Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!iuvax!pur-ee!j.cc.purdue.edu!ray
From: ray@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm
Subject: Re: Copy protection; How do I do it
Message-ID: <5855@j.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: Tue, 24-Nov-87 09:09:20 EST
Article-I.D.: j.5855
Posted: Tue Nov 24 09:09:20 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Nov-87 04:48:29 EST
References: <1235@edison.GE.COM>
Reply-To: ray@j.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Ray Moody)
Organization: Purdue University
Lines: 51
Keywords: waste of time
Summary: Posting for a friend......  Please reply to him...

In article <1235@edison.GE.COM> mfs@edison.GE.COM (Martin Sant) writes:
>I am planning to release a music software program for the C-64 soon
>and was wondering if there was a reasonable way to guard against
>rippoffs.  From conversations with previous customers, some are
>rather blatant about the fact that they have every piece of music
>software that will run on the C-64.
[...]
>Yeah, I know, most of youse guys don't like copy protection; I don't
>either.  But programmers have to eat too.  Anybody got any suggestions ?

I have a few comments on music software for the C-64 and copy protection.  One
of my favorite (if not THE) music programs is Compute!'s Music System for the
Commodore 128 & 64 (better known as The Enhanced Sidplayer).  Sidplayer is
probably the most well-known program of its kind, which is due, I feel,
directly to the fact that it 1) is not copy-protected, and 2) is o.k. to
distribute the songs that you make.

The original Sidplayer had some PD players so that someone who had not purchased
it could still enjoy the music others made.  With the release of the enhanced
version, Compute! decided (for reasons I won't go into here) to not allow new
PD players.  As a result, the Enhanced Sidplayer is not nearly as popular as
its older, inferior brother.  I see this as a circle: because there aren't any
PD players that can take advantage of Enhanced Sidplayer, people are somewhat
reluctant to write songs with it (since everyone seems to like an audience.)

Now, to copy protection in general:  I am the general partner in a company
(Dr. Evil Labs) that decided to forego copy protection entirely because of
our witnessing the following facts:

1) Copy protection is very expensive, and usually must be done out-of-house
   if it is to be at all "up-to-date".

2) Copy protection makes disks much harder to duplicate (but if we're talking
   large-scale stuff a mass duplicator would probably be used anyway.)

3) New copy protection schemes have a life span of about 10 days.  Someone,
   somewhere, will crack a new scheme, sell his parameter to a company like
   Computer Mart (makers of Kracker Jax), and both will make money from your
   loss.  Hardly what I would call good economics for the software author.
   A few exceptions to the above "10-day" figure would be the Rapidlok system
   used by Accolade, Microprose, and others.  It took about 9 months to see
   something for this kind of protection, but now a utility has been developed
   that will back them up.

In summary, I have always believed that software pirates crack programs
because it's a challenge.  I also strongly believe the best protection is
a quality program backed by a quality company that gives good technical
support (i.e., Infocom & others).  I hope these thoughts are useful.

Kent Sullivan
pur-ee!corvair