Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!news.cs.indiana.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.iastate.edu!vaxf.iastate.edu!TAAK9
From: taak9@isuvax.iastate.edu (Steve Sheldon)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.games
Subject: Re: Chessamster 2100 patch
Message-ID: <1991May8.012544.29827@news.iastate.edu>
Date: 8 May 91 01:25:44 GMT
References: <1991Apr26.162946.25169@cs.ruu.nl> <3850@ux.acs.umn.edu> <1991May06.155345.17107@cs.ruu.nl> <1991May7.002909.17186@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu>,<1991May07.103100.12997@cs.ruu.nl>
Sender: news@news.iastate.edu (USENET News System)
Reply-To: taak9@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
Lines: 52

In article <1991May07.103100.12997@cs.ruu.nl>, ptavoly@cs.ruu.nl (Peter Tavoly) writes:

<A bunch of garbage talking about protection schemes and the legality of
defeating them>

>
>Sigh.. Utter Spectum Tauri (tm)! You still don't get the point do you? Who
>do you think those 'people fed up with entering words' are? They don't have
>the manual, that is why they are 'fed up'! Those who actually bought the
>game did so because they valued it worthwhile, in contrast to those, who
>just copied it because they could get it for free. If you play it, buy it!

 Wrong! I've got the following to offer you for sale:

 Gunship - bad disk, won't load, no way to copy it   $40
 PageSetter - no manual, no way to run program       $80
 SuperBase personal - no dongle, no way to run program $100

 I never liked any of this software anyway, but I made the mistake of
purchasing it, and I refuse to give the compaies more money.

>
>Such a patch is simply not a good idea, because you never know whether the
>next guy who gets it has or has not purchased the game. Even if some do,
>you can bet your life on it that 80% or more of the recipients are using
>pirated copies (disclaimer: 96.7% of statistics are made up :^), because
>they CAN'T play it WITHOUT. Sure I am annoyed by such a protection scheme,
>but unfortunately it is necessary in the case of games. (Of course, larger
>applications should definitely not have it, since they are already protected
>by their sheer complexity.)

 Protection schemes are not necessary.  If the software were reasonably
priced, the companies would sell copies instead of having them stolen.

 I also believe that 80% of pirated copies would not be used if they
were required to pay for the software.  Most all software is not
worth what the software companies charge.

 I think pirates are further supported by unhappy owners of damaged
software sold to them by software companies.  Protection removal
tools would not exist if the software companies were cooperative.

 I would support any bill brought to congress that protected the
rights of software consumers. We should have the RIGHT to make backup
copies of our software, or be provided a backup copy for cost of media only.

>
> -ThomasT.
>

Steve Sheldon
TAAK9@ccvax.iastate.edu