Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:11265 comp.misc:1722
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!aurora!labrea!decwrl!pyramid!voder!kontron!optilink!cramer
From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.misc
Subject: Re: Copy protection and the consumer
Message-ID: <1877@optilink.UUCP>
Date: 25 Jan 88 16:24:01 GMT
References: <4663@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <3823@husc6.harvard.edu> <4676@ihlpg.ATT.COM> <4745@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA
Lines: 23

> In article <4676@ihlpg.ATT.COM>, tainter@ihlpg.ATT.COM (Tainter) writes:
> > 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
> You have a point there, but you should also consider the fact that not all 
> software pirates are professionals.  Thus, not all of them would be able
> to do what you described.  The method described sounds much too difficult
> for munchkins, as well as being a lot of work.
> 	Johan Larson

In fact, in my experience, the vast majority of software pirates would be
unable to do the above patch.  But in short order, someone with the skills
needed would write and sell a program to work around the copy protection
scheme.

Clayton E. Cramer