issue05

EMUSIC-L Digest                                      Volume 54, Issue 05

This issue's topics:
	
	copy protection (18 messages)

Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon .
You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with 
the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text.
 
The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the 
University of North Carolina.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 1993 07:48:23 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell 
Subject:      That demmed, elusive, copy protection

*** If you use Performer, Unisyn, Mosaic, Galaxy, MAX, Vision: read this. ***

[Again, a CC: to Werner and Adam, although this is probably of very limited
interest, except perhaps to indicate that, in some corners of the Mac
software world, we still have to battle with some incredibly cryptic and
insidious copy protection schemes. Feel free to discard if this is getting
boring.]

OK. I have this figured out. Let me give an overview of how copy protection
has worked in the music software field in the past, and how it's been
updated and upgraded in the last few weeks.

Old Scheme: The basic premise here is that Musicians Are Software Pirates.
Hence, practically all music software is copy-protected. For the last three
or four years, this has worked by having "master" installation floppy disks
(with deliberate formatting errors to allow identification and prevent
duplication) which are able to "install" applications. They do this by
putting an application on a hard disk together with an installation key
which marks the application's absolute position on the disk, together with
loads of other magic which I don't understand. The idea, of course, is that
you can't "copy an application for a friend" without this key information
being lost. In addition, you can't optimise the disk, or make backups or
protect yourself against media failure either. (And having spent several
hours last night manually mapping out bad sectors on a Quantum GO-40 which
I've just put into my PowerBook 100, I know all about media failure.)

Anyways, a lot of music software uses the same scheme. (I guess they all
bought it from one company.) Or, I should say, "used." There is now A New
Scheme. It works as follows: instead of installing a copy of an application
with a specific key, there is now a way of attaching a key to an actual
disk. The application can be moved around (or upgraded, which is the
important benefit) without wrecking the key. That's the Major Pro. Major
Con: the protection key is buried somewhere deep and insideous within the
disk structure itself. I suspect some pointer within the boot blocks, but
that's only a guess at this stage.

(Are you feeling queezy yet? You should be. This is all really nasty,
unpalatable stuff.)

The installation process is now one of "authorising" (sorry: "authorizing")
a disk, rather than installing an application. (I presume a disk can be
authorized for several independent applications.) Applications come with an
authorization program which is run independently of the application and/or
its installation.

So far so good. If you're a musician with a Mac and one music package, you
just Follow The Instructions and it works. If you're a musician with a
complex networked keyboard rig and three Macs running third-party
partitioning software on several hard disks, then you're screwed unless you
have a Doctorate in Computer Science. The situation is as follows:

(i)    At least for Performer, the Apple Installer script requires you to
       install onto a System "disk." This, in fact, appears to be bogus. I
       spend hours trying to get the system running on two machines, before
       finally working out that the application keys *from the application
       partition*, not the boot partition. The documentation is totally
       misleading, and obviously assumes that musicians don't partition disks;
       hence all the talk about being able to copy the application "anywhere
       you like." Except across partitions.

(ii)   During the installation process, the master floppy is marked with
       some identification of the disk (and/or partition) installed upon. (I
       know exactly why this is done. Think about it.)

(iii)  There is a definite, firm bug associated with the installation process.
       The authorising program will often refuse to deauthorise a partition
       it previously authorised, jeapordising the installation key. Several
       reboots and remounts of the offending partition will probably fix it.
       Why? Who knows. We're dealing with an arms race here, remember.

That seems to be it. As with any "smart" installation schemes, the more the
machine tries to make assumptions about what you're doing and what sort of
setup you have, the more mistakes it can (and will) make. If you have
partitioned disks, you're potentially screwed unless you follow the same
deductive reasoning I have above. If you have a floppy-less PowerBook and
want to do a cross-installation via SCSI docking, all sorts of other things
are likely to go wrong, but I won't go into those here. Anyway: I *think* I
now have Performer installed, and I *think* I've managed to recover the
precious installation key on the other master floppy, but I need to do a
lot more testing before I'm sure.

I often wonder what professional musicians do when preparing a software
system on a keyboard rig for live use during a long, complex tour. All
those sensible and natural instincts about duplicate media and safety
copies are rendered useless by some half-baked and fragile copy-protection
scheme which has no notion of the software environment it's operating in. I
ask you, do you think Peter Gabriel deals with this sort of shit? I think
not.

Well, that's Performer working after six hours' work. What next? Unisyn,
Galaxy, MAX, Vision. That's a waste of another couple of days, isn't it?

                        Nick Rothwell   |   cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk
     CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance   |   cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk

------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 1993 11:33:33 -0500
From:         Mark Clark 
Subject:      Re: That demmed, elusive, copy protection

I know exactly how you feel about the copy protection.  I have been
fighting it for years now.  Generally, if it's protected and there
is another source that doesn't have it I use it.  This is often not
possible.  Just because you *can* do copy protection on software
doesn't mean you should.  Of course the fight against copying has
been going on from day 1.  I applaud the folks who have tried the
more sensible "use it like a book" approach.  It extends a level of
trust to the user and lets their concience be their guide.

                                                            Mark.

------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 1993 09:39:35 -0700
From:         Michael O'Hara 
Subject:      Re: That demmed, elusive, copy protection

Copy protection sucks.

------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 1993 12:24:52 -0500
From:         Mark Clark 
Subject:      Re: That demmed, elusive, copy protection

>Copy protection sucks.

  Isn't this a line that Beavis and Butthead use?

------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 1993 13:35:34 -0400
From:         idealord 
Subject:      Re: That demmed, elusive, copy protection

>
> >Copy protection sucks.
>
>   Isn't this a line that Beavis and Butthead use?
>

Hehhh, hehhh, hehhhh...

Actually, Beavis sez - "Copy protection sucks, man..."

------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 1993 12:41:59 CDT
From:         Mark Borcherding 
Subject:      Re: That demmed, elusive, copy protection

h: 75
>
> >Copy protection sucks.
>
>   Isn't this a line that Beavis and Butthead use?
>

No they would say:
------------------
Look at that they got that copy protection stuff Beavis. What a bunch of CRAP!

Yeah, lets burn some disks or something.

That would be Cool.

Heeh hee he heeh Then that lead singer could kick their butt for making disks
that suck.

Whacck!

Gimme that flamethrower asswipe.

"TORCHIN THE DISK", "TORCHIN THE DISK"

Mark

------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 20 Jul 1993 13:06:57 -0500
From:         Mark Clark 
Subject:      Re: That demmed, elusive, copy protection

Apparently many of us like the little weinerheads.

                                       Mark

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 1993 08:29:08 +0000
From:         David HAUBENSACK 
Subject:      Re: copy protection

> MS Word for DOS 4.0 and 5.0 were copy protected,
> at least in the French version. At that time,
> MS Word was already a big market leader.
> I don't know about newer versions of Word.

Winword or Excel for Win are not protected. Neither is
Wordperfect or other commercial win programs I know.
At the opposite, on workstations, more and more
programs are protected by a key that works only
on your machine identified by its hostid.

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 1993 09:42:56 BST
From:         "Steven D. Bramson" 
Subject:      copy protection

Microsoft do not copy protect their software and I seem to recall that the
head of that company is not short of a dollar or two


+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Steven D Bramson                                               |
|                                                                |
| Data Management Group        JET Joint Undertaking             |
| Abingdon   Oxfordshire   OX14 3EA   United Kingdom             |
|                                                                |
| E-mail sdb@jet.uk   Voice 0235 465 013   Fax 0235 465 399      |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| JET is Europe's fusion research project            Disclaimer: |
| Any views expressed are mine and do not represent those of JET |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 1993 09:01:47 EDT
From:         Mark Simon 
Subject:      Re: copy protection

Coda doesn't put copy protection on Finale either. Rather, they make you
recite your registration number when you call for technical support. This
is probably just as effective as copy protection because no one could
possibly use the program without calling technical support every few weeks.

Nevertheless, I still think it's a great piece of software. Version 3.0,
which I've just received has a lot of features that make life more pleasant
and a few which are rather annoying, but overall I'm pleased with it.
I'm pleased that when you tie a note over a measure it automatically hides
the accidental in the next measure (I used to spend a lot of time cleaning
those up manually, and I'd always manage to miss one). The multiple
window feature is mucho convenient for copy-and-paste operations, although
I've already had it crash on me while doing this, and last night it refused
to copy more than one measure from one staff, though I had selected 2
measures from 3 staves both for copying and for pasting. I guess this
means another call to technical support.
    Thank God, there's a shape designer that I can actually use, and that
mass placement of articulation markings actually centers the markings in
the proper place, and automatically flips when the note changes direction.
Now, if they can only make the thing run a bit faster. I find myself thumb-
twiddling for significantly longer periods of time with this version.

                     --Mark Simon
                       tip@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 1993 09:04:26 -0400
From:         "Casimir J. Palowitch" 
Subject:      Re: copy protection

On Wed, 21 Jul 1993, Steven D. Bramson wrote:

> Microsoft do not copy protect their software and I seem to recall that the
> head of that company is not short of a dollar or two

        This is quite a confusion of effects and causes.  There are a lot
of things that put Microsoft in a position not to worry about copy
protection, not the least of which is their huge market share, and hence
low per-unit prices. Propensity to theft occurs when the cost to legitimately
acquire exceeds the cost of perceived penalty for that theft.  Small
companies have to charge more than $99 an app and risk more theft.


** Casey Palowitch - cjp+@pitt.edu               UWSA #570881         **
** Networked Information Services Group / Technical Services          **
** U. of Pittsburgh Library Systems     //        NeXTSTEP...         **
**  ...the most respected piece of software on the planet  BYTE10/92  **

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 1993 15:23:53 +0200
From:         Adam MIROWSKI 
Subject:      Re: copy protection

> On Wed, 21 Jul 1993, Steven D. Bramson wrote:
>
> > Microsoft do not copy protect their software and I seem to recall that the
> > head of that company is not short of a dollar or two
>
>         This is quite a confusion of effects and causes.  There are a lot
> of things that put Microsoft in a position not to worry about copy
> protection, not the least of which is their huge market share, and hence
> low per-unit prices.

MS Word for DOS 4.0 and 5.0 were copy protected,
at least in the French version. At that time,
MS Word was already a big market leader.
I don't know about newer versions of Word.

Languages were never protected.

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 1993 08:47:59 -0500
From:         Mark Clark 
Subject:      Re: copy protection

It is doubtful that they *have* to charge more than $99.  Mor than
likely the can charge that much because of lack of competition.
Was Lotus-123 REALLY worth $500+dollars?  I don't think so.  And
they were not a small company either.  Turbo Pascal started out
as a small venture.  They charged around $70 for it and it swamped
the compiler market.  People can afford a $70 software package with
diskettes of their own and a decent book.

                                                          Mark

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 1993 17:02:05 +0200
From:         Hmeljak Dimitrij 
Subject:      Re: copy protection

>Microsoft do not copy protect their software and I seem to recall that the
>head of that company is not short of a dollar or two

wrong! If you buy Word 5 for the Macintosh, international version, it is
not copy protected. But try to buy Italian versions of some Microsoft
packages! In our department people move from Italian versions to
international (English) versions as they upgrade, becouse if you crash
the hard disk on which you installed the Italian version of the program,
there is no way to install another copy on it. You have to write to
Microsoft Italy to get new installation disks!

Dimitrij Hmeljak
hmeljakd@uts340.univ.trieste.it

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 21 Jul 1993 15:41:09 GMT
From:         Lon Amerman 
Subject:      Re: copy protection

In article  "Casimir
J. Palowitch"  writes:
> ...  There are a lot
>of things that put Microsoft in a position not to worry about copy
>protection, not the least of which is their huge market share, and hence
>low per-unit prices....

And how large might their market share be had they
copy protected their software from day one?
One could argue that in some instances (mostly
high-end buisness software) it is advantageous
for the company to have their software copied.
Employee Doe copies software X and takes it
home to toy around with and use. Sometime
later the company Doe works for intends to
upgrade or purchase new software. If Doe
has any input, the most likely candidate
is software X. Doe was *never* going to
purchase software X for himself (cost
and limited personal usefulness) but
by copying it, he has expanded the user
base, and increased potential sales.
The case is quite different with personal-
use software i.e. games and *music* software.
There the purchaser is almost exclusively
an individual as opposed to a business.

------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 26 Jul 1993 05:36:52 -0400
From:         Andy Farnell 
Subject:      Re: copy protection

> Employee Doe copies software X and takes it
> home to toy around with and use. Sometime
> later the company Doe works for intends to
> upgrade or purchase new software. If Doe
> has any input, the most likely candidate
> is software X. Doe was *never* going to
> purchase software X for himself (cost
> and limited personal usefulness) but
> by copying it, he has expanded the user
> base, and increased potential sales.


I couldn't agree more. Steinberg have sold at least 10 legitimate copies of
cubase on my recommendation. I would never have tried the thing had I not
used a hacked copy for over a year. Eventually I even bought a proper copy
of version 3 for myself. You can't say fairer than that.

------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 27 Jul 1993 10:19:00 EDT
From:         John Rossi III 
Subject:      Re: copy protection

However, back in 1977 when Microsoft BASIC for the 8080 was selling for
about $400, and they were selling in a limited marketplace (Hopw many
Altairs amd IMASIs do you think there were?), they still didn't copy
protect their software.  Similarly, when Borland started out, (still, pre
IBM-PC), Kahn's principle was to sell cheap, reliable, non-copyprotected
software, as an alternative to the higher cost Microsoft products.  Clearly,
unprotected markets work.  Both Microsoft and Borland are successful
today.  The real pronciple at work here is true open competition without
unreasonable restriction.  Sure, the poor defensless small companies
like to argue that limited marketshare requires higher pricing, and
copy-protection somehow protects market share by preventing pre-imagined
theft.  If you buy into this kind of thinking, Bill Clinton has a new
tax and health reform package which is really sure to please you. YUM

John

------------------------------
Date:         Tue, 27 Jul 1993 10:21:00 EDT
From:         John Rossi III 
Subject:      Re: copy protection

Yup, protected Word was a reality.  Predictably, it failed miserably in
marketshare (and hence Word-Perfect dominance).  Guess what.. No more
copy protection.

John

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 28 Jul 1993 15:03:42 EDT
From:         "Nelson R. Pardee" 
Subject:      Copy Protection

Not so long ago, much software in the US had copy protection.
Microsoft Word for DOS, for example, did through version 3 (as I
recall). Public outcry grew so great that today, very little major
software (at least business) is copy protected.  One of the latest to
remove it was Novell from their Netware operating system.  According
to the trade press, it has been left on a lot of software sold
outside the US because software piracy is much more rampant.  As an
interesting sidelight, some user communities are more prone to
piracy- a couple of years ago the Atari user group was reportedly
quite bad.  The lesson: if you don't want it, be honest about not
copying stuff and scream a lot about hating copy protection; threaten
not to buy it!
 --Nelson R. Pardee, Computing Services, Syracuse University          --
 --120 Hinds Hall, Syracuse, NY 13244-1190 USA  (315)443-1079         --
 --Bitnet: ACDNRP@SUVM       Internet: NRPARDEE@SYR.EDU               --

------------------------------
End of the EMUSIC-L Digest
******************************