Product Activation And Similar Protection Schemes Robs Users Of Purchases [Archive]

Ed Hansberry

01-25-2004, 01:00 AM

If everyone played by the rules and didn't "share" music with everyone that asked, didn't provide cracked software or make copies of software CDs, there would be no need for protection schemes like activation. However, some people don't play by the rules so companies are forced to come up with ways to protect their intellectual property rights. Software makers have taken to some form of product activation which locks the software to either a particular piece of hardware, email address, name or some other unique identifier. You give the software maker your identifier and their server sends you back a key based on that identifier. If any of those items change, say you get a new PC or change ISPs and get a new email, you have to get a new key. Most companies are completely understanding about this and offer a new key with little or no fuss. That is, as long as that company is still around. Chances of anything serious happening to Microsoft in the foreseeable future that would cause their activation servers to disappear are pretty small. Factoring in a long enough time period for this to occur would make any current software titles irrelevant anyway. You aren't going to try installing Office 2003 on any computing device you own in 2015 anyway. But what about the smaller companies? <a href="http://www.iastyle.com/">IA Style</a> is being absorbed into HTC and sent the following info to their customers. <div class="quote"> Quote: We will stop selling products online on January 30, 2004, including those for both Pocket PC and Smartphone platforms. We will continue to provide support, including responding to email questions, until the end of April of 2004. Our website at <a href="www.iastyle.com">www.iastyle.com</a> will continue to function for providing and changing registration codes until the end of August 2004. After August 2004, User Manuals and FAQs for IA Style products will still be available on our website. </div> So, after August of 2004, you will be unable to acquire a new registration code. :evil: This to me is completely unacceptable. Software for Pocket PCs should easily last 2-3 years and I don't think 4-5 years is out of the question, especially the price that is being asked for some packages. Companies with these types of activation schemes should have a plan that in the event of their demise, buyout or simple abandonment of a particular market should have a back door mechanism to allow their customers to access the products they purchased.

Jonathon Watkins

01-25-2004, 01:32 AM

Right on Ed. There are just so many reasons why DRM systems are awkward and unforgiving, but this aspect is not usually considered. Unfortunately, short term thinking abounds with this kind of thing. “If we are going to be around for a long time, we don’t need it and we are going to go under, then I don’t care about the ‘customers’.”

How many firms are going to design something into their software that assumes that they won’t be around forever?

DaleReeck

01-25-2004, 01:40 AM

Five years? I say that if a company goes out of business and is not going to transfer ownership of the product or continue selling it, then the software should become freeware. A registration code should last forever, not just 5 years.

If a company has a code system based on system ID or other changing parameter and they require new ID's if the computer system, PDA or whatever is changed, then before they quit the product, they should issue new codes to registered users that work anytime, anywhere to replace the system-specific ones.

Recently, the author of HTTPMail, a Hotmail plugin for Pocket Outlook had gone on vacation and temporarilly pulled their product from sales. Unfortunately, that person didn't tell anyone and we all assumed that they bailed. Since their software uses a serial based on a PocketPC's system code and, of course, I happened to be installing it to a new PocketPC at the time, I thought I was out of luck. I didn't care about the$5 I spent on it. I cared that it was a useful piece of software that I would have lost. Fortunately, they came back and I was able to get a new serial number. But the issue is clear. If that person had quit the software or died or whatever, I would expect a serial number to be released that would work on all systems or a version of the software fully enabled that didn't require activation. Even after their dead and I'm quite serious here. If a single person is producing a product, then put aside the code or a "master" registration number that can be used in case of something bad happening to them. It doesn't matter whether you are a one person show or Microsoft. If you decide to go into business and sell stuff and take money from people, you need to make sure you do things right - not treat it like some lark. Provide for all possibilities. If you are not willing to do all that work - and you want to mess with all those restricting paranoid registration techniques - then don't bother starting it.

We buy their software with the understanding that we won't illegally share or use it. The least they can do is guarantee that the software won't become useless on future systems if they quit selling it.

tanalasta

01-25-2004, 02:14 AM

As always, this issue involves a fine balance between DRM (protecting sales) and the inconvience it poses for users. Unfortunately, I've found the registration processes that provide the most protection are the most annoying to use. These include various ebook readers who's registration codes are locked to a specific device or change with each hard-reset as the program generates a new activation code.

If a company has a code system based on system ID or other changing parameter and they require new ID's if the computer system, PDA or whatever is changed, then before they quit the product, they should issue new codes to registered users that work anytime, anywhere to replace the system-specific ones.

If a company that provides these does go bust, I think they owe it to consumers to email users with their key-generator so they can continue to use their programs. Whilst I'm sure this will quickly "leak" to various semi-legal websites, if the company goes under / no longer support their software, then they probably won't be generating sales anyway right?

I personally dislike registration processes that require emailing or a link to the software producer's server for activation (e.g. Pdamill, Rocketelite). My preferred system is where each user is allocated a unique serial number that is linked to their name (which never changes) or like pocketinformant, a number that works on the program regardless but belongs to the purchaser.

Ed Hansberry

01-25-2004, 02:31 AM

GoldKey

01-25-2004, 02:41 AM

Turbo Tax required product activation starting last year. That was the main reason lots of users, including myself, switched to Tax Cut. If all of your data is in one of their files and you get audited years later, you would need to be able to reinstall the software on whatever PC you have to access that data. If for some reason they were gone, you would be up a creek. Of course keeping a printed copy of everything is probably a good idea anyway.

KAMware

01-25-2004, 02:51 AM

Software (Copyright) protection has been around since the first program was sold. Actually probably the second application sold when the discovered all the people stealing their first application!

In the days before CD and Internet installs it was all on Floppy discs. The companies used all sorts of sector manipulation schemes to keep people from copying them and other companies made software and hardware schemes to break the protection.

When CDs came out they backed off a little but when CD burners came out this shifted again.

Now I make my living as a programmer. Fortunately most of my programming is for the business community and we do not have problems with this sort of thing since the applications are written specifically for the customer.

Then I started writing ThemeMaker. Someone said I should sell them on the Internet so I tried it. The first ThemeMaker had a simple coding scheme to tie the registration in to the name. Then I wrote more variations of ThemeMaker and it started to acutally bring in some money. One day I did a search on ThemeMakerPro Plus and found over 160 links! I was floored! 99% of them were Eastern Europe and Asian Crack sites with little programs to gen the key for your name. For all the ThemeMakers! No matter what I did within a week they had a crack for it!

So I gave up! I removed all the Shareware programs and replaced them with what I call retail programs. Then made demo programs that had lots of major code removed so the features could never work and the DEMO screen always came up. No more crack site links!

But the effect of this is all the customers who bought and could have bought the Shareware version can no longer download the latest version when ever it came out.

Everyone seems to be getting down on the companies who want to protect their product when the real villians here are the people who steal and it is stealing not pirating, hacking, copying or any other cute term. We all wind up paying for the criminals in this world.

This site, these PPCs and this software are available to us all because of the Capitalist system that requires a profit for our work. People these days seem to think that if it is so simple to download code, music, etc to their computers why should we pay for it.

As long as we condon that acitvity companies will continue to keep putting copy protection on the applications. Be happy they do not insist you have a harware lock (dongle) for each application you buy!

:wink:

Kati Compton

01-25-2004, 03:09 AM

I hate complex product activation. I know there are many people using software illegally, but I don't like "guilty until proven innocent". I still think that in a lot of cases, lower prices would mean more purchases and less piracy. At least, apart from the hard-core pirates that are going to find SOME way to copy it no matter what. Or wouldn't buy it even if they can't.

jkendrick

01-25-2004, 03:29 AM

I agree with Kamware it's a difficult problem. Unfortunately, DRM schemes are becoming very mainstream with all the music and ebook downloads that are taking place every day.

I have a library of ebooks in the hundreds and shudder to think what happens when the DRM schemes are no longer supported. Same with some program activation schemes, too. the only DRM schemes I generally trust are ones that use a decryption key supplied by me, i. e. credit card number or Owner Name from the PPC.

These seem a reasonable compromise to me.

buckyg

01-25-2004, 03:58 AM

I understand software developers/companies have to make money and the softare piracy is a serious problem. So I can understand that they have to do something.

Just don't treat me like a criminal and make me jump through hoops to prove the software I paid good money for is legit.

If you have to use some sort of DRM scheme, make it something I have some control over. jkendrick mentioned some good examples: my owner name, the credit card # used to pay for it, etc. This way, if you go out of business or decide down the road to stop supporting the software/media file, I still can use what I paid for.

Coordinator

01-25-2004, 04:00 AM

... it is stealing not pirating, hacking, copying or any other cute term.

Not according to US law. "Unauthorized copying" is the term. "Stealing" is when you are actually being deprived of something, not potentially deprived. You see, every time I install Linux, Microsoft is being potentially deprived of profit. I guess according to you interpretation of capitalism that is "stealing" too.

... Capitalist system that requires a profit for our work.

"Requires"?
Meaning that it is illegal to work for any other reason?
Or just Un-American?

jkendrick

01-25-2004, 04:16 AM

What software distributors must remember is that when the protection scheme inconveniences the customer or even makes them uneasy then the customer will not buy the product.

The customer is in the driver seat and not the developer. They vote with their dollars or euros or whatever their currency happens to be. There are easy ways to implement a DRM scheme that leaves the encryption key with the customer and these should be what everyone insists on.

And, if customers insist on something the developers must respond or lose them as customers. It's a simple business model, really.

Janak Parekh

01-25-2004, 06:53 AM

The customer is in the driver seat and not the developer.
Not always, though. Sometimes customers don't know, or just plain don't have a choice. Many people I work with don't have the faintest idea of the implications of DRM; they just trust manufacturers and only get burned afterwards.

--janak

C Brandt

01-25-2004, 07:00 AM

If you have to use some sort of DRM scheme, make it something I have some control over. jkendrick mentioned some good examples: my owner name, the credit card # used to pay for it, etc. This way, if you go out of business or decide down the road to stop supporting the software/media file, I still can use what I paid for.

One of the reasons that I've had to include DRM is because of the tight knit group that is my potential customer base. I KNOW that if I were to make the software available without any protection (or even if it was simple -- like a serial number), i would sell at total of 1 copy. Regardless of how much it cost.

I do like the idea of a 'backdoor' authorization code that could be used regardless of any other other factors and will build that into future releases. Just in case...

The problem with some of the other options you mentioned is that I don't know you could do that without compiling a special version for each individual. Any other ideas?

dma1965

01-25-2004, 07:06 AM

I used to use and really like Artssave for backup on my Pocket PC's, but they had an activation scheme which changed the code with every installation, even or the same device. Needless to say, this was too much, so dumped it. Iliuim software, makers of e-wallet and ListPro have given me versions of both of these programs after my purchase that do not require reg codes. I will use their products forever.

Rob Alexander

01-25-2004, 07:08 AM

Five years? I say that if a company goes out of business and is not going to transfer ownership of the product or continue selling it, then the software should become freeware. A registration code should last forever, not just 5 years.
In principle, I agree with you 100%. From a practical standpoint, I can't think of any app I have that, on the current version, is older than 5 years, though Forte's Agent is pretty close. :roll:

So while I'd like to see a "forever" option, I'd still buy knowing that for 5 years i'd be OK because beyond that, chances are very good I'd either be on another platform that no longer supported it, a newer version would have come out or a superior competing product would have caught my eye.

Thanks for picking this up, Ed. As some others have said, it's not about the dollars themselves, but about what you come to depend on the program for. In this case, I'm sure I can find another image viewer for the PPC, but the thing is that I like this one, and I shouldn't have to buy another. I already paid them for this one for as long as I want to use it. It didn't say five years, it was perpetual.

Now I know you can't imagine using something for more than five years, but that's because you're thinking much too narrowly. I sometimes go back to documents created by applications I don't still use that are more than five years old. Sometimes, it's old research that I find I need numbers from again. Other times, it a chart or image that I have in an old Freelance or even Harvard Graphics file. The real world doesn't work in 'computer time' and many of us do work that reflects more than a five year time frame.

Some examples specific examples... I use a complex model developed in Lotus 1-2-3 for teaching in my ecological economics class. I install 1-2-3 only for that one item, but there is no other option. Not only would I have to rebuild it to work with Excel (doesn't automatically convert very well... I tried), but 1-2-3 has a critical feature that Excel lacks which effectively 'breaks' the model for the way I need to use it. Luckily, my students can use Excel for doing their part, but I need this model in this program to evaluate their work. Admittedly, the latest version of 1-2-3 is only about 4 years old, but I have every intention of continuing to use it for the foreseeable future. Luckily there is no copy protection on 1-2-3, so there's no reason I can't do this.

I've abandoned new purchases of another program that I used for modeling over this issue. I've developed economic models in a program called Mathcad since it was a DOS program (ver. 2) in the late 1980s. I've purchased every upgrade to the program until the last one (ver. 11). Now, it has product activation that requires the company's servers to approve the program before I can use it. Well there's no way that I'm going to continue spending thousands of hours developing models in this program and take the chance that they might go out of business, leaving me without access to my own work. For now, I'm using their previous version; I won't be buying another.

These sorts of issues are at the heart of the matter for me. I'm tired of hearing whiny software developers complaining that they're just trying to protect their work product. What they're completely forgetting is that I'm using their product to create MY work product, and I work just as long and hard at it as they do. If they deprive me of the 'engine' that allows me access to my work, then they've done to me exactly what they're working so hard to prevent someone else from doing to them. The difference is that the person they're protecting themselves from is not their customer. I am. Let's all remember that Bill Gates became the richest man in the world by selling software that was NOT copy protected. They started that only after they were hugely successful and held a monopoly in the market. In fact, there were hardly any copy protected programs in the decade of the 90's and software developers still managed to make very good livings. Of course, we the customers paid for the piracy as part of our legitimate purchases, so they weren't really stealing from the developers as much as they were stealing from us. The thing now is, with all of this product activation eliminating piracy, why is software getting more expensive not less? Exactly who is stealing from us now? It looks to me like it's the developers.

Having lived through the original years of copy protection (and being screwed out of programs I paid for, including an early version of Lotus 1-2-3), and having lived through the years where we consumers took it back to developers and forced them to relinquish copy protection (thanks largely to Philip Kahn of Borland Software), I'm amazed that today's consumers just take it all like sheep, not able to look even 15 years in the past to see what they're letting themselves in for. Four years ago, when Microsoft first started their activation scheme in New Zealand and a few other countries (a test to see how people would react before hitting the US with it), I predicted first that if MS got away with it, then everyone else would do it too, and second, that even if MS stayed in business for many years, lots of these others wouldn't and that eventually we'd start getting screwed again.

Sure this is just the first example, and it's certainly an insignificant one, but just remember this one day when the developer of an important program you depend on does this to you. Are you really going to trust your life's work on the future of any software company?

Janak Parekh

01-25-2004, 07:10 AM

The problem with some of the other options you mentioned is that I don't know you could do that without compiling a special version for each individual. Any other ideas?
Perhaps just releasing an unlocked version if you ever close up shop? Or, here's an interesting variation: after a predetermined time (say, Jan. 1, 2007), the program opens itself up.

However, the big problem with backdoors and unlocked versions is that if a company implements those policies, their sale value goes down, as they've essentially given away a copy/implementation of their assets for free. So, it's likely they wouldn't do it until they were actually bought... but when they are, the new management is unlikely to "throw it away" either. :|

My preferred mechanism, for Pocket PCs, is a registration code tied to owner name. If that ultimately causes keygens to be created, then perhaps an activation scheme where you get a license file via email which is tied to owner ID, but is obfuscated to make keygen processing difficult? I haven't ever had to do this with software I've written, so I wouldn't know.

--janak

Janak Parekh

01-25-2004, 07:12 AM

Rob Alexander

01-25-2004, 07:24 AM

Software (Copyright) protection has been around since the first program was sold. Actually probably the second application sold when the discovered all the people stealing their first application!

In the days before CD and Internet installs it was all on Floppy discs. The companies used all sorts of sector manipulation schemes to keep people from copying them and other companies made software and hardware schemes to break the protection.

When CDs came out they backed off a little but when CD burners came out this shifted again.

Copy protection ended long before CDs came out. The first major move toward the elimination of copy protection was Borland's clone of Lotus 1-2-3, around 1986, that came unprotected with a license that said you could use it 'like a book'. You could put in on more than one machine so long as you used it only on one at a time. Not only was it not copy protected, but it cost $50 (compared to 1-2-3's $400-500). This was so successful that other companies followed suit and by 1990, only very specialized and expensive software had any form of copy protection left. All of the major office applications, Word, Ami Pro, Word Perfect, 1-2-3, Excel, etc. came on big piles of floppy disks that were competely unprotected from copying, with games being the only major consumer category that resisted that trend. In addition, the prices fell dramatically.

The consumer support of non-protected software was so strong that no one even considered changing the status quo until Microsoft decided they had sufficient monopoly power to pull it off. And they did, and the rest will soon be history as consumers once again will pay higher and higher prices and will get ripped off either by small developers that disappear, or by large developers that are so big they really don't care. And never forget that bug companies eventually disappear too.

Rob Alexander

01-25-2004, 07:29 AM

I'm amazed that today's consumers just take it all like sheep, not able to look even 15 years in the past to see what they're letting themselves in for.
The problem is that the definition of "consumer" has changed. As the consumer market gets broader, you've got more "average" people who don't know any better, and frankly don't give two moments' thought about it. This is also why DRM can spread more quickly nowadays.

--janak

You are so right, Janak. Back in the 1980's, consumers of computer software had to really know something about their computers just to be able to run them. Now, they really are a commodity and the consumers just do as they're told. Now that I think about it, the word 'amazed' above isn't really right. It's not like I'm surprised or anything. I should have said 'disappointed'.

buckyg

01-25-2004, 07:43 AM

"And never forget that bug companies eventually disappear too."

Whether or not "bug" was intentional, I got a laugh, since you were talking about MS.

The only important business software I've had to activate so far is Office 2000. It did let me run so many times before I had to activate. Some other non-business-important stuff like Reader I believe I had to activate right away. (Well, to use DRM-protected books, I think?)

My point is, if companies are going to force activation, (NO!) I do hope that they allow the program to run X times before it must be activated. Perhaps that is the norm. Why do I bring this up? A couple of good examples:

- In my career, there have been many times that we had to resurrect old, old programs just to access some ancient, arcane file that someone stored important information on years ago. I've seen it many times after the company acquires another company or we've gone on to another system. Some auditor, govt. agency or manager decides they MUST have information contained in this several year old file! So far, the problem has been finding a copy of the software to access it, then finding a machine that can run the program (i.e. some flavor of DOS). If/when that ever happens again, now I have to hope there's a way to activate the program so I can run it once!

- My favorite MS story: When I installed Office 2000, it runs but it's warning me that I have X times left before I must activate. OK, let's activate it. It would not activate electronically, so I called MS. The lady informed me that she could not help me, I needed to call back in 2 days. 2 days? Why? Their computers were all down, that's when they estimate it will be fixed!

01-25-2004, 08:06 AM

This topic is a serious one for me.

I have invested thousands of dollars - man does it ever add up! - in eBooks. I want to ultimately convert decades of book collecting into electronic format. I am a good citizen and want authors and publishers to stay in business, suitably rewarded and producing more books that I will enjoy.

The top concern is that I expect to be able to re-read any book I have purchased 20 years from now. I have some Farmer, or Dick, or Andre Norton books from well, decades ago, and I can still read them. Why shouldn't I expect the same from the eBooks I buy today? The only thing I can count on is that some of them can be read on so many platforms today that I will likely find something running - or emulated - to help me some distant night in the furture when I wake up and simply MUST read some favorite passage.

The trickier bit is finding electronic copies of books that have not been officially released in electronic format. I want to carry them with me everywhere and I have purchased the physical book - so how bad is it to scan, or pick up an e-version off of the net? Tricky stuff, that...

GoldKey

01-25-2004, 04:17 PM

How about creating a company that is a 3rd party lockbox for the code to a program. For an upfront fee, a software company deposits the code with them and can then use their logo to assure the public that the app will be available if the creator goes under. I have seen similar terms in large IT contracts, so it should be possible to scale the same process down.

Edit: Code Escrow is the term for this type of a service. For the life of me, I could not remember it while doing my original post.

whydidnt

01-25-2004, 04:44 PM

This topic reaffirms a previous decision I made. I refuse to purchase software that is tied to some sort of activiation scheme unless there is no other acceptable alternative. Of course I have acitvated my copies of XP". But I use OpenOffice, not MS Office, I switched from TurboTax to TaxCut last year. I have never activated MS-Reader, and use Palm Reader for the few e-books I have. No Norton AV for me anymore either, they want me to activate, as well. The list goes on and on.

I think the only way for these companies to learn that we dislike these type of activation schemes to is vote with our wallets. Intuit learned the hard way with TurboTax last year. I wonder how many users they permanently lost, not to mention how many potential Quicken customers who didn't purchase the bundle?

The stupid thing is that as many incredibly complex activation schemes and DRM measures are taken, there will ALWAYS be crackers and warez sites that will find a way to circumvent them. This means the only ones who are really inconvenienced are the consumers who purchased the software in the first place and are paying for the development. Developers need to come to grips with the fact that there will always be jerks out there that won't pay for the software no matter what and work to better support the folks that will actually pay for it.

There are many examples of shareware, donationware, freeware, etc. out there that demonstrate if you offer good software at a good price people will buy it and pay for it - even if they don't "have to".

whydidnt

fireflyrsmr

01-25-2004, 05:00 PM

As a user (not a coder) it's an obvious position to take against the activation. I would love to see some organization certify software as perpetual ownership so that when I buy I know there will be an out when the company morphs into something else that won't care about my $15 purchase 6 years ago. I've lost some one book already to this mess. It just was not worth the hassle to fix the thing. the result was to be really soured on MSReader ebook purchases.

disconnected

01-25-2004, 10:58 PM

I don't worry too much about software because I assume that as hardware changes, I'll gradually have to replace software anyway; that's easy for me to say, of course, because I don't use my PPC for business; it's purely for personal use.

What I do worry about is ebooks. I've always bought tons of physical books, and have eventually donated most of them to organizations that raise money with used book sales, just because they take up so much room. I'd hoped to be able to keep my ebooks indefinitely, and I've already bought hundreds of them. Perfectbound is gradually releasing all of Agatha Christie's mysteries as ebooks; she wrote over a hundred books, so this will be an investment of about five hundred dollars. If PeanutPress goes out of business, and their reader won't run on whatever hardware is being used in ten years, then all of those ebooks will be useless. I can see that ebooks present a different sort of problems than software does, because of copyright issues; I would assume that PeanutPress would be unable to unlock books before going out of business, even if they wanted to, because publishers wouldn't allow them to. I don't know what the solution might be.

jkendrick

01-25-2004, 11:05 PM

I wonder what the ramifications are of hacking the DRM for a defunct organization as we've raised concerns about here.

Seems like if a Palm Digital Media or other company selling DRM protected material goes out of business someone could step up and crack it legally. This would protect a lot of individual's investment.

dma1965

01-25-2004, 11:19 PM

If I must buy a DRM encrypted MSReader book I immediately strip out the DRM upon receiving it. I was ok with the DRM until I had to take a trip to Rome and my DRM encrypted travel guide would not work because the activation site was down and when it finally came up it would not let me activate my device because it said I had used up my quota. It took me several phone calls to Microsoft support and many emails to finally get them to give in, one day before I left for my trip. Really annoying, because I wanted to read the guide and bookmark it during the previous week, but my LEGALLY purchased book was unusable until Microsoft got off of their high horses and let me activate. That was enough for me. I still buy MSReader books, but I immediately run ConvertLit on them to open them up, regardless of my activation status. Microsoft can just kiss my hind end if they don't like that. Make it easier for me to read my legally purchased ebooks, or deal with my "criminal" workaround.

jkendrick

01-25-2004, 11:31 PM

I feel your pain but if you buy MS Reader books you're not teaching them anything. They get their DRM royalties anyway. It's one reason I never buy ebooks in MS Reader format.

Jonathon Watkins

01-26-2004, 12:18 AM

... crack it legally.

Isn't that an oxymoron, like 'Military Intelligence' etc? :wink:

jkendrick

01-26-2004, 12:23 AM

... crack it legally.

Isn't that an oxymoron, like 'Military Intelligence' etc? :wink:

I like to think of more on the terms of "rendering it useful"

:D

ctmagnus

01-26-2004, 01:55 AM

I like to think of more on the terms of "rendering it useful"

:D

:rotfl:

tanalasta

01-26-2004, 01:57 AM

I like to think of more on the terms of "rendering it useful"

Is there any way of converting DRM'ed lit files into isilo format? I haven't quite figured out how convertlit works (let me know!) but what i really want to do is convert a book i bought on .lit format (ironically enough the NIV bible) which ended up being such a pain to activate/browse that i went and paid for laridian's pocketbible.

Still, i did spend a good deal of money and if i can convert any other ebooks into my favourite isilo format I'd go out and buy a couple more ebooks.

jkendrick

01-26-2004, 02:15 AM

Rob Alexander

01-26-2004, 06:26 AM

"And never forget that bug companies eventually disappear too."

Whether or not "bug" was intentional, I got a laugh, since you were talking about MS.

Oops! I guess that might have been something of a Freudian slip, but of course I meant 'big companies'. In Microsoft's case, you can read it either way and it works! :lol:

ChristopherTD

01-26-2004, 08:49 AM

I have purchased some games for my PC through TryMedia, who have a certificate based licensing scheme. When you purchase a game it downloads a certificate to your PC which enables you to use the game on that PC. They also offer several ways to recover that certificate if you rebuild your PC and have to reinstall. All of this of course depends on the continued existence of TryMedia. I am happy to accept that risk for games because they are not critical applications, and I really appreciate being able to run them without having to look for the CD every time I run the game, solely to prove that I own the software.

My Dad had a 3-month battle with PGP to get a licence out of them that enabled him to re-install the software without having to activate it. If PGP go belly-up, any user whose licence expires (and they mostly issue yearly licences) could find themselves unable to read encrypted documents or even their entire disk! This is not somewhere I want to be, so I never renewed my PGP licence.

Somewhere in between is my library of MS Reader books. I could, I suppose, use Convert Lit, but when I did that with a previous version one of the first books I opened was corrupted. It is simply too tedious to convert, check the conversion, archive the original, and generally adminster such a regime. So I rely on the hope that MS will support the product, and so far, despite changing PC several times and using multiple PPCs I have had no problems re-activating.

I also have Palm Reader Pro and I find the DRM on that much more intrusive. Each book must be unlocked on each device, and there is scope for having it marked with subtle differences in user name so that it may take several attempts. I have 3 Palm DRM titles, and several hundred MS Reader titles as a result.

As many have noted it is always the legitimate purchaser who is penalised by copy-protection. The protection never does anything to quell the organised criminals, but does, to an extent, deter casual theft. But it really annoys the paying customer.

bjornkeizers

01-26-2004, 09:58 AM

Here's how I see it. Now, some of you may know my views on piracy and my personal involvement in these matters. I have been a software developer and someone once called me "the modern day Robin Hood of software re-distribution" [how's that for cute? :D]

The problem here is, no matter *what* you do as a developer to protect your software, they'll always be able to crack it. Even product activation or system-based keys don't stop them. I know. I've been there and done that. The only way to stop people from cracking your software is not developing any.

But as a result, real customers who did buy the software have to jump through hoops to activat and use it, and they run the risk of not being able to use it on other devices or at a later date. Who's to say that these companies will still be around in even three months time?

KAMware

01-26-2004, 01:53 PM

The bottom line is the honest consumer is going to pay in some way for the dishonest people who steal software. Either with annoying attempts at protection, increased prices to cover losses or companies going out of business.

It comes down to the cost of doing business. Businesses are not going to continue to take losses without attempting to do something about it. The ones who are unsuccessful go out of business.

The problem is the criminals and not the companies. We need more efforts applied to catching and prosecuting the thieves who steal the work.

Until that happens we will continue to pay in some way.

This is just another example of how society suffers from criminal activity.

It is human nature to attempt to remedy a problem the quickest and easiest way even if it does not address the core problem. The Software companies create annoying protection schemes or increase prices and consumers complain about the companies. When the core problem are the criminals!

When I first created ThemeMaker I put in the easiest reg system I could come up with. I did not want to make it inconvenient for the people to register it. Plus they could download the latest version any time they wanted to. When I discoverd the extent of the criminal sites I had to make a drastic change in the distribution. I think my answer is actually even better in that the customer does not have to register anything. They just get a completely funcitional program. I decided to trust the customer who buys the program not to give it away. And Trust is difficult to find in business these days! I feel the change has been good for both the customer and myself. It adds more work for me if they want an update but it reduces the work necessary to process reg codes and keep track of them.

We all have to make adjustments to our lives to put up with the effects of the crimal element in society. I hope we all do it in a civil and trusting way. :)

jkendrick

01-26-2004, 05:52 PM

I agree with Kamware and his outlook on the situation. But, for me there's a distinct difference in DRM protected software (which I understand is necessary) and the DRM schemes for other material.

Ebooks and music are a different matter and users should be concerned about the longevity of the different DRM schemes they employ. There definitely should be a standard mechanism for handling the event of a publisher going out of business. I believe that was the original premise behind Ed's first post. To have a program unusable in that event is not a happy event but not shattering.

To have one's entire music or ebook library rendered useless is unthinkable. :cry:

JohnnyFlash

01-26-2004, 08:37 PM

Then I started writing ThemeMaker. Someone said I should sell them on the Internet so I tried it. The first ThemeMaker had a simple coding scheme to tie the registration in to the name. Then I wrote more variations of ThemeMaker and it started to acutally bring in some money. One day I did a search on ThemeMakerPro Plus and found over 160 links! I was floored! 99% of them were Eastern Europe and Asian Crack sites with little programs to gen the key for your name. For all the ThemeMakers! No matter what I did within a week they had a crack for it!

So I gave up! I removed all the Shareware programs and replaced them with what I call retail programs. Then made demo programs that had lots of major code removed so the features could never work and the DEMO screen always came up. No more crack site links!

But the effect of this is all the customers who bought and could have bought the Shareware version can no longer download the latest version when ever it came out.

Everyone seems to be getting down on the companies who want to protect their product when the real villians here are the people who steal and it is stealing not pirating, hacking, copying or any other cute term. We all wind up paying for the criminals in this world.

This site, these PPCs and this software are available to us all because of the Capitalist system that requires a profit for our work. People these days seem to think that if it is so simple to download code, music, etc to their computers why should we pay for it.

Yea, well, you know what. Kam? If you developers wouldn't freakin overcharge for your products, and would ask a fair price instead, people wouldn't be "forced" to "steal" your work.

There are so many PPC developers that charge $30, $40, $50 and more for their code. This is absurd. There's no possible way these programs are worth this. And don't give me that crap about charging what the market will pay. Gandi said: "Naught but a thief is a man who would charge as much as he can get for his goods". Capitalism is an immoral and corrupt system. It works with humanity as well as it does, because we're a greedy and selfish species. If there was a food shortage, and people were starving, it doesn't make it okay to charge $50 for a loaf of bread just because you can get it. And yes, I know software isn't bread, but guess what sport...it's EXACTLY the same principle.

So, after you pulled all the shareware, then no more "crack sites" huh? That won't help you anymore, thanks to our good friend file sharing. I'll give you a perfect example: The recent HanDBase contest. It's an expensive piece of software. They know this, which is why they have chosen to offer us a discount as a consolation prize for those of us who didn't win a copy. They can sell it at 25% off, and still easily make loads of money. So, why do they normally sell it for more than they need to in order to generate a profit? Simple, GREED. But, their copy protection schemes don't help them protect their overpriced products. I entered the contest, and frankly feel I had the most compelling story. I didn't win. But, if I absolutely have to have a copy of HanDBase, all I have to do is fire up OverNet (e-donkey) and voila! Free HanDBase! Not only the full working program, but cracks and serial numbers as well. Don't believe me, have a look for yourself. And they can't stop OverNet because it uses a distributed sharing model. Meaning it has no servers of it's own ala Napster. They'd have to find and unplug every PC running the software. So, there you have it. The only way to beat people "stealing" your overpriced wares.....is to be fair about what you charge.

Pat Logsdon

01-26-2004, 09:12 PM

Blammage, I think you made one good point in your long (and very angry/bitter) post. I think that the best recourse for combating warez is reasonable prices. This is why we see the success of iTunes - Apple has found a price point that a large number of people are willing to pay for a song and/or a CD.

Are you a developer? I'm not, but I know that it's a lot of work to write an application, and even more work on top of that to run a business. If you can't afford a piece of software, look for freeware. There's plenty of it out there. If you like the free program, use it. If you find that the commercial product is better, skip a trip or two to the burger joint and pay for the best software. Why should all of the sacrificing have to be on the side of the small developer?

Don't like capitalism? I'm sure that you buy all of your goods and services at local businesses instead of Walmart or Target then, right? You pay more at those stores, don't you? But you do it because they shouldn't have to compete with mega-corpo-monoliths. Am I right?

Personally, I don't think that $12 is outrageous to pay for ThemeMaker McDeb on Handango - but I'd bet that Kamware would see more sales (and less incentive to pirates) if the price was dropped to $9.99.

JohnnyFlash

01-26-2004, 09:45 PM

Don't like capitalism? I'm sure that you buy all of your goods and services at local businesses instead of Walmart or Target then, right? You pay more at those stores, don't you? But you do it because they shouldn't have to compete with mega-corpo-monoliths. Am I right?

Well, you are right about most of your comments, SS. I don't shop at Walmart or at Target, or at Best Buy. But not for the reasons you might think. I don't shop at Walmart becasue they refuse to carry some music and games because they disagree with the content, and they are afraid children will get a hold of them. I believe this is a decision that should be made by a parent, and is between that parent and his child. And, I don't want Walmart involved in my parenting decisions. It's their prerogative not to carry it, and it's my prerogative to take my dollars elsewhere in protest...which I do. (Ironically, my wife shops at Walmart all the time, and I shop at Sam's. Go figure)

I don't shop at Target for the same reason I don't shop at Best Buy. They're security psychos. Everytime I'd approach their store, they had the cops up there and were in the process of arresting some poor schmuck. Know what? If these people could afford to pay for this stuff, they would...give 'em a break. Sheesh. It is a rare criminal indeed who will steal something he can actually afford to buy. They don't WANT to steal. Target and Best Buy need to understand that some shrinkage is a cost associated with doing business. These retailors think they can be in business and make money without taking any risks. It's just not realistic. As far as those of us who actually DO pay shouldering the costs of those who don't...I think we should. It doesn't hurt those of us who have, to help those of us who have not.

So for me, it's not really about how large the retailor or business is, it's about how they treat their customers. Show us some trust now and then for God's sake. We'll return it.

Rob Alexander

01-26-2004, 11:51 PM

The bottom line is the honest consumer is going to pay in some way for the dishonest people who steal software. Either with annoying attempts at protection, increased prices to cover losses or companies going out of business.

That, of course is true. But there are huge differences in how we end up paying. If I have to pay an extra $20 (or whatever) for a major software package due to piracy, I can live with that. In fact, we've all been living with that for years.

What I cannot live with is any sort of scheme that has the potential to affect my own ability to do my work. The value of thousands of hours of my work, that could potentially be lost under one of these activation schemes, is just too high to risk on the continued existence of a company.

The problem is the criminals and not the companies. We need more efforts applied to catching and prosecuting the thieves who steal the work.

Seriously, that's not going to happen and we all know it. You may as well pretend we're going to win the war on drugs by catching and prosecuting drug lords. Hint: It doesn't work and there is nothing anyone can do to stop serious pirates either. (Well, there is something we can do about drugs, but that's so far off-topic that it's best to leave that one for an entirely different forum.)

So this is just a red herring. The problem with pirates exists and will always exist, and it's just part of the landscape of doing business in this industry. Many very rich people have proven that you can do very well in spite of these people. That's not the problem. The problem is with the companies who aren't satisfied to make a good living (in some cases amazingly good) and who think they can wring a few extra dollars out of teenage warez lords who would never have bought their products in the first place.

The problem is in companies being so paranoid that someone may get something for free (whether or not the company actually lost anything in the process) that they're willing to cripple their own product for legitimate users who actually do pay their salaries. The problem for those companies is that people will only put up with it until they have a few experiences like this, and then they'll stop buying software from any company that doesn't guarantee the continuing ability of users to use the software they've paid for.

yslee

01-27-2004, 02:08 AM

This is a really good thread on DRM (should be archived and shown to greedy developers), I'd like to say I agree with a lot of what Rob and Blammage has to say, in particular about being able to retrive one's work over the years, as well as the overpriced software which leads to piracy. I've seen some pretty simple things which are normally freeware on the PC made 14.95 demoware on the PPC.. :roll:

I personally can't stand any form of product activation tied to hardware, since I tinker with my PC quite often, so there's no way I'll buy them. However the masses are taking this nonsense quite well, and I don't have any hope this stupid form of copy protection is going away soon.. :(

GoldKey

01-27-2004, 02:44 AM

I don't shop at Target for the same reason I don't shop at Best Buy. They're security psychos. Everytime I'd approach their store, they had the cops up there and were in the process of arresting some poor schmuck. Know what? If these people could afford to pay for this stuff, they would...give 'em a break.

So you don't think the amount of shrinkage would increase if shoplifters were not getting arrested? As a shareholder in Target, I am very happy to see them being pretty tough on shoplifters. Funny, I've seen quite a few shoplifters get busted, and they are not stealing bread and milk or other "essentials". It is usually CD's/DVD's/Video Games. By your logic, if someone who can't afford something steals it from your home, you should just cut them some slack too.

Also you say you do shop at Sams even though you boycott walmart. You do know they are the same company right? Do you think they really care whether you shop at one or the other?

shawnc

01-27-2004, 04:08 AM

I agree with the spirit of Blammage's comments. I understand that people deserve to be paid for the creativity and efforts. However (as Blammage points out with the "Bread" analogy), capitalism is not a reason to gouge people. I recently purchased software that will allow me to sync documents between my PPC and desktop without losing all of my formatting. I PAID $50 FOR THIS! The developer could afford to charge such an exhorbitant price because of a lack of competition. However, just because you can doesn't mean you should. I knew there were "ways" to copy the software but I wasn't comfortable with that. Eventually someone else will come out with a competing product and when that happens I will ditch my current package. I will never buy from this developer again simply because charging $50 for this software tells me all I need to know about this developer. Some of them just don't get it. You can't gouge people and stay in business for the long term.

bjornkeizers

01-27-2004, 04:46 PM

Yea, well, you know what. Kam? If you developers wouldn't freakin overcharge for your products, and would ask a fair price instead, people wouldn't be "forced" to "steal" your work.

People will steal no matter what. Free beats even $1, you know that. It doesn't matter to them if it costs $5 or $500 - they'll steal it regardless. The people that are really good at warez aren't the people who are going to buy software IN THE FIRST PLACE! Rather then go out of their way to put Orwellian protection in software, I say they shouldn't put ANY in it.

The current forms of protection aren't stopping the pirates. Hell, some of the people who code your software by day are the ones ripping it by night! So why make the customer jump through hoops?

There are so many PPC developers that charge $30, $40, $50 and more for their code. This is absurd. There's no possible way these programs are worth this.

Most aren't, one or two are. I agree that anything over $20 is a bit steep for PPC software, but all consumers vote with their wallets. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Can't afford it? Find a cheaper alternative. Also, regarding "making a profit" - that's not really how things work with downloadable software.

If I make a car, I have to buy parts to use, paint to paint it, hire people to build it etc. etc. At the end of the day, I have a car that cost me X to make and I can sell it for Y. My profit is Z.

But with sofware, you only really need to make ONE copy. You can sell that over and over if you want to. You don't even need to have an expensive site or a really big staff. Way back when, when I developed software for Palms [this was 96 mind you, everyone could develop for Palm back then] it cost you nothing to make it but the hours you put into it, and Palmgear would happily put your stuff on their site and you could ask for money through mail. I still have my first sale, framed on my wall...

So point is, after a certain amount of time, EVERY SINGLE DOLLAR you make is PURE PROFIT - minus the time and electricity bills you need to generate the keys for the software.

JohnnyFlash

01-27-2004, 05:15 PM

So you don't think the amount of shrinkage would increase if shoplifters were not getting arrested? As a shareholder in Target, I am very happy to see them being pretty tough on shoplifters. Funny, I've seen quite a few shoplifters get busted, and they are not stealing bread and milk or other "essentials". It is usually CD's/DVD's/Video Games. By your logic, if someone who can't afford something steals it from your home, you should just cut them some slack too.

Also you say you do shop at Sams even though you boycott walmart. You do know they are the same company right? Do you think they really care whether you shop at one or the other?

I see your point Goldey, but you're making mine for me. You see, your entire point of view on this last post is centered around how much wealth you can accumulate as a stockholder in Target. You getting rich is more important to you than whether or not arresting some kid is fair and appropriate for his crime.

I'm not saying shrinkage would decline if we stopped arresting shoplifters, and I'm not even saying we should ignore what they're doing and let them get away with it either. I'm simply saying that arresting some fourteen year old kid, just because he couldn't get his mom to give him forty bucks for a videogame is ludicrous. It doesn't solve the underlying problem, and it doesn't even BEGIN to address the real issue that the game shouldn't cost forty dollars in the first place. What you have here is a poor kid going to jail simply because a software developer or publisher doesn't have enough yachts to ski behind. Jail should be a place for violent people....NOT our poor or our children. And justifying putting them there just so you can get richer by proetecting some heartless corporation is mean spirited and selfish.

And whether we're talking about milk, bread and eggs or Call of Duty, it's EXACTLY the same principle. I don't believe people ever really WANT to steal. It's stressful, it's risky, it drains them emotionally. But, i think they do it when they feel they are out of other options.

You asked about what my attitude would be if people actually did their stealing from my home. You asked if I would be as willing to cut them some slack then. If you read my post in the thread concerning the HanDBase giveaway, you'll see that my family and I actually have been stolen from directly, and out of our home. Following that harrowing event that took place only a couple of years ago, as my two sons stood in their room, sobbing and crying out loud, and staring at where their x-box used to sit...you know what I told them?

I said: "Guys, it was just stuff. That's all. Nothing more. Stuff that we can and will replace. We still have each other. We should just feel lucky that we can afford to recover from this. But you know what? As long as we live in a world where some people (like us) have so much, and other people have so little, we will have crime. So the lesson we should learn from this is that if we want the world to be a place where stuff like this doesn't happen any more, or at least not as much, we should work to help those less fortunate than ourselves, and not be so self centered, greedy and selfish."

No, the DVD's, software, electronics, jewelry and other things they took from us weren't "essentials" as you put it. But you know what? I bet they just got tired, and became overwhelmed with the frustration that comes from living in a world every day, where it seems everyone around you has everything they dream of, and you have next to nothing by comparison. And I bet they felt they had no other options for acquiring the little luxuries of life that would make them feel more a part of this great human experiment.

I don't think we should feel angry or vengeful toward them. I think we should try to empathize with the hopelessness they probably felt as a result of the situation they've been dealt by life. They don't need our punishment...they need our understanding.

By the way, yes I know Sam's and Walmart are the same corporation. I don't hate the corporation as a whole. I'm just trying to protest their policy of trying to control my family's entertainment options. Sam's doesn't restrict their inventory based on ESRB ratings like Walmart does. So, I shop at Sam's. You asked if I think they really care whether I shop at one or the other. No, that's exactly my point. I don't think they really care about me AT ALL. The ONLY thing they care about is money. That's it. Which is EXACTLY why we shouldn't protect their greed by locking up our unfortunate, our poor and our young as though they are less valuable than Target's profits.

People should always come before money.

JohnnyFlash

01-27-2004, 05:21 PM

Kati Compton

01-27-2004, 05:41 PM

The current forms of protection aren't stopping the pirates. Hell, some of the people who code your software by day are the ones ripping it by night! So why make the customer jump through hoops?
To some extent you are right, but there are a lot of people out there that copy software without thinking about it - not because they have no moral objection and are doing it anyway - I mean they're really not thinking. Situations like when a school or small business buys one copy of Office, and then those discs get passed around and installed on every computer. Much harder to do that now. I'm not saying I *like* the current controls, but there's an additional motivator for them beyond the "classic" pirates.

Jacob

01-27-2004, 06:08 PM

It doesn't solve the underlying problem, and it doesn't even BEGIN to address the real issue that the game shouldn't cost forty dollars in the first place. What you have here is a poor kid going to jail simply because a software developer or publisher doesn't have enough yachts to ski behind. Jail should be a place for violent people....NOT our poor or our children. And justifying putting them there just so you can get richer by proetecting some heartless corporation is mean spirited and selfish.

Why shouldn't the game cost $40? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't.

What should these games cost? $10? $5?? Frankly, I think $40 for a good game is perfectly reasonable considering the use most people get out of them. Just about all are more than 10 hours of playing time - and a lot can be played over and over. I guess it's unreasonable that these companies make money off of their product?

The price doesn't justify stealing it. If it's too expensive, don't buy it.

And whether we're talking about milk, bread and eggs or Call of Duty, it's EXACTLY the same principle. I don't believe people ever really WANT to steal. It's stressful, it's risky, it drains them emotionally. But, i think they do it when they feel they are out of other options.

I don't see how it's exactly the same principle at all.

With food there's a legitimate need to have it to survive so I see a reason to feel a need to steal it if you can't afford to feed yourself or your family.

With a video game there is NO justifiable need there at all. They steal it because they don't have the money and they want the video game. There is no need to steal it.

JohnnyFlash

01-27-2004, 06:33 PM

Why shouldn't the game cost $40? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't.

What should these games cost? $10? $5?? Frankly, I think $40 for a good game is perfectly reasonable considering the use most people get out of them. Just about all are more than 10 hours of playing time - and a lot can be played over and over. I guess it's unreasonable that these companies make money off of their product?

The price doesn't justify stealing it. If it's too expensive, don't buy it.

I don't see how it's exactly the same principle at all.

With food there's a legitimate need to have it to survive so I see a reason to feel a need to steal it if you can't afford to feed yourself or your family.

With a video game there is NO justifiable need there at all. They steal it because they don't have the money and they want the video game. There is no need to steal it.

Well, see, here's the thing about "the truth", Jacob: It's always "True". I learned a long time ago that if you wanted to test the validity of something, you carried it to it's logical conclusion. That is to say, you take it to extremes. If something is "True", then it's true in EVERY situation. If it isn't, then it isn't. It's sort of a self-fulfilling truth.

You seem to be making exceptions here and there based on what it is that's being stolen. I don't do that. Either stealing is wrong, period. Or it isn't. It shouldn't depend on what's being stolen. Either these producers and retailers are bringing the theft on themselves by overpricing their products, or they aren't. I believe they are.

The problem with applying a filter to this stuff and saying stealing this item is one thing, and stealing that item is something else, is that it makes the theft subject to one person's interpretation...a gray area, rather than a universal truth.

To your comment, I'd say this: Why is stealing the bread different? Why not just take your medicine like a man. You can't afford to eat? Too bad, lie down and die with some dignity for God's sake! Don't cost me extra because you can't pull your own weight.

This is the same thing you're saying to that teenager that steals that game. Oh, you were born into a poor family? Your parents can't afford to buy you the game that every other kid in your class is playing at night, and then raving about the next day at school? Too bad. Take your medicine like a man. I mean, sheesh! Your personal happiness is WAY less important than Target's profit margin, or that software developer's new Lexus. Crawl outta my way kid...you're a drain on society. Tough luck! You should have been born into a better family.

See what I mean about testing something's validity with extremes. If it's true in the first place...it should be true in ALL instances.

Jacob

01-27-2004, 06:45 PM

Do you think killing is wrong in all cases? What about self-defense? Most people think War is bad - but is war the wrong thing to do in all cases? No. I do think there are some wars that have been faught for the right reasons - and so were the RIGHT thing to do.

Yes, I'm taking it to extremes - but according to you if something's wrong in one case, then it's wrong in all. Right?

I do think stealing the bread is illegal and the store has every right to take the food from the person stealing it. However, I do have sympathy with the person stealing it if they are stealing it to survive.

I do NOT have sympathy for the kid who feels bad because they can't play a video game so tries to steal it. I grew up in a well off family and I still was not allowed to have a video game system. I never felt like I NEEDED to have the games - nor did I need to have the games. I also had NO justification for stealing it.

I just posted the world's smallest violin for the horror kids who don't have the LUXURY of an Xbox or a PS2, and yes - it is a LUXURY!

YOu really think EVERY software developer can afford to buy a lexus? Yeesh.. I guess I'm the only one who can't! Most people at my company don't have a new lexus either. Software has real value that is over just the price of the CD it's printed on.

Just like a Lexus, video games are a luxury - not a requirement to live a good life.

JohnnyFlash

01-27-2004, 06:52 PM

Jacob

01-27-2004, 07:00 PM

I understand your point, Jacob. But yes, I DO think killing is wrong in ALL cases.

Including, self defense, war, retribution, revenge, self preservation, etc. I feel like my theory holds up here. Killing is always wrong...and from where I'm standing, there are no exceptions. I would NEVER kill another human being in order to preserve my own life.

Well, although I wonder what you would think if you were in that situation, I wouldn't wish it upon you.

I personally think there have been wars that needed to be fought - I think WW2 was a justified war for the allies and was necessary. I shudder to think of what would have happened if England refused to defend itself or they refused to shed blood over it.

This is getting way off-topic at this point though, so I'll agree to disagree on this point :)

Pat Logsdon

01-27-2004, 07:12 PM

Well, see, here's the thing about "the truth", Jacob: It's always "True". I learned a long time ago that if you wanted to test the validity of something, you carried it to it's logical conclusion. That is to say, you take it to extremes. If something is "True", then it's true in EVERY situation. If it isn't, then it isn't. It's sort of a self-fulfilling truth.

You seem to be making exceptions here and there based on what it is that's being stolen. I don't do that. Either stealing is wrong, period. Or it isn't. It shouldn't depend on what's being stolen. Either these producers and retailers are bringing the theft on themselves by overpricing their products, or they aren't. I believe they are.
I totally disagree with this statement. Things are never that black and white, and there IS a difference between stealing bread and stealing Call of Duty. Bread is a necessity - humans kind of need food to live. Call of Duty - not so much. It's a LUXURY. By your logic, if I want to upgrade from my VW GTI to a VW Phaeton, I would be justified in stealing it because I can't afford it at my current salary.

If we follow your logic to the ultimate extreme, we should all be happy living in a communist state, where everyone has the same things as everyone else, and there are price controls on everything.

Unfortunately, it's a fact of human nature that people want nice things. It's natural to aspire to have a better life. The way to do that is to work hard and do your best, not just take what you want because you want it. That's the exact same mentality used by the heads of corporations that set the high prices you're talking about.

JohnnyFlash

01-27-2004, 08:05 PM

I totally disagree with this statement. Things are never that black and white, and there IS a difference between stealing bread and stealing Call of Duty. Bread is a necessity - humans kind of need food to live. Call of Duty - not so much. It's a LUXURY. By your logic, if I want to upgrade from my VW GTI to a VW Phaeton, I would be justified in stealing it because I can't afford it at my current salary.

If we follow your logic to the ultimate extreme, we should all be happy living in a communist state, where everyone has the same things as everyone else, and there are price controls on everything.

Unfortunately, it's a fact of human nature that people want nice things. It's natural to aspire to have a better life. The way to do that is to work hard and do your best, not just take what you want because you want it. That's the exact same mentality used by the heads of corporations that set the high prices you're talking about.

I'm just saying that the VW Phaeton should be priced so that anyone who wants one should be able to afford one, and shouldn't be put into a position to steal or do without.

And, yes, I think living in a state with price controls where every person could have the best of anything they chose would be ideal. Unfortunately, due to our nature, a system like this would never work, because human nature dictates that we are selfish, and unwilling to do almost anything that doesn't somehow directly benefit us.....Well, most of us anyhow.

Coordinator

01-28-2004, 12:16 AM

People, come on, making a copy is NOT stealing.
Stealing is when owner actually loses something, not potentially loses.
That is the definition in US law, and that is the common sense definition.

denivan

01-28-2004, 12:21 AM

Confession time...I download warez...

On to the reason why : I don't like crippled demo versions . I've bought a couple
of programs for my PPC and uninstalled them after a week because they didn't do what they promised to do.
If a program catches my interest and has a steep price (imo most PPC apps do), I download it. If I really like it, I will buy it. Most
apps just don't suit my needs, so I just delete them after a couple of days. At the moment I have no warez running on my PPC, a
good mixture of freeware and carefully picked commercial apps gets me by. I must admit though :
I would never buy software that makes you jump through hoops, especially when it comes to PPC software .

Ivan

Jacob

01-28-2004, 12:26 AM

denivan

01-28-2004, 12:50 AM

I'm just saying that the VW Phaeton should be priced so that anyone who wants one should be able to afford one, and shouldn't be put into a position to steal or do without.

And, yes, I think living in a state with price controls where every person could have the best of anything they chose would be ideal. Unfortunately, due to our nature, a system like this would never work, because human nature dictates that we are selfish, and unwilling to do almost anything that doesn't somehow directly benefit us.....Well, most of us anyhow.

I can't justify the cost of a Phaeten, heck I can't even justify the cost of a VW Golf GTI, so I drive a Renault Clio 1.2 with an astonishing 74 horse power ! ;) (after crashing my previous faster car I should add). Off course, my clio is plenty for what it needs to do (driving me around), but if you want to sponsor me a GTI, feel free ;-)

Anyway, in a society like this, prices aren't fair. Luxury cars cost too much...actors, singers, sporters, earn way too much compaired to really helpfull people like firemen, policemen etc...

Heck, even where I work sometimes I feel like we overcharge, and I feel bad when someone tells me over the phone that he can't afford our services....so, what's the solution to this ? Beats me...but if you know it, please share ;)

Ivan

Coordinator

01-28-2004, 02:42 AM

So you think software piracy isn't stealing?

Yes, I think unathorized copying is not stealing.

Wrong for other reasons? Or OK?

Depends. For example, when someone will not buy a software product (for whatever reason), and has a choice between copying and not using it, I think copying is fine. And even when I think it is wrong, I don't think anyone has the right to force him/her not to do it.

Here is the story I like to quote to explain the point:

I was in the pub last night, and a guy asked me for a light for his cigarette. I suddenly realised that there was a demand here and money to be made, and so I agreed to light his cigarette for 10 pence, but I didn't actually give him a light, I sold him a license to burn his cigarette. My fire-license restricted him from giving the light to anybody else, after all, that fire was my property. He was drunk, and dismissing me as a loony, but accepted my fire (and by implication the licence which governed its use) anyway. Of course in a matter of minutes I noticed a friend of his asking him for a light and to my outrage he gave his cigarette to his friend and pirated my fire! I was furious, I started to make my way over to that side of the bar but to my added horror his friend then started to light other people's cigarettes left, right, and centre! Before long that whole side of the bar was enjoying MY fire without paying me anything. Enraged I went from person to person grabbing their cigarettes from their hands, throwing them to the ground, and stamping on them.

Strangely the door staff exhibited no respect for my property rights as they threw me out the door.

--Ian Clarke

Jacob

01-28-2004, 04:21 AM

Funny... I don't get the relevance of the story, but I won't ask you to explain it.

Apparently you think software is made for free and has no inherent value.

"I wouldn't pay for it" then becomes the eternal excuse and so then all software "should" be free :roll:

Coordinator

01-28-2004, 06:27 AM

Apparently you think software is made for free and has no inherent value.

That's not what I think, but I won't try to explain it :roll:

Jacob

01-28-2004, 07:15 AM

That's not what I think, but I won't try to explain it :roll:

If you think it has value, why don't you buy it instead of copying it?

GoldKey

01-28-2004, 06:34 PM

Here is the story I like to quote to explain the point:

I was in the pub last night, and a guy asked me for a light for his cigarette. I suddenly realised that there was a demand here and money to be made, and so I agreed to light his cigarette for 10 pence, but I didn't actually give him a light, I sold him a license to burn his cigarette....

--Ian Clarke

a) do you have a patent or copyright for fire? I believe it would be public domain.

b) given that, if he was stupid enought to agree to the terms, you could probably go after him for violating the terms and for damages (if you could prove any). Given that fire is public domain and that the others in the bar did not know of your agreement, you can't touch them.

Coordinator

01-28-2004, 06:43 PM

If you think it has value, why don't you buy it instead of copying it?

I often do.
I don't think you have a right to force me.

Your right to enforce something on others does not depend on how badly you need it, or on how much you think you deserve it. You are saying that you have a right to claim that a particular combination of bits "belongs" to you, and you mandate who and how can use that particular combination of bits from now on.

Jacob

01-28-2004, 08:13 PM

I often do.
I don't think you have a right to force me.

Your right to enforce something on others does not depend on how badly you need it, or on how much you think you deserve it. You are saying that you have a right to claim that a particular combination of bits "belongs" to you, and you mandate who and how can use that particular combination of bits from now on.

My right to enforce the use of software I create is dependant on one thing - me.

I'm saying that if I sell you software under a license that you agreed to and that license includes a stipulation that you can't copy it and give it to someone else - then you have broken the law. Are you saying I don't have a right to enforce the contract you agreed to and are violating?

You have a problem with the anti-copying clause of the license agreements, don't agree to it! It's as simple as that.

You seem to believe that once you buy or download software that becomes yours and you can do what you want with it right? Do you think it's okay for you to make copies and sell them? That software is "yours" now right?? Why shouldn't I be able to make copies of MS Office and just set up a web site called "MSOfficeForCheap.com" and I'll make a bundle selling it for 1/4 or what MS sells it for! Brilliant! I OWN MS OFfice because I bought the CD.. right?

GoldKey

01-28-2004, 08:33 PM

Why shouldn't I be able to make copies of MS Office and just set up a web site called "MSOfficeForCheap.com" and I'll make a bundle selling it for 1/4 or what MS sells it for! Brilliant! I OWN MS OFfice because I bought the CD.. right?

Well I will buy a copy from you and then sell it for a quarter of what you sold it to me for. :D Then who in their right mind would buy from you instead of me. Until someone else sells it for lower and lower costs until someone just starts giving it away. Then microsoft has no revenue, so can't employ programmers and can't update Office or create anything newer or better because they don't have the means to do so.

Most of the arguement that I have seen saying stuff should be free or priced that everyone can afford it just don't carry the concept through to the logical conclusion or suggest any kind of economic model under which this would work.

Coordinator

01-28-2004, 09:53 PM

I'm saying that if I sell you software under a license that you agreed to and that license includes a stipulation that you can't copy it and give it to someone else - then you have broken the law. Are you saying I don't have a right to enforce the contract you agreed to and are violating?

Yes, you have the right to inforce the contract. With the person who agreed to it. Anyone else who got a copy from that person does not have a contract with you.

You seem to believe that once you buy or download software that becomes yours and you can do what you want with it right? Do you think it's okay for you to make copies and sell them? That software is "yours" now right?? Why shouldn't I be able to make copies of MS Office and just set up a web site called "MSOfficeForCheap.com" and I'll make a bundle selling it for 1/4 or what MS sells it for! Brilliant! I OWN MS OFfice because I bought the CD.. right?

You are discussing possible business models if (I believe rather when) my point of view becomes prevalent. In your example, no one will buy from your site. People will do one of two things: use it for free or pay some amount to author (in your case Microsoft), and it is very easy to determine who the real author is (digital signatures, etc.).

... Then microsoft has no revenue, so can't employ programmers and can't update Office or create anything newer or better because they don't have the means to do so.

Your apparent difficulties, however real or imagined, have NO relevance to your right to force something on others.

Most of the arguement that I have seen saying stuff should be free or priced that everyone can afford it just don't carry the concept through to the logical conclusion or suggest any kind of economic model under which this would work.

Even if there was no such model (and I think there are plenty) that again would be NO excuse to deny people their rights. That's like farmers two hundred years ago were asking: "How could we grow food for people to eat if we can't have slaves"?

JohnnyFlash

01-28-2004, 11:11 PM

Yes, you have the right to inforce the contract. With the person who agreed to it. Anyone else who got a copy from that person does not have a contract with you.

Even if there was no such model (and I think there are plenty) that again would be NO excuse to deny people their rights. That's like farmers two hundred years ago were asking: "How could we grow food for people to eat if we can't have slaves"?

I see Coordinators point. And you know what...he's absolutely right. The subsequent people in the chain never agreed to anything with the original seller. So, they have broken no agreement, and in fact have no agreement with you to be enforced.

Plus, I believe CO is also correct about the current distribution/sales model being completely outmoded. I see his point now, the current disti sub-systems rely on trampling individuals rights in order to generate wealth for the initial author.

As I've stated in this thread previously...some things are just plainly wrong. And this is clearly one of them.

GoldKey

01-28-2004, 11:36 PM

... Then microsoft has no revenue, so can't employ programmers and can't update Office or create anything newer or better because they don't have the means to do so.

Your apparent difficulties, however real or imagined, have NO relevance to your right to force something on others.

I don't see how that is imagined? If no one pays for software, not much will be developed. Microsoft does not force me to buy their products, I hope they don't have anyone forcing you to buy them. :D There are real alternatives to Microsoft products. I use OpenOffice because I do feel that Office is too expensive for my needs at home. However, at work I have purchased a copy of Office because for my needs their, I feel it is fairly priced. The fairness of a price is a very subjective thing, so no matter what something (whether tangible or intelectual property) is priced at, someone will always think it is too much.

Lets reverse the situation. Assume, we live in a world where as you suggest, all products are priced where everyone can afford everything they want. Also assume that there are limited natural resources and that manpower is in limited supply. I have need for a software product that does not exist. Assume we are all selfless and there is no greed. A developer would be happy to develop what I need, but he has limited hours which are being used to capacity. He is the best developer. Basically, he needs to shift his resources to do my project. This would have an effect on everyone else connected to him requiring them to shift resources as well and in the end, someone has to give up something. In the end, as the requestor, I should be the one to give up something. This is the base of our economy and capitalism.

Most of the arguement that I have seen saying stuff should be free or priced that everyone can afford it just don't carry the concept through to the logical conclusion or suggest any kind of economic model under which this would work.

Even if there was no such model (and I think there are plenty) that again would be NO excuse to deny people their rights. That's like farmers two hundred years ago were asking: "How could we grow food for people to eat if we can't have slaves"?

Actually you are the one proposing to deny people their established rights to property. In the end your arguement becomes circular and comes back to the assumption you have a right to freely copy intelectual property. Your slavery arguement makes no sense. More relevant is how could we grow food for people if we are not alllowed to sell it?

Jacob

01-28-2004, 11:39 PM

I don't see why today's business model is "outmoded" however the problem is - any model that exists MUST be based on the idea that I as the software developer SHOULD get rich proportionately with the amount of people using my software.

Otherwise, why shouldn't I implement strict product activation? I don't see why not.

When someone copies software there are TWO people in the transaction - the one receiving the software has to copy it from someone. By downloading/copying the software you're supporting the violation of the copyright and therefore part of the crime. It's just like how if you conspire to commit murder, it's just as legally wrong as committing murder.

The problem I see is where this supposed "right" to copying software comes from - IT DOESN'T EXIST!! You don't have a RIGHT to download software you have not purchased - period. You can't stand behind a right you don't have.

By enforcing license agreements NOTHING, NO RIGHTS are being taken away. You can't take away what someone doesn't have already.

JohnnyFlash

01-28-2004, 11:47 PM

GoldKey

01-28-2004, 11:53 PM

I found this article on the Free Software Movement and found it a good read.

http://www.newsforge.com/business/02/09/22/1257228.shtml?tid=19

It appears to be written by a proponent of the movement, yet even they say "To repeat the cliche, the free in free software is the "free as in speech, not free as in beer". I would add here "free as in market, not free as in beer"."

Jacob

01-28-2004, 11:54 PM

Why not? Because you SHOULD be developing software to benefit your fellow man, and to forward the progress of humanity as a whole. NOT for the selfish, shallow and shortsighted reasons of enriching yourself.

That's the most hilarious post I've seen in a long time. I shouldn't be able to earn a living because it's "for the good of humanity"

I guess I should tell the local grocery store that they should let me just walk out with the food I want because "it's for the good of humanity" that I continue to live and breath. I'm sure that'll happen.

It's nice and dandy to imagine a pie in the sky world where we look back on the ancient days where people had this thing called "money" - but there is money. I wish I could live the utopian life you seem to imagine, but until then - I will require money and I will expect to make the money that I earn.

Why should you get software for free when you don't have the right to it?

GoldKey

01-28-2004, 11:59 PM

I don't see why today's business model is "outmoded" however the problem is - any model that exists MUST be based on the idea that I as the software developer SHOULD get rich proportionately with the amount of people using my software.

Otherwise, why shouldn't I implement strict product activation? I don't see why not.

Why not? Because you SHOULD be developing software to benefit your fellow man, and to forward the progress of humanity as a whole. NOT for the selfish, shallow and shortsighted reasons of enriching yourself.

I assume your day is spent working for free for the reasons you expound. How did the DVD's, jewelry, and X-box that you mentioned earlier, the PPC that I assume you use since you are on this site, the computer you are sitting at, etc "forward the progress of humanity as a whole? Again you seem to be making the assumption that just because someone is the producer of a product, that they are by definition rich and just trying to stick it to the consumer so they can buy more yatchs. I would imagine that developing PPC software is a niche business and most of these developers are not living in mansions off of their profits from a $50 program.

Coordinator

01-29-2004, 12:22 AM

I don't see how that is imagined? If no one pays for software, not much will be developed.

I didn't say those problems were imagined.
I said they were irrelevant.
Like the problems of those farmers.

Microsoft does not force me to buy their products, I hope they don't have anyone forcing you to buy them.

I am talking about telling me what I can and can not do
with a particular combination of bits which I copied
from a third party without entering any agreement with Microsoft.

Lets reverse the situation. Assume, we live in a world where as you suggest, all products are priced where everyone can afford everything they want.

I think you confused me with someone else.
On economic issues I am as capitalistic as they get.
More to the right from me there is only wall :)

But what we have here is a particular business model which,
in order to succeed, requires certain freedoms to be denied to people.
Freedom to use a certain bit combination (a number in essence,
like number 5, just larger). Just like a certain farming business model
required slave labor to succeed. And I am sure their adaptation pain was
not imaginary when they were no longer allowed to have it.

GoldKey

01-29-2004, 12:34 AM

I don't see how that is imagined? If no one pays for software, not much will be developed.

I didn't say those problems were imagined.
I said they were irrelevant.
Like the problems of those farmers.

I double checked the quote. You suggest that you feel that these are imagined, otherwise you would have just said that they are irrelvent.

]
Microsoft does not force me to buy their products, I hope they don't have anyone forcing you to buy them.

I am talking about telling me what I can and can not do
with a particular combination of bits which I copied
from a third party without entering any agreement with Microsoft.

I assume you carry this idea to real world products as well since they are just particular combinations of atoms, so patents don't matter either.

Lets reverse the situation. Assume, we live in a world where as you suggest, all products are priced where everyone can afford everything they want.

I think you confused me with someone else.
On economic issues I am as capitalistic as they get.
More to the right from me there is only wall :)

But what we have here is a particular business model which,
in order to succeed, requires certain freedoms to be denied to people.
Freedom to use a certain bit combination (a number in essence,
like number 5, just larger). Just like a certain farming business model
required slave labor to succeed. And I am sure their adaptation pain was
not imaginary when they were no longer allowed to have it.[/quote]

Sorry, it has been a long week already and I might be confusing your arguments with Blammages. But, again your comparison to slavery just does not work. The appropriate comparison is that by charging for food, you are denying people their right to food, and this business model of charging for food denies people a freedom; therefore food should be free.

Coordinator

01-29-2004, 01:00 AM

I double checked the quote. You suggest that you feel that these are imagined, otherwise you would have just said that they are irrelvent.

Here is the actual quote:

Your apparent difficulties, however real or imagined, have NO relevance to your right to force something on others.

I said they are irrelevant: "have NO relevance".

]
I assume you carry this idea to real world products as well since they are just particular combinations of atoms, so patents don't matter either.

Yes, patents don't matter either.
But under no circumstances I carry this idea into real world.
I have no right to take a real object from you,
because in that case you will no longer have it,
and I actually removed something from your possession.
I do however feel that I have a right to make another
object like that for myself, because in that case I didn't
remove anything from you, and you still have exactly what
you had before.

...denying people their right to food...

That's communism. I am as "right" as they get, remember?
I don't think there is such a thing as "right to food".

I am not saying software should be free. Or cheap.
Or no one has a right to sell it. Quite the opposite.
I am all for getting rich from the fruits of your labor.

As long as that doesn't require taking someone's freedoms away.

Jacob

01-29-2004, 01:18 AM

I am not saying software should be free. Or cheap.
Or no one has a right to sell it. Quite the opposite.
I am all for getting rich from the fruits of your labor.

As long as that doesn't require taking someone's freedoms away.

In effect though, you're saying software should be free if you can find someone to copy it from - so essentially as long as you can find it on Kazaa then it's free.

This makes software essentially free for all but that one initial person who bought it.

Copying software doesn't take something physical away from the software company who coded it. However think about exactly why stealing say, a carrot is wrong. That carrot represents a certain amount of profit that the company expects to make off of the sale of that carrot. If it didn't, the company wouldn't have a problem with you taking it off their hands.

A software company expects, and has the right to expect, to make a profit on every user of that software.

You don't have an agreement with the software developer to not pirate their software, but you don't have a right to use their software without paying for it. Therefore removing that "right" isn't removing anything - since you never had that right.

Coordinator

01-29-2004, 01:52 AM

In effect though, you're saying software should be free if you can find someone to copy it from - so essentially as long as you can find it on Kazaa then it's free.

This makes software essentially free for all but that one initial person who bought it.

Even if that was the outcome, I would still support that position.
Freedom comes before profit. For me anyway.

But it is not what will actually happen.
As an example of one possible "new world" software business model,
take a look at "Red Hat" company. They SELL software. People are
BUYING from them. A lot. Yet everything they sell could be downloaded
for free. From their servers. This is not a theoretical exercise. This is
actually happening here and now. Which means that your assumptions
about what people will do if they have a choice are wrong.

Think about it. I find a software useful. It helps me in my work.
I want it to be developed further. I know the authors will need money
to continue. Is your opinion of the humanity so low that you find it
impossible to believe that I will pay that company for the software?

Not everyone will. But apparently enough to support current Red Hat
market value of $3,452,622,000 (yep, $3.5 Billion).
And that's one company.

Copying software doesn't take something physical away from the software company who coded it. However think about exactly why stealing say, a carrot is wrong. That carrot represents a certain amount of profit that the company expects to make off of the sale of that carrot. If it didn't, the company wouldn't have a problem with you taking it off their hands.

A software company expects, and has the right to expect, to make a profit on every user of that software.

We all have some expectations.
I expect that if you pay me one million dollars I will have a nice vacation.
And I think I deserve it. Your refusal to do it is ruining my plans :)

Stealing a carrot is wrong because the owner would lose something
he had. When I somehow manage to create a copy of that carrot
(by growing it, or by using star track replicator, or by invoking
copy command) there is nothing wrong with that.

Janak Parekh

01-29-2004, 02:02 AM

Even if that was the outcome, I would still support that position.
Freedom comes before profit. For me anyway.
But what do you define as "freedom"? For example, the GPL relies on copyright law for it to work (contrary to Darl's specious claims otherwise). You might argue because you've copied the bits, it doesn't matter if you change them and only release binaries. Does this mean you think all software should be 100% public domain?

If you support BSD/GPL, then you're supporting the right of the developer to declare the terms under which his/her code should be used. If someone says "I don't want you to use my code without my permission", you're ascribing to the same copyright law that all licenses, including OSI-approved licenses, need.

If you don't, well, that's not the way 99.9% of the world thinks. ;)

As an example of one possible "new world" software business model,
take a look at "Red Hat" company. They SELL software. People are
BUYING from them. A lot.
Not enough. Otherwise, they wouldn't have jettisoned their old model and adapted RHEL as their "mainstream" product, which is not easy to use without buying a copy. You can download the SRPMs, but they're very difficult to use, and you can't use their update service.

--janak

Coordinator

01-29-2004, 02:16 AM

But what do you define as "freedom"? For example, the GPL relies on copyright law for it to work. You might argue because one has copied the bits, it doesn't matter if you change them and don't release it. Does this mean you think all software should be public domain, not even popular open-source licenses like BSD or GPL?

If you support BSD/GPL, then you're supporting the right of the developer to declare the terms under which his/her code should be used. If someone says "I don't want you to use my code without my permission", you're ascribing to the same copyright law that all licenses, including OSI-approved licenses, need.

The hole discussion is about inadequacy of current laws
(and some people's attitudes) towards copying issue.
The purpose of GPL is to promote those new ideas within
the framework of current [inadequate] laws.

Not enough. Otherwise, they wouldn't have jettisoned their old model and adapted RHEL as their "mainstream" product, which is not easy to use without buying a copy. You can download the SRPMs, but they're very difficult to use, and you can't use their update service.

You are making my point for me. That's another business model
which doesn't require "copy restriction". "Not easy to use without support" -
no one has to make it easy for you to use your copy.
But you have the right to use it.

Janak Parekh

01-29-2004, 02:19 AM

The hole discussion is about inadequacy of current laws
(and some people's attitudes) towards copying issue.
The purpose of GPL is to promote those new ideas within
the framework of current [inadequate] laws.
Well, there are many discussions in parallel going on, and I think you're having a slightly different discussion than Jacob/Goldkey are. I also debate your implicit assertion that one can craft laws that allow licenses like the GPL but forbid "closed-source" licenses. Freedom cuts both ways. :razzing:

However, from a pragmatic perspective, we're getting Off-Topic on this forum. If you want to continue this discussion, start an Off-Topic thread on it, otherwise I'll have to lock this one.

You are making my point for me. That's another business model
which doesn't require "copy restriction". "Not easy to use without support" -
no one has to make it easy for you to use your copy.
But you have the right to use it.
My point is that the existing RH business model wasn't working. Time will tell whether the new one works. By all means, I'd like to see them succeed, but GPL-based business models, outside of consultancies, are not quite proven yet.

--janak

Jacob

01-29-2004, 02:48 AM

We all have some expectations.
I expect that if you pay me one million dollars I will have a nice vacation.
And I think I deserve it. Your refusal to do it is ruining my plans :)

There's only one difference - your expectation is unreasonable.

It IS reasonable for me to expect to earn money for my work.

Coordinator

01-29-2004, 03:28 AM

There's only one difference - your expectation is unreasonable.
It IS reasonable for me to expect to earn money for my work.

That is completely subjective and unquantifiable substance
- reasonable/unreasonable expectations. And even If you have
such a thing as "reasonable expectations" to earn money for your work,
does that mean you have a right to earn them? That is, if you work and don't
earn money (for example when no one wants the results of your work)
then you've been denied your rights? That's another "right" like that
"right for food". Not good for us, capitalists :)

Anyway, before teacher turns off the lights on us,
I would like to thank you and everyone else for discussion,
and especially for keeping it civil. Such a rarity these days...

GoldKey

01-29-2004, 03:36 AM

Anyway, before teacher turns off the lights on us,
I would like to thank you and everyone else for discussion,
and especially for keeping it civil. Such a rarity these days...

Agreed, lets just agree to disagree and go find some cool PPC stuff to talk about instead.

MikeInDallas

01-31-2004, 12:42 AM

I guess there's not that many folks from the old days when the entire PC software industry tried copy protection (bad sectors in disk, limited number of hard disk loads, etc.). Over time, what the industry learned and has obviously forgotten is that copy protection actually encourages piracy. Sometimes it's due to kids who are challenged by it as sort of a puzzle, other times it's because a legitimate customer can't use what he paid for.

Back then, Microsoft was one of the companies who refused to copy protect their software because it was too much of an inconvienence to their customers, and because they accepted that part of the business was the reality that some folks are going to use the software without paying. This created the kind of good feelings and loyalty that no advertisement or special offer can buy. Obviously, execs at MS have forgotten all of this, including the fact that they did so well WITHOUT it.

I worked for Intuit at the time they pulled their copy protection idea with Turbo Tax. The result? They lost customers to TaxCut. Had they asked any of us who have seen all this come and go before, they would have avoided losing money as they did. The Exec VP at Intuit was fired over the results of that and some other decisions not long ago.

If you have a good product, and don't over charge for it to begin with, profits will come. They may not come in one or even two quarters, as is demanded from publicly traded companies these days, but they will come.

I had to remove a legitimate copy of XP Home from my Dad's machine after it got into a reboot loop due to copy protection because he made changes to his hardware. I replaced that with an "illegitimate" copy of Windows 2000 (downgraded as it were) and he hasn't had trouble since.

History repeats itself, and this time within our recollection. Copy protection only aggrivates honest customers and as it turns out, encourages piracy. "Hey, I just cracked this, check it out!"

I'm a software developer myself and have made my living writing software for the last 11 years. Piracy is just going to happen and it's all a part of doing business. Let us not forget, however, that if we treat our customers with respect, and don't try to condemn others, even if they may be in the wrong, other forces of life kick in and we are rewarded in the long run. Those who don't believe this, just look at Microsoft, who is a living testimony of this, though even they have forgotten. And the industry as a whole seems to have forgotten too.

If you build something that's good and treat people with dignity, even those who do pirate your software because they're in school or for some other reason can't afford it, when they can, they will eventually pay. The problem is, this requires time and patience, and even faith in your work. The short term might seem like a loss, but in the long-term, you'll find customers flock to you.

I wonder how much MS spends supporting legitimate customers who have problems because of copy protection? Does it out weigh the cost of ticking off the good customers? Intuit (Turbo Tax) decided it did not and apologized to customers and removed the copy protection.

What goes around, comes around. It is a law, though not in any of the books, whether any of us want to acknowledge it or not. But this argument, as with anything that cannot be seen, measured, or tabulated, will be debated, unfortunately, until we all learn.

Mike Welch
Software Developer
Dallas

Rob Alexander

01-31-2004, 05:01 AM

If you build something that's good and treat people with dignity, even those who do pirate your software because they're in school or for some other reason can't afford it, when they can, they will eventually pay. The problem is, this requires time and patience, and even faith in your work. The short term might seem like a loss, but in the long-term, you'll find customers flock to you.

Nicely said Mike. That's exactly what we learned last time. It's a shame that in the current hysteria that all owners of intellectual property seem to be exhibiting, we've forgotten the lessons of the past. Publishers have forgotten the lessons learned when the first public libraries were opened. Movie makers have forgotten the lessons learned from the introduction of VCRs. And software developers have forgotten how lower prices and the removal of protection saw software sales (and revenues) boom. It's nice that you brought the thread back to the topic at the end.

Jean Ichbiah

02-02-2004, 03:58 PM

People, come on, making a copy is NOT stealing.
Stealing is when owner actually loses something, not potentially loses.
That is the definition in US law, and that is the common sense definition.

This is funny, or sad, or contentious... But at the end of the day it is made completely irrelevant by the current ways we distribute software: You can copy our Fitaly as often as you want but it just happens that the copy will stop working after 30 days if you do not purchase an activation key that is tied to some personal identifier. You can even copy the key... but it will only work for you.

The quoted comment shows why the registration scheme is a constant of the industry. Besides, it would be wrong to think that this is the only industry where part of the cost is linked to making the business model workable: Banks services are made more expensive by the need to protect banks; CDs are sold in big boxes to make shoplifting more difficult; and these days, nobody would buy a cheap airfare made cheaper by skipping baggage inspection...

sas51

02-03-2004, 01:54 AM

On the same lines (but not quite the same) my brother passed his "old" HP jornada on to me last summer with CityTimes on it. In my innocence I changed the owners data and found to my consternation that, after a couple of weeks, the programme didn't work :oops:! Luckily, the software was very kind to me and gave me a contact site which I duly contacted, explained what had happened - and (bless) they emailed me the new registration code. Most excellent people.

kookyguy

03-03-2004, 04:37 AM

I have read this entire thread, and I find all the opinions interesting. I hope software developers, listen to the consumers and potential customers. I can see all sides of debates on this, and each has valid points.
One thing I wanted to note, after seeing someone say "they have the right to enforce their license" is that just because you include a license, those installing you software, must agree to, does not make your license valid and legally enforceable.

I have seen so many programs, including such restricitve license agreements more and more each year.

My example is, how adobe had in their license agreement, that you could not sell your copy of the software to someone else, even though you uninstalled it and will never use it again. In a California court, it was ruled, that this part of the license agreement was not legal, and that you could sell your copy of the software.

So not every license aggreement, it legally enforcable. I have seen many license aggreements, that would not stand up in court, just like the adobe one, did not.
Do not forget, that most things, in license agreements are civil and have nothing to do with criminal courts, except for the parts relating to copyrights and legal things, such as that. In order to enforce, civil matters, a developer would have to sue someone in a civil court, but also their license agreement would be looked at, to see if it was legal and did not interfere with a consumers rights. The judge could rule, that the license agreement violated the consumers rights and not allow them to sue over it. So do not think, that just because you include something, in a lisence agreement, that it is enforceable, no matter what you say. The consumer still deserves protection, from licesne aggreements that violate their rights. Saying if you don't like it, do not buy it, is not valid, always either. A consumer can have the right, to buy and use a product, even if they do not agree to all terms, in the license agreement. This has been proven as fact, in the courts.