP (Scott Turner) says: > I can just > imagine some poor user using oh say a book keeping package that uses a dongle > and having the "boss" drop by one morning with the "gang" and demand to see > the books. And the boss crush the dongle as he stomps in (ANYTHING can fall > on the floor :) and when the user can't produce the books... I hereby announce The Committe To Banish Dongles From The Face Of The Earth. Reasons: 1) Here in The Computer Clutter, about three feet of printouts, notepads, notebooks, reference manuals, and assorted electronic goodies crunch underneath your feet as you wade through the door. I once lost a VERY important three-ring binder, full of the specifications and interface requirements to my latest creation, a big thick brown binder, and didn't find it until a month later... what chance does a dongle have, through all THAT?! I had a program with a dongle once. A friend gave it to me. It was something about horse betting or such, I think. It's still sitting in a box SOMEWHERE -- minus the dongle! I think I saw it once, when I mucked out the room to build a new workbench... but then I couldn't find the program it went with :-). 2) Dongles take up a port on your computer. Generally it's an "unused" port, such as the cassette port on a Commodore 64, an RS232 port on an IBM PC (if the program doesn't telecommunicate), etc. But there's a big problem here -- those ports are very often used by non-standard devices. For example, many Commodore printer interfaces suck their power off the cassette port, and some folks are stuck with serial printers on their IBMs. Conclusion: Dongles are appealing, but their tiny size and their general fragility makes them less than ideal as a form of copy protection, especially if they live in a port where they'd have to be plugged and unplugged a lot (such as a joystick port -- every time you want to play a game, yank it out, throw it on the workbench somewhere, and hope it hasn't disappeard under a sea of printouts and little pink reminder notes when you go to boot up the program again). Comparing dongles with disk-based protection, it is probably MORE likely that the consumer will eventually be unable to use the program, if the protection is dongle-based (of course, this is also due to the proliferation of "nibble"-type copiers! :-). Eric Green {ihnp4,cbosgd}!killer!elg elg@usl.CSNET
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (07/19/87)
In article <1131@killer.UUCP> elg@killer.UUCP (Eric Green) writes: > I had a program with a dongle once. What's a "dongle"? -- Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016