What's your opinion about Macwarez?!

I'm probably going to take some flak for saying this, but I actually admire Microsoft's use of anti piracy mechanisms with regard to Office v. X.

In case you don't know how it works, Office v. X checks your connected network when it starts (and that includes the internet if you are connected to it), and if it finds another copy of Office running with the same SN#, it shuts down your copy.

Overall, I agree with this form of anti piracy. I do have quibbles over a few details about this, mainly that, if I have Office loaded on two machines (perfectly legal mind you), and I launch Word on one, while another app like Entourage is open on the other, it will shut down the newly opening app. I guess MS believes it's OK since Office is considered one "license", even though it comprises 4 seperate applications.

I wish Adobe and Macromedia would institute antipiracy mechanisms like this, because it would eliminate a lot of the thievery that goes on.

Of couse, anybody who is savvy enough can either can a crack, or disable the outbound port that these apps use to check, but the general population would be prevented from pirating these apps, which in turn would help all who are (legally) involved.
 
Whoa... this throws me back to the days of PhotoShop 3.0 and QuarkXPress 3.3... BOTH of those programs do network serial number checks and won't let more than one copy run with the same serial number.

This is why one company I worked for pirated serial numbers for PhotoShop -- so multiple users could use the same copy simultaneously. It was a little more difficult with QuarkXPress because the serail number was kinda "locked" into the software -- you had to use a floppy disk to install QuarkXPress from a CD, and there was one and only one serial number for each floppy which was installed at the time of installation (whoa, that was long-winded!)... it got easier when 4.04 came out and used an actual user-supplied serial number...

I believe that Macromedia and Adobe's apps still do this... it would be interesting if these programs were able to do it over the internet, or verify the number with Adobe/Macromedia at the time of launch.
 
I believe that Macromedia and Adobe's apps still do this... it would be interesting if these programs were able to do it over the internet, or verify the number with Adobe/Macromedia at the time of launch.
Click to expand...

Yeah, MM and Adobe's apps still do local network checking, but they don't go so far as Microsoft does. Office uses an open port to check the internet for other copies of Office v. X with the same SN#. This eliminates multi copy pirating at offices, but also eliminates (or greatly reduces) the ability for people all over the world to use pirated copies of Office (at least those with active internet connections).
 
Are you sure it does this? Is it documented anywhere in Office v.X's docs? Has anyone ever encountered a situation where their pirated version of Office v.X has shut down due to someone running the same copy somewhere else in the world?
 
P-Shop created an appletalk server, and announced itself on a LAN. Office v.X does a similar thing with UDP. It does not do this over the internet, it's a local broadcast and is limited to LAN. Lan being a fuzzy term. More correctly broadcast domain. VPC does the same. Yet another "innovation" from m$ :-/ I've not heard anything about actual internet connectivity from Office.

This does not shut down the app on passive failure, essentially, it only shuts down if it finds something, not if it fails to find something. Big difference in consumer burden. And even with this lightweight security in place, my laptop and desktop occasionally get into arguments over VPC, which I'm using in a completely legitimate way. So I circumvented the issue. You have found the same issue with Office, that although mostly acceptable, it's still a burden on legitimate use of a legitimately owned product.

My University had issues keeping a limited number of legitimate P-Shop licenses on machines because the machines were installed by imaging from a master, and the duplication of serial numbers would halt legitimate use. Support required a lot more people to deal with this. At what point does the cost of security outweigh the cost of piracy? Dollars are hard to count like that aren't they?

In the end, stealing is justified only if the software maker is made up of all thieves, and security is an assumption that users are all thieves, which makes it a similar evil. I wish we could all trust each other.

(I wrote this an hour ago, but didn't post it because I had a phone interview. This may answer your question on Office)

Oh, and one more thing, this technical solution to a political problem will not actually stop piracy, it'll just make a lot more people know a lot more about firewalls.
 
Oh, and one more thing, this technical solution to a political problem will not actually stop piracy, it'll just make a lot more people know a lot more about firewalls.
Click to expand...

I agree with that!

AppleWatcher ;)

Code: 
test
 
You're right. Since I own OfficeX, I found dozen of sn to make it work elsewhere. This wouldn't stop piracy, just mess up our macs.
As the discussion follows, I'm coming back just to say few things.
- piracy is not robbery. I mean, juridically talking. In most places, for instance, you don't consider the same way the one who pirate for his own use, and the one who pirate to sell copies. And this because you naturally don't spoil people the same way. One of us was saying : "I didn't spoil nobody, because if I had to buy this soft to use it, I wouldn't have bought it." This is fairly true.
- I wrote, twenty pages before, that I don't own most of the soft I use, and spoke of "garbage apps". It has shocked some of you. OK. I'm not a major computer science, just a poweruser. Around me, 25 people are working with macs because I, the admin of the "new technologies functions" in my social sciences laboratory, is the only one who understand a bit how a computer works, and where to find answers to everyday's problems.
And as I refuse to do it with pc's, they all buy macs.
When this people need to do something with their macs (generally simple things, but easy-to-do, "naturally easy and productive"), they ask me for the good app.
If some of them own now professional apps to manage their mail, their agenda, their quoting database, it's because I have been using these professional apps for long before, and that I am sure that their functionalities are really easy and efficient, and that they will work for sure with their OS.
When they ask me for the opportunity to upgrade or not, they do it because they know I have tried a pirated new version. And if the version is good, they will buy it. Nobody as ever used Office2001, for example, but everyone have paid for the eudora5.
- I wrote that computer industry is still immature because most of the people who use computer are not at all able to decide if something is good to buy before they have bought it. And too many apps don't work well, or don't really do what they were supposed to do, or do it, but the rest doesn't work anymore.
For these kind of people, a computer is something magic. You got a fax app, it works the first time you launch it. Great. Then you put on your Deskjet printer and it is not recognized anymore ? Why, how is it possible, I didn't move it. Rezba, what's happening, my computer doesn't work anymore !!! Please, I had do do it for yesterday, and now, it doesn't work, blablabla.
Do you think it's easy to make a good choice in the software jungle ? I talked about garbage apps not to judge their really skill, but because it's the place most of them go after some few tries, even those who mean to cost many hundreds dollars/euro. Because the are useless for me. But I'm able to say it because I've tried them. And I can't afford to pay for the all I try. That's not my job.
Most of "pirates" are like me, pirating a bit for nothing, just to "stock", a bit to exchange with others, a little to be sure always having the best tool to do the best work without problems and in the fastest way. I would never have own it if I had to pay for. But others around me wouldn't have bought it too.
Did you notice that : the more a company is sure of its dominant position, the less it gives you the right to try its apps. Not to avoid being pirated. To be sure than most people will buy the new version. As some of them are really dominant, there is a kind of gentleman agreement between some of you upon the illegal copies of their apps. But, on the opposite, illegal and free copies of their concurrent is often the only way for them to be first installed on our machines.
warez is a part of the industry, a kind of subsystem who help it turn. It's not a leech, neither an opponent. It belongs to this industry.
In this world we're living in, many people are selling wind. Some others are surfing on. This is a part of why the rest of the customers are still fascinated by "the progress".

See you in twenty pages...
 
- piracy is not robbery. I mean, juridically talking. In most places, for instance, you don't consider the same way the one who pirate for his own use, and the one who pirate to sell copies. And this because you naturally don't spoil people the same way. One of us was saying : "I didn't spoil nobody, because if I had to buy this soft to use it, I wouldn't have bought it." This is fairly true.
Click to expand...

Actually, you are completely wrong on both points.

1st - Piracy is robbery. It is defined so in American Law. I'm not privy to the Software laws in France, but in America, if you acquire/use software that you didn't pay for, or weren't given a license for, it's piracy. Whether you are a kid downloading warez off the net for your own trading purposes, or some guy in Malaysia making $10 copies of MS Office for sale. Both are viewed as piracy, and both are illegal. Now having said that, the Government obviously can't police the industry to the point where going after the teenager is viable. At least that's been the case for the last 20 years. In the last year, the Gov't has made a point of going after people who run Hotline/Carracho servers and making examples of them.

2nd - your point about people who pirate and then rationalize it by saying "I would never have bought it in the first place" is completely ridiculous. Granted, there are people who download warez, try it out, decide they don't like it, and then delete it and never use it again. But the vast majority of people are downloading a product, using it everyday, and then saying they can't justify paying for it.

A very large segment of people feel it is OK to use software that isn't theirs because they don't view it as stealing. It is. Because they aren't actually taking a physical product, they don't see what's wrong with it. But in the eyes of the law, it's the same as physical theft.

These are the laws people. While I don't agree with the vast majority of software developers, I can't really dispute what the law is. Hopefully, the industry will adopt two policies that should help itself out.

1) Follow the Macromedia example of providing 30 day trials that allow you to FULLY use and evaluate the software. This removes the pirates argument of "I just wanted to try it out".

2) Adopt more stringent SN#loggin, ala MS Office v.X. Don't just check for duplicate SN#'s on local networks, check the 'net for duplicates as well. This will reduce SN# swapping and make piracy harder.
 
then develop a crack that takes away the 30 day time limit
and develop a crack that will disable the checking on the net o the ame serial number.
 
Let me get this straight:

Serpicolugnut is proposing that software scans the internet (on whatever port the software uses) for duplicate serial numbers?!?

How unworkable / pointless is this?!?

1) Very few "internet-enabled" users are "always on"
2) This scan would take forever!
 
Let me get this straight:

Serpicolugnut is proposing that software scans the internet (on whatever port the software uses) for duplicate serial numbers?!?

How unworkable / pointless is this?!?
Click to expand...

Unworkable? Pointless? It's already here! Microsoft Office v. X does this. When you launch Office, it pings a particular open port with the SN#, and if it finds the same serial#, on the network or on the internet, it won't allow Office to launch. This is nothing more than a modified version of Network Copy Protection, something that Adobe has been using for over 10 years.

Is it crackable? Of course it is. Just about any antipiracy device/method is crackable. Hell, you can cirucmvent it just by disabling your internet connection at the time of launch. But most users will be deterred by this. The hardcore theives will always find a way around it.
 
I know Office does it. It's still pointless for the reasons I outline.

Such protective measures are meanigless if they're not comprehensive (i.e. you can check the current serial number against every other one). I guess MS use it, because this is far more relevant on say, a company intranet, where everyone has Office on their machine. Then again, chances are the company controls software distribution etc., anyway, so the chances / need for a "dodgy" version of Office to be on a machine are somewhat diminished.

Also, as you point out, you don't need to crack the software; just disabling the relevant port (as outlined in this very forum for Office v.X) will stop the check.
 
So if something can be cirumvented then it's useless? Please!

Under that logic, Developers shouldn't require SN#'s from users, since obtaining illegal SN#'s isn't all that hard.

Come on. Just because a deterrent isn't 100% doesn't make it useless.
 
Requiring a SN# from someone is not useless. Scanning a network for others is. One is hard to circumvent, and many users are unaware of crack websites etc. The other is easily circumvented, even unwittingly, if the user is not connected.

BUt enough of this, it's a pointless discussion :D
 
Requiring a SN# from someone is not useless. Scanning a network for others is. One is hard to circumvent, and many users are unaware of crack websites etc. The other is easily circumvented, even unwittingly, if the user is not connected.
Click to expand...

Spoken like someone who can't argue the logic of their position.

It is far easier to acquire illegal serial #'s than it is to circumvent network copy protection. All I have to do is a search on Google for "Photoshop Serial Numbers", and bang - I'll get a list of URLs with the SN#. How hard is that?

Now, to circumvent network copy protection you have to know how to disable a port. I'm sorry, but 99.99% of the people out there do not know how to do this, and even when presented with a tutorial of how to do it via the CLI, will not attempt it for fear of messing something up.

MS obviously has an idea how many of their customers are attached to the internet, so I don't think they feel it was a pointless endevour to implement. I think you'd be surprised at how many people are connected to the net via networks or broadband, where shutting down their connection isn't as easy as disconnecting from a dialup account.

I'm sorry Ben, but if you agree that requiring a SN# isn't useless (which you have), then easily implementable copy protection schemes that don't make the end user jump through ridiculous hoops (ala WinXP registration) aren't useless either.

Expect to see more of it the future.
 
:rolleyes:

By "unwittingly circumventing", I'm talking about people who aren't connected to the net, nothing about ports necessarily. Sure, you can search for cracks -- I've done it myself -- but how many actually work?

Now, I'm from the UK. Broadband access is NOT widespread, nor is unmetered access, as in the US.

So when I talk about persistent or ubiquitous connectivity, I'm thinking more at the UK / global level, not from the US perspective which is quite different.

I don't have to defend my position, nor am I particularly precious about it. I'm not particularly passionate about the whole piracy issue.

This is just a wee discussion forum, and this is a vaguely interesting topic. That's all. There will always be those more informed than I on just about every topic. I don't spend an age thinking through every ramification of what I say, I have work to do. I happen to think network SN# checking is of limited usefulness. You don't. Fine.
 
Serial number checking is implemented in most high-end graphics applications -- the kind you find residing on networked computers in graphic design/publishing/creative houses. The network serial number checking serves its purpose wonderfully there and almost single-handedly took care of the BIGGEST piracy problem quite a few years ago -- the creative house would buy one copy of a piece of software and load it on 8 or 10 machines in the graphics department... well, under the terms of the license, ONE copy per computer was allowed, and network serial number checking took care of that problem PDQ. Quark was heavy-handed in its use of network serial number checking -- the serial number was built-in to the software itself, so when you bought QuarkXPress at that time, you were stuck with THAT serial number -- there wasn't a way to change it without hacking Quark. That strategy worked. Not 100%, but nothing is 100%. It just deterred piracy, and a great deal of it, too. But times have changed.

Of course, people started sharing serial numbers and giving away copies of programs, effectively circumventing the network serial number check, so now we're here, at this point in time, where we're stuck on where to go next -- how heavy-handed can we be about enforcing software licenses without being ridiculous? How should our software licenses change? Allowing people to freely share or distribute software is probably NOT an option. Only 15-year-old crackers that are still enjoying the life of "something for nothing," and not having to take much financial responsibility for themselves yet are the only ones that would be supportive of a whacked idea like that. How can we come to a consensus and deter rampant software piracy while not choking the paying-customer-base too much? How can we treat the thieves like thieves, but trust the customers?
 
How can we treat the thieves like thieves, but trust the customers?
Click to expand...

Well said!

Unforunately, the best mechanism we have to deter piracy is the hardware lock. Of course, even those can be cracked, and customers hated them with a passion. Very few programs use them now, and they are mostly very expensive applications like Maya, Lightwave, 3DStudioMax etc. Of course, all of these applications are widely available on Carracho/Hotline/Usenet, with full cracks available.

As it stands now, I feel the MS Office v. X method of network/internet copy protection is the most cost effective, customer friendly solution available.
 
As it stands now, I feel the MS Office v. X method of network/internet copy protection is the most cost effective, customer friendly solution available.
Click to expand...

But everything is 'crackable'... :rolleyes:

AppleWatcher
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top