NOD32---Do I *really* have to pay for it on my notebook too?

[Thomas G. Marshall]

I'm a little bugged by the current licensing schemes, although I do
understand the reasoning (I guess), having produced software for over 20
years.

But if I purchase NOD32 for my desktop, it seems a little silly to me to
have to pay for an additional license for my notebook. I'm still only 1
"user"---even though there are are two machines being protected.

(......)----I haven't decided on the morals on this yet.

Do they protect against unlicensed 2nd copies? I'm behind a NAT server.
BTW, I'm not convinced of this yet---it's very likely I'll just pay the 2nd
fee anyway, or maybe just run AVG or something "on demand" on the notebook,
but it all seems a little goofy that they should charge just for it to "sit"
on another machine that I use.

Thanks

 

[Adam Piggott]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Do they protect against unlicensed 2nd copies? I'm behind a NAT server.
BTW, I'm not convinced of this yet

Yes they do. It is trivial to see that a NOD32 install on license "x" is
always downloading every update twice!


Adam Piggott, Proprietor, Proactive Services (Computing).
http://www.proactiveservices.co.uk/

Please replace dot invalid with dot uk to email me.
Apply personally for PGP public key.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFEwRDq7uRVdtPsXDkRAi99AJ0S6kE2bqk6uo+JLRpw0DM8GnBSoQCfY5oe
8mTLMu2o0FJknUuhX6sNnDg=
=4m3r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Phil Weldon]

'Adam Piggot' wrote:
| Yes they do. It is trivial to see that a NOD32 install on license "x" is
| always downloading every update twice!

Is 'trivial to see' the same as established fact?
There are anti-malware programs with licenses that don't check to see if a
new download has already been installed, and will quite merrily install the
same update several times a day.

Phil Weldon

| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
| Hash: SHA1
|
| Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
|
| > Do they protect against unlicensed 2nd copies? I'm behind a NAT server.
| > BTW, I'm not convinced of this yet
|
| Yes they do. It is trivial to see that a NOD32 install on license "x" is
| always downloading every update twice!
|
|
| Adam Piggott, Proprietor, Proactive Services (Computing).
| http://www.proactiveservices.co.uk/
|
| Please replace dot invalid with dot uk to email me.
| Apply personally for PGP public key.
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
| Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)
|
| iD8DBQFEwRDq7uRVdtPsXDkRAi99AJ0S6kE2bqk6uo+JLRpw0DM8GnBSoQCfY5oe
| 8mTLMu2o0FJknUuhX6sNnDg=
| =4m3r
| -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Vinzenz Feenstra]

Is 'trivial to see' the same as established fact?
There are anti-malware programs with licenses that don't check to see if a
new download has already been installed, and will quite merrily install the
same update several times a day.

LOL that is funny. I'm glad that ewido is not doing such crap.

I know that there are a lot of companies allow to use a single license
on 2-3 computers, even if it is like that I cannot say if Eset allows
that too.

Regards,
Vinzenz

 

[Leonard Agoado]

I'm a little bugged by the current licensing schemes, although I do understand the reasoning (I guess),
having produced software for over 20 years.

But if I purchase NOD32 for my desktop, it seems a little silly to me to have to pay for an additional
license for my notebook. I'm still only 1 "user"---even though there are are two machines being protected.

(......)----I haven't decided on the morals on this yet.

Do they protect against unlicensed 2nd copies? I'm behind a NAT server. BTW, I'm not convinced of this
yet---it's very likely I'll just pay the 2nd fee anyway, or maybe just run AVG or something "on demand" on
the notebook, but it all seems a little goofy that they should charge just for it to "sit" on another
machine that I use.

Thomas,

You are absolutely right. This sort of double charging nonsense appears in other industries as well.

Just last week I put new tires on my Infiniti, and they would not also give me four more for my Acura. Sure
it's for two machines, but I'm only one driver. Like you said, it seems goofy that I should be charged for
them just to sit on another machine while I'm not using it.

What I can't understand is why you haven't decided on the morality of this yet. Isn't it perfectly clear that
you have the same right to use a second copy without paying as do I to take the other four tires I need after
they lock-up for the night? Do you think they might protect against this? Do you think that has anything to
do with whether it is right or wrong?

You've developed software for over twenty years, right? I'm certain you are fair enough to understand why you
don't need to be paid for your work. You might owe some refunds. Hell, you might even want to reimburse
those who copied your work for the cost of the blank CDs they used.

Anything else we can help you figure out?


Len Agoado
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Leonard Agoado said something like:

"Thomas G. Marshall"



Thomas,

You are absolutely right. This sort of double charging nonsense appears
in
other industries as well.

....[obnoxios answer snipped]...

Anything else we can help you figure out?

I understand your point, but your tone is unacceptable. Grow up.

<PLONK>

 

[Offbreed]

But if I purchase NOD32 for my desktop, it seems a little silly to me to
have to pay for an additional license for my notebook. I'm still only 1
"user"---even though there are are two machines being protected.

I have a car for normal use and a truck for moving large loads, and both
have to registered and both have to be insured, even though I can only
drive one at a time.

 

[Offbreed]

'Adam Piggot' wrote:
| Yes they do. It is trivial to see that a NOD32 install on license "x" is
| always downloading every update twice!

Is 'trivial to see' the same as established fact?
There are anti-malware programs with licenses that don't check to see if a
new download has already been installed, and will quite merrily install the
same update several times a day.

As they should, just in case of any of a large number of problems
ranging from a simple interrupted download, through assorted corrupted
files, to a complete reinstall of the OS.

 

[Adam Piggott]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

As they should, just in case of any of a large number of problems
ranging from a simple interrupted download, through assorted corrupted
files, to a complete reinstall of the OS.

I'm sure none of those problems would result in the same update packages
being requested every day, every time they update. Couple that with
ThreatSense statistics being sent that mismatch and it's unlikely you'll
hit an innocent customer experiencing problems.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFEwjbS7uRVdtPsXDkRAl6CAKCbksLGQJdBtyiyZqoK2JV/pRs2ygCgkln8
Y4ukuAlowc+uk/KCj0BHzzk=
=xjWP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Offbreed said something like:

I have a car for normal use and a truck for moving large loads, and both
have to registered and both have to be insured, even though I can only
drive one at a time.

Where there is one person involved, the additional /usage/ insurance on the
2nd car is near-0 because indeed you can drive only one at a time. It's the
other insurance that is incremental. Talk to your insurance agent, he'll
tell you the same thing he told me.

The notebook is only protected for things that happen while it is on, and
that is only when I'm using it and not using the desktop.

Again, as I've said, I'm not convinced of this position.

 

[Leonard Agoado]

I understand your point, but your tone is unacceptable. Grow up.

A little thin-skinned to be venturing out into big bad Usenet alone, but at
least you got the point.

BTW, the "Grow up." remark certainly adds an air of mature credibility to
your larcenous soul searching.

<PLONK>

Oh, how I will toss and turn tonight.


Len Agoado
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Bud]

Funny (not humorous) that there is so much agonizing about this while
many think nothing of re-installing an older Norton Antivirus to get
another year's updates. Is it less wrong to steal from Symantec than
from Eset?

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Leonard Agoado said something like:

A little thin-skinned to be venturing out into big bad Usenet alone

I have thousands of posts in usenet mostly comp.lang.java.*, helping people,
since 1995. Hardly thin-skinned; I've seen nearly all manner of aberrant
behavior like yours. I'm just not in the mood for your childish posturing.

....[snip]...

BTW, the "Grow up." remark certainly adds an air of mature credibility...

Glad you got the point then.

....[snip]...

Oh, how I will toss and turn tonight.

You seemed to care enough to post using a different email address to get
around my killfile. Seems you are tossing and turning after all. Perhaps
the "Grow up" remark I made earlier could actually help you some if you
followed it as advice.

Got another email address to use this time?

<PLONK>

 

[edgewalker]

Funny (not humorous) that there is so much agonizing about this while
many think nothing of re-installing an older Norton Antivirus to get
another year's updates. Is it less wrong to steal from Symantec than
from Eset?

It's wrong either way, and it's why we are experiencing more active DRM
methods.

 

[Charlie]

C'mon folks.......it is obvious to any honest-hearted reasonably
intelligent PC consumer that the so-called "licensing" scams by ESET and
others are simply a ploy to "grab more money" under the guise of
"intellectual property rights". Since most homes have at -least 2 PC's /
notebooks/ etc. these days it is clearly a $$$ grab to insist a separate and
equal value "license"
for every installation.

Moreover this whole thing could be put to bed if one would just install AVG
Free antivirus. That effectively gives one AV service and also boycotts
ESET..

 

[Leonard Agoado]

I have thousands of posts in usenet mostly comp.lang.java.*, helping
people, since 1995. Hardly thin-skinned; I've seen nearly all manner of
aberrant behavior like yours. I'm just not in the mood for your childish
posturing.

Thomas,

That you think my behaviour is aberrant speaks volumes about your
perception. In my world a thief gets called a thief, and a whiney prick
gets called a whiney prick. You now seem to be both. I don't give a rat's
ass if you clipped Babbage's toenails while helping him understand how a
loom works. If you have yet to feel in the mood for being called a whiney
prick, either your behaviour is better in comp.lang.java.* or you hear only
what you want to hear. I hope it's the former.

You seemed to care enough to post using a different email address to get
around my killfile. Seems you are tossing and turning after all.

This usually comes as a surprise to people that think as you; but most
everybody else's actions are probably unrelated to, nor concerned with, you,
your killfilter, or what you think. I post from multiple locations and
multiple addresses based on my own circumstances at any given moment. I
suspect that most others go about their business with a similar disinterest
in your affairs.

Perhaps the "Grow up" remark I made earlier could actually help you some
if you followed it as advice.

<PLONK>

The phrases "plonk" and "grow up" seem to be a constant in your
postings, probably have them in auto-text. I don't care if you plonk me; I
don't care if you need to tell others to grow up. You do these things for
your own reasons, most of which are probably more transparent to everyone
else than you suspect. More's the pity for you that you fail to see it.
Nobody here went to search you out, you posted your moral equivocating here
first, and you got your answers. I also don't care if you rip of NOD. If
you have to worry that they'll check, that's usually a clue that your action
is questionable. That you didn't like the answers you got is
understandable. That you need to lash out because you didn't like the
answers speaks volumes about your concern with growing up. This group has a
lot of intelligent and knowledgeable people that give a lot to help others.
To the degree that I need to grow up, I think I am better served by their
example than your face-saving.


Leonard Agoado
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

edgewalker said something like:

It's wrong either way, and it's why we are experiencing more active DRM
methods.

Yeah, it's not a great thing to do, and I've myself implemented node-locking
and other anti-piracy measures in my software in the past. I'm not a huge
fan of the eye-patch over one eye .

I think that the best way to put analogize my questioning this concept is
that I view the licensing of anti-piracy software to be more of a licensing
of a bike helmet. I wouldn't need a different one per bike. This analogy
breaks because the bike helmet protects me, and not the bike, but I also
believe that an argument that AV software does the same thing can be made,
particularly when I'm only on one machine at a time. This is also switching
around too in my household, for odd reasons, in that my wife is also at home
now, and using the notebook at the same time, which is a new thing.

I'm fairly sure I'm just going to pay the fee for both, and next year as
well, and the year after that....if I keep NOD32. I have a feeling though
that they would make far more money by having only one license---and that
for a household. It's how I would position the product, because you need to
make the purchase of a product as much of a no-brainer as possible, and that
would really be a selling feature IMO.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Charlie said something like:

C'mon folks.......it is obvious to any honest-hearted reasonably
intelligent PC consumer that the so-called "licensing" scams by ESET and
others are simply a ploy to "grab more money" under the guise of
"intellectual property rights". Since most homes have at -least 2 PC's /
notebooks/ etc. these days it is clearly a $$$ grab to insist a separate
and
equal value "license"
for every installation.

Moreover this whole thing could be put to bed if one would just install
AVG
Free antivirus. That effectively gives one AV service and also boycotts
ESET..

Is ESET really that strong a presence in the AV world compared to NAV? I've
heard that MacAfee has dropped off the radar screen for some reason {shrug},
but it was my understanding that NOD32 was still a newcomer. No?

 

[Rick]

I think that the best way to put analogize my questioning this concept
is that I view the licensing of anti-piracy software to be more of a
licensing of a bike helmet. I wouldn't need a different one per bike.

True, but you also don't need an ongoing series of upgrades to that
helmet. You also can't use the one helmet on multiple people at the same
time. You say you wouldn't be using more than one computer at any given
point in time and I have no reason not to believe you. On the other hand,
since I don't personally know you, I also have no reason to believe that
you really will keep your word.

I'm fairly sure I'm just going to pay the fee for both, and next year
as well, and the year after that....if I keep NOD32. I have a feeling
though that they would make far more money by having only one
license---and that for a household. It's how I would position the
product, because you need to make the purchase of a product as much of
a no-brainer as possible, and that would really be a selling feature
IMO.

You should check:

http://www.eset.com/purchase/index.php

They have a 2-pack family user license that gives you a 20% discount. Not
exactly the second free copy of it that you were looking for, but it helps.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Rick said something like:

True, but you also don't need an ongoing series of upgrades to that
helmet.

Well, wait. THAT statement is an argument for continual licensing year
after year, which is orthogonal to the issue of how many computers are
covered by a license.

....[rip]...

You should check:

http://www.eset.com/purchase/index.php

They have a 2-pack family user license that gives you a 20% discount. Not
exactly the second free copy of it that you were looking for, but it
helps.

Yep, know that, but thanks anyway.



--
Enough is enough. It is /not/ a requirement that someone must google
relentlessly for an answer before posting in usenet. Newsgroups are for
discussions. Discussions do /not/ necessitate prior research. If you are
bothered by someone asking a question without taking time to look something
up, simply do not respond.