Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!husc6!necntc!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU!bryce From: bryce@COGSCI.BERKELEY.EDU (Bryce Nesbitt) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Copy protection: A marketing analysis Message-ID: <8707180924.AA05844@cogsci.berkeley.edu> Date: Sat, 18-Jul-87 05:24:26 EDT Article-I.D.: cogsci.8707180924.AA05844 Posted: Sat Jul 18 05:24:26 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jul-87 20:57:14 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Lines: 62 Keywords: Ha! > The GIZMO beats all of these. Consider its advantages: [...] Consider the disadvantages. This is a multi-tasking machine, are users with lots of gizmo operated programs going to need to hire a full time gizmo inserter to keep up with the extra human burden of task switching?? :-) I can see it now... extensions to the OS, ObtainGizmoPhore(), GizmoLock() and AttemptLockLayerGizmo()!!! :-) :-) :-) I used to design "gizmos" and reader code for the Commodore-64 (we called them "dongles" or "keys"). For that machine it was acceptable. For the Amiga it really gets in the way. I would not design an dongle destined for use on the Amiga. > I can make my code check the gizmo many times during initialization and > in many ways - and throughout the code if I require it to stay attached. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Perhaps if you take over the entire machine that would be ok... but you really should not be taking over the entire machine! The real pi**ers are those dongled protected programs that CRASH if you pull their pacifier out from under them. AT LEAST bring up a AutoRequester that says "I want my dongle!". Better from a user perspective is to check only at the start. If you want the reason why I'll sentence you to two hours of passing data back and forth between two dongle-protected programs. If you are still undecided I'll up that the FOUR. (and toss REXX into the bargain :-) Copy protection is a tough issue. Things get worst when you feel compelled to increase the cost, and reduce the quality of the product to include it. Witness that in the name of copy protection the record industry wants to ruin the near-perfect sound of a compact disk!! As far as I'm concerned disk protection is OUT for ANY uses. Copy protection is OK for games, a real pain for application software and absolutely unacceptable for utilities. If I'm shopping for software copy protection can easily be the swing vote between two otherwise equal or nearly equal choices. > > [The gizmo] It is almost impossible to subvert or defeat. > Ha! ....... Dream on... (To avert missunderstanding, that was not malicious, but rather realistic. There are *lots* of good ways of subverting dongles. I came up with quite a few while dongle-protecting Commodore-64 programs...) What's needed is a talk.copy.protection group... We could start the war by asking "What if there where a totally uncrackable method of protecting {software, records, video tape, sat. downlinks, etc.}?" ----------------------------- |\ /| . Ack! (NAK, EOT, SOH) {o O} . ( " ) bryce@cogsci.berkeley.EDU -or- ucbvax!cogsci!bryce U "Success leads to stagnation; stagnation leads to failure."