 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / Languages / Managed C++ / September 2004How to retrieve serial number of OS or CPU for copy protection?
In order to protect software from being copied without licence, I would like to use something like a key, which fits only to the current system. The serial number of the CPU or the current operating system would be appropriate. However, I do not know how to retrieve the information. Could you help? Klaus Klaus, To get that information is not difficult. http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/cpref/html/frlr fsystemmanagementmanagementobjectsearcherclasstopic.asp It are all collections which holds collections. The processorID you can find in Hardware -> boards -> processor -> processorID. However, be aware that not every processor has an ID. I hope this helps? Cor > In order to protect software from being copied without licence, I would like > to use something like a key, which fits only to the current system. The [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Could you help? > Klaus The number one problem of a copy protection algorithm is identifying machines. Is there a number that uniquely identify a computer? Let?s call this number as "Serial Number" (SN). What are the requirements for a Serial Number? There are two: 1. A Serial Number must be different on different computers. 2. A Serial Number must be the same on the same computer. Today?s PCs do not contain such a hardware id which meet these requirements. Because of this, we should loosen these hard requirements. I?ve modified the second requirement this way: 2. The Serial Number must be the same on the same computer, but if somebody successfully changes the serial number on a computer, it involves serious consequences. I think, there is such a "Number" in Windows XP, it?s the following value in the registry: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA\SigningHash-*...*\SigningHashData It?s a byte array and it contains the Windows Product activation signature. It?s hard to overwrite (the kernel protects it), but it isn?t worth to overwrite, because the attacker can?t reactivate his copy of Windows again. You can read that value in C# in the following way: public static byte[] GetHardwareIdBytes() { using(RegistryKey rk = Registry.LocalMachine.OpenSubKey(@"SYSTEM\WPA", false)) { foreach(string subkey in rk.GetSubKeyNames()) { if(subkey.IndexOf("SigningHash") == 0) { using(RegistryKey rk1 = rk.OpenSubKey(subkey)) { return (byte[])rk1.GetValue("SigningHashData"); } } } } // It should never happen: throw new Exception("There is no hardware id on this computer!"); } This solution has two disadvantages: 1. It works only on Windows XP (or later) 2. The SN changes, when the user reinstalls the operating system. Kazi > In order to protect software from being copied without licence, I would like > to use something like a key, which fits only to the current system. The [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Could you help? > Klaus Thanks Kazi, This is very interesting and indeed, at least for Windows XP, this approach seems to be more appropriate than scanning for MAC addresses. One additional general question: Are there legal consequences when binding software to hardware? Under which legal constraints this could be a way for selling software in different countries? Best regards, Klaus > One additional general question: > Are there legal consequences when binding software to hardware? Under which > legal constraints this could be a way for selling software in different > countries? Even in America I this is agains the spirit of the copiright law, although not illegal. The copyright law applied to software was explained at some point by some specialists this way "the software should be like a book". Meaning can be used on one machine at a time, if I move it on a new one, I cannot use it on the previous one. So, in theory, I can install it on my desktop at home, my laptop, my desktop at office. If I don't use them symultaneously, I am legal. The only way I know to enforce this is with a dongle. Now, the software manufacturers don't give a dime about user's rights. Tying the software to a certain computer violates the spirit of the law. But who cares? Put it in a disclaimer in EULA and you are free to do what you want! But if I have a choice between your "protected" software and a non-protected one, guess what am I going to choose? No, I am no pirat, I pay for my software, but I expect it not to take away some of the freedoms that are in the law. Same with the music. I want to listen to it in the car, at home, on my desktop in the office, and keep the original CD in a safe place. Can I be in 3 places at once? No. Then I am ok!  SignatureMihai ------------------------- Replace _year_ with _ to get the real email >> One additional general question: >> Are there legal consequences when binding software to hardware? Under which [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Even in America I this is agains the spirit of the copiright law, >although not illegal. "Against the spirit of the copyright law?" Where did you get this? Copyright law gives the author of a creative work supreme and total control over the software. If they want to restrict you to running it on one computer, running it no more than 5 times, and never on Sundays, they are perfectly within their legal rights to do so. Such a license restriction would be silly, of course, but that doesn't make it "against the spirit of the law". >The copyright law applied to software was explained at some point >by some specialists this way "the software should be like a book". >Meaning can be used on one machine at a time, if I move it on a new one, >I cannot use it on the previous one. This happens to be Borland's approach to software copyright. In fact, that phrase comes directly from Borland's license agreements. Although it is comforting and reasonable, it is not a legal authority by any means. Many software makers hold that you are entitled to run their software on one machine, and one machine only, forever and ever. >Now, the software manufacturers don't give a dime about user's rights. >Tying the software to a certain computer violates the spirit of the law. No, it doesn't. It violates the spirit of common sense, but the law has very little to do with common sense. Signature- Tim Roberts, timr@probo.com Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc > "Against the spirit of the copyright law?" Where did you get this? > Copyright law gives the author of a creative work supreme and total control [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > would be silly, of course, but that doesn't make it "against the spirit of > the law". ... > No, it doesn't. It violates the spirit of common sense, but the law has > very little to do with common sense. I did not say it is illegal, just that it is agains the spirit of the law. The original intent of the law was to stimulate creation, not to be used to kill it. This is why "fair use" and other mechanisms like this was put in place. See http://arstechnica.com/reviews/004/software/law/i-tunes.html to see "how contracts are being used to restrict the normal freedom given to users by copyright law in general." I know companies complain about piracy. And they are right (I wonder? http://arstechnica.com/news/posts/20040903-4156.html) But the numbers are not as high as they claim. Even under the american law (the most pro-corporate), a company accusing someone of piracy should show they lost money. And this does not mean I have an illegal copy. It means I would have bought it if a stolen copy was not available. Can a company show that the russian student using an illegal copy of X software package ($1000) would have bought it, when the monthly salary there is arround $100? I do not say starting to steal software or music is the solution. But I do hope that more and more peoples will start doing what I do. I did buy hundreds of CDs. Since the first RIAA lawsuit against one of their customers (several months ago), I did buy none. Same with software. I do buy it, but when it does cross the line (in my case the activation), I just say "bye" and buy somewhing else. Maybe someone will get the message. If you don't trust me and treat me like a theaf, then I don't do business with you. If police would stop every car and body search the ocupants, because "there are criminals out there", it would be a public outrage. If software/movie/music industry does it, it's ok. So, my message is: before start adding such "features" to your product, put in balance what you gain and what you loose. SignatureMihai ------------------------- Replace _year_ with _ to get the real email > Can a company show that the russian student using an illegal copy of > X software package ($1000) would have bought it, when the monthly salary > there is arround $100? ... > If you don't trust me and treat me like a theaf, then I don't do > business with you. ... > So, my message is: before start adding such "features" to your product, > put in balance what you gain and what you loose. These are remarkable aspects, which make my thoughtful. However, there are hundreds of illegal copies of cheap software, Zip-utilities for example. Some developers started to work for voluntary donations. They also published the number of distributed, registered copies and the amount of donations. It is frustrating... What do you think about a "shareware" utility for 10$ or EUR fixed engaged to hardware configuration or the operating system? Do you believe, people, who need it, would think "10 bucks are not so much, I would afford it a second or third time when I change the configuration!"; or do you rather believe "They treat me like a theaf, I don't do business with them, even the software would be good for me and I could afford it to buy!"? Thanks for your ideas... Best regards, Klaus > These are remarkable aspects, which make my thoughtful. ... > Zip-utilities for example. ... > What do you think about a "shareware" utility for 10$ or EUR fixed engaged .. > Thanks for your ideas... > > Best regards, > Klaus Please see my other post on zip-like tools and software. If I did make you think twice, I am glad. Thank you, and forgive me if I was a bit rough. SignatureMihai ------------------------- Replace _year_ with _ to get the real email >But the numbers are not as high as they claim. Even under the american >law (the most pro-corporate), a company accusing someone of piracy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >X software package ($1000) would have bought it, when the monthly salary >there is arround $100? Your reasoning is faulty. If a Russion student is using an illegal copy of X software package ($1000), then the manufacturer of X has lost $1000. It's just that simple. If the student could not have bought the package, then he should not be using it. If I were to steal a television set, the fact that I would not have bought the television set anyway does not change the illegality of the act, nor the loss to the manufacturer. Signature- Tim Roberts, timr@probo.com Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc > Your reasoning is faulty. If a Russion student is using an illegal copy of > X software package ($1000), then the manufacturer of X has lost $1000. > It's just that simple. If the student could not have bought the package, > then he should not be using it. If I were to steal a television set, the > fact that I would not have bought the television set anyway does not change > the illegality of the act, nor the loss to the manufacturer. You are worst than most American corporations! Check the American law. A company should proove you would have bought it if it was not available to steal. This is the law, not my faulty reasoning. Are you working for RIAA? Same faulty comparison with stealing objects. A stolen object is gone. A copyed software is still there. Again, I don't say is right to just copy software. But let me tell you why your reasoning is faulty and a loss is not always a loss: Option one: - student does not have money to play with 1000$ program - draconic anti-piracy measures prevents him from geting a stolen copy - student searches and finds open source alternative - student graduates, recomends to his company to use open source software - over-zelus pirate-killer company looses a company Option two: - student does not have money to play with 1000$ program - he manages tp get a stolen copy and becomes proficient with it - student graduates, recomends to his company to use same software (this is what he knows, right?) - software company gains one more company as client This is something many American companies know. - Borland offered amnesties in Eastern Europe. - Microsoft and Apple donate software to schools and universities to "hook" students - SCO (the onld one) offered the SCO Unix for $25 I am comming from Eastern Europe. For many years I did use pkzip (shareware) without giving any money. How could I? 25$ was about a quarter of a salary. And during the comunists we where not allowed to have $ or to have relations with foreign companies. One of the first things I did when I came to America and stared making some money was to send them the 25$. Anyway, maybe I was a bit rough in my posts. But I tried to show another side. Think twice before implementing tough protections. Real pirates will have a crack in a few weeks after release. The final ones to suffer are your customers. If you have 90% of the market (Windows, Photoshop), you can afford something like the activation, otherwise you are just adding to the development costs and push your clients to concurent companies. It is all about balance. And maybe you are just implementing what your managers ask. Nothing personal against you, really. SignatureMihai ------------------------- Replace _year_ with _ to get the real email Mihai, you're arguing that intangible product has no value. If you steal something like a program the owner still has it but it doesn't mean you didn't steal it (and yes, it's not stealing, it's using it without a permission, but that makes little difference determining the legality of the fact). Somebody has put resources into creating it and unless they chose to give it out for free (by releasing it into the public domain, or under a free license) you do not have any right to use it. The fact that you can't afford it (for whatever reason) is not an excuse. If there are free alternatives (and you're arguing that there are) use those. I am really sick of people who say they would use an open source (as in free, in terms of cost) alternative if they had to pay for something they stole - why don't they then? Same thing about people who say they would never buy it and use something else - put your money where your mouth is and do use something else. And your argument about a student forcing his future employer to buy SW ;) You have obviously never worked for a decent company, new hires are not in a position to make a whole company switch to an expensive piece of SW. You'll end up using whatever they use now or stealing what you've been using till then, except now you'll have to change your excuse. Jerry >> Your reasoning is faulty. If a Russion student is using an illegal copy >> of [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > And maybe you are just implementing what your managers ask. > Nothing personal against you, really. > ... If you steal something > like a program the owner still has it but it doesn't mean you didn't steal > it (and yes, it's not stealing, it's using it without a permission, but that > makes little difference determining the legality of the fact). Right. And I guess, Mihai does not have another opinion. > And your argument about a student forcing his future employer to buy SW ;) > You have obviously never worked for a decent company, new hires are not in a > position to make a whole company switch to an expensive piece of SW. Do not take this too literal. I understand this that way: Look at Microsoft. Why they achieve that amount of success? From my point of view, it's because of their market position, not because of their products. There are powerful graphical operating systems before MS Windows. However, the people continue buying MS-DOS until MS provides MS Windows. Look at IE, Netscape was better; MS knew this and distributed IE free of charge. They wouldn't if they had the market position. Just my opinion. I bought Office 2003 although I still do my work in Star Office 5.2. Why I bought MS Office additionally? Because the most companies interchange documents in MS Word format. A company which can afford to seed a market with products (free of charge) or products being copied illegal could benefit on the long run from illegal copies, but I fear this cannot be transfered easily to the situation of small companies. > > It is all about balance. This is the problem. Self-employed developers would like to get paid for their ideas and work. From what they want to live, if they distribute their work without any fees? Klaus >> ... If you steal something >> like a program the owner still has it but it doesn't mean you didn't steal [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Right. And I guess, Mihai does not have another opinion. Right, I am a developer and I want to be paid. > A company which can afford to seed a market with products (free of charge) > or products being copied illegal could benefit on the long run from illegal > copies, but I fear this cannot be transfered easily to the situation of > small companies. True. >> > It is all about balance. > > This is the problem. > Self-employed developers would like to get paid for their ideas and work. > From what they want to live, if they distribute their work without any > fees? I agree it is a difficult call. But I did see many options out there. A lite version for free, extra features for money. Or free version for students only (see WS_FTP, at least older versions, I do not know now, not a student anymore). Or free-free-open source. How is RedHat making the money, if you can download the .iso files from their ftp? Or give free copies to those contributing to your program (with bug reports, testing, plug-ins, ideas). You may get a lot of help for "starving students" that love your application, fell guilty from using it for free, and will do something to pay back, as much as they can. I know, most of these options do not involve protection. But I do believe that people will to pay for something they like and has a decent price. See again RedHat. You pay for tech support, because you think it is worth it, because you want to encourage the developer to go ahead and give you a new version. I did make some money from a keyboard mapper that was fully functional even without being paid for, and this in Eastern Europe, which everybody complains is the piracy heaven (or maybe after Asia, don't know). Thing is, I do not thing is it worth my time and money to implement fancy protections just to give some kid a "cracking challange" It is always easyer to crack/distroy something thant to protect/create. And I still believe people are essentialy good. I don't say go ahead and use copied software. I don't say "don't create protections" I say "think twice before spending time on protections, it costs time to develop, time to tech-suport, it may push your clients away" Ok, I think I did say clear enough what I stand for, if someone still thinks I am "pro piracy", it is only bad will or stupidity, and I will stop answering. I think it is impresive that a thread quite long and on such a sensitive subject did not already mutated into flaming :-) Thanks all, SignatureMihai ------------------------- Replace _year_ with _ to get the real email Thanks, Mihai. I really appreciate your comments. Klaus I have red the whole thread and I would like to express my opinion. I do not agree with Mihai, but he talks about a real problem. I know what he said and the situation is really understandable. But I think, if somebody can't buy a software costs about $10-$20, it's a social question. This is an existing problem, but there is no reason to expect from a developer to solve this problem. The society should solve this problem, not the developer. Best Regards Kazi from Hungary, Central Europe > >> ... If you steal something > >> like a program the owner still has it but it doesn't mean you didn't steal [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > Thanks all, > Are you working for RIAA? Same faulty comparison with stealing objects. > A stolen object is gone. A copyed software is still there. But the revenue which comes from the pirated software is no less gone. Regards, Will >> Are you working for RIAA? Same faulty comparison with stealing objects. >> A stolen object is gone. A copyed software is still there. > > But the revenue which comes from the pirated software is no less gone. Please read the whole answer, don't just quote a sentence out of context. I did explain why there was no money to go. Because the very low income person would have never bought the product. This is no argument for piracy, is more about learning to detect false claims of "trilions of USD lost to piracy." SignatureMihai ------------------------- Replace _year_ with _ to get the real email William DePalo [MVP VC++] <willd.no.spam@mvps.org> schreef in berichtnieuws uYvWtSPlEHA.324@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > > Are you working for RIAA? Same faulty comparison with stealing objects. > > A stolen object is gone. A copyed software is still there. > > But the revenue which comes from the pirated software is no less gone. !! Brainwash detected !! What are the chances that someone will actually buy something which (s)he cannot afford ? So, if the software could not be gotten by copying, it would not be gotten *at all*. No way that that person would spend money on it. Either way, there will no revenue be generated by the copied, or the *not sold* software. Thus, regarding (all) the pirated software as a loss is a farce. Ofcourse, there will allway's be people that rather would "steal" software that costs E 5,- (and is worth it), than that they would buy it, just like there allway's will be thieves. Regards, Rudy Wieser [...] > > But the revenue which comes from the pirated software is no less gone. > > !! Brainwash detected !! > > What are the chances that someone will actually buy something which (s)he > cannot afford ? !! false dichotomy detected !! A person who uses pirated software is not necessarily a person who cannot afford that software. I would like to live in a nice house. If I could get that house for very small money ["for free"], I would laugh at your attempts to sell houses like that for a lot more. However, if I cannot get that house for free, I will have to pay that money for that house, or scale down my wishes and rent a small apartment, or apply for social aid. I would like to drive a luxury car. If I could just take such a car off the street ["for free"], I will ignore your attempts to sell me that car at its real price. Without that option, I will have to shell out the money, or buy a car within my means, or use public transportation, or just walk and be in good shape. Your question is incorrect. Correctly phrased, it sounds thusly: "What are the chances that someone will buy something that costs x, x > 0?" Now, go home [if you're not there], look around, and count the things that have been bought at x; let's call this A(x); then count the things that cost x and which you cannot afford; let's call this B(x). The answer to the question above is A(x) / [A(x) + B(x)]. A still better question should include the "desire" factor y, 0 < y <= 1, the "usefulness" factor z, 0 < z <= 1, etc. S Slava M. Usov <stripit.slough@gmx.net> schreef in berichtnieuws uBZ07KblEHA.3896@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Hello Slava, > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > A person who uses pirated software is not necessarily a person who cannot > afford that software. You seem to have missed the below : [quote] Ofcourse, there will allway's be people that rather would "steal" software that costs E 5,- (and is worth it), than that they would buy it, just like there allway's will be thieves. [/quote] > I would like to live in a nice house. If I could get that house for very > small money ["for free"], I would laugh at your attempts to sell houses like [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > a car within my means, or use public transportation, or just walk and be in > good shape. Thanks for your underbuilding of my case : If you do not have the means to buy a car, you will either find some other means of transportation, or no transportation at all. Does my *wish to want* to own a car, but not being able to pay for one make me a thief of anything ? I don't think so. If I however decide to build a one-on-one replica of the car that I could not buy, do I than owe the car-company money ? Again, I don't think so, as they have not given/sold me but one spark-plug ... Same for software, as I have only created a copy, while the origional is still where it should be. Either way (I do not have transportation, or decide to build my own replica), the car-company will *never* get money I do not have/cannot spend. Regarding the desired-for, but non-bought (due to lack of funds) as a "loss" would be as silly as what is happening now, regarding a pirated copy as a loss. You asked me to look around in my house, now I ask you the same : would a person be able to put his computer full with legally obtained software (games !) ? No ? So, what should you than be concluding ? That all the software that a person has on his computer, more than what he could legally obtain *and pay for*, is lost revenue ? Nonwithstanding the *fact* that there is *no way in hell* that that person could have payed for all that software ? If you do you must allso believe money grows in tree's, as that would be the only place that person would be able to get the money to replace the "lost" revenue with ... Some time ago I read some (utterly stupid) figures on software "theft" revenue-loss, in which an ammount of money was proclaimed which, if divided by the potential buyers in my country would mean that each-and-every one would have to spend over a third of it's spendable income per month. A family consisting outof father, mother & one child would, according to those numbers, be spending the whole income of the father, leaving nothing for rent, food, etc. > Your question is incorrect. Correctly phrased, it sounds thusly: > > "What are the chances that someone will buy something that costs x, x > 0?" Quite large actually. :-) [Snip] Nice calculation, but fully missing the point ... :-\ Regards, Rudy Wieser > > A person who uses pirated software is not necessarily a person who > > cannot afford that software. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > there allway's will be thieves. > [/quote] EUR 5 just does not cut it. Try EUR 75. [...] > Does my *wish to want* to own a car, but not being able to pay for one > make me a thief of anything ? I don't think so. No, it does not. > If I however decide to build a one-on-one replica of the car that I could > not buy, do I than owe the car-company money ? Yes you do, to the designers of the car. Are you unaware of that? > Again, I don't think so, as they have not given/sold me but one spark-plug They did not give you anything, but you misappropriated their intellectual assets. > Same for software, as I have only created a copy, while the origional is > still where it should be. Same for software, indeed. [...] > You asked me to look around in my house, now I ask you the same : would a > person be able to put his computer full with legally obtained software > (games !) ? Would one be able to fill one's house with gold? No? So what? [...] > > "What are the chances that someone will buy something that costs x, x > > > 0?" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nice calculation, but fully missing the point ... :-\ I don't think so. It demonstrates that talking about people "who cannot afford it" is pointless. If someone cannot afford some software, there is always some other software that costs less or even free, and it is not a question of life or death anyway. S Slava M. Usov <stripit.slough@gmx.net> schreef in berichtnieuws OqPkocflEHA.2500@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Hello Slava, > > > A person who uses pirated software is not necessarily a person who > > > cannot afford that software. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > EUR 5 just does not cut it. Try EUR 75. It was just to show nonwithstanding the lowness of a price is, some people will rather copy it, than to pay that ammount. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Yes you do, to the designers of the car. Are you unaware of that? That's the difference with my country than : Outside of the companies logo, I'm allowed to, by my own hands & for my own (direct) use, to copy any material goods I see. > > Again, I don't think so, as they have not given/sold me but one spark-plug > > They did not give you anything, but you misappropriated their intellectual > assets. That's possible. But I still did *not steal* anything. Something that people here, and software companies in general will want you to believe ... > > Same for software, as I have only created a copy, while the origional is > > still where it should be. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Would one be able to fill one's house with gold? No? So what? I don't think you understood my question. Can you, with the income you have, fill your computer with all the software you would want ? (games. image, video and audio-editing software. 3D cat programs, heavy DTP packages. You name it) By the way, I'm sad to see that you have snipped away my conclusion. [Snip] > > Nice calculation, but fully missing the point ... :-\ > > I don't think so. It demonstrates that talking about people "who cannot > afford it" is pointless. If someone cannot afford some software, there is > always some other software that costs less or even free, and it is not a > question of life or death anyway. You're mistaken. Either that, or you are too old to remember that, within the younger community, conformance is of the essence. When, at that age, your friends play some game, you better make sure you play that game too, otherwise you will become an outcast (comparable to wearing the "wrong" clothes). And I think you're mistaken twice : the "cannot afford it" is exacly that what should be considered. Your viewpoint may be amicable, but is far from the truth : there are many people (kids) that have a computer full of any thinkable software, without them even (aside of a plethora of games) doing anything with it. You can turn it this way or that, but that software would never be obtained if they would be forced to buy it (which they do not have the money for). Conclusion : regarding the value of that software as a loss is a deception. To the software-companies themselves, as well as the world. Oh, by the way : the above does not mean that I think copying software is something good. But I allso think that robbing people of a years worth of income because of a single copied piece of software is, compared to an actual theft of goods, *far* over the top :-( Regards, Rudy Wieser > It was just to show nonwithstanding the lowness of a price is, some people > will rather copy it, than to pay that ammount. I fully agree. But it does _not_ mean that if they are _required_ to pay they will _not_ pay. For example, I enjoy most of MS software for free [legally]. But if I did not have that option, I can assure you I would buy it because I need it and the prices are quite affordable for me. [...] > That's the difference with my country than : Outside of the companies > logo, I'm allowed to, by my own hands & for my own (direct) use, to copy > any material goods I see. When you copy software, you copy everything, including the logos. > > They did not give you anything, but you misappropriated their > > intellectual assets. > > That's possible. But I still did *not steal* anything. The company has spent a lot of money designing the car, and then you simply parasitize on their results. Is that better? [...] > I don't think you understood my question. > > Can you, with the income you have, fill your computer with all the > software you would want ? (games. image, video and audio-editing > software. 3D cat programs, heavy DTP packages. You name it) I would not do it. I have only what I need and use. That is probably why I did not understand your question. [...] > You're mistaken. Either that, or you are too old to remember that, within > the younger community, conformance is of the essence. > > When, at that age, your friends play some game, you better make sure you > play that game too, otherwise you will become an outcast (comparable to > wearing the "wrong" clothes). So what happens when you cannot afford the "right" clothes? Are you going to steal? This is consumerism in the utmost degree, and it is disgusting. Children should be educated, not spoiled like that. > And I think you're mistaken twice : the "cannot afford it" is exacly that > what should be considered. Your viewpoint may be amicable, but is far > from the truth : there are many people (kids) that have a computer full of > any thinkable software, without them even (aside of a plethora of games) > doing anything with it. Well, the only result will be that software game companies will eventually stop releasing PC games and switch to "firmware games" when a game is encapsulated in a chip that cannot be easily copied. That will solve your semantically problem. Will it make software more accessible? Hardly. > You can turn it this way or that, but that software would never be > obtained if they would be forced to buy it (which they do not have the > money for). Is it bad for anyone, especially for kids? I do not think so. [...] > But I allso think that robbing people of a years worth of income because > of a single copied piece of software is, compared to an actual theft of > goods, *far* over the top :-( Probably. But punishment is often more severe than the crime. S > > That's the difference with my country than : Outside of the companies > > logo, I'm allowed to, by my own hands & for my own (direct) use, to copy > > any material goods I see. > > When you copy software, you copy everything, including the logos. The logos are not the point here. What is meant by "copying" is the crucial point: What Rudy is talking about, is probably _reproducing_ material goods. This is probably legal as long as no patents are involved. Transferred to copying software, this would mean coding the same functionality from scratch. Except for the logo issue, copying in the meaning of programming the whole stuff on your own would not be illegal and nobody here would complain. However, the folk here is concerned about copying software in the meaning of cloning software goods, for which the developer has worked. I wonder, what you would say, when cloning hardware would be possible without any costs? Nobody would be interested to spend money for development. I guess this would dramatically affect a huge industry and probably your income as well. Klaus Slava M. Usov <stripit.slough@gmx.net> schreef in berichtnieuws e9KfHimlEHA.3816@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... > > It was just to show nonwithstanding the lowness of a price is, some people > > will rather copy it, than to pay that ammount. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > [legally]. But if I did not have that option, I can assure you I would buy > it because I need it and the prices are quite affordable for me. While I understand what you mean, I still have a problem with it : The source of this thread was software-companies (claiming they are) loosing money. In your case, you would, if you could not use the software for free, just buy it. If *you* would just be copying the software, the company that made it actually does suffer a loss. For other people who do not have the cash, no such loss is present. O.k. , I do realize that that point (will (s)he buy the software if it cannot be obtained otherwise) is difficult to determine. :-) > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > When you copy software, you copy everything, including the logos. For you, I will remove any reference to the makers outof it :-) (that makes me think of an old "video-genie" computer I once owned, of which I discovered that it's rom-code was byte-equal to that of the TRS-80, only where the copyright-notice in the TRS-80 was placed, my computer's rom had only spaces ...) But no, you're right : copying a car is something quite different than copying software. > > > They did not give you anything, but you misappropriated their > > > intellectual assets. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The company has spent a lot of money designing the car, and then you simply > parasitize on their results. Is that better? Well, the Law (in my country) has decided that I'm allowed to, so I must assume that it's "better". Although I have no real idea of the reasoning behind it though. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I would not do it. I have only what I need and use. That is probably why I > did not understand your question. Same here. But I see enough (young) people that just copy about anything they can get their hands on, without being able to utilize (or play) it all .... Quite the same to grown-up's that never seem to have enough money actually. Not even when they are "worth" multi-millions ... > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > steal? This is consumerism in the utmost degree, and it is disgusting. > Children should be educated, not spoiled like that. I fully agree. But try to make that clear to the kids/people that are right inside this "conformism"-trap, and you will be regarded as an alien :-) And, for an answer ? Yes, stealing those items happens too. Although they can probably get better cloths for a quarter of the prize, it's *that important* to them to conform. > > And I think you're mistaken twice : the "cannot afford it" is exacly that > > what should be considered. Your viewpoint may be amicable, but is far [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > encapsulated in a chip that cannot be easily copied. That will solve your > semantically problem. Will it make software more accessible? Hardly. That (putting games in hardware) is allready been tried, and is, every few years or so, again brought up. And after a few years of it, it's dropped again too, as any protection-mechanism (how intricate it might be) will be broken now or later. Hardware-protection is mostly more troubles than it's worth (for the manufacturing-companies, as well as for the legitimate users). Do you see dongles much these day's ? A few years ago they where *the* answer to pirating. Where are they now ? :-) > > You can turn it this way or that, but that software would never be > > obtained if they would be forced to buy it (which they do not have the > > money for). > > Is it bad for anyone, especially for kids? I do not think so. I don't think so either. Ofcourse, we do are now in a time that generates it's own problems in regard to software : allmost anything can & will be patented, so there is allmost nothing you can come-up with that is not (at least partially) covered by those copyrights. Someone was talking about small programmers going out-of-buisiness within a few years (and contributed that to piracy). It's quite possible that that will happen. And I'm afraid that software-patents will, if it happens, be a big contributing factor in that ... > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Probably. But punishment is often more severe than the crime. That is not what I ment. The difference in punishment for the offences of copying the software, and the actual physical theft of (a data-carrier holding) that same software is too far apart. Where some youth can continue doing "petty thefts" (of carriers containg software) for quite some time before being brought before a judge, a single copy of a piece of software can easily be met with heavy fines, if not worse. Regards, Rudy Wieser [...] > > The company has spent a lot of money designing the car, and then you > > simply parasitize on their results. Is that better? > > Well, the Law (in my country) has decided that I'm allowed to, so I must > assume that it's "better". Although I have no real idea of the reasoning > behind it though. I was not referring to the law in this case. I was trying to address the moral and ethical aspect of that. Certainly with cars and anything material this aspect is not so pronounced as with software, books and other forms of "intellectual" assets. [...] > Same here. But I see enough (young) people that just copy about anything > they can get their hands on, without being able to utilize (or play) it > all Again, I would like to remove kids out of this discussion. This has a lot more to do with social and educational aspects than with lost revenues. I believe that practically all software except games can be obtained at a low or no cost for educational purposes, by the way. [...] > Do you see dongles much these day's ? A few years ago they where > *the* answer to pirating. Where are they now ? :-) Well, I am talking about completely different technology. These days it is possible to integrate a powerful CPU with a large ROM+RAM into a single package of a reasonable size. This assembly can be protected in hardware against code analysis and modification. S Slava M. Usov <stripit.slough@gmx.net> schreef in berichtnieuws OcTevjqlEHA.3896@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Hello Slava, > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > this aspect is not so pronounced as with software, books and other forms > of "intellectual" assets. And with that you have answered your own question :-) And yes. When I thought about it, I realized that the permission to copy *material* goods had probably something to do with the ammount of effort put into the "copying" process by whomever was (attempting to) do so. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Again, I would like to remove kids out of this discussion. Sorry, but this (ages +/10 thru 18) is the largest group of offenders. > This has a lot more to do with social and educational aspects > than with lost revenues. Which is again why the youth should not be discarded as being non-important : It's those people that should be made aware of the implications of not honoring interlectual property. Although ... That may be quite hard to do, now patents are given away like they cost nothing, to people that have no interrest to do anything with the described method, than to wait for someone else to come up with the same idea. After which they home-in like a set of vultures, *ripping a very alife & well-doing entity apart* (read : small companies), because they have aquired the only right to look like so-and-so. A right that was, initially, given to them to enable them to earn-back their expenses. Expenses they, in the current example, have not made ... How do you explain that to kids, or even me ? :-\ :-) > I believe that practically all software except games can be obtained at a low > or no cost for educational purposes, by the way. *Only* when the software-company thinks it's benificiary to do so. And only for the time that you are a student. And that means that at the moment you are no student anymore, you should remove the software from your computer. And that gives you two choices : buy their software for it's "normal" price (enabeling you to continue working with a known product, continue using your build-up knowledge & created data, *or* find another (maybe even cheaper and/or better) package, and having the re-learn about everything, as well as having to re-create old work .... I think we can make a safe gues that the first option will be choosen, generating new revenue for the software-company. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > package of a reasonable size. This assembly can be protected in hardware > against code analysis and modification. Yes, they are called "microcontrollers". The only problem is that the bottle-neck of such a solution (letting all calculations be done in such a "dongle") is the transfer-speed of the data, as well as the easiness of replacing such modules (by another piece of "software"). For example : try to use an USB-stick as swap-drive, and you will directly notice what I mean :-) (outside of wearing-down the flash-memory in a flash. Pardon the pun :-) ) And, in the past any kind of external device ment for continuous usage has been cracked. Take for example the smart-card used for un-scrambeling sattelite-TV signals ... Regards, Rudy Wieser [...] > Sorry, but this (ages +/10 thru 18) is the largest group of offenders. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > non-important: It's those people that should be made aware of the > implications of not honoring interlectual property. I must confess I do not have a solution. I know that if everybody believes that copying software, books, films, etc is "OK" then many will do so and that will affect the producers severely. It is easy to pass a law that says "copying is forbidden" and many adults will abide, but with kids and teenagers it is a different story. I still believe that the only kind of software that really suffers from unauthorized copying by kids is games, and that makes the problem moot, for me. [...] > *Only* when the software-company thinks it's benificiary to do so. And > only for the time that you are a student. There are many such companies and a person is a student for a long time. This may not be a perfect solution, but it is as best as it gets now. > And that means that at the moment you are no student anymore, you should > remove the software from your computer. And that gives you two choices : [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > re-create old work .... I think we can make a safe gues that the first > option will be choosen, generating new revenue for the software-company. Option three: find a job that will provide you with this software. This is way to go, at least for me. Home use does not require all these expensive applications -- most of the time you can buy a PC and it will have more than adequate software installation. > Yes, they are called "microcontrollers". The only problem is that the > bottle-neck of such a solution (letting all calculations be done in such a > "dongle") is the transfer-speed of the data, as well as the easiness of > replacing such modules (by another piece of "software"). You misunderstood. There is no transfer. Everything is done in that "super-dongle". A play station does not even have a CPU, it only has video/sound/networking/HID and possibly external RAM. This solution is not appropriate for a general purpose computer where multiple applications must coexist, but it is entirely appropriate for a play station. [...] > And, in the past any kind of external device ment for continuous usage has > been cracked. You would need an electron microscope and a high precision laser slicer to crack that dongle. Not impossible, but very expensive. S Slava M. Usov <stripit.slough@gmx.net> schreef in berichtnieuws uyfj5UylEHA.3872@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... Hello Slava, > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > easy to pass a law that says "copying is forbidden" and many > adults will abide, > but with kids and teenagers it is a different story. I still believe > that the only kind of software that really suffers from unauthorized > copying by kids is games, and that makes the problem moot, for me. Not to the games-industry (which is software too), who complains loudly :-) > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > long time. This may not be a perfect solution, but it is as best as > it gets now. It's not *a solution* at all. It's what you get, only because the software-companies think they will benifit from it. That the students can use the software for lower prices than other people, is nothing more than a(n un-wanted) side-effect. > > And that means that at the moment you are no student anymore, > > you should remove the software from your computer. And that [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Option three: find a job that will provide you with this software. Same problems apply : Those persons will have to learn a new package, which (outside of people like in this newgroup) they might not desire ... > This is way to go, at least for me. Home use does not require > all these expensive applications -- most of the time you can [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "super-dongle". A play station does not even have a CPU, it only has > video/sound/networking/HID and possibly external RAM. Well, I just can imagine a cubicle for a software-engeneer, having (quite a number) of those "super dongles" sitting around :-) But, maybe they could be linked to the LAN, which would take away the need for having them in the persons vincinity ... Ofcourse, these kind of solutions would only apply for companies, as now the software *as well as the protecting hardware* have to be payed for. Funily enough, that is mostly the very reason why most software-companies have not applied such methods :-) Complaining about others being "wrong" is a lot cheaper, and may actually, with aid of some horrendous laws, be even more benificiary to them ... > This solution is not appropriate for a general purpose computer > where multiple applications must coexist, but it is entirely > appropriate for a play station. Alas, playstation software has allready been cracked, and can be copied too. The only reason why it does not happen on a wide scale is because they need a sort of Mod-chip, which is quite difficult to come by, costly to install, and will disable the persons ability to get on the play-stations internet-servers. No such restrictions apply (yet) for PC's. > > And, in the past any kind of external device ment for continuous usage has > > been cracked. > > You would need an electron microscope and a high precision laser slicer to > crack that dongle. Not impossible, but very expensive. Maybe. But just *one* crack would be enough, the internet would take care of a rapid spread of the resulting, unencumbered software. Regards, Rudy Wieser [...] > > Option three: find a job that will provide you with this software. > > Same problems apply : Those persons will have to learn a new package, > which (outside of people like in this newgroup) they might not desire ... Why? They use the same software. [...] > Well, I just can imagine a cubicle for a software-engeneer, having (quite > a number) of those "super dongles" sitting around :-) Who's talking about software engineers? We're talking about play stations. [...] > Alas, playstation software has allready been cracked, and can be copied > too. Because they do not use a "single-chip" technology. If you have a bit of silicone that cannot be programmed, how are you going to crack it? Your only option is to crack it _physically_, which is a bit too expensive to do. [...] > Maybe. But just *one* crack would be enough, the internet would take care > of a rapid spread of the resulting, unencumbered software. How? What are going to be the results of this crack? Code that executes on hardware that does not exist except for this very software? This is as useful as cracking P4 for its microcode. S Slava M. Usov <stripit.slough@gmx.net> schreef in berichtnieuws e26whl0lEHA.3612@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... Hello Slava, > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why? They use the same software. Sorry, I over-read the "same" word :-\ Yes, if you can find a company that will want to do that, you can continue using your accumulated knowledge & data. But what are the chances to that ? When you enter a company where there are more people doing a job like yours, or to replace someone, you will have to adapt to whatever is allready there .... > [...] > > > Well, I just can imagine a cubicle for a software-engeneer, having (quite > > a number) of those "super dongles" sitting around :-) > > Who's talking about software engineers? We're talking about play stations. And I was projecting your "super dongle"/playstation-idea to a software-engeneers work-cubicle :-) What I ment is that such a "super dongle" which, as far as I understood, cannot be tampered with, as it's an (allmost) self-enclosed piece of firmware, only accepting input, and providing output, would look like a play-station, would take a lot of space. Now I say that, I do remember having seen a computer with multiple old-style dongles plugged in into it's printer-port : they actually had an extention-cord between the computer and the dongles, so they could place the dongles on a flat surface, not mechanical tugging on the computer (about 5 attached to each other !) > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > silicone that cannot be programmed, how are you going to crack it? Your only > option is to crack it _physically_, which is a bit too expensive to do. Well, I've worked with micro-controllers which where fitted with a "disable reading-out of the contents" -bit (you could leave it clear, or set it in software). The controllers where based on EPROM technology, but without the erasure-window fitted (you could actually order some with such a window, for experimenting purposes, but they where four times the price), making it PROM's. The "read-disable" -bit could be erased, just like the rest of the memory, although they made sure that that specific cell would need a lot more time to get erased. Later versions that cell could not be disabled anymore, as (so the story goes) some handy gauy had found a method to remove the plastic body from above the chip, and use some sort of laser-UV to erase just that cell (enabeling him to read-out the chip again) I did not hear of the cost that was involved with it, but the process was described as "easy" ... :-\ :-) > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > hardware that does not exist except for this very software? This is as > useful as cracking P4 for its microcode. Did not think of that. Well, you got me there :-) Ofcourse, if that specific processor could be bought, I do think that some people would just place the ripped code in a new procesor, and merrily continue their way (much like chip-cards that are used to unscramble sattelite-tv receiver signals can be bought empty, and the code that should be put in it is available within certain circles ...) Regards, Rudy Wieser [...] > > > > Option three: find a job that will provide you with this software. [...] > But what are the chances to that ? When you enter a company where there > are more people doing a job like yours, or to replace someone, you will > have to adapt to whatever is allready there .... If you cannot find a job that will pay you for using the software that you have learned to use, then why do you need to have that software? The only software that you need is that for home use, and you get that software when you buy your PC. [...] > What I ment is that such a "super dongle" which, as far as I understood, > cannot be tampered with, as it's an (allmost) self-enclosed piece of > firmware, only accepting input, and providing output, would look like a > play-station, would take a lot of space. Hardly. I imagine that you can package a decent CPU with lots of ROM and some RAM within a PII cartridge easily. Looking at the modern mobile phones, it can probably be much less than that. [...] > Well, I've worked with micro-controllers which where fitted with a > "disable reading-out of the contents" -bit (you could leave it clear, or > set it in software). The controllers where based on EPROM technology, So, do not make it EPROM. The entire ROM (with its contents) can be printed in the silicon. [...] > Ofcourse, if that specific processor could be bought, I do think that some > people would just place the ripped code in a new procesor, If you consider again that the CPU I'm talking about is printed together with ROM and RAM, then it might be difficult to "reprogram" it. Your only option would be to get a CPU with the same architecture and instruction set, which may not be available. The latter can be made harder if the architecture and the instruction set of the super dongles changes for each game. Then you would have to buy either a very high performance generic "emulator", which will cost a lot more than a few games, or buy a "blank" super-dongle for each game, which will probably cost more than the game itself. > (much like chip-cards that are used to unscramble sattelite-tv receiver > signals can be bought empty, and the code that should be put in it is > available within certain circles ...) Right. Which forces you to spend money and effort, which is a lot less comfortable than downloading a cracked game. Do you think that the number of "cracked" sat-TV receivers is comparable with the number of "regular" receivers? S Slava M. Usov <stripit.slough@gmx.net> schreef in berichtnieuws uYu83zDmEHA.2412@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... Hello Slava, > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that you have learned to use, then why do you need to have > that software? Because you needed *some*/any program to enable you to learn the generics of a certain type of software ? Hmm .. I think we where talking next to each other here ... :-\ :-) Although the generics of all types of spreadsheets are the same, every company's implementation of it has got it's specifics. > The only software that you need is that for home use, and you > get that software when you buy your PC. I've got no idea what software nowerday's is sold as part of the OS, but it better contain an layout-program (for electronics -use), as that is what I use at home (in my hobby) :-) > > What I ment is that such a "super dongle" which, as far as I understood, > > cannot be tampered with, as it's an (allmost) self-enclosed piece of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > some RAM within a PII cartridge easily. Looking at the modern mobile phones, > it can probably be much less than that. That leaves the question of how it will be connected to your computer (keyboard, screen, harddisk) ... > > Well, I've worked with micro-controllers which where fitted with a > > "disable reading-out of the contents" -bit (you could leave it clear, or > > set it in software). The controllers where based on EPROM technology, > > So, do not make it EPROM. The entire ROM (with its contents) can be printed > in the silicon. The story was an example. Think of *any* solution, and probably a counter-solution will be thought of within shortly. If not intended to make copying possible, than just as an exercise in solving a puzzle :-) > > Ofcourse, if that specific processor could be bought, I do think that some > > people would just place the ripped code in a new procesor, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > super-dongle for each game, which will probably cost more than the game > itself. Things that where thought to be true for DVD-decoding chips too (locking the customer to a certain region), but yet, just a few weeks ago some company was charged with illegal producing of "unlocked" chips ... > > (much like chip-cards that are used to unscramble sattelite-tv receiver > > signals can be bought empty, and the code that should be put in it is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "cracked" sat-TV receivers is comparable with the number of "regular" > receivers? I would not know, as I can't remember ever having seen such numbers. :-) But I do know that using those hacked cards was/is as easy as going to your nearest hack-dealer. In other words : you just buy the hacked hardware from someone else, and do not do it yourself at all. Regards, Rudy Wieser But shall we stop here ? My response was aimed at software-companies artificially upping their loss-figures, and we have deviated from it quite a bit. :-) It's maybe possible to get at a point at which, due to a combination of points (of which not all may be of a technical nature), it's not doable/advicable to copy software. The future will tell us. Let's wait for it :-) > I was not referring to the law in this case. I was trying to address the > moral and ethical aspect of that. Kind of unrelated to cars and other things, but here is something to think about, from ethical aspect, not legal. Legal is clear. Question: "Bill Gates stealing 10$ from a blind beggar's hat" is the same as "a blind beggar stealing 10$ from Bill Gates"? Question: Quark XPress (English version, non-localized) in Romania (medium salary 200$) is double the price of the same Quark XPress in U.S. Why? Is this ethical? I know it it legal. Question: same drug, fabricated in U.S.A. by company X costs half the price in Canada, sometimes only 5 miles disstance, accross the border. Why? Because they can get away with it. Question: RIAA cried louder than anybody else about pirats distroying the industry. But las year they had the highest profit in history. Hmmm... In general, all the noise about piracy is not about really stopping piracy. Is about getting laws to "protect" the company and allow it to go after everybody. RIAA did not went after big Bulgarian and Russian music copy-ing industry, but after 6 years old. It is cheaper to rip-off the regular customer. On some other side, look hos' doing the activations and on what. It is mostly the big companies (monopoly?) and for the products where they are strong. Microsoft (Windows), Adobe (Photoshop only), Quicken. Microsoft does not protect Dev.Studio, they give away the 2005 beta for free. Photoshop does give for free the SDKs for all their software, except for Photoshop and Acrobat. They don't use activation for any other product. My conclusion: protections and "anti piracy" are pushed (mostly) by companies having monopoly (at least with the products they protect) and wanting to keep it. Is it legal. Yes. Is is right, and ethical? Maybe. But are they "victims" and do they deserve our compasion? I don't think so. SignatureMihai ------------------------- Replace _year_ with _ to get the real email > !! Brainwash detected !! Not me. Perhaps material things are provided for you for free where you live. Here, I can have only what I can pay for. If I had taken leave of my senses I might make a religion of giving away for free that which I make my living by selling. I haven't. I don't. Regards, Will William DePalo [MVP VC++] <willd.no.spam@mvps.org> schreef in berichtnieuws OyQyDCclEHA.3356@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... Hello William, > > !! Brainwash detected !! > > Not me. Perhaps material things are provided for you for free where you > live. Here, I can have only what I can pay for. Hmm ... I can take a picture of a beautifull scenery, and put it on my wall. The beauty is then on my wall, but is allso still in the origional scenery. I did not pay for it, and I can still have it :-) Happyness can be shared, and funnily enough by sharing it multiplies, but allso grows in the giver. There are so many things you can have, without paying for it :-) > If I had taken leave of my senses I might make a religion of giving away for > free that which I make my living by selling. I haven't. I don't. I can understand you that you do not want to have your lifelyhood endangered by people "stealing" your software. But be honest : do you really think that every person who could not obtain your software otherwise than to pay for it, would actually do so ? For every person you have to say "no" for, you cannot, if you would be honest, calculate a "loss of revenue". If you would (as software-companies like to do), you would be deceiving yourself as well as trying to deceive the public (trying to "get what is coming to you" by crook, hook or lie). In this light, who is the "thief" here ? Regards, Rudy Wieser P.s. Although I do not think you can steal software by copying, I do regard pirated software as a copyright-violation (which is against the Law :-) ) > William DePalo [MVP VC++] <willd.no.spam@mvps.org> schreef in > berichtnieuws >> Not me. Perhaps material things are provided for you for free where you >> live. Here, I can have only what I can pay for. > ... > There are so many things you can have, without paying for it :-) That's why I used the clarifying adjective "material". > But be honest : do you really think that every person who could not obtain > your software otherwise than to pay for it, would actually do so ? No. _Just_ most of them. > If you would (as software-companies like to do), you would be deceiving > yourself as well as trying to deceive the public (trying to "get what is > coming to you" by crook, hook or lie). No lie. Here at least, intellectual property is property. Owners can protect their property. Anyone who takes property from its rightful owner without the owner's consent is a thief. > Although I do not think you can steal software by copying, ... Thankfully, US law, at least, is at odds with what you believe. Regards, Will William DePalo [MVP VC++] <willd.no.spam@mvps.org> schreef in berichtnieuws Oq03PQflEHA.2948@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl... > > William DePalo [MVP VC++] <willd.no.spam@mvps.org> schreef in > > berichtnieuws [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That's why I used the clarifying adjective "material". Yes, you did. Alas, several people here seem to think you can steal software. To make my life easier, I just ignore any references to it. As a result I've allso ignored your reference to it :-\ > > But be honest : do you really think that every person who could not obtain > > your software otherwise than to pay for it, would actually do so ? > > No. _Just_ most of them. I've actually got no idea what kind of software you're writing, but I think you could be right, if your programs are tools, used to generate (easier) income. Alas, most of the "pirates" are simply people who "steal" software which will mostly not generate any money (as example : games). In other words, the price of whatever software they obtain cannot be recaptured, but is simply gone. > > If you would (as software-companies like to do), you would be deceiving > > yourself as well as trying to deceive the public (trying to "get what is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > their property. Anyone who takes property from its rightful owner without > the owner's consent is a thief. I would suggest you read the Law for that one. Copying something is definitily *not* stealing (no material things are removed from their (legal) owners) , but just an offence against the copyright. > > Although I do not think you can steal software by copying, ... > > Thankfully, US law, at least, is at odds with what you believe. I don't think so. It just that America (and within shortly possibly Europe too) punishes, under pressure of the commercial world, a single copying of software more harshly than the act breaking, entering & removing goods, Which is a *very* bad way to go, if you ask me. But this punishment is never dealt for *stealing*, but for "violation of copyright". :-) Regards, Rudy Wieser Tim Roberts <timr@probo.com> schreef in berichtnieuws 413qj0h2aithkq8bjqmgn3jf3j6luaakmq@4ax.com... Hello Tim, > >But the numbers are not as high as they claim. Even under the american > >law (the most pro-corporate), a company accusing someone of piracy [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > fact that I would not have bought the television set anyway does not change > the illegality of the act, nor the loss to the manufacturer. Sorry, but I do not agree. 1a) You make it sound as if the money is stolen, which it isn't the case 1b) You make it sound as if the product is stolen, which it isn't the case (You even explicitily compare the actual *removal* of goods to the *copying* of software, which *isn't the same*, not even in American law :-) ) 2) As Mihai allready tried to point to, there is *no way* that a person with a monthly income of around $100 will, for personal use, buy a package of around 10 times that ammount. Meaning that if the package would, outside of buying, not be available, (s)he just *would not buy it*. (I even think that but a few people will buy software that is worth over a quarter of their monthly wages, without being able to inspect it first) Conclusion : no matter which way (the package is copied, the package is not bought) the company does not get that money. In my eyes that means that any company that claims that they lost that money is just trying to make us believe a lie (trying to swing someone's (Lawmaker's ?) opinion in their favour).... But yes, if you do not aquire something available legally, you should not be using it. Regards, Rudy Wieser [...] > > Your reasoning is faulty. If a Russion student is using an illegal copy > of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 1a) You make it sound as if the money is stolen, which it isn't the case > 1b) You make it sound as if the product is stolen, which it isn't the case Exactly how is the product 'not stolen'? This is exactly the thinking that's killing small software companies. The argument that every pirated piece of software is not a sale lost is complete rubbish - some people may pirate it because the genuinely can't afford it, others pirate because they don't want to afford it. > (You even explicitily compare the actual *removal* of goods to the *copying* > of software, which *isn't the same*, not even in American law :-) ) [....] > Conclusion : no matter which way (the package is copied, the package is not > bought) the company does not get that money. > > In my eyes that means that any company that claims that they lost that money > is just trying to make us believe a lie (trying to swing someone's > (Lawmaker's ?) opinion in their favour).... No, they want to continue to develop products and pay their employees. The law does absolutely nothing to stop software piracy, which is a real shame - it means that the only companies that can continue to make software will be massive corporations that can soak up the losses or those that provide some kind of additional service to paying customers. Open source is fantastic, but it doesn't employ people - given the choice between working at a fast food restaurant and writing OS software, or being paid to write software, I know which I'd take. > But yes, if you do not aquire something available legally, you should not be > using it. ... which is the ONLY thing that counts. Steve Steve McLellan <sjm.NOSPAM AT fixerlabs DOT com> schreef in berichtnieuws uarw0SPlEHA.2224@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Hello Steve > [...] Why did you remove my name ? Now you are making it look as if the comments before your current ones are written by Mihai, which isn't the case ... > > > Your reasoning is faulty. If a Russion student is using an > > > illegal copy of X software package ($1000), then the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Exactly how is the product 'not stolen'? Read the Lawbooks (American or European) for and answer to that. > This is exactly the thinking that's killing small software > companies. Funny : I just explained why your reasoning does not have much ground, and yet you utter another statement just like it ... > The argument that every pirated piece of software is not > a sale lost is complete rubbish - some people may pirate > it because the genuinely can't afford it, others pirate > because they don't want to afford it. Correct. Alas, you seem to be putting them all on a big heap, and disregard the role the software-companies play in this game. It looks like that the continuous brainwashing emmitted by the commercial world have goten a hold on you :-) > > (You even explicitily compare the actual *removal* of goods > > to the *copying* of software, which *isn't the same*, not [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > at a fast food restaurant and writing OS software, or being paid > to write software, I know which I'd take. I'm missing something here ... A a rebuttal to my conclusion. Worse yet : I'm reading your (implicite) "copying is theft" all over again, mixed together with "people that put software in the open source doimain are thieves (of the other software-writers) too !" I know that repetition is the basis of all learning, but here it has no place, and is even counter-productive. But there is a simple answer to your problem : If you can't earn your money there, find another job. You can complain about the difference in pay, but than again, why should you get payed a heap of money (just because you have been *given* a decent set of brains), while other, who are not as brilliant as you should stay at "survival rations" ? > > But yes, if you do not aquire something available legally, you > > should not be using it. > > ... which is the ONLY thing that counts. You seem to be contradicting yourself : Your problem is not with the non-legal use of software, wich you probably would not care about, if it was not for the, by you percieved, loss of money. And alas, that "loss of money on every non-legal copy made" is largely a farce. Regards, Rudy Wieser Hi, We're not going to agree, and I'm busy trying to save my the job my "decent set of brains" has dropped on my doorstep (incidentally, I earn one hell of a lot less than almost everyone I know, but I enjoy what I do, and so want to keep doing it), so I'll leave it here. But I'm fairly sure that unless software piracy is stopped, there will be very few application / games developers around in a few years' time. Steve > Steve McLellan <sjm.NOSPAM AT fixerlabs DOT com> schreef in berichtnieuws > uarw0SPlEHA.2224@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > Regards, > Rudy Wieser > ... But I'm fairly sure that unless > software piracy is stopped, there will be very few application / games > developers around in a few years' time. Similar arguments where served more than 20 years ago by some guy named Bill Gates, outraged by the computer hobbysts sharing software. And we all know how bad he does now :-) SignatureMihai ------------------------- Replace _year_ with _ to get the real email > Thanks Kazi, > > This is very interesting and indeed, at least for Windows XP, this approach > seems to be more appropriate than scanning for MAC addresses. One comment about MAC addresses: You can't read the MAC address of a network card, if the driver of that card is disabled, and it is not a rare case, especially in a notebook computer. > One additional general question: > Are there legal consequences when binding software to hardware? Under which > legal constraints this could be a way for selling software in different > countries? I don't know the laws relating to this question. I'm a shareware developer, and I use the following method in my software: if a user wants to install my software on a new computer, the user must ask a new license for installing the already paid software on the new machine. And the users accept this method. The problem is in the case, when a user reinstalls the operating system. The users understand this issue. The .Net 2.0 library now contains managed interfaces for the crypto api. I'm developing a new shareware software protection system based on the crypto api, which means, it will be strongest method as it can be. There are two methods for cracking software: 1. A cracker reverse engineers the license checking algorithm, and he creates a license key generator (keygen). 2. A cracker removes the license checking algorithm from your software. I'm developing a license checker algorithm, that uses the public key infrastructure (PKI), which means, the cracker can't create a license generator (keygen) utility, because he don't know the private key. It's impossible to create a keygen program without the private key. The .Net library contains a possibility to avoid code modification: strong name assemblies, which based on digital signatures. There is a possibility to create libraries, that can't be modified. I have also been working on a PKI solution as well for licensing. I must warn you against using MAC Addresses. I have tried this in the past with software for some servers, but found that some MAC addresses are not perminent. This burned me with one client in that all of there MAC addresses changed one evening when there network staff made changes to the network. > > Thanks Kazi, > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > name assemblies, which based on digital signatures. There is a possibility > to create libraries, that can't be modified. The theory is good, but the code is not correct a bit. It?s not impossible to deceive it. > public static byte[] GetHardwareIdBytes() > { [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > throw new Exception("There is no hardware id on this computer!"); > } Kazi, Do you know whether or not, this activation signature is changed when hardware configuration is modified? Furthermore, what about OS upgrades? When Longhorn will be installed over XP, is the activation signature affected? Thanks and regards, Klaus >Do you know whether or not, this activation signature is changed when >hardware configuration is modified? Yes, it is. There is a description of the activation signature process on Microsoft's licensing web site. There are about 10 hardware configuration items included in the signature. Some small number of them be modified without invalidating the signature. >Furthermore, what about OS upgrades? When Longhorn will be installed over >XP, is the activation signature affected? Service packs and hotfixes do not affect the signature, but a brand-new operating system (assuming that Longhorn is not release as XP SP4) will probably have a new activation scheme. Signature- Tim Roberts, timr@probo.com Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc
Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simpl |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message