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