Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sjuvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!sjuvax!jss
From: jss@sjuvax.UUCP (J. Shapiro)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: copy protection
Message-ID: <828@sjuvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 9-Feb-85 05:23:00 EST
Article-I.D.: sjuvax.828
Posted: Sat Feb  9 05:23:00 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 11-Feb-85 05:37:14 EST
References: <274@cmu-cs-spice.ARPA>
Organization: Saint Josephs Univ. Phila., Pa.
Lines: 18

[Aren't you hungry...?]

	My biggest gripe about copy protection is that it makes consolidating
backups difficult.  Copy protection schemes like that used by Manx software
(a scratch on the disk) are ok in that even if the disk goes bad the
scratch is still present, they provide *two* key disks, and they will
replace a bad one free of charge. (They also set it up so that you only
need the key disk at startup/reboot).

	I have yet to meet any scheme that Copy II Mac won't beat. My major
complaint is the cost of my archive copies.  I have $175 worth of disks on
my desk (at $35 a box), and that is just too damn many to be screwing
around trying to consolidate copy protected software (a dubious practice at
best). I know computing is expensive, but why make it worse than it need
be?

Jon Shapiro
Haverford College