[crispy]

It's a shame that we don't share a common language otherwise this would have been an interesting debate.

I'll just respond to Lilith's queries over my "stages"

"- stage 1 is of course protecting against 1/1 copy, SD don't do that "

The point is not that it protects 100% against copying, but that it is SOLD and MARKETED as an anti-copying scheme, designed to prevent casual copying by the vast %age of end-users. i.e. stage one in the "fight" against copying.

"-stage 2 is to resist the longest possible time against reverse/hack. WC3 was out 1 week before the commercial release "

Serial numbers are not solely incorporated to prevent reverse engineering. They are another "original" verification mechanism to ensure that the original packaging is also present. Current serial number cryptography is too complex to be key genned. Safedisc2 is designed as well to prevent reverse engineering by having anti-debug code, encrypted code sections, and self-modifying code. All of which are there to lengthen the time needed to produce a no-cd patch or crack, and remove a serial check mechanism.Most apps are hacked before release due to employees of these companies passing the stuff on.


My main point to all this (yes I am getting there!) is that the key to ant anti-copying protection is, as Macrovision realised a long time ago, is to produce a method which severely limits writing back to a cdr, whilst providing developers as water-tight, complete product as possible. i.e. one that not only limits cd copying to a handful of cd burners, but also provides protection against reverse engineering.

And finally, again, I'm afraid I can't discuss the points you've raised as unfortunately I find your english hard to follow and thus we may have some crossed wires.