Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!mordor!sri-spam!rutgers!im4u!ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wes
From: wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: OMNI-RES monitor emulator "review"
Message-ID: <16@obie.UUCP>
Date: 2 Feb 88 06:23:29 GMT
References: <8801290427.AA04520@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: UinTech, Layton, UT
Lines: 27
Summary: SOB's cracking copy protection?  HAH!

In article <8801290427.AA04520@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, SOFPJF@UOGUELPH.BITNET (Peter Jaspers-Fayer) writes:
> One of the key disks must be in drive A at BOOT
> time, even if it contains no visible programs.  This may make it un-
> popular with hard-disk users.

Damned right it will, at least with this hard disk user.

> Although this won't stop a dedicated hacker, this "reproducible key"
> method does do what they want, which is to allow backup, but slow down
> illegal distribution (at least until some SOB 'cracks' it - which I hope
> never happens - The authors have put a fair amount of work into this
> thing).

Nah, it just makes the copying more interesting!  The SOBs are not the
ones who 'crack' programs, they are the ones who copy-protect them in
the first place.  The U.S. copyright laws GAURANTEE the right of the
owner(s) of computer software to backup their programs for archival
purposes; copy protection intrudes on that right and should be illegal!
The reproducible key method is no better than any other method of copy
protection, you can't back up the key, and you can't run the program
without the key disk.  It's also quite a bit easier to get around than
most kinds of copy protection, but that's another topic.

-- 
	{ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wes
	hpda!sp7040!obie!wes		"Against Stupidity
	(short mail messages		 The Gods Themselves
	only, high-cost link)		 Contend in Vain." -- Asimov