Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:11420 comp.misc:1739
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!hao!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!ihlpg!tainter
From: tainter@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tainter)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Copy protection and the consumer
Message-ID: <4676@ihlpg.ATT.COM>
Date: 21 Jan 88 05:27:10 GMT
References: <4663@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <3823@husc6.harvard.edu> <1319@looking.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 17

In article <1319@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
> The presence of serial numbers in OS/2 would encourage software makers
> to move their best stuff to OS/2, where it couldn't be pirated, but where
> this protection caused no inconvenience to the customers.

> Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

Copy protection based on use of a serial number unique to a machine is
NO COPY PROTECTION AT ALL and is expensive for the seller since he has to
customize each copy he sells!  The serial number has to be imbedded in the code
somewhere and tested.  To break this one runs the program under a debugger
until the testing is encountered.  Now you have a handle on where the
imbedded serial number is.  So you write a quick routine to patch this
given the new machine you want to run it on.  The pirate then distributes
the program and the patcher as a set.  One the simpliest schemes to deal with.

--j.a.tainter