Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uw-beaver Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!info-mac From: info-mac@uw-beaver Newsgroups: fa.info-mac Subject: Copy Protection Message-ID: <341@uw-beaver> Date: Thu, 3-Jan-85 01:16:33 EST Article-I.D.: uw-beave.341 Posted: Thu Jan 3 01:16:33 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 3-Jan-85 23:45:31 EST Sender: daemon@uw-beaver Organization: U of Washington Computer Science Lines: 166 From: INTMET@BBNA.ARPA Dear Editor, Please, please, please, do not let the info-mac mailing list go down the tubes in a discussion of copy protection. Please work to maintain the list as focused on Macintosh technical issues. thanks for all the hard work it must be to run this thing! Ben Hyde. [Thanks Ben, I agree. Attached is 'the final word' on copy protection. Please post any future discussion of this to info-micro, net.micro, etc.] ------- Return-Path:Received: from LANL.ARPA by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Tue 1 Jan 85 15:48:33-PST Received: from a.ARPA by LANL.ARPA (4.12/4.7) id AA28470; Tue, 1 Jan 85 16:47:35 mst Received: by a.ARPA (4.12/4.7) id AA10289; Tue, 1 Jan 85 16:48:31 mst Date: Tue, 1 Jan 85 16:48:31 mst From: dlc@LANL (Dale Carstensen) Message-Id: <8501012348.AA10289@a.ARPA> Subject: Re: Music/Protection Newsgroups: ar.info-mac To: INFO-MAC@SUMEX-AIM References: <18742@lanl.ARPA> > From: Chad Leland Mitchell > helped write the ConcertWare package and my opinions will have some influence > on Great Wave's decision about copy protection. As I have read the messages > in which people have expressed the desire to influence copy protection > decisions, I realized that I could extend that opportunity. Please let me > know your opinions, suggestions, and ideas. I have not seen the following thought in any published or network discussion of protection and piracy. A game developer I know says the concern of the industry in the 1983-84 timeframe was mostly the computer retail stores that copy several games to be included FREE if you buy the computer that runs them, as a sales inducement. A "sting" operation could be effective against such tactics, but who would bear the costs of posing as a customer at such stores and purchasing a system with such a package of "goodies?" And, would out-of- court settlements be worthwhile, and could convictions be gained in court? Clearly, many stores have access to the expertise that could break your type 2, or even type 3 protection. Maybe circumstances have changed, too, surely no large chain would risk its reputation by committing such crimes. I wonder, myself, about the effect of "bundling" in general. It started in the micro-computer industry, I believe, with the Osborne I. It was a strong legal point in the late 60's and early 70's in showing IBM's predatory tactics. I notice, and I think it is very significant, that only BASIC, not even PC-DOS, is bundled with the IBM PC. So whether done by illegal copying, or through bulk purchase contracts, bundling is a tactic the mighty fear more than the tiny do. Perhaps I've digressed too much already, but I think another point that makes a difference on whether you use copy-protection is what use the software is to the customer. If it is going to be used in a manner that it is of critical importance to the customer, then two other items need to be examined. 1. Will the vendor provide upgrades and maintenance? How? What price? 2. Will the vendor compensate the customer for loss of use of the program because the customer's only (protected) copy failed and couldn't be replaced for several days? I think, in general, that the software should be unprotected, and that source, in listing form, or in machine-readable form, should be available at a reasonably higher price. Have software manufacturers considered how much money they have collected for software, protected or not, that is NEVER used? Doesn't it all balance out in the end? I've spent over $2000 for software, I use about 10% of it, and I spent about 10% of the total on that. And I write software, I've always been paid by the hour for it except in one case. In that case, I lost money on the hardware part of the project, so the software work was a total loss. My point is, if the company's success hinges on copy-protection, it isn't worth much. Deal with your customers (from distribution through retail to end- user) fairly and produce a product that's worth having. All you'll do with that other mickey-mouse is make some law firm(s) rich and make the people that know which way is up dislike you (at the least). Return-Path: Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Wed 2 Jan 85 11:24:45-PST Date: Wed 2 Jan 85 10:59:17-PST From: Joseph I. Pallas Subject: Re: Music/Protection To: CHAD@SU-SCORE.ARPA cc: info-mac@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA In-Reply-To: Message from "Chad Leland Mitchell " of Sun 30 Dec 84 14:59:53-PST Punishing the naive user seems like the worst thing to do. There is nothing more frustrating than to be presented with this marvelous user interface and suddenly being told "Sorry, you can't do that." It is wrong at a very basic level, because it puts the computer in control of the user instead of the correct relationship. Even the naive user will realize this at some (perhaps unconscious) level: the machine could do what I've asked, but it refuses. Mark that down as Apple's most serious error, in making such a mechanism part of their system. I won't buy software I can't back up/copy, unless it's dirt cheap. If I ever get a hard disk, which I would like someday to do, I won't buy software I can't back up/copy. As a non-naive user, I might buy software with level 2 (trivial) copy protection. If I do, it is with misgivings. The naive user might buy software without concern for its copy protection--once. I think that would have a sufficient impact on software sales to reduce the total number of programs marketed (excepting, of course, copy programs). I recommend selling a good product at a reasonable price with no copy protection. joe ------- Return-Path: Received: from su-shasta.arpa by SUMEX-AIM.ARPA with TCP; Wed 2 Jan 85 17:03:46-PST Received: from imagen by Shasta with UUCP; Wed, 2 Jan 85 17:03 PST Date: Wednesday, 2 Jan 1985 11:06-PST To: shasta!CHAD@SU-SCORE.ARPA Cc: shasta!info-mac@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA Reply-To: imagen!geof@shasta Phone: (408) 986-9400 (work) Postal-Address: IMAGEN, 2650 San Thomas Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95052 Real-Name: Geoffrey H. Cooper Subject: Re: Music/Protection In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu 27 Dec 84 01:03:38-PST. From: imagen!geof@su-shasta.arpa I think that a protected subsystem approach would be nice here. First I must admit to being somewhat naive about the programming interface to the MAC. But what occurs to me is that the vendor of a package should include a program for copying the package with it. The program copies the package and itself, and modifies something (probably a key hidden somewhere in the code) to preserve its state. Obviously the scheme is not 100% safe, since a hacker can reverse the damage, unbeknownst to the program. But the idea is to discourage idle theivery both by making it difficult to copy the program illegally and making it simple to use it on a hard disk or make backup copies. Here is one idea that might be close to working. Mac-hackers, please dash this to pieces as appropriate, but also be creative about making the idea work another way. There are two executable programs on a disk that you buy, both copy protected. One program runs the service you bought, the other is the copy program. The copy program will not run from a write-protected disk. It is set up to allow one backup copy to coexist, and one copy on a hard disk. When you run it, it lets you make a copy on a second floppy. This copy is also copy protected, and is subtly modifed such that it is not copyable by the copy program. The copy also has a ``Time bomb'' in it (which might as well be user selectable, but let's say it is 1 month). You put the original diskette in a safe place, and only use the copy. After a month the copy refuses to work until you `recharge' the time bomb using the master diskette's copy program. This takes about 20-30 seconds max, and allows the master diskette to track when the copy's bomb will go off. The master diskette will let you make another copy of the program if you either supply the existing copy, which it invalidates (so that you can switch to a less flakey diskette), or if the existing copy's time bomb has expired (hence why time bombs should be user-settable). If I trash my backup copy, I can still use the master disk, although this is living dangerously. After the time bomb for the backup copy expires, I can make another backup copy. I think that the above would work for diskette based software. Hard disks pose some other problems if you can't copy-protect a program that is on a hard disk. I leave the details as an exercise for the reader, or other mac'ers out there. - Geof