The lucky winner of my 'Catch the Pirate' contest is...

[Philippe]

The author of Naum does not explain how the copy protection works and I fully agree with him. He states that he was able to know the name of a guy with a pirated version, OK.
I wonder if this protection contains some kind of "unwanted or unsafe" code according to Anti Virus/Malware programs. If the answer is positive so I would never buy such a program and would go to free ones.

[Uri Blass]

You have far more different reasons why you bought Naum. I don't play correspondence chess or computer vs computer games. If this makes you happy go ahead. But what makes me happy is what counts. I enjoy playing against chess programs and humans. If you play against Freeware Naum, do you feel the difference playing against Naum 2.1 or 2.2? I bet you won't. This is the reason why I don't entertain buying commercial programs anymore. There are just too many strong freeware engines out there. With protecting Naum, I agree that Naumov has the right to protect his work. It is his work. I personally thank Naumov for being so generous releasing a very strong freeware for everyone to enjoy. This goes not only to Naumov but everybody who graciously shared their works for everybody.

Note that I did not buy naum.
I only said that if I play another correspondence tournament it is going to be a good reason to consider buying the new naum.

The tournament that I play is almost over(I have only one game that I expect to win) and during that tournament that started almost 3 years ago I bought only Fruit and Rybka.

Uri

[menniepals]

By the way, your project Movei I also keep up ever since. I think it is a good and strong engine. Thanks a lot for that.

[Tony Thomas]

The author of Naum does not explain how the copy protection works and I fully agree with him. He states that he was able to know the name of a guy with a pirated version, OK.
I wonder if this protection contains some kind of "unwanted or unsafe" code according to Anti Virus/Malware programs. If the answer is positive so I would never buy such a program and would go to free ones.

Nay, I think he has the name of the customer embedded somewhere inside the executable.

[George Tsavdaris]

The author of Naum does not explain how the copy protection works and I fully agree with him. He states that he was able to know the name of a guy with a pirated version, OK.
I wonder if this protection contains some kind of "unwanted or unsafe" code according to Anti Virus/Malware programs. If the answer is positive so I would never buy such a program and would go to free ones.

Nay, I think he has the name of the customer embedded somewhere inside the executable.

Wow!
That is exactly what i proposed a year back when there the subject of piracy was being discussed here....

Why don't all programmers do that? Or the name can be erased by some expert? And what if the name will be encrypted? I don't think this can be erased again, right?

No need for those stupid protections like Hiarcs and what Fruit had, that prevents many of us(at least me) buying Chess programs. The encrypted name of the buyer inside the EXE, seems to be a good solution....

[Tony Thomas]

The author of Naum does not explain how the copy protection works and I fully agree with him. He states that he was able to know the name of a guy with a pirated version, OK.
I wonder if this protection contains some kind of "unwanted or unsafe" code according to Anti Virus/Malware programs. If the answer is positive so I would never buy such a program and would go to free ones.

Nay, I think he has the name of the customer embedded somewhere inside the executable.

Wow!
That is exactly what i proposed a year back when there the subject of piracy was being discussed here....

Why don't all programmers do that? Or the name can be erased by some expert? And what if the name will be encrypted? I don't think this can be erased again, right?

No need for those stupid protections like Hiarcs and what Fruit had, that prevents many of us(at least me) buying Chess programs. The encrypted name of the buyer inside the EXE, seems to be a good solution....

It was pure speculation, it could be the name of the buyer, or his customer ID number or something relevent to his purchase. I dont think an expert can simply find that info, unless he has two different executables to compare. Also, it would be a tiresome job to find it, because it could be at any part of the executable. I do not mind any kind of copy protection, it only takes me less than few seconds to copy and paste my user ID and password.

[Philippe]

[quote="George Tsavdaris"]

The encrypted name of the buyer inside the EXE, seems to be a good solution....[/quote]

So this is anti-piracy versus privacy.

[George Tsavdaris]

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....?

[hristo]

Hi,

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.

[Philippe]

[quote="George Tsavdaris"][quote="Philippe"][quote="George Tsavdaris"]

The encrypted name of the buyer inside the EXE, seems to be a good solution....[/quote]

So this is anti-piracy versus privacy.[/quote]

What privacy?
Only ONE gets the executable with his name: The legal owner!
Why it should be a matter of privacy....?[/quote]

"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.