Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!viusys!uxui!unislc!bryce!netw23!val
From: val@netw23.uucp (Oberon Kenobi)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.games
Subject: Re: Copy protection {Psygnosis: PLEASE READ} (Re: Lemmings)
Message-ID: <163@netw23.uucp>
Date: 31 Mar 91 14:36:07 GMT
References: <104@netw23.uucp> <1991Mar21.115937.16945@starnet.uucp>
Organization: Weber State University, CS DEPT.
Lines: 28


     Since my original posting (article), there seems to be confusion about the 
points that I was trying to make:

	1)  I won't buy software that has disk-based copy-protection because I
     can't easily back it up.  If the backup goes bad, then I can make another
     backup.  Long tracks store more data per track and therefore increase the
     likelihood (statistically) of the data becoming unreadable.  I also prefer
     running it from the hard-drive from which it loads faster.

        2)  Some disk-based copy protection schemes actually cause DAMAGE to the
     disk drive.  This will eventually show in not being able to read some
     normal disks.  Generally, the more noise it makes while loading, the more
     damage it is doing.

	3)  I, as one lowly consumer, don't expect to influence a software
     company alone.  If the company gets rid of disk-based copy-protection,
     then that will be much better for me because I'll buy more entertainment
     software.  However, there has been a shift of American software publishers
     away from disk-based copy protection.  I wonder what could have caused
     that?

     In summary, I don't buy software that has disk-based copy-protection
because they cause me more inconvenience than non-disk-based copy protection.

================================================================================
[ "vi?  Because I don't have a real editor." - U*x users | val@csulx.weber.edu ]
================================================================================