Cracks
candle
I'm very interested in cracks. Does anyone know any e-mail address
of the crackers? Thanks in advance!
Victo
Mats Anders Knip
> of the crackers? Thanks in advance!
OW C'MON! What does this look like? A pirate board? This
is USENET, dammit!
--
*=--------------------------------------------------------------------------=*
* E-Mail: mk...@niksula.cs.hut.fi *
* Helsinki University of Technology / department of Computer Science *
*=--------------------------------------------------------------------------=*
candle
: > I'm very interested in cracks. Does anyone know any e-mail address
auther of cracks. I'm interested how they crack games.
Besides, crack <> pirate, unless you copy the game from your
friend and use crack on the game.
Martin M|ller Pedersen
Try ftp kragar.eff.org and look in the directory /pub/cud/pirate.
Paul Lewis Fincke
[Post that was responded to removed]
>
>Crack = a version of a game where the copy protection is removed.
>Look at it any way you want to, it`s still illegal. You are not
>allowed - repeat are NOT ALLOWED to alter a single byte on a
>commercial disk. And what do you think a cracker is? A kind soul
>who has decided to spend hours cracking games so that everybody
>who bought the game can make backup-copies of it? If that`s what
>you think you are one naive XXXXXXX.
>
>Yes, yes, yes. I know you can make backup-copies for your own use,
>but that`s hardly what`s in the minds of people who ask for
>cracks of games on Usenet. No matter what they say.
>
>If you have another definition of a crack, please enlighten me.
>--
[.sig removed]
Just curious, but your definition (and perhaps the game's copyright) is
that it is illegal to alter a single byte on a commercial disk (I'm
assuming this means the original copy out of the box). Is it then legal
to crack the installed version on my privatetly owned harddrive (assuming,
of course, that I purchaced the original program to begin with)?
Once again, this isn't a flame, but a serious inquiry. I feel that I
should be able to do whatever I want with what's been put on my privately
owned harddrive. If I'm not allowed to change a single bit after its
installed, I'm left wondering if I'm never allowed to delete an old
program off of it.
One of these days I'm going to waste a day reading the copyright BS on
the disks I get. I'll bet its laughably restrictive and unenforceable...
Paul Fincke
J05...@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
>> I think you misunderstood what I meant. Here cracker means the
>> auther of cracks. I'm interested how they crack games.
>> Besides, crack <> pirate, unless you copy the game from your
>> friend and use crack on the game.
>Crack = a version of a game where the copy protection is removed.
>Look at it any way you want to, it`s still illegal. You are not
>allowed - repeat are NOT ALLOWED to alter a single byte on a
>commercial disk. And what do you think a cracker is? A kind soul
>who has decided to spend hours cracking games so that everybody
>who bought the game can make backup-copies of it? If that`s what
>you think you are one naive XXXXXXX.
I don't care what the cracker does. I'm only responsible for *me*. If the
cracker gives out pirate copies to friends, let the SPA nail his ass. I'm
only interested in removing copy protection for personal use. I have no love
for those who distribute pirate copies, okay?
Illegal? Technically, perhaps. But still, I don't think that the SPA is
interested in busting anyone who is using a cracked copy of a game which
they legitimately own and aren't distributing.
>Yes, yes, yes. I know you can make backup-copies for your own use,
>but that`s hardly what`s in the minds of people who ask for
>cracks of games on Usenet. No matter what they say.
>If you have another definition of a crack, please enlighten me.
I have never given away copies of a cracked game. I legitimately purchased
every single cracked game I own (I used to have a few pirated copies of out-
of-print games, but I've long since erased them). You pretend to know what's
in my mind when I ask for cracks? Read on...
* Might and Magic 3. "What is the word at page 25, line 31, word 6." I don't
know about you, but counting off 31 lines gets pretty damn old pretty damn
fast.
* F117A. Here I must find the plane pictured in the manual. Well, there are
dozens of planes in the manual. Many of them look similar. Often the picture
doesn't adequately describe what's on the screen. Quite often I've been wrong
and I have the damned manual right in front of me!
* Ultima 5. Key disk. What if the key disk goes bad? Waiting several weeks
and paying Origin $5 or $10 isn't an option.
* F15 Strike Eagle 2. See comments about Ultima 5.
* Joe Montana Football. Some of those players look alike. Again, I've been
wrong on the doc check even though I legitimately have the docs in front of me.
* Sim City. Those damned squares look too much alike after a while. It's
very easy to get confused and pick the wrong answer. Even if you're right,
you'll suffer from eye strain after getting past the doc check.
I've paid about $250 for these six games. I want to *enjoy* them. I have
many other games which also use some type of protection which limits my enjoy-
ment of them. When I play a game, I want to relax and have fun--not stress
out about whether that's a F-14 or a C-130 on the screen and then start all
over if I was wrong. Would you still care to flame? I'm waiting...
Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
"Schutzstaffel!" Blam! Blam! Blam! "Mein Leben!"
Mats Anders Knip
> every single cracked game I own (I used to have a few pirated copies of out-
> of-print games, but I've long since erased them). You pretend to know what's
> in my mind when I ask for cracks? Read on...
list of games deleted...
OK, it seems as if I've got to apologize for my last post, since
a lot of people don't seem to agree with me.
But no matter whether it's legal or illegal to distribut cracks of
games (as most people who replied to me seem to think it's legal, I will
not argument about that) the fact remains - I simply don't think all
people who use cracks limitate themselves to cracking their own games.
The temptetion is simply too big. If you can get something for free,
then you take it. And please - spare me from all you people claiming
that "I sure don't do that, maybe others". So you're all saints, but
everybody isn't. Distributing cracks via FTP is like walking with
a big wallet in your backpocket.
Saying this doesn't mean I'm that radically opposed to piracy. Working
on a game myself, of course I don't look at piracy with happiness,
but I don't really think pirates do that much damage to the market.
People buy what they think is worth buying, and if you want to sell
a game you've got to deliver quality. This question has been over-
discussed eartlier, so I'll let my statements end with this.
My point was, that cracks and piracy are really related. Without a
crack you can't use a copy of the game. Many times you really get
the feeling that a manual-protection isn't doing a game any good
at all, and that the game could just as well have been released
without it. BUT - is wasn't! And if the authors wanted to have
a copy-protection on their game, I can't see how it would be legal
to remove this, no matter how desirable such a thing would be.
Maybe the best thing would be if the software houses stopped
producing copy-protections. But if you want to make cracks legal
(or if they already are - I don't know), isn't that almost an
invitation to illegal copying? Copy protections are there for
a reason.
Anyway and how, this is a as most things connected to piracy
a question of oppinion. Many people wrote to me and said
"it's like this", "it's like that", "you're wrong". I don't agree
with you. But that doesn't mean you're wrong. And as long as no
further proof is delivered, it doesn't mean you're right either.
Charles M Kozierok
>> I have never given away copies of a cracked game. I legitimately purchased
>> every single cracked game I own (I used to have a few pirated copies of out-
>> of-print games, but I've long since erased them). You pretend to know what's
>> in my mind when I ask for cracks? Read on...
>
>list of games deleted...
>
>OK, it seems as if I've got to apologize for my last post, since
>a lot of people don't seem to agree with me.
>But no matter whether it's legal or illegal to distribut cracks of
>games (as most people who replied to me seem to think it's legal, I will
>not argument about that) the fact remains - I simply don't think all
>people who use cracks limitate themselves to cracking their own games.
>The temptetion is simply too big. If you can get something for free,
>then you take it. And please - spare me from all you people claiming
>that "I sure don't do that, maybe others". So you're all saints, but
>everybody isn't. Distributing cracks via FTP is like walking with
>a big wallet in your backpocket.
what a crock of $#%@@*. this is the classic "i am not responsible for
my own actions because i was tempted" argument used by everyone from
petty thieves to people cheating on their spouses. "if you can get
something for free then you take it": why???? if you come out of
the drug store and someone has left an open car with the engine running,
do you take it? what happened to personal morals and conscience? like
they say folks, guns don't kill people, people kill people. well,
cracks don't cause piracy, people cause piracy. (and no, i am not
a supporter of the NRA...)
>
>Saying this doesn't mean I'm that radically opposed to piracy. Working
>on a game myself, of course I don't look at piracy with happiness,
>but I don't really think pirates do that much damage to the market.
>People buy what they think is worth buying, and if you want to sell
>a game you've got to deliver quality. This question has been over-
>discussed eartlier, so I'll let my statements end with this.
it doesn't matter how much damage it causes. it is a matter of whether
or not it is right. analogizing your point again, one could say it
was ok to steal a mercedes from bill gates, because "he has $4G and
it wouldn't do that much damage". how do you think the *big* problems
get started?
>
>My point was, that cracks and piracy are really related. Without a
>crack you can't use a copy of the game. Many times you really get
>the feeling that a manual-protection isn't doing a game any good
>at all, and that the game could just as well have been released
>without it. BUT - is wasn't! And if the authors wanted to have
>a copy-protection on their game, I can't see how it would be legal
>to remove this, no matter how desirable such a thing would be.
>Maybe the best thing would be if the software houses stopped
>producing copy-protections. But if you want to make cracks legal
>(or if they already are - I don't know), isn't that almost an
>invitation to illegal copying? Copy protections are there for
>a reason.
it is true that cracks make piracy easier. but it is still in
each individual's power to "just say no". i do. many others do.
why can't everyone?
it is true that the authors of games with copy protection did not
intend for it to be bypassed. but if i *personally* shell out $X
for a game and then don't want to perform a gymnastic manoeuver
with my manual and 300 rotating disks every time i want to use it,
and i do not distribute the underlying software which is needed to
apply the crack too, i am making my life easier and not costing
the developer a dime. and i don't care about theoretical adherence
to strict legalities -- if everyone would just do what was right,
and i don't think that is so hard to define here, there would be
no problem.
>
>Anyway and how, this is a as most things connected to piracy
>a question of oppinion. Many people wrote to me and said
>"it's like this", "it's like that", "you're wrong". I don't agree
>with you. But that doesn't mean you're wrong. And as long as no
>further proof is delivered, it doesn't mean you're right either.
the costs vs. benefits of cracks is somewhat a matter of opinion.
i have stated mine above. but the issue of the duty of every person
to behave responsibly is *not* a matter of opinion.
--
charles
Robert W. Igo
out that you cracked the game you bought? Are the 'net police' going
to go through your receipts when you're not home and make sure you bought
it? Whether or not it is legal to modify software that you bought to
enhance its usability is all very irrelevant. No need to get into a
long, tired discussion about legal stuff again.
[********************************* Bob Igo ********************************]
Witty and universally-true .sig file under construction.
[***************************** gryp...@cmu.edu ***************************]
Mats Anders Knip
> my own actions because i was tempted" argument used by everyone from
> petty thieves to people cheating on their spouses. "if you can get
> something for free then you take it": why???? if you come out of
> the drug store and someone has left an open car with the engine running,
> do you take it? what happened to personal morals and conscience? like
> they say folks, guns don't kill people, people kill people. well,
> cracks don't cause piracy, people cause piracy. (and no, i am not
> a supporter of the NRA...)
Well, it`s very nice to know that there are people who still believe
in the human spirit. I don`t. I think humans are basically really rotten,
and that`s why we need laws. Did I say "I am not responsible for my own
actions because I was tempted"? Read my post again. Why do people steal?
Because it`s a part of the human spirit. You can deny it and live on the
lie, but that surely won`t solve the problem. When you move out of your
pink little house in the countryside and enter the real world, please
send me a mail.
I never said stealing can be forgiven if you were given the opportunity
to steal. I said : some people DO steal if they are temped. I said that
it`s a FACT that people do so. I did, however, not say I think this is
right. YOU said that. Don`t you learn to read properly in the schools
over there?
> it is true that cracks make piracy easier. but it is still in
> each individual's power to "just say no". i do. many others do.
> why can't everyone?
I am a member of GreenPeace. Why can`t everybody be like me and then
all the worlds problems with contamination and the ozon layer would
be solved in a couple of years? In fact - there never would have been
any problems! Great logic you have there. Helps a lot.
Why don`t we take your "argument" and examine it.
>Guns don`t kill people, people kill people.
>Cracks son`t cause piracy, people cause piracy.
Which is worse? Killing somebody or pirating a game? Killing someone?
Yes, I thought so too. Don`t you think it would be easier for people
to stop killing each other than to stop pirating games then? Yet -
hundreds of people get killed every day. Of course, if everybody was
a saint like you, nobody would ever get killed. The sad fact is, that
although you are naive anough to believe that the problem can be solved
by saying "I don`t, why should anybody?", it really can't. Sorry.
How about this:
If there weren`t any guns, people wouldn`t get shot.
If there weren`t any cracks, people couldn`t pirate games.
Think about it. If you are able to.
> intend for it to be bypassed. but if i *personally* shell out $X
> for a game and then don't want to perform a gymnastic manoeuver
> with my manual and 300 rotating disks every time i want to use it,
Wonder what games you buy.
> and i do not distribute the underlying software which is needed to
> apply the crack too, i am making my life easier and not costing
> the developer a dime. and i don't care about theoretical adherence
> to strict legalities -- if everyone would just do what was right,
> and i don't think that is so hard to define here, there would be
> no problem.
Exellent. How pathetic. If everybody did like you, there would be no
problems. If that`s all you can say then please don`t bother to reply
at all.
You don`t care about other people using the cracks to pirate games with
because that`s not your problem. It`s their problem. They`ve got no moral.
You benefit from the cracks and you don`t pirate games. Therefore you
think cracks should be legal so that you wouldn`t have to do your spinning
of disks every time you want to use your game.
If everybody did what`s right, there wouldn`t have to be any copy
protections. If people wouldn`t kill eachother, the US wouldn`t need
a death penalty.
Is there a death penalty in the US?
Are there copy-protections on software??
Ooops. Seems like your theory about the human moral went down the drain.
Or to sum it all up:
-I can`t understand why you guys think cracks should be legal, because
they can be used to pirate software. And they are.
-You think cracks should be legal, because you think people will not do
anything illegal with them. And if they do it`s their problem, not yours.
-You think I`m primitive because I think people steal if they get
the opportunity. You say that this is not a fact.
-You don`t think copy-protections aren`t needed, because the software-
producers could just as well rely on the moral of the customers.
-You speak a lot of $#%@@*.
You sure have a personal opinion, but flaming me with opinion is no
good. Try some facts next time. That was what I asked for.
Mark Aranedes Jin'lewood Chen
what *IS* a matter of opinion, however, is the definition of behaving responsibly.
mark
Charles M Kozierok
i would not disagree with this. maybe a good place to start is for everyone
to do their best to define it for themselves.
--
charles
Charles M Kozierok
you who feel it is inappropriate, but there are some out there who feel
it is, and I felt it was necessary to justify my position in the wake of
Mr. Knip's latest article.
In article <MKNIP.92N...@robocop.hut.fi> mk...@niksula.hut.fi (Mats Anders Knip) writes:
> c...@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>> what a crock of $#%@@*. this is the classic "i am not responsible for
>> my own actions because i was tempted" argument used by everyone from
>> petty thieves to people cheating on their spouses. "if you can get
>> something for free then you take it": why???? if you come out of
>> the drug store and someone has left an open car with the engine running,
>> do you take it? what happened to personal morals and conscience? like
>> they say folks, guns don't kill people, people kill people. well,
>> cracks don't cause piracy, people cause piracy. (and no, i am not
>> a supporter of the NRA...)
>
>Well, it`s very nice to know that there are people who still believe
>in the human spirit. I don`t. I think humans are basically really rotten,
>and that`s why we need laws. Did I say "I am not responsible for my own
>actions because I was tempted"? Read my post again. Why do people steal?
ok, i *did* read your post again. you said "if you can get something
for free, then you take it". therefore you *did* imply that one may
not be 100% responsible for one's actions because one was tempted.
this may not have been what you meant, but it *is* what you said.
by blaming the "human spirit" you give anyone who steals software an out.
is that really what you are trying to do?
>Because it`s a part of the human spirit. You can deny it and live on the
>lie, but that surely won`t solve the problem. When you move out of your
>pink little house in the countryside and enter the real world, please
>send me a mail.
i don't believe in "human spirit". each human has a different "spirit".
there is nothing to deny. i know that some people steal. i just think
it is appropriate for them to place the blame squarely where it belongs:
on their own shoulders.
>I never said stealing can be forgiven if you were given the opportunity
>to steal. I said : some people DO steal if they are temped. I said that
>it`s a FACT that people do so. I did, however, not say I think this is
>right. YOU said that. Don`t you learn to read properly in the schools
> over there?
accusing me of not being able to read or implying that i am a country
bumpkin will accomplish nothing. i could call you similar names.
i don't know to what you are referring when you say "YOU said that".
i never denied that some people steal if given the opportunity. i
simply said that not all people who use cracks are criminals.
if you bothered to recall how this thread got started, it began
when someone accused someone else of being a pirate solely on the
basis of his request for a crack. i am simply making the point that
this accusation was not necessarily valid.
>
>> it is true that cracks make piracy easier. but it is still in
>> each individual's power to "just say no". i do. many others do.
>> why can't everyone?
>
>I am a member of GreenPeace. Why can`t everybody be like me and then
>all the worlds problems with contamination and the ozon layer would
>be solved in a couple of years? In fact - there never would have been
>any problems! Great logic you have there. Helps a lot.
>
>Why don`t we take your "argument" and examine it.
>
>>Guns don`t kill people, people kill people.
>>Cracks son`t cause piracy, people cause piracy.
>
>Which is worse? Killing somebody or pirating a game? Killing someone?
>Yes, I thought so too. Don`t you think it would be easier for people
>to stop killing each other than to stop pirating games then? Yet -
>hundreds of people get killed every day. Of course, if everybody was
>a saint like you, nobody would ever get killed. The sad fact is, that
>although you are naive anough to believe that the problem can be solved
>by saying "I don`t, why should anybody?", it really can't. Sorry.
>
>How about this:
>If there weren`t any guns, people wouldn`t get shot.
>If there weren`t any cracks, people couldn`t pirate games.
>Think about it. If you are able to.
i am not naive. if you would think about it instead of calling me names,
you would realize that it is *your* logic that makes no sense.
based on your argument we could say "because some people drink and
drive, we are now banning all automobiles (or all alcohol, or both)";
"because some people kill their spouses with kitchen knives, we are now
banning all kitchen utensils"; etc. etc.
my argument is with your main point, which is "because some people steal
software because there are cracks out there, we must ban all cracks". the
point is not specifically cracks, but the general attitude of "because
someone out there abuses something, we can't really blame them because
'if you can get something for free, you take it', so the only solution
is to ban the abused item". it is this attitude i take exception to.
as do many people who fear having their rights summarily dismissed.
also, if my ideas are naive, yours are at least equally so. "if there
weren't any guns, people wouldn't get shot" is silly for two reasons:
first, because gun bans (and drug bans, etc.) have been amply proven
to not work; and second, because people could simply kill each other
in other ways. just as people can find other ways to steal software
if cracks are not available.
>
>> intend for it to be bypassed. but if i *personally* shell out $X
>> for a game and then don't want to perform a gymnastic manoeuver
>> with my manual and 300 rotating disks every time i want to use it,
>
>Wonder what games you buy.
obviously i exaggerated, but that doesn't really change the fact
that many people find the protection schemes quite irritating.
>
>> and i do not distribute the underlying software which is needed to
>> apply the crack too, i am making my life easier and not costing
>> the developer a dime. and i don't care about theoretical adherence
>> to strict legalities -- if everyone would just do what was right,
>> and i don't think that is so hard to define here, there would be
>> no problem.
>
>Exellent. How pathetic. If everybody did like you, there would be no
>problems. If that`s all you can say then please don`t bother to reply
>at all.
if you had not replied with such a personal and poorly argued post, i would
not have. i am not claiming that everyone *will* do what was right,
just imploring everyone to do what was right and not draw equivalencies
between crack usage and software piracy.
>You don`t care about other people using the cracks to pirate games with
>because that`s not your problem. It`s their problem. They`ve got no moral.
>You benefit from the cracks and you don`t pirate games. Therefore you
>think cracks should be legal so that you wouldn`t have to do your spinning
>of disks every time you want to use your game.
you sure are putting a lot of words in my mouth.
>If everybody did what`s right, there wouldn`t have to be any copy
>protections. If people wouldn`t kill eachother, the US wouldn`t need
>a death penalty.
>Is there a death penalty in the US?
>Are there copy-protections on software??
>Ooops. Seems like your theory about the human moral went down the drain.
give me a break. i covered this above, but you are only demonstrating
the superficiality of your argument. you are drawing conclusions on the
"human moral" based on rules placed to protect against a small minority,
and you seem willing to sacrifice the rights and privileges of the majority
to do so. based on your logic, i could conclude that "because most people
lock their cars, the 'human moral' includes car theft".
>
>Or to sum it all up:
>-I can`t understand why you guys think cracks should be legal, because
> they can be used to pirate software. And they are.
i never made any claim as their legality. i only clarified where the
responsibility lies. just as i don't believe that albert einstein is
responsible for the arms race simply because he created something
which was perverted. the rest of my argument is above.
>-You think cracks should be legal, because you think people will not do
> anything illegal with them. And if they do it`s their problem, not yours.
my mouth is getting so full of your words that i am beginning to choke.
i did say that *if* everyone had a responsible moral code, there would
be no problem. that does not necessarily mean i think everyone does.
only that those who do not are the ones who bear the guilt here.
and as someone else rightly pointed out, the definition of "responsible"
is an open question. but at least we all should ask it, in my opinion.
>-You think I`m primitive because I think people steal if they get
> the opportunity. You say that this is not a fact.
did i ever call you primitive? where? what kind of a way is this
to conduct an argument?
>-You don`t think copy-protections aren`t needed, because the software-
> producers could just as well rely on the moral of the customers.
"objection, your honor -- no foundation"
>-You speak a lot of $#%@@*.
>
>
>You sure have a personal opinion, but flaming me with opinion is no
>good. Try some facts next time. That was what I asked for.
oh really? for someone who wonders whether i was taught how to read,
you could at least read your own posts.
in your previous post, the one which my previous response
refers to, you said "anyway and how, this is as most things connected to
piracy a question of opinion". what kind of double standard are you
setting? or are you now going to define for us all what is fact and
what is opinion?
i did not flame you. i may have flamed your words or your opinions,
but not you personally. it may seem like there is no difference,
but there is. for example, "think about it. if you are able to."
as you said, is a personal flame. why don't you think about that.
--
charles
Bits of Magic
Ah, the universally-true "you can't get caught so it's ok" argument.
Tom Weinstein
> Or to sum it all up:
> -I can`t understand why you guys think cracks should be legal, because
> they can be used to pirate software. And they are.
So, we should make floppy drives illegal because they are used to pirate
software? What about debuggers? Or why not just make computers
illegal, and then nobody would every pirate software again. Yeah,
right.
--
Love is a conveyor belt of | Tom Weinstein to...@orac.esd.sgi.com
warmth -- Jackie Chan | to...@bears.ucsb.edu
Ashraf Ghebranious
>> You are not
>> allowed - repeat are NOT ALLOWED to alter a single byte on a
>> commercial disk. And what do you think a cracker is? A kind soul
>> who has decided to spend hours cracking games so that everybody
>> who bought the game can make backup-copies of it? If that`s what
>> you think you are one naive XXXXXXX.
>Just curious, but your definition (and perhaps the game's copyright) is
>that it is illegal to alter a single byte on a commercial disk (I'm
>assuming this means the original copy out of the box). Is it then legal
>to crack the installed version on my privatetly owned harddrive (assuming,
>of course, that I purchaced the original program to begin with)?
>
>Once again, this isn't a flame, but a serious inquiry. I feel that I
>should be able to do whatever I want with what's been put on my privately
>owned harddrive. If I'm not allowed to change a single bit after its
>installed, I'm left wondering if I'm never allowed to delete an old
>program off of it.
>
>One of these days I'm going to waste a day reading the copyright BS on
>the disks I get. I'll bet its laughably restrictive and unenforceable...
Wow Paul. You must have stayed up all night thinking of that one! Copyright
of the game INCLUDES the version installed on your harddisk, AND any saved
game files relating to the game. You are ALLOWED to install and use and
delete, but you can NOT ALTER any files. A crack alters the file, hence it
is illegal whereas a delete does not in any way change the original. Gee, I
hope this covers it for you. Smartarse.
**********************************************************************
"Jesus woman! I dont give a f___!" Rhett Butler (slighty paraphrased)
Ashraf Ghebranious axg...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au
Australian National University
**********************************************************************
Ashraf Ghebranious
>I've paid about $250 for these six games. I want to *enjoy* them. I have
>many other games which also use some type of protection which limits my enjoy-
>ment of them. When I play a game, I want to relax and have fun--not stress
>out about whether that's a F-14 or a C-130 on the screen and then start all
>over if I was wrong. Would you still care to flame? I'm waiting...
>
Good news Tim! In a few years, there will be very little copy protection on
software products as most of it will be ONLY avialiable on CD-ROM. Sure,
there are people who can probably still manage to "copy" these CD's but I
don't think they will be your current hacker groups. The CD-ROM WILL have a
key-disk like system, but you won't have to worry about getting pictures or
words right. Of course, the games will cost more and you will have to buy a
CD-ROM drive, but it will be the ONLY alternative to software houses. So
keep on cracking Tim, while the cracking is good.
Tom Weinstein
> Good news Tim! In a few years, there will be very little copy protection on
> software products as most of it will be ONLY avialiable on CD-ROM. Sure,
> there are people who can probably still manage to "copy" these CD's but I
> don't think they will be your current hacker groups. The CD-ROM WILL have a
> key-disk like system, but you won't have to worry about getting pictures or
> words right. Of course, the games will cost more and you will have to buy a
> CD-ROM drive, but it will be the ONLY alternative to software houses. So
> keep on cracking Tim, while the cracking is good.
The cost of making CD-ROMs is $2 in lots of 1000. The cost of mass
reproduction for 3.5" disks is higher when you are talking about a game
that takes 20 MB of space, such as the latest Origin offerings.
Manufacturing costs for CD-ROM games is nearly the same, or
significantly cheaper than distributing them of floppy disks.
Mats Anders Knip
>> -I can`t understand why you guys think cracks should be legal, because
>> they can be used to pirate software. And they are.
> So, we should make floppy drives illegal because they are used to pirate
> software? What about debuggers? Or why not just make computers
> illegal, and then nobody would every pirate software again. Yeah,
> right.
That kinds of arguments won't take you anywhere.
Computers (as well as debuggers and diskdrives) are used for several
useful things. A crack has ONE perpose only : to remove a protection.
The protection is put on the disk by the software companies in order
to stop people from copying their disks. Can it then be legal to
distribute programs that remove the authors protections?
If you like radical examples, how about this one:
Guns are used for killing people. Guns can be used for other things
(cracks can be used for only one) but are still (in most countries)
illegal unless you have a licens for it. Why? Why can't anybody buy
a gun? Answer : Because the main perpose of a gun is to kill people.
This is not legal.
The same thing should go for cracks. I know this is a silly way
of putting it - as are your examples.
This is merely a hypothetic question. Is it legal? How can it be?
Tom Sorensen
>In article <ByA5o...@news.udel.edu> dal...@ravel.udel.edu (Paul Lewis Fincke) writes:
>>> You are not
>>> allowed - repeat are NOT ALLOWED to alter a single byte on a
>>> commercial disk. And what do you think a cracker is? A kind soul
>Wow Paul. You must have stayed up all night thinking of that one! Copyright
>of the game INCLUDES the version installed on your harddisk, AND any saved
>game files relating to the game. You are ALLOWED to install and use and
>delete, but you can NOT ALTER any files. A crack alters the file, hence it
Wrong. Copyright law allows you to modify anything personally owned by you,
but you can NOT distribute it. That's where pirates usually step over the
line. If you want to crack a program you may do so, but you can't distribute
the cracked executable to others.
You may distribute the METHOD of cracking the file, however. Or, at least, this
is the way the law & the "lay of the land" reads as of right now.
Think about it- have you ever written in or highlighted anything in a normal
book? The same copyright laws protect both in pretty much the same way. The
only place this isn't true is in places where special, draconian, laws have
been passed to prevent you from editing files on your own harddrive. I know
that such a law was to be passed in England, but I'm not sure if it ever
happened. The law would have made it illegal to even OWN a program that would
allow you to change a file. That includes DEBUG boys and girls.
Tom Sorensen
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Sorensen gt0...@prism.gatech.edu
"I believe OS/2 is destined to be the most important operating system,
and possibly program, of all time." - Bill Gates, November, 1987
Robert W. Igo
Not at all. I didn't say it was okay. And it's not an argument.
[********************************* Bob Igo ********************************]
"Now let me explain why this makes intuitive sense." --Prof. Larry Wasserman
[***************************** gryp...@cmu.edu ***************************]
Damien P. Neil
I vowed to myself that I would stay out of this thread...oh well.
From Stunts:
"You are entitled to use this product for your own use, but may not
sell or transfer reproductions of the software or manual to other
parties in any way, not rent or lease the product to others without
the prior written permission of Broderbund. You may use one copy of
the product on a single terminal connected to a single computer. You
may not network the product or otherwise use it on more than one
computer or computer terminal at the same time."
Notice anything even remotely similar to what you are talking about? Didn't
think so. The copyrights that you are talking about went out of style quite
a while ago, probably as soon as the lawyers realized that they would never
stand up in court.
"Smartarse" yourself.
-----
Damien Neil dp...@po.cwru.edu "Until somebody debugs reality, the best
Case Western Reserve University I can do is a quick patch here and there."
CMPS/EEAP double majoring masochist - Erik Green
Marc Fraioli
>of the game INCLUDES the version installed on your harddisk, AND any saved
>game files relating to the game. You are ALLOWED to install and use and
>delete, but you can NOT ALTER any files. A crack alters the file, hence it
>is illegal whereas a delete does not in any way change the original. Gee, I
>hope this covers it for you. Smartarse.
I don't know much about what the law says on this-- I suspect that you
are talking more about the liscence agreements on the packages than
about actual law, but if the law does say what you say it says (:-),
then it is unconstitutional as all Hell. If I buy a program, I'll jolly
well fiddle with it as much as I damn well please. Distributing the
program to others is illegal, and that's fine, I'm not objecting to
that. But I will never abide by any rule that says I can't modify
something that I bought myself. If Nissan puts a 'liscence agreement'
on their window sticker saying the vehicle can't be modified, can I then
not put in my own radio? I think not-- in fact, some car manufacturers
used to invalidate your warranty if you didn't get regular maintainance
done at the dealer, until the Courts told them they couldn't do that.
Why do you think Jiffy Lube mentions it in their ad? No, when I buy
something, it's MINE, and I'll do with it what I please.
--
Marc Fraioli
mfra...@grebyn.com (So I'm a minimalist...)
Al Dhir
Hey all. I am looking for a good version of Pac Man (or MS Pac Man) for the
PC. Was there ever a good one?
Also looking for whatever the best rendition of Breakout was.
AND - last but not least, someone in an earlier post asked about OIDS by
FTL, and come to think of it, I liked that game alot too. Is there a version
for the PC?
Oh, one final question: I have been looking for a good long time for a
Super Mario Brothers type game. Someone once suggested Commander Keen
but it's graphics were sort of, well, sorry. Has there ever been a
good one? How about something like Sonic the Hedghog on Genesis?
Thanks for all the help...
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Al Dhir Technical Consulting Staff
Internet: ad...@cygnus.umd.edu University of Maryland, College Park
Bitnet: adhir%cygnus.umd.edu@Interbit (301) 405-1500 * (301) 405-3014
Richard Byron Ward
|
|Hey all. I am looking for a good version of Pac Man (or MS Pac Man) for the
|PC. Was there ever a good one?
|
called CDMAN. This game has great graphics and is very playable. BTW,
VGAJOUST is also a very good port of an arcade game.
Rick
Tom Weinstein
>> So, we should make floppy drives illegal because they are used to pirate
>> software? What about debuggers? Or why not just make computers
>> illegal, and then nobody would every pirate software again. Yeah,
>> right.
> That kinds of arguments won't take you anywhere.
> Computers (as well as debuggers and diskdrives) are used for several
> useful things. A crack has ONE perpose only : to remove a protection.
> The protection is put on the disk by the software companies in order
> to stop people from copying their disks. Can it then be legal to
> distribute programs that remove the authors protections?
I disagree with you. Cracks have at least two purposes. They make it
easier for me to use a program. They can also be used to illegally
distribute a program.
> If you like radical examples, how about this one:
> Guns are used for killing people. Guns can be used for other things
> (cracks can be used for only one) but are still (in most countries)
> illegal unless you have a licens for it. Why? Why can't anybody buy
> a gun? Answer : Because the main perpose of a gun is to kill people.
> This is not legal.
> The same thing should go for cracks. I know this is a silly way
> of putting it - as are your examples.
Here's how I would liken this to your statement about cracks:
Guns are used for firing bullets. That's their only purpose. Fired
bullets kill people. Can it be legal to kill people?
David Veal
to...@orac.asd.sgi.com (Tom Weinstein) writes:
>In article <MKNIP.92N...@wolverine.hut.fi>, mk...@niksula.hut.fi (Mats Aders Knip) writes:
>>> So, we should make floppy drives illegal because they are used to pirate
>>> software? What about debuggers? Or why not just make computers
>>> illegal, and then nobody would every pirate software again. Yeah,
>>> right.
>
>> That kinds of arguments won't take you anywhere.
>> Computers (as well as debuggers and diskdrives) are used for several
>> useful things. A crack has ONE perpose only : to remove a protection.
>> The protection is put on the disk by the software companies in order
>> to stop people from copying their disks. Can it then be legal to
>> distribute programs that remove the authors protections?
>
>I disagree with you. Cracks have at least two purposes. They make it
>easier for me to use a program. They can also be used to illegally
>distribute a program.
I've dealt with, for example, programs which modified other programs
such as to allow mouse input or for other reasons. I find the concept that
they are illegal difficult to imagine.
The important thing to keep seperate is the difference between
altering a copy and distributing it. (Consider also that in the Hard Disk
age you're probably not even altering the "original" copy, but a copy of
that copy.
If you really want to make an annoyance of youself, there's also
programs like Stacker which alter the way the program is stored, often
irreversably.
It's my copy. If I wanted to alter it so all the prompts come
up in Russian, so what?
>> If you like radical examples, how about this one:
>
>> Guns are used for killing people. Guns can be used for other things
>> (cracks can be used for only one) but are still (in most countries)
>> illegal unless you have a licens for it. Why? Why can't anybody buy
>> a gun?
Rhetorical question, right?
>Answer : Because the main perpose of a gun is to kill people.
>> This is not legal.
Well, since this is the wrong group, I'll let this pass...
>> The same thing should go for cracks. I know this is a silly way
>> of putting it - as are your examples.
>
>Here's how I would liken this to your statement about cracks:
>
>Guns are used for firing bullets. That's their only purpose. Fired
>bullets kill people. Can it be legal to kill people?
The problem here is that we're confusing two entirely different things.
It is not illegal to alter your own property, even if it is copyrighted.
Somebody else had a good example with mutilating books. It is only illegal
to make extra copies for distribution.
Your gun analogy, though silly, has one things going for it. A "crack"
is a tool. It can be used for good benefit (making the program easier to
use) or for not-so-good (illegal) benefit (making it easier for pirates to
make use of it.)
Assuing we're only discussing manual-checks and other sorts of non-on
disk copy protection, you're problem is this: Any pirate worth his salt is
going to get a photocopy of the manual/code-wheel/map when he gets a copy of
the game. Are you going to outlaw photocopying machines?
It's a silly argument.
Copyright laws are designed to prevent others from making a profit
off of the author's work without his permission. Using a "crack" to
modify my legally owned copy does not deal with that at all. (Unless you'd
like to continue the gun analogy, as some people do, and complain that
somebody could break into my home and steal my cracked copy, thereby
putting more cracked copies "on the street."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
PA14...@utkvm1.utk.edu
Ashraf Ghebranious
>Wrong. Copyright law allows you to modify anything personally owned by you,
>but you can NOT distribute it. That's where pirates usually step over the
>line. If you want to crack a program you may do so, but you can't distribute
>the cracked executable to others.
But Tom. You dont personally own the game. You own a copy. The disk itself
is still owned by the company who makes them (at least NASHUA disks are).
All we do is for a set fee, have caretaker rights over the product. It is
illegal and immoral to abuse those rights. If you give a copy to a friend or
sell it to recoup costs, or make money, you are in violation. Sorry.
Ashraf
Damien P. Neil
>>Wrong. Copyright law allows you to modify anything personally owned by you,
>>but you can NOT distribute it. That's where pirates usually step over the
>>line. If you want to crack a program you may do so, but you can't distribute
>>the cracked executable to others.
>
>is still owned by the company who makes them (at least NASHUA disks are).
>All we do is for a set fee, have caretaker rights over the product. It is
>illegal and immoral to abuse those rights. If you give a copy to a friend or
>sell it to recoup costs, or make money, you are in violation. Sorry.
What is NASHUA? _None_ of the software I currently own has an obscenity of a
license like this. I have seen only one game, ever, that used this
concept -- and that was a long time ago.
Michael Parks Swaim
>
>But Tom. You dont personally own the game. You own a copy. The disk itself
>is still owned by the company who makes them (at least NASHUA disks are).
>All we do is for a set fee, have caretaker rights over the product.
constrained by those "licencing agreements" black out the parts you don't
like, then open the package. It's still just as binding.
--
Mike Swaim | Canada will become the next world power
sw...@owlnet.rice.edu | and they will work to ENSLAVE all the nations
Disclamer: I lie | of your planet. -Ricardo
Hastur Hastur Hastur Hastur Hastur Hastur Hastur Hasdtr yy['u [{}_+
J05...@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
>In article <76...@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt0...@prism.gatech.EDU (Tom Sorensen) wri
>>Wrong. Copyright law allows you to modify anything personally owned by you,
>>but you can NOT distribute it. That's where pirates usually step over the
>>line. If you want to crack a program you may do so, but you can't distribute
>>the cracked executable to others.
>But Tom. You dont personally own the game. You own a copy. The disk itself
>is still owned by the company who makes them (at least NASHUA disks are).
>All we do is for a set fee, have caretaker rights over the product. It is
>illegal and immoral to abuse those rights. If you give a copy to a friend or
>sell it to recoup costs, or make money, you are in violation. Sorry.
How many people modify the *original*, anyway? Sheesh! Don't these agreements
generally allow you to make a backup for personal use? The software vendor
doesn't own the disk that your BACKUP copy is on! And I know very few people
(none, actually) who hack or hexedit their original copy. So in that regard,
your argument is a no-op. Virtually everyone who uses cracks does so on a
backup copy and/or the file on the hard disk.
Once again: The legality of cracking under current law may be a grey area.
Let's even assume for sake of argument that it's illegal. Let's also say that
you have a cracked copy of some game. You *also have the original copy, box
and all documentation*. You *have not* distributed it. Do you really think
that the SPA is interested in prosecuting you? You clearly have purchased the
game, and you have not distributed cracks.
And as long as I have to count 27 lines down the page to play Might & Magic 3,
I'll always be tempted to do things which will circumvent that requirement.
Tim Irvin
**********************************************************************
Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.
Tom Sorensen
>But Tom. You dont personally own the game. You own a copy. The disk itself
>is still owned by the company who makes them (at least NASHUA disks are).
>All we do is for a set fee, have caretaker rights over the product. It is
>illegal and immoral to abuse those rights. If you give a copy to a friend or
>sell it to recoup costs, or make money, you are in violation. Sorry.
That's what software companies would like you to believe, but it won't hold
up. Every time a company has gone to court based on an attitude like the above
the "software license disclaimer" has been thrown out the window- at time of
purchase I did *NOT* sign or agree to any such license, so its not legally
binding.
As someone else pointed out, when you buy a program (game, application, or
operating system) you buy DOS 5.0, Lotus 1-2-3, or Star Control II. You don't
buy "A License for DOS 5.0", "A License for Lotus 1-2-3", etc. If I buy a
program in the retail channel I buy the right to do with that copy as I wish-
I can modify the executable, install it, delete it, etc. at will. I may not
distribute it to others unless I give/sell them the entire, unmodified program
lock, stock, and barrel. At that time they own the program and I don't.
Yes, I *MAY* sell it to recoup my costs. After that point, however, I may
not use it and I shouldn't have any copies on hand.
If you ever have any doubts about copyright law you can think about the
software program as a book- anything you can do to a book you can do to
a program, essentially. Note that the Used Book trade isn't illegal?
For the record, Borland's license policy is closest to the book analogy- in
fact they explicitly say to treat the program like a book- you can make as
many copies of the program on as many machines as you so wish. Just make sure
that only ONE of those copies is being used at any one time.
Of course the above is based on US copyright law. In other countries it may
be different. Your milage may vary. Your car may not run.
Jens B. Fiederer
>of the game INCLUDES the version installed on your harddisk, AND any saved
>game files relating to the game. You are ALLOWED to install and use and
>delete, but you can NOT ALTER any files. A crack alters the file, hence it
>is illegal whereas a delete does not in any way change the original. Gee, I
>hope this covers it for you. Smartarse.
>**********************************************************************
>"Jesus woman! I dont give a f___!" Rhett Butler (slighty paraphrased)
>
>Ashraf Ghebranious axg...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au
> Australian National University
>**********************************************************************
Altering a program in NO way violates the copyright, nor has any relationship
to the copyright. Copyrights are about copying.
Altering the program may or may not violate the LICENSE, which itself may
or may not be valid. I.e., if I buy some software, take it home, open it
up and find inside it some envelope that says "By opening this envelope
you are giving us the rights to your first born child, etc., etc.",
and I open that envelope, I have probably not given away any rights
whatsoever. Once I have purchased that box, I OWN it, and have the
full rights to use it (in ways that do not violate copyright), tear every
bit of paper within that box, use the contents of the box to cook exotic
dishes, and so on.
I have never heard of the validity of these "contracts" being upheld in
any US court of Law (Australia may be different). The normal interpretation
is that one party simply claiming that an action a second party may
undertake (which that second party has a perfect right to do) does not
obligates the first party in any way has no effect on the first party.
The courts might take a different point of view if the assertion that the
package you are "buying" could not be purchased but only licensed was
clearly visible to the "purchaser" at the time of purchase, but trying to
add conditions after already having taken your money is dubious at best.
This in no way stops companies from making such claims, for intimidation
value if nothing else.
In short, copying copyrighted stuff without the consent of the copyright
owner will put you in hot water. Modifying copyrighted stuff without
redistributing it is SAFE, unless you have entered into a contract not
to do so. Distributing such cracks ... seems pretty shady, and while
I haven't heard of anybody getting nailed for it, I sure wouldn't risk
it myself.
Jens
Galen Raben
>In article <1992Nov30.2...@wam.umd.edu> ad...@wam.umd.edu (Al Dhir) writes:
>|
>|Hey all. I am looking for a good version of Pac Man (or MS Pac Man) for the
>|PC. Was there ever a good one?
>|
>The best version that I ever saw was a shareware version (from Sweden?)
>called CDMAN. This game has great graphics and is very playable. BTW,
>VGAJOUST is also a very good port of an arcade game.
>Rick
Where can I find VGAJOUST????
- Galen -
gal...@hpgrla.gr.hp.com
Nicklas Andersson
> Once again: The legality of cracking under current law may be a grey
> area. Let's even assume for sake of argument that it's illegal.
> Let's also say that you have a cracked copy of some game. You *also
> have the original copy, box and all documentation*. You *have not*
> distributed it. Do you really think that the SPA is interested in
> prosecuting you? You clearly have purchased the game, and you have
> not distributed cracks.
Once again: COME ON! The original question was not whether the
SPA is interested in you or not, but whether it is clever to
have cracks freely available, as they are used to make illegal
copies! It doesn`t matter is the SPA catch you or not, the
programmers are still loosing money! And it's obvious that if
they don't get enough money for their games they simply will
stop making them, right?
Fergason
How are the programmers losing money? As he stated above, the game
was purchased. If I want to take the disks, crack the game, format
the disks, play frisbee with them, it doesnt matter. Its not illegal,
and the company loses no money.
Oh, they will lose money if you then distribute copies of your cracked game.
But I havent seen anyone arguing against that. Of course the company
loses money if that happens. From my reading all the posts, I get the
feeling everyone here knows that.
While I am throwing out opinions, here are mine.
I don't believe people should pirate, but I dont believe cracks should
be illegal. A company I worked for in the latter 80's was probably
one of the most pirated around for the C-64(Epyx. It seems everyone
and their dog had copies of the Games series). I dont have the
final numbers but there were probably lots more copies of my game in
peoples hands than were bought at stores.
**throwing wood on the fire**
Does anyone have a crack for Ultima 1? Like everyone else here(just about),
I hate digging up the original disk everytime I want to play, I would
much prefer just to go in to the directory and start.
Kelly
Francisco X DeJesus
>In <axg708.178...@cscgpo.anu.edu.au>:
>
>>In article <76...@hydra.gatech.EDU> gt0...@prism.gatech.EDU (Tom Sorensen) wri
>
>>>Wrong. Copyright law allows you to modify anything personally owned by you,
>>>but you can NOT distribute it. That's where pirates usually step over the
>>>line. If you want to crack a program you may do so, but you can't distribute
>>>the cracked executable to others.
>
>>But Tom. You dont personally own the game. You own a copy. The disk itself
>>is still owned by the company who makes them (at least NASHUA disks are).
So... if you have a game (or any other software) disk that's old, and you're
hurting for disk space, it's ILLEGAL for you to format the disk and use it
as a blank? Sheesh... talk about stupid laws! (wonder if they'll take
"involuntary disk-slaughter" as a valid plea in court)
--
Francisco X DeJesus ----- S A I C ----- dej...@archimedes.chinalake.navy.mil
disclaimer: "Opinions expressed here are mine. Typos and errors are all yours."
Nicklas Andersson
> Oh, they will lose money if you then distribute copies of your cracked
> game.
Congratulations! That was EXACTLY what I said.
> But I havent seen anyone arguing against that. Of course the company
> loses money if that happens. From my reading all the posts, I get the
> feeling everyone here knows that.
And I have never questioned whether people knows that the
programmers loose money because of pirating. All I said was
that it's not very clever to have cracks freely available
since they can and ARE used to make illegal copies of games.
After all, that was what cracks were intended for originally.
> I don't believe people should pirate, but I dont believe cracks should
> be illegal. A company I worked for in the latter 80's was probably
> one of the most pirated around for the C-64(Epyx. It seems everyone
> and their dog had copies of the Games series). I dont have the
> final numbers but there were probably lots more copies of my game in
> peoples hands than were bought at stores.
If this is true, then this issue should be right up your street.
Are you saying that you'd rather have cracks (so that people can
pirate them) available than make more money from your games?
> **throwing wood on the fire**
> Does anyone have a crack for Ultima 1? Like everyone else here(just about),
> I hate digging up the original disk everytime I want to play, I would
> much prefer just to go in to the directory and start.
Cute.
Fergason
In article <TURNER.92...@conan.hut.fi> tur...@niksula.hut.fi (Nicklas Andersson) writes:
>
>> Oh, they will lose money if you then distribute copies of your cracked
>> game.
>
> Congratulations! That was EXACTLY what I said.
buts it is not what you said. You said they would lose money if the game
was cracked. period. If I buy a game, I am the only one in the world
who buys this game (its a horrible game?), I crack it, and then lock it
in my safe, the programmers lose no money. period.
>
>
>> But I havent seen anyone arguing against that. Of course the company
>> loses money if that happens. From my reading all the posts, I get the
>> feeling everyone here knows that.
>
> And I have never questioned whether people knows that the
> programmers loose money because of pirating. All I said was
> that it's not very clever to have cracks freely available
> since they can and ARE used to make illegal copies of games.
> After all, that was what cracks were intended for originally.
>
>
>> I don't believe people should pirate, but I dont believe cracks should
>> be illegal. A company I worked for in the latter 80's was probably
>> one of the most pirated around for the C-64(Epyx. It seems everyone
>> and their dog had copies of the Games series). I dont have the
>> final numbers but there were probably lots more copies of my game in
>> peoples hands than were bought at stores.
>
> If this is true, then this issue should be right up your street.
> Are you saying that you'd rather have cracks (so that people can
> pirate them) available than make more money from your games?
>
no preference. i want the cracks available. its the companies decision.
by the way, that game did not have any real copy protection. Epyx used
a funky disk format that made things difficult to copy sometimes. at least
in their later years.
what started all this was you stating that cracking the game
caused the programmers lost income. i say no. distributing the cracks
causes no lost income. distributing cracked copies causes lost income.
distributing uncracked copies causes lost income. but I was not even
talking about that. I was talking about me cracking a game that i bought,
which I am not going to distribute.
>> **throwing wood on the fire**
>> Does anyone have a crack for Ultima 1? Like everyone else here(just about),
>> I hate digging up the original disk everytime I want to play, I would
>> much prefer just to go in to the directory and start.
>
> Cute.
no, not cute. i dont like key disk protection. i do not mind manual/
code wheel/ whatever methods. i am very paranoid about disks. they
tend to go bad on me. i was just hoping not to have to do it myself.
Kelly
Pete Kilcullen
>>> I hate digging up the original disk everytime I want to play, I would
>>> much prefer just to go in to the directory and start.
I have the version which was issued on CDROM which is not protected. I
could u/l it to you and you could do the compare.
Pete
Teri Takamoto
[stuff deleted]
> Oh, one final question: I have been looking for a good long time for a
> Super Mario Brothers type game. Someone once suggested Commander Keen
> but it's graphics were sort of, well, sorry. Has there ever been a
> good one? How about something like Sonic the Hedghog on Genesis?
The Software Toolworks was showing a new game at Comdex called Mario
is Missing. It's from Mindscape, actually, but the Software Toolworks is
distributing it. Don't have the flyer with me, though. Ross? Anyone?
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Teri Takamoto California State Polytechnic University, Pomona |
| Senior Computer Operator Computing Resource Center |
| tatak...@csupomona.edu (this .sig is *not* quotable) |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Erickson
>> Super Mario Brothers type game. Someone once suggested Commander Keen
>> but it's graphics were sort of, well, sorry. Has there ever been a
>> good one? How about something like Sonic the Hedghog on Genesis?
>
> The Software Toolworks was showing a new game at Comdex called Mario
>is Missing. It's from Mindscape, actually, but the Software Toolworks is
>distributing it. Don't have the flyer with me, though. Ross? Anyone?
--
edutainment type of title instead of just a raw arcade game title.
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Ross Erickson | |
| ro...@kaos.b11.ingr.com | "It's hard to RTFM when you can't |
| 205-730-4019 - voice | FIND the FM.." |
| 205-730-6445 - fax | |
| Internet: 129.135.252.87 | |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|