Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!ogicse!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!ukma!news
From: msunde01@mik.uky.edu (Mark  Underwood)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: How to the disks copy protected.
Message-ID: <C5wKKJ.42I@ms.uky.edu>
Date: 22 Apr 93 20:50:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: ms.C5wKKJ.42I
References: <1993Apr22.163605.24784@csus.edu>
Sender: news@ms.uky.edu (USENET News System)
Reply-To: msunde01@mik.uky.edu
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Lines: 155
Nntp-Posting-Host: nx34.mik.uky.edu

In article <1993Apr22.163605.24784@csus.edu> kschang@sfsuvax1.sfsu.edu  
(Kuo-Sheng (Kasey) Chang) writes:
> 
> There are several types of copy protection, and the point is to make  
sure the
> user is using a legitimate copy.  The simplest and virtually fool-proof  
way is
> for the program to somehow fixate itself to the machine it was installed  
on
> (some sort of checksum, serial number, whatever) so a copy put on a  
different
> machine (NOT installed from original disks) will not work.  
> 

Okay, so what do you do if some part of the machine (presumably the part  
on which the code number or whatever that the program has fixated itself  
upon goes bad, you replace that part, and now your program won't run  
because it's on a "different" computer???

This is, of course, assuming that the program uses something in ROM (like  
the BIOS serial number, maybe?) and not a disk-based code number.   
Obviously if the drive goes bad you'll be reinstalling the stuff anyway.

I work in a computer lab which is part of the university microlab system.   
We have the wonderfully fun task of maintaining well over a hundred  
machines, both PC and Macintosh, as well as administering a network of  
over 50 NeXT machines.  I personally am concerned only with a small lab  
with ten PC's and ten Mac's.  (I'm not the manager, but help him with  
admin often).  IMHO, copy-protection schemes of ANY sort are nothing more  
than a major headache for the legitimate user.  Anyone who wants a copy of  
your program and doesn't care about legality will get a copy.  Period.   
"Pirate board" or no pirate board.  I too have "friends" who blatantly and  
quite successfuly "hack" copy protection schemes practically in their  
sleep.

Let's consider what goes on in our lab.  Almost daily we have at least one  
machine down, sometimes several, due to some goofball screwing up some  
setting or other on a piece of software.  Admittedly, we (being students,  
mostly) are not the world's most efficient and effective network  
administrators, but we try.  Keeping even the twenty machines that are  
(partly) my responsibility even vaguely looking and "acting" similar to  
the average user, and maintaining "behind-the-scenes" consistency is a  
real headache, but not so bad a headache as trying to remember twenty  
different folder locations of Norton Utilities when some guy trashes his  
disk.

Often we have hardware problems at peak "business" times and have to do  
some parts-swapping to get stuff working temporarily. . . .

Well, I'll cut to the chase and quit boring y'all . . ..

The point is, often we have to re-install software and copy configuration  
files etc. from machine to machine.  By far the easiest way we have found  
to do this is to get ONE machine working EXACTLY the way we want to, then  
COPY the complete setup of this machine to the other nine (of that  
machine's type).  This ensures us that (for at least ten minutes) we have  
ten IDENTICAL machines to work with.  Having them networked simplifies  
this considerably, as our major packages (WordPerfect, Windows, etc.) are  
all network versions and thus only one copy to mess with.

Often, however, we need to install a package requested by some instructor  
to one, some, or all of the machines for a special project.  This is  
usually a hand-written or shareware,etc. program similar to what I believe  
the original poster was asking about.  The few we have had with "copy  
protection" schemes have caused nothing but NIGHTMARES for us to maintain  
 . .

In short, don't waste your time with a copy protection scheme.  It's sort  
of like outlawing guns.  The criminals will get your program anyway, and  
you will only be hurting the legitimate, honest user.  Write a good user's  
guide and tech manual, whatever else for your program (PLEASE do this  
REGARDLESS of whether you copy protect the thing!!!), and only distribute  
the manual to LICENSED users.  Jack the price to cut your losses, but  
please take a cue from the major companies (who can admittedly afford the  
costs of illegal copies far better than you) and don't burden the  
legitimate user with a "copy protection" scheme!


Sorry for the tirade, but it's been a long day here . . .. :-)


Mark S. Underwood
EE Student, University of Kentucky
Lab Assistant, Boyd Hall Microlab 
	(a tiny little division of UK Library Microlabs)
E-Mail:  msunde01@mik.uky.edu




> The program is definitely backupable, if restored to the same machine  
(depends
> on the programmer...  don't use a disk drive characteristic!)  If the  
user 
> did an upgrade to the machine, he/she should reinstall all programs any  
way.
> No document look-up, no disk wear-and-tear!
> 
> I did not say that the originals would allow only one install.  The  
user's 
> conscience should do that.
> 
> I know, I'll get flamed for this...  But with the increasing number of  
"casual"
> users who either unknowingly or don't care about the software copyrights
> (It's the truth.  I have "friends" who ask me for copies of my latest  
games
> all the time, and when I refused, they went after somebody else.),  
casual
> pirating is becoming more of a problem.  Some sort of copy protection  
will
> discourage the casual copying.  I've seen what some of my "friends" dug  
up
> somewhere...  Latest and the greatest games, all cracked, WITHIN days of  
actual
> release!  You know how many bytes you need to change in X-wing to  
disable
> the quiz?  TWO!  Yes, TWO!  (And don't ask me which ones they are.)   
Determined
> pirates are unstoppable, given enough time, but their results do not  
spread 
> that far, since pirate boards are not that well-known, and easily  
tracked once
> found by authorities.  It is the "casual" pirates that the copy  
protection is
> determined to discourage.
> 
> What I believe the companies should do is implement the above plus
> a special patch once the user registers that loudly exclaims upon bootup
> "REGISTERED TO XXXXX -- address, city, state zip" and disables the  
above.
> Two benefits: 1) encourages registration, 2) cuts down on pirating and
> makes it more traceable, because if the patch's registration message is
> encrypted, it will be quite hard to change, and therefore provides a
> stable trail of who allowed their copy out of their hands, and thus
> violated their license agreement.
> 
> This way, the legitimate users who does not register will experience  
minimal 
> discomfort (who does major upgrades to their computer frequently?) as  
only
> problem they have is they won't be able to restore to another computer.
> 
> The registered users would have proven they are legitmate users and  
therefore
> gains full rights, and can restore to different machines.  On the other  
hand,
> the software company now have a record of where THIS particular copy is 
> supposed to be.  If this user's copy was found to be somewhere it was  
not 
> supposed to be, we know who has broken their license agreement.  Of  
course,
> a hacker can break that eventually, but that's not the point, is it?
> 
> --Kasey Chang
