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