hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu (HP48SX Archive Maintainer) (10/27/90)
A friend of mine has recently bought SimCity, and he has a problem as it is copy protected. He wants to be able to play the game both at home and at work, and he does not like to carry the master disk with him all the time. Is there anybody who has removed to copy protection who can tell me what to do ? Copy II 7.2 does not seem to work. If I can get no help, then I will waste a day next weekend trying to disassemble the program. Is there anybody out there who has done the same, and do have some magic calling sequences to look for? On my old QL there was a call that all software needed to do to start up the drives for getting access on lower-than-OS level. Thanks, Povl -- ******************************************************* Povl H. Pedersen hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu HP48sx archive maintainer
bkuo@aludra.usc.edu (Benjamin Kuo) (10/28/90)
Why, might I ask, didn't he buy the NON-PROTECTED version in the first place? (A few dollars is NOT worth trying to dissemble a program!!) Or, is it not just in the interest of "not carrying a master disk" from home and work (I wouldn't recommend playing ANY game at work, either...) Something else, perhaps? Benjamin Kuo
hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu (HP48SX Archive Maintainer) (10/30/90)
In article <12801@chaph.usc.edu> bkuo@aludra.usc.edu (Benjamin Kuo) writes: >Why, might I ask, didn't he buy the NON-PROTECTED version in the first place? >(A few dollars is NOT worth trying to dissemble a program!!) Or, is it >not just in the interest of "not carrying a master disk" from home and >work (I wouldn't recommend playing ANY game at work, either...) Something >else, perhaps? > >Benjamin Kuo There are more than just the "simple" fact that he can get a newer version. Both me and my friend is living in Denmark, and this is $37 away from the US (air mail, each way). He does not play the game at work every day, but he does so once in a while. And there is always a risk involved in carrying the software around. He also has a licence to run it on one machine at a time, it is nowhere stated that he may only use it on one specific machine and never take it to another. But there is also the fact that copy protection in this way is BAD. I have heard that there a new copy protection scemes onthe way, which installs the serial number of the machine into the software itself. This means that you need to have the master to install a working copy. This will stop pirating if the software can't be distributed further than one person away. Nobody can steal a game from a public machine. This is OK for me, as this does not bother the user when the program is installed. This disk may also be copyprotected without anybody but the pirate has to know. I thinlk that all copy protection requiring user interaction every time the program is beeing run is BAD!!! :-( Another user who wants to use the program on the same machine must locate the master disk or the users manual. And if the person who own the stuff have it at another place, then running the program is imposible, although it may be legal. PIRATING IS BAD :-( COPY-PROTECTION REQUIRING USER INTERACTION IS BAD :-( INVISIBLE COPY-PROTECTION IS ACCEPTABLE me :-| company :-) NO COPY PROTECTION IS good for me :-) bad for the company :-( Nobody can disagree with me, there is a need for copyprotection on some software (mostly games), but it should not uneed user interaction BTW: Upgrading to a newer version would cost my friend more than buying a new copy!!!! This will also be the case if his master disk breaks. So it is just natural to try to protect your property. I guess that Maxis will not pay the expenses he gets when the master breaks and he can't use the program. Even though it is indirectly their fault that he is then unavailable to use their program. Maybe a lawsuit in the US could then ensure he will get a replacement free of charge ??? This must be enough talk for this time, Povl H. Pedersen eco8941@ecostat.aau.dk / hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu -- ******************************************************* Povl H. Pedersen hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu HP48sx archive maintainer
v092mgp5@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Scott K Wood) (10/30/90)
>In article <12801@chaph.usc.edu> bkuo@aludra.usc.edu (Benjamin Kuo) writes: >Nobody can disagree with me, there is a need for copyprotection on some >software (mostly games), but it should not uneed user interaction I find that I disagree with you totally. I know this message might start a debate on copy-protection, but I think what you said in the above message is totally absurd if you are familiar with the situation when it comes to copy-protection on games. First, to ask a rhetorical question, why is there a need for copy protection on anything? I don't know how familar you are with people breaking copy protection on software, but since a lot of people I know do it, I feel qualified enough to respond. Copy protection is basically a waste of money for the company. Most "decent" hackers can have the protection off of a piece of software in less than a week. Depending on the protection it may take longer, or it may take a lot less time. I don't know of ANY program out for any personal computer that cannot be copied or deprotected. If there is such a beast out there, rest assured it will soon be unprotected. Anyway, back to my point. If copy-protection is so worthless, why have the company waste money to put in on? I would rather have the company spend that money on the development of the program rather than a copy protection that will cease to exist on the program in less than a week. For those that are wondering, no, I do NOT indulge in the illegal activites that the people afore mentioned do. Scott BITNET : v092mgp5@ubvms.bitnet INTERNET : v092mgp5@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu
hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu (HP48SX Archive Maintainer) (10/30/90)
I think one of the main reasons for copy protection is to prevent everybody who has access to a machine with the software to take it with them home. All copy protection can be removed, and also the software producers knows that. But if there is some way to stop people from just getting a copy from a BBS (Yes, you can do this with MS-DOS commercial games), or even more likely from a public machine then this will probably increase the sales. The standard user who puts a game onto the university computer to see it in color, and does not remove it when finihed may give the game away to 20 users or more without knowing. more complex packages will often need a manual, or a reference card, also does the users of such programs often want the ability to get support in case of problems.a I only see a real pirate problem in the area of games. Much of the other software is used by serious users. This is also one of the reasons why there isn't very much serious software for the Amiga. It is a games machine, and then there is only a few seriously onlyy users, and thus more pirates. Povl -- ******************************************************* Povl H. Pedersen hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu HP48sx archive maintainer
minich@d.cs.okstate.edu (Robert Minich) (10/30/90)
by hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu (HP48SX Archive Maintainer): | But there is also the fact that copy protection in this way is BAD. I | have heard that there a new copy protection scemes onthe way, which | installs the serial number of the machine into the software itself. This | means that you need to have the master to install a working copy. This | will stop pirating if the software can't be distributed further than one | person away. Nobody can steal a game from a public machine. This is OK | for me, as this does not bother the user when the program is installed. | This disk may also be copyprotected without anybody but the pirate has | to know. Too bad you won't be able to share such a game if it is located on a server somewhere. To my knowledge, Macs have no machine readable serial number around otherwise this idea would have been tried long ago. And as another poster has said, the protection would no doubt be defeated rather quickly. -- |_ /| | Robert Minich | |\'o.O' | Oklahoma State University| A fanatic is one who sticks to |=(___)= | minich@d.cs.okstate.edu | his guns -- whether they are | U | - Ackphtth | loaded or not.
kanner@Apple.COM (Herbert Kanner) (10/31/90)
copy protection on anything. The worst one he ever tackled took him
three or four hours. He would not break copy protection unless I
could prove to him that I was the legitimate licensee for the
software. It was being done for my convenience, not for rip-off
purposes. Usually, he would break these things in less than an hour.
--
Herb Kanner
Apple Computer, Inc.
{idi,nsc}!apple!kanner
kanner@apple.comkenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu (Ken Hancock) (10/31/90)
In article <1990Oct29.232759.6965@wuarchive.wustl.edu> hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu (HP48SX Archive Maintainer) writes: >Nobody can disagree with me, there is a need for copyprotection on some >software (mostly games), but it should not uneed user interaction I can. I won't buy anything that's copyprotected with a protection scheme more complex than I can disable. I find it incredibly annoying. The end result of copyprotection is it may cut down on the casual piracy, but will never eliminate it. Name any game that's been produced, and I could probably find you a pirated copy in under 72 hours. Unfortunate, but true. It's a shame that companies copyprotect many of their games. Those that are copy-protected, I just go without. Ken -- Ken Hancock | INTERNET: kenh@hscfsas1.harvard.edu Isle Systems | Disclaimer: My opinions are mine, Macintosh Consulting | your opinions are yours. Simple, isn't it?