Any copy protection to be viable over the long term needs to be based not on media based protections, but on real cryptography.
Even if your game disk was encrypted, you still need to be able to guarantee that you, the original purchaser of the game, are the only one who can decrypt the disk, and I don't see how this can easily be done.
Personaly, I've never seen a game disk that couldn't be copied one way or another, and I don't see an unbeatable copy-protection system coming along any time soon.
It's nice to see that the kind folks at the DMA are finally standing up for the spammer's right to send America billions of email ads for stuff it doesn't need and won't buy.
This "opt-out" rule is completely backwards. This implies the general public wants to be bombarded with crap by default, unless otherwise specified. And the only way you can "otherwise specify" is by going through hundreds of opt-out procedures for each specific spammer. We might as well just highlight them all and hit delete like we've allways done.
Other countries seem to be on the right track, though. In the UK, you have to opt in if companies want to send you spam (unless you're allready their customer), and in Italy the maximum penalty for spamming is 3 years in prison as well as big fines.
Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that if we were to have some law completely barring unsolicited spam that groups like the DMA would have a Free Speech fit and call it unconstitutional?
Slashdot Mirror
Any copy protection to be viable over the long term needs to be based not on media based protections, but on real cryptography.
Even if your game disk was encrypted, you still need to be able to guarantee that you, the original purchaser of the game, are the only one who can decrypt the disk, and I don't see how this can easily be done. Personaly, I've never seen a game disk that couldn't be copied one way or another, and I don't see an unbeatable copy-protection system coming along any time soon.
I should go check if Gravy Trader is out yet.
Once again, the Japanese have managed to both fascinate and repulse me, all at the same time.
This "opt-out" rule is completely backwards. This implies the general public wants to be bombarded with crap by default, unless otherwise specified. And the only way you can "otherwise specify" is by going through hundreds of opt-out procedures for each specific spammer. We might as well just highlight them all and hit delete like we've allways done.
Other countries seem to be on the right track, though. In the UK, you have to opt in if companies want to send you spam (unless you're allready their customer), and in Italy the maximum penalty for spamming is 3 years in prison as well as big fines.
Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that if we were to have some law completely barring unsolicited spam that groups like the DMA would have a Free Speech fit and call it unconstitutional?
At least this will get the sim-addicts out of the house for a breath of fresh air.