mfs@edison.GE.COM (Martin Sant) (11/20/87)
I am planning to release a music software program for the C-64 soon
and was wondering if there was a reasonable way to guard against
rippoffs. From conversations with previous customers, some are
rather blatant about the fact that they have every piece of music
software that will run on the C-64. As I see it, I have a
couple of choices:
1) Release it unprotected and hope most people are honest.
2) Release it unprotected and accept that software follows
the 'spurt' mode, i.e. high initial sales, slacking off
as the program (bootleg copies) become more available.
3) Include some type of disk protection scheme that would
make it harder for folks to make copies.
4) Fashion some type of hardware dongle and include it with the
program.
5) The 'shame' route. Customize each disk with the name of the
person who bought it (easy for me since I distribute my own
stuff).
Yeah, I know, most of youse guys don't like copy protection; I don't
either. But programmers have to eat too. Anybody got any suggestions ?
--
Mar Tan
GE Fanuc
Charlottesville, VAmclek@dcatla.UUCP (Larry E. Kollar) (11/23/87)
In article <1235@edison.GE.COM> mfs@edison.GE.COM (Martin Sant) writes: > [about releasing music SW & wondering about copy protection, choices] > > 1) Release it unprotected and hope most people are honest. > > 2) Release it unprotected and accept that software follows > the 'spurt' mode, i.e. high initial sales, slacking off > as the program (bootleg copies) become more available. > > 3) Include some type of disk protection scheme that would > make it harder for folks to make copies. > > 4) Fashion some type of hardware dongle and include it with the > program. > > 5) The 'shame' route. Customize each disk with the name of the > person who bought it (easy for me since I distribute my own > stuff). > I understand what you're going through. Therefore, I will speak bluntly, but this is not meant to be construed as a flame: Sit back, scratch your head, & think for a few minutes. How many "unprotect" programs for the 64 are available right now? The only thing copy-protection is going to do is make it hard on your legitimate customers who have (in some cases) the legal right to make a backup copy. I heard an anecdote about the prez of Electronic Arts; he released this new 64 game and claimed that it would be at least three months before pirates could break the copy-protection on it. As he spoke, pirated copies were already circulating! The least obnoxious protection scheme of the above is 5). However, you'll have to encrypt that portion of data at least, to prevent a simple search & replace with a monitor. There is another possibility: 6) Include every feature you can think of, and include a well-written manual with the program. Even if the jerks & twits post copies of your program on every BBS in the world, the other J&Ts won't be able to use it to the fullest extent possible. Some may buy a legit copy to get the manual. Whatever you do, you'll have to accept the idiots who are ripping you off. But it's not just CBM users, its all of 'em. Larry Kollar
ray@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (11/24/87)
In article <1235@edison.GE.COM> mfs@edison.GE.COM (Martin Sant) writes: >I am planning to release a music software program for the C-64 soon >and was wondering if there was a reasonable way to guard against >rippoffs. From conversations with previous customers, some are >rather blatant about the fact that they have every piece of music >software that will run on the C-64. [...] >Yeah, I know, most of youse guys don't like copy protection; I don't >either. But programmers have to eat too. Anybody got any suggestions ? I have a few comments on music software for the C-64 and copy protection. One of my favorite (if not THE) music programs is Compute!'s Music System for the Commodore 128 & 64 (better known as The Enhanced Sidplayer). Sidplayer is probably the most well-known program of its kind, which is due, I feel, directly to the fact that it 1) is not copy-protected, and 2) is o.k. to distribute the songs that you make. The original Sidplayer had some PD players so that someone who had not purchased it could still enjoy the music others made. With the release of the enhanced version, Compute! decided (for reasons I won't go into here) to not allow new PD players. As a result, the Enhanced Sidplayer is not nearly as popular as its older, inferior brother. I see this as a circle: because there aren't any PD players that can take advantage of Enhanced Sidplayer, people are somewhat reluctant to write songs with it (since everyone seems to like an audience.) Now, to copy protection in general: I am the general partner in a company (Dr. Evil Labs) that decided to forego copy protection entirely because of our witnessing the following facts: 1) Copy protection is very expensive, and usually must be done out-of-house if it is to be at all "up-to-date". 2) Copy protection makes disks much harder to duplicate (but if we're talking large-scale stuff a mass duplicator would probably be used anyway.) 3) New copy protection schemes have a life span of about 10 days. Someone, somewhere, will crack a new scheme, sell his parameter to a company like Computer Mart (makers of Kracker Jax), and both will make money from your loss. Hardly what I would call good economics for the software author. A few exceptions to the above "10-day" figure would be the Rapidlok system used by Accolade, Microprose, and others. It took about 9 months to see something for this kind of protection, but now a utility has been developed that will back them up. In summary, I have always believed that software pirates crack programs because it's a challenge. I also strongly believe the best protection is a quality program backed by a quality company that gives good technical support (i.e., Infocom & others). I hope these thoughts are useful. Kent Sullivan pur-ee!corvair
lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Christopher Lishka) (11/25/87)
In article <1235@edison.GE.COM> mfs@edison.GE.COM (Martin Sant) writes: > >I am planning to release a music software program for the C-64 soon >and was wondering if there was a reasonable way to guard against >rippoffs. From conversations with previous customers, some are >rather blatant about the fact that they have every piece of music >software that will run on the C-64. Some other suggestions you might want to consider: 1) "Look it up in the manual" type of protection. Personally, I consider this a minor nuisance, but it is far better than disk based copy protection. 2) Provide a well written manual that is indispensable. This is not to say that you should make the program impossible to use without the manual, but rather that the program should have enough interesting features that the manual could explain in more detail, so that to *really* get anything out of the program you need to own the manual as well. These may or may not be possible options, but I thought I would bring them up anyways. >Yeah, I know, most of youse guys don't like copy protection; I don't >either. But programmers have to eat too. Anybody got any suggestions ? Don't mind copy protection all that much myself until it starts grinding my disk drive heads and preventing me from making a backup. I am really P.O.'d that some programs cannot be backed up and then insist on writing to the disk...one of these days the disk will end up trached. And when I payy $40 for a game that does this, I get annoyed (Microprose, are you LISTENING?) But other forms of copy protection are not that offensive to me, like the ones I listed above. I suppose a dongle is a reasonable solution too, but that always needs to unplugged when something else needs the spot the dongle occupies. >Mar Tan >GE Fanuc >Charlottesville, VA -Chris -- Chris Lishka /lishka@uwslh.uucp Wisconsin State Lab of Hygiene <-lishka%uwslh.uucp@rsch.wisc.edu "What, me, serious? Get real!" \{seismo, harvard,topaz,...}!uwvax!uwslh!lishka
cgwong@orchid.UUCP (11/26/87)
In article <286@uwslh.UUCP> lishka@uwslh.UUCP (Christopher Lishka) writes: > >But other forms of copy protection are not that offensive to me, like >the ones I listed above. I suppose a dongle is a reasonable solution >too, but that always needs to unplugged when something else needs the >spot the dongle occupies. > I'd just like to point out that dongle protection is not infallible. Programs using this sort of protection (eg. Paperclip) have not stood any advantage against pirates as opposed to disk protection but the ability to do backups is invaluable. -- UUCP : {allegra,clyde,decvax,uunet,utai}!watmath!orchid!cgwong ARPA : cgwong%orchid.waterloo.edu@csnet-relay.arpa C{S,DN}NET: cgwong@orchid.waterloo.{edu,cdn} < Clint Wong > BITNET : cgwong@water.BITNET < University of Waterloo >