Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!LOYVAX.BITNET!PGOETZ
From: PGOETZ@LOYVAX.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple
Subject: Misc.
Message-ID: <8803241836.aa21545@SMOKE.BRL.ARPA>
Date: 23 Mar 88 22:21:00 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 111

Misc. copying trivia
Piracy (something new, I think)
Keyboard update
EOA boot code
F-15 Strike Eagle
Test players

Wes Williams:

>        1. How does the " copy all you want until the disk has been booted
one time" work?
        A disk could insist on writing to itself when booted (refuse to continue
until you remove the write protect tab). However, this would have no value for
protection. More likely, you mean programs which allow you to make a certain
number (like 1) of backups. Simple. They write a note to the original saying
"this guy's already made a backup" when they make the backup with a special
copy program included with the program.

>        2. How does the "copy from the original but not from a copy" work?
        In most cases like this, the program does a nibble count, so a working
copy has to have the same number of nibbles per track on at least one track.
It's harder to get this right off a copy.

>        4. I have seen protected software self destruct an original when
a copy program is run to make a backup. As these originals are write
protected, how is the protected software screwing things up?
        It isn't. Sorry, you're wrong. Something else makes them go bad, you
can't write over a write protect.
        If there is no write protect, the only way I can think of this could
happen is if company A puts out a copy program which checks each disk to see
if the user is using it to copy itself, in which case it would erase the
original if possible. Then company B releases programs with the same signature
(which they get from examining the copy program) so the copy program erases
them too.  But this has never happened.  So if you don't understand it, don't
worry.

Piracy (bear with me):
        I've heard many, many flames on the subject, but I've
never heard anyone who shares my views. They are:

a. Those involved with computers are programmers and users.
b. Programmers want to make money.
c. Users (including programmers) want to utilize their system in as many ways
  as possible. The user should have and understand a core of
  application programs (Appleworks, Applewriter, etc.)  But to effectively use
  his system he also needs a slew of utilities: copy programs, sector editors
  if he knows how to use them, file translators, terminal emulators,
  archiving programs (despite the fact that there STILL don't seem to be any
  for the Apple), system verification programs like Apple-Cillin, etc., etc.
d. Few people can afford to fully utilize their computer under current market
  conditions.  This is because program prices are targeted at people who
  would use the program often, yet effective utilization of the computer
  implies having professional packages for anything you might want to do.

   So, the problem is the tension between the need for users to utilize their
systems, and for programmers to make money.  It is important both that users
can get their hands on whatever they need, and that programmers are paid enough
to keep the programs coming.
   The ideal solution, which I try to follow myself, is to buy enough to
maintain a market and pirate enough to use your system.  I would say that
allowing yourself to pirate about 10 programs for every 1 you buy would be
reasonable.  I buy programs which I plan to use regularly, or which I need
for my work.  If I don't need a program but think it might come in handy
sometime, I copy it.  This comes out somewhere near a 1:10 ratio.
   Admittedly, this can fail when you copy a program you don't think you need
and then find out you can't live without it.  But, 1) this is a kind of
statistical ethics, and small problems aren't statistically significant, and
2) you probably wouldn't have bought the program anyway.
   With games, I just worry about the 10:1 ratio and not whether I'm buying
the best ones.  This is because it is much harder to know before buying if
you will like a game.  Ex: Among games I bought recently, I found Fahrenheit
451, Amnesia, and F-15 Strike Eagle boring.  But this was no problem, as I
pirated others which I found I loved.
   The only radical thing about this argument is that instead of asking whether
piracy is right or wrong, I ask what is the best end result for the user and
the programmer.  So it's a kind of utilitarian relativism, I'm ashamed to
admit.  The ultimate goal is to advance the quality of software and of the
user environment.

   The implication for software companies is that ideally they should gear their
protection routines so they are not too difficult to crack, but sufficiently
difficult that only a moderate amount of pirated copies will circulate.  Of
course I don't expect them to do this.  I might if I sell a program.

Craig Williamson:
        The keyboard I mentioned is from JDR Microdevices, now for $69 or so.
It also includes a shift-lock, BTW.

Whoever asked about Electronic Arts boot-code tracing:
        I did trace their code, and on all their games I've cracked (which is
about five) the code looks so tricky because they use an interpreter to
interpret what is essentially a subset of 6502 assembly language.  The only
reason is to confuse boot code tracers.  I wrote a disassembler for EOA
interpreted code; I was going to publish it in COMPUTIST about a year ago
but never wrote it up because they stopped paying for contributions.
(Shame on me, I know I'm supposed to write out of concern for the computer
community, but it's hard to find the time to do it right without money.
I don't mind blowing off essays for info-apple, but when you put it in
print I want it to be right.)  If there's interest, I'll provide details.

F-15 Strike Eagle, from Microprose:
        Has anybody cracked F-15 Strike Eagle? I've disabled three protection
routines already & it still doesn't run.  None of the cracks in COMPUTIST go
beyond the first two routines.  (Info on Silent Service would be applicable.)

To everybody who sent me a SASE to test my adventure:
        I'll try to get the envelopes mailed out by March 28 or so.  Be patient.
There are some significant bugs still.

Phil Goetz
PGOETZ@LOYVAX.BITNET