Author: Uri Blass
Date: 21:05:20 10/28/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 28, 2005 at 20:51:30, Roger Brown wrote: >On October 28, 2005 at 18:49:21, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On October 28, 2005 at 18:21:37, Jake Sisko wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Is Fruit 2.2 copy protection scheme the trend of the Future? I hear that there >>>is not one cracked version of the program. Perhaps Other companies will adopt >>>the same practices of Fruit to ensure that programmers actually get paid for >>>there work? Seems like a good ideal to me! >> >>1)How do you know that there are not cracked version of fruit? >>I think that you never can know something like that and you may know only the >>opposite. >>The best that you can say is that you did not find a cracked version of fruit. >> >>2)I thought first that it is a good idea but I changed my mind about it after >>reading a lot of complaints in this forum and after understanding that there is >>probably no copy protection that cannot be cracked by crackers and I think that >>the fact that the copy proterction of fruit cannot be cracked by most people(and >>maybe by most crackers) does not help much because one cracker may share fruit >>with a lot of people. >> >>Uri > > > >Hello Uri, > >Do you read your posts BEFORE you post them? Usually I read it together with writing it but I often read the post before I click post. I am going to read this post twice before posting. > >I promised to leave your rather strange posts alone but you are saying a number >of things here that are making me curious. > >(a) Why are you inferring that the poster was searching for cracked versions of >Fruit? This was not my intention to claim that his intention was to use fruit illegally. I agree that my choice of words was not the best. My sentence was: "The best that you can say is that you did not find a cracked version of fruit." It was better to write. "The best that you can say is that you do not know about people who use a cracked version of Fruit". > >(b) I cannot understand how the fact that some thief somewhere is working on >cracking Fruit makes the copy protection of Fruit a bad idea. The question is simply if the copy protection helps Fabien to sell more copies. I read that some people claimed that they are not going to buy fruit because of the copy protection. Let denote their number X(no copy protection give X customers). It is clear that some people will not buy fruit and copy it instead of buying it in case of no copy protection. Let denote their number Y. The copy protection can help Fabien only if Y>X The question if it is possible to crack fruit is relevant to the value of Y so it relevant for the question if Y>X. Note that I did not complain about the copy protection and I only expressed opinion that it may be better for fabien not to use that copy protection(my opinion was different in the time that fruit was announced and I changed it). > >(c) One might infer that your statement about the likely procedures of hackers >could be restated (using your own logic of course) as: > >One cannot say that hackers may do or not do this or that, one can only say that >one has received cracked programs in this or that way. The problem is that I read here in the past that every system of copy protection can be cracked. If someone find some copy protection that in theory cannot be cracked in a reasonable time then it will be a different story but I am afraid that with the computers of today it is impossible. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.