Re: New Copy Protection Methods?

[dog_cow@macgui.com (D. Finnigan)]

e p chandler wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2:44 pm, dog_...@macgui.com (D. Finnigan)
wrote:
> > I was wondering this morning if anyone had come up with any novel
copy-protection
> > methods, or if perhaps it's too perverse a topic in this day
and age.
> >
> > An amusing one I had thought of would be to have every even
track number be
> > 13 sector, and every odd track number be 16 sector. Perhaps
this has been done
> > already?
> >
> > Anyway, it might lead to some
interesting theoretical discussion, though I should hope
> > that no one starts
distributing new Apple II programs as copy-protected. :-0
> 
> ICK. IMO the only
purpose of copy protection on a floppy disk system
> is to make un-reliable
software even more un-reliable. Not only does
> it interfere with legitimate
uses of the software, but floppy disks do
> wear out, get damaged, eaten by the
dog, run through the microwave,
> etc.
> 

If I may politely say so, I think
that you're missing the point of this thread. I'm sure that no one here actually
believes that copy protection should still be used, or if it ever had more
positives than negative aspects.

> But all copy protection schemes can be
broken. In the old days,
> pirates had access to all sorts of specialized
hardware for
> interrupting the boot process, taking snapshots of memory, etc.
>


Ah, you just reminded me of my second point which I had forgotten earlier: and
that was to make the program load in segments such that it is not all in memory
at once.

Or imagine a self-modifying copy-protected program. Every time there's
disk access, or the program loads, data get shifted around.