Brume's dumps

A forum about Atari protected floppy disks analysis, preservation, emulation, tools

Moderators: DrCoolZic, Brume

User avatar
DrCoolZic
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2144
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 7:03 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby DrCoolZic » Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:29 am

Back to technical issues after this useless digressions.

I am still trying to guess (as I did not get answer) why tracks in Turrican are detected in CTA as modified. The CTA program is supposed not to support archival of modified disk based on generic MFM coding but in this case I was able to write image? Therefore in this case does modified means modified?

Here are some facts that I have gathered on the subject of detecting modified FD (apart from evident visual information). Please feel free to add if you have information:
- Presence of write splices in the sector gaps (post-id & post-data) indicates that the image has probably been written on Atari (WD1772 can’t write complete track at once). Of course this only apply to Atari and not Amiga that writes track in one pass.
- Density variation: Some specific density variations indicates that the drive used to write the disk was not rotating consistently. Master duplication machines were using high quality drives with a very stable rotation not showing this kind of variation. Actually SPS goes one step further by indicating that each drive has a unique finger prints (see http://www.softpres.org/article:importa ... thenticity )

So back to Turrican there are
- No splices in sector gaps
- Extremely stable density: CTA reports between 12813 and 12814 bits in the the tracks I have looked at.
- furthermore the analysis of the IPF file generated with CTA that has a perfect density is still detected as modified!!!

As CTA is supposed to (re)generate originals how can this original of Turrican be declared as modified??? :oops:
Therefore the mystery continue

AtariZoll
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2791
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby AtariZoll » Sun Oct 09, 2016 9:07 am

DrCoolZic wrote:...
As CTA is supposed to (re)generate originals how can this original of Turrican be declared as modified??? :oops:
Therefore the mystery continue


I guess that you need to ask it on their forum :D
As I already said something about 100% flawlessness, I would rather look for another source of that SW - what was certainly sold in large quantity. Or just run it in Steem Debugger/Boiler and compare it with run of STX image (at AM. what is verified and played until end).
Knowledge is nice, but people want rather those not yet imaged games :D
I know it, nobody cares how, how long, with what tools, just gimme more adapted stuff :mrgreen:
Negative feedback has usually positive effect.

Dal
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4070
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:31 am
Location: Cheltenham, UK
Contact:

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby Dal » Sun Oct 09, 2016 9:21 am

@AtariZoll: please keep off this thread. You are clearly not interested in the forensic analysis of floppy disks for the purposes of accurate flux-level floppy disk preservation and that's fine.

Please stick to your nefarious software preservation which is your area of expertise.

Bottom line, everyone has their own particular interests in any hobby. What is important for one person to focus on is regarded as not so important by someone else. Collectively everyone is contributing something significant to the Atari / retro scene, so everyone is equally important.

The flaming stops here. And that goes for everyone else too!
TT030: 4MB/16MB + Crazy Dots, Mega"SST" 12, MegaSTE, STE: Desktopper case, IDE interface, UltraSatan (8GB + 512Mb) + HXC floppy emulator. Plus some STE's/STFM's

AtariZoll
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2791
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 4:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby AtariZoll » Sun Oct 09, 2016 9:24 am

I'm out. Thanx for kind words boss.
Negative feedback has usually positive effect.

User avatar
Brume
Red eyes
Red eyes
Posts: 4093
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 10:16 am
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby Brume » Sun Oct 09, 2016 10:06 am

Dal wrote:@AtariZoll: please keep off this thread. You are clearly not interested in the forensic analysis of floppy disks for the purposes of accurate flux-level floppy disk preservation and that's fine.

Please stick to your nefarious software preservation which is your area of expertise.

Bottom line, everyone has their own particular interests in any hobby. What is important for one person to focus on is regarded as not so important by someone else. Collectively everyone is contributing something significant to the Atari / retro scene, so everyone is equally important.

The flaming stops here. And that goes for everyone else too!


@dlfrsilver: also the answer of Dal is (more) valid for you, too.
The goal of the thread was mainly to spread dumps and discuss about preservation.
We don't need to know how you were respected, how many persons are working for you, your logic, etc.
Don't insult people, even with some asterisks.
Also keep your sexist words for you, even with a smile.

Now I'm waiting for your reply about my so-called "bad reaction" for Toki's dump.
If I had hard words, I will apologize willingly. But tell me when & where.

User avatar
dlfrsilver
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby dlfrsilver » Sun Oct 09, 2016 1:09 pm

You don't like to be flamed, I understand, but then don't flame others projects and don't talk about what you don't know.


I've just reported the results of my own tests, nothing more :)

There is no reason why most, if not all, STX files couldn't be written back to disk. You just need the right software, which is not easy to implement, but certainly not impossible. And even with a partial implementation, many copy protected images should be quite easy to write back. I don't know what software you used for the conversion.


the STX format is basically like the Extended ADF format available on Amiga, plus some more protections supported (weak bits, etc).

Or like the eDSK format for amstrad CPC with more features.

The only tool allowing to pass the STX files in another format is the tool provided with the HxC. It allows numbers of different formats.

That's what i've used. And it worked only on 1% of the titles i picked. It worked well with Navy Moves 2 disks release, but didn't worked with any title using a longtrack or a shorttrack protection, (i didn't tried with RNC and Weak bits or Fuzzy bits disk images as it was sure to fail from the start).

May be, may be not. But it is not very professional, and certainly very unfriendly (and I'm intentionally avoiding stronger words used in this thread), to judge and be critic to a competing device. You are not helping your cause acting like this.


The quality of the SCP images is bad because the disks used for imaging were mostly dirty. This means cleaning the disks !

That's what i've said above :)

I, of course, like to preserve copy protections. It's very interesting, challenging, fun, almost fascinating. I always liked it and it is one of my specialties. But I admit that Pera has a point here. There is no absolute, universal meaning to the original state of the software.


Those softwares have been patented with a protection most of the time. And as i said, no rights holder would want to have his program preserved in the form of a deprotected version of his software.

While deprotected versions are easy to transfer and also more pratical, if we got only unprotected versions, it would have refrained the emulation of the ST hardware, in the very same way it did for the Amstrad CPC.

That's a common point (again) between the two machines, the CPC also had people saying "we don't care about original software, because we have cracked releases ! And when i started to brought up copy protected original versions, the emulators just showed how crap they were.

Only able to run cracked software, and as such unfaithfull to the original hardware.

Providing original copy protected versions allowed as Nick Pomarede said has pushed onward the emulation, for the good of everybody :)

As i said too to the CPC communauty (i also belong there), many people are viewing the CPC like the ST, as machines with cracked softwares.

So i have done my best to change that, and providing copy protected versions of the softwares so that both of these machines got a change in the way people can look at them : "ok there are cracked softwares, but the originals have been saved and preserved, it's not just machines with cracked collections".

There is no direct relation between protected or hacked, with legal or pirate. That's simply not true. You could have a legal hacked copy (or even original). And you can have a copy protected but pirated illegal copy.


the software laws basically forbids the hacking of any original software. It's written since 30 years inside the games manuals.

If you reverse a software in order to hack it, it's against the law. It's not me, it's the law :)

A copy protected but pirated illegal copy is basically nothing else than an analogic copy made with a copier and a cart (or a cart).

What's empirically called an original software is most of the time duplicated on a trace machine. the flux signal is not the same as the one written by a standard computer.

In painting, i would call that an excellent fake reproduction of la Joconda from Leonardo Da Vinci :)

It looks like the original, but it's not the original, it's a fake :)

And it is also not exact that always the creator of the software applied the protection. In many cases the developer released a completely unprotected version. And it was the publisher the one who protected the software.[:quote]

That's exact :) Most of the time it's the publisher. Sometimes the programmer :) or even the Game Project Manager.

So which one is the original? The published protected version? Or the developer's unprotected version? Once again, I do like to preserve copy protections. But I don't say that this is the only valid, or legal, or fair, or whatever, way. It is just one way, the way I like it, that's all. I respect others.


The only legal (i mean patended version) is the final one. The one sold in box. Next, if the developer at a given moment is giving publicly like these days an unprotected master, that's another story.

But basically, the version picked for preservation will be the one commercially released.

This said, i've never try to stop or refrain people who wanted to make more portable versions, or even corrected/patched versions of the said softwares. But for preservation, as softwares are law protected, for preservation any conservator will tell you that they would never preserve a book, software or anything else if it's not the original version.

Or basically we would have fakes and copies all along in musem or libraries. And that's not something we want.
Now SPS France representative since the 19th of June 2014. Proud to be an SPS member !

User avatar
dlfrsilver
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby dlfrsilver » Sun Oct 09, 2016 1:25 pm

Brume wrote:
dlfrsilver wrote:On my part, i should add that Brume badly reacted when i told him that his Toki original dump was not clean enough to pass in IPF (i have used Aufit and discovered that the disk was indeed mouldy/dirty and needed cleaning).


I really don't remember having badly reacted. Can you tell me when and post the source of the message?


My bad, it was not Toki, it was G.Nius ! You sent me a PM in regard of your disk, which was indeed dirty the Wednesday may 27th 2015, stating this (i translated the answer) :

"OK, thanks for the information about G.nius. But what is the finality about this dump ? Is it OK or not ? If this must be done from completely brand new games, it's an impossible mission. You know like me that most are sold right now at impossible prices and that almost all Collectors also refuse to open their precious blistered games..."

The fact is that quite a big number of sealed copies are rotten and moulded, as i've discovered until now (i work with 6 collectors spanned on many platforms : CPC, ST, Amiga, and PC).

Let's say it honestly : some collectors, who are sending me physically their disks, allow me to clean the disks, and this in the end allow for preservation, once the mould is removed. I did that on a big number of CPC disks, but also some ST and Amiga disks.

Otherwise, you can't get the datas extracted out of the disks.

EDIT : And when you have uploaded Hook, i had already a good IPF for this game, so i PMed you in order to propose it to you, and you replied me this :

"Hi,

Thanks, but i'm not interested by the IPF of Hook nor any others. I don't really see the interest about those, the SCP, CTR, RAW et STX are way enough for me. And for the moment, i keep all the dumps i have done until now for a new project."

I felt like : "i think about him, he has upped a dump of Hook, i propose him a set of IPF for this game, and i get rejected, how nice of him :( "
Now SPS France representative since the 19th of June 2014. Proud to be an SPS member !

User avatar
Brume
Red eyes
Red eyes
Posts: 4093
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 10:16 am
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby Brume » Sun Oct 09, 2016 2:35 pm

dlfrsilver wrote:My bad, it was not Toki, it was G.Nius ! You sent me a PM in regard of your disk, which was indeed dirty the Wednesday may 27th 2015, stating this (i translated the answer) :

"OK, thanks for the information about G.nius. But what is the finality about this dump ? Is it OK or not ? If this must be done from completely brand new games, it's an impossible mission. You know like me that most are sold right now at impossible prices and that almost all Collectors also refuse to open their precious blistered games..."

The fact is that quite a big number of sealed copies are rotten and moulded, as i've discovered until now (i work with 6 collectors spanned on many platforms : CPC, ST, Amiga, and PC).


Are you serious? So where is my bad reaction in the message I sent you about G.nius?

dlfrsilver wrote:EDIT : And when you have uploaded Hook, i had already a good IPF for this game, so i PMed you in order to propose it to you, and you replied me this :

dlfrsilver wrote:"Hi,

Thanks, but i'm not interested by the IPF of Hook nor any others. I don't really see the interest about those, the SCP, CTR, RAW et STX are way enough for me. And for the moment, i keep all the dumps i have done until now for a new project."

I felt like : "i think about him, he has upped a dump of Hook, i propose him a set of IPF for this game, and i get rejected, how nice of him :( "


Yes, you asked me to dump Hook and I did it. Then you answered you wanted to send the IPF file which didn't interest in me at the time because i was working on another project, which isn't dead but need more time.
I don't see any upset feeling in my messages. So where is the bad reaction? Did I write something like "shut the *uc* up" or "idiots like you" (like you did with AtariZoll).

You accused me of something I've never done. It's time to apologise, don't you think?

User avatar
dlfrsilver
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby dlfrsilver » Sun Oct 09, 2016 3:03 pm

Are you serious? So where is my bad reaction in the message I sent you about G.nius?


Well, i was waiting for an answer like "ok, let's try to clean the disk".

And instead you go on "you know like me that sealed copies (in your mind cleaner than opened and second hand boxes) are selling for very high prices".

I did not understand why you answered that, and felt disappointed a bit, yes i admit it.

Yes, you asked me to dump Hook and I did it. Then you answered you wanted to send the IPF file which didn't interest in me at the time because i was working on another project, which isn't dead but need more time.


Ok, but what's the relation between your dump of Hook, the IPF of Hook, and your new project ?

Basically you just told me you were not interested by the IPF of Hook, because you had SCP, CTR and STX files already.

I just wanted to thank you for participating, and your answer was a bit hard.

In real life when someone do something nice to you, you kick him back ?

I don't see any upset feeling in my messages. So where is the bad reaction? Did I write something like "shut the *uc* up" or "idiots like you" (like you did with AtariZoll). You accused me of something I've never done. It's time to apologise, don't you think?


Apologize for which matter ? You dumped G.Nius, i came back to you explaining your disk was dirty, and it was, the Analyser just could not processed it for this reason (there was 1 or 2 faulty tracks).

I'm used to the fact that some people don't react well when i tell them some of their disks are dirty, because some think that they have pristine delicassy copies in their collection, and when they discover my answer, they react like "What???"

Just live with it, those are more than 30 years old now, and mould unfortunately happens. I have some of my own original disks that have mould too, and this while i have good storage temperature and all.

In the end, I've been nice with you, i proposed you the IPF of Hook for your effort, and you've answered me in a bit harsh way....

And now you ask me to apologize ? The opposite would be welcome instead.
Now SPS France representative since the 19th of June 2014. Proud to be an SPS member !

User avatar
troed
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1197
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:20 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby troed » Sun Oct 09, 2016 3:36 pm

dlfrsilver wrote:the software laws basically forbids the hacking of any original software. It's written since 30 years inside the games manuals.
If you reverse a software in order to hack it, it's against the law. It's not me, it's the law :)


No.

1) What's written in a manual (a license, perhaps) cannot restrict your rights as given to you by laws
2) Laws (different between different countries, but the following can be generalized mostly throughout the EU at least) give you the right to do pretty much whatever you need for interoperability reasons. That would include how to get "the content" from one physical format working in another format, if you had the right to the content to begin with. Like, making a copy off a floppy to an image for use in an emulator. This specifically includes being able to reverse engineer.

/me - a politician for "that party" that kind of knows what there is to know about copyright ...

User avatar
dlfrsilver
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby dlfrsilver » Sun Oct 09, 2016 4:05 pm

troed wrote:
dlfrsilver wrote:the software laws basically forbids the hacking of any original software. It's written since 30 years inside the games manuals.
If you reverse a software in order to hack it, it's against the law. It's not me, it's the law :)


No.

1) What's written in a manual (a license, perhaps) cannot restrict your rights as given to you by laws
2) Laws (different between different countries, but the following can be generalized mostly throughout the EU at least) give you the right to do pretty much whatever you need for interoperability reasons. That would include how to get "the content" from one physical format working in another format, if you had the right to the content to begin with. Like, making a copy off a floppy to an image for use in an emulator. This specifically includes being able to reverse engineer.

/me - a politician for "that party" that kind of knows what there is to know about copyright ...


In my country this is not allowed. As you said, a person needs the autorization from the right holder to do that. And the end user doesn't have this right.

Basically, in my country it is forbidden by law to reproduce or distribute a video game software without the right holder consent.

In 2005, the Paris court of appeal has ruled has adoped a position sligthly different by stating that the backup safety copy could only be an exception when the actual copy of the said software copied had a licit origin, the illegality of the source corrupting all the further uses. The criteria is not much more the one about the person making the backup than the licit aspect origin of this backup.

So from this court ruling, il would be illegal to download a ROM/SOFTWARE on a website or a download plateform including when somebody already possess a copy of the original game. This solution forces then to extract ourselve our ROMS/SOFTWARES..... etc etc.

So in my Country, what i said and developped was perfectly right. Reverse engineer a software in order to extract it from its copy protection is against the law, and such reserve engineered software can't be used for preservation.

But i'm sure it's the same in most other countries since as you said, we're in europe, so we have many common rules in term of laws.

More explicitly said, since an IPF is a VERY exact and precise representation of the informations of an original commercial disk, this is actually conform to the laws of my country. An IPF is based exactly on the original master disk used on a duplication machine, therefore everything is fine :)

Anything else than that, is illicit.
Now SPS France representative since the 19th of June 2014. Proud to be an SPS member !

User avatar
DrCoolZic
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2144
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 7:03 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby DrCoolZic » Sun Oct 09, 2016 4:20 pm

I like this one:
It would certainly be an ironic twist of fate if the laws designed to protect intellectual property were also the cause of its destruction.
excerpt from http://www.softpres.org/article:importa ... eservation

User avatar
troed
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1197
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:20 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby troed » Sun Oct 09, 2016 4:24 pm

dlfrsilver wrote:So in my Country, what i said and developped was perfectly right. Reverse engineer a software in order to extract it from its copy protection is against the law, and such reserve engineered software can't be used for preservation.


No, you're wrong. The example you gave regarding redistribution/downloading has no bearing on the statement above, and that statement (reverse engineering for compatibility reasons) is what I commented upon.

The rest of your comment on IPF and reproducibility is not correct either - the quality of a rip has absolutely nothing to do with its legality.

The following is a direct quote from the relevant EU directive 2009/24:

(15) The unauthorised reproduction, translation, adaptation or transformation of the form of the code in which a copy of a computer program has been made available constitutes an infringement of the exclusive rights of the author. Nevertheless, circumstances may exist when such a reproduction of the code and translation of its form are indispensable to obtain the necessary information to achieve the interoperability of an independently created program with other programs. It has therefore to be considered that, in these limited circumstances only, performance of the acts of reproduction and translation by or on behalf of a person having a right to use a copy of the program is legitimate and compatible with fair practice and must therefore be deemed not to require the authorisation of the rightholder. An objective of this exception is to make it possible to connect all components of a computer system, including those of different manufacturers, so that they can work together. Such an exception to the author's exclusive rights may not be used in a way which prejudices the legitimate interests of the rightholder or which conflicts with a normal exploitation of the program.


/Troed

User avatar
dlfrsilver
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby dlfrsilver » Sun Oct 09, 2016 4:58 pm

No, you're wrong. The example you gave regarding redistribution/downloading has no bearing on the statement above, and that statement (reverse engineering for compatibility reasons) is what I commented upon.


The court has ruled so that's what applies. Here at least.

The rest of your comment on IPF and reproducibility is not correct either - the quality of a rip has absolutely nothing to do with its legality.


IPF are coming from original untouched content of a software. As such it's not coming from a copy, a file copy or a program copy.

The following is a direct quote from the relevant EU directive 2009/24:

(15) The unauthorised reproduction, translation, adaptation or transformation of the form of the code in which a copy of a computer program has been made available constitutes an infringement of the exclusive rights of the author. [


That's basically what i was saying above. You need the authorization to reverse engineer a software from the rights holder.

Nevertheless, circumstances may exist when such a reproduction of the code and translation of its form are indispensable to obtain the necessary information to achieve the interoperability of an independently created program with other programs.


The softwares we're talking about can be run under emulation if anyone dump the disk into a flux format. The CTR and KFraw are some of those.

Since those ways of imaging a disk exist, basically there's no need to reverse engineer the programs in order to make them portable and transferable.

So the exception doesn't apply here.

Interesting. I note that the first sentence confirms what i said above. Adaptation or transformation is forbidden by this law as you showed in this text.
That's an infrigement of the author's right.

The exception only triggers if there is no other choice to get access to the disk data. The IPF system makes any protected program portable and detached from the physical support.
Now SPS France representative since the 19th of June 2014. Proud to be an SPS member !

User avatar
troed
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1197
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:20 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby troed » Sun Oct 09, 2016 5:22 pm

dlfrsilver wrote:The court has ruled so that's what applies. Here at least.


No. EU directives trump national laws within the EU. Anyone can bring such a ruling up to the EU court, which overrules that national one.

IPF are coming from original untouched content of a software. As such it's not coming from a copy, a file copy or a program copy.


Any rip from the original done by someone who legally owns the software is legal. No matter the quality.

That's basically what i was saying above. You need the authorization to reverse engineer a software from the rights holder.


I'm sorry, but since you quoted only the part which the rest is an _exemption_ from I must conclude that you're not even trying to hold a serious and fact based discussion.

Why?

Since those ways of imaging a disk exist, basically there's no need to reverse engineer the programs in order to make them portable and transferable.


"Need" is irrelevant. It's completely up to me to choose to do it, and as long as my reason is interoperability with something I'm within my legal rights.

Why do you insist on posting falsehoods regarding a subject you obviously have never studied in any detail? Again - I have.

/Troed

User avatar
dlfrsilver
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby dlfrsilver » Sun Oct 09, 2016 5:38 pm

No. EU directives trump national laws within the EU. Anyone can bring such a ruling up to the EU court, which overrules that national one.


You're right on that. Indeed, they overrules the national one.

Any rip from the original done by someone who legally owns the software is legal. No matter the quality.


that's right too, if as user you are able to perform the backup.

I'm sorry, but since you quoted only the part which the rest is an _exemption_ from I must conclude that you're not even trying to hold a serious and fact based discussion.


Let me answer this : I have carefully read the text you posted, and from what you basically said, reverse engineer is an exemption IF you have to access some data stuck for example on an old disk.

So, you're justifying the fact that anybody can rip out a software pretexting that the copy protection stops or refrain the user to pass, transfer the software on a computer for use on an emulator.

What i say is that it doesn't apply, because the Kryoflux board is way to pass, transfer an original disk content from the physical support to an electronic file, de facto allowing transfer on any computer for use.

So this basically renders obsolete this story of having to reverse engineer the program (hack or crack) in order to put it in a more convenient format for transfering from the original media to any computer system.

So since a system like the IPF or SCP exists, the exemption you're talking about is no more applicable. The law specificies clearly that the exemption takes place if there is NO options to get access to the data.

I'm not posting falsehood, i'm just using logic, and nothing else.

As an end user, if you want to apply your rights to backup your software, cracking or hacking or reverse engineering is not needed anymore, KF or SCP are legal options to backup your original disks.
Now SPS France representative since the 19th of June 2014. Proud to be an SPS member !

User avatar
troed
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1197
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:20 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby troed » Sun Oct 09, 2016 5:55 pm

dlfrsilver wrote:So since a system like the IPF or SCP exists, the exemption you're talking about is no more applicable. The law specificies clearly that the exemption takes place if there is NO options to get access to the data.


No, the "law" specifically does not say that. I quoted the directive above. That you feel that you need to invent various arguments so as to not not lose face in the discussion is irrelevant.

I, the end user with a legal copy of the software in question, can do pretty much what I want (reproduce and translate) the software in question as long as it's for interoperability reasons. It's completely irrelevant whether I could purchase other things that would remove the need for translation, it's _my choice_ to do it or not. All within the law.

... and that's why I made the first comment regarding reverse engineering, or hacking/cracking if you so please.

/Troed

User avatar
dlfrsilver
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby dlfrsilver » Sun Oct 09, 2016 6:00 pm

Ok Troed, thanks for those explanations :)
Now SPS France representative since the 19th of June 2014. Proud to be an SPS member !

ijor
Hardware Guru
Hardware Guru
Posts: 3095
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 7:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby ijor » Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:20 pm

dlfrsilver wrote:The only tool allowing to pass the STX files in another format is the tool provided with the HxC. It allows numbers of different formats. That's what i've used. And it worked only on 1% of the titles i picked.


If so, that's a limitation of the available tools. It doesn't mean at all that most, if not all, STX images can't be written back to disk correctly with the right tool.

..., but didn't worked with any title using a longtrack or a shorttrack protection, (i didn't tried with RNC and Weak bits or Fuzzy bits disk images as it was sure to fail from the start).


Those protections, including weak bits and variable bit-rate are not a big problem to write back.

the software laws basically forbids the hacking of any original software. It's written since 30 years inside the games manuals.


As troed showed, that's completely wrong. Sorry to say, but I think you are starting to make yourself ridiculous with your legal arguments. I'd recommend you to sit back, calm down. And think twice what you are posting.
Last edited by ijor on Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ijor
Hardware Guru
Hardware Guru
Posts: 3095
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 7:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby ijor » Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:27 pm

DrCoolZic wrote:So back to Turrican there are
- Extremely stable density: CTA reports between 12813 and 12814 bits in the the tracks I have looked at.


You are looking at the whole disk or just a few tracks?

- furthermore the analysis of the IPF file generated with CTA that has a perfect density is still detected as modified!!!


Well, I am going to make a bit of guessing here. But probably the software somehow marks the IPF image as "impure" (so to speak, jaja) when creating it. Either it sets some undocumented flag somewhere, or either it crafts some kind of watermark that could be detected later by the software.

Therefore in this case does modified means modified?


Of course not. Obviously it doesn't mean that literally. It just means that it detects something suspicious, or that it doesn't detect something that it is supposed to find on disks recorded by industrial duplicators.

User avatar
DrCoolZic
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Fuji Shaped Bastard
Posts: 2144
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 7:03 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby DrCoolZic » Sun Oct 09, 2016 9:12 pm

ijor wrote:
DrCoolZic wrote:So back to Turrican there are
- Extremely stable density: CTA reports between 12813 and 12814 bits in the the tracks I have looked at.


You are looking at the whole disk or just a few tracks?

Yes I have been looking at most of the tracks

- furthermore the analysis of the IPF file generated with CTA that has a perfect density is still detected as modified!!!


Well, I am going to make a bit of guessing here. But probably the software somehow marks the IPF image as "impure" (so to speak, jaja) when creating it. Either it sets some undocumented flag somewhere, or either it crafts some kind of watermark that could be detected later by the software.
I doubt.
Therefore in this case does modified means modified?


Of course not. Obviously it doesn't mean that literally. It just means that it detects something suspicious, or that it doesn't detect something that it is supposed to find on disks recorded by industrial duplicators.

I was not clear I meant: "does modified means suspicious of modification" or something else? in the later case what is this "something else"?
The documentation indicates that modified generic MFM are not allowed to be archived so in this context has "modified" another meaning for CTA?

I have asked IFW if he can gives us some explanations. I'll keep you posted

JimDrew
Atari Super Hero
Atari Super Hero
Posts: 579
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:23 pm

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby JimDrew » Mon Oct 10, 2016 3:13 am

dlfrsilver wrote:.More explicitly said, since an IPF is a VERY exact and precise representation of the informations of an original commercial disk, this is actually conform to the laws of my country. An IPF is based exactly on the original master disk used on a duplication machine, therefore everything is fine :)


IPF's are not exact representations of disks. IPF's lacks the ability to handle several different types of protections, such as later Psygnpsis titles. The only way to have an exact representation is by using the flux data as spooled from the drive.
I am the flux ninja

User avatar
dlfrsilver
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby dlfrsilver » Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:18 am

If so, that's a limitation of the available tools. It doesn't mean at all that most, if not all, STX images can't be written back to disk correctly with the right tool.


The STX format has a bit more possibilities than the Amstrad CPC extended DSK format. We have the same problem as with the STX format, it's a sector based format, which is only approximative.

The only way to write back efficiently a disk image, is to have a description of the format, and it will always be a track based disk image.

The industrial duplicators back in the day were not doing sector based duplication, but track based duplication.

Those protections, including weak bits and variable bit-rate are not a big problem to write back.


Yes, if you have a disk image with the format described and a custom controller to write them back. Otherwise it can't be done.

That was the purpose of those protections back in the day, a custom FDC was needed to write those special tracks, and with a description of their nature and how they had to be written.

You can't just pick a protected STX file, revert it simply to a flux dump, and write it blindly on disk. The HxC tool is good, but without protection description, the reverting to flux dump file like KFraw or SCP just can't work.

I did numerous tries with my own hardware, and it doesn't work. The only working solution is passing by an IPF, which is basically what software masters were back in the day when brought to the duplication plant.
Now SPS France representative since the 19th of June 2014. Proud to be an SPS member !

User avatar
dlfrsilver
Atari God
Atari God
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby dlfrsilver » Mon Oct 10, 2016 5:26 am

JimDrew wrote:
dlfrsilver wrote:.More explicitly said, since an IPF is a VERY exact and precise representation of the informations of an original commercial disk, this is actually conform to the laws of my country. An IPF is based exactly on the original master disk used on a duplication machine, therefore everything is fine :)


IPF's are not exact representations of disks. IPF's lacks the ability to handle several different types of protections, such as later Psygnpsis titles. The only way to have an exact representation is by using the flux data as spooled from the drive.


They are. The lack of weak bit support is just a feature to add, currently missing. The psygnosis title are special, due to the custom encoding applied on the disks by John White, they need a transportation layer, currently missing.
Now SPS France representative since the 19th of June 2014. Proud to be an SPS member !

User avatar
Brume
Red eyes
Red eyes
Posts: 4093
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2002 10:16 am
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Brume's dumps

Postby Brume » Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:51 am

dlfrsilver wrote:Are you serious? So where is my bad reaction in the message I sent you about G.nius?

Well, i was waiting for an answer like "ok, let's try to clean the disk".

And instead you go on "you know like me that sealed copies (in your mind cleaner than opened and second hand boxes) are selling for very high prices".


Yes and I said thanks for the information, right? So again, where is the bad reaction? Did I insult you?

dlfrsilver wrote:I did not understand why you answered that, and felt disappointed a bit, yes i admit it.


It's a shame you were disappointed. But on the other side, many of us are more disappointed by your attitude when you insult someone else here.

dlfrsilver wrote:Yes, you asked me to dump Hook and I did it. Then you answered you wanted to send the IPF file which didn't interest in me at the time because i was working on another project, which isn't dead but need more time.

Ok, but what's the relation between your dump of Hook, the IPF of Hook, and your new project ?

Basically you just told me you were not interested by the IPF of Hook, because you had SCP, CTR and STX files already.


Yes, I didn't see any interest to collect IPF temporary files I couldn't spread (specially because they were temporary as you said last year). I just want to share. This was the goal of Pacidemo 20 years ago, this was the goal of Pacigame later, this was the goal of Atari Legend and today this is the goal of Stonish. And this will be the same case for original dumps I made since 2 years: sharing. So what's the use of IPF files when we can't share them?
And after my message (which is more than 1 year old, funny to see you come here to expose it now), you never gave me the interest to collect temporary IPF files. Of course I'm open to any kind of valid argument and I can change my mind.
Btw, you said you in a previous post you sent many temporary IPF to Kodak80. Why temporary files only? Did you send him the final files since then?

dlfrsilver wrote:I just wanted to thank you for participating, and your answer was a bit hard.

In real life when someone do something nice to you, you kick him back ?


Again, I didn't kick you back. I just said "no thanks". My answer was polite, I can't do more. Was you waiting from me to kowtow?

In the end, I've been nice with you, i proposed you the IPF of Hook for your effort, and you've answered me in a bit harsh way....

And now you ask me to apologize ? The opposite would be welcome instead.


I didn't expect from you for apologise to myself only, but also about the words you used here against AtariZoll and the women... And your behaviour on this topic. If you can't understand that, I guess it's time for you to make a break from the forum, no?


Social Media

     

Return to “Floppy Disk Preservation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests