Code Wheel CP
2 messages in this thread
Boy…. (You _have_ to be playing d/a, no?) Changing the internal default
in no way defeats the intent, obviously. The CP is in no way compromised.
The disk can be duplicated. You can run a copy in df0: anyway. There is no
need for the original to be in there, and it is clear, in fact, that EA
intention was that you would NOT have to use the original. Furthermore, you
can already put f18 on HD… without any changes at all… except it goes
to the floppy for it's data files. Now, changing the internals of the
program to perform linearly inside the file system in no way compromises
that – in fact, an f18 modified in this fashion will not only still run off
a floppy, it'll run _better_ off a floppy, as it doesn't have to be in the
root anymore. Nothing in the path modifications has one whit of effect on
the cp, that is, the code wheel… it in no way makes it easier to
de-protect, or to use the protection, either (I use my code wheel all the
time – I like the game… even tho it crashes the system, at least I can
START it fast!) Having a version running that works more completely in the
Amiga environment, WITH the code wheel intact, helps EA – it doesn't hurt
them. There will be those who get it knowing they can indeed install it
properly. That's where the difference lies. –Ben–
I don't believe it. I'm not saying I've got the answer here, but… Do most
software warranty / contracts say that you can modify the executable in any
way? On one hand, if they say "no", then you're really violating a point of
contract if you hot patch, regardless of whether you judge it as harmless or
not. On the other, if you can hot-patch things, then it doesn't make any
difference as to whether you're removing CP or stupid literal drive references.
I'm thinking of it in a moral sense, like the way people argue piracy. If it
ain't legal to hot patch, then it ain't legal to hot patch. – John