175 lines
11 KiB
Prolog
175 lines
11 KiB
Prolog
|
Author's Note: The following article was written for submission to
|
|||
|
ComputerFun magazine. Alas, the mag died! Some information, specifically that
|
|||
|
about pirates and piracy, is somewhat biased, due to the intended audience.
|
|||
|
Keep that in mind as you read this. Still good for a laugh tho! -dt
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
COPY PROTECTION: A HISTORY AND OUTLOOK
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Back in the last seventies, when personal computers were just starting to
|
|||
|
catch on, a lot of software was distributed on audio cassettes. The price was
|
|||
|
generally low ($15 and under), and so was the quality. Personal computer owners
|
|||
|
knew that audio cassettes could be duplicated fairly easily with two
|
|||
|
decent-quality tape recorders. However, the process was time-consuming and
|
|||
|
unreliable (volume levels were critical), and it did not save that much money,
|
|||
|
since the cassette alone cost five dollars anyway. The market for cassette
|
|||
|
software was stable.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
As the prices of home systems continued to drop, the popularity of the floppy
|
|||
|
disk as a storage medium increased so that software suppliers had to carry each
|
|||
|
program on both tape and disk. Typically, the disk version cost slightly more,
|
|||
|
due to the higher cost of the disk itself, and the fact that disk drive owners
|
|||
|
were prepared to pay a little extra for a program that loads several times
|
|||
|
faster.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
These software prices, still relatively low, were short-lived. Disks, unlike
|
|||
|
tapes, were trivially easy to copy. User clubs formed in which one copy was
|
|||
|
purchased (legally) and copied (illegally) for everyone in the group. Worse
|
|||
|
yet, schools and businesses owning more than one system would make copies for
|
|||
|
all of their systems from one original. Then, individuals connected with the
|
|||
|
schools or businesses would copy the disks for themselves, for friends, for
|
|||
|
their user club, for other schools and businesses... Piracy had spread like a
|
|||
|
cancer to ridiculous proportions, throwing a monkey wrench into the once-stable
|
|||
|
software market.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The software distributors' next move was to modify their program disks in such
|
|||
|
a way that they could not be duplicated by conventional means, and to raise
|
|||
|
their prices somewhat. These early efforts at copy-protection were very simple,
|
|||
|
and equally simple to undo. Every disk has on it a list of what data is
|
|||
|
contained on it, where on the disk it is, what type of data it is, etc. The
|
|||
|
part of the disk that contains this information is called the catalog or
|
|||
|
directory of the disk. On copy-protected disks, the catalog was altered
|
|||
|
slightly in format, moved to elsewhere on the disk, or omitted entirely. All
|
|||
|
someone would have to do was restore the catalog, an easy task if you know what
|
|||
|
you're doing, and the disk would copy normally.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The new copy-protected disks kept a significant proportion of the pirates
|
|||
|
discouraged, much the same way a flimsy doorknob lock "keeps an honest man
|
|||
|
honest". Most of the early large-scale piracy stopped. Businesses and schools
|
|||
|
could not afford the time required to duplicate the disks, so they shrugged,
|
|||
|
gave in and bought the disks. Hobbyists quickly found ways to copy the new
|
|||
|
software, but they were working independently, and therefore not dangerous. The
|
|||
|
software industry was content and hopeful.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
It was a false hope. As the popularity of personal computers continued to
|
|||
|
escalate, hobby users banded together more and more. Some broke the software
|
|||
|
"lock" and made the disks copyable while others purchased the tape versions of
|
|||
|
software and transferred them to disk. The industry retaliated by discontinuing
|
|||
|
most of the taped versions of software, as they were far too easy to copy, and
|
|||
|
by using more sophisticated techniques to protect the disks. Of course, they
|
|||
|
also raised the prices.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
These second generation copy-protection schemes worked remarkably well for a
|
|||
|
while. Data on a disk is encoded (pre-nibbilized) in a standard way before it
|
|||
|
is written out to disk, and then decoded (post-nibbilized) as it is read back.
|
|||
|
By altering the code under which the data is written and read, the software
|
|||
|
companies rendered ordinary copy programs useless. Another technique of this
|
|||
|
era was to write data in unusual formats in odd places on the disk, such as
|
|||
|
between two tracks or after the last track normally used.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The hobby users, indignant at the recent price increase, adapted the general
|
|||
|
attitude that piracy is okay because they would never buy the software at the
|
|||
|
exhorbitant price being asked. User clubs were now considered essential. To
|
|||
|
not belong to one was to be repeatedly "cheated" when buying software. No
|
|||
|
matter what copy-protection methods the software people tried, the pirates broke
|
|||
|
the disk and circulated the copy, quite literally around the country.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In order to make piracy easier, enthusiasts and certain software firms
|
|||
|
(considered traitors by other software firms) developed special copy programs
|
|||
|
which analyzed the data being copied as little as possible, attempting to copy
|
|||
|
as directly as is possible from one disk to another. The infamous Locksmith and
|
|||
|
the more recent COPY ][ are examples of such programs, called bit copiers or
|
|||
|
nibble copiers because they copy the data one bit or one nibble at a time,
|
|||
|
rather than one sector or one track at a time.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Still, the goal of a pirate was downright unprotection, not duplication. To a
|
|||
|
new breed of pirate, it was a game. Each new disk provided the pirate with a
|
|||
|
new challenge, a puzzle, which, if he could solve, would make him famous
|
|||
|
(pirates tended to leave their mark on the disks they unprotected in those
|
|||
|
days). To the software firms, it was hardly a game, it was a war of attrition,
|
|||
|
and until they could outsmart the pirates, they would just have to increase the
|
|||
|
prices and hope for the best.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Or would they? Some software companies stepped back at this point and
|
|||
|
surveyed the situation: they probably could not keep the pirates at bay for
|
|||
|
long, as there was genuine intelligence out there -- thousands of users all
|
|||
|
working toward one goal -- to break that disk! It seemed to them that they
|
|||
|
actually had a number of options if they wished to continue to do a healthy
|
|||
|
business. First, they lobbied for stricter copyright laws and won. Bootleg
|
|||
|
disk distribution is now more illegal than every before, but it is still
|
|||
|
difficult to enforce the law. Second, they could fight it out, raising the
|
|||
|
prices as necessary and developing more diabolical methods of copy-protection.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Only so much can be done to protect disks, however. Those firms that
|
|||
|
continued to protect their disks were upset by the introduction of a hardware
|
|||
|
device developed by pirates and later marketed which allows the entire state of
|
|||
|
the computer to be frozen and remembered, down to the last status bit, and
|
|||
|
restored at will later. Duplication of the program disk was no longer
|
|||
|
necessary. The whole program was right there in memory waiting to be run. All
|
|||
|
the pirate had to do was duplicate the state the computer was in, not the disk
|
|||
|
that got it there.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The software firms, to work around the setback, tried a new technique: they
|
|||
|
caused their programs to look at the disk periodically and make sure it is the
|
|||
|
original. How to tell the difference between the original and a copy was an
|
|||
|
ingenious trick called nibble counting. When disks are copied, the two drives
|
|||
|
doing the copying are seldom running at the exact same speed, so the duplicate
|
|||
|
disk will contain tracks which are slightly longer (more nibbles) or shorter
|
|||
|
(fewer nibbles) than the original. The software could count the nibbles and
|
|||
|
determine whether the disk being used is an original. Soon, though, nibble
|
|||
|
copiers began to allow the user to preserve the nibble count, foiling the
|
|||
|
protectors again.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Another particularly devious tactic in copy-protection is called sector
|
|||
|
skewing. To simplify a complex process, data is spread finely over the entire
|
|||
|
disk, so that it would take an exceptionally high-quality disk drive to write
|
|||
|
such a disk, though any drive can read it under direction of the software. What
|
|||
|
these software firms realize too late is that the pirates have one secret weapon
|
|||
|
-- a foolproof, though painful, procedure to break any disk protection scheme --
|
|||
|
boot tracing! You see, software has the unfortunate characteristic that it has
|
|||
|
to be written in such a way that the computer can understand it. It has to, so
|
|||
|
to speak, spoon-feed itself to the computer. The process of boot tracing is
|
|||
|
simply to painstakingly, step by step, pretend you're the computer, follow all
|
|||
|
the rules it follows, and you will eventually succeed in reading the disk.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Some software firms still fight the war of attrition, such as Br0derbund,
|
|||
|
On-line systems and others. Other firms had a better idea: to give up on
|
|||
|
protection altogether and direct their attention to providing an attractive
|
|||
|
package -- with ample documentation, quick-reference cards and other goodies --
|
|||
|
at a good price. An excellent example of this novel approach, to give the buyer
|
|||
|
a good deal, is Beagle Bros, whose software has never been protected, and never
|
|||
|
will be. Their products are of highest quality and reasonably priced. To be
|
|||
|
sure, it is duplicated to some degree, but the package with all its goodies is
|
|||
|
worth the investment. Penguin software has used this approach successully as
|
|||
|
well.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A final possibility, useful only in the more expensive packages, is to require
|
|||
|
a hardware device to be installed in the computer for the software to run
|
|||
|
properly. Softerm 2 for Apple, for instance, requires a plug-in card to be
|
|||
|
installed in the computer which has attached to it three special function
|
|||
|
switches necessary for the operation of the program. You can copy the disk, but
|
|||
|
not the card. Not all computers have as much room for extra hardware as the
|
|||
|
Apple, though, and hardware devices cost a lot of money compared to disks and
|
|||
|
manuals, so this method is only practical in expensive packages.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
So where does all that leave you, the honest (ahem!) consumer? Well, the
|
|||
|
software firms really are anxious to serve you. If your copy-protected disk
|
|||
|
ever fails to work, you can send it back for free replacement. If the disk is
|
|||
|
damaged physically, the replacement fee is about five dollars (provided you send
|
|||
|
in the old disk!!). Many packages come with two copies of the software, in case
|
|||
|
one should fail, and legitimate software owners often receive free updates to
|
|||
|
both the software and the documentation. Software companies try to make it
|
|||
|
worth your while to buy their product. Also, due to a recent crackdown,
|
|||
|
big-time pirates are getting caught, and piracy is more anonymous now. Trust
|
|||
|
among pirates has broken down, and so has the once widespread circulation of
|
|||
|
pirated disks. The heyday of piracy is over. So, if you are thinking of
|
|||
|
getting some software, examine the package. Find out exactly what the program
|
|||
|
can do, the guarantee, and all the fringe benefits you will receive as a
|
|||
|
legitimate owner of the software. If, after all that, the package does not
|
|||
|
interest you, don't buy it. If you are considering being a pirate, be careful!
|
|||
|
Imprisonment is entirely possible if you are caught, and even if you are not,
|
|||
|
you are only raising software prices for yourself and everyone else.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
-DT
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
if you are caught, and even if you are not,
|
|||
|
you are only raising software prices for yourself
|