kreme@isis.cs.du.edu (Harvey Leech) (11/15/90)
In article <2347@sparko.gwu.edu> fc156111@seas.gwu.edu (Timothy A. Waire Jr.) writes: >does anyone know if SimEarth is copy-protected?? Yes it is. It asks for some information (a lot of it incorrect, by the way) from the last nine pages of the manual (on page for each planet). It is a very simple scheme, but a terribly annoying one. Basically it is saying that the people who buy the game are being punished. I went ahead and typed up the information (about half an hour or so) so I wouldn't need to have the manual on hand all the time. Though as it turns out, I need the manual most the time anyway... -- | kreme@nyx.cs.du.edu |Growing up leads to growing old, and then to dying, and| |---------------------|dying to me don't sound like all that much fun. | |Even though we're both speaking English, we're not speaking the same language|
evett@drinkme.umd.edu (Matt Evett) (01/31/91)
In article <4f802472.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> carlton@apollo.HP.COM (Carlton B. Hommel) writes: Path: mimsy!haven!boingo.med.jhu.edu!aplcen!samsung!sdd.hp.com!apollo!carlton From: carlton@apollo.HP.COM (Carlton B. Hommel) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games Date: 29 Jan 91 20:13:00 GMT References: <18659@natinst.natinst.com> <1991Jan28.043033.11475@en.ecn.purdue.edu> Sender: root@apollo.HP.COM Reply-To: carlton@apollo.hp.com (Carlton B. Hommel) Organization: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, MA Lines: 8 >Except why did they put that stupid copy protection scheme in. It is SOOO >irritating! An examination of the first few blocks of the file with a sector editor could possibly prove enlightening. Carl Hommel carlton@apollo.hp.com I take it from Mr. Hommel's response that he either has defeated SimEarth's copy protection scheme via this method, or he is suggesting that others might defeat it this way. In either case I wish to rant and rave a bit. First, I do not find SimEarth's copy protection scheme all that bothersome. It is certainly far superior to having to insert a master disk every time the program starts. I keep a little chart of "keywords" (copied out of my documentation) next to my Plus at home. It's no big deal to have to refer to this chart whenever I fire up SimEarth, Faces, etc. I strongly sympathize with software manufacturer's needs to protect their copyrights. This need is amply (and frequently) demonstrated in this very newsgroup (indeed, by the letter quoted above). For entertainment software, my sympathies are even more with the manufacturers. Entertainment software typically is not a big money maker. Moreover, the software is relatively inexpensive; I see no reason why people can't scratch up the $30 or $40 bucks to buy a good game. Many of the people reading Usenet are programmers. They make their living by selling--not giving away--software. This readership, more than any other, should be supportive of reasonable copy protection schemes. It's nice to condemn software piracy, but it's even nicer to do something about it. --Matt Evett -- Matt Evett Dept.Comp.Sci., University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland. evett@brillig.umd.edu
kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu (Ken Hancock) (01/31/91)
In article <EVETT.91Jan30172706@drinkme.umd.edu> evett@drinkme.umd.edu (Matt Evett) writes: >In article <4f802472.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> carlton@apollo.HP.COM (Carlton B. Hommel) writes: > > Path: mimsy!haven!boingo.med.jhu.edu!aplcen!samsung!sdd.hp.com!apollo!carlton > From: carlton@apollo.HP.COM (Carlton B. Hommel) > Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games > Date: 29 Jan 91 20:13:00 GMT > References: <18659@natinst.natinst.com> <1991Jan28.043033.11475@en.ecn.purdue.edu> > Sender: root@apollo.HP.COM > Reply-To: carlton@apollo.hp.com (Carlton B. Hommel) > Organization: Apollo Computer, Chelmsford, MA > Lines: 8 > > >Except why did they put that stupid copy protection scheme in. It is SOOO > >irritating! > > An examination of the first few blocks of the file with a sector editor > could possibly prove enlightening. > > Carl Hommel > carlton@apollo.hp.com > >I take it from Mr. Hommel's response that he either has defeated SimEarth's >copy protection scheme via this method, or he is suggesting that others might >defeat it this way. In either case I wish to rant and rave a bit. > >First, I do not find SimEarth's copy protection scheme all that bothersome. That's fine that you don't. Others do. My personal feeling is that copy protection schemes don't reduce piracy by a significant percentage. There were various places that already had SimEarth deprotected and into the underground distribution chains a day after release. As you said, many of the people reading UseNet are programmers. One of the first things I do if I buy a copy-protected game is to remove the copy protection. Usually I don't buy copy-protected games. If I do, and can't remove the copy-protection, I return it. I will not use copy-protected software. I fully support postings telling people how to remove it -- not for the purpose of making is so others can pirate it (though invariably some people will...), but to make it more usable for people who have bought legitimate copies. Ken -- Ken Hancock | INTERNET: kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu Isle Systems | Compuserve: >INTERNET:kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu Macintosh Consulting | AOL: coming soon... | Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, | your opinions are yours. Simple, isn't it?
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) (01/31/91)
In article <EVETT.91Jan30172706@drinkme.umd.edu> evett@drinkme.umd.edu (Matt Evett) writes: >defeat it this way. In either case I wish to rant and rave a bit. ditto > >First, I do not find SimEarth's copy protection scheme all that bothersome. Thanks you, but I'm not nearly so tolerant. I'm not interested in somebody deciding how much of my time to waste. (I already waste enough of it myself.) >I strongly sympathize with software manufacturer's >needs to protect their copyrights. This need is amply (and frequently) >demonstrated in this very newsgroup (indeed, by the letter quoted >above). For entertainment software, my sympathies are even more with the >manufacturers. Entertainment software typically is not a big money maker. >Moreover, the software is relatively inexpensive; I see no reason why >people can't scratch up the $30 or $40 bucks to buy a good game. It is exactly for the reason that I've paid $40-50 for my games that I am profoundly uninterested in paying any more for them in time wasted on idiotic CP schemes. The removal of such schemes by the legitamate purchasers of software has nothing to do with the manufacturer's copyrights. I've already PAID them for the right to use the software. Why should _I_ have to be inconvenienced because someone else pirates their software? >Many of the people reading Usenet are programmers. They make their living >by selling--not giving away--software. This readership, more than any >other, should be supportive of reasonable copy protection schemes. It's >nice to condemn software piracy, but it's even nicer to do something about >it. The ONLY reasonable CP I've come across is manual protected software where the use of the manual was an intrinsic part of the game and NOT simply a password mechanism. For ALL other methods I actively seek out patches to defeat them and encourage others to do the same. The way to reduce piracy is to buy your software and show others why having a complete package is much more productive.
tgm@psuecl.bitnet (02/01/91)
06@drinkme.umd.edu> Organization: Engineering Computer Lab, Pennsylvania State University Lines: 65 In article <EVETT.91Jan30172706@drinkme.umd.edu>, evett@drinkme.umd.edu (Matt Evett) writes: > First, I do not find SimEarth's copy protection scheme all that bothersome. > It is certainly far superior to having to insert a master disk every time > the program starts. I keep a little chart of "keywords" (copied out of my > documentation) next to my Plus at home. It's no big deal to have to refer > to this chart whenever I fire up SimEarth, Faces, etc. SimEarth's scheme *is* bothersome, as are all copy protection schemes. The "keyword" method is better than master disks, but not much. Instead of forcing you to keep a master disk handy, SimEarth forces you to lug around the manual. Of couse, you could photocopy the pages containing the keywords, but that's yet even more hassle. What happens if the manual isn't handy? For example, I bought SimEarth over Christmas break, while I was at home, and copied it to my Mac's hard drive. After break, I brought my computer back to school, but forgot the SimEarth manual. So, when I got a little free time and decided to play SimEarth, I fired it up and was asked for the density of Mars or something, which I didn't exactly know offhand. There I was, a legitimate user, locked out of the program I payed for. > I strongly sympathize with software manufacturer's > needs to protect their copyrights. I sympathize with software houses trying to keep criminals (pirates) from robbing them blind, but up to a point. And that point is where I, the legitimate use, begin to suffer. > This need is amply (and frequently) > demonstrated in this very newsgroup (indeed, by the letter quoted > above). Do not assume everybody is a criminal. While I'm sure some less than perfect characters roam the net, in general the net community is fairly honest. > For entertainment software, my sympathies are even more with the > manufacturers. Entertainment software typically is not a big money maker. > Moreover, the software is relatively inexpensive; I see no reason why > people can't scratch up the $30 or $40 bucks to buy a good game. Computer games are, in general, reasonably priced--especially in comparison with Nintendo type games. > Many of the people reading Usenet are programmers. They make their living > by selling--not giving away--software. This readership, more than any > other, should be supportive of reasonable copy protection schemes. It's > nice to condemn software piracy, but it's even nicer to do something about > it. > > --Matt Evett Here's my idea of a reasonable copy protection scheme. You boot up Game X and the first thing you see is a window that says in big bold type, "Please don't steal from us." Below the headline are a few paragraphs about what piracy does to the software industry, written in an honest, up-front manner. Most pirates are young and don't really understand that their actions harm the industry. By educating them and appealing to their sense of what's right-and-wrong, perhaps piracy can be reduced at the source, without holding the legitimate user hostage to master disks, manuals, and hardware keys. --Tom Moertel thor@chopin.psu.edu
wieser@fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) (02/01/91)
Most software these days is sold with 'license'. What does this mean? The company, through your payment of license fee, gives you the right to use the software. Read your licensing agreements. By removing protection, you might be violating the terms of your license. License does not give ownership, it gives right of use provided you follow conditions stated by said license. If you find the protection irritating, you should have read the license first and not bought the product. -- ( Bernie Wieser, wieser@cpsc.ucalgary.ca, BSWieser@uncamult.BITNET ) ( 4rth Year Dbl.Mgr Cpsc Clhc University of Calgary | ) ( S/H Developer Dept. of Psychology, " " " \|/ ) ( Octavian Micro Development Group --- o --- )
llama@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) (02/01/91)
In article <4f802472.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> Carlton B. Hommel writes: An examination of the first few blocks of the file with a sector editor could possibly prove enlightening. In article <EVETT.91Jan30172706@drinkme.umd.edu> Matt Evett writes: >I take it from Mr. Hommel's response that he either has defeated SimEarth's >copy protection scheme via this method, or he is suggesting that others might >defeat it this way. In either case I wish to rant and rave a bit. Why? You later go on to talk about protection from software piracy, but nowhere do you discuss why you object to removal of copy protection. Removal of copy protection and software piracy are two different things! >I strongly sympathize with software manufacturer's >needs to protect their copyrights. This need is amply (and frequently) >demonstrated in this very newsgroup (indeed, by the letter quoted >above). You have reached entirely the wrong conclusion. What the letter quoted above demonstrates is the need for NO copy protection. Mr Hommel removed the copy protection because he found it an annoyance. How you can construe this to justify copy protection in this instance is beyond me. >For entertainment software, my sympathies are even more with the >manufacturers. Entertainment software typically is not a big money maker. >Moreover, the software is relatively inexpensive; I see no reason why >people can't scratch up the $30 or $40 bucks to buy a good game. Are you claiming that Mr Hommel did not purchase SimEarth? Or that he is distributing SimEarth illegally? If so, on what do you base these claims? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Read My Lips: No Nude Texans!" - George Bush clearing up a misunderstanding
iho@cac.washington.edu (Il Oh) (02/01/91)
awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes: >It is exactly for the reason that I've paid $40-50 for my games that I am >profoundly uninterested in paying any more for them in time wasted on idiotic >CP schemes. The removal of such schemes by the legitamate purchasers of >software has nothing to do with the manufacturer's copyrights. I've already >PAID them for the right to use the software. Why should _I_ have to be >inconvenienced because someone else pirates their software? I disagree. Without commiting myself to either side of this argument, I'd like to point out that most license agreements or copyright notices explicitly prohibit reverse engineering, decompiling, disassembling, or modifying of the program in question. I'm not making a moral judgment either way, merely pointing out the legal language used. -- "And now, adding color | Il Hwan Oh a group of anonymous, Latin-American | University of Washington, Tacoma meat-packing glitterati" | iho@cac.washington.edu -- Pink Floyd, Final Cut |
macman@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Dennis H Lippert) (02/01/91)
In article <1991Jan31.135756.587@psuecl.bitnet> tgm@psuecl.bitnet writes: >06@drinkme.umd.edu> >Organization: Engineering Computer Lab, Pennsylvania State University >Lines: 65 >Here's my idea of a reasonable copy protection scheme. You boot up Game X and >the first thing you see is a window that says in big bold type, "Please don't >steal from us." Below the headline are a few paragraphs about what piracy does >to the software industry, written in an honest, up-front manner. Most pirates >are young and don't really understand that their actions harm the industry. >By educating them and appealing to their sense of what's right-and-wrong, >perhaps piracy can be reduced at the source, without holding the legitimate >user hostage to master disks, manuals, and hardware keys. Yeah, sort of like the FBI warning on video tapes. It's true that you really can't stop the copying of programs, a hacker will find a way. But I've gotta admit that at least we should make them feel a bit guilty every time they play a copied game! Sure, the true die-hard pirates will still copy it, but "passive" copying would probably decrease. Just my thoughts... Dennis Lippert - macman@unix.cis.pitt.edu
wade@hobbes.ucsd.edu (Wade Blomgren) (02/02/91)
In article <1991Jan31.135756.587@psuecl.bitnet>, tgm@psuecl.bitnet writes: > > Here's my idea of a reasonable copy protection scheme. You boot up Game X and > the first thing you see is a window that says in big bold type, "Please don't > steal from us." Below the headline are a few paragraphs about what piracy does > to the software industry, written in an honest, up-front manner. Most pirates > are young and don't really understand that their actions harm the industry. > By educating them and appealing to their sense of what's right-and-wrong, > perhaps piracy can be reduced at the source, without holding the legitimate > user hostage to master disks, manuals, and hardware keys. > It's funny that you should suggest this...years ago my kid brother would occasionally come across pirated game software for his Commodore. I think he got the stuff from local bbs's. These games would almost invariably be altered by the original pirate to display a huge, often animated splash screen advertising the prowess of the cracker, eg. "CRACKED BY DR. DOOM and his MISSIONARIES OF DESTRUCTION" etc. etc. The point being that appealing to the sense of right and wrong in young pirates may not be very effective, since those that spend time on breaking protection schemee go out of their way to explicitly show that they don't give a hoot about it anyway. I guess we are talking about two different things, though, breaking protection schemes vs. stealing unprotected software. Maybe youngsters as well as adults may well respond favorably to well worded, unobtrusive "pleas". I know that a gracious and mature shareware statement coupled with a good product gets my checkbook open fairly promptly, whereas a guilt-trip or demand (which interestingly usually accompanies a less than worthwhile program) will usually result in me tossing the program out. Wade
evett@drinkme.umd.edu (Matt Evett) (02/02/91)
I don't really have much more to say on this issue. Arguments over the
value of copy protection schemes have popped up and faded away on the Net
more times than I can remember, so I won't belabor the point much longer.
Nevertheless I would like to comment on some of the responses to my
original posting.
First of all, let me apologize to Carlton Hommel for my insuating in my
original posting that he might be pirating software or at least promoting
piracy. To tell the truth, I didn't consider that there might be reasons
for removing copy protection that weren't related to piracy. That having
been said, I DO feel that Mr. Hommel might have been acting unethically by
promulgating his copy-protection breaking scheme.
Joe Francis writes:
"You ... talk about protection from software piracy, but nowhere
do you discuss why you object to removal of copy protection. Removal of copy
protection and software piracy are two different things!"
Of course they are. But let's not be naive. Obviously the removal of a
program's copy protection scheme results in another (very similar) program
which is much more easily pirated.
If somebody posted a letter to the Net saying: "Hey, I've got an illegal
copy of program X, but because I don't have the manuals I can't beat the
copy protection scheme," would you immediately tell him/her how he could do so?
I would hope not. Now suppose that same person is a little wilier and his/her
posting reads, "Hey, I just bought a copy of program X, but, boy, that copy
protection scheme sure is a bummer! Can anybody give me a hand?" Now
would you help him/her? Would you consider aid ethical in the latter
situation but not the former? Is there a difference if the end result is
the same?
I am a member of the academic communicty and strongly believe that the Net
should act as a forum for the free flow of information. Unfortunately
there can be danger in freely promulgating ALL and ANY information. Certainly
info about copy-protection breaking is not paramount to national security
concerns, and I certainly don't mean to imply that postings regarding
methods of copy-protection breaking should be banned from the Net. I DO
want users of the Net to realize that there is more than one way to view
the issues of the need for copy protection and of promulgating copy
protection schemes.
Sincerely, Matt Evett
--
Matt Evett
Dept.Comp.Sci., University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland.
evett@brillig.umd.edutgm@psuecl.bitnet (02/03/91)
In article <1991Jan31.181416.23441@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>, wieser@fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) writes: > Most software these days is sold with 'license'. What does this mean? > The company, through your payment of license fee, gives you the > right to use the software. Read your licensing agreements. By > removing protection, you might be violating the terms of your license. > License does not give ownership, it gives right of use provided you > follow conditions stated by said license. If you find the protection > irritating, you should have read the license first and not bought > the product. Gee, the next time I order something from MacConnection, I'll just say, "Excuse me, but could up please go down into the warehouse, grab a SimEarth, open it, and read me the license agreement?" Realistically speaking, most people don't see the license before they buy the product. This is impossible with mail ordering, which many people use as their main souce of software purchases. --Tom Moertel thor@chopin.psu.edu
kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu (Ken Hancock) (02/05/91)
In article <1991Jan31.181416.23441@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wieser@fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) writes: > >Most software these days is sold with 'license'. What does this mean? >The company, through your payment of license fee, gives you the >right to use the software. Read your licensing agreements. By >removing protection, you might be violating the terms of your license. >License does not give ownership, it gives right of use provided you >follow conditions stated by said license. If you find the protection >irritating, you should have read the license first and not bought >the product. Give me a break. I've read some of these licensing agreements. Some of the worst I've found are: o You don't own the software, they do. o No guarantees at all. o You can't modify, decomile, nada. So, under these terms, if I paid $40, opened the package, put the disk in the drive, and it was a bad disk, the manufacturer could refuse to do anything under the "shrink wrap" license. And you're telling me that I'm then supposed to agree? Hah! I'll pay my money for the software, put it on my machine, and then do whatever I like to my copy. I see this as fair use, regarless of what it says on some envelope inside the box. Ken -- Ken Hancock | INTERNET: kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu Isle Systems | Compuserve: >INTERNET:kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu Macintosh Consulting | AOL: coming soon... | Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, | your opinions are yours. Simple, isn't it?
kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu (Ken Hancock) (02/05/91)
In article <EVETT.91Feb1190351@drinkme.umd.edu> evett@drinkme.umd.edu (Matt Evett) writes: >If somebody posted a letter to the Net saying: "Hey, I've got an illegal >copy of program X, but because I don't have the manuals I can't beat the >copy protection scheme," would you immediately tell him/her how he could do so? >I would hope not. Now suppose that same person is a little wilier and his/her >posting reads, "Hey, I just bought a copy of program X, but, boy, that copy >protection scheme sure is a bummer! Can anybody give me a hand?" Now >would you help him/her? Would you consider aid ethical in the latter >situation but not the former? Is there a difference if the end result is >the same? I know what answer you're expecting... The first person I'd peg as naive, stupid, or a pirate. I wouldn't move an inch to help him. In the second case, yes, I would help, unless they gave some reason to believe that they didn't have a legitimate copy. I'd consider aid in the first case unethical, and in the second case, eithical. There most certainly is a difference if the end result is the same. Face it, we live in an imperfect world. If the means always resulted in a justifiable end, then the answer might be no, but the fact is, that the best intentions can always end up wrong. So, you have two choices, always distrust, in which case the world never improves, or trust, in which case maybe in time, things will improve. Where there is trust, there is always the chance of betrayal. The choice is yours. Ken -- Ken Hancock | INTERNET: kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu Isle Systems | Compuserve: >INTERNET:kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu Macintosh Consulting | AOL: coming soon... | Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, | your opinions are yours. Simple, isn't it?
wieser@fsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) (02/05/91)
Ken Hancock; So, if everybody thinks that way, what do developers do? a) make it more difficult to obtain software, i.e. written agreements b) make it nasty, i.e. checking routines of checking routines with malicious side effects if tampering is discovered For everyones info; The inside page of the SimEarth manual does state 'license', but restricts the user to one user, one time. Nothing about modification of code. Those who whine about documentation protection... I have no sympathy. Those who complain about license/copyright, or not having enough info. about a product before purchase... you have yourselves to blame if you feel violate for not investigating a package before purchasing it. With regards to Maxis, the SimEarth document protection is a big step up from the SimCity disk protection (which I didn't buy because of it not working on my machine). I bought SimEarth, hope my buck got to GreenPeace, and hope anyone with 'complaints' talks to Maxis instead of messing with it themselves... I remember a little piece of paper in the box, almost begging, for people to send their comments to Maxis. It seems a bit more ethical. -- ( Bernie Wieser, wieser@cpsc.ucalgary.ca, BSWieser@uncamult.BITNET ) ( 4rth Year Dbl.Mgr Cpsc Clhc University of Calgary | ) ( S/H Developer Dept. of Psychology, " " " \|/ ) ( Octavian Micro Development Group --- o --- )