George Tsavdaris wrote:
The encrypted name of the buyer inside the EXE, seems to be a good solution....
So this is anti-piracy versus privacy.
What privacy?
Only ONE gets the executable with his name: The legal owner!
Why it should be a matter of privacy....?
"I will always know whom it came from.
So the lucky winner is Pedro from Barcelona,Spain (I have his full details)"
From the above sentence, the author tracks his customers just like Micro$oft with its controversal "Genuine advantage" which infriges privacy.
No. He does not trace nor track his customers, he simply sells
personalized versions of his software(and he is not the only one).
Microsoft does something completely different.
This is a bit amateurish to name the guy whose copy you think has been compromised because if you are wrong and are accusing the wrong person you stand to lose more than you gain by what you are doing. How many times have you gone to Microsoft's website and seen them naming some guy whose XP copy is doing the rounds on filesharing networks? Why not do what modern vendors do and deactivate the keys that have been leaked on the net?
This is a bit too much effort and also unethical just to sell 500 copies for a piece of software that is unknown to the multitudes.
bedouin wrote:This is a bit amateurish to name the guy whose copy you think has been compromised because if you are wrong and are accusing the wrong person you stand to lose more than you gain by what you are doing. How many times have you gone to Microsoft's website and seen them naming some guy whose XP copy is doing the rounds on filesharing networks? Why not do what modern vendors do and deactivate the keys that have been leaked on the net?
This is a bit too much effort and also unethical just to sell 500 copies for a piece of software that is unknown to the multitudes.
I dont think you understand the problem. There is no key, it is nothing but a personalized copy. Also, there is no direct download.
Tony Thomas wrote:I dont think you understand the problem. There is no key, it is nothing but a personalized copy. Also, there is no direct download.
I don't know what he has done or what he is trying to do but you can bet that there is no modern software company that would go posting xyz's copy has been breached .. yada ..yada like he has done. Naum is too small to do what the big companies do and for software that costs thousands.
Tony Thomas wrote:I dont think you understand the problem. There is no key, it is nothing but a personalized copy. Also, there is no direct download.
I don't know what he has done or what he is trying to do but you can bet that there is no modern software company that would go posting xyz's copy has been breached .. yada ..yada like he has done. Naum is too small to do what the big companies do and for software that costs thousands.
It is fine that you dont agree with him, but something has to be done, that's all I know.
bedouin wrote:This is a bit amateurish to name the guy whose copy you think has been compromised because if you are wrong and are accusing the wrong person you stand to lose more than you gain by what you are doing. How many times have you gone to Microsoft's website and seen them naming some guy whose XP copy is doing the rounds on filesharing networks? Why not do what modern vendors do and deactivate the keys that have been leaked on the net?
This is a bit too much effort and also unethical just to sell 500 copies for a piece of software that is unknown to the multitudes.
... sigh ... he didn't really name the person... please read again.
Then is this an academic or a moral exercise? The files are still presumably doing the rounds wherever he found them and can be used. Why not use industry standard techniques for industry standard problems? Show me Microsoft or Symantec doing what was done by the O.P?
As you can see from my post, I didn't provide person's full name and data even though I am 100% sure he is guilty of distributing his copy to others.
Alex,
I believe you are going down the wrong path.
1) You are speculating that the person is guilty of illegally distributing your software.
2) Until you have proof (court of law) you shouldn't be sharing information regarding that person.
3) Publicly disclosing your desire to "actively catch the perpetrators" is counter productive on way too many levels. (If you want to catch someone then try to do it quietly)
"Stealing" software is not a personal problem/issue, but is rather a social phenomenon. You will not improve the situation when going after individuals, IMO. There are people who simply "share" software with others for the sake of busting the system -- it is ideological more so than practical motivation. If you pickup this fight, then you should consider that there would be someone (or probably a group of people) who will purchase a copy of your 'new' version using a fake account and then will make sure that everyone gets it for free. This is just one of the things that the social animal might do -- and your copy-protection would mean absolutely nothing.
There is no good solution to this problem, IMO, and I feel and sympathize with you and at the same time I believe you are going down the wrong path!
Regards,
Hristo
p.s.
Trying to prove someones guilt purely based on your speculations is also not good ... and will eventually cause you more problems (embarrassments) than you can imagine.
Kiril's,
comments are understandable and I don't think it is because you are "hitting home", but because of what you are doing and the way your actions (words) can be perceived.
Agree with Hristo! Well said.I don't see the point of this whole thread.Giving information to the public about who bought his software and who does not,posting it in public forum and at the same time speculating about the customer, mentioning their first name etc is not going to help.
If it was done by some member instead of the commerical programmer,I would guess that this thread would definitely be deleted.
Naum is great program that plays chess well.But it doesn't have anything to do with what's being said here.
