*** CRACK *** for Realmz 1.6.2
anonymous
This file is in the public domain. Distribute widely.
DISCLAIMER: This is *NOT* guaranteed to work so piss the hell off
if it doesn't. Your may fuck your copy of Realmz. If you do, FUCK YOU!
A crack for Realmz 1.6.2:
1) Open a fresh copy of Realmz with ResEdit
2) Open code resource 9
3) Go to offset +245A
change: 6C00 014E
to: 4E71 4E71
4) Go to offset +246A
change: 6F00 013E
to: 4E71 4E71
5) Save changes and quit ResEdit
6) Launch Realmz
7) Enter any number for registration code
8) Click on registration button
9) Enter any name
10) Click on ok button
11) You're now a "registered" user of Realmz.
Tim_P._...@nrunner.mil.wi.us
the help. This kind of thing is really annoying. In general I dont get my
feathers ruffled over people who pirate my stuff but when they post on something
like this it aggrivates me to no end.
If you could help me track this slob down I would appreciate it.
Tim Phillips
Fantasoft, LLC
Just to warn everybody, I will be putting in a check for this crack in the
scenario files. and if it is detected then I would not want to be in your
shoes.
Tim_P._...@nrunner.mil.wi.us
appreciate it. This kind of thing is really annoying and is a real motivator
for me to either go commercial or to stop production altogether.
Tim "Extremely Pissed Off!" Phillips
Fantasoft, LLC
Alan D. Earhart
Tim_P._...@nrunner.mil.wi.us wrote:
Here are the headers to the message-
Path:
magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!udel!news.sprintlink.net!pipex!peernews.demon.co.uk!freezone.remailer!anonymous
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.games
From: anon...@freezone.remailer (anonymous)
X-Comments: SEND ALL COMPLAINTS AND BLOCKING REQUESTS DIRECTLY TO
X-Comments: REO...@cornell.edu <Remailer Operator's Network>
X-Comments: -
X-Comments: FULL HEADER LOGGING IS: ON
X-Comments: -
X-Comments: Unauthorized or illegal use of this remailer, especially
X-Comments: for spamming the internet or posting copyright violations
X-Comments: will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
X-Comments: -
X-Comments: "You Spam, You Die." - Homer
X-Comments: -
X-Comments: A Free Zone Remailer V1.3 <ho...@rahul.net>
X-Comments: finger ho...@rahul.net for instructions.
X-Comments: -
X-Comments: Homer Wilson Smith <ho...@rahul.net>
X-Comments: (607) 277-0959, Fax: (607) 277-8913
X-Comments: -
Subject: *** CRACK *** for Realmz 1.6.2
X-Posting-Host: tango.rahul.net
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 1995 08:53:15 +0000
Message-ID: <1995031900...@bolero.rahul.net>
Sender: use...@demon.co.uk
Lines: 23
*****
This is probably the place to start.
--
alan "not-Bob"
aear...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Adrian Turkington
anon...@freezone.remailer (anonymous) wrote:
While I am not innocent of cracking games myself... this is just downright
INSENSITIVE! There is too much discussion of comercial and shareware
games. The atmosphere of this group is rather honestly oriented and I
hate to have that atmosphere tainted by postings about cracks and game
codes. Tim, Joe... I apologize for the rudeness of our species....
--
"The greatest pleasure in the world is
doing things we were told we cannot do"
--Adrian Turkington
e-mail: uatu...@mcs.drexel.edu
Peter V. Gadjokov
> Just to warn everybody, I will be putting in a check for this crack in the
> scenario files. and if it is detected then I would not want to be in your
> shoes.
^^^^^^^^^^\
That sort of threat is silly. What if your check detects the crack? Will
it delete the savefile? The game? The directory? Trash all mounted disks?
Make the monitor explode? Considering Realmz has had its fair share of
bugs, this sort of nonsense wouldn't really encourage me to even try it.
So someone posted a crack. It's not right, it's annoying, but I dont think
it will really cause your sales to plummet. I doubt that the type of
person who'd normally register a game would use a crack, even if it's
available. Conversely, the sort of person who would use a crack will
probably find a crack without it being posted on USENET.
Regards,
PeterVG
p...@csua.berkeley.edu
Jason Newquist
: In article <1995Mar20.1...@nrunner.mil.wi.us>,
: Tim_P._...@nrunner.mil.wi.us wrote:
: > Just to warn everybody, I will be putting in a check for this crack in the
: > scenario files. and if it is detected then I would not want to be in your
: > shoes.
: ^^^^^^^^^^\
: That sort of threat is silly. What if your check detects the crack? Will
: it delete the savefile? The game? The directory? Trash all mounted disks?
: Make the monitor explode? Considering Realmz has had its fair share of
: bugs, this sort of nonsense wouldn't really encourage me to even try it.
I have to agree. I understand that the author is upset, but this sort of
comment is really quite unprofessional, and makes it seem like the author
is dipping down a few notches to do battle with the cracker. Don't make
this any more ugly than it has to be.
.............. ........ ......................
Jason Newquist UC Davis jrnew...@ucdavis.edu
Andrew Meggs
> If anybody is capable of tracking down where this came from I would appreciate
> the help. This kind of thing is really annoying. In general I dont get my
> feathers ruffled over people who pirate my stuff but when they post on
> something like this it aggrivates me to no end.
>
Just wondering, but what can you do to this person if you do track him/her
down? All he did was say something like "change the values at offset xxxx
to yyyy," which is perfectly legal. He might not have a hacked copy
on his drive. He might even have a legally registered copy. What legal
recourse to programmers like you (and me) have against people who
provide instructions for cracking software?
Unfortunately, I'm guessing none, unless they can be caught with
an actual pirated copy, and even then that's not enough to do
any real damage to them since they haven't distributed the software;
they just exercised their right to "free speech".
--
_________________________________________________________________________
andrew meggs peanut butter and
me...@virginia.edu iron filings
Jochen Wolters
>If you could help me track this slob down I would appreciate it.
Tim,
take a look at the header of that file. This may be a pointer in the
right direction (mailing address of the anonymous remailer and some
legal info). Heck, the guy/gal in charge of the remailer may be even
glad to help you...
L8R,
Jochen.
--
Jochen Wolters - joc...@POOL.informatik.rwth-aachen.de - cand.ing. EE
----*-*-* PowerMacintosh: 100% less Gates, 100% more POWER *-*-*----
"You've never seen a picture of 'a picture is worth a thousand words.'
It takes words to express that idea, or any idea." --- Michael Swain
Jochen Wolters
>That sort of threat is silly. What if your check detects the crack? Will
>it delete the savefile? The game? The directory? Trash all mounted disks?
>Make the monitor explode?
That would be a great place to start when it comes to users/spreaders
of pirated software. If they don't have the money to buy/register those
games: bad luck. Would you steal a Ferrari just because you don't have
the money to buy one?
AndrewWelc
> actual pirated copy, and even then that's not enough to do any real
> damage to them since they haven't distributed the software; they just
> exercised their right to "free speech".
I have the feeling that if you can prove damages as a result, you have a
case. I'll check with my IP lawyer...
Regards,
Andrew Welch
Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Joe Francis
writes:
>> Unfortunately, I'm guessing none, unless they can be caught with an
>> actual pirated copy, and even then that's not enough to do any real
>> damage to them since they haven't distributed the software; they just
>> exercised their right to "free speech".
>
>I have the feeling that if you can prove damages as a result, you have a
>case. I'll check with my IP lawyer...
Andrew, I'm no lawyer, but I seriously hope that is not the case.
I buy my games (most recently the Dark Castle update from Delta Tao -
the hilarious manual is worth the price alone!) yet I have cracked games
and posted cracks to remove annoying copy protection. (No, I'm not
the foul mouthed bozo who posted the Realz crack.)
I don't know what kind of things Realmz does, and whether the crack would
be benificial to legitimate users, but it really doesn't matter to me.
I hope we don't get into an age where we have to filter what we say
for fear of a law suit (at least not anymore than we do now, which is
already plenty). Frankly, allowing these kind of posting seems to
be the lesser of evils.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
When MarketSpeak and Inside Macintosh collide:
"The Gestalt function returns the value gestalt68020 when you pass it the
selector gestaltProcessorType and the calling software is executing under
the emulator. This return value is intended to highlight the two ways in
which the 68LC040 Emulator more closely resembles a 68020 processor..."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Foley
Your right the author was very upset and when he calmed down he decided not
to post this particular version, but it got out anyway. I would have to say
though that if it is ok for you to hack the code to get around registering
then I think it is the authors right to delete the game. There are games and
programs with 30 day bombs that make themselfs useless after the trial
period. The people who this sort of thing would affect are the hackers and
pirates.
--
_______________________________________________________________________
James Foley University of Wisconsin-Madison
Office (608) 263-2606 1509 University Avenue
Fax (608) 262-6707 Madison, WI 53706
Don Macron
(Jim Foley) wrote:
> Your right the author was very upset and when he calmed down he decided not
> to post this particular version, but it got out anyway. I would have to say
> though that if it is ok for you to hack the code to get around registering
> then I think it is the authors right to delete the game. There are games and
> programs with 30 day bombs that make themselfs useless after the trial
> period. The people who this sort of thing would affect are the hackers and
> pirates.
OK - well, what if, for some reason, the routine that did the damage ran
amuck. Lets say, it trashed something that it 'shouldn't', or went
agressive when it 'shouldn't'? I know I'd be *quite* irate if a shareware
product I was testing decided to 'punish' me for something it mistakenly
'thought' I did...
This type of thing seems like a bad move on a programmers part, since all
that stuff about 'not being liable for damages' done by software is often
shaky, at best. I can almost guarantee that if -- because of some scheme
like this -- an accounting firm's disks were trashed by a spreadsheet
program looking for illegal copies, there'd be hell to pay.
And, personally, I don't think that Andrew's 'damages' arguement holds
water, unless you can prove intent -- which may or may not be possible
with this guy. As it stands, people are having trouble holding gun and
ammunition manufacturers responsible for violent crimes, although the
tobacco industry is finally getting hit. Lord knows this stuff gets messy
when you play with individuals' rights...
Volkan Can
uatu...@mcs.drexel.edu (Adrian Turkington) wrote:
-> In article <1995031900...@bolero.rahul.net>,
-> anon...@freezone.remailer (anonymous) wrote:
->
-> > (C) 666 Antichrist
-> > This file is in the public domain. Distribute widely.
-> >
-> > DISCLAIMER: This is *NOT* guaranteed to work so piss the hell off
-> > if it doesn't. Your may fuck your copy of Realmz. If you do, FUCK YOU!
-> >
-> > A crack for Realmz 1.6.2:
-> >
-> > 1) Open a fresh copy of Realmz with ResEdit
-> > 2) Open code resource 9
-> > 3) Go to offset +245A
-> > change: 6C00 014E
-> > to: 4E71 4E71
-> > 4) Go to offset +246A
-> > change: 6F00 013E
-> > to: 4E71 4E71
-> > 5) Save changes and quit ResEdit
-> > 6) Launch Realmz
-> > 7) Enter any number for registration code
-> > 8) Click on registration button
-> > 9) Enter any name
-> > 10) Click on ok button
-> > 11) You're now a "registered" user of Realmz.
->
-> While I am not innocent of cracking games myself... this is just downright
-> INSENSITIVE! There is too much discussion of comercial and shareware
-> games. The atmosphere of this group is rather honestly oriented and I
-> hate to have that atmosphere tainted by postings about cracks and game
-> codes. Tim, Joe... I apologize for the rudeness of our species....
->
-> --
-> "The greatest pleasure in the world is
-> doing things we were told we cannot do"
->
-> --Adrian Turkington
-> e-mail: uatu...@mcs.drexel.edu
Wanna trade sometime?
-V.
--
"I am Pentium of Borg.
Division if Futile.
You will be approximated." - unknown
Opinions expressed are most likely my own.
David E. Nolen
cents on the whole matter:
Something like this wouldn't be happening if Realmz didn't cost $30
FRIGGIN dollars!!!! Tim Phillips threatens to goto commercial, the game will
most likely get CHEAPER!!!!!! $30 bucks for shareware isn't right esp. for
something like Realmz, and $15 bucks for scenarios, now that's plain GREED.
Combine the all the prices plus shipping for the disks you could go out and
buy Hornet 2.0 along with the KC missions disk! (though neither are out they
both surpass the time and quality that was put into Realmz) Yes the RPG
engine is spectacular, and the writing fairly good, but look at shareware
company like Ambrosia who sell their games for $15 (full versions of em too).
Their games beat Realmz in graphics, sprite animation speed, music, and
sound, and take also as much time to make.
I still plan on paying for Realmz and its scenarios (I'm 15 w/o a job or I
would have done a long time ago when Realmz was onl $25), mainly because its
the only really good quality mac RPG, along with Exile.
Here's my tip to Fantasoft: Get music, hire a graphic artist (Tim, you don't
draw very well, and original art would be nicer), and lower the price of
Realmz to abut $20, and make subsequent scenarious releases $10 OR keep
Realmz's current price and make subsequent scenarious $5 a piece. Basically
improve the game to justify $30 bucks, 3d dungeons would be a nice start.
Dave
David E. Nolen
>appreciate it. This kind of thing is really annoying and is a real
motivator
>for me to either go commercial or to stop production altogether.
Go commercial? Your games already cost $30 bucks and $15 a scenario. Much
higher than your average commercial game I might add.
Stop production altogther? Are you kidding when you're making this much money
per registration?
Dave
Not that I approve of the crack, but come on Tim. The essence of shareware
to provide entertaining high-quality software at low prices.
Peter V. Gadjokov
joc...@messua.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Jochen Wolters) wrote:
> p...@csua.berkeley.edu (Peter V. Gadjokov) writes:
>
> >That sort of threat is silly. What if your check detects the crack? Will
> >it delete the savefile? The game? The directory? Trash all mounted disks?
> >Make the monitor explode?
>
> That would be a great place to start when it comes to users/spreaders
> of pirated software. If they don't have the money to buy/register those
> games: bad luck. Would you steal a Ferrari just because you don't have
> the money to buy one?
I believe you're missing my point. I'm not objecting to attempts to
protect one's investment. What I do find stupid and unprofessional is the
author's threat to add destructive elements to his program which will be
unleashed upon any user that the program deems 'illegitimate'. To use your
analogy, would you buy a Ferrari if the dealer told you the car has a
security system that will drive you into the nearest wall at 300kph if it
figures you aren't authorised to use the vehicle? Would you even test
drive it?
PeterVG
p...@csua.berkeley.edu
Doug Sturim
good work!!!!!!!
Doug
registered user of Realmz
----------------------------------------------------------
Doug Sturim
Brown University Electrical Sciences
Box D
d...@lems.brown.edu
AndrewWelc
> fear of a law suit (at least not anymore than we do now, which is
already
> plenty). Frankly, allowing these kind of posting seems to be the lesser
> of evils.
You already do have to filter what you say. Libel and slander laws have
been around for a long time.
Joe Francis
>>I hope we don't get into an age where we have to filter what we say for
>>fear of a law suit (at least not anymore than we do now, which is
>You already do have to filter what you say. Libel and slander laws have
>been around for a long time. [Andrew Welch]
Which is acknowledged in the very text you quote from me.
Cracks are not libel or slander. Cracks are information. I'm am
opposed to any criminal penalties (such as the crypto regulations)
or civil penalties (such as you are proposing) for the publishing
of information when not otherwise restricted by a contract.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Sources said Apple wants to attract users for whom a computer is also a
piece of furniture." - MacWeek 9/20/93
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jochen Wolters
>What I do find stupid and unprofessional is the
>author's threat to add destructive elements to his program which will be
>unleashed upon any user that the program deems 'illegitimate'.
Why shouldn't he check for the crack and simply the program itself of have
it lock the machine? Seems reasonable me...
>would you buy a Ferrari if the dealer told you the car has a
>security system that will drive you into the nearest wall at 300kph if it
>figures you aren't authorised to use the vehicle? Would you even test
>drive it?
I don't see the problem if I have the authorization. Unfortunately, I don't
have the money in either case :-)
Cris Fuhrman
wrote:
> In article <uaturkin-200...@sn213126.resnet.drexel.edu>,
> uatu...@mcs.drexel.edu (Adrian Turkington) wrote:
>
> -> In article <1995031900...@bolero.rahul.net>,
> -> anon...@freezone.remailer (anonymous) wrote:
> ->
[snip]
> -> > 3) Go to offset +245A
> -> > change: 6C00 014E
> -> > to: 4E71 4E71
> -> > 4) Go to offset +246A
> -> > change: 6F00 013E
> -> > to: 4E71 4E71
[snip]
Hmmmm... This kind of crack is basic stuff! Anyone with MacsBug,
programmer's key and a little knowledge of assembler can do this.
Tim, rather than investing your time in doing something nasty to the
pirate, make the game more difficult to patch!
just my pair of odors.
-Cris
--
christoph...@di.epfl.ch, tel: +41.21.693.36.97, fax: 47.01
http://litwww.epfl.ch/~fuhrman/home.html
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
EPFL-LIT, IN Ecublens, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
"This isn't the subject you're looking for." - Prof. Obey Juan Knowby
Bruce Grubb
First, on the cracker.
Cracking a program is not a solution and just creates more problems. Cracking
is DUMB and STUPID not to mention ILLEGAL.
Second, on tracing the filepath.
Since this is part of the anonymous post:
>X-Comments: Unauthorized or illegal use of this remailer, especially
>X-Comments: for spamming the internet or posting copyright violations
>X-Comments: will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
The OPs of this remailer will likely be glad to help you nail the cracker.
Third, on the cost.
I have programmed games {back in the days of World Builder} so I know what it
is to work on this type of program.
Unfortunately, I agree with David_E...@acd.org (David E. Nolen)'s
statement that Realmz is way overpriced. Consider that most COMMERCIAL games
are in the $25 - $50 range and -includes- things like marketing and packaging
and you get my point. Even the high end games such as Sensory Overload,
Marathon, and Myst are only in the $40 range.
For example, look at SSI's Unlimited Adventures {Mac Version} which was $40
when I got it. Many of the same features as Realmz but with the added
features of being able to create your own scenarios. Even though Unlimited
Adventures has been out of print for over a year literally dozens of NEW
scenarios are STILL being made. If UA was still being made Tim Phillips would
have a hard time explaining the high cost of his scenarios. Especially when
you consider that the highest for a Unlimited Adventures scenario is ~$5 and
many are free.
One strange thing I do remember was that Realmz was $25 when Unlimited
Adventures was still being made. About six months after Unlimited Adventures
was discontinued Realmz went to its present price of $30.
One final comment. Sending cash through the mail is NOT a good idea despite
Tim Phillips' promise of faster response. Cash can have the tendency to
disappear in the mail; use checks, they are safer.
Iain G. Old
David_E...@acd.org (David E. Nolen) writes:
> Something like this wouldn't be happening if Realmz didn't cost $30
> FRIGGIN dollars!!!! Tim Phillips threatens to goto commercial, the game will
> most likely get CHEAPER!!!!!! $30 bucks for shareware isn't right esp. for
> something like Realmz, and $15 bucks for scenarios, now that's plain GREED.
$30 for a program like Realmz and $15 for a new scenario is really
peanuts for one of the best shareware games around.
I believe the three new scenarios which are to be released will only be
$10 each.
Excellent product, Tim,
Excellent value.
Keep up the good work
Iain G. Old
Adrian Turkington
> I don't agree with using the crack for Realmz to register it, but here's my 2
> cents on the whole matter:
>
> Something like this wouldn't be happening if Realmz didn't cost $30
> FRIGGIN dollars!!!! Tim Phillips threatens to goto commercial, the game will
> most likely get CHEAPER!!!!!! $30 bucks for shareware isn't right esp. for
<snip>
I TOTALLY disagree. The reason why this game is $30 BECAUSE people will
hack it or try to register it without paying, and not vice versa. If you
had the choice to pay $30, $20, $10 or even $5 OR pay nothing at all, what
would you do?? It would depend if you were honest or not.
This is one of the unique things about the software industry. All we are
doing is selling bundles of information, bundles of 1s and 0s that have
never quite been put in this particular order so as to come up with a
unique product. When a person works hard to create a new piece of
software, he should be entitled to a bit of return on his hard work. Now
of course some companies like Microsoft go way to far and charge megabucks
for crappy software. Tim is merely playing the economics game.
Besides... I think $30 is perfectly reasonable for the driver... though
the scenarios could be cheaper in my opinion. I believe they come a
little too often for people to distribute cracks among masses of people
until the scenario becomes yesterdays new so they might not be as subject
as much to cracking.
--
"The greatest pleasure in the world is
doing things we were told we cannot do"
--Adrian Turkington
e-mail: uatu...@mcs.drexel.edu
Michael Love
easily almost fixed. Make all future versions of realmz use completely
different registration system code (i.e. re-write how realmz gets
registered) and any offenders will be stuck with 1.6.2 (or maybe 1.6.4, if
the crack still works with that) with no way to go farther. Also make all
future versions of scenarios and all new scenarios require versions of
realmz higher then 1.6.2 (possibly 1.6.4 for afforementioned reason).
Michael Love <:-)=
Erik Christensen
joc...@messua.informatik.rwth-aachen.de writes:
>That would be a great place to start when it comes to users/spreaders
>of pirated software. If they don't have the money to buy/register those
>the money to buy one?
>
Even though I am not happy about something like posting a crack, I have
to say that this is a bad comparison. If you steal a ferrari, people
suffer a loss of money. If you distribute a crack to realmz to a massive
quantity of people on usenet, the same thing happens. But if you aren't
going to buy a game(Because, say, it sucks) it hurts no one to pirate it.
Don't get me wrong on this, imagine if you could give ferraris to
everyone who couldn't afford one at no cost to yourself! Wouldn't that
be great!?
Deirdre
my attention, the headers had been flushed already (he keeps 'em for a
day or two, but it had been 3).
In any case, the remailer at rahul.net is closed to posting to this group
effective last night.
While I think Realmz is expensive for shareware and since it doesn't run
on my machine I won't be buying it, I think posting a crack is tacky. All
programmers know that a few (usually 2-4) well-placed 4E71s (no ops) will
crack something. :D
_Deirdre (Mac programmer, aspiring game programmer)
In article <1995Mar20.1...@nrunner.mil.wi.us> ,
Jason Newquist
things to a user's machine upon locating a hack is simply that you can't
be certain that the user upon whose machine the thing is running even
knows about the hack. The is especially true with shareware. Can you
imagine the potential outcry when one of these hacked versions gets
uploaded to a major distrubution site by mistake? Despite pissing off
the users, the programmer will loose potential customers. Loads of
potential customers.
...Not to mention the principle (esposed by other previous speakers on
this thread) of having an application do this sort of thing. Last time I
checked, this was not sanctioned in the Apple Guidelines for Anything.
Doing that (hell, even threatening to do that) goes way beyond good
programming ethics. And if you're in the business to make money, this is
not good publicity.
I don't think anyone would dissuade you from making as solid hack-free
app as possible. In fact, I encourage that. But as a programmer for
Macintosh, your responsibility to write guideline-compliant, well-behaved
software is paramount. Getting upset and threatening to mess with
people's machines (supposedly only the hacked program, but as a fellow
programmer, I get paranoid very fast when it comes to these matters)
flies in the face of the guidelines, and in the face of Murphy's Law
which teaches us not to play with the Trash Can (or anything else from
Pandora's Box).
Peter V. Gadjokov
joc...@ikki.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Jochen Wolters) wrote:
> Why shouldn't he check for the crack and simply the program itself of have
> it lock the machine? Seems reasonable me...
Well, if it seems reasonable to you to run programs that delibarately lock
or damage your machine - more power to you. :)
> >would you buy a Ferrari if the dealer told you the car has a
> >security system that will drive you into the nearest wall at 300kph if it
> >figures you aren't authorised to use the vehicle? Would you even test
> >drive it?
>
> I don't see the problem if I have the authorization. Unfortunately, I don't
> have the money in either case :-)
The problem is not authorization - the problem is potential bugs in the
system that verifies authorization.
PeterVG
p...@csua.berkeley.edu
Tim_P._...@nrunner.mil.wi.us
> to say that this is a bad comparison. If you steal a ferrari, people
> suffer a loss of money. If you distribute a crack to realmz to a massive
> quantity of people on usenet, the same thing happens. But if you aren't
> going to buy a game(Because, say, it sucks) it hurts no one to pirate it.
> Don't get me wrong on this, imagine if you could give ferraris to
> everyone who couldn't afford one at no cost to yourself! Wouldn't that
> be great!?
WRONG!
I dont even want to go into the flaws of that kind of logic. Just an easy one
is this. If they gave a new car to everyone who could not afford it you would
be hard pressed to find ANYONE who would hold up thier hand and say, "Yes, I
will pay because I can afford it!" Think about it. A lot of people say a lot
of things to try and justify pirating, but it just does not fly.
-TIM-
Deirdre
commercial games has been DROPPING and the price of shareware has
been increasing.
Why should Fantasoft receive more for Realmz than C&G does for
Glider Pro? Imho, not the same class of beast. And not just because
Glider Pro runs on my machine and Realmz does not.
_Deirdre
In article <uaturkin-220...@sn213126.resnet.drexel.edu>
Brendon Towle
christoph...@di.epfl.ch (Cris Fuhrman) wrote:
> The Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines will make my programs difficult
> to write and to play.
Well, I'm not sure. My game writing experience is nil, but my Mac
programming experience is moderate, and I have found that following the
HIG in coding is rarely any harder, sometimes easier, and makes the
program much easier to use (or play, as the case may be).
Just a couple of examples of the things that make games harder to play
(and, in fact, these two examples would be harder to code than doing
things the "right" way):
1) In Exile 1.0, all buttons activate on mouse down, rather than on mouse
up. Frustrating as all hell, especially when you're used to being able to
hold the button down while you're thinking about a choice.**
2) In Might & Magic III, several situations require you to click outside
of a modal dialog box to create a certain action. Also frustrating, and I
seem to remember it being internally inconsistent, as well as externally
inconsistent.
Programming is hard; it doesn't seem to me that doing it right is any harder.
B.
** This may have been fixed by now, so don't take it as a slam on Exile.
--
Brendon Towle | to...@ils.nwu.edu |"Jesus only told half the
Institute for the | |story. The truth *will*
Learning Sciences |"Think of it as |set you free. But, first
1890 Maple Ave. | evolution in action."|it's going to piss you
Evanston IL 60201 | -Tony Rand |off." -Solomon Short
Gerald C. Sitter
> Something like this wouldn't be happening if Realmz didn't cost $30
> FRIGGIN dollars!!!! Tim Phillips threatens to goto commercial, the game
will
> most likely get CHEAPER!!!!!! $30 bucks for shareware isn't right esp. for
> something like Realmz, and $15 bucks for scenarios, now that's plain GREED.
$30 for a program like Realmz and $15 for a new scenario is really
peanuts for one of the best shareware games around.
I believe the three new scenarios which are to be released will only be
$10 each.
Excellent product, Tim,
Excellent value.
Keep up the good work
Iain G. Old
I concur with Iain!!
G.C. Sitter
Andrew C. Plotkin
(was R.. Cris Fuh...@di.epfl.ch (862*)
> Personally, I agree with you. However, you left out one thing:
> The Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines will make my programs difficult
> to write and to play.
Fiffle.
It's one thing to go around the HIG in order to improve the feel of a
game -- taking over the entire monitor, or hiding the menu bar. If
multiple windows or a menu bar aren't part of the game interface, by all
means get rid of them. (Although I've always found it to be *harder* to
program that sort of deviation, not easier.)
But doing standard things in a non-standard way is icky. It's a pain for
the player (at least *this* player.) If you use multiple windows, make
them behave like Mac windows. If you use menus, don't change them to
some horrible font and color. If you have floating windows, make them
look and behave like the floating windows in every other Mac program in
the universe (ie, Infinity Windoid :-)
And HIG isn't just a set of rules about how wide to make your scroll
bars. There's a lot of very useful common-sense guidelines, which people
often forget about in their haste to toss in gimmicks. Example from the
first version of Realmz: Every time it popped up information about your
character or something, it played a nifty metal-clashing noise. Argh!
Loud noises are to attract attention. I don't need my attention
attracted to the window that I *just summoned*. (This sort of thing is
why I never downloaded any later versions of Realmz.)
Another one that I complained about recently: don't change things like
the display depth or sound level without asking the user. What if I have
a Quasi-Stellar DeathAmp hooked up to my Mac, and I *want* the sound
volume set to 1?
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
Benjamin Trumbull
> Sorry. Most commercial games can be had for $30 - $40. The price of
> commercial games has been DROPPING and the price of shareware has
> been increasing.
Guys. I hate to break it to you, but Tim can charge whatever he wants for
Realmz and it is still illegal for you to pirate it (i.e. violate the
shareware agreement).
If Realmz aint worth the $30 then don't use it. Go out and buy something
else. Tim can then go broke or lower the price.
But that's his choice to make, not yours.
... cracking shareware ... pathetic.
terminally curious,
Ben
_________________________________________________________
Benjamin Trumbull
cas...@minerva.cis.yale.edu
Yale University
http://www.cis.yale.edu/~casper
Michael F. Kamprath
Joe.F...@dartmouth.edu writes:
>AndrewWelc, andre...@aol.com writes:
>>>I hope we don't get into an age where we have to filter what we say for
>>>fear of a law suit (at least not anymore than we do now, which is
>>>already plenty). [Joe Francis]
>
>>You already do have to filter what you say. Libel and slander laws have
>>been around for a long time. [Andrew Welch]
>
>Which is acknowledged in the very text you quote from me.
>
>Cracks are not libel or slander. Cracks are information. I'm am
>opposed to any criminal penalties (such as the crypto regulations)
>or civil penalties (such as you are proposing) for the publishing
>of information when not otherwise restricted by a contract.
>
It is a sad day when _shareware_ programmers feel the need to get
potential users to fully agree to a 3 page license (as do
commercial vendors) just because there are scum out there who
feel the need to effectively cheat the programmer by breaking
the program's registration scheme. The whole idea of shareware
is based on good will. It was people never sending in registration
fees that prompted the programmers to install registration dialogs.
Defeating this will cause shareware programmers to go one step
further to make there programs even more on friendly to nonregistered
users. Pretty soon, they'll all be commercial.
I put this line into every letter to those who send in their
registration fees for my products:
"Thank you for registering ****** and supporting
the shareware concept. Supporting shareware keeps the Macintosh
community strong by encouraging quality alternatives to more
expensive commercial options. "
I really feel people who feel they must justofy cheating a shareware author
are rreally just shooting themselves in the foot.
--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--
Michael F. Kamprath
--------------------------------------------------------------
mailto:kamp...@earthlink.net
http://www.earthlink.net/~kamprath/home.html
finger:kamp...@kamprath.earthlink.net (Not always online)
talk:kamp...@kamprath.earthlink.net (Not always online)
--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--
Brendon Towle
> Sorry. Most commercial games can be had for $30 - $40. The price of
> commercial games has been DROPPING and the price of shareware has
> been increasing.
True, but the quality of shareware has also been increasing. Check things
like Apeiron, Exile, and the soon-to-be-released Ultima III for examples
of this.
<engage rant>
Unfortunately, in some cases, the Macintosh interface standards that (for
me) make this the machine that I know and love are being left in the dust,
and not just in shareware. I tried about three different versions of
Realmz before I just gave up on the damn thing. It seemed like a great
game conceptually, but I just couldn't play it without getting annoyed at
the non-standard use of everything. Same problem (but to a much lesser
extent) with both Exile and Might & Magic III.
Repeat after me:
I will buy the Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines.
I will read the Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines.
I will love the Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines.
I will use the Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines.
The Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines will make my programs complete.
<disengage rant>
B.
Andrew Thomas Krog
>I personally feel that the more author's deviate and start putting funky
>fonts in the menus or whatever, the more "trashy" and "Amiga-like" the
>game looks.
Hey! No picking on Amiga! Back in the day, Amiga was doing full color
and sound while Mac was still a black-and-white little box. Some of us
cut our teeth on the Amiga (or the C-20/C-64 systems!) and still feel a
twinge of nostalgia for a decent little computer system that got left
behind.
Ah, Amiga-dos...
(B-<)
-KRG
Cris Fuhrman
(Brendon Towle) wrote:
> Repeat after me:
>
> I will buy the Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines.
> I will read the Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines.
> I will love the Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines.
> I will use the Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines.
> The Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines will make my programs complete.
Personally, I agree with you. However, you left out one thing:
The Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines will make my programs difficult
to write and to play.
-Cris
frid...@dragon.pfc.mit.edu
most of commercial games for about $30.00.
As about putting a "bomb" into scenario files to detect the hack -
considering Tim's track record of producing very buggy software...
I decided that Realmz is too buggy for me after trying first, second and
third versions of it. Then I gave up. I'm not sure how good it is now,
but I going to stay as far away from any new software he made as possible.
He might put some antyhacker protection in it that will accidentally
delete my hard drive or such...
Mike.
AndrewWelc
> wrote:
>
> > Sorry. Most commercial games can be had for $30 - $40. The price of
> > commercial games has been DROPPING and the price of shareware has been
> > increasing.
>
> True, but the quality of shareware has also been increasing. Check
> things like Apeiron, Exile, and the soon-to-be-released Ultima III for
> examples of this.
We kept Apeiron at $15 despite all of the work that went into it
(programming, sound, artwork, music, and playtesting) because we're trying
to keep the price down while raising the quality.
Regards,
Andrew Welch
Cerebus The Aardvark
>Just to warn everybody, I will be putting in a check for this crack in the
>scenario files. and if it is detected then I would not want to be in your
>shoes.
Is this some kind of threat? Are you planning on building in a
virus/trojan into your software? Will you be trying to create damage? If
so, you're a fool.
Firstly, if your software DOES in fact commit some destructive
task, you are quite libel for damages.
Secondly, Realmz has proved to be increadably buggy (the two times
I tried it, with seperate versions, it crashed within 5 minutes each time)
I'd hate to think what might happen if some bug caused your destructive
code to trigger "accidently."
With this sort of threat on your part, I would dissuade anyone from
risking their data on your product. No game is worth the integrity of my
200 meg's of data.
Thank you for convicing me not to give Realmz another chance though, it
might save me some time I can use on playing Apeiron instead...
--
| kr...@netcom.com \ 1015 South Gaylord, Denver, CO 80209 #100 |
| PGP Fingerprint \ 1D 5E F7 C8 7E C2 F9 87 0F 86 C9 B0 D2 63 9C B2 |
| [303/722-2009] Vox \ Hey, I've got a reputation to keep down here! |
| [303/777-2911] Data \ Shhhh! I've been knocked subconscious. |
CasadyGree
Personally, I agree with you. However, you left out one thing:
The Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines will make my programs difficult
to write and to play.
>>>
Hmmmm. I don't follow that. Making a "standard" menu or "standard"
button is child's play. It only gets tricky to make the menus some fancy
scripty font or the buttons picture buttons (and do it RIGHT I might add).
On the other hand, it is difficult to do the interface "right" by the HIG
(and I'm not talking about the look of buttons, but, instead, where they
are appropriate). But to me, that just comes down to "it's difficult to
do an interface right".
Still, following the HIG is pretty easy - you have but to look at the many
well-written pieces of software on your Mac as a guide.
I personally feel that the more author's deviate and start putting funky
fonts in the menus or whatever, the more "trashy" and "Amiga-like" the
game looks. Of course, a game that smells like a Word Processor is no fun
either. It's a fine line - and difficult (IMHO) as you suggest. If
that's what you were suggesting.
john calhoun
softd...@aol.com
Jason Newquist
: > Sorry. Most commercial games can be had for $30 - $40. The price of
: > commercial games has been DROPPING and the price of shareware has
: > been increasing.
: Guys. I hate to break it to you, but Tim can charge whatever he wants for
: Realmz and it is still illegal for you to pirate it (i.e. violate the
: shareware agreement).
But let's not equate the one issue with the other. It may be that Realmz
is a heavily cracked and patched and hacked game due to its relatively
high cost of registration and the cost of scanarios, but I have
heard nobody claim that this is a justification for that behavior.
BTW, hacking and cracking is not illegal per se, only the act of
disributing the modified product is illegal. I don't know about anyone
else, but I consider the software on my harddrive to be mine to play
with. As long as I don't go around distributing it, reselling it or
giving it away, I have done nothing illegal. The licenses of which we're
speaking are a joke. Some of their claims are outrageous, and will never
stand up in a court. I'm all in favor of making the user aware of some
of the issues relating to the use of my product, but the entire affair
about the fine print is not only silly, combersome, and impossible to
understand without a lawyer, but is unethical and smells of property
violation.
Cris Fuhrman
(CasadyGree) wrote:
> >>>
> Personally, I agree with you. However, you left out one thing:
>
> The Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines will make my programs difficult
> to write and to play.
> >>>
>
> Hmmmm. I don't follow that. Making a "standard" menu or "standard"
> button is child's play. It only gets tricky to make the menus some fancy
> scripty font or the buttons picture buttons (and do it RIGHT I might add).
What I meant to say was that
a) it is difficult to write a conforming GUI for a game on the mac,
especially since most games don't conform to the "generic" form of a Mac
application (i.e., document, windows, etc.).
b) if you *do* manage to write one that conforms to the GUI, it's
difficult to play efficiently, though someone who knows nothing about the
game can figure out how do play intuitively.
An example of my last point is spell casting in Realmz and Exile. In
Realmz, there are two many dialogs and buttons that have to be clicked to
actually cast a spell. In Exile, spell casting is much easier to
accomplish, but there's so much information on the screen that it's rather
confusing at first glance (i.e., less user-friendly).
So, to sum up, it's a tradeoff between playability and intuitiveness.
(forgive the liberties I'm taking with the English language).
Jason Newquist
: > things like Apeiron, Exile, and the soon-to-be-released Ultima III for
: > examples of this.
Not to get in a flame war, but I doubt that many folks consider Exile a
quality shareware game. Not next to the likes of Apeiron, certainly.
In any case, pricing is tricky. You figure that by lowing the price
you'll get x more people registered, but you don't want to go too low or
you'll get the "devaluation" syndrome that Rob Terrell talks about in the
_Byte Mac Programmer's Cookbook_. Get this book and read it. It's fun
and educational. It's rich in lore, too. In any case, I think that
Ambrosia has hit a good medium at $15. It's a clear bargain, and not to
painful to the student or anyone else, yet it's not so low as to make the
product seem like a bargain-basement item. You play the game and you
say, "Wow! $15 bucks!" People could learn from Ambrosia.
Brendon Towle
> a) it is difficult to write a conforming GUI for a game on the mac,
> especially since most games don't conform to the "generic" form of a Mac
> application (i.e., document, windows, etc.).
True, but I'm not sure that's relevant. You can still follow all the
applicable conventions -- in dialog boxes, buttons that save data go to
the lower right, modal dialogs should behave modally, windows should
behave like windows, etc. The HIG are just that -- guidelines.
> b) if you *do* manage to write one that conforms to the GUI, it's
> difficult to play efficiently, though someone who knows nothing about the
> game can figure out how do play intuitively.
>
> An example of my last point is spell casting in Realmz and Exile. In
> Realmz, there are two many dialogs and buttons that have to be clicked to
> actually cast a spell. In Exile, spell casting is much easier to
> accomplish, but there's so much information on the screen that it's rather
> confusing at first glance (i.e., less user-friendly).
This actually frustrates me substantially. Both of these games had a
potentially good example to draw from in M&M III. (Not that I think that
M&M III is a well designed interface in general, but they got
spell-casting pretty much right.) To make this one even better, you
could:
a) sort the list alphabetically;
b) have the selection move when you type, just like in a SFOpen dialog;
c) possibly even have the spells grouped in "folders" (maybe chapters in
a spellbook would be a better metaphor), like offensive,
healing/protection, and misc.
Result? A spell-casting dialog that is playable and intuitive, and takes
few mouse clicks (or keystrokes) to use.
Games get beta-tested all the time; why couldn't people solicit interface
commentary from their testers? If your users tell you that there's
something wrong with your interface, there almost certainly is.
PlayMaker
of this.<<
I hate to sound terribly out of the loop on this one, but is Ultima II
being released for the Mac? And will it come out as shareware?
ian klimon
PlayMaker, Inc.
19 Overshot Court
Phoenix, MD 21131-1851
410/628-0028 (vox)
410/667-8429 (fax)
800/324-7774 (orders only)
play...@aol.com
play...@eworld.com
Scott Ellsworth
<Tim_P._...@nrunner.mil.wi.us> wrote:
Original poster eaten by newsreader---
[snip]
>> But if you aren't
>> going to buy a game(Because, say, it sucks) it hurts no one to pirate it.
>> Don't get me wrong on this, imagine if you could give ferraris to
>> everyone who couldn't afford one at no cost to yourself! Wouldn't that
>> be great!?
>
>
>WRONG!
>
>I dont even want to go into the flaws of that kind of logic. Just an easy one
>is this. If they gave a new car to everyone who could not afford it you would
>be hard pressed to find ANYONE who would hold up thier hand and say, "Yes, I
>will pay because I can afford it!" Think about it. A lot of people say a lot
>of things to try and justify pirating, but it just does not fly.
>
About the only excuse I have seen which held any weight was "it takes
some period of time to know if the product is going to work for our
problem/task/whatever." In the case of Realmz, people can play a whole
bunch without forking over a dime. By the time they have finished
Bywater, they bloody well should know if it "works on thier systen."
Of course, anyone using that excuse is sort of honor bound to either buy
it or trash it after a certian tuime. That is why I buy so
enthusiasticly from MacConnection. The money back garuntee has exactly
the same effecxt. If I can't tell within 30 or 60 days whether the
product will work, something is wrong.
By the way, while I suggested rather storngly that you should not put in
a lockup/crash protocal into Realmz to check for this patch, I suspect
there is nothing wrong with a "you are running a modified version.
Shutting down" error. Given the trouble my owbn company has had with our
copy protection being confused by all sorts of inits, cdevs, and new
system versions, I want a very conservative and friendly response to a
security violation. Now, our program just shuts down if it can't find a
serial number.
Let us all remember that while Tim posted a counter suggestion to piracy
that many of us disapproved of, he did it in response to a direct piracy
aid. Realmz is pretty friendly as far as letting you get a feel for the
game.
Scott
--
Scott Ellsworth sc...@kaiwan.com
"When a great many people are unable to find work, unemployment
results" - Calivin Coolidge, (Stanley Walker, City Editor, p. 131 (1934))
"The barbarian is thwarted at the moat." - Scott Adams
AndrewWelc
> disributing the modified product is illegal. I don't know about anyone
> else, but I consider the software on my harddrive to be mine to play
> with.
Unfortunately that just isn't the case. You don't own the software,
you've purchased a license to _use_ it. You are technically legally
obligated to abide by that license agreement: if it specifies that you can
under no circumstances modify the program, then that's the agreement.
While shrink wrap licenses are in question, shareware neatly sidesteps
this problem by allowing the user to fully read the license agreement, and
evaluate the product, before agreeing to the license agreement by keeping
the software.
So depending on what the Realmz license agreement states, you may or may
not be within your rights to modify it. Just FYI -- obviously Fantsoft
isn't going to send dogs out or anything.
Regards,
Andrew Welch
Ambrosia Software, Inc.
AndrewWelc
> away, I have done nothing illegal. The licenses of which we're speaking
> are a joke. Some of their claims are outrageous, and will never stand
> up in a court.
Sorry, but that's just not true. No matter how outrageous the terms of
the license are, as long as you agree to the provisions of the license by
keeping the software (or whatever the license agreement spells out),
you've entered into a contract. Contracts don't have to be reasonable;
you agreed to it after all, it was within your right to say "fuck that!"
and throw the software away.
The only thing you can really dispute is that you actually agreed to the
license -- with shrinkwrap licenses on commercial software, you've got a
good case. With shareware software, you have the time to read the license
agreement, evaluate the product, etc., and you'd probably have a pretty
hard time unless the license was burried somewhere.
Once again, this is all just FYI. I can't image any shareware author even
bothering. My opinion is that anyone who goes through the trouble to
steal $15 from us isn't worth the trouble -- not because of the sum of the
money, but because of the mentality involved.
AndrewWelc
> to the use of my product, but the entire affair about the fine print is
> not only silly, combersome, and impossible to understand without a
> lawyer, but is unethical and smells of property violation.
Doesn't matter whether you understood it or not. Thousands of people sign
contracts they don't read or understand every day, that doesn't make them
any less valid.
Joe Francis
>I really feel people who feel they must justofy cheating a shareware author
>are rreally just shooting themselves in the foot.
Since you wrote this in response to my post, let me make it clear that
I agree entirely with what you say. I also agree entirely with what I
say. :) I don't think the two are at odds on this issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"bolo needs to be on many machines just like MS Word" - Tempest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Love
Newquist) wrote:
> One of the reasons that I don't think programmers should do destructive
> things to a user's machine upon locating a hack is simply that you can't
> be certain that the user upon whose machine the thing is running even
> knows about the hack. The is especially true with shareware. Can you
> imagine the potential outcry when one of these hacked versions gets
> uploaded to a major distrubution site by mistake? Despite pissing off
> the users, the programmer will loose potential customers. Loads of
> potential customers.
Tim never said he would do destructive things to the user's machine. It
could simply self-destruct realmz or something like that, without ever
doing any damage. Never mind that a program couldn't do that in the first
place, I don't even think that was even implied in the message.
Michael Love <:-)=
Jason Newquist
: Unfortunately that just isn't the case. You don't own the software,
: you've purchased a license to _use_ it. You are technically legally
: obligated to abide by that license agreement: if it specifies that you can
: under no circumstances modify the program, then that's the agreement.
Book analogy: Are you saying that when I buy a book, I don't buy the
right to mark it up, write in the columns, tear out pages or otherwise
"hack" it? I don't think that's reasonable. I think that proper "use"
of software includes a large array of things, including changing it
around to my heart's content. After all, I'm not distributing it. Any
contract that tells a user that the term "use" does not include the above
is wrong--if not in legal precident (yet) then in principle.
: So depending on what the Realmz license agreement states, you may or may
: not be within your rights to modify it. Just FYI -- obviously Fantsoft
: isn't going to send dogs out or anything.
Howls of riotous disagreement. See above. :)
Jason Newquist
: > I'm all in favor of making the user aware of some of the issues relating
I think it does. While the legal institution may consider this sort of
practice normal and business-as-usual, it's simply not ethical. That
High Horse ride having been made, let me say that this has nothing to do
with the fact that I just made in a previous response: that the proper
use of software on my local harddisk includes playing with it and
tinkering (a la books). The reasons licenses are preposterous (in part)
is simply that they assume a different, much more narrow application of
the term "use," as Andrew originally said.
[I'm feeling more and more like a libertarian every day. :)]
Andrew Hooke
>> to write and to play.
>
>Fiffle.
>
part.
The first part deals with the programmer. Programming a game on any
machine (mac, ibm, etc) is a difficult process - people have simply
become more sophisticated, and demand a certain return for both an
outlay of cash (if the product is for sale) and time (playing a game
takes time, and in this day of limited resources, wasting time on
crappy games can be annoying). If you have developed your programming
skills to the point where you are going to write worthwhile games,
then following the Mac GUI Guidelines is no real extra effort in the
sequence of things ... especially considering that there is no real
way to learn to program on the mac _without_ encountering these standards
and using them.
The second part deals with the user. And again time is important.
I like a good challenging game that I can spend hours bashing away
at ... but if you spend hours merely trying to figure out what it is
that's on the screen, and yet get no where nearer to actually starting
to play, then your player will become frustrated and give up on the
game. The Mac GUI provides that familarity across programs that helps
ease somebody into a new program. Consider this use of the Mac GUI
as a basic form of politeness.
Enough of my pointless viewpoints!
Andrew
Andrew Thomas Krog
>> As long as I don't go around distributing it, reselling it or giving it
>> away, I have done nothing illegal. The licenses of which we're speaking
>> are a joke. Some of their claims are outrageous, and will never stand
>> up in a court.
>
>Sorry, but that's just not true. No matter how outrageous the terms of
>the license are, as long as you agree to the provisions of the license by
>keeping the software (or whatever the license agreement spells out),
>you've entered into a contract. Contracts don't have to be reasonable;
>you agreed to it after all, it was within your right to say "fuck that!"
>and throw the software away.
Sorry, but the first speaker was correct. There is a legal doctrine of
"unconscionability" that will enable a court to invalidate a contract,
even if signed, when the
contract is deemed to be unduly onerous, unfair, or generally against
public policy (see Williams v. Walker-Thomas for a discussion of this
doctrine). Furthermore, the Supreme Court has said on a number of
occasions that you cannot contract away certain rights and privileges
(i.e. a proabition against indentured servitude). The right to dispose
of personal property might not be as sacrosanct, however. Although with
the current composition of the Court, who knows...
Nevertheless, a contract may not always be binding, especially if:
A) It is a standard boilerplate contract without possibility of
negotiation or modification by the parties,
B) One party is in a superior bargaining position and is seen as being
able to force unconscionable terms upon a weaker person,
C) A party might not have had an opportunity to read the contract,
D) The contract is an adhesion contract, i.e. one that "adheres" to a
particular transaction simply as an operation of performing the act. For
example, an software contract that says "By purchasing this software you
agree to give to the Software Firm your firstborn child" would be an
adhesion contract (and unconscionable and against public policy to
boot). Generally, if an adhesion contract is offered as a
"take-it-or-leave-it" condition to obtaining a particular good, courts
will frown upon it. However, software, not being particularly necessary
to general human existance (debatable, I know, but be realistic...)
courts might not be as concerned about the adhesion contract.
I know, I know...Lawyers suck.
But if there weren't pirates, we wouldn't need lawyers...
-KRG
Tim Borreson
> David_E...@acd.org (David E. Nolen) writes:
>
> > Something like this wouldn't be happening if Realmz didn't cost $30
> > FRIGGIN dollars!!!! Tim Phillips threatens to goto commercial, the game wi
> > most likely get CHEAPER!!!!!! $30 bucks for shareware isn't right esp. for
> > something like Realmz, and $15 bucks for scenarios, now that's plain GREED.
>
> $30 for a program like Realmz and $15 for a new scenario is really
> peanuts for one of the best shareware games around.
>
> I believe the three new scenarios which are to be released will only be
> $10 each.
>
You're right... if you like games made of stolen artwork, restrictive
plot lines, and combat systems reminiscent of games from six years ago
for a price marginally less than a normal game, it's for you.
Hyperspace!
--
Tim Borreson ti...@ersys.edmonton.ab.ca
Edmonton Remote Systems Serving Edmonton/Northern Alberta since 1982
draeker
bgr...@scf.nmsu.edu (Bruce Grubb) writes:
> Cracking a program is not a solution and just creates more problems. Cracking
> is DUMB and STUPID not to mention ILLEGAL.
It is not illegal to crack software. Even if it were illegal (which it
isn't) you would have a much more tenuous case when there is no cracked
software, just instructions on how to do it.
Scott
Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any
form, in whole or in part. Copyright, Scott Draeker, 1995
License to distribute this post is available to Microsoft for $1000.
Posting without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms.
Francis H Schiffer 3rd
a registered owner of the game and a couple of the scenarios. She played
the game all the time before she registered the scenarios. When she found
out that she would have to enter the registration code for the scenarios
each time she started a new game, she completely lost interest in the
game. I have not seen her play the game or any of the scenarios even once
in the last month. I suspect that she will not even look at the new
scenarios. I do not know if a "crack" that unlocked her registered
scenerios would rekindle her interest, but I suspect it would.
just a different view on copy protection,
skip
--
Francis H Schiffer, 3rd CSC/GSFC code 684.9
Schi...@champ.gsfc.nasa.gov Any opinions are mine.
David E. Nolen
>peanuts for one of the best shareware games around.
>
>I believe the three new scenarios which are to be released will only be
>$10 each.
$30 bucks is peanuts? That's more that 8 hours of minimum wage work (I'm a
teenager), I don't call that peanuts. Besides Apeiron and Maelstrom are some
of the best games around and they only cost $15 a piece, and they're totally
different games.
Dave
Roque Mozingo
pretty sure of that. Anyhow, can someone please say what the crack is? I
want to try it and I didn't write it down when it was originally posted.
I know you use ResEdit... but then what? Thanks a bunch.
signed..
I registered user of Realmz, just want to know the crack anyhow.
--
Roque Mozingo
e-mail: roqu...@ccnet.com
I LOVE TESTAMENT. I LOVE QUEENSR˙CHE. I LOVE SUICIDAL TENDENCIES.
I also like Mercyful fate, K. Diamond, DIO, and other cool bands.
Anybody heard of Omen out there? If so, e-mail.
Ian Russell Ollmann
On 24 Mar 1995, David E. Nolen wrote:
; >$30 for a program like Realmz and $15 for a new scenario is really
The beauty of the game is that though you must invest 8 hours of
your labor into acquiring the game in the first place, just think of how
many hours of your time you invest in the game afterwards. If you got paid
minimum wage for playing Realmz, the game would pay for itself many times
over. I'm not sure what the point is here since you probably don't get
paid to play Realmz, but worrying about eight hours of labor seems a
little silly. However, if you were to point out that $30 is two or three
CD's, then I might see your point! :-) As to whether or not Apeiron and
Maelstrom are "totally different", I have a hard time agreeing with you
whatever you might mean by that statement. Apeiron and Maelstrom are
certainly not new gaming concepts. They are fairly direct copies of the
old video favorites Centipede (first game with a trakball?) and asteroids,
which was one of the first arcade games period. Perhaps you missed their
heyday. I think you must have been a wee lad when they hit the scene, but
you can still see centipede around in the arcades from time to time.
Apeiron and Maelstrom aren't really all that different from one another --
sprite oriented games, much more like one another than they are like
Realmz. Among the three, I would say that Realmz is quite original by
comparison. However, due to its similarity to certain TSR games, I
wouldn't go so far as to say it was very original when compared to all
computer games. Glider. Now, that's different!
Ian
Jonathan David Bradley
>>Just to warn everybody, I will be putting in a check for this crack in the
>>scenario files. and if it is detected then I would not want to be in your
>>shoes.
Good idea, hope some idiots actually get screwed over, they deserve it.
>Is this some kind of threat? Are you planning on building in a
>virus/trojan into your software? Will you be trying to create damage? If
>so, you're a fool.
Of couse he is, wake up. You would to if you put in a hell of a lot of time
into something that you want to market, and people go ahead and crack the
protection.
> Firstly, if your software DOES in fact commit some destructive
>task, you are quite libel for damages.
As I said before, wake up. He is _NOT_ libel for any damages of any kind.
Remember, software is presented *as is*, always, and no software developer
is able to be held accountable for something that their software has done to
someones hardware/system. More importantly, if the check he puts in is
meant to do harm to the computer of the imbecile that thinks s/he can crack
Realmz, the more power to Tim.
>I'd hate to think what might happen if some bug caused your destructive
>code to trigger "accidently."
If you have ever programed, this can _easily_ be avoided. That is, unless
there is an *external* bug in the system. In that case, it's no ones fault
except the computers.
> With this sort of threat on your part, I would dissuade anyone from
>risking their data on your product. No game is worth the integrity of my
>200 meg's of data.
Hey, if the customers were moral, there wouldn't be any problems in the
first place
Jon Bradley
Univ. of Rochester
jb0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
Peter V. Gadjokov
jb0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Jonathan David Bradley) wrote:
> >I'd hate to think what might happen if some bug caused your destructive
> >code to trigger "accidently."
>
> If you have ever programed, this can _easily_ be avoided. That is, unless
> there is an *external* bug in the system. In that case, it's no ones fault
> except the computers.
If you have ever programmed, you'd be wary of statements like 'bugs can
easily be avoided'. Whether the bug is external or internal is
irrelevant. Suppose the destructive code gets triggered somehow and leads
to loss of data. Say, a file got corrupted and Realmz decided I was trying
to crack it. There is no absolutely certain way to assure that destructive
code will not execute by mistake.
> > With this sort of threat on your part, I would dissuade anyone from
> >risking their data on your product. No game is worth the integrity of my
> >200 meg's of data.
>
> Hey, if the customers were moral, there wouldn't be any problems in the
> first place
Again, consider the above scenario. If Realmz started taking your system
apart, through some erroneous activation of the 'protection code', there'd
be litte point in trying to convice the machine of your 'morality'. It
won't stop whatever's going on nor will it restore your lost data.
PeterVG
p...@csua.berkeley.edu
Joe Flodin
It should be out Real Soon Now. We've all been sitting on our hands
waiting for Origin to finish up the legal works (the author included -- he
sent in the final version in November, I think he said).
In article <3kuv8n$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, play...@aol.com
(PlayMaker) wrote:
--
"You are in a maze of twisty little messages, all different."
"Kinky: What I do. Perverted: What you do that I won't."
"You know when I get in the mashed potatoes with my doorknob, all she do is cry and cry cause the little volleyball don't have no liver or lungs..."
Andrew Laughton
couldnt find the offsets that MR. ananomous mentioned? Just hypothetically,
of course...
JD...@ricevm1.rice.edu
programs in order to bypass the responsibility of paying the shareware fee
is *unethical*. Not only do you rob the author of the compensation he's
entitled to for his hard work, but you indirectly rob other shareware
consumers by forcing them to pay higher shareware prices in order to keep the
author in business. A thief by any other name...
I doubt that Tim Phillips was threatening to do anything beyond making the
game shut down when crack code is detected. It makes me mad that he has to
waste his time putting protective measures like this in place, when he could
be using the time to improve Realmz.
I do agree that $35 is a bit high for the basic engine and the Bywaters
Scenario, compared with prices for commercial games. However, the newer
scenarios that are coming out are being priced at only $10, which to me seems
a fair price. Let's encourage Tim to keep improving Realmz and sponsoring
new scenarios by paying the shareware fee, and not force him to waste time
writing crack-proof code.
Jim Day
Jd...@Ricevm1.rice.edu
Jim Foley
>Realmz is way overpriced. Let us compare it with the commercial market.
>Commercial programs need marking and packaging, the cost of which is passed on
>to the consumer. Realmz with its senarios costs more than ANY commerical
>game program for the Mac {$30+$15+$15 = $60} that one can order out
>of a catalog. I do not know of ANY Mac game shareware program that is THIS
>expensive.
I'm sorry but I have to respond to this message and point something out.
First of all you are compairing the price of the Realmz game engine and
two scenarios as one item. Why didn't you throw in the Realmz PC editor
too.
Lets just do an analysis.
I buy the Realmz game engine which includes the first scenario. I know
that you can play all the way through the first scenario without paying, but
that does not mean it is free. If that were the case then Maelstrom and
Apeiron would be free. Now if I wanted another scenario it will only cost
me $15 for one of the ones available now. If I were to buy a commercial
game with similar features I would have to buy the same game driver for the
next scenario.
Realmz Game Commercial Game $30-35
and City of Bywater $30
Prelude to Pestilence $15 Commercial Game $30-35
Assault on Giant $15 Commercial Game $30-35
Mountain
Total for Realmz $60 Total for Commercial games
$90-105
So you can see Realmz is lower in price and you can try it before you buy.
Please note that I have assumed a fairly low price for commercial games.
>
>Again I find it strange that not too long after Unlimited Adventures went
>off the market the price of Realmz went up $5.
This had nothing to do with it. There might be a scenario editor made in
the future, but it is my opinion that it will be limited.
>
>.nd on the issue of copyright, didn't any earlier version of Realmz get into
>trouble with TSR which required the icons to be redone?
Nope.
Jim Foley
--
_______________________________________________________________________
James Foley University of Wisconsin-Madison
Office (608) 263-2606 1509 University Avenue
Fax (608) 262-6707 Madison, WI 53706
Robert Levandowski
>In <kremeD5...@netcom.com> kr...@netcom.com (Cerebus The Aardvark) writes:
>>Is this some kind of threat? Are you planning on building in a
>>virus/trojan into your software? Will you be trying to create damage? If
>>so, you're a fool.
>Of couse he is, wake up. You would to if you put in a hell of a lot of time
>into something that you want to market, and people go ahead and crack the
>protection.
Of course, software that could damage your computer -- and commit a Federal
crime in the process -- isn't terribly marketable. If such a check is put
into Realmz, neither Tim nor companies associated with him will get money
from me, no matter how cool their software is or how badly I want to use it.
Terrorism is no response for piracy.
>> Firstly, if your software DOES in fact commit some destructive
>>task, you are quite libel for damages.
>As I said before, wake up. He is _NOT_ libel for any damages of any kind.
>Remember, software is presented *as is*, always, and no software developer
>is able to be held accountable for something that their software has done to
>someones hardware/system. More importantly, if the check he puts in is
>meant to do harm to the computer of the imbecile that thinks s/he can crack
>Realmz, the more power to Tim.
You're very, very wrong here. If the software is -intentionally- programmed
to cause damage of any kind, EVEN IN RESPONSE TO AN ALLEGEDLY ILLEGAL ACT,
than the programmer can indeed be held responsible. In fact, it seems to
me that a case could be made that such a program would violate 18 U.S.C.,
by exceeding authorization to use a computer system, and by removing data or
use of a computer without authorization and with malicious intent. Also,
by writing "vigilante software" the programmer is subverting the right to a
fair trial. It doesn't let a human look to see if there was criminal intent.
What if some kid messes with ResEdit on his dad's copy of Realmz, and it
sets off a "doomsday device?" There wasn't any criminal intent there, and
no court would convict the father or the kid... but the software doesn't care.
>>I'd hate to think what might happen if some bug caused your destructive
>>code to trigger "accidently."
>If you have ever programed, this can _easily_ be avoided. That is, unless
>there is an *external* bug in the system. In that case, it's no ones fault
>except the computers.
If you've ever programmed, you know that you can never anticipate every
situation. I've never written a bug-free program. I don't think it's
possible; there will always be -some- bug, no matter how obscure.
How many bug-fix revisions of Realmz have we seen? Bugs happen.
What's an "external bug?" System extensions? Should I really have to reboot
with extensions off just to play a bloody adventure game? Not likely. I'll
give my money to developers who are less vengeful and more realistic. As
others have noted in this group, there are MUCH better ways to handle the
situation than to take revenge. Just make the program quit...
>> With this sort of threat on your part, I would dissuade anyone from
>>risking their data on your product. No game is worth the integrity of my
>>200 meg's of data.
>Hey, if the customers were moral, there wouldn't be any problems in the
>first place
If people were moral, we wouldn't have crime in Rochester, Jon. Does that
mean we should tell the police to shoot on sight if you look funny to them?
That argument isn't terribly realistic at all.
--
--Rob Levandowski
Computer Interest Floor associate / University of Rochester
mac...@cif.rochester.edu [Opinions expressed are mine, not UR's.]
Joe Francis
>As I said before, wake up. He is _NOT_ libel for any damages of any kind.
>Remember, software is presented *as is*, always, and no software developer
>is able to be held accountable for something that their software has done to
>someones hardware/system. More importantly, if the check he puts in is
>meant to do harm to the computer of the imbecile that thinks s/he can crack
>Realmz, the more power to Tim.
You're an idiot. Before you start posting legal advice, you should
talk to a lawyer. You can go to jail for tampering with people's data
and equipment.
Try writing a virus, and presenting it "as is", and see what happens to
you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Clams on the halfshell, and Rollerskates. Rollerskates."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Fitzurka
I'm a registered user of Reamlz.
I came in a little late on this thread. What's a "crack"?
What happened? Why are you so mad?
-Jan
--
Jan Fitzurka
jan...@city-net.com
Jim Foley
Someone posted a way to circumvent the software protection. (A Crack)
Tim, blew a fuse and wrote a message and in that message he threatened to
get back at pirates by checking for such a hack and deleting files is such
a hack was found. While writing the message he cooled down and thought he
aborted the message. Not so it made it to the net. Then people went
overboard talking about blowing up monitors threatening not to play Realmz and
trying to persuade others not to either. There were also a bunch of other
threads that spun off (Shareware Prices, legallity issues and so on).
I think Tim's original message caused almost as much net traffic as spam.
The bottom line is.
Piracy is Wrong.
Support Shareware that you use and delete shareware that you don't
Do whatever you want with those programs as long as they are not
distributed or cause harm to others.
Your Name
(I hope that the authors of the games mentioned here won't take this as a
massive flame, because it isn't ment to be)
I wonder if shareware authors realise that they are probably loosing
registrations by devising bizare interfaces? Many shareware RPG's (Exile,
Realmz, Odyssey) make me frustrated and angry with:
- Buttons that don't behave like buttons (try clicking and dragging off a
button in Realmz. Or try figuring out the mapping of return and cancel in
many RPG dialogs)
- Modal dialogs (have you ever tried to copy down conversations in Exile
with Simpletext?)
- Small buttons/text (who could get enthused about a game you spend most
of your time squinting at? Yes, I have perfectly good vision)
- Strange menu items (Restore? Isn't this Open in 99.9999% of Mac applications?)
- Non standard save systems (I'd sell my sister for a standard open/save
dialog in Realmz)
- Weird options (the Exile menu options which change when you select them.
What's wrong with toggling a tick beside them?)
I realise that to create an interesting atmosphere for a game, a plain old
Mac interface isn't going to get everyone jumping up and down. But there's
no need to reinvent the wheel (or make us think we own Amiga's). I am a
registered owner of Realmz, but I decided to keep my money when it came to
Exile - the interface quirks made the difference between enjoyment and
frustration.
Richard.
--
Richard Drysdall
University of Waikato
Hamilton, New Zealand
"I'm called a theoretical physicist because in practive I'm not"
AndrewWelc
> right to mark it up, write in the columns, tear out pages or otherwise
> "hack" it? I don't think that's reasonable. I think that proper "use"
> of software includes a large array of things, including changing it
> around to my heart's content. After all, I'm not distributing it. Any
> contract that tells a user that the term "use" does not include the
> above is wrong--if not in legal precident (yet) then in principle.
The argument is facetious because when you purchase a book; copyright law
protects the intellectual property contained therein. When you purchase
software, you generally don't own the disks, you generally don't own the
manuals, you generally don't own the box, and you certainly don't own the
software -- you've simply purchased a license to use the software.
It all hinges on the licensing agreement. This is a legal contract that
spells out the terms of the license. Whether you understand the license
is irrelevant. People sign contracts all of the time; not understanding
the contract isn't a defense. And that is what a software license is: a
legally binding contract. Whatever the publisher spells out in the
contract (which can include modifying the program and/or disassembling
it), you are bound to when you agree to the terms.
The problem with commercial software is that the contract is what is known
as a "shrink wrap" license, which very few intellectual property lawyers
believe would hold up in court. The problem is that users cannot read the
contract they are agreeing to before they "agree" to it by purchasing the
software and opening it up. Further there is no way the customer can
verify that the product is indeed what it is claim to be/suitable for a
given task.
Shareware neatly avoids the above two issues, so technically, if the
Realmz licensing agreement said "you cannot modify this program" and you
agree to their licensing terms by keeping the software or whatever (I
don't know how they handle it), then yes, it would NOT be within your
rights to modify the software in any way. It would be technically
illegal.
AndrewWelc
> (AndrewWelc) writes: >> As long as I don't go around distributing it,
> reselling it or giving it >> away, I have done nothing illegal. The
> licenses of which we're speaking >> are a joke. Some of their claims
are
> outrageous, and will never stand >> up in a court.
>
> >
> >
> > Sorry, but that's just not true. No matter how outrageous the terms
of
> > the license are, as long as you agree to the provisions of the license
> > by keeping the software (or whatever the license agreement spells
out),
> > you've entered into a contract. Contracts don't have to be
reasonable;
> > you agreed to it after all, it was within your right to say "fuck
> > that!" and throw the software away.
>
> Sorry, but the first speaker was correct. There is a legal doctrine of
> "unconscionability" that will enable a court to invalidate a contract,
> even if signed, when the
[other cases where the contract might be invalid deleted]
Right -- everything that you've said is of course true, but everything I
said is also correct. There are of course exceptions, things the contract
can't make you do, but telling you NOT to modify it or disassemble it
aren't up there with involuntary servitude.
My point was simply to show that as a rule, you don't need to understand a
contract, and it doesn't matter (within reason and law) how outrageous the
terms of the contract are -- you're still legally bound by it.
Bruce Grubb
Commercial programs need marking and packaging, the cost of which is passed on
to the consumer. Realmz with its senarios costs more than ANY commerical
game program for the Mac {$30+$15+$15 = $60} that one can order out
of a catalog. I do not know of ANY Mac game shareware program that is THIS
expensive.
Again I find it strange that not too long after Unlimited Adventures went
off the market the price of Realmz went up $5.
.nd on the issue of copyright, didn't any earlier version of Realmz get into
Tim_P._...@nrunner.mil.wi.us
> isn't) you would have a much more tenuous case when there is no cracked
> software, just instructions on how to do it.
Good point. Maybe we should all just start using credit card number we come
by. As long as we dont actually use the plastic card itself we can use the
numbers all we like. It's just info right? Tell this to the judge and see
how far you get.
Or maybe that guy who fingered a bunch of U.S. Spies to the Russians. He only
gave away a little info. it's not like he cuffed the spies and handed them
over to the Russians. He must be in jail for the wrong reason too. I think
you need to press your point a little harder. You almost have me convinced.
Needless to say your argument does not hold up very good if you just think about it a bit. It's called computer crime and people go to jail every day for
it without handing over one floppy to anybody. We are taling REAL WORLD here
and people go to jail in the REAL WORLD.
-TIM-
Tim_P._...@nrunner.mil.wi.us
> > isn't) you would have a much more tenuous case when there is no cracked
> > software, just instructions on how to do it.
>
One more good one to sling at you. Insider trading. What are these guys
trading. I dont see them sending boxes of pork bellies back and forth. No
sir, just little packets of info. And if Joe Bag o'Donuts happens to give
some info to Eddie Punchclock that he should not, he gets a little trip to
disney land. These points could go on and on but I only get 50 minutes a day
on this service.
-TIM-
Jason Newquist
> The argument is facetious because when you purchase a book; copyright law
> protects the intellectual property contained therein. When you purchase
> software, you generally don't own the disks, you generally don't own the
> manuals, you generally don't own the box, and you certainly don't own the
> software -- you've simply purchased a license to use the software.
Ok, so you're saying that I don't own the box that my copy of (say)
PageMaker came in? Outrageous. I'm not saying that you're argument is
false, just that it's outrageous, and -should- be false.
> It all hinges on the licensing agreement. This is a legal contract that
> spells out the terms of the license. Whether you understand the license
> is irrelevant. People sign contracts all of the time; not understanding
> the contract isn't a defense. And that is what a software license is: a
> legally binding contract. Whatever the publisher spells out in the
> contract (which can include modifying the program and/or disassembling
> it), you are bound to when you agree to the terms.
A license is illegal if it takes away fundamental rights (such as
property ownership). I would suggest that the spirit of the software
license--that you get to use the software, but that the software itself
is the property of the creator(s)--is entirely correct and just. But I
also think that just because I don't own the software doesn't mean that
playing with it by modifying the code, etc is illegal. I can't be
arrested for changing Goethe, but I can be made to pay for plagiarizing
him. This is the difference. You should NOT be allowed to violate or
steal anyone's property, but it is a fundamental right of any citizen to
own and use property as they see fit. When you get into gray areas such
as businesses, say, modifying their 50 copies of PageMaker with elaborate
patches, yes, then things get sticky. But there's nothing wrong with a
private citizen using his private computer and his private copy of some
software and making some alterations in ResEdit or hacking something up
by modifying the hex, or whatever. The claim is preposterous, and it's
absolutely crazy to think that this sort of activity is illegal--license
or no. My argument has been (1) that the license is not valid on certain
libertarian grounds and (2) even if it is, it's not valid under all
circumstances. In the end, though, I don't care how you justify it; my
intuition tells me that it's lunacy to tell people that they can't alter
their software.
> Shareware neatly avoids the above two issues, so technically, if the
> Realmz licensing agreement said "you cannot modify this program" and you
> agree to their licensing terms by keeping the software or whatever (I
> don't know how they handle it), then yes, it would NOT be within your
> rights to modify the software in any way. It would be technically
> illegal.
No, it would not: the contract is not legal in the first place, I think.
It is based on dubious grounds, and secondly, demands things that are not
within the pervue of any contract to demand. In my opinion. :)
Jason Newquist
: > It is not illegal to crack software. Even if it were illegal (which it
: > isn't) you would have a much more tenuous case when there is no cracked
: > software, just instructions on how to do it.
: Good point. Maybe we should all just start using credit card number we come
: by. As long as we dont actually use the plastic card itself we can use the
: numbers all we like. It's just info right? Tell this to the judge and see
: how far you get.
I don't know what this means. I think that the original person whas
trying to indicate that so long as you don't distribute your modified
versions of the software, that you can change things as much as you
like.
: Or maybe that guy who fingered a bunch of U.S. Spies to the Russians.
: He only gave away a little info. it's not like he cuffed the spies and
: handed them over to the Russians. He must be in jail for the wrong
: reason too. I think you need to press your point a little harder. You
: almost have me convinced.
Uh, no. In this "spies" case, the guy has secret knowledge and state
secrets, and by giving up the info, he was endangering the lives of
people. In the "garage crack" case, you are keeping everything private,
not distributed, and modifying something you own. There is no
endangerment, espionage or violated secrecy. It's a *totally* different
issue.
: Needless to say your argument does not hold up very good if you just
: think about it a bit. It's called computer crime and people go to jail
: every day for it without handing over one floppy to anybody. We are
: taling REAL WORLD here and people go to jail in the REAL WORLD.
Maybe this is some reality that we're all not aware of? Andrew Welch has
been discussing matters relating to *any modification at all*, to say
nothing of cracks. My points have simply been to indicate that the
contract that is shipped out with these games and products are rediculous
in their claims. In the real world, I can do what I please with the
software on my local drive, so long as it stays there, effects nobody
else, and is not distributed or resold. Same thing for any other tool:
you can go buy a book or a drill and modify it (write in margins or
"rewire" the drill) and nobody can come drag you out of your bed at 2am
and throw you in jail. Let's try not to scare the kids tuning in, shall
we? Books don't let you plagiarize, and you can't steal the design of
the drill. Same with software, same with software.
Michael Cobb
Krog) wrote:
> > Contracts don't have to be reasonable;
> >you agreed to it after all, it was within your right to say "fuck that!"
> >and throw the software away.
-stuff deleted-
>There is a legal doctrine of
> "unconscionability" that will enable a court to invalidate a contract,
> even if signed, when the
> contract is deemed to be unduly onerous, unfair, or generally against
> public policy (see Williams v. Walker-Thomas for a discussion of this
> doctrine).
But I think a court would have a hard time finding that the shareware
"contract" is unconscionable. Especially when the person who was
"subject" to the contract is a long-time computer user, expert enough to
do the "cracking" in question, that person would be well aware of the idea
of shareware contracts. If you want me to quote the cases that back this
up, I can, but I doubt many here have much interest in that. Besides,
even without contract law (and I think there are no unconsionabliliy
problems with Tim Phillip's shareware contract, but thats just my humble
opinion) there are possible copyright violations, and even criminal
violations with doing what these people are doing to Tim's software. Not
to mention the fact, anyone with any sense at all knows its just plain
wrong. I know right and wrong don't seem to come into play in our legal
system much anymore, but this one is pretty obvious. If you think the
game is overpriced (yes, I think it is a bit overpriced myself) just don't
play it. Posting crack codes, well, that is just unbelieveable, I do not
see how you can defend that.
> I know, I know...Lawyers suck.
Well.....ok.
> But if there weren't pirates, we wouldn't need lawyers...
Hey, maybe I shold encourage these pirates...I am going to need a job someday:)
Mike
Jim Foley
snip>
>Maybe this is some reality that we're all not aware of? Andrew Welch has
>been discussing matters relating to *any modification at all*, to say
>nothing of cracks. My points have simply been to indicate that the
>contract that is shipped out with these games and products are rediculous
>in their claims. In the real world, I can do what I please with the
>software on my local drive, so long as it stays there, effects nobody
>else, and is not distributed or resold. Same thing for any other tool:
>you can go buy a book or a drill and modify it (write in margins or
>"rewire" the drill) and nobody can come drag you out of your bed at 2am
>and throw you in jail. Let's try not to scare the kids tuning in, shall
>we? Books don't let you plagiarize, and you can't steal the design of
>the drill. Same with software, same with software.
>
>.............. ........ ......................
>Jason Newquist UC Davis jrnew...@ucdavis.edu
The point you overlooked is that you do not own the software. You have
the right to use it only as it was intended. If you lease a vehicle you
can't change the engine out since you don't own the vehicle. You are
responsible for the condition of that vehicle and liable for damages.
Same thing goes for any other item you rent. You are liable for damages
that you cause to the product, yourself and to others.
Jim Foley
--
James Foley University of Wisconsin-Madison
Office (608) 263-2606 1509 University Avenue
Fax (608) 262-6707 Madison, WI 53706
Bruce Grubb
>In <kremeD5...@netcom.com> kr...@netcom.com (Cerebus The Aardvark)
writes:
>>task, you are quite libel for damages.
>Remember, software is presented *as is*, always, and no software developer
>is able to be held accountable for something that their software has done to
>someones hardware/system. More importantly, if the check he puts in is
>meant to do harm to the computer of the imbecile that thinks s/he can crack
>Realmz, the more power to Tim.
here are the parts of the very licence that comes with Realmz that prove it:
"SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, SO THE
ABOVE EXCLUSION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU."
"SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY FOR
INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES SO THE ABOVE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION MAY
NOT APPLY TO YOU."
In short, in "some jurisditions" Tim could get sued into economic oblivion if
this destructive code wipes out data it is not intended to.
>>I'd hate to think what might happen if some bug caused your destructive
>>code to trigger "accidently."
>If you have ever programed, this can _easily_ be avoided. That is, unless
>there is an *external* bug in the system. In that case, it's no ones fault
>except the computers.
WRONG. Computers are built and programmed by people. A person is ultimately
at fault. Also, as I remember Apple set forth what types of copy protection
schemes were within Apple's Programming Guidelines when they started making
System 7.0.0.
Besides if programming was _that_ easy, bugs would not exist in the first
place. Since the courts have extended the Ultimate Liability Act beyond the
parole board and the problem could be traced to the presence of the
"destructive code" I am not sure -how- the courts _would_ act.
I am not sure if the federal law prohibiting the writing and distribution of
"destructive code" could be applied either {I have heard that it is really
vague}. Anybody know on this?
Why not just have a hack-detect code that prevented the program from running
instead of a delete files code? It would be a lot safer and has been done
before. Disinfectant has such anti-alteration code; it won't run if its code
has been edited in any way.
If you think law is simple the O.J. Simpson case should convince you otherwise.
Andrew Laughton
logic you could break into the hotel, because theye werent going to have you
money anyway...
Roque Mozingo
thing I like best is that there are going to be many new scenarios to
come. Each scenario is a game in itself, and shareware price 10-15$ is
not much for a game. As for the engine itself... well $30 may be alot,
but I think that it's worth the money.
Francois Pottier
Your Name <DRYS...@waikato.ac.nz> wrote:
> I'd sell my sister for a standard open/save dialog in Realmz
Hmm, maybe we can work something out... :-)
--
Francois Pottier pot...@dmi.ens.fr
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check my WWW page at http://acacia.ens.fr:8080/home/pottier/ ...
Robert Levandowski
>Why not just have a hack-detect code that prevented the program from running
>instead of a delete files code? It would be a lot safer and has been done
>before. Disinfectant has such anti-alteration code; it won't run if its code
>has been edited in any way.
This kind of code is terrible. It can prevent you from doing legitimate
things, like using AutoDoubler or AutoDoubler Internal Compressor, which
will alter the checksum of the file. There are indeed times when you will
legitimately want to alter the file.
Hell, I've seen programs that run this sort of self-check that get bent out
of shape if you set the memory allocation in the Get Info dialog to something
other than factory stock!
If your program is going to disable itself, it should look for very specific
types of tampering -- and not go around killing itself on general principles
'cause it's been changed.
Personally, I think it's all pretty non-realistic.... after all, if someone
is sufficiently motivated to crack the registration code, how much more
cracking would be required to remove the self-check? Will game programmers
spend more time writing convoluted, crack-resistant code than actually
writing good product? I don't think cracking is right, but I don't think
it's terribly pragmatic to throw too much effort into defeating it via code.
AndrewWelc
> contract to the contrary, you are free to modify software on your
machine
> in any way you see fit. Ownership is irrelevant. You do not need to
own
> software in order to be able to legally modify a copy in your
possession.
All true -- however as I said before, *if* the license agreement states
that you can't modify the software, then you are contractually and legally
bound not to.
This is all an interesting theoretical discussion -- Ambrosia doesn't
include that kind of language on purpose.
Cerebus The Aardvark
>> BTW, hacking and cracking is not illegal per se, only the act of
>> disributing the modified product is illegal. I don't know about anyone
>> else, but I consider the software on my harddrive to be mine to play
>> with.
>Unfortunately that just isn't the case. You don't own the software,
>you've purchased a license to _use_ it. You are technically legally
>obligated to abide by that license agreement: if it specifies that you can
>under no circumstances modify the program, then that's the agreement.
Bullshit. This is what the software vendors WANT you to believe. The law,
hoewver, is quite clear and explicit.
>While shrink wrap licenses are in question, shareware neatly sidesteps
>this problem by allowing the user to fully read the license agreement, and
>evaluate the product, before agreeing to the license agreement by keeping
>the software.
This isn't a licensing issue, this is an issue of a author threatening
anyone who uses his bug-laden product with potential data loss. His ethics
are on par with those of the original poster.
>So depending on what the Realmz license agreement states, you may or may
>not be within your rights to modify it. Just FYI -- obviously Fantsoft
>isn't going to send dogs out or anything.
When was the last time you payed sales tax for a license?
>Ambrosia Software, Inc.
You collect sales tax, therefore you are selling a PRODUCT, not a LICENSE.
Licenses do no get charged sales tax (belive me, I know, having purchased
many different types of licenses for our Sun-20, Our Annex-3, And various
other peices of equipment.)
--
| kr...@netcom.com \ 1015 South Gaylord, Denver, CO 80209 #100 |
| PGP Fingerprint \ 1D 5E F7 C8 7E C2 F9 87 0F 86 C9 B0 D2 63 9C B2 |
| [303/722-2009] Vox \ I'll always remember Dad's last words. You mean,|
| [303/777-2911] Data \ "Careful son, I don't think the safety's on?" |
AndrewWelc
> > you've purchased a license to _use_ it. You are technically legally
> > obligated to abide by that license agreement: if it specifies that you
> > can under no circumstances modify the program, then that's the
> > agreement.
>
> Bullshit. This is what the software vendors WANT you to believe. The
> law, hoewver, is quite clear and explicit.
You're correct, the law it clear and explicit -- and contrary to your
opinion.
> When was the last time you payed sales tax for a license?
We collect sales tax because we do send a physical product (a license code
packet and/or disks) in response to registrations. We are probably being
overly paranoid (and overly nice to the government) by doing this, however
this is what our CPA advised. It doesn't change the issues at hand.
AndrewWelc
As would I.
> Um. no we don't have a signature.
Signatures are not needed for contracts to be executed.
> No, we have no way of proving the defendant read the contract
So I assume that signing a contract for a car rental is, in your opinion,
invalid if you don't read the entire contract? It doesn't work that way.
> Um.. we sold him a license, but illegally collected sales tax.
I can't speak for anyone else, but we don't illegally collect sales tax.
Every dime of sales tax we collect goes to the government. As I stated
before, the reason we do this is simply because we do send out a physical
item (license code packet and/or disks) in response to registrations.
I'm sorry you're getting all worked up over this; I am simply relating to
you the information I know from books on the subject, and from discussions
with our intellectual property lawyer. I'm not a lawyer, and the
information may not be accurate, but to the best of my knowledge, it
certainly is.
Cerebus The Aardvark
>> As long as I don't go around distributing it, reselling it or giving it
>> away, I have done nothing illegal. The licenses of which we're speaking
>> are a joke. Some of their claims are outrageous, and will never stand
>> up in a court.
>Sorry, but that's just not true. No matter how outrageous the terms of
>the license are, as long as you agree to the provisions of the license by
>keeping the software (or whatever the license agreement spells out),
>you've entered into a contract. Contracts don't have to be reasonable;
>you agreed to it after all, it was within your right to say "fuck that!"
>and throw the software away.
I would LOVE to see an attorney try to argue this in court:
Um. no we don't have a signature.
No, we have no way of proving the defendant read the contract
Um.. we sold him a license, but illegally collected sales tax.
Yeah.. right. Without a signed contract, you don't have any sort of
enforcable contract AT ALL. People can modify your code in anyway they see
fit, they just can redistribute the modified code.
For example, if I don't like the sounds in Apeiron, I can change them. I
can change the graphics, edit the resurces and basically do anything I want
to MY COPY of the game.
No one "agrees" to licensing contracts... they are an attempt to modify a
purchase agreement AFTER THE FACT (in most cases, though obviously not in
the case of shareware products).
>The only thing you can really dispute is that you actually agreed to the
>license -- with shrinkwrap licenses on commercial software, you've got a
>good case. With shareware software, you have the time to read the license
>agreement, evaluate the product, etc., and you'd probably have a pretty
>hard time unless the license was burried somewhere.
Unless you just never bothered to look at it, knowing it is a completely
unenforcable boiler plate of legal mumbo-jumbo with no force of law.
>Once again, this is all just FYI. I can't image any shareware author even
>bothering. My opinion is that anyone who goes through the trouble to
>steal $15 from us isn't worth the trouble -- not because of the sum of the
>money, but because of the mentality involved.
Well, on that count I would certainly agree with you. There is something
fundamentaly perverse about crakcing shareware. However, someone else in
this thread pointed out a reason why a legitamate owner of Realmz would
want a crack, since you ave to enter a code each time you load a scenario
(or something like that... Like I said, the game's never lived more than 5
minutes on my 660av).
Cerebus The Aardvark
>> I'm all in favor of making the user aware of some of the issues relating
>> to the use of my product, but the entire affair about the fine print is
>> not only silly, combersome, and impossible to understand without a
>> lawyer, but is unethical and smells of property violation.
>Doesn't matter whether you understood it or not. Thousands of people sign
>contracts they don't read or understand every day, that doesn't make them
>any less valid.
Key word: SIGN.
Cerebus The Aardvark
>On 24 Mar 1995, David E. Nolen wrote:
>; >$30 for a program like Realmz and $15 for a new scenario is really
>; >peanuts for one of the best shareware games around.
>; >
>; >I believe the three new scenarios which are to be released will only be
>; >$10 each.
>;
>; $30 bucks is peanuts? That's more that 8 hours of minimum wage work (I'm a
>; teenager), I don't call that peanuts. Besides Apeiron and Maelstrom are some
>; of the best games around and they only cost $15 a piece, and they're totally
>; different games.
> The beauty of the game is that though you must invest 8 hours of
>your labor into acquiring the game in the first place, just think of how
>many hours of your time you invest in the game afterwards. If you got paid
>minimum wage for playing Realmz, the game would pay for itself many times
>over. I'm not sure what the point is here since you probably don't get
Let's see... 2 hours to download realmz (so that's 8.50), pluys a $30.00
registration fee, for a total of ten minutes of run time before a crash.
Let's see... that's $231.00 per hour. I can't afford that.
>old video favorites Centipede (first game with a trakball?) and asteroids,
That would have been Missle Command.
Cerebus The Aardvark
>In article <1995Mar25....@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
>jb0...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Jonathan David Bradley) wrote:
>> >I'd hate to think what might happen if some bug caused your destructive
>> >code to trigger "accidently."
>>
>> If you have ever programed, this can _easily_ be avoided. That is, unless
>> there is an *external* bug in the system. In that case, it's no ones fault
>> except the computers.
>If you have ever programmed, you'd be wary of statements like 'bugs can
>easily be avoided'. Whether the bug is external or internal is
>irrelevant. Suppose the destructive code gets triggered somehow and leads
>to loss of data. Say, a file got corrupted and Realmz decided I was trying
>to crack it. There is no absolutely certain way to assure that destructive
>code will not execute by mistake.
>> > With this sort of threat on your part, I would dissuade anyone from
>> >risking their data on your product. No game is worth the integrity of my
>> >200 meg's of data.
>>
>> Hey, if the customers were moral, there wouldn't be any problems in the
>> first place
>Again, consider the above scenario. If Realmz started taking your system
>apart, through some erroneous activation of the 'protection code', there'd
>be litte point in trying to convice the machine of your 'morality'. It
>won't stop whatever's going on nor will it restore your lost data.
The good parts of all this are:
I don't have to worry about eer looking at Realmz again.
The author has opened himself up to legal action from users
of his software who experience damage to their systems
(either as a result of Realmz "detection" or as a result
of something you want to blame Realmz for. After all, if
you keep an archive of the post, you have proof that the
author made threats.
Shimpei Yamashita
AndrewWelc <andre...@aol.com> wrote:
:> Book analogy: Are you saying that when I buy a book, I don't buy the
:> right to mark it up, write in the columns, tear out pages or otherwise
:> "hack" it? I don't think that's reasonable. I think that proper "use"
:> of software includes a large array of things, including changing it
:> around to my heart's content. After all, I'm not distributing it. Any
:> contract that tells a user that the term "use" does not include the
:> above is wrong--if not in legal precident (yet) then in principle.
:
:The argument is facetious because when you purchase a book; copyright law
:protects the intellectual property contained therein. When you purchase
:software, you generally don't own the disks, you generally don't own the
:manuals, you generally don't own the box, and you certainly don't own the
:software -- you've simply purchased a license to use the software.
Whoa. Are you trying to tell me that I don't own any of the physical media
that the software comes in? I don't buy that. I can accept that I don't
own the intellectual property that is software, but I cannot accept that
I do not own the media. That's tantamount to saying that when I buy a book,
the publisher still owns the book; I just purchase a license to read
the contents. That's ridiculous. I don't have the right to pirate
copies of Marathon, but it should be perfectly within my rights to erase
the disks to use them to back up files, use the box for Christmas gift
wrapping, or to make paper airplanes out of the manual.
--
Shimpei Yamashita, Stanford University shi...@leland.stanford.edu