PYC118@uriacc.uri.edu (Rasiel) (04/26/91)
Hi everyone. If you like this game but don't like the type-in manual password protection I made a patch for the game to get rid of it. If you're interested lemme know and I can either email you a copy or upload it to ab20. Rasiel, pyc118@uriacc
ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) (04/26/91)
In <51888@nigel.ee.udel.edu> PYC118@uriacc.uri.edu (Rasiel) writes: >Hi everyone. If you like this game but don't like the type-in manual password >protection I made a patch for the game to get rid of it. If you're interested >lemme know and I can either email you a copy or upload it to ab20. >Rasiel, pyc118@uriacc Did you ever think that this might render damages to the software house producing ChessMaster 2100? By giving a means to everyone to avoid their protection scheme, you are actually causing a potential loss in sales, since nobody has to have the manual to be able to play the game. Golden raspberry award for you, for that idea. -TT. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ____ Thomas Tavoly, Commercial Computer Science - HEAO Utrecht, NL. / / / "Whoever talks too much, has no time to think." - Peter Tavoly. AMIGA / Favourite quote: "The Mac OS is amazingly complex, ____ / / / .sig v3.0e given how little it does." - Peter da Silva \ \ \/ / / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>> ptavoly@praxis.cs.ruu.nl <<~~~~~~~~~ \_\_\/_/
mndaily@ux.acs.umn.edu (Linda Seebach) (05/03/91)
In article <1991Apr26.162946.25169@cs.ruu.nl> ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) writes: >Did you ever think that this might render damages to the software house >producing ChessMaster 2100? By giving a means to everyone to avoid their >protection scheme, you are actually causing a potential loss in sales, >since nobody has to have the manual to be able to play the game. >Golden raspberry award for you, for that idea. I think it's a damn good idea. While I certainly appreciate the alleged necessity of copy protection, I really hate having to keep a pile of books next to my computer to use any of my programs. I'm all for patches that remove copy protection. I just wish more things ran on my computer anyway... > -TT. --SeebS-- NOT Linda Seebach -- mndaily is the Minnesota Daily, and does not speak for the U of M. Linda Seebach does not speak for the Daily. --SeebS-- does not speak for Linda. Marcel Marceau speaks for no one.
ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) (05/06/91)
In <3850@ux.acs.umn.edu> mndaily@ux.acs.umn.edu (Linda Seebach) writes: >In article <1991Apr26.162946.25169@cs.ruu.nl> ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) writes: >>Did you ever think that this might render damages to the software house >>producing ChessMaster 2100? By giving a means to everyone to avoid their >>protection scheme, you are actually causing a potential loss in sales, >>since nobody has to have the manual to be able to play the game. > >>Golden raspberry award for you, for that idea. > >I think it's a damn good idea. While I certainly appreciate the alleged >necessity of copy protection, I really hate having to keep a pile of books >next to my computer to use any of my programs. I'm all for patches that >remove copy protection. I just wish more things ran on my computer anyway... > >> -TT. > >--SeebS-- >NOT Linda Seebach In case you did not get the point, this comes damn close to piracy. Unless you can actually prove that you purchased the game, the patch is illegal. (Even then!) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ____ Thomas Tavoly, Commercial Computer Science - HEAO Utrecht, NL. / / / "Whoever talks too much, has no time to think." - Peter Tavoly. AMIGA / Favourite quote: "The Mac OS is amazingly complex, ____ / / / .sig v3.0e given how little it does." - Peter da Silva \ \ \/ / / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>> ptavoly@praxis.cs.ruu.nl <<~~~~~~~~~ \_\_\/_/
gfm@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (George) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May06.155345.17107@cs.ruu.nl> ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) writes: >In <3850@ux.acs.umn.edu> mndaily@ux.acs.umn.edu (Linda Seebach) writes: > >>In article <1991Apr26.162946.25169@cs.ruu.nl> ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) writes: >>>Did you ever think that this might render damages to the software house >>>producing ChessMaster 2100? By giving a means to everyone to avoid their >>>protection scheme, you are actually causing a potential loss in sales, >>>since nobody has to have the manual to be able to play the game. >> >>>Golden raspberry award for you, for that idea. >> >>I think it's a damn good idea. While I certainly appreciate the alleged >>necessity of copy protection, I really hate having to keep a pile of books >>next to my computer to use any of my programs. I'm all for patches that >>remove copy protection. I just wish more things ran on my computer anyway... >> >>> -TT. >> >>--SeebS-- >>NOT Linda Seebach > >In case you did not get the point, this comes damn close to piracy. Unless >you can actually prove that you purchased the game, the patch is illegal. >(Even then!) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Utter bullsh*t, the patch itself is in no way illegal, and the author (I'd assume) is only making it available so that it might help people who are fed up with entering words from a manual...it does get tedious...If the patch is used for illegal purposes, it is not the fault of the author....Although the 'morality' of releasing such a patch is debtable, there is no way that the patch itself is illegal, For example: There are MANY commercial programs that strip both Disk Based Protection AND Manual based protection (For 'Archival Purposes' only, of course) these include: Maverick, Nib, Project D, RawCopy and others, and these have exsisted for many years, and are not illegal at all. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ____ >Thomas Tavoly, Commercial Computer Science - HEAO Utrecht, NL. / / / >"Whoever talks too much, has no time to think." - Peter Tavoly. AMIGA / >Favourite quote: "The Mac OS is amazingly complex, ____ / / / > .sig v3.0e given how little it does." - Peter da Silva \ \ \/ / / >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>> ptavoly@praxis.cs.ruu.nl <<~~~~~~~~~ \_\_\/_/
lrg7030@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren J. Rittle) (05/07/91)
In article <1991May7.002909.17186@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> gfm@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (George) writes: >Utter bullsh*t, the patch itself is in no way illegal, and the author (I'd >assume) is only making it available so that it might help people who are fed up >with entering words from a manual...it does get tedious...If the patch is used >for illegal purposes, it is not the fault of the author....Although the >'morality' of releasing such a patch is debtable, there is no way that the >patch itself is illegal, For example: There are MANY commercial programs that >strip both Disk Based Protection AND Manual based protection (For 'Archival >Purposes' only, of course) these include: Maverick, Nib, Project D, RawCopy and>others, and these have exsisted for many years, and are not illegal at all. Sorry George, Utter bullshit! If you had bothered to download the `patch' in question, you would know that this `patch' was indeed the main executable of the game! It is not a patch to the 2100 game, but rather the patched game. I sent Tad some mail that it should be removed and it was. Loren J. Rittle -- ``NewTek stated that the Toaster *would* *not* be made to directly support the Mac, at this point Sculley stormed out of the booth...'' --- A scene at the recent MacExpo. Gee, you wouldn't think that an Apple Exec would be so worried about one little Amiga device... Loren J. Rittle l-rittle@uiuc.edu
ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) (05/07/91)
In <1991May7.002909.17186@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> gfm@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (George) writes: >In article <1991May06.155345.17107@cs.ruu.nl> ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) writes: >>In <3850@ux.acs.umn.edu> mndaily@ux.acs.umn.edu (Linda Seebach) writes: >> >>>In article <1991Apr26.162946.25169@cs.ruu.nl> ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) writes: >>>>Did you ever think that this might render damages to the software house >>>>producing ChessMaster 2100? By giving a means to everyone to avoid their >>>>protection scheme, you are actually causing a potential loss in sales, >>>>since nobody has to have the manual to be able to play the game. >>> >>>>Golden raspberry award for you, for that idea. >>> >>>I think it's a damn good idea. While I certainly appreciate the alleged >>>necessity of copy protection, I really hate having to keep a pile of books >>>next to my computer to use any of my programs. I'm all for patches that >>>remove copy protection. I just wish more things ran on my computer anyway... >>> >>>> -TT. >>> >>>--SeebS-- >>>NOT Linda Seebach >> >>In case you did not get the point, this comes damn close to piracy. Unless >>you can actually prove that you purchased the game, the patch is illegal. >>(Even then!) >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >Utter bullsh*t, the patch itself is in no way illegal, and the author (I'd assume) is only making it available so that it might help people who are fed up >with entering words from a manual...it does get tedious...If the patch is used >for illegal purposes, it is not the fault of the author....Although the >'morality' of releasing such a patch is debtable, there is no way that the >patch itself is illegal, For example: There are MANY commercial programs that >strip both Disk Based Protection AND Manual based protection (For 'Archival >Purposes' only, of course) these include: Maverick, Nib, Project D, RawCopy and others, and these have exsisted for many years, and are not illegal at all. > Sigh.. Utter Spectum Tauri (tm)! You still don't get the point do you? Who do you think those 'people fed up with entering words' are? They don't have the manual, that is why they are 'fed up'! Those who actually bought the game did so because they valued it worthwhile, in contrast to those, who just copied it because they could get it for free. If you play it, buy it! Such a patch is simply not a good idea, because you never know whether the next guy who gets it has or has not purchased the game. Even if some do, you can bet your life on it that 80% or more of the recipients are using pirated copies (disclaimer: 96.7% of statistics are made up :^), because they CAN'T play it WITHOUT. Sure I am annoyed by such a protection scheme, but unfortunately it is necessary in the case of games. (Of course, larger applications should definitely not have it, since they are already protected by their sheer complexity.) On those 'protection removal packages': Do you think the software houses are happy with them? Sure they are not illegal, but you could say that of machine guns used in armed robberies too. POINT: The tool is not the issue, but the purpose, and such a tool only encourages the *wrong* purpose. (Why do you think Adam and Eve were cast out of paradise? They had the *opportunity* ;^) Just my 2 Forints worth.. PS.: Manual protection schemes *cannot* be removed by commercial programs like Project D etc. since they are embedded in the program code itself, sometimes they are encoded as well (uhh.. from my 64 days :). -ThomasT. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ____ Thomas Tavoly, Commercial Computer Science - HEAO Utrecht, NL. / / / "Whoever talks too much, has no time to think." - Peter Tavoly. AMIGA / Favourite quote: "The Mac OS is amazingly complex, ____ / / / .sig v3.0e given how little it does." - Peter da Silva \ \ \/ / / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>> ptavoly@praxis.cs.ruu.nl <<~~~~~~~~~ \_\_\/_/
gfm@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (George) (05/08/91)
In article <1991May7.032824.12059@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> l-rittle@uiuc.edu (Loren J. Rittle) writes: > >Sorry George, > Utter bullshit! If you had bothered to download the `patch' in >question, you would know that this `patch' was indeed the main executable >of the game! It is not a patch to the 2100 game, but rather the patched >game. I sent Tad some mail that it should be removed and it was. > >Loren J. Rittle >-- >``NewTek stated that the Toaster *would* *not* be made to directly support > the Mac, at this point Sculley stormed out of the booth...'' --- A scene at > the recent MacExpo. Gee, you wouldn't think that an Apple Exec would be so > worried about one little Amiga device... Loren J. Rittle l-rittle@uiuc.edu 1) We were talking about the 'patch' not the patched game...No I didnt 'bother' to download it, I have no use for it at all....and if an exe exsisted that actually just PATCHED the game it would not be illegal... 2) If the patched main executable is what is up on ab20, then its not a patch, just a modified binary, and thus the original poster should not have said this 'patch' was illegal (wrong use of a term)...
gfm@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (George) (05/08/91)
In article <1991May07.103100.12997@cs.ruu.nl> ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) writes: >In <1991May7.002909.17186@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> gfm@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (George) writes: > >> >>Utter bullsh*t, the patch itself is in no way illegal, and the author (I'd assume) is only making it available so that it might help people who are fed up >>with entering words from a manual...it does get tedious...If the patch is used >>for illegal purposes, it is not the fault of the author....Although the >>'morality' of releasing such a patch is debtable, there is no way that the >>patch itself is illegal, For example: There are MANY commercial programs that >>strip both Disk Based Protection AND Manual based protection (For 'Archival >>Purposes' only, of course) these include: Maverick, Nib, Project D, RawCopy and others, and these have exsisted for many years, and are not illegal at all. >> > >Sigh.. Utter Spectum Tauri (tm)! You still don't get the point do you? Who >do you think those 'people fed up with entering words' are? They don't have >the manual, that is why they are 'fed up'! Those who actually bought the >game did so because they valued it worthwhile, in contrast to those, who >just copied it because they could get it for free. If you play it, buy it! > >Such a patch is simply not a good idea, because you never know whether the >next guy who gets it has or has not purchased the game. Even if some do, >you can bet your life on it that 80% or more of the recipients are using >pirated copies (disclaimer: 96.7% of statistics are made up :^), because >they CAN'T play it WITHOUT. Sure I am annoyed by such a protection scheme, >but unfortunately it is necessary in the case of games. (Of course, larger >applications should definitely not have it, since they are already protected >by their sheer complexity.) > >On those 'protection removal packages': Do you think the software houses are >happy with them? Sure they are not illegal, but you could say that of machine >guns used in armed robberies too. POINT: The tool is not the issue, but the >purpose, and such a tool only encourages the *wrong* purpose. (Why do you >think Adam and Eve were cast out of paradise? They had the *opportunity* ;^) > Sorry for all this post to people not concerned, however, please do not address any of this stuff to me, I quite clearly said the morality of such a patch is debatable...(See my post)....But the first poster, whom I responded to said it was illegal, to which I said it wasnt.. >Just my 2 Forints worth.. > >PS.: Manual protection schemes *cannot* be removed by commercial programs > like Project D etc. since they are embedded in the program code itself, > sometimes they are encoded as well (uhh.. from my 64 days :). > Wrong, many commericial programs can and do take out the protection schemes, all it requires in most cases is a couple of changes of bits on the disk itself (Instead of modifying the program, they will look at the original disk, find on the disk where the manual routine is, and find away to just jump over it by altering some raw disk data)..Go out and buy or just look at ads/reviews for the better amiga copiers, you will see that it can be done...Also I am a former C64 user, and KJ (Kracker Jax) did have some programs with parameters that would do this...Of course it wont always work 100% because the software companines can always just rerelease a new version of the software where the manual protect lies in a different part of the disk...But they hardly ever do this (at least to my experiences) Persoanlly I find software protection annoying, they cannot protect a game 100% at all, no matter what they do some pirate will be able to undo it... PS. About the 'security through complexity' this is no longer security either 1) Its relativly cheap to get a text scanner that can scan in long manuals 2) alot of pirates will spend loads of time typing in paper docs just to get thier name on it 3) Lots of BBSes carry these docs, in fact ive been on more than a few BBSes that advertise as PD but have a large section of DOC files to commercial games (Chet Solaces board used to have this...it may still..I havent called it in ages) > -ThomasT. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ____ >Thomas Tavoly, Commercial Computer Science - HEAO Utrecht, NL. / / / >"Whoever talks too much, has no time to think." - Peter Tavoly. AMIGA / >Favourite quote: "The Mac OS is amazingly complex, ____ / / / > .sig v3.0e given how little it does." - Peter da Silva \ \ \/ / / >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>> ptavoly@praxis.cs.ruu.nl <<~~~~~~~~~ \_\_\/_/
taak9@isuvax.iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) (05/08/91)
In article <1991May07.103100.12997@cs.ruu.nl>, ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) writes: <A bunch of garbage talking about protection schemes and the legality of defeating them> > >Sigh.. Utter Spectum Tauri (tm)! You still don't get the point do you? Who >do you think those 'people fed up with entering words' are? They don't have >the manual, that is why they are 'fed up'! Those who actually bought the >game did so because they valued it worthwhile, in contrast to those, who >just copied it because they could get it for free. If you play it, buy it! Wrong! I've got the following to offer you for sale: Gunship - bad disk, won't load, no way to copy it $40 PageSetter - no manual, no way to run program $80 SuperBase personal - no dongle, no way to run program $100 I never liked any of this software anyway, but I made the mistake of purchasing it, and I refuse to give the compaies more money. > >Such a patch is simply not a good idea, because you never know whether the >next guy who gets it has or has not purchased the game. Even if some do, >you can bet your life on it that 80% or more of the recipients are using >pirated copies (disclaimer: 96.7% of statistics are made up :^), because >they CAN'T play it WITHOUT. Sure I am annoyed by such a protection scheme, >but unfortunately it is necessary in the case of games. (Of course, larger >applications should definitely not have it, since they are already protected >by their sheer complexity.) Protection schemes are not necessary. If the software were reasonably priced, the companies would sell copies instead of having them stolen. I also believe that 80% of pirated copies would not be used if they were required to pay for the software. Most all software is not worth what the software companies charge. I think pirates are further supported by unhappy owners of damaged software sold to them by software companies. Protection removal tools would not exist if the software companies were cooperative. I would support any bill brought to congress that protected the rights of software consumers. We should have the RIGHT to make backup copies of our software, or be provided a backup copy for cost of media only. > > -ThomasT. > Steve Sheldon TAAK9@ccvax.iastate.edu
havir@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Eric Havir) (05/08/91)
ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) writes: >In <1991May7.002909.17186@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> gfm@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (George) writes: > >>In article <1991May06.155345.17107@cs.ruu.nl> ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) writes: >>>In <3850@ux.acs.umn.edu> mndaily@ux.acs.umn.edu (Linda Seebach) writes: >>> >>>>In article <1991Apr26.162946.25169@cs.ruu.nl> ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) writes: >>>>>Did you ever think that this might render damages to the software house >>>>>producing ChessMaster 2100? By giving a means to everyone to avoid their >>>>>protection scheme, you are actually causing a potential loss in sales, >>>>>since nobody has to have the manual to be able to play the game. >>>> >>>>>Golden raspberry award for you, for that idea. >>>> >>>>I think it's a damn good idea. While I certainly appreciate the alleged >>>>necessity of copy protection, I really hate having to keep a pile of books >>>>next to my computer to use any of my programs. I'm all for patches that >>>>remove copy protection. I just wish more things ran on my computer anyway... >>>> >>>>> -TT. >>>> >>>>--SeebS-- >>>>NOT Linda Seebach >>> >>>In case you did not get the point, this comes damn close to piracy. Unless >>>you can actually prove that you purchased the game, the patch is illegal. >>>(Even then!) >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >>Utter bullsh*t, the patch itself is in no way illegal, and the author (I'd assume) is only making it available so that it might help people who are fed up >>with entering words from a manual...it does get tedious...If the patch is used >>for illegal purposes, it is not the fault of the author....Although the >>'morality' of releasing such a patch is debtable, there is no way that the >>patch itself is illegal, For example: There are MANY commercial programs that >>strip both Disk Based Protection AND Manual based protection (For 'Archival >>Purposes' only, of course) these include: Maverick, Nib, Project D, RawCopy and others, and these have exsisted for many years, and are not illegal at all. >> > >Sigh.. Utter Spectum Tauri (tm)! You still don't get the point do you? Who >do you think those 'people fed up with entering words' are? They don't have >the manual, that is why they are 'fed up'! Those who actually bought the >game did so because they valued it worthwhile, in contrast to those, who >just copied it because they could get it for free. If you play it, buy it! > >Such a patch is simply not a good idea, because you never know whether the >next guy who gets it has or has not purchased the game. Even if some do, >you can bet your life on it that 80% or more of the recipients are using >pirated copies (disclaimer: 96.7% of statistics are made up :^), because >they CAN'T play it WITHOUT. Sure I am annoyed by such a protection scheme, >but unfortunately it is necessary in the case of games. (Of course, larger >applications should definitely not have it, since they are already protected >by their sheer complexity.) > >On those 'protection removal packages': Do you think the software houses are >happy with them? Sure they are not illegal, but you could say that of machine >guns used in armed robberies too. POINT: The tool is not the issue, but the >purpose, and such a tool only encourages the *wrong* purpose. (Why do you >think Adam and Eve were cast out of paradise? They had the *opportunity* ;^) > >Just my 2 Forints worth.. > >PS.: Manual protection schemes *cannot* be removed by commercial programs > like Project D etc. since they are embedded in the program code itself, > sometimes they are encoded as well (uhh.. from my 64 days :). > To put my 29 cent stamp into the discussion... I have this stack of software boxes on one of my cupboards, and everytime someone gets 'roudy' around it, they come tumbling down. I thought about buying a big 3 ring folder, and taking the manuals out of all the boxes, and filing em in one nice neat place. Maybe someday. As Per Peter's statement: "They don't have the manual, that is why they are 'fed up'!" I wouldn't agree 100%. I get fed up, although not to the point of writing letters to the companies...but I do. I have disorganized piles of manuals spread upon my desk, and it does get annoying. IF I organize 'em into a notebook, I'm sure I would be happier. But I would fall into the category of being 'fed up', and I am definately not a hacker. Also Per Peter's statement: "Sure they are not illegal, but you could say that of machine guns used in armed robberies too." Actually, last time I checked, machine guns and all other automatic weapons are illegal. *= ) Just kidding... I do get your point. But you'll never supress the hackers need to copy, and although the legit 'backup software' does help the hacker...if it wasn't legit, the hackers would make the illegit ones anyway. After years of study, I have come up with the solution (and the secret to life, women, and marriage!). What needs to happen isn't a 'police solution'. It's more of an education solution. If ever there is a fence put up, someone will try knock it down. I've changed attitudes of friends who were pirates, with a bit of example..and patience. They aren't 100% clean now, but they switched from 5% to 75%, which is pretty good if you study statistics. This whole discussion stemmed off the Chessmaster 2100 patch though. As I understand it (I don't have CM2100 or the patch), the patch is actually the main program file, not a 'patch' for it. This isn't legal to spread around, and I would have to disagree with it's use. If it were a legit 'patch' issued by the author, then I would have to question the sanity of the author to put the actual program file out for grabs. I don't like games that require me to SEARCH through the manual for vague pictures, or text references. Especially ones like "Jack Nickalaus" in the older versions which had that damn brown paper with black ink...that I'd have to run into the bathroom just to get a good idea which course I was looking at (nod if you have seen it!). I don't mind code wheels...although they aren't in the 'fun' category, they are bearable, and readable. They can't be 3 hole punched, but that's fine with me. I prefer manual/code protection to on disk protection. I can back up my manual protected games, and not have to worry about disk drive 'gronking'. The data is usually more compact (no half disk taken with protection), and I can sometimes even edit my character stats (grin!). I'd like to be nieve enough to (spell nieve) believe that copy protection is 'necessary', and on the flip side that it isn't. I have a friend, that is very active in the hacker community. He continually calls me up and tells me what he can get on his 'boards' before I can in the store. I always nod and say 'that's nice'. He finally (after six months) stopped telling me. The idea behind this is, that his sole reason behind hacking is to compare 'warez'. He likes others to know what he has. He says he plays .05% of what he gets. Guys like that, you won't stop with on disk or manual protection...or even if you don't protect it. They don't care...they just want it...and will get it one way or another. The other kind of hacker is Mr. Joe Office worker who gets stuff from his buddies at work, etc. This kind will be somewhat intimidated by on-disk protection and some code wheel protection. Manuals are no bother, there are copiers at work/college/etc. They are pretty easy until they meet Mr. Type A (the hacker) who shows great pride in his warez, and the ability to spread them. The third type is intimidated by any form of protection, and most household insects. I wish we could get Nancy Reagan to run a 'Just Say No' piracy campaign. *= ) (anti-piracy...oops). The actual solution might not be far from it. Although 'Just Say No" has been made fun of by every comedian from coast to coast...it did bring about a change in attitude toward drugs somewhat across the U.S. Maybe that's what software needs?? Who knows. I've bought enough software to equal the national debt in $$$ spent. I've sold quite a bit, too (ex-software salesman). I've written my own. And I did 'hack' back in Jr. High school in the 70's (ok, it was on Apples). I've run a computer software 'Fest' to promote software for no apparent reason. I just have a damn good time playing games!! (Sorry for the length, but it would have all come out in bits eventually.) -- Eric "Rangorin" Havir UUCP: {crash tcnet}!orbit!pnet51!havir ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!havir@nosc.mil INET: havir@pnet51.orb.mn.org
kms@uncecs.edu (Ken Steele) (05/10/91)
In article <4853@orbit.cts.com>, havir@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Eric Havir) writes: > ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) writes: > > I'd like to be nieve enough to (spell nieve) believe that copy protection is try 'naif' or 'naive' :-) > 'necessary', and on the flip side that it isn't. I have a friend, that is > very active in the hacker community. He continually calls me up and tells me > what he can get on his 'boards' before I can in the store. I always nod and > say 'that's nice'. He finally (after six months) stopped telling me. The > idea behind this is, that his sole reason behind hacking is to compare > 'warez'. He likes others to know what he has. He says he plays .05% of what > he gets. Guys like that, you won't stop with on disk or manual > protection...or even if you don't protect it. They don't care...they just > want it...and will get it one way or another. The other kind of hacker is > Mr. Joe Office worker who gets stuff from his buddies at work, etc. This > kind will be somewhat intimidated by on-disk protection and some code wheel > protection. Manuals are no bother, there are copiers at work/college/etc. > I've bought enough software to equal the national debt in $$$ spent. I've > -- > Eric "Rangorin" Havir > UUCP: {crash tcnet}!orbit!pnet51!havir > ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!havir@nosc.mil > INET: havir@pnet51.orb.mn.org This is my experience with pirates also. On the one hand I know an individual with literally thousands of disks for Apple II, C-64, and Amiga. In the vast majority of cases he has never even started the game/program ONCE. His thrill is in just "having it" before anyone else. In most cases when he has tried to 'demo' something, he has a bad download, copy, etc. as it will not boot. The above fellow is very harmless compared to people who would never log onto a pirate board but spread copies of WordPerfect, Lotus 1-2-3, etc. around the office. Game-writers, Game-sellers, are sitting around assuming that their game is not producing money because "them pirates" have screwed them. This seems to be a more palatable assumption to the writer/seller than the alternative which is that the public really doesn't care about the game. -- Ken Steele Dept. of Psychology kms@ecsvax.bitnet Mars Hill College kms@ecsvax.uncecs.edu Mars Hill, NC 28754 {some big name site}!mcnc!ecsvax!kms
mndaily@ux.acs.umn.edu (Linda Seebach) (05/11/91)
In article <1991May06.155345.17107@cs.ruu.nl> ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) writes: [...] >In case you did not get the point, this comes damn close to piracy. Unless >you can actually prove that you purchased the game, the patch is illegal. >(Even then!) No no no no no. It's piracy if I have a copy I didn't pay for. If it's my copy, I'll patch it however I want. And what's this about "illegal"? Piracy is a moral, not a legal, issue. And I don't believe that it is illegal to patch your own copy - just illegal to give someone else the game. >Thomas Tavoly, Commercial Computer Science - HEAO Utrecht, NL. / / / --SeebS-- (Still not Linda Seebach) -- mndaily is the Minnesota Daily, and does not speak for the U of M. Linda Seebach does not speak for the Daily. --SeebS-- does not speak for Linda. Marcel Marceau speaks for no one.
ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) (05/13/91)
In <1991May7.185944.118@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu> gfm@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (George) writes: >> >>PS.: Manual protection schemes *cannot* be removed by commercial programs >> like Project D etc. since they are embedded in the program code itself, >> sometimes they are encoded as well (uhh.. from my 64 days :). >> > Wrong, many commericial programs can and do take out the protection >schemes, all it requires in most cases is a couple of changes of bits on the >disk itself (Instead of modifying the program, they will look at the original >disk, find on the disk where the manual routine is, and find away to >just jump over it by altering some raw disk data)..Go out and buy >or just look at ads/reviews for the better amiga copiers, you will see that >it can be done...Also I am a former C64 user, and KJ (Kracker Jax) did have >some programs with parameters that would do this...Of course it wont always >work 100% because the software companines can always just rerelease a new >version of the software where the manual protect lies in a different part of >the disk...But they hardly ever do this (at least to my experiences) Don't tell me, I owned a 64! BTW, you are misunderstanding me, what I meant is, that a program cannot *find out* where a protection scheme resides except when some parameter or brainfile exists for that particular disk or one that resembles it enough. Manual protection schemes are an entirely different beast from disk protection schemes. I was talking about manual protection embedded in programs. When a new program comes out, there is no way to find where the manual protection is located, unless the programmer has been stupid enough to use an old routine that has been incorporated in smart copy programs already. Please don't try to tell me that manual protection is all about two branches (was that you, or somebody on this thread?), (though I came across this once), usually they are black and blue from XOR's and other brainkilling stuff. (DES?) Aside from this, there are already some companies, who want your cheque first, then they incorporate your name in the program so that you cannot spread it.. That is a somewhat disturbing development, though it might prove effective. > Persoanlly I find software protection annoying, they cannot protect >a game 100% at all, no matter what they do some pirate will be able to undo it... That's what I said too, annoying but necessary. > >PS. About the 'security through complexity' this is no longer security either >1) Its relativly cheap to get a text scanner that can scan in long manuals Sure, just cash out $500 or so... >2) alot of pirates will spend loads of time typing in paper docs just to > get thier name on it Some people are just nuts :) -ThomasT. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ____ Thomas Tavoly, Commercial Computer Science - HEAO Utrecht, NL. / / / "Whoever talks too much, has no time to think." - Peter Tavoly. AMIGA / Favourite quote: "The Mac OS is amazingly complex, ____ / / / .sig v3.0e given how little it does." - Peter da Silva \ \ \/ / / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>> ptavoly@praxis.cs.ruu.nl <<~~~~~~~~~ \_\_\/_/
ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) (05/13/91)
In <1991May8.012544.29827@news.iastate.edu> taak9@isuvax.iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) writes: > Wrong! I've got the following to offer you for sale: > > Gunship - bad disk, won't load, no way to copy it $40 > PageSetter - no manual, no way to run program $80 > SuperBase personal - no dongle, no way to run program $100 Try to pick up the phone :) > I would support any bill brought to congress that protected the >rights of software consumers. We should have the RIGHT to make backup >copies of our software, or be provided a backup copy for cost of media only. Hmm.. An interesting thought. I'm in favour :^) >Steve Sheldon >TAAK9@ccvax.iastate.edu -ThomasT. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ____ Thomas Tavoly, Commercial Computer Science - HEAO Utrecht, NL. / / / "Whoever talks too much, has no time to think." - Peter Tavoly. AMIGA / Favourite quote: "The Mac OS is amazingly complex, ____ / / / .sig v3.0e given how little it does." - Peter da Silva \ \ \/ / / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>> ptavoly@praxis.cs.ruu.nl <<~~~~~~~~~ \_\_\/_/
taak9@isuvax.iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) (05/14/91)
In article <1991May13.144925.9496@cs.ruu.nl>, ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) writes: >In <1991May8.012544.29827@news.iastate.edu> taak9@isuvax.iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) writes: >> I would support any bill brought to congress that protected the >>rights of software consumers. We should have the RIGHT to make backup >>copies of our software, or be provided a backup copy for cost of media only. > >Hmm.. An interesting thought. I'm in favour :^) > I recall reading in Dr. Dobbs a few months back(6 perhaps) about a group that was working for changing copyright laws to be more in favor of the general populace. You have to understand, when the copyright and patent laws were first conceived, they were there to protect the rights of the individual. The inventor, the artist, etc. I believe less than 20% of patents issued today are to individuals, they are mostly to coporations. Q - Is there a Usenet group that deals with ethics and copyright, etc? My opinion is that the copyright doesn't work for software. Or at least the definition has been perverted. The duration is too long for one thing. Software written for a VIC-20 still has over 60 years of protection under copyright law. Considering nobody is buying it, what is the harm in copying it? Well, I could argue until my head turned blue and popped off, but... > -ThomasT. > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ____ >Thomas Tavoly, Commercial Computer Science - HEAO Utrecht, NL. / / / >"Whoever talks too much, has no time to think." - Peter Tavoly. AMIGA / >Favourite quote: "The Mac OS is amazingly complex, ____ / / / > .sig v3.0e given how little it does." - Peter da Silva \ \ \/ / / >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>> ptavoly@praxis.cs.ruu.nl <<~~~~~~~~~ \_\_\/_/ Steve Sheldon /// | Do not write in this space taak9@ccvax.iastate.edu /// | Senior, Computer Science \XX/ | For Office Use Only
ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) (05/15/91)
In <1991May14.011224.4218@news.iastate.edu> taak9@isuvax.iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon) writes: > > My opinion is that the copyright doesn't work for software. Or at >least the definition has been perverted. The duration is too long for >one thing. Software written for a VIC-20 still has over 60 years of >protection under copyright law. Considering nobody is buying it, what >is the harm in copying it? > > Well, I could argue until my head turned blue and popped off, but... Yes, I agree that software for a dead machine like the VIC-20 (yes I know, flame me, YOU still use it ;^) should be freely distributable, but only a partial relief from copyrights in that the code should not be altered, the authors still get credit etc. i.e. only free to copy. I can imagine that in 50 years some of the distinguished grey old men will think back with a moist eye to their programming efforts on that machine and then see their software running in the museum under someone else's name! >Steve Sheldon /// | Do not write in this space >taak9@ccvax.iastate.edu /// | >Senior, Computer Science \XX/ | For Office Use Only -ThomasT. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ____ Thomas Tavoly, Commercial Computer Science - HEAO Utrecht, NL. / / / "Whoever talks too much, has no time to think." - Peter Tavoly. AMIGA / Favourite quote: "The Mac OS is amazingly complex, ____ / / / .sig v3.0e given how little it does." - Peter da Silva \ \ \/ / / ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>> ptavoly@praxis.cs.ruu.nl <<~~~~~~~~~ \_\_\/_/