wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu (William M. Bumgarner) (05/02/89)
Late last week, I finally received Moebius from the campus computer store (after recieving and returning an SE fan by Mobius...). Excitement, excitement... Open the shrink-wrap, copy it to my hard drive, remove the excess System Folder, and double click. No problem, works beautifully. GREAT! So, I quit the game, unmount the master disc, and put it away for safe keeping. Double-click the game again-- machine crashes after a good-way into the load. Hmmm... The game works fine from the master, but won't work off the hard drive. A fresh copy does the same thing-- won't work from hard drive. Aw, hell... Call the company-- they give me the number for 'tech support'. Call that. After a length discussion, I finally get the guy to admit that the game is copy protected... it requires the master disk to be in the internal drive when I run it. BUT I HAVE TRIED THAT! It doesn't work-- "What kind of machine do you have?" me: "MacPlus w/2.5 megs of RAM" him: "Let's see... looking Moebius up on the support chart, it says it works on a 512Ke, an SE, and a Mac II." me: "What about a Plus?" him: "not on the list-- not supported" me: "It worked fine once, why isn't it working now... could it be the copy protection?" him: "err, uh, maybe... i don't know much about Macintosh, you would have to talk to a mac guru." me: "Is there one their to talk to?" him: "<negative reply of some sort>" me: "Thanks, I will see what I can figure out..." After playing with Moebius, it does work fine a Mac Plus, but you have to put the master disk in the EXTERNAL drive... Note that it is not documented (that I could find) that there is copy protection, nor does the game ever ask for the master disk. The ONLY reason why the game won't work on a MacPlus is the copy protection; but a copy of the game will work fine on a Mac II (the protection doesn't work on the II...). How incredibly stupid! Needless to say, the company will be receiving a call from me tomorrow... Now, the patch: I had a look this afternoon, and was able to remove the copy protection in fairly short order (and have not had a single problem with the game on my MacPlus since then).... Use a disk editor and find: 6604 4EBA 2EA8 422D and change to: 6604 4E71 4E71 422D BTW: Other than the incredibly stupid and annoying copy-protection, Moebius is an excellent game! BBTW: A similar patch can be applied to AutoDuel-- Find: 6604 4EBA 017A 422D Change To: 6604 4E71 4E71 422D BBBTW: The patch to Moebius is intended to allow people with MacPlus's to actually play the game-- it is not meant to aid in piracy of the game (I bought it because I though it was worth it, and would have returned it if I hadn't been able to remove the protection). Autoduel for the same reasons-- though I don't think the game is worth buying, and have since deleted the copy that I tried the patch on. Hope this makes someone's gaming life a little more enjoyable... b.bum wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu
al1f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andy A. Lee) (05/04/89)
William Bumgarner,
You have just brought yourself a lawsuit with your "Meobius patch
(deprotection) and warning" message. How? First, publically you admitted
that you 'alternated' the Moebius source code without written permission of
the author. Such alternation is in DIRECT violation of the copyright law.
Second, it would be extremely easy for any lawyer to prove that your message
causes Moebius's author to loose sale on the software. You are responsible
for any lost of sale due to your message, i.e. those who are going to buy
a copy of the game now can 'copy' from their friends. The money lost in
sale could add up to serveral times your Carnegie Mellon tuition.
It is perfectly legal to express your experiences with Moebius (and its
author company), but to post deprotection procedures is down right ILLEGAL,
irresponsible, and stupid. Think twice next time you decide to boast...
Andy A. Lee
al1f@andrew.cmu.edunl0s+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nathan James Loofbourrow) (05/04/89)
Copyright law covers nothing of the sort.
There are magazines for the Apple II that have been around for years and
that regularly publish specific instructions to remove protection from
games and applications. No lawsuit has been brought against them.
Programs such as Copy II Mac make it just as easy to copy a program like
Moebius, but Central Point Software is not liable for any damages.
There may be a debate as to how tactful his post was (I would have found
it helpful as a Mac Plus user), but not about its legality.
------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Loofbourrow
ARPA: nl0s+@andrew.cmu.edu
BITNET: nl0s%andrew@CMCCVB
UUCP: ...!{psuvax1,harvard}!andrew.cmu.edu!nl0s+
------------------------------------------------------------
"George Bush says he hears the quiet people others don't.
I've got a friend in L.A. who hears the quiet people others
don't, and he's got to take a lot of medication."
- Albert Brooks
------------------------------------------------------------pratt@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Jonathan Pratt) (05/04/89)
In article <cYLscby00WB64AAJAO@andrew.cmu.edu> al1f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andy A. Lee) writes: >William Bumgarner, > > You have just brought yourself a lawsuit with your "Meobius patch >(deprotection) and warning" message. ... Just what we need, a self-righteous network policeman. I for one will vehemently defend the original poster since his intention was clearly to make software more usable to those who had already paid $$$ for it, and not to encourage piracy. >.... Such alternation is in DIRECT violation of the copyright law. No doubt such alterations violate the letter of the law, as well as licensing agreements etc. Nonetheless, how often do buyers know in advance when they are purchasing protected software? Most Mac users I know wouldn't even glance at software that admitted you couldn't run it from your hard disk. How about some truth in advertising? >Second, it would be extremely easy for any lawyer to prove that your message >causes Moebius's author to loose sale on the software. About as easy as proving that the posting encouraged 10,000 more people to buy the product. Just look at all the free advertising. In every case I've seen, copy protection encumbers legitimate users and entertains pirates. > > It is perfectly legal to express your experiences with Moebius (and its >author company), but to post deprotection procedures is down right ILLEGAL, >irresponsible, and stupid. The latter two adjectives represent unnecessary hostility. As for the former, I'd like to see comments for someone who is acquainted with the letter of the law. Sorry about flogging the expired stallion some more. Jonathan /* Jonathan Pratt Internet: pratt@boulder.colorado.edu * * Campus Box 525 uucp: ..!{ncar|nbires}!boulder!pratt * * University of Colorado * * Boulder, CO 80309 Phone: (303) 492-4293 */
nghiem@ut-emx.UUCP (nghiem) (05/04/89)
In article <cYLscby00WB64AAJAO@andrew.cmu.edu>, al1f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andy A. Lee) writes:
1> You have just brought yourself a lawsuit with your "Meobius patch
1> (deprotection) and warning" message. How? First, publically you admitted
1> that you 'alternated' the Moebius source code without written permission of
1> the author. Such alternation is in DIRECT violation of the copyright law.
1> Second, it would be extremely easy for any lawyer to prove that your message
1> causes Moebius's author to loose sale on the software. You are responsible
1> for any lost of sale due to your message, i.e. those who are going to buy
1> a copy of the game now can 'copy' from their friends. The money lost in
1> sale could add up to serveral times your Carnegie Mellon tuition.
1>
1> It is perfectly legal to express your experiences with Moebius (and its
1> author company), but to post deprotection procedures is down right ILLEGAL,
1> irresponsible, and stupid. Think twice next time you decide to boast...
Nonsense! The bulletin board networks (FIDO, OPUS, and others)
are full of documents that publish deprotection schemes and other patches.
In fact, a piece of the software I bought contained such
a patch document that was posted to Compuserve.
If you buy a piece of software, you can do what you want with it, even
modify it if you have the knowledge. You will get in trouble if
you DISTRIBUTE it in violation of copyright and licensing agreements because
the source is not yours.DN5@PSUVM.BITNET (05/04/89)
Hi,
(This is in reply to the reply which stated that giving out deprotection
information was illegal.)
I really don't know if it was illegal to post this, but I don't believe so.
He specifically said that he wasn't doing this for any illegal reasons. Also,
if it was illegal to deprotect software, then several major programs which
specialize in deprotecting software would be in big trouble. As it is, they
have survived every lawsuit against them.
And quite frankly, even if it was illegal, perhaps it was moral? And maybe
it did generate other sales. I refuse to allow any copy-protected software
on my hard-disk, no matter what its utility. He may have convinced me that
I should buy a copy of Moebius. I think that copy-protection is self-
defeating. It does generate more sales in the short run, but it leads to
problems later. Many people I've talked to will not buy any protected
software (for work) because of the problems it gives.
D. Jay Newman (Jay, etc...)
dn5 AT psuvm.bitnettrebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) (05/04/89)
In article <12752@ut-emx.UUCP> nghiem@ut-emx.UUCP (nghiem) writes: >Nonsense! The bulletin board networks (FIDO, OPUS, and others) >are full of documents that publish deprotection schemes and other patches. Just because other people do it, doesn't mean it's right. >In fact, a piece of the software I bought contained such >a patch document that was posted to Compuserve. If the patch was added by the manufacturer, that's one thing; if it was added by someone else (say, the store), and then sold or distributed to you, it's illegal. >If you buy a piece of software, you can do what you want with it, even >modify it if you have the knowledge. You will get in trouble if >you DISTRIBUTE it in violation of copyright and licensing agreements because >the source is not yours. Quite true, but you don't address the real question. The fact of the matter is this; if the posting of that information causes 10000 extra sales, and _one_ act of piracy, the author is in trouble. What he, and the people on FIDO, etc, depend on is the fact that it isn't economical to sue them, and that a jury would have a hard time understanding the issues. BTW, a good lawyer could argue that the software changes were ``distributed'' by being published. -- Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP "The lamb will lie down with the lion, but the lamb won't get much sleep." -- Woody Allen.
captkidd@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Cavero Belaunde) (05/04/89)
In article <cYLscby00WB64AAJAO@andrew.cmu.edu> al1f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andy A. Lee) writes: >William Bumgarner, > You have just brought yourself a lawsuit with your "Meobius patch >(deprotection) and warning" message. How? First, publically you admitted >that you 'alternated' the Moebius source code without written permission of >the author. Such alternation is in DIRECT violation of the copyright law. I'm not so sure about that one, Andy. I don't believe the law states that you cannot modify a program you purchased for your own use, just like the law does not prevent you from writing notes on the margin of your textbooks (which are copyrighted). Furthermore, I believe the law specifically states that you have a RIGHT to a backup copy for archival purposes. By copy-protecting Moebius you are being deprived of that right, and that is another argument which would prevent your point of view from prevailing in a court of law. Deprotecting the software was done for the express purpose of making it usable, since the protection scheme was interfering with proper operation of the program (another point for the deprotector). In fact, I believe that if the legality of PROTECTING software were challenged in court, it would likely be successful, unless the software company supplied a backup copy with the original (the chances of that happening are nil, tho'). >Second, it would be extremely easy for any lawyer to prove that your message >causes Moebius's author to loose sale on the software. You are responsible >for any lost of sale due to your message, i.e. those who are going to buy >a copy of the game now can 'copy' from their friends. The money lost in >sale could add up to serveral times your Carnegie Mellon tuition. Again, I don't believe it would be that easy, considering that the posting was for a legitimate purpose (ie making Moebius usable on a Mac+). In the Apple II market, several magazines have been publishing deprotection procedures for years, and I have yet to see a single one taken to court. If what you say were the case, don't you think the software companies' hotshot lawyers would have put these magazines out of circulation a LONG time ago? Probably first amendment provisions would prevent such a lawsuit from succeeding. > It is perfectly legal to express your experiences with Moebius (and its >author company), but to post deprotection procedures is down right ILLEGAL, >irresponsible, and stupid. Illegal? Not at all. Irresponsible? Possible, but look at the legitimacy of his reasons. Stupid? You are being downright insulting right there. BTW, I believe that piracy is pure and simple theft. Deprotection of programs you purchased, however, I believe is ethical and legal, especially when the protection scheme interferes with legitimate uses of the software in question. When I lived overseas I started deprotecting every Apple II piece of software I bought after my SuperScribe II disk (the word processor) died on me and I had to wait for month + half to get another disk. Copy-protection, I believe, is just a nuisance for the legitimate user and does not deter the hard core pirate (deprotection is pretty damn easy anyway). >Andy A. Lee >al1f@andrew.cmu.edu -Ivan Cavero Belaunde "Rapunzel let her hair down for two suitors down below, So one of them could grab a hold and give the old heave-ho. The prince began to climb at once, but soon came out the worst, For the Engineer rode up a lift, and reached Rapunzel first." -The MIT Engineers' Drinking Song EMail: captkidd@athena.mit.edu USnail: 407 Memorial Dr., Cambridge, MA 02139 Ph: (617) 494-0330 Std disclaimer
dave@emerald.PRC.Unisys.COM (David Lee Matuszek) (05/05/89)
In article <cYLscby00WB64AAJAO@andrew.cmu.edu> al1f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andy A. Le> You have just brought yourself a lawsuit with your "Meobius patch >(deprotection) and warning" message. How? First, publically you admitted >that you 'alternated' the Moebius source code without written permission of >the author. Such alternation is in DIRECT violation of the copyright law. Please don't waste bandwidth unless you have at least *some* idea of what you're talking about. According to the above, I can't even make notes in a book I have bought. This is just plain silly. >Second, it would be extremely easy for any lawyer to prove that your message >causes Moebius's author to loose sale on the software. How? by producing witness who swear that this message caused them to steal the software? > It is perfectly legal to express your experiences with Moebius (and its >author company), but to post deprotection procedures is down right ILLEGAL, >irresponsible, and stupid. Think twice next time you decide to boast... Um, er, wasn't there some law or another about "freedom of speech"? No? Oh--sorry. > >Andy A. Lee >al1f@andrew.cmu.edu -- Dave Matuszek (dave@prc.unisys.com) -- Unisys Corp. / Paoli Research Center / PO Box 517 / Paoli PA 19301 -- Any resemblance between my opinions and those of my employer is improbable. ** Fusion now! Remember the Exxon Valdez! **
res12@snoopy.UMD.EDU (Matthew T. Russotto) (05/05/89)
In article <cYLscby00WB64AAJAO@andrew.cmu.edu> al1f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andy A. Lee) writes: >William Bumgarner, > > You have just brought yourself a lawsuit with your "Meobius patch >(deprotection) and warning" message. How? First, publically you admitted >that you 'alternated' the Moebius source code without written permission of >the author. Such alternation is in DIRECT violation of the copyright law. >Second, it would be extremely easy for any lawyer to prove that your message >causes Moebius's author to loose sale on the software. You are responsible >for any lost of sale due to your message, i.e. those who are going to buy >a copy of the game now can 'copy' from their friends. The money lost in >sale could add up to serveral times your Carnegie Mellon tuition. > > It is perfectly legal to express your experiences with Moebius (and its >author company), but to post deprotection procedures is down right ILLEGAL, >irresponsible, and stupid. Think twice next time you decide to boast... > >Andy A. Lee >al1f@andrew.cmu.edu *FLAME ON* NUMBER 1) Alteration of the code of a program is NOT illegal according to the copyright law. It may be illegal according to the shrink-wrap license that the software came with, but the validity of such licenses is questionable, and even if it is valid, violation of it carries civil, not criminal, penalties, which leads to: NUMBER 2) Posting of deprotection procedures is NOT illegal. There is this little thing called the first amendment, you see, which protects speech. Though it has been ruled that the 1st amendment does not apply to encouraging criminal activity, posting deprotection procedures at most encourages breaking a license agreement, which is not a criminal act. And if posting deprotection procedures was illegal, why does GEnie allow it?? *FLAME OFF* First thing to do, lets kill all the lawyers. William Shakespeare -- DISCLAIMER: Not only does the University not share my opinions, they don't want me sharing my opinions. "This 'Pnews', what does it do?" Matthew T. Russotto res12@snoopy.umd.edu (this semester only)
al1f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andy A. Lee) (05/05/89)
To everyone,
When I read William Bumgarner's Moebius patch message, I was under
the impression that his main purpose is to deactivate the copy-protection.
Apparently I misunderstood the message and the main purpose of his patch.
My apoplogy to William Bumgarner.
This copy-protection issue is two-fold. Software consumers don't
like copy-protections because they are inconvient and causes all kinds of
problems. On the other hand, software publishers loose significant
portion of sales due to piracy, therefore they employ copy-protection
to limit the extend of lost; there appears to be no other solution.
I am sure William Bumgarner's patch is wonderful for Macintosh Plus
owners. However, now everyone can get a copy of Moebius from a friend
that owns Moebius instead of buying it. And don't try to tell me that
all Moebius owners are law abiding citizens...
Andy A. Lee
al1f@andrew.cmu.edu
Disclaimer: This message expresses only my personal views.wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu (William M. Bumgarner) (05/05/89)
> software publishers loose significant portion of sales due to piracy
I would have to disagree with this; I know of far more people who will simply
refuse to buy a package that is copy protected-- no matter how high of quality
it is.
I am one of them, but in the case of Moebius, I will keep it around because
I think I was able to make my point by dealing with company... They know
their software's copy protection is costing them sales. This will also
be mentioned in the review I am writing (which will also be forwarded to the
company).
There is NO reason to copy protect software; it costs the company sales,
annoys the users that try to put up with it, and disrupts normal computer
usage. It, in no way, prevents piracy-- from the experience of knowing the
Apple II piracy world in its prime (remember the AE-Pro lines?), it was often
the case to try and spread copy-protected software as much as possible while
the non-copy-protected software was rarely distributed.
b.bum
wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edupratt@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Jonathan Pratt) (05/05/89)
In article <533@biar.UUCP> trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) writes: > ( About posting instructions on removing copy protection ) > Quite true, but you don't address the real question. The > fact of the matter is this; if the posting of that information > causes 10000 extra sales, and _one_ act of piracy, the author > is in trouble. Do you have a statute that you're prepared to quote, or is this simply opinion? The real question is what laws, if any, could be applied to restrict the dissemination of such information without colliding with freedom of expression rights. Your comments could greatly broaden the realm of this thread if we discuss the degree of responsibility the purveyor of information has for the good and bad things others do with that information. But we've already digressed too far from Macintoshes. Jonathan /* Jonathan Pratt Internet: pratt@boulder.colorado.edu * * Campus Box 525 uucp: ..!{ncar|nbires}!boulder!pratt * * University of Colorado * * Boulder, CO 80309 Phone: (303) 492-4293 */
trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) (05/05/89)
In article <kYMDBwy00UgXIAx_FN@andrew.cmu.edu> wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu (William M. Bumgarner) writes: >> software publishers loose significant portion of sales due to piracy >I would have to disagree with this; I know of far more people who will simply >refuse to buy a package that is copy protected-- no matter how high of quality >it is. This is all fine and good, but the fact remains that it is the publisher's decision whether or not to copy protect, and this decision is based on what they think is right for them. And, btw, they have much better intelligence about the market and piracy than you do. >There is NO reason to copy protect software; it costs the company sales, >annoys the users that try to put up with it, and disrupts normal computer >usage. It, in no way, prevents piracy-- from the experience of knowing the >Apple II piracy world in its prime (remember the AE-Pro lines?), it was often >the case to try and spread copy-protected software as much as possible while >the non-copy-protected software was rarely distributed. There are many reasons to copy protect software. The real question is, does it gain more sales by forcing people to buy it than it costs because people won't buy copy protected software? My personal opinion here is that the dividing line was crossed about 2 years ago, and that now it doesn't pay to use software copy protect (although "decoder wheels", though more annoying in many ways than software protection, are a good idea). The main reason for the decline in copy protection is 1) the prevalence of hard disks and 2) the decline in level of technical literacy in the marketplace. As for your assertion that non-protected software was not pirated, this is an incorrect assertion. In the early days, the situation was so bad with regards piracy that software houses protected software with the expectation of being cracked within 2 weeks of release and fully pirated within a month; the sole purpose of the protection was to protect the program during the critical first month of sales; literally, in the hopes that people would buy it before they went to their next user group meeting. -- Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP "The lamb will lie down with the lion, but the lamb won't get much sleep." -- Woody Allen.
trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) (05/05/89)
In article <8602@boulder.Colorado.EDU> pratt@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Jonathan Pratt) writes: >In article <533@biar.UUCP> trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) writes: >Do you have a statute that you're prepared to quote, or is this simply >opinion? The real question is what laws, if any, could be applied to >restrict the dissemination of such information without colliding with >freedom of expression rights. One of the problems with legal cases like this is that they are all precedent making (with all the risks that that implies). The law is alway "catching up" to society. Thus my comments are informed opinion, based on legal advice. In regards freedom of expression, let me give you an example. Let's say I figure out a way to get money out of ATM's without it being deducted from my account, publish this information, and it causes millions of dollars of losses to Citibank. Should Citibank be able to sue me? Clearly, the answer should be yes. This is an extreme example, of course. Now let's consider the case in question here in comp.sys.mac. Here what was published was a way to fix a bug (Mac+ing) that had (lets be charitable) the side effect of removing the copy protection. The question is, should the author be judged on _intent_ or _effect_? His intent (again, lets be nice) was to publish a fix for a bug; his effect was to publish a method for stealing the software. My personal opinion is that the author should be judged on _intent_, and that the publisher should have to prove some level of malice. >Your comments could greatly broaden the realm of this thread if we >discuss the degree of responsibility the purveyor of information has >for the good and bad things others do with that information. But >we've already digressed too far from Macintoshes. This is a _very_ interesting concept, one that I agree has not been dealt with (to my knowledge) at all clearly. Offhand, I would say it would come down to a "Reasonable Man" judgement of intent. Thus, if I release information that damages someone, I should only be liable if I could reasonably be expected to recognise that this act would cause damages, or if I released it with the intent to damage. Disclaimer : non-lawyers discussing law is a dangerous thing (neat racket they've worked out, eh?) -- Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP "The lamb will lie down with the lion, but the lamb won't get much sleep." -- Woody Allen.
rang@cpsin3.cps.msu.edu (Anton Rang) (05/05/89)
In article <kYMDBwy00UgXIAx_FN@andrew.cmu.edu> wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu (William M. Bumgarner) writes: >> software publishers loose significant portion of sales due to piracy > I would have to disagree with this; I know of far more people who will simply >refuse to buy a package that is copy protected-- no matter how high of quality >it is. Publishers probably do lose sales because of copy-protecting their software (I dislike CP'ed software, because it limits my flexibility in setting up my system). However, they also lose sales because of piracy. There are two major markets where piracy is a serious problem: games and education. Most game manufacturers are just slowly getting out of the business because it's unprofitable. Education is even worse. Schools (especially public schools, though universities as well) apparently don't feel obligated to ever buy more than one (at most!) copies of a program, no matter how many places they use it. I used to work for a company developing educational software; we spent a lot of time working on copy-protection schemes, for several reasons. First, schools like to buy a single copy of a software package, and then use it freely among all their schools. (We sold one copy of a home econ. program, at about $50, to a certain major school district [50,000 students] and they proceeded to make 1200 copies of it. They destroyed them after being threatened with a lawsuit, and agreed to site-license their various schools.) Second, "fair use" (especially in the university environment) is interpreted very broadly. I know of some universities which reasoned "We're teaching these students Lotus 1-2-3. They should be able to work at home. Therefore, we should give them each a copy of Lotus 1-2-3." I don't know if this still goes on; it was about a year ago when I found out about this. (The company I worked for also gave free previews of their software; if we didn't copy-protect these, sales would probably drop to zero.) > There is NO reason to copy protect software; it costs the company sales, >annoys the users that try to put up with it, and disrupts normal computer >usage. Software meant for home use...probably true. For businesses, true in most cases at least; however, I don't have too many problems with a single-machine license protection method. (Businesses also tend to be rather bad offenders, especially smaller ones--large corporations in my experience are more careful.) > It, in no way, prevents piracy-- from the experience of knowing the >Apple II piracy world in its prime (remember the AE-Pro lines?), it was often >the case to try and spread copy-protected software as much as possible while >the non-copy-protected software was rarely distributed. The reason the non-copy-protected software was rarely distributed was because most commercial software was copy-protected! There used to be a "computer club" I knew of in a major city near my home town which specialized in exchanging commercial Apple and IBM software. I don't know if it's still in existence. Copy-protecting a program doesn't do much to prevent piracy, but it at least helps. (Educating people would probably help more.) +---------------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | "VMS Forever!" | VOTE on | | Michigan State University | rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu | rec.music.newage! | +---------------------------+------------------------+-------------------+ | Send votes for/against rec.music.newage to "rang@cpswh.cps.msu.edu". | +---------------------------+------------------------+-------------------+
gandreas@umn-d-ub.D.UMN.EDU (Glenn Andreas) (05/05/89)
In article <kYMDBwy00UgXIAx_FN@andrew.cmu.edu> wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu (William M. Bumgarner) writes: >> software publishers loose significant portion of sales due to piracy > >I would have to disagree with this; I know of far more people who will simply >refuse to buy a package that is copy protected-- no matter how high of quality >it is. > >I am one of them, but in the case of Moebius, I will keep it around because >I think I was able to make my point by dealing with company... They know >their software's copy protection is costing them sales. >b.bum >wb1j+@andrew.cmu.edu This is somewhat ironic since about two-three weeks ago, a friend of mine was looking for a new game to buy. I had seen several good comments about Moebius, so we went up to the local software place and asked to see it. The person there slapped it into an SE (I forget which of the two internal drives), turned it on, it loaded for a while, displayed a start up screen, and then bombed with a sad mac. Since he had a SE/x, he figured that if it didn't work on the regular SE, it wouldn't work on his, so he didn't buy it. Now maybe there was just something wrong with that one disk, but it sounds like it was simply placed into the wrong drive and the copy-protection system killed it. So, here is one case where the copy-protection of Moebius cost a sale. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= = "Whether you like it, or don't like it, sit | - gandreas@ub.d.umn.edu - = = back and take a look at it, because it's the | Glenn Andreas = = best going today! WOOOOoooo!" - Ric Flair | = =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
bh1e+@andrew.cmu.edu (Brendan Gallagher Hoar) (05/06/89)
Actually, he didn't modify the source code (which would be illegal, because he shouldn't have access to it). He just changed some bytes in the executable. Nothing legally prevents you from doing that.
mr2t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Michael Tod Rose) (05/07/89)
Just a note: I'd always wonder why Moebius (which I purchased several months ago and played rarely) crashed when run off the HD. Now I play at least a half hour a day, and my Mac & drive are both happy. Customer is satisfied. Que sera, sera? -mike
kehr@felix.UUCP (Shirley Kehr) (05/08/89)
In article <8560@boulder.Colorado.EDU> pratt@boulder.Colorado.EDU (Jonathan Pratt) writes: >Nonetheless, how often do buyers know in >advance when they are purchasing protected software? Most Mac users >I know wouldn't even glance at software that admitted you couldn't run >it from your hard disk. How about some truth in advertising? If you order by mail, look in the Mac Connection ads. MacWarehouse stopped putting this information in their ads, but it is still in the catalog. Other than that, I would ask. It might be a good idea to do that anyways; I think some of the information in MacConnection's ad is wrong. Also, the Minifinders section in MacUser tells you what is copy protected. I watch these very closely and cross all copy protected software off my list of possible purchases. The same thing is going to happen for anyone who uses that new hardware device (EVE). I'm hoping that if Shanghai does an upgrade to work with the newer machines, they remove copy protection. I would like to have that one and the minute the copy protection is removed, I will buy it (if it works on Mac II and SE/30). <In every case I've seen, copy protection encumbers legitimate users <and entertains pirates. That was certainly true of the person whose 512 I bought at the beginning of my Mac experiences. He even had a logo and seemed to be proud of his extensive collection. I had lots of "try before you buy opportunities." Shirley Kehr
ahmeda@gtephx.UUCP (Aftab Ahmed) (05/08/89)
In article <EYMBIzy00WB9QpWmdD@andrew.cmu.edu>, al1f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andy A. Lee) writes: > I am sure William Bumgarner's patch is wonderful for Macintosh Plus > owners. However, now everyone can get a copy of Moebius from a friend > that owns Moebius instead of buying it. And don't try to tell me that > all Moebius owners are law abiding citizens... I do not agree. I don't know about Moebius, but you can get most other copy protected programs from your friends using programs like Copy 2 Mac. Are you saying that, the publisher of Copy 2 Mac is breaking the law by providing a instrument for pirates to use?? I myself do not buy any program which I cannot copy to my hard disk. When I am buying programs first thing I look for is the copy protection. If it protected then it is out of my list. So as far as I am concerned, being able to know that a program is copyable is a plus point in favor of that program. On the subject of copy protection!! I am still wondering why software publishers bother with copy protection?? I am yet to come across a non-defeatable copy protection scheme, with 90 percent breakable in 10 minutes or less. Any comments!!!! ***************************************************************************************** * Aftab Ahmed, AG Communication Systems, Phoenix, Arizona * Standard * * UUCP: ...!ames!ncar!noao!asuvax!gtephx!ahmeda * Disclaimer * *****************************************************************************************
bmug@garnet.berkeley.edu (BMUG) (05/09/89)
In article <538@biar.UUCP> trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) writes: (stuff deleted) > The main reason for the decline in copy protection is 1) the prevalence > of hard disks and 2) the decline in level of technical literacy in the > marketplace. I thought that the major reason for the decline in copy protection was the fact that any update of Apple System software and/or new versions of the ROMs would almost certainly break most forms of copy protection. Apple techsters have warned software publishers of this fact for years, and I guess the constant free upgrading and disk mailings to their installed base have persuaded many publishers that copy protection is just too damned expensive. Not to mention thousands of indignant phone calls to their tech support lines (and president's office) upon the release of new Systems or machines from Apple. > The sole purpose of the protection was to protect the program during the > critical first month of sales; literally, in the hopes that > people would buy it before they went to their next user group > meeting. Just to clear the air a little, most user groups (including BMUG) are *not* Tortugas for software pirates (Tortuga was the headquarters for several famous and infamous pirates during the 17th-18th century), but rather (again, like BMUG) do all they can to discourage piracy, cognizant of the fact that piracy only steals from software authors and makes it more difficult for quality products to come to market. More cogent arguments for this view are available in several articles in our newsletters; anyone interested in back issues of same can get in touch with us at the address or phone below. My apologies to any current residents of Tortuga... John Heckendorn /\ BMUG ARPA: bmug@garnet.berkeley.EDU A__A 1442A Walnut St., #62 BITNET: bmug@ucbgarnet |()| Berkeley, CA 94709 | | (415) 549-2684 | |
trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) (05/09/89)
In article <24147@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> bmug@garnet.berkeley.edu (BMUG) writes: >I thought that the major reason for the decline in copy protection was the >fact that any update of Apple System software and/or new versions of the >ROMs would almost certainly break most forms of copy protection. Yes and No. The increase in "ROMing" of OS's is a contributory factor in the decline of copy protection, at least on the Mac as opposed to PC or II. However, it's not the major factor, even on the Mac. The ROMs on the Mac, which insulate the programmer from the physical hardware, merely required a different approach to protection (such as invisible files, etc). >Just to clear the air a little, most user groups (including BMUG) are >*not* Tortugas for software pirates. The larger user groups, most notably (in my personal experience) the Washington Apple Pi, have done a good deal of education in the piracy issue. However, especially in the bad old Apple II days, your average user group meeting was 30 minutes of procedure, 30 minutes of presentations, and 2 hours of swapping. This has declined as the "average" user group member has changed and (in the case of Mac owners) Yuppified. Lets not even talk about Bulletin Boards! I was ``undercover'' on the infamous Pirate's Harbor for about a year, and the stories I can tell you (of amoung other things, software being pirated before it was officially released, by trusted beta testers) would curl your hair. -- Robert J Woodhead, Biar Games, Inc. !uunet!biar!trebor | trebor@biar.UUCP "The lamb will lie down with the lion, but the lamb won't get much sleep." -- Woody Allen.
alexis@ccnysci.UUCP (Alexis Rosen) (05/09/89)
In article <cYLscby00WB64AAJAO@andrew.cmu.edu> al1f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andy A. Lee) writes: >William Bumgarner, > > You have just brought yourself a lawsuit with your "Meobius patch >(deprotection) and warning" message. How? First, publically you admitted >that you 'alternated' the Moebius source code without written permission of >the author. Such alternation is in DIRECT violation of the copyright law. Well, the first thing we can see is that Lee knows a lot less about the law than he thinks. Things are not nearly so clearcut as this. >Second, it would be extremely easy for any lawyer to prove that your message >causes Moebius's author to loose sale on the software. You are responsible >for any lost of sale due to your message, i.e. those who are going to buy >a copy of the game now can 'copy' from their friends. The money lost in >sale could add up to serveral times your Carnegie Mellon tuition. The second thing we see is that Lee has a penchant for wild exageration. "Extremely easy??" "Several times your C-M tuition??" > It is perfectly legal to express your experiences with Moebius (and its >author company), but to post deprotection procedures is down right ILLEGAL, >irresponsible, and stupid. Think twice next time you decide to boast... > >Andy A. Lee >al1f@andrew.cmu.edu More bogus information posted as facts. Also, I remember (years ago) BBSs where people who posted this kind of message might well be boasting. Here it is a public service message, since nobody is terribly impressed by a simple patch- just grateful. Now that I've posted calmly and rationally, ***** FLAME ON! ***** I have seen, once or twice in different groups, people talking about how they had put certain other people in their news "Kill" files. I've never understood the need to do that, until now. Lee has bought himself the first and only spot in my Kill file. His obnoxious posting looks like a bad parody of me on my worst days, and I hope never to have the misfortune of reading something like it again (faint hope, I'm sure :-( ). Lee, if you're such a hot lawyer, why don't you write for the local law journal? Crap like that wastes bandwidth. Flame off. --- Alexis Rosen alexis@ccnysci.{uucp,bitnet} alexis@rascal.ics.utexas.edu (last resort)
ge@phoibos.cs.kun.nl (Ge Weijers) (05/10/89)
From article <cYLscby00WB64AAJAO@andrew.cmu.edu>, by al1f+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andy A. Lee): > William Bumgarner, > ..... > It is perfectly legal to express your experiences with Moebius (and its > author company), but to post deprotection procedures is down right ILLEGAL, > irresponsible, and stupid. Think twice next time you decide to boast... The reasoning is quite ridiculous. "Proof" by analogy: How to kill somebody -------------------- Take a gun. point. shoot. This makes me guilty of all murders performed by people reading netnews :-) Mr. Bumgarner might be an accessory to the crime (I did get my knowledge of American law from Perry Mason et. al., so correct me if I'm wrong), somebody still has to follow the directions. Ge' Weijers, ge@cs.kun.nl
richv@mtuxj.att.com (XMRK4-R.VIGLIANO) (05/11/89)
well with all of the talk about moebius<sp> how about some info on the game? . well with all of the talk about moebius<sp> how about some info on the game? . i dd help me to end this damn message
carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) (05/11/89)
In article <24147@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> bmug@garnet.berkeley.edu (BMUG) writes: >In article <538@biar.UUCP> trebor@biar.UUCP (Robert J Woodhead) writes: >(stuff deleted) >> The main reason for the decline in copy protection is 1) the prevalence >> of hard disks and 2) the decline in level of technical literacy in the >> marketplace. >I thought that the major reason for the decline in copy protection was the >fact that any update of Apple System software and/or new versions of the >ROMs would almost certainly break most forms of copy protection. Apple For several years now, the Armed Svcs (and quite possibly all gov't labs) have specifically refused to buy any software that was copy protected. They didn't want to be hung up trying to copy to hard disks, re-copying things which got munged, etcetc. I'm sure this was part of the reason mfrs stopped doing it. -- Alix' Dad ( Carl Witthoft @ Adaptive Optics Associates) " Axis-navigo, ergo sum." {harvard,ima}!bbn!aoa!carl 54 CambridgePark Drive, Cambridge,MA 02140 617-864-0201 "disclaimer? I'm not a doctor, but I do have a Master's Degree in Science!"