# Tages

Edit:

Don’t take this seriously, Now that I look back on it, it looks relatively stupid.

On daemons forum, it says that a guy made a Tages emulator, and he saw that when he read the same sector multiple times, and got multiple different results.

Could this be caused by using irregular bit geometry?

eg. Making bits that are neither 1’s nor 0’s, making them somewhere in the middle, and when you read them twice, you would get two different results.

If so, could you defeat it using something AWS, but instead of writing

First bit:(1111111) Space:(000) 2nd Bit:(0000000) space:(000) 3rd Bit:(1111111)

etc… In this way, because “regular bit patterns are such small artifacts on the disc” (Sorry to the one who first said that, don’t remember who).

Could Irregular bit geometry be foiled by writing

(1010101) (000) (0101010) (000) (10101010)

Just a thought…
Say what what you think about it.

Note: I’m sure there are hundreds of obvious mistakes in this, I’m operating on 2 hours of sleep.

Dude, a bit can be only 1 “1” or 1 “0”.

A series of 1’s and 0’s is a byte!

Different combinations in a byte just give you different numerical values. Try to get more sleep if you can.

How would one go about solving the “irregular bit geometry problem” on A CD-R burner?

And If the below is false, how does AWS work?

I read in another post that that is how it does.

It probably wouldn’t change when hit be the laser because:

1. It would eventually run out, making the original disc not run,
2. This would be essentially the same as irregular bit geometry
3. This would cost a huge sum of money to make, and would have the same effect as IRG.

BTW if AWS doesn’t work as mentioned before, how does it?

It says AWS works as I stated.

Also again: I just realized that only an EFM correct writer could do this, since the 1010’s are a regular bit pattern, and usin an AWS variant would be a modulation of a modulation, which I doubt is possible.

Nice posts guys

Regular bit patterns are …10101010101010…, in fact any pattern that does not conform to the 3/7/11 rule:

At least three bits between transition from a 1 to a 0 & vice versa, an average of 7 and no more than 11.

This is achieved by the writer using the modulation table in its chipset (EFM - Eight to Forteen Modulation). DVD-R(W) uses eight to sixteen modulation.

Because an optical AT reader (my description to cover CD/DVD-ROM & writers) is looking for properly modulated data, as it reads for copying) it sees the regular bit patterns (which are very small artefacts, heh heh, on the disc) and goes bananas because that stuff is not meant to be there.

The SD guard module doesn’t ask the AT device to read the ‘weak’ sectors as they are sometimes described it just checks that they are there - two different commands to the hardware.

Tages, could, conceivably, use pit geometry to again fool the reader. The coolness of this is that sectors can be manipulated rather than mere bytes that can’t be replicated on a dye-based disc. Perhaps the reflectivity is measured and it would be hard to match this on a dye-based disc.

There is one other protection that uses angularity in the protection and it is not widespread because many devices can’t read the original. It remains an excellent protection for other than game discs in the corporate world where specific devices are matched to the CD-ROM for compatibility. The AKL.com website has a good FAQ on device compatibility.

1. That flew straight over my head. Could you describe it in less technical terms?
2. Does your argument say that Tages is more or less likely to be copyable?

My 2 cents.

O’s and 1’s are actual are the computer sees. 8 bits make 1 byte.
Dont get me started about tcpip subnetting. The way a cd is read is of the 1 and 0 .

I agree with FutureProof on the theory. It coule be possibly written in the pit.

DavidGuy might be behind on his sleep but DanNotQuiteTheMan, you are a little lacking in the logic department. -AtomicX

Remind me where I’m wrong, buddy…

All I did was remind the guy the difference between bits and bytes and said that changing 1s and 0s in bytes gives you different numerical values.

You are a little lacking in the logic department!

All my facts are true… You must need more sleep too!

P.S. Only the most immature people resolve to namecalling!!!

Tages & SD 2.51.021 defeat is going to be in the burning (I have some head injuries over this topic elsewhere, heh heh).

For a chipset maker to deliberately ignore EFM, that is, correct modulation of regular bit patterns when required, is a big thing. You see, the chipset maker has to be aware of what he/she is doing; they are coding in order to defeat known copy protection.

Thus it will be the case for Tages, whatever it turns out to be. We can only wait and see what chipset manufacturers & the device makers decide to do.

I can only recommend that you invest in a 60 or 80 GB HDD (good future-proofing!) and run your titles using Daemon’s Tools Phantom CD-ROM until the issue plays out.

Originally posted by FutureProof
[B]

the chipset maker
[/B]

Pronounced “Plextor”

Plextor has always been the game copiers friend, and will continue to be. They have enough pull to change the manufacturers mind, or make their own if neccesary

Btw, who is Plex’s chipset maker, or do they make their own?

Hmm… I misunderstood your message Dan.

The older plextors is sanyo chipset(16X and older), the newer ones is mediatek chipset.

FutureProof :

> Regular bit patterns are …10101010101010…, in
> fact any pattern that does not conform to the
> 3/7/11 rule:
>
> At least three bits between transition from a 1 to
> a 0 & vice versa, an average of 7 and no more
> than 11.
>
> This is achieved by the writer using the
> modulation table in its chipset (EFM - Eight to
> Forteen Modulation). DVD-R(W) uses eight to
> sixteen modulation.
>
> Because an optical AT reader (my description to
> cover CD/DVD-ROM & writers) is looking for
> properly modulated data, as it reads for copying)
> it sees the regular bit patterns (which are very
> small artefacts, heh heh, on the disc) and goes
> bananas because that stuff is not meant to be
> there.
>
> The SD guard module doesn’t ask the AT device
> to read the ‘weak’ sectors as they are sometimes
> described it just checks that they are there - two
> different commands to the hardware.

Wow, that’s quite a theory Now can you make
BetaBlocker fit in it ? As you know BB simply
modify the image before the drive writes it, so
following your theory how could that give working
copies ?

Actually datas on the disc in these weak sectors
are very normally EFM encoded, the regular bit
patterns are not on the disc at all but they are sent
to the EFM encoder (see ECMA-130 annex B), and
the drive “goes bananas” when writing, not reading
them.

you are quoted to having said :

> "I don’t think AWS actually changes anything -
> data wise. As Olli states it’s CloneCD not
> PatchCD. The AWS is a software control that
> ‘forces’ the writer chipset to ‘ignore’ its EFM Table
> in the ROM and write the regular bit patterns
> which are the ‘weak’ sectors.

That is simply wrong, a standard drive cannot
“ignore” its EFM table, neither Olli nor anyone else
can make it so (note the he never stated that
either).

Really Spath, you are so negative.

No … you can’t do this

No … that’s impossible

No … that can’t be done.

Why don’t you just accept the fact that

a) At least these people have sensible theories, even if they are wrong. Don’t tell us what doesn’t happen, tell us what does.

b) You don’t appear to be that knowledgeble on the subject at times, please, leave the tech details to people like Ollie & the creator of Daemon Tools that know what they are talking about.

> a) At least these people have sensible theories,
> even if they are wrong. Don’t tell us what doesn’t
> happen, tell us what does.

Blah, where is my theory wrong or not sensible in
this case ? Have you even read ECMA130 that I
mentioned before opening your mouth ? Did I not
just explained what happens with these weak
sectors ?

> b) You don’t appear to be that knowledgeble on
> the subject at times, please, leave the tech
> details to people like Ollie & the creator of
> Daemon Tools that know what they are talking

Oh boy… for your information, people like Ollie and
the creator of Daemon Tools are writing high level
code for the hardware that people like me have
built. So I think I know a bit more than them (and
without a doubt much more than you) how a drive
works, because knowing the “tech details” is
precisely the reason why I get paid.

Man, I came on this board mainly to share a bit of
what I know, and part of it unfortunately deals with
refuting false theories. I have nothing to gain by
spending my time answering questions here, and
all I get is names calling by people like you who
lack the basic knowledge of the field but are always
ready to start an argument ? Nope, I definitely have
more interesting ways to spend my time with. If you
are too arrogant to hear that you are wrong, keep
and I leave you all the room for your wild guesses

EOF

You are completely missing the point.

The ECMA Reference only states the bloody obvious, OLLIE SAID IN AN ARTICLE THAT THE PROBLEM WITH WEAK SECTORS IS WRITING THEM, NOT READING THEM.

But more to the point, your help isn’t very helpful at all. DavidGuy may have a fundamental misunderstanding but at least he came up with the theory. You don’t help, you sit there rejecting other people’s ideas.

Knowing the tech details, it’s all very well you knowing the tech details but to me YOU appear a little arrogant and complacent. Please don’t give me the “I know it all” air, I may not be correct but at least the theories that I propose “fit in” generally with the copy protection status as we percieve it.

Like I said, don’t tell me what won’t work, tell me what will.

Whatever your job is, you should therefore have a technical understanding, which it appears that you do. Or at least so you think. You are coming over as the main guy from the BBC series “The Office”.

Before you fire of your repartÃ©, perhaps you would care to re-read your message, correct the tone (don’t fire that back at me, I at least know how to write english that won’t come across quite so arrogantly and complacently)

QUOTE: “If you are too arogant to accept that you are wrong”

And you are so arrogant and complacent that you think you are right.

QUOTE “I have more interesting ways to spend your time”

Like moaning at the rest of those who have the misfortune to be in your presence? At least I don’t get kicks slamming people

QUOTE: “Keep your illusions, I don’t care”

Uh… huh… we believe you
Arrogant people are only happy when others think like they do.

QUOTE: “Wild guesses and crazy theories”

Nope… they make perfect sense, and whats more… most of them (Weak Sectors etc.) work. How do I know? Simple:

TZ Copy Protection Beta 11.1.4 & Related Files

As you leave a parting thought from a Dilbert book:

“You are wrong because”

“2. I am the world: I dislike rock music. Therefore rock music is not popular”

You’ll catch on (eventually… )

Sigh… why do I waste my time with such people?

Education it seems, is futile.

Because I am bored of the entire thing:

====POINTLESS ARGUMENT ENDED======================

[QUOTE]Originally posted by AtomicX
[B]

“You are wrong because”

“2. I am the world: I dislike rock music. Therefore rock music is not popular”[/B]

[QUOTE/]

Country, not rock.

Yesh, I also noticed that Spath is usually incorrect in his posts.

Remember the one where he compared CloneCD and 1:1 programs with cracks??? He can’t even tell the difference between what’s legal and what’s not.

We don’t need people like him in this place. Spath, you are just like those salesman at a cheap computer store. You can’t sell a flea to a dog!