How to retrieve serial number of OS or CPU for copy protection?

[Mihai N.]

... If you steal something

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.


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,

 

[Klaus Bonadt]

Thanks, Mihai.
I really appreciate your comments.

Klaus

 

[Kazi]

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

 

[R.Wieser]

Steve McLellan <sjm.NOSPAM AT fixerlabs DOT com> schreef in berichtnieuws
(e-mail address removed)...

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 ...

case

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
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.

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" ?

... 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

 

[Steve McLellan]

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
(e-mail address removed)...

Hello Steve

"Mihai N." <[email protected]> wrote:

[...]

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 ...

case

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
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.

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" ?

... 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

 

[R.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 ?

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

 

[Slava M. Usov]

[...]

!! 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

 

[William DePalo [MVP VC++]]

!! 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

 

[R.Wieser]

Slava M. Usov <[email protected]> schreef in berichtnieuws
(e-mail address removed)...

Hello Slava,

[...]

!! 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.

You seem to have missed the below :

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.

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.

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

 

[R.Wieser]

William DePalo [MVP VC++] <[email protected]> schreef in berichtnieuws
(e-mail address removed)...

Hello William,

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++]]

...
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

 

[Slava M. Usov]

A person who uses pirated software is not necessarily a person who
cannot afford that software.

You seem to have missed the below :

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.

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?"

Quite large actually.


[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.

S

 

[Mihai N.]

... 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

 

[R.Wieser]

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 :-\

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[R.Wieser]

Slava M. Usov <[email protected]> schreef in berichtnieuws
(e-mail address removed)...

Hello Slava,

A person who uses pirated software is not necessarily a person who
cannot afford that software.

You seem to have missed the below :

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.

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.

[...]

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?

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.

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.

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?

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]

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

 

[Slava M. Usov]

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.

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

 

[Klaus Bonadt]

That's the difference with my country than : Outside of the companies

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

 

[R.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.

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.

[...]

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.

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.

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 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.

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 ...

[...]

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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 ...

[...]

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.

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

 

[Slava M. Usov]

[...]

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

 

[R.Wieser]

Slava M. Usov <[email protected]> schreef in berichtnieuws
(e-mail address removed)...

Hello Slava,

[...]

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.

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.

[...]

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.

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.

[...]

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.

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