While those who crack protection fall into the category of "ego-stroking"... those who seek the cracked software do not.It is that group we are targeting with prevention.

Here's my quick summary of this thread:- Pirates deprive developers of money.

Since there is no way to determine an absolute value for the "loss," there are some who'll argue that as the "loss" could possibly be zero that the argument is thus invalidated. That is of course patent nonsense, but there's no shortage of nonsensical people... :( The loss of even a single sale is sufficient. It has never been the quantity of the loss that's the real issue; it's the principle that's important!However, if there is one certain effect of piracy, it is the overwhelming sense of "violation" and the concomitant "crushing of the spirit" that is engendered by such acts.I began "professional development" nearly a decade ago. Every year has seen more and more of the enjoyment sucked out of me. These days I stick with it simply because I no longer have a choice. Being not-quite-disabled-enough to qualify for Social Security Disability, I nevertheless remain incapable of doing much more than sit here at my desk and keep on plugging away. Just a single trip to the grocery store and back home consumes almost all my energy, and pretty much leaves me unable to do much the rest of the day besides concentrate on breathing...

It has never been the quantity of the loss that's the real issue; it's the principle that's important!

Hi Bill,I don't speak for him but I think Graham Waterfield would take issue with your statement -- the losses and the demands for support by users of pirated product drove him from the business.I know that the friend I mentioned earlier, the creator of the software development utility, certainly would differ. (He's a mercenary as am I.)

While those who crack protection fall into the category of "ego-stroking"... those who seek the cracked software do not.It is that group we are targeting with prevention.

Well, the guy who cracks the software probably bought it so the people who download the crack are not paying. Would those people be willing to wait 2 weeks, 2 months or however long it takes for the cracker to break the protection or would they just go out and buy the product? The question really is how many would wait for the cracker to do his thing and how many would buy the product instead and do these extra sales pay for the costs of developing the software protection? Really, only software developers can answer this question with any sort of accuracy. They at least know how many units they are selling and how many are being downloaded via torrents. If we go all the way back to the original post and read the Lotussim website we find that the copy being sold was actually the fifth genuine copy sold. So someone has decided to buy the original product , bypass the serial key (dead easy), burn a few CDs and resell making a nice profit for the pirate. Now, if the pirate had to put in a couple of weeks of work to break a stronger copy protection system then his potential "customers" will probably have bought a legitimate copy by then.Now N400QW and byork are probably right that a single solution may not work and that each developer having their own protection system makes it harder for crackers. On the other hand you have to realise that software protection for scenery is a lot harder to implement than with aircraft which are able to load gauges with copy protection coded into them. Scenery designers need a system like the FSDreamteam system. A lot of scenery designers using their own systems may lead to instability in FSX (you can have lots of scenery on screen but you are only flying one plane with gauges).

Hi Bill,I don't speak for him but I think Graham Waterfield would take issue with your statement -- the losses and the demands for support by users of pirated product drove him from the business.I know that the friend I mentioned earlier, the creator of the software development utility, certainly would differ. (He's a mercenary as am I.)

Interesting that you zero in on the least important part of my post, ignoring the real meat... I wonder why that is? :(

Interesting that you zero in on the least important part of my post, ignoring the real meat... I wonder why that is? :(

(I'm sorry if I'm offending here but you did ask ...)It's because we all have problems in life, Bill -- we're all walking wounded. I can't work either but I don't put my problems on public display.

Just a friendly reminder to everyone participating in this thread. Let's please remain civil and try to keep this one from getting locked like nearly every other thread on the topic. Nobody has said anything wrong or violated any rules, it's just a caution because I can see the temperature rising. Thanks everyone.

Ok... I'm seeing more and more thinly veiled pokes of a personal nature from some posters towards other posters. :(

The real meat of this thread is simply effective prevention of FS Software Theft.An earlier post expressed a good faith estimate of 45% loss due to the theft. That estimate did not include the unknowable conversion factor of thief to legimate customer so that issue was put aside as unknowable.If you use 45% number it is easy to see that it is imperative for developers to take the extra steps required to render their products unusable in the event they are hacked.No one is going to do it for scenery or aircraft developers so we'll all have to begin working on individual solutions.I might add that Umberto has posted that he may be able to provide subscription to his solution.Let's focus on the actual meat here and not stray to peripheal or personal issues. :(

The real meat of this thread is simply effective prevention of FS Software Theft.An earlier post expressed a good faith estimate of 45% loss due to the theft. That estimate did not include the unknowable conversion factor of thief to legimate customer so that issue was put aside as unknowable.If you use 45% number it is easy to see that it is imperative for developers to take the extra steps required to render their products unusable in the event they are hacked.No one is going to do it for scenery or aircraft developers so we'll all have to begin working on individual solutions.I might add that Umberto has posted that he may be able to provide subscription to his solution.Let's focus on the actual meat here and not stray to peripheal or personal issues. :(

Quick Jeremy, Lock the thread and delete the 143 posts before this one. I think N400QW (sorry don't know you real name) has summed it up as well as anyone.

Don't lock the thread, I'll just stop reading it so I won't be tempted to post. No need to spoil other folks' enjoyment.

I just wonder...Subscription/licencing/development costs of said protection system (I have no idea at all btw) for said fs product + the time to set it all up + resources to handle activations on the one hand VERSUS the lost revenue of 2000 torrent downloads of said fs product on the other (let's say of the 2000 torrents an estimated 700 are ACTUAL lost sales which sounds VERY optimistic to me but anyway). If said fs product costs $40 a pop this equates to $28000 in lost revenue.Anyone care to speculate on how close together the above two figures could be? Does this way of looking at all this even apply?

Fun topic.Just some observations, opinions and conclusions from my own experience:- Today most software and media copies running are pirated vs. paid- Globally, there is an alarming decay of traditional human values and morals taking place- Many (most?) people don't consider pirating a crime and have no real concept (or care) of its effect on developers- This is a problem of technology vs. society, as is the growing epidemic of spam, online fraud, id theft and other cyber crimes- Online-intrinsic software/services is the only thing currently "defeating" piracy- Fact is, you just can't trust everyone, and unfortunately that means "anyone". Giving a .zip is too easy and morally justifiable for too many people to not copy. Replicable software can/will/has to become obsolete to "solve" this problem. Live/ dynamic software with usage decided by the server is the only way forward.

Hello,What the devellopers think about the protection (USB dongle) used by the game "Steelbeasts"Peruse the torrents sites and try find a link for "Steelbeasts" cracked game :)Regards.Gus.

Hello,What the devellopers think about the protection (USB dongle) used by the game "Steelbeasts"Peruse the torrents sites and try find a link for "Steelbeasts" cracked game :)Regards.Gus.

while I have no doubt that SteelBeasts has not been "cracked" do you not feel that end users are paying the price for piracy , ie the price which will no doubt include the price of the dongle .Perhaps this is one way of beating piracy ,but the initial cost of the game may dissuade many from purchasing .Still noboby said it is easy :(