29 Oct
2012
29 Oct
'12
10:54 a.m.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012, Dan Gahlinger wrote:
the age-old argument. :)It wasn't about piracy, it
was about making
legal backups of stuff you owned.
We really don't give a shit about whether or not there is justification
for making the unauthorized copies. We ASSUME that there is a valid
ethical legitimate reason.
The question HERE is the technology, not anybody's personal excuses or
rationalizations.
some of the copy protection could actually damage your
equipment over
time.
THAT calls for more detail.
Or is merely an EXCUSE? (Such as "maybe Pro-lock PLUS really was secretly
put into production??")
technically you should
duplicate all the protection and stuff.sometimes if your drive was out a
bit, or something, the stuff wouldn't work. for most consumers, it just
has to work.
So?
We don't need lectures about WHY copy protection needs to be defeated.
THAT is assumed.
But, it would be easier to just defenestrate them, or wait for them to
suicide like Vault Corpse did.
there were worse copy protections than laser burns.
WHY BOTHER?
there
was nothing really equivalent to v-max c64 copy protection on
PC.unmodified drives were incapable of writing the data back the way it
was written.
Yeah. A modified drive can write stuf that a consumer drive can not.
Then, IF the consumer drive (with special software) can tell the
difference, then you have a copy protection scheme.
but then a PC drive can't compare to a 1541, PC
drives are
dumb devices Dan.
Oh yeah. But I can do things with an Apple][ drive that you
can't do with
a 1541. Hell, I can do things on a PC that you can't do with a 1541!
A dumb device is much more versatile than one with its own controller
built hardwired in the box.