Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mcnc!ece-csc!ncrcae!ncr-sd!crash!gryphon!cadovax!keithd
From: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Copy protection: A marketing analysis
Message-ID: <1669@cadovax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-Jul-87 12:28:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: cadovax.1669
Posted: Tue Jul 21 12:28:58 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jul-87 07:18:33 EDT
References: <207@cc5.bbn.com.BBN.COM> <892@omepd>
Reply-To: keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle)
Distribution: world
Organization: Contel Business Systems, Torrance, CA
Lines: 39

In article <892@omepd> hah@mipon3.UUCP (Hans Hansen) writes:
>While I in most part agree that it is not fair to the software developer to
>have their work pirated.  I feel that the real place for software protection
>lies with Commodore.  The Amiga should have had an ID ROM in each machine
>that is unique from all others.  All programmers that felt the need to protect
>their programs would then burry the cusotmers ID within the program the first
>time it was loaded.

And if something ever happens to his machine and he has to get another
one, all of his software is rendered useless and he has to re-buy it.
Wonderful.

And guess what guy, it is not in the best interest of a computer 
manufacturer to provide special hardware support for copy protection,
pirating actually sells more machines.  Though a manufacturer certainly
can't come out in favor of piracy, you'll notice that none of them have
ever taken any steps to aid the software developers in preventing it.

I remember when the Lisa first came out.  One of the first questions
I asked the Apple guy, is if they had set it up so that disks with 
certain serial numbers were not copyable by any of the system disk
copy routines.  A manufacturer could always bury the copy code and
disk code in a seperate prom based micro and only allow the main
processor to send it high level commands, with all the copy
commands set to refuse to copy disks with certain characteristics.

Though it would only foster a market for special 'proms' anyway,
and would be a short-term solution (remember the Atari 800's 'happy' drive?).

It's similar to the DAT issue.  Such hardware copy-protection
assistance just prohibits legitimate users from excersizing his
'fair-use' as already established by the courts.  Hardware manufacturers
do not benefit by supporting such measures.  It removes LEGAL features
from LEGAL owners, and obytheway piracy sells more machines anyway.


Keith Doyle
#  {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
#  cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa  Contel Business Systems 213-323-8170