Warez & Delphi Components - A warning for Vendors!!
Dmitry Streblechenko
components set, there was a full source code posted on the web.
If it'll make you feel any better, there is nothing you can do about it: if
somebody illegally uses your code, they would probably not pay for it in the
first place.
From my own experience, most registered users are companies who usually have
fairly strict rules in respect to using stolen software; if some guy in
Taiwan or Russia codes just for fun and uses my component, the chance he
would pay for it is very slim even if the source were not freely available.
I still do believe most people (companies) are quite honest. My other
shareware piece (Outlook add-in that automatically zips/unzips e-mail
attachments) is sold for $20 single user license up to $120 for a site
lincense; I was very suprised when about 70% of all registrations were for a
site license, 20% for 20-50 users license ($80-$100), and only about 10% for
a single user. Assuming half of them actually were for a personal use, that
leaves *only* 5% of people who buy one license and install it on several
computers; that was totally unexpected for me.
As for bulletproofing your software... I don't even think it is worth you
time wasting it making anything but a simplest lock: if somebody has enough
time to break it, he is just not paid well enough to value his time thus he
would not pay for it anyway.
Just a reality we have to live with,
Dmitry
Vincent Parrett <vin...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:7fp0s0$85...@forums.borland.com...
> Hi All
>
> I would just like to point out to other Delphi component vendors the
> existence of numerous warez sites that have either full cracked versions
of
> their components, or serial numbers for the registered versions. I found
out
> today why my sales have tapered off dramatically over the last four
months.
> I had put it down to people waiting for Notes R5 to be released...
>
> I had heard about this warez stuff but never thought much about it. Today
> was a real awakening. I traced the one of serial numbers to someone who
used
> a fraudulant credit card to purchase DNotes (my Delphi/Lotus Notes
> components), and another to a legit customer, and another which I think
was
> an actual crack.
>
> To say I am disappointed would be an understatement, 2 & half years of
hard
> work blown away. I am now seriously thinking of getting out of the
software
> market & going back to a day job, unless anyone can show me a completely
> foolproof method of securing my software :(
>
> I have removed all files from my web site untill I can sort something
out!!
>
> Regards
>
>
> Vincent Parrett
>
> Email : Vincent At vsoft-tech dot com.au
>
> Web : http://www.vsoft-tech.com.au
>
>
Vincent Parrett
Phillip Flores
I suppose this is really a big problem. I think there is no way of avoiding this
since it is possible that a valid purchase is made of a component which is then
copied by another which is then posted on the web with the serial number or
someone tries to crack the protection and posts it on the web.
cheers,
Phillip Flores
PCF Consulting
Me
>
> Hi All
>
> I would just like to point out to other Delphi component vendors the
> existence of numerous warez sites that have either full cracked versions of
> their components, or serial numbers for the registered versions. I found out
> today why my sales have tapered off dramatically over the last four months.
> I had put it down to people waiting for Notes R5 to be released...
>
> I had heard about this warez stuff but never thought much about it. Today
> was a real awakening. I traced the one of serial numbers to someone who used
> a fraudulant credit card to purchase DNotes (my Delphi/Lotus Notes
> components), and another to a legit customer, and another which I think was
> an actual crack.
>
> work blown away. I am now seriously thinking of getting out of the software
> market & going back to a day job, unless anyone can show me a completely
> foolproof method of securing my software :(
>
>
> Regards
>
> Vincent Parrett
>
> Email : Vincent At vsoft-tech dot com.au
>
> Web : http://www.vsoft-tech.com.au
Hi,
Just one of many ideas for if you distribute software from your website:
Write a CGI/ISAPI program (in Delphi) that uses a database (Access via
ODBC is stable and fast).
Make the user fill in a request form with his/her email address to
download the registered version. You can then validate the user as a
registered user in the database. If validated then let you CGI/ISAPI
program create a unique key for this user and send it to him via email
with a link to download the software (the key being one of the
parameters). When the user activates the CGI/ISAPI program again,
password protect the ZIP file with that key and send it to him as a
stream. You can log IP addresses, times, etc. If the file is sent
successfully, make sure that the user cannot download it again using
that same key.
What this will prevent is having copies of your software that can be
unpacked with the same key that is distributed via some serial #'s site.
Now each copy will be protected by it's own unique key, and if someone
not knowing that his copy has a unique key and decides to distribute
it's key then you'll have the logged data to trace the person and nobody
else will be able to use that key.
I've made something similar to protect websites not software. If i ever
get enough time to do something for myself - I'll make something like
that too.
Wayne Sherman
informative)
http://inner-smile.com/nocrack.htm
Wayne
J. Peter Mugaas
<vin...@nospam.com> wrote:
>Hi All
>
>I would just like to point out to other Delphi component vendors the
>existence of numerous warez sites that have either full cracked versions of
>their components, or serial numbers for the registered versions. I found out
>today why my sales have tapered off dramatically over the last four months.
>I had put it down to people waiting for Notes R5 to be released...
>
>I had heard about this warez stuff but never thought much about it. Today
>was a real awakening. I traced the one of serial numbers to someone who used
>a fraudulant credit card to purchase DNotes (my Delphi/Lotus Notes
>components), and another to a legit customer, and another which I think was
>an actual crack.
>
That stuff happens. Perhaps, one of the best things you could do is
get such sites shut down. There is a site at
http://www.cat-soft.com/warez.htm which is extremely helpful.
Usually, if you do this, most administrators will terminate those
sites.
HTH.
Please honor the follow-up to set to
borland.public.delphi.thirdparty-tools .
-- Support the anti-Spam amendment - Join at http://www.cauce.org/
J. Peter Mugaas E-Mail: oma0...@mail.wvnet.edu
http://wvnvm.wvnet.edu/~oma00215/ ICQ Number: 14297043
Finger for PGP Key
Fernand Raynaud
completely. You have to take a different approach. The psychology of this is
that a legit user who buys the source will not post it. Also users will not
post their own serial numbers unless they purchased with a fake identity for
this very reason. Most companies will never mess around with illegal
software, and most users will respect your rights if you treat them well.
This leaves adventure hackers and people who would not buy it anyway, who
are evaluating, and so on. This is sometimes worth more in free publicity
than it costs in loss of sales. Your declining sales may have nothing to do
with the warez sites. To survive it takes a combination of great customer
service, a unique serial number, frequent updates and something innovative
in dealing with the psychological side. Going to extremes on protection is a
waste of time, time better spent on development. If somebody is really
creating professional software with your component, they will not often be
using pirated stuff.
Fernand
Vincent Parrett wrote in message <7fp0s0$85...@forums.borland.com>...
Marcel Popescu
> As for bulletproofing your software... I don't even think it is worth you
> time wasting it making anything but a simplest lock: if somebody has
enough
> time to break it, he is just not paid well enough to value his time thus
he
> would not pay for it anyway.
Couldn't have said it better. <g>
Mark
Michael Messerschmidt
where is the URL for this crack site, I'd like to see if any of my stuff
is there also.
thanks,
Michael
Vincent Parrett wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> I would just like to point out to other Delphi component vendors the
> existence of numerous warez sites that have either full cracked versions of
> their components, or serial numbers for the registered versions. I found out
> today why my sales have tapered off dramatically over the last four months.
> I had put it down to people waiting for Notes R5 to be released...
>
> I had heard about this warez stuff but never thought much about it. Today
> was a real awakening. I traced the one of serial numbers to someone who used
> a fraudulant credit card to purchase DNotes (my Delphi/Lotus Notes
> components), and another to a legit customer, and another which I think was
> an actual crack.
>
Phillip Flores
You can go to http://www.dejanews.com and do a search on your stuff. Sometimes
entries from the newsgroup such as atl.2600.warez comes up. The other one which I
found is a search engine for warez. Here is the URL: http://astalavista.box.sk
cheers,
Phillip Flores
PCF Consulting
Blake Schwendiman
PSetting was cracked also. I did the same thing you did -- wrote a message
in the newsgroups and pulled my stuff to improve the security. Later I
stumbled across a cracking page and found that crackers are mostly in for
the sport. They love to try to crack programs. The harder you make it, the
harder they try.
I have to agree with everyone here who has said that most people who would
buy your software will. Those who never would might seek cracks, but it's
not a huge number. I've changed my software policy because of it and
haven't noticed any change in registrations. Now the DCU version is free,
the source is paid.
--
Blake Schwendiman
Pythoness Software
http://www.pythoness.com
Vincent Parrett <vin...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:7fp0s0$85...@forums.borland.com...
Adam Roslon
But it is a double edged sword. The distribution of warez actually
increased revenues of certain software manufactures. From my observations
over the past 20 years, software is becoming obsolete quicker and
quicker. therefore a cracked copy of software is usually outdated about
the time the user has learned to master the software. if they are serious
they usually upgrade to get updates and support. And if there not you are
better off not having them as a customer. You can copy protect software
to death, unfortunately it's not going to stop a determined hacker. The
bigger spread of Warez is by the user who takes advantage of the 30 day
money back guaranteee. I don't think I've ever been in a CompUSA without
seeing someone return an opened box of software. Then again Look at
"BetaSoft" AKA Microsoft and NETSCAPE. The logic defies gravity but they
make money by losing money giving away software. The key is to get people
using your software. The psychology behind it is if the user feels hes
getting something for nothing, therefore they are for the most part
"happy" and are less likely to complain about buggy software, after
awhile they usually upgrade to the fixed version. Which they thought they
were getting in the first place. Now the software publisher not only
created a market but also got they buggy beta code tested.
Ernie Deel
> work blown away. I am now seriously thinking of getting out of the software
> market & going back to a day job, unless anyone can show me a completely
> foolproof method of securing my software :(
In my opinion, the only sensible approach for development components is to place
complete trust in the honesty of the user. Make your component available for
free and sell the source. This should make just about everyone happy:
- Nothing is hidden from the potential customer (except the source).
- There's nothing to crack and no prestige to be gained.
- Those you can't or won't pay don't have to.
- Those doing serious work will still want to. Having the source is the only
way to insure future usability. This security and piece of mind is well worth
the cost for anyone who has invested the time to learn your component and
actually use it to earn a living. Those who can't appreciate this are unlikely
to purchase anyway.
--
Ernie Deel, EFD Systems
-------------------------------------------------
The future is just like the past, only more expensive.
Dejan Maksimovic
I must say I am disappointed, that a Delphi programmer thinjs
that way.
My friend used to have only pirated software, except for Win95.
When he went on to WinNT, none of the programs worked.
In other words, cracking doesn't work under NT. Only serials.
I think that You should not worry about cracking, because those
who do want security will never take cracked/hacked versions.
Regards, Dejan.
Dejan Maksimovic
Material Fellow
>
> Hi,
>
> You can go to http://www.dejanews.com and do a search on your stuff. Sometimes
> entries from the newsgroup such as atl.2600.warez comes up. The other one which I
> found is a search engine for warez. Here is the URL: http://astalavista.box.sk
>
If you show up on Astalavista..... it is time for a "maintainance
upgrade...." that gently moves stuff around in the EXE.
Or time to consider reading about "reverse engineering" ... some of
which is directed to pointing out ineffective ways of protection and is
said to be directed towards developers.
Pretending that you can invent the protection wheel really good, all by
yourself... is somewhat foolish. But, it is done all the time... of
course.
It is a KNOWLEDGE industry, not a snappy clever invention industry.
jim buch
Material Fellow
> The distribution of warez actually
> increased revenues of certain software manufactures.
> they usually upgrade to get updates and support. And if there not you are
> better off not having them as a customer.
> The key is to get people
> using your software. The psychology behind it is if the user feels hes
> getting something for nothing, therefore they are for the most part
> "happy" and are less likely to complain about buggy software, after
> awhile they usually upgrade to the fixed version. Which they thought they
> were getting in the first place. Now the software publisher not only
> created a market but also got they buggy beta code tested.
There have been accusations that the ease with which Microsoft trial
versions of software is so readily cracked is to flood the market with
Microsoft USERS... and freeze out the competitors from a revenue stream.
By having easily cracked time limited demo disks, you are actually
squeezing the competition..... who need their sales money. Eventually,
you may get the sale, but in teh meantime , you PREVENT the competition
from surviving well.
No, I don't believe that Microsoft actually does this, but the story and
theory is really interesting, isn't it?
Of course, conterfiters make money off of your good name, so you would
go after stopping them.... as well as going after big companies (and
small) that "overuse" the few copies of software that they actually pay
for.
Here though, it is one corporation going after another, kind of like
sharks circling. That attracts the lawyers.
jim
jim buch
Dmitry Streblechenko
Material Fellow wrote in message <3720D4...@pacbell.net>...
>There have been accusations that the ease with which Microsoft trial
>versions of software is so readily cracked is to flood the market with
>Microsoft USERS... and freeze out the competitors from a revenue stream.
>
>By having easily cracked time limited demo disks, you are actually
>squeezing the competition..... who need their sales money. Eventually,
>you may get the sale, but in teh meantime , you PREVENT the competition
>from surviving well.
>
>No, I don't believe that Microsoft actually does this, but the story and
>theory is really interesting, isn't it?
I don't think that's true either, just one of the "Microsoft conspiracy theories". I guess they are just being practical: better to
spend money on the program itself rather than coming up with anti-crack features creating a tech support hell.
Dmitry
Dmitry Streblechenko
to read local views for remote databases (i.e. reading desktop.dsk file)?
Thanks,
Dmitry
J. Peter Mugaas
<vin...@nospam.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>I guess there is another problem I didn't mention in my post. I spend a lot
>of time dealing with customer enquiries, supporting not only exisiting
>customers, but also providing pre-sales support for people trying the trial
>version. My problem is how can I tell if these people are using the trial
>version or a cracked version. I could be wasting my time, trying to convert
>bogus enquries into sales!!
The only way you could ever know is if you could actually look at
their computer, which is not going to happen. Usually, that is not
the case.
I wonder if your problem may be that you might be over-extending
yourself.
You can not blame the warez crowd for all of your problems. One
possibility for things such as declining sales is less demand for your
product. I do not mean to say that they do no harm to you as I
realize that they do harm to you.
I mean no disrespect in what I say to you.
Fernand Raynaud
software wouldn't get the exposure that leads to sales. Photoshop, for
instance, is an expensive product that few people can afford. Probably over
3/4 of the copies out there are pirated. But that still represents a LOT of
legit sales, and the pros wouldn't be using Photoshop (legally) if they
hadn't seen or used a pirated version at some point. This is a very complex
and difficult area. You can't prevent illegal copies. So the question is,
given that your software WILL be pirated, how can you adjust and in the end
turn that to your advantage?
Fernand
Vincent Parrett wrote in message <7fqrtr$a0...@forums.borland.com>...
>
>I guess there is another problem I didn't mention in my post. I spend a lot
>of time dealing with customer enquiries, supporting not only exisiting
>customers, but also providing pre-sales support for people trying the trial
>version. My problem is how can I tell if these people are using the trial
>version or a cracked version. I could be wasting my time, trying to convert
>bogus enquries into sales!!
>
>
Glynn
vine after about 6 weeks. There are cracks for it all over that dupecheck
site...
Glynn
Peter Dyson <pe...@skel.demon.co.uk.nospam> wrote in message
news:7fqt65$a1...@forums.borland.com...
>
> Adam Roslon wrote in message ...
> >I find it almost impossible to stop the distribution of Warez.
> >But it is a double edged sword. The distribution of warez actually
> >increased revenues of certain software manufactures.
>
> I have to agree with this, some of the big names in the software
> industry became big names not because they had the best
> product but because they were widely copied and a new generation
> of user grew up knowing one product, and, knowing that product,
> as the local geek and/or expert, recommended it to those who pay.
>
> Anyway if you want to see if your software has been 'warezed' then
> check out http://www.dupecheck.com/ and you will see the full
> extent of the problem, this site lists all copies made of programs.
> on average about 50 a day!
>
> I don't condone this activity in any way, but it is just a fact of life
> I am afraid. You either accept it or get out, as it can only get
> worse as bandwidth increases. The problem is too large to police
> and there is no worldwide stance, apart from rhetoric on the subject
> from any goverment. Ok they all have laws against it but as most
> traffic is between individuals and private groups no police force has
> the inclination or the resources to tackle such a problem with so
> many juristiction issues and differing laws.
>
> I once did a test on a small component, making it easily available
> to these people, a 'shareware' thing that never got released in
> any other distribution channel. To my surprise I got a few, not
> many, registrations, but then again I did not think at the time it
> stood a chance of getting many through more conventional
> channels, which is why I was willing to test this.
>
> It is more of a jungle than a double edged sword, my thing
> deserved to die, it was not really good enough.
>
> Peter.
>
>
>
>
Paul Gallagher
I first learned about warez a couple of years ago. I was overwhelmed by the
amount of pirated software available if you know where to look. There are
thousands of web pages, illegal ftp sites, IRC, newsgroups, mail lists,
etc.. Virtually ever title imaginable is available.
You will never, never, ever prevent hacking. The more difficult you make it,
the more of a challenge it is for the hacker. You will probably not even
slow them down. Did you know that a cracked version PhotoShop 5.0 was
available on the warez sites before it shipped to distributors? Same for the
latest release of AutoCad. Delphi 4 C/S was available on Warez several WEEKS
before arriving at store shelves. The hacker even included a GIF of the CD
cover in the file to prove his deed. I know because I used the pirated
version before my legitimate copy was available. The people that really get
hit hard by pirates are Adobe and AutoDesk. I was told by an Autocad
salesman, that while giving a seminar in Taiwan, that when asked for a show
of hands of the registered users, not a single hand when up in a room of
several hundred!
Another interesting fact is that most of the warez sites are sponsored by
the porn industry! Birds of a feather I guess. If you don't believe me, got
to AltaVista and search +warez +sex. You will get hundreds of thousands of
hits!
I truly believe that the vast majority of honest users "eventually" buy the
product even if they have a pirated version.
Most of the people who steal your software are the ones that would never buy
it anyway. Most of the warez trade is done by "collectors". They simply want
every piece of software they can get their hands on. I have heard of
collectors having as much as 100 gigs in files in their collections.
In some cases the warez could actually help sales. The reason is that many
pirated versions of software have flaws in them due to the crack, or they
are an incomplete or stripped down version in order to save downloading
time. i.e. missing samples and help files. If someone downloads your program
from a warez site and decides they like it, they may very likely purchase it
in order to get a complete and updated version. Rumor has it that MicroSoft
deliberately "leaked" the beta of Win98 and NT5 to the warez sites in order
to promote the product before the official release.
As far as components, I doubt that any legitimate developer would even
consider releasing a product with pirated components. It would just be too
risky.
The bottom line is that I think you should make your product as easy as
possible to get. You will probably gain more in sales than you will lose in
theft. Removing files from your website will only GUARANTEE a reduction in
sales. I know nothing of your product, but I seriously doublt if warez is
responsible for a 40% reduction in sales. It is probably due to other
factors. Perhaps you already shipped to the majority of the developers that
needed your product. Im just guessing on this.
As far as foreign markets, I don't believe there are even any laws to
protect software. But again, these are the users that would probably not
purchase anyway. So even though it IS theft, it is not lost sales.
I think you should be flattered that your product was worth stealing! Keep
developing. There are plenty of honest users to go around.
I hope no one thinks I am a software pirate, because I am not. ALL software
I currently use is licensed. I am talking openly on this subject to help
fellow developers.
BTW, if you email the owner of the site, they will almost certainly remove
your files without argument.
HTH,
Paul
Vincent Parrett wrote in message <7fp0s0$85...@forums.borland.com>...
>Hi All
>
>I would just like to point out to other Delphi component vendors the
>existence of numerous warez sites that have either full cracked versions of
>their components, or serial numbers for the registered versions. I found
out
>today why my sales have tapered off dramatically over the last four months.
>I had put it down to people waiting for Notes R5 to be released...
>
>I had heard about this warez stuff but never thought much about it. Today
>was a real awakening. I traced the one of serial numbers to someone who
used
>a fraudulant credit card to purchase DNotes (my Delphi/Lotus Notes
>components), and another to a legit customer, and another which I think was
>an actual crack.
>
>To say I am disappointed would be an understatement, 2 & half years of hard
>work blown away. I am now seriously thinking of getting out of the software
>market & going back to a day job, unless anyone can show me a completely
>foolproof method of securing my software :(
>
>I have removed all files from my web site untill I can sort something out!!
>
>Regards
>
>
Vincent Parrett
>completely. You have to take a different approach. The psychology of this
is
>that a legit user who buys the source will not post it. Also users will not
>post their own serial numbers unless they purchased with a fake identity
for
>this very reason. Most companies will never mess around with illegal
Actually, one of the serial numbers was most definately from someone who
payed for the product. Of course that person's email now bounced so I can't
get any infor from them.
>software, and most users will respect your rights if you treat them well.
>This leaves adventure hackers and people who would not buy it anyway, who
>are evaluating, and so on. This is sometimes worth more in free publicity
>than it costs in loss of sales. Your declining sales may have nothing to do
>with the warez sites. To survive it takes a combination of great customer
>service, a unique serial number, frequent updates and something innovative
>in dealing with the psychological side. Going to extremes on protection is
a
Well, I believe we offer great customer support, have issued at least 20
updates over the last 18 months, almost always introducing enhancements.
Bugs are usually fixed and patches issues withing a few days.
>waste of time, time better spent on development. If somebody is really
>creating professional software with your component, they will not often be
>using pirated stuff.
>
I guess there is another problem I didn't mention in my post. I spend a lot
of time dealing with customer enquiries, supporting not only exisiting
customers, but also providing pre-sales support for people trying the trial
version. My problem is how can I tell if these people are using the trial
version or a cracked version. I could be wasting my time, trying to convert
bogus enquries into sales!!
Peter Dyson
Dejan Maksimovic
issued at least 20
updates over the last 18 months, almost always
introducing enhancements.
Bugs are usually fixed and patches issues withing a few
days.
Actually, fast updates are what makes some ( many ) angry. I
want to have a complete product with all features present at one time,
not updates, which I have to redownload.
The software developer philosophy is not to make all features
out at one time, so more users would take the bate. That's sneaky.
Regards, Dejan.
Dejan Maksimovic
I know of the existence of a Chinese warezsite. I don't know
it's address because I can't connect to Chinese sites (.cn). It's called
Fortune Net.
On the main page it says clearly what is the main purpose of
warez software :
"Test the software to see if it suites Your needs, since
trials usually have less features. It is for personal DEMO ONLY. If you
really wish to use the downloaded software, please nuy it."
Regards, Dejan.
Vincent Parrett
Well that may be the case for some demo/trial versions, however ours are
fully function, they just display a nag screen the first time your app opens
a notes database, ie once per execution, and they will run even when delphi
is not. I have to admit that I have sometimes been annoyed by these time
limited trials, I often install something, use it for a few hours and then
come back to it when I have more time to evaluate properly. This is often
after the trial has expired. In my case, I would merely install it on
another machine(I have 3 machines at home) and try it again. If this was
really the purpose of these hackers, would they not just extend the time
limit by a number of days, not remove it completely. IMHO, people put these
sort of statements on their web sites hoping that if they do get
caught(unlikely in most cases, unless they are really stupid), they might
get off more lightly.
Whilst I agree with most of the replies posted here that honest companies
don't use illegal software, this is not always the case. I have often seen
companies using vcl components (not mine ) where they have only purchased a
single developer licence and have half a dozen developers using it. I am
sure this happens a lot, even with my software, however I am powerless to
stop/prove it.
The sentiment expressed in other posts, that warez actually increases sales
for some software may be true for large corporates like microsoft/adobe etc,
I cannot believe this is the case with the VCL market. I have seen many
component vendors come and go, mainly because the market is so small. A
small market cannot sustain vendors where the returns are so small , Most
developers have still not gotten their minds around the buy before build
idiom, for example I have had some people tell me that $259 for my
components (with full source) is too much. However, given the number of
hours I spent developing are way more than what I charge for a copy, I don't
think it is unreasonable. If these people still wanted to use my components,
they probably did and probably for free thanks to these warez sites.
Since being alerted to the warez problem, I have spent a bit of time
surfing. It doesn't take long to realise that you cand find
cracks/patches/serial nos for almost any shrinkwrap/shareware software you
care to imagine. I had been one of those who critisied developer express
for not offering trial versions of their expressgrid components, however I
now see the sense in it.
I have calmed down after my initial outpourings, I will continue to develop
& sell my components for the time being, however I will have to evaluate if
it is still worth my while in a few months. I will be releasing version 2 of
DNotes in a few weeks, in the mean time I will attempt to find a better way
to protect my work.
Regards
Vincent Parrett
>
> Actually, fast updates are what makes some ( many ) angry. I
>want to have a complete product with all features present at one time,
>not updates, which I have to redownload.
> The software developer philosophy is not to make all features
>out at one time, so more users would take the bate. That's sneaky.
>
>
In some cases yes, but I only release updates in order to fix problems
customers report, or to make it easier to use. Most customer do not have a
problem with that, in fact I receive many complements on our response times
to bug reports. Nothing worse than being stuck with a bug in a third party
control, and having to wait months for a fix! In my case, I would usually
wait a week before looking to a replacement or attempting to fix it myself
if I have the source.
William H. Mogk
pirates in Canada about 6-12 mo ago. They interviewed Michael Copland
(from Corel) about software piracy. While not endorsing piracy, he
admitted that it was better if someone pirated his program (word
Perfect), rather than your competition's software - the logic being that
some of the people using pirated software would eventually buy legit
copies of your software.
As far as I know, this "theory" has never been substantiated.
Bill
Fernand Raynaud wrote:
>
> Well, it's clearly unfortunate, but if there were no warez, a lot of
> software wouldn't get the exposure that leads to sales. Photoshop, for
> instance, is an expensive product that few people can afford. Probably over
> 3/4 of the copies out there are pirated. But that still represents a LOT of
> legit sales, and the pros wouldn't be using Photoshop (legally) if they
> hadn't seen or used a pirated version at some point. This is a very complex
> and difficult area. You can't prevent illegal copies. So the question is,
> given that your software WILL be pirated, how can you adjust and in the end
> turn that to your advantage?
>
> Fernand
>
> Vincent Parrett wrote in message <7fqrtr$a0...@forums.borland.com>...
> >
> >I guess there is another problem I didn't mention in my post. I spend a lot
> >of time dealing with customer enquiries, supporting not only exisiting
> >customers, but also providing pre-sales support for people trying the trial
> >version. My problem is how can I tell if these people are using the trial
> >version or a cracked version. I could be wasting my time, trying to convert
> >bogus enquries into sales!!
> >
> >
Peter Lacey
<jbu...@pacbell.net> writes
>
>If you show up on Astalavista..... it is time for a "maintainance
>upgrade...." that gently moves stuff around in the EXE.
>
pleasure, with an occasional contract to help out the bank balance, I
have been able to spend considerable time browsing around the crack /
hack / warez / phreak world. Many of the Crack groups appear to be in
it for the challenge of pitting their brains against the developers.
Fortunately for the 'good guys' these crack teams often fully document
their methods. A good starting point is to look at a document called
"The Newbies Guide to Cracking", which can be found at :-
http://hambo.163.net/cracktut.html. The referenced document is at number
139.
>Or time to consider reading about "reverse engineering" ... some of
>which is directed to pointing out ineffective ways of protection and is
>said to be directed towards developers.
Personally, I have decided that I can not SIMPLY stop these groups
finding passwords to my registration screen. However I keep a copy of
all published cracks, and change my programs to react if one of these is
entered. So far I have been friendly and only display a screen,
protesting at the cheapskate action of the user. Perhaps I should take
more direct action ......
>
>
>Pretending that you can invent the protection wheel really good, all by
>yourself... is somewhat foolish. But, it is done all the time... of
>course.
>
And now we are back to why an old (If somewhat foolish!!) lad like me is
browsing around these files, trying to understand how the burglar thinks
and acts, before I try to build a new burglar alarm and padlock!
>It is a KNOWLEDGE industry, not a snappy clever invention industry.
>
>jim buch
--
Peter Lacey
Please replace nospam with stonecot-sw if replying directly.
Philippe Ranger
As far as I know, this "theory" has never been substantiated.
>>
I don't know what you call substantiation. But in the early days of the PC,
when networks were the exception, it was rather clear that WordPerfect,
1-2-3 and dBase established themselves as standards on the basis of their
wide non-paying user base. The true inferior among the three, dBase,
practically killed the goose by using mucho lawyers and copy protection to
fight this.
PhR
Peter Dyson
Philippe Ranger <.> wrote in message <7fu6ik$dc...@forums.borland.com>...
defacto standard otherwise, there were beter and there where cheaper
products around at the time of 2.5 and 9 /10.
William H. Mogk
i.e.
1. Do you own Word Perfect?
2. Have you illegally obtained a copy of Word Perfect?
3. Did you buy Word Perfect because you liked the pirated version?
...etc.
I seem to remember reading some where (an old PC MAG?), that Borland had
something like 17 lawyers on staff and Ashton-Tate had a huge number of
lawyers (something like 60 or 100 or some goofy number). It had to do
with a news article about the Borland / Ashton Tate merger. Was this
the beginning of the end? At the time, I thought this was a great
merger...so much for my ability as prognosticator or successful business
deals.
Also, we had a lot of problems installing Dbase and Lotus, on PC-AT's
when they first came out. I think the copy protection scheme on the
install diskettes had something to do with timing on the computer, and
you couldn't install the software when the computer was in turbo mode.
Bill
Philippe Ranger
It had to do
with a news article about the Borland / Ashton Tate merger. Was this
the beginning of the end? At the time, I thought this was a great
merger...so much for my ability as prognosticator or successful business
deals.
>>
I privately thought at the time that it was a wildly overpriced merger, and
seemed propelled by Philippe's Napoleonic complex. Borland was to absorb a
company with twice the personnel and a totally different culture, which
culture had been for the last three years aiming A-T directly to the
dustbins of history. Of course, this was in the pre dot-com period, where
such insanity has become daily life on the markets. Putting a very good face
on it, Borland was buying A-T's Dos-stranded customer list.
And that, children, is how all those lawyers got rich. Good for BMW, bad for
Borland.
If Philippe hadn't had the need to take Russia, er, A-T, six months later he
could have got FoxBase. THAT would have been interesting!
PhR
Glynn
news:37233665...@baynet.net...
> I guess the only way to make it official would be to survey users. <g>
>
> when they first came out. I think the copy protection scheme on the
> install diskettes had something to do with timing on the computer, and
> you couldn't install the software when the computer was in turbo mode.
>
> Bill
I remember that. Do you remember when you couldn't format a floppy disk on
an IBM compatible if the system had more than 512K of memory? I forget the
exact error msg, but it had nothing to do with the real problem.
Glynn
William H. Mogk
Bill
Chris Roberts
>And you can add AutoCad to that list too. It would never have become a
>defacto standard otherwise, there were beter and there where cheaper
>products around at the time of 2.5 and 9 /10.
Here, here!
Regards,
Chris Roberts
Adam Roslon
purchased,I ended up Registering it when Wordstar 4.0 came out.
What ever happened to Wordstar and Micropro, I still use the Wordstar
Shortcut Keys to this date.
Material Fellow
For a while, SoftKey was selling Wordstar , some windows version, for
$9.99. CDROM in a case.
Haven't seen it in a while. WordStar for less than $10.00 ! And it
died.
jim buch
J. Peter Mugaas
wrote:
>I had pirated copy of Wordstar 3. It came with the first 8088 I
>purchased,I ended up Registering it when Wordstar 4.0 came out.
>
>What ever happened to Wordstar and Micropro, I still use the Wordstar
>Shortcut Keys to this date.
AFIAK, WordStar was acquired by Learning Company
(http://www.learningco.com/) who probably discontinued that program.
There still may be a few tidbits at
ftp://ftp.learningco.com/support/productivity_graphics/ . I actually
missed that old program :-). At least WordPerfect is still available.
Tony Bryer
> For a while, SoftKey was selling Wordstar , some windows version, for
> $9.99. CDROM in a case.
>
> Haven't seen it in a while. WordStar for less than $10.00 ! And it
> died.
>
WordStar Windows version was (IMO) a dog. It was s-l-o-w (every
keystroke forced a redraw), a document saying 'Hello World' was 50K and
ISTR that the print option would only let you print one copy at a time.
I still use Ami Pro, which is of similar vintage, for most of my WP
needs - it is everything that WSW is not and a joy to use.
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' www.sda.co.uk
1999 Shareware Industry Conference sponsor - see www.sic.org
jsmi...@usa.net
First I want to thank you for starting this thread. I had no idea about
the extent of this until I started researching things, as I have been
doing the last few days. It's like a massive international crime
network, much like the international drug trade.
I also have an app - end-user, not a component - which has been stolen.
I can't begin to express in words the emotions about it .....
Anyway I would like to ask this group for comments about a couple
things.
1. I noticed that there are many sites where the thieves distribute
phony name/serial numbers - apparently they figured out the algorithms
to generate valid serial numbers, where the s/n is derived from a
registrant's name. Some even distribute a key generator.
What about making the next version of an app check for a s/n not legally
issued, and/or known to be the illegal s/n distributed by the thieves?
And if it's a stolen copy, give a "surprise". Delete all records in
your app's data files. Delete files (if any) needed by your app (you
can't delete the app's exe itself, because it's running) Crash the
computer. After all, the thief would not likely ever register the app,
so nothing is lost.
2. For apps where the thieves just patched the app instead, one of the
replies in this thread mentioned a site called dupecheck.com I went
there and did a search for my app. Can someone explain exactly what the
info on that site is telling me, and where the info comes from?
Can this site tell me how many copies of the illegal version of an app
have been downloaded, ever, from all criminal sites? (at least based on
the info of wherever the site gets its info)
Jason
Peter N Roth
[ ]
>What about making the next version of an app check for a s/n not legally
>issued, and/or known to be the illegal s/n distributed by the thieves?
The problem with "revenge" is that it often bites the retributioner.
Suppose there's a "slight" bug in this protection code that crashes
your best friend's machine? Anyway, you've had to spend some
effort on building & exhaustively checking the code ~ are you sure
you want to spend your time doing that? Who pays for that time?
--
Grace + Peace | Peter N Roth | Engineering Objects Int'l
Amazon.com associate | Inprise Tool & Component Builder
http://www.inconresearch.com/eoi
Fight spam! Join cauce! http://www.cauce.org
Charles Hacker
> What about making the next version of an app check for a s/n not legally
> issued, and/or known to be the illegal s/n distributed by the thieves?
> And if it's a stolen copy, give a "surprise". Delete all records in
> your app's data files. Delete files (if any) needed by your app (you
> can't delete the app's exe itself, because it's running) Crash the
> computer. After all, the thief would not likely ever register the app,
> so nothing is lost.
Except that the APP will be called a VIRUS that does irrepable damage, and
you would most likely be sued by uses whose computer you crashed!
Mike Orriss (TeamB)
> Some even distribute a key generator.
Tell me about it <g>
I have just discovered that one of those exists for my NoteTree
application. It must have been done for fun (?) though, as I only charge
$30!
> What about making the next version of an app check for a s/n not legally
> issued, and/or known to be the illegal s/n distributed by the thieves?
> And if it's a stolen copy, give a "surprise". Delete all records in
> your app's data files. Delete files (if any) needed by your app (you
> can't delete the app's exe itself, because it's running) Crash the
> computer. After all, the thief would not likely ever register the app,
> so nothing is lost.
Not a good idea as the end user may not realise that he is running a
pirated copy.
> 2. For apps where the thieves just patched the app instead, one of the
> replies in this thread mentioned a site called dupecheck.com I went
> there and did a search for my app. Can someone explain exactly what the
> info on that site is telling me, and where the info comes from?
Good question. I spent quite a bit of time trying to find out more info
from the site without success. I was amazed at the number of entries in
the database.
Mike Orriss (TeamB)
(No e-mail replies, please, unless explicitly requested!)
Vincent Parrett
>
>First I want to thank you for starting this thread. I had no idea about
>the extent of this until I started researching things, as I have been
>doing the last few days. It's like a massive international crime
>network, much like the international drug trade.
>
>I also have an app - end-user, not a component - which has been stolen.
>I can't begin to express in words the emotions about it .....
>
I was like a bear witha sore head for the last few days. I think I am over
it know...
[snip]
>What about making the next version of an app check for a s/n not legally
>issued, and/or known to be the illegal s/n distributed by the thieves?
>And if it's a stolen copy, give a "surprise". Delete all records in
>your app's data files. Delete files (if any) needed by your app (you
>can't delete the app's exe itself, because it's running) Crash the
>computer. After all, the thief would not likely ever register the app,
>so nothing is lost.
>
Not worth the effort and more likely to backfire on you!!
>2. For apps where the thieves just patched the app instead, one of the
>replies in this thread mentioned a site called dupecheck.com I went
>there and did a search for my app. Can someone explain exactly what the
>info on that site is telling me, and where the info comes from?
>
>Can this site tell me how many copies of the illegal version of an app
>have been downloaded, ever, from all criminal sites? (at least based on
>the info of wherever the site gets its info)
>
Note hope in hell of getting that sort of info!!
Tony Bryer
> phony name/serial numbers - apparently they figured out the algorithms
> to generate valid serial numbers, where the s/n is derived from a
>
> What about making the next version of an app check for a s/n not legally
> issued, and/or known to be the illegal s/n distributed by the thieves?
> And if it's a stolen copy, give a "surprise". Delete all records in
> your app's data files. Delete files (if any) needed by your app (you
> can't delete the app's exe itself, because it's running) Crash the
> computer. After all, the thief would not likely ever register the app,
> so nothing is lost.
As others have said, this is a seriously bad idea. What some shareware
authors have done is to detect the illegal keys and put up some innocent
sounding error message "Fatal error 236: memory allocation failed: please
contact xyz for technical support" and when/if they contact you talk them
into paying up, or at least let them know that you know it's an illegal
copy.
You do have to keep this in perspective. You have only lost money if the
person using the cracked copy would have paid had it not been available;
90%+ of them never would have.
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' www.sda.co.uk
Sponsor 1999 Shareware Industry Conference - www.sic.org
Dejan Maksimovic
Hi,
1) The crash and file deletion should not be done, because the
code mught be different for just one character ( 1 and 2 for example),
and the end-user might have entered it missleadingly. But if You know
the code is illegal, You should disable the registered version features.
That is the way GetRight does it, and eleive me, it is one of the best
selling programs ever.
Can't help You with the second.
But I have something else to add.
You can't say someone has a illegal copy of Your product, unless
You have a patent licence for it like MS and Inprise do. ( This means
the legal senc, not the moral ). The country the person lives in must
have thieve exchange program with Yours in order for You to say he has a
illegal copy.
Regards, Dejan.
jsmi...@usa.net
> Hi,
> 1) The crash and file deletion should not be done, because the
> code mught be different for just one character ( 1 and 2 for example),
> and the end-user might have entered it missleadingly.
Well, without going into detail, I can definitely know if the app is
legal or not, and not make a mistake of thinking a legal copy is an
illegal one. And to answer another poster, it would not take very much
time, a matter of a few hours at most.
But I'd like to answer some general comments I saw, along the lines of
"you can't stop it" and "just forget it". I'm sorry but I don't agree
that justifies doing nothing. Many things will never be stopped -
murder, drugs, drunk drivers, etc - but that doesn't mean that we as a
society should not take measures to try to minimize these things.
Society is just the total of all of us, and I hope that, in my life, I
don't have such defeatist feelings about wrongdoing.
Another poster said someone might "sue" me. Can I ask, for what? What
would the claim be? What legal duty do you think I would breach by just
deleting things in my own app, which was only there in the first place
as a result of knowing illegal behavior, violating both federal and
state laws for copyright infringement, and interference with prospective
business advantage? (putting aside the 'crash the computer', which would
just cause the thief to have to reboot)
Actually that would just allow me to sue them in counterclaim, which I
could not otherwise do because I wouldn't know who they are.
Although, I have been concentrating by research efforts on identifying
the ISP's which host the sites which facilitate this, not the end-user
thieves.
> But I have something else to add.
> You can't say someone has a illegal copy of Your product, unless
> You have a patent licence for it like MS and Inprise do.
I think you mean a copyright? Under international law (GATT/TRIPS)
software is copyrighted upon creation, with no further procedures
required.
> The country the person lives in must
> have thieve exchange program with Yours in order for You to say he has a
> illegal copy.
No, the app has a standard license agreement, which the end-user is free
to agree to or not before the app installs. It states that the
agreement is governed by US law. Even if the thief is in one of the few
countries whose laws do not protect software, or require some sort of
procedures for protection, one of the most basic legal concepts, in
every country in the world, is the "freedom to contract" which means
people are free to agree to whatever they decide - including to accept a
choice of law, and waive any other law which is contrary. And aside
from the formal legal analysis, the thief knows that he is stealing, and
that he is a thief, regardless of whatever reason he has to believe he
will never have any consequences for being a thief.
I hope the above does not come across as too strong or too personal, if
so please forgive me, I'm still a bit upset ....
Thanks,
Jason
Peter Dyson
>Can this site tell me how many copies of the illegal version of an app
>have been downloaded, ever, from all criminal sites? (at least based on
>the info of wherever the site gets its info)
As the poster of this piece of info I can tell you what I know about it,
from
the research I have done in the past. It is a central database of
'releases'.
It seems that they do not release more than one copy of any app. This seems
to be like a central clearing house so these people can see if the app they
just got their hands on has been released before.The competition element
seems to be to get it out the first, after that the 'release' groups have no
further interest in it! Once released though, it gets into general
circulation. You just have to look at alt.binaries.warez.??.?? newsgroups.
I believe there are many private ftp sites carrying the software. But
dynamic IP and ISP switching make it hard to track them. From lists
of sites you can find on various web pages (NOT the type associated with
porn) they use many differing ports for the ftp server. with 65000 port
numbers and private access it would make them very hard to find.
BTW you would become the crimminal if you ever tried revenge tactics!
Peter.
J. Peter Mugaas
>[snip]
>Another poster said someone might "sue" me. Can I ask, for what? What
>would the claim be? What legal duty do you think I would breach by just
>deleting things in my own app, which was only there in the first place
>as a result of knowing illegal behavior, violating both federal and
>state laws for copyright infringement, and interference with prospective
>business advantage?
What happens if a user's system configuration somehow got messed up
and their license data was destroyed? Your program would then cause
the user's data to be lost. Being how that was deliberate on your
part, such a user might have a legal case against you for such data
loss (your post stating such an intention can be used against you in
such a circumstances). Assuming that a user did not violate your
license, you could not put forth a counter-claim of piracy.
Perhaps, you would do well to speak to a lawyer before you ever make
any final decisions.
And do not blame the pirates for all of your sales losses. There
could be many reasons for that.
Peter N Roth
>Well, without going into detail, I can definitely know if the app is
>legal or not, and not make a mistake of thinking a legal copy is an
>illegal one. And to answer another poster, it would not take very much
>time, a matter of a few hours at most.
*somebody* winds up paying for that time. Usually, the honest folk
pay for the dishonest, which is why we have locks, insurance, jails,
laws, etc., So (as I assume all reading this are honest) what remedies
do we have? OTTOMH: education, prevention & punishment.
Education says that software is intellectual *property* & may belong to
someone.
Prevention deters the honest; the dishonest still break in. Strong
preventive measures
induce clever cracking, as a "badge of accomplishment". So I conclude
prevention *in its current forms* doesn't work. A new preventive "lock"
is required.
Instead of trying to lock your program, would you spend
a few bucks buying an insurance policy? Then the illegal
proliferation of software becomes the problem of a company
with "agents"... [ note: I am not in the insurance business,
nor shall I enter it ]
Punishment sometimes whacks the innocent. I don't want to do this
to my clients, because they become former clients. I conclude that
putting a bomb in my program is therefore Not A Good Thing(tm).
>But I'd like to answer some general comments I saw, along the lines of
>"you can't stop it" and "just forget it". I'm sorry but I don't agree
>that justifies doing nothing.
Okay, some of us have tried various things ~ what do you suggest?
[ ]
>No, the app has a standard license agreement, which the end-user is free
>to agree to or not before the app installs.
That is the theory. I can't remember the last time I actually *read* one of
those EULA things. Various legal authorities argue over their validity.
>I hope the above does not come across as too strong or too personal, if
>so please forgive me, I'm still a bit upset ....
Hey this is the internet ~ have strong opinions or none at all.
Dejan Maksimovic
About international copyright.
I know I AM RIGHT. Because in my country most of the
software is pirated. Noone can sue the pirates, except for perhaps
Morton Benson who has the copyright in my country.
Regards, Dejan.
Ralph Friedman (TeamB)
take an analogy of someone stealing your (easily identifiable) car radio and
you are walking down the street one day and see it in a locked car. Do you
have the legal right to break in to that car and retrieve the radio. Not
without police intervention, you don't. I would guess that the same principle
applies to your files on someone elses computer.
--
Regards
Ralph (TeamB)
--
jsmi...@usa.net wrote in message <37262D...@usa.net>...
|Another poster said someone might "sue" me. Can I ask, for what? What
|would the claim be? What legal duty do you think I would breach by just
|deleting things in my own app, which was only there in the first place
|as a result of knowing illegal behavior, violating both federal and
|state laws for copyright infringement, and interference with prospective
Steve Tyrakowski
wrote:
> What happens if a user's system configuration somehow got messed up
> and their license data was destroyed?
>
I thought this was only going to happen to people who fraudulently
used the keys that were published on the warez sites. For example, he
knows that key ABCDEFG has been posted on the warez sites, so next
version, that key gets put into the 'nuke' list.
Of course, when one of those illegal users gets their data whacked by
installing the update, you'll still get a lot of bad word-of-mouth that
your update is buggy and tends to trash data. This is arguably a worse
situation than you had before.
Regards,
Steve Tyrakowski
www.sct-associates.com
Marcel Popescu
> one of the most basic legal concepts, in
> every country in the world, is the "freedom to contract" which means
> people are free to agree to whatever they decide - including to accept a
> choice of law, and waive any other law which is contrary.
Hehe. That would be nice. You think that if I sign a contract in which I
agree to be a slave in your country, a court would enforce that? I doubt it.
Oh, and btw - in Romania, a contract must be written in Romanian (or have
attached a Romanian translation signed by a certified notary), AND be signed
by all parties, before it can be enforced. Nothing like a license.
> And aside
> from the formal legal analysis, the thief knows that he is stealing, and
> that he is a thief, regardless of whatever reason he has to believe he
> will never have any consequences for being a thief.
Are you referring to the legal or moral aspect? I know I am - legally - a
thief when using pirated software. [And I couldn't care less.] Morally, I
don't agree with such labelling. But of course, I've been into this war
before... with no results, I'm afraid.
Mark
Marcel Popescu
> Education says that software is intellectual *property* & may belong to
> someone.
You mean "mind control"? <g> Of course software is intellectual property -
IF KEPT THAT WAY. But when it is PUBLISHED (etimology - same root as
PUBLIC), it's no longer someone's property, and becomes PUBLIC property.
> Instead of trying to lock your program, would you spend
> a few bucks buying an insurance policy? Then the illegal
> proliferation of software becomes the problem of a company
> with "agents"... [ note: I am not in the insurance business,
> nor shall I enter it ]
Interesting idea. I'd like to see this happening. It would at least silence
those waiving the stupid argument "if everyone copies software, the poor
small authors will starve". [The clear fact that those same authors have NO
protection from the copyright laws notwithstanding, of course.]
Mark
Tim Sullivan
> IF KEPT THAT WAY. But when it is PUBLISHED (etimology - same root as
> PUBLIC), it's no longer someone's property, and becomes PUBLIC property.
Are you on crack? Unless something is released into the public domain, it is
entirely owned by the author, not the public. The author (or holder of the
copyright) of a book owns the book. You have a license to read the book, use
the book, let someone borrow the book. But you can't both use the same book
at the same time in different places. If you photocopy the book, you're
breaking the law. Published or not, the contents of the book still belong to
the author.
--
Tim Sullivan
Unlimited Intelligence Limited
www.uil.net
Peter N Roth
>Peter N Roth <refusi...@myaddress.com> wrote
>> Education says that software is intellectual *property* & may belong to
>> someone.
>
>IF KEPT THAT WAY. But when it is PUBLISHED (etimology - same root as
>PUBLIC), it's no longer someone's property, and becomes PUBLIC property.
Not "mind control" as in zombi, but rather the fundamentals of civilization.
Perhaps
starting with the ancient code of Hammurabi. It's a way to promote
self-control.
But not all do this, so they are the outlaws and need to be dealt with.
Software is intellectual property of the mind that creates it. At the time
of
creation, it is owned by its creator. Then creators can publish it, ie,
release
the source code to the world as 'public domain'. If they copyright the code,
they indicate that they are not 'publishing' it, but allowing others to use
it,
perhaps for a fee. Patents are another avenue of 'protection of property.'
>> Instead of trying to lock your program, would you spend
>> a few bucks buying an insurance policy? Then the illegal
>Interesting idea. I'd like to see this happening. It would at least silence
>those waiving the stupid argument "if everyone copies software, the poor
>small authors will starve". [The clear fact that those same authors have NO
>protection from the copyright laws notwithstanding, of course.]
Not sure what you're saying here. In the usa, authors _have_ protection,
and have won suits, even against M$ (STAC, eg)
How would you implement the insurance idea ?
Rudy Velthuis
>Software Piracy is ALWAYS wrong. There is no justification for it. Pirates
>say "but it's too expensive for me, I'm just a student". If you can't afford
>it, you shouldn't use it! Should I be steal a Rolls-Royce car somewhere just
>because I can't afford one, and I need a car? Buy a car u can afford, or get
>a bicycle. And stealing software to test it out is like stealing a TV to see
>if you like the picture.
Although you are right on the issue, your analogy is not. If someone
steals a RR, it is missing somewhere else, depriving the owner of it's
use. That's how people find out it's stolen <g>. Software can be copied
without any loss, so the owner might not even notice.
--
Rudy Velthuis
Wayne Menzie
>Software Piracy is ALWAYS wrong. There is no justification for it.
Time to see what a software vendor whose product is pirated as much as any
has to say on the subject.
"We do have quite the piracy going of course, sometimes it feels like all
of entire countries are quite well served by a handful of copies, thank you
very much... well, you might know my angle on this topic, it's a very
simple line: No one can possibly buy everything there is just to check it
out once... and so in that sense its ok if you got it from Uncle Fred to
have a peek. But the 'ethics' angle for me is: 'If you use it more than
once a week, or if you do any kind of professional project with it, then by
all means invest in your tools and allow the toolmakers to make them better
for you', and that seemed eminently reasonable and sensible and fair.
"I have a lot of letters from folks that agreed and KPT was the first thing
they ever paid for. ;) What I also see in that sense is that if you just
dabble about for fun, sure, anything goes and your entire machine is
probably quite an expensive sinkhole for cash as it is. However, if you in
any way at all make money with computers you really also should make sure
that you have the adequate tools. I see professional graphic artists with
only 10 megs of Ram or saving everything to some syquest disk or designing
magazine covers on an 8 bit screen. That really is being silly and pound-
foolish in my eyes. The machines have come a LONG way too, and we did have
to make a few hard choices to look forward and not back."
-Kai Krause
(Creator of Kai's Power Tools for Photoshop)
Note that I am not condoning piracy. I just find his point of view on the
subject intersting.
Wayne Menzie
Material Fellow
Crime" in the sense that nothing was removed from the posession of
another, just another copy was created.
The logic fails to satisfy the extrapolation to universal application..
in other words, universal software piracy surely deprives me of an
opportunity to earn a livelihood by the creation of said software.
So it cannot be "victimless" in the large sense.
Humanity comes to the common (but not universal) conclusion that "My
cheating is OK and doesn't hurt someone"... by any means it can. IN
General...... not just software.
Even Businesses do this. And even Nations at times.
jim buch
Rudy Velthuis wrote:
>
> In article <7gfcbk$7...@forums.borland.com>, Kaye wrote...
>
> >Software Piracy is ALWAYS wrong.
> > Should I be steal a Rolls-Royce car somewhere just
Kaye
WEEKS
>before arriving at store shelves. The hacker even included a GIF of the CD
>cover in the file to prove his deed. I know because I used the pirated
>version before my legitimate copy was available. The people that really get
>I hope no one thinks I am a software pirate, because I am not. ALL software
>I currently use is licensed. I am talking openly on this subject to help
>fellow developers.
>
Aren't you contradicting yourself? Maybe you should have said "I'm not a
pirate right now, but if I find some copy of Delphi 5 lying around somewhere
I'll be one".
And I really doubt that you are a legit Delphi user... Once a pirate always
a pirate.
>
>I truly believe that the vast majority of honest users "eventually" buy the
>product even if they have a pirated version.
>
>Most of the people who steal your software are the ones that would never
buy
>it anyway. Most of the warez trade is done by "collectors". They simply
want
>every piece of software they can get their hands on. I have heard of
>collectors having as much as 100 gigs in files in their collections.
>
Again, you are contradicting yourself. "Vast majority" and "Most of the ppl
who steal your software" are the same thing.
Software Piracy is ALWAYS wrong. There is no justification for it. Pirates
say "but it's too expensive for me, I'm just a student". If you can't afford
it, you shouldn't use it! Should I be steal a Rolls-Royce car somewhere just
Vincent Parrett
>
>has to say on the subject.
>
I'm not sure if I agree with everything Kai says there (I started this
thread by the way!). For most Delphi components (including ours), a trial
version is available for people to try. Using pirated copies of the full
version to 'try' is not legit. The pirated version of my components was the
version which included the source. Yes, users in large coporates and gov
depts will register a copy but how many people are using the source code
obtained from the warez site, simply 'forgetting' to register (no-one will
ever know If I don't register)...
I don't know much about Kai's tools but I bet he supports people using the
trial version, how does he know if they are using the trial or a pirated
version. This sort of support work (basically pre sales tech support) takes
a lot of time, however it needs to convert prospects into sales. We all know
full well that you can't spend too long on non-billable or non
income-producing tasks before you are out of business. I have seen a trend
in my business over the last 4-5 months that I cannot attribute to anything
else. The number of pre-sales support requests has steadily increased,
however sales have steadily declined. I don't believe it is due to the
product, which has many happy users with many successful projects.
For my part, I blame myself to some degree, for my ignorance of the warez
issue in the first place. It's a huge problem, not one that I believe will
be resolved in the near future. All we can do is make it as difficult as we
can for the people to crack, and to get up to date copies. I will be
releasing a major upgrade to my components (DNotes) in a few weeks. I wonder
how long before it appears on the Delphi warez sites!
Regards
Rudy Velthuis
>There is a school of thought that software piracy is a "Victimless
>Crime" in the sense that nothing was removed from the posession of
>another, just another copy was created.
I am not saying there is a victimless crime when speaking of software (or
also brand) piracy. I'm just saying these crimes are much harder to
**spot**, because nothing is (materially <g>) missing, except for the
income from sales later on (like the original poster experienced -
although I'm not sure this was the cause in his case).
If someone steals a RR, the crime is immediately obvious to everyone
(except the insurance perhaps <g>).
>Rudy Velthuis wrote:
[...]
>> Although you are right on the issue, your analogy is not. If someone
>> steals a RR, it is missing somewhere else, depriving the owner of it's
>> use. That's how people find out it's stolen <g>. Software can be copied
>> without any loss, so the owner might not even notice.
>> --
>> Rudy Velthuis
--
Rudy Velthuis
rvel...@gmx.net
http://members.xoom.com/RVelthuis
Ernie Deel
news:7gh09p$13...@forums.borland.com...
> All we can do is make it as difficult as we
> can for the people to crack, and to get up to date copies.
The "warez" folks seem to pirate software for sport, others do it for profit.
The slickest approach I've seen yet are those who actually collect shareware
registration fees without the author's knowledge or consent under the guise of a
"registration service".
This purportedly works as follows. I advertise that I will register *any*
shareware as a service for the local public in order to alleviate problems with
currency exchange, lack of credit card, communication/language differences,
etc.. For a small fee, I will make any required currency exchange, contact the
author, obtain a copy of the software and deliver it back to the end user.
If performed as presented, this may actually be a legitimate service. However,
it is all too tempting and easy for me (the "service provider") to perform an
additional "service" for the author. Now that I have a copy of the software
(registered under a fictitous name), why should I trouble the author again? I
can easily fulfill any future registration requests by sending the user this
"pre-registered" copy.
The first sign of trouble is when the author starts receiving requests for
upgrades and/or technical support from "registered" users he's never heard of or
had any contact with. The author and the user are both victims of this "service
provider" middleman. However; when confronted, the middleman simply points the
finger at the author and vice versa. It's extremely difficult and time
consuming for anyone to prove who did what to whom.
--
Ernie Deel, EFD Systems
-------------------------------------------------
Jay Cole
<jbu...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Actually, in any production of product there are two commodities.
Time and Materials. By providing stolen software to people who would
otherwise buy the software, the hourly rate for the owner's time is
lowered, or worse yet, the margin he makes on paying someone else to
write it is lowered.
Although material costs in software are low, less than a couple bucks
for media, the time cost is high.
Robbing someone of time is a terrible crime. It robs you of the most
precious commodity you have.
Jay Cole
>There is a school of thought that software piracy is a "Victimless
>Crime" in the sense that nothing was removed from the posession of
>another, just another copy was created.
>
>The logic fails to satisfy the extrapolation to universal application..
>in other words, universal software piracy surely deprives me of an
>opportunity to earn a livelihood by the creation of said software.
>
>So it cannot be "victimless" in the large sense.
>
>Humanity comes to the common (but not universal) conclusion that "My
>cheating is OK and doesn't hurt someone"... by any means it can. IN
>General...... not just software.
>
>Even Businesses do this. And even Nations at times.
>
>jim buch
>
>Rudy Velthuis wrote:
>>
>> In article <7gfcbk$7...@forums.borland.com>, Kaye wrote...
>>
>> >Software Piracy is ALWAYS wrong.
>
>> > Should I be steal a Rolls-Royce car somewhere just
>> >because I can't afford one, and I need a car? Buy a car u can afford, or get
>> >a bicycle. And stealing software to test it out is like stealing a TV to see
>> >if you like the picture.
>>
Material Fellow
>
It may not have come out correctly, but I was supporting you, not at all
refuting you. However, I think you got it pretty clearly.
Most attempts to call something a "victimless crime" seem to come from
friends, family and lawyers of the perpetrators.
jim buch
> In article <372BF7...@pacbell.net>, Material Fellow wrote...
>
> >There is a school of thought that software piracy is a "Victimless
> >Crime" in the sense that nothing was removed from the posession of
> >another, just another copy was created.
>
> I am not saying there is a victimless crime when speaking of software (or
> also brand) piracy. I'm just saying these crimes are much harder to
> **spot**, because nothing is (materially <g>) missing, except for the
> income from sales later on (like the original poster experienced -
> although I'm not sure this was the cause in his case).
>
> If someone steals a RR, the crime is immediately obvious to everyone
> (except the insurance perhaps <g>).
>
> >Rudy Velthuis wrote:
>
> [...]
>
budd...@idcomm.com
> Use workarounds or "trap" techniques as described in my
> "Anti Cracking FAQ" instead (link at the "Shareware" section of
> my "Delphi Tips" page.)
Hi Richey,
I looked at your FAQ - nice job! Maybe you can answer a question?
I noticed from an example in it that hackers can 'see' the values of
properties of components and forms - it looks like, the same info we can
see in a form by doing a "View as Text" . What I was wondering is, for
purpose of 'seeing' this info, is a Datamodule a "Form" ? That is, can a
hacker 'see' the name of the procedure called in the Datamodule's
OnCreate event?
Rod
Material Fellow
diligent search will get you some protectionist guidelines.... of which
the following few are presented.
These are NOT my contributions.
These hints, the thoughts and experience of unnamed others, are my
gift to you for your edification and income.
Enjoy,
jim buch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark's famous 14 protector's commandments
1 Never use meaningful file or procedure names such as
IsValidSerialNum (duh.)
2 Don't warn the user right after a violation is made.
Wait later, maybe until the next day or two (crackers hate that).
3 Use checksums in DLL's and in the EXE. Have them check each other.
Not perfect but it just makes it harder to crack.
4 Pause a second or two after a password entry to make brute
force cracking unfeasible. Simple to do, but rarely done.
5 Self-heal your software. You know, error correction like modems
and hard drives use. The technology has been around for years,
and no one uses it on their software? The best thing about this
is that if the cracker used a decompiler, they may be looking at
a listing that is no longer valid.
6 Patch your own software. Change your code to call different
validation routines each time. Beat us at our own game.
7 Store serial numbers in unlikely places, like as a property
of a database field.
8 Store serial numbers in several places
9 Don't rely on the system date. Get the date of several files,
like SYSTEM.DAT, SYSTEM,DA0 and BOOTLOG.TXT and compare them to
the system date. Require that the time be greater than the last
run.
A Don't use literal strings that tell the user that their time is
expired. These are the first things to look for. Build strings
dynamically or use encryption.
B Flood the cracker with bogus calls and hard-coded strings. Decoys
are fun.
C Don't use a validation function. Every time you validate the user,
write your validation code inline with the current process. That
just makes more cracking for the cracker.
D When using hard-coded keys or passwords, make them look like program
code or function calls (i.e., "73AF" or "GetWindowText"). This
actually works very well and confuses some decompilers.
E Finally, never reveal your best protection secrets :-)
This said, Zen-crackers will easily defeat even the most clever
protection scheme, yet there is no reason of concern... you see,
we examine protections of two sorts: protections that are UNUSUAL and
protections that must be removed in order to fully
enjoy a VERY USEFUL program. Sadly very few programs are really useful
and very few protections are indeed intelligent.
Therefore you should not worry: your program is probably NOT useful at
all, and your protection is probably NOT clever...
nobody will ever attempt to crack it, you may sleep relaxed.
You want more anti-crackers tricks? Read (study) the essay by tibit:
Advanced protection schemes! (13 december 1997)
Material Fellow
greatly apologize for my crude and calleous error in posting NON-DELPHI
materials ..... that may save you shareware authors thousands of dollars
of income..... each years.....
For i=1 to 100
Slap self with wet noodle
................
jim buch
Duncan McNiven
<jbu...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>For i=1 to 100
> Slap self with wet noodle
Shouldn't that be Self.SlapWith(WetNoodle); ???
Actually, even though it wasn't Delphi stuff, I found your post
interesting
Regards,
Duncan
Chad Jones
>
> Rudy Velthuis wrote:
> >
> It may not have come out correctly, but I was supporting you, not at all
> refuting you. However, I think you got it pretty clearly.
>
> Most attempts to call something a "victimless crime" seem to come from
> friends, family and lawyers of the perpetrators.
>
> jim buch
>
On the other hand, I have personally spent many thousands of dollars on
software.. much of which was absolute garbage. When a person shells out
hundreds of dollars for an application which is useless for any real
work (such as TextBridge98 which cannot handle files with more than 50
pages) is this a victimless crime?
After being burned so many times I've developed my own software ethic:
I pay for what I use only.
I think time-limited shareware is the best hope for solving the
pervasive crime of over-marketed under-developed software.
- Chad
David H Jameson
So, can someone suggest what is the best Delphi component for
implementing time-limited operation? I realise none of them are perfect
but I've seen advertisements for various tools that can be used to make
your product stop working after some time period or after n operations
etc.
Does anyone here have experience with such components?
Thanks,
David
_______________________
David Jameson
The 'subject' header must contain the code 'xyzzy'
to prevent automatic deletion
Harry Bosma
<jbu...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>For those who wish some hints on the protection of shareware programs,
>diligent search will get you some protectionist guidelines.... of which
>the following few are presented.
Thanks for posting this. It has quite a few interesting ideas.
Harry
Material Fellow
>
> This stuff about warez was fascinating, I had never heard of it before.
> So, can someone suggest what is the best Delphi component for
> implementing time-limited operation? I realise none of them are perfect
> but I've seen advertisements for various tools that can be used to make
> your product stop working after some time period or after n operations
> etc.
>
> Does anyone here have experience with such components?
>
> Thanks,
> David
>
Automation = two edged sword
If (ComponentA.GoodForTimeLimit=True)
THEN (ComponentB.GoodForBreakingComponentA=?True)
Not everything is drag and drop.
Sometimes customized hand coding is best.
jim buch
Marcel Popescu
> they indicate that they are not 'publishing' it, but allowing others to
use
> it,
> perhaps for a fee. Patents are another avenue of 'protection of property.'
I know the situation. I just don't aprove it. The copyright owners try to do
two contradictory things at the same time: publish the information AND keep
it private. The fact that the current law accepts this doesn't make it
right - or even feasible.
> Not sure what you're saying here. In the usa, authors _have_ protection,
> and have won suits, even against M$ (STAC, eg)
I don't care much about the US. Nevertheless, please prosecute me for using
pirated software. [You being a small software company.] Most piracy isn't in
the US, but in places like China and Eastern Europe, and protecting software
authors only in places where piracy isn't an issue might be taken seriously
by some - but not by me.
> How would you implement the insurance idea ?
I would rather go with Bruce Scheiner's "Street Protocol" (or something like
that).
Mark
Marcel Popescu
> Software Piracy is ALWAYS wrong. There is no justification for it. Pirates
> say "but it's too expensive for me, I'm just a student". If you can't
afford
> it, you shouldn't use it!
As someone else said on a different forum - you americans keep telling the
rest of the world that they can die and go to hell. Unfortunately for you,
it won't happen.
> Should I be steal a Rolls-Royce car somewhere just
> because I can't afford one, and I need a car? Buy a car u can afford, or
get
> a bicycle. And stealing software to test it out is like stealing a TV to
see
> if you like the picture.
Should I be stealing a piece of bread just because I can't buy it? Damn
sure, if that will keep me alive!
[Of course, all these analogies are - as usual - flawed. There's no
stealing, no loss, in copying information.]
Mark
Atanas Stoyanov
rest of the world that they can die and go to hell. Unfortunately for you,
>it won't happen.
Marcel, it is in the very interest of the countries where pirating is
tolerated to stop it by all means - otherwise local software companies will
slowly disappear. If everyone can buy a pirated copy of MS Office CD etc.
for US10, how are local companies supposed to survive ?
>Should I be stealing a piece of bread just because I can't buy it? Damn
>sure, if that will keep me alive!
Your survival comparison does not work at all. There is plenty of free good
quality software - there is no need to steal if somebody can not afford
buying commercial apps.
>There's no stealing, no loss, in copying information
It is illegal to pirate software in almost every country (and in every
european one for sure) - it is just not being enforced strongly enough at
this time - hopefully this will change.
Atanas
Mike Orriss (TeamB)
> There's no stealing, no loss, in copying information
There you go again spouting the usual rubbish.
As I've said to you before, your logic is seriously flawed.
If I copy application AAA from a friend's CD do you seriously believe
that the supplier of the software suffers no loss of income?
Mike Orriss (TeamB)
(No e-mail replies, please, unless explicitly requested!)
J. Peter Mugaas
<mdpo...@geocities.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>I know the situation. I just don't aprove it. The copyright owners try to do
>two contradictory things at the same time: publish the information AND keep
>it private.
Or keep ownership which does not mean publication. Selling components
can be a big business which does not mean publishing (but licensing
their use) and some commercial vendors work very hard to deliver high
quality components involving man-hours (including documentation
writers, programmers, and administrative overhead), computing
resources, marketing, occasionally royalties to others, and support
time. This is not an obligation which one go into lightly (some
component makers give theirs away simply to because they do not want
this type of responsibility).
Even if a component is freeware, there may be issues such as
acknowledging their part in your program or prohibitions against
someone else reselling their work.
Perhaps, you would do well to remember that in other arenas such as
scholarship, those laws prevent people from republishing material
under their own name (plagiarism).
>The fact that the current law accepts this doesn't make it
>right - or even feasible.
>
Will you say that if it was your software that was being pirated?
>[snip]
>Most piracy isn't in
>the US, but in places like China and Eastern Europe, and protecting software
>authors only in places where piracy isn't an issue might be taken seriously
>by some - but not by me.
>
I can understand that there is poverty in many places. I understand
that in many places a dollar can go very far. However, there are
others such as the U.S. and Germany where a dollar does not go far
because of a higher standard of living. There are some programmers
who can live off of $100 a month, but that does not even cover rent
for an apartment in the U.S.
-- Support the anti-Spam amendment - Join at http://www.cauce.org/
J. Peter Mugaas E-Mail: oma0...@mail.wvnet.edu
http://wvnvm.wvnet.edu/~oma00215/ ICQ Number: 14297043
Finger for PGP Key
Ernie Deel
news:7gn5v4$7e...@forums.borland.com...
> Should I be stealing a piece of bread just because I can't buy it? Damn
> sure, if that will keep me alive!
And if enough people apply this logic, the local baker will lose money, go out
of business and move elsewhere. Leaving the self-justified thiefs behind and in
even worse condition.
--
Ernie Deel, EFD Systems
-------------------------------------------------
The future is just like the past, only more expensive.
James Boyle
> >[snip]
> >Most piracy isn't in
> >the US, but in places like China and Eastern Europe, and protecting software
> >authors only in places where piracy isn't an issue might be taken seriously
> >by some - but not by me.
> >
> I can understand that there is poverty in many places. I understand
> that in many places a dollar can go very far. However, there are
> others such as the U.S. and Germany where a dollar does not go far
> because of a higher standard of living. There are some programmers
> who can live off of $100 a month, but that does not even cover rent
> for an apartment in the U.S.
Turn that around just to get a feel for the poor guy's problem.
If NT costed $2,500 and Delphi C/S $25,000 and AsyncPro $2,790
and ODBC Express $7,000 you see our molehills are his mountains.
--
Jim
Daniel J. Wojcik
<jpb...@starnetinc.com> wrote:
>Turn that around just to get a feel for the poor guy's problem.
>If NT costed $2,500 and Delphi C/S $25,000 and AsyncPro $2,790
>and ODBC Express $7,000 you see our molehills are his mountains.
Actually, according to the GSA contract we're supposed to use for
software, NT costs $12,000 for a server with 100 licenses.
I kid you not.
Daniel J. Wojcik
****************
http://www.genjerdan.com/
Delphi-written apps, tools, usw.
WebUpdate (alpha and simplistic, so far)
NewMatic Web Update (beta)
James Boyle
>
> Actually, according to the GSA contract we're supposed to use for
> software, NT costs $12,000 for a server with 100 licenses.
>
> I kid you not.
Aren't they the $100 hammer people?
--
Jim
J. Peter Mugaas
Wojcik) wrote:
>[snip]
>Actually, according to the GSA contract we're supposed to use for
>software, NT costs $12,000 for a server with 100 licenses.
>
I wonder if part of that has more to do with the way the Army has its
suppliers bill. I wonder about it because there was a half truth
floating around about the $1,000 hammer. The other part of that truth
was that the Army was also getting a $1,000 computer system from the
same supplier and a supplier had to charge the same amount for every
item.
Please honor the follow up set to borland.public.delphi.non-technical.
I'm not denying what you saying, but merely wanting to see if it is an
accurate picture.
Material Fellow
> Actually, according to the GSA contract we're supposed to use for
> software, NT costs $12,000 for a server with 100 licenses.
>
> I kid you not.
$120 per seat.....
I can't buy RETAIL boxed NT for that price .... (over $200), but I can
go to swap meets and find it for less.
Looks like a good deal for Microsoft... the kind of high priced deal
that they were alleged to be seeking from big customers in older posts.
I don't expect the US Government to go out to swap meets and dig up the
lowest prices, like a HOBBIEST, instead of a highly paid businessman.
While I never pay retail, I always pay for software that makes me money.
Would be hypocritical if I didn't... and I gave up friends who acted
exactly that hypocritical way.
"Oh, the Quatro Pro software is just sooooo Expensive....... I can't
afford it even though I use it for all of my business accounting."
Yeah, and I no longer believe much else you say either.
jim buch
Peter N Roth
>I don't care much about the US. Nevertheless, please prosecute me for using
>pirated software. [You being a small software company.]
yeah right. If you don't care about the US, how about your fellow
developers?
>Most piracy isn't in
>the US, but in places like China and Eastern Europe, and protecting
software
>authors only in places where piracy isn't an issue might be taken seriously
>by some - but not by me.
You certainly are the little rogue, aren't you Mark!
[insurance]
>I would rather go with Bruce Scheiner's "Street Protocol" (or something
like
>that).
That's a new one on me ~ got an URL or a reference? Maybe something
Bruce copyrighted so I can rip _him_ off?
--
Grace + Peace | Peter N Roth | Engineering Objects Int'l
Amazon.com associate | Inprise Tool & Component Builder
http://www.inconresearch.com/eoi
Fight spam! Join cauce! http://www.cauce.org
James Boyle
>
> $120 per seat.....
>
> I can't buy RETAIL boxed NT for that price .... (over $200), but I can
> go to swap meets and find it for less.
Sure you can. The worst retail deal available is the 5-user box
for $700 in every corner store <g>. You can call EggHead and
buy retail 100 seats for 37.22 each. Maybe you mean Back Office?
--
Jim
Material Fellow
Looked in stores once.... bought NT at swap meet soon after ($35.00 for
NT-SP3). I could easily be fooled by the store prices in that one
store.
Of course, Office Depot will trade you the crown jewels for a copy of
NT. Maybe that doesn't count.
jim buch
Marcel Popescu
Tim Sullivan <t...@NO.SPAM.FOR.ME.uil.net> wrote
Mark [that's me]
> > You mean "mind control"? <g> Of course software is intellectual
property -
> > IF KEPT THAT WAY. But when it is PUBLISHED (etimology - same root as
> > PUBLIC), it's no longer someone's property, and becomes PUBLIC property.
>
> Are you on crack? Unless something is released into the public domain, it
is
> entirely owned by the author, not the public.
Legally. I know that. I couldn't care less about it, btw. This kind of yoga
techniques have no effect on me.
> The author (or holder of the
> copyright) of a book owns the book. You have a license to read the book,
use
> the book, let someone borrow the book. But you can't both use the same
book
> at the same time in different places. If you photocopy the book, you're
> breaking the law. Published or not, the contents of the book still belong
to
> the author.
Once again, I know about the law. The law is trying to do the (absurd) thing
of having something both private and public at the same time. Morally wrong,
logically stupid, and won't work in the real life unless there is a huge
police force behind it, caring only about the huge software companies (or
information providers generally). If you don't believe this, send me some
copyrighted work - and then sue me for breaking the copyright.
Mark
Marcel Popescu
> Will you say that if it was your software that was being pirated?
1. I write software for vertical markets - that makes it hard to use in
other places.
2. I contract it. Therefore, I do NOT make it public.
3. If I'd make something to be published, I'd only release it as freeware,
and I'd only requitre registration (and payment) for tech support.
Mark
Marcel Popescu
> Turn that around just to get a feel for the poor guy's problem.
> If NT costed $2,500 and Delphi C/S $25,000 and AsyncPro $2,790
> and ODBC Express $7,000 you see our molehills are his mountains.
I'm glad there's someone at least trying to understand the problem.
Mark
Marcel Popescu
> developers?
I do care about my fellow developers. I also care about my wife, relatives,
friends, and customers. Guess who wins?
[Of course, being libertarian, I accept the "non-initiation of force"
principle. If I'd accept the "copying is stealing" rethoric, I wouldn't do
it. But I don't buy that.]
> You certainly are the little rogue, aren't you Mark!
Has this any connection to what I've said?
> That's a new one on me ~ got an URL or a reference? Maybe something
> Bruce copyrighted so I can rip _him_ off?
AFAIK, it is not copyrighted. <g> The URL is
http://www.counterpane.com/street_performer.html - you will need an acrobat
or postscript reader.
Mark
Marcel Popescu
> And if enough people apply this logic, the local baker will lose money, go
out
> of business and move elsewhere. Leaving the self-justified thiefs behind
and in
> even worse condition.
If enough people breathe, and not enough plants are there, all the oxygen
will be exhausted and we will all die. If enough people sleep, there will be
no one left to work. If enough people agree with arguments like this, the
general IQ will decay rapidly.
Mark
Marcel Popescu
> Marcel, it is in the very interest of the countries where pirating is
> tolerated to stop it by all means - otherwise local software companies
will
> slowly disappear. If everyone can buy a pirated copy of MS Office CD etc.
> for US10, how are local companies supposed to survive ?
Er... some of our software companies make a few million dollars a year.
That's incredibly huge (and I suppose you can understand that). How do they
do it? Simply - they contract their work (as opposed to publishing it).
BTW - a pirated CD only costs about 7$ here. Funny, we import them from
Bulgaria, so they should be even cheaper there.
> Your survival comparison does not work at all. There is plenty of free
good
> quality software - there is no need to steal if somebody can not afford
> buying commercial apps.
Huh? Please tell me where have you found a free good quality object-oriented
compiler, at least as good as VB (not to mention Delphi).
> It is illegal to pirate software in almost every country (and in every
> european one for sure) - it is just not being enforced strongly enough at
> this time - hopefully this will change.
I know it's illegal. I meant it's moral. There's no REAL loss. Hopefully
this will change. The law should be repealed.
Mark
Marcel Popescu
> As I've said to you before, your logic is seriously flawed.
>
> If I copy application AAA from a friend's CD do you seriously believe
> that the supplier of the software suffers no loss of income?
Yes. I do seriously. And I find it incredible that you actually believe the
supplier DOES suffer a loss of income. Does the IRS accept that loss to be
reported?
Mark
Taz Higgins
--
The Taz!
J. Peter Mugaas
wrote:
>I think you will find that the average IQ is 100 no matter what
That is by definition. They score those tests using comparable
samples and then create tables based upon them with a standard
deviation of 16. Of course, those types of tests have a standard
error of measurement which have to be taken into account when making
an assessment. Often, scores on individual sub tests can provide
further information to make a clinical picture.
The reason for the standard 100 is from an old measurement system
where a mental age was divided by a real age and multiplied by
one-hundred to determine an IQ.
It goes without saying that an IQ is just an attempt to measure an
abstract concept such as intelligence and the measurement is only what
the tests measure. Often people read more into them than they
actually mean.
I am just posting this in an attempt to try to set the record straight
on all of this.