[8319] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: About Gilmore's letter on IBM&Intel push copy protection into
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Olsen)
Fri Dec 22 17:52:39 2000
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 14:54:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Alan Olsen <alan@clueserver.org>
To: cryptography@c2.net
In-Reply-To: <200012221838.KAA02185@breakaway.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10012221448350.6740-100000@clueserver.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 Jeff.Hodges@kingsmountain.com wrote:
> I agree. I lived through the "physical" floppy disk copy-protection wars of
> the early 80's (wherein such copy-protection technologies fell out of popular
> usage) and am extremely skeptical about whether the market will accept this
> stuff for all the reasons you cite.
An interesting observation about the physical floppy protection methods of
the 80s... Some vendows were quite willing to use protection methods that
would eventually destroy the hardware. (One involved bouncing the heads
off the back-end of the drive in an odd fashion. It would eventually
destroy the alignment on the drive or the drive itself.)
I worry about this sort of thing because the copy protection police have
shown by their past actions that they are not concerned by any unintended
consiquences of their actions. As long as it "protects" their little
feifdom, they could care less about any of the other effects. (Like
damaged hardware, being unable to use the product with other similar
products, etc.) Very shortsighted attitude. Blinded by greed and
teritorial games.
alan@ctrl-alt-del.com | Note to AOL users: for a quick shortcut to reply
Alan Olsen | to my mail, just hit the ctrl, alt and del keys.
"In the future, everything will have its 15 minutes of blame."
