Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!husc6!yale!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb
From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: copy-protecting software disks/tapes
Message-ID: <249@cci632.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Jul-86 11:25:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: cci632.249
Posted: Tue Jul 22 11:25:21 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 24-Jul-86 06:05:17 EDT
References: <1066@ihlpl.UUCP> <770@nicmad.UUCP> <229@cci632.UUCP> <16@eneevax.UUCP>
Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Distribution: net
Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY
Lines: 58
Summary: some history, some reason

In article <16@eneevax.UUCP> hsu@eneevax.UUCP (Dave Hsu) writes:
>In article <229@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes:
>>In article <770@nicmad.UUCP> brown@nicmad.UUCP (Mr. Video) writes:
>>>In article <1066@ihlpl.UUCP> bwf@ihlpl.UUCP (Fecht) writes:
>>>>I'm interested in the state of the art (and perhaps
>>>>a little history) on copy-protecting copyrighted
>>>>software disks and tapes.
>>>
>>>The trend is away from protection.  Protection and hard disks just don't
>>>get along.
>>>
>>Actually, one of the more popular trends is toward copy detection.  The
>>technique is quite simple, unobtrusive, and easy to do.
>
>Firstly, let me say that I'm not familiar with the current state of
>IBM piracy, but that last time I looked, IBM pirates were rank amateurs
>next to even the most inexperienced of Apple pirates.  The above
>technique would work well against such people.

Well, there are two types of pirates.  Amateur pirates are just that.
They crack the protection so they can get a backup or get it on hard disk
and in the process, give a copy to a friend.  The professional is just
that.  He cracks the protection for the purpose of selling either the
copies or the crack itself.  Needless to say, protection schemes, no
matter how good, are vulnerable.

>Let me now add that this would not work at all against any competent
>Apple pirate, as Apple pirates stood 4 years ago.  It was once common
>practice to crack several copies of the same program in the same manner
>and to `diff' the results, as it were.

The main problem with both detection and protection is that they "clue
in" the pirate that the software may have detection.  The professional
will check anyway, the amateur is not likely to care, since he has
unrestricted use (including giving away a "sample copy or two").  The
amateur is also less likely to abuse the copy capability.  Often a
low-cost work will originally be obtained through a friend before
it is purchased (to get the manual).  A high cost work, with it's
heavy protection, will often never be purchased.

>Needless to say, even if you track a pirated package down to a specific
>dealer, it is entirely possible that he/she truly has no knowledge
>of the existence of a pirated copy, because it had been copied long
>before it reached his/her shelves.

There are some reliable methods of control.  The dealer isn't necessarily
the pirate, but is likely to know who purchased that package.

>QED.  It won't catch the good ones.
>-dave

Nothing will catch the good ones, especially the small scale professional.
All one can hope for is that sufficient evedence can be obtained to
get a settlement when illegal copies are "loaned out".  Settlements and
convictions will tend to make people more cautious, since they won't
know what is detectable and what is not (most of the time).

Rex.