FSD! Im over add-ons with anti-piracy built in.

[Guest]

Vortex, I just dropped in to learn a few things and make an observation or two:-) I don't really have much time to spend on this issue so I'll be brief and answer your concerns.1. The consumer always has the right to purchase or pass! This right is actually the basis of all business:-) 2. The sorry truth is that thieves have brought these headaches to honest consumers in our society:-) I never implied that honest consumers should be punished for anything nor did I express that it is somhow OK:-)3. I believe that honest people do have the voice to apply pressure to the folks who host the crooked sites:-) I also know that it ain't gonna happen because as someone once said it's like "herding cats" or "stomping out brush fires":-) As soon as one is shut down, two more popup:-)Best,Ron Hamilton

[Guest]

Hi Tim,in my message I never claim to have all the facts, in fact I state quite clearly the following.IG>...the concern I have here is that piracy HAS NOT been proved beyond a shodow of doubt! - now if that is the case i.e FSD..I question the comment made by asking the rhetorical question...now if that is the case......The only facts I have is what I have read in this thread. The fact that you did unlock his software to me implies that he had not commited any violation, unless off course you decided to unlock his software for some other reason, from what I can read apart from re-installing windows some 7 times Peter did nothing wrong. PS: I hope you enjoyed the FSD Piper Cheyenne 400 LS Review on our last FSTV show. Ian Gwww.fstv.us>We never accused him of piracy. We simply asked him to>explain why his license had been used to unlock 7 computers. >He responded evasively at first, and then with abuse. Once he>finally explained the usage pattern we did in fact unlock>the software for him.. That was yesterday, before he came>over here and started this flame thread.>>I appreciate your point of view, but you need to have all the>facts before making such a judgement.>>>http://www.fsd-international.com/team/TD_forum_sig.gif>>

[Guest kyle]

Just a simple question here....From what Steve Small posted above, FSD uses a very unreliable method of tracking installations. They are using the IP address from the user's computers. In many cases, ISP's do not assign a static IP address (mostly DSL or cable/high speed). Instead, they give you a dynamic IP address which is forever changing. I can go through 3 IP addresses in one week.If this is the case - which it clearly appears to be, I can see the frustration by both parties. One may have the impression that the other is stealing/pirating. One has the impression he is being called a thief. In both situations it is, unfortunately, the customer that is that one.If you gave me the impression that you thought I might have been pirating, I would probably be a little pissy too.

[Guest Steve Small]

Why not try reading post 93 which rejects the original complaint and (here's a twist) inserts some facts. Most folks who have written today happen to feel that fifteen authorised reinstalls for two products on seven different computers in the space of just four short weeks shows we are more than just "accommodating".Peter has never been prevented from reinstalling the software : all we did was ask him to explain what is going on with the abnormal usage patterns. Few would be reluctant to explain such abnormal usage but unfortunately, Peter was not of that mind......Steve SmallCanberra, Australiahttp://www.fsd-international.com/team/Steve_signature.gif

[Guest]

>What is so dang alien to so many folks about simply being>honest ? This is a problem all across the Internet the anonymity it appears to afford some causes them to take that whole atmosphere to a new level.We

[Tabs 2,790]

Question for Tim and Steve,When you say that the different PC ID's in that install log you poasted are different computers, does that mean they're just different OS installs or can you actually verify that they're all completely different machines with different CPUs, motherboards etc? I think that's important - your suspicions I think would be justified if you knew for certain these installs were on totally seperate physical machines - if however this is just someone who likes to do a lot of HD reformatting and playing around with different Windows installs, and that's a viable explanation for the different ID's then there's a big problem, because there's nothing wrong with doing that...Ryan

[Guest]

Hi Steve,Bottom line here is really simple. Does FSD know that Peter pirated the software?Granted 15 re-installs of two products is excessive but it does not constitute piracy. To be honest I DO NOT blame FSD for questioning it, I would have done the same.Ian Gwww.fstv.us

[Guest Steve Small]

Unfortunately, your simple assessment is incorrect. Peter didn't understand what a Proxy Server was and in his confusion made uninformed statements inferring that someone was ripping him off when it was his ISP's IP's accessing our server. He didn't understand what a proxy server is or what it does and why the server log shows an IP different to his static. So, the fog clears a bit more. Hopefully you can see a bit clearer now......Steve SmallCanberra, Australiahttp://www.fsd-international.com/team/Steve_signature.gif

[Guest TimD]

Ian,Yes, we enjoyed the review very much, thank you. We very much appreciate what you are doing for the community.My comments were only intended to present the facts, and were not so much directed toward your post, but rather, to the whole thread in general. The original post contained a lot of half-truths and misrepresentations.To answer your question, yes, we unlocked the software yesterday because it became apparent that despite his evasiveness and abusive mail, the unlocks were in fact due to hardware changes he made on his system. We never came to the conclusion that he was a pirate, or accused him of such. He is simply an unpleasant individual who enjoys doing damage to others and watching the effects, in my opinion. As JP points out above, there are more than just a couple of people who inhabit the Internethttp://www.fsd-international.com/team/TD_forum_sig.gif

[Guest Steve Small]

Unfortunately, your simple assessment is incorrect. Peter didn't understand what a Proxy Server was and in his confusion made uninformed statements inferring that someone was ripping him off when it was his ISP's IP's accessing our server. He didn't understand what a proxy server is or what it does and why the server log shows an IP different to his static. So, the fog clears a bit more. Hopefully you can see a bit clearer now......Steve SmallCanberra, Australiahttp://www.fsd-international.com/team/Steve_signature.gif

[Guest JonP01]

>The point is, before you demand that I give up 30% of my>income, you would have a lot more credibility if you were>willing to do the same.>>As far as the way license protection is implemented, we are>all ears. How would you propose this be done, without>monitoring usage in some way?>>http://www.fsd-international.com/team/TD_forum_sig.gif>>Hi Tim,If it were me, I would implement the exact same system that Microsoft used for the Australian edition of Office 2000. In this case, users were required to activate their software. Whilst Office 2000 would run for 49 times before activation was required, in this case FSD would not let the product run at all without activation.With the Australian Office 2000 implemenation, the user could perform as many re-installations of the product as they wished (including HD re-formats) without having to make any contact whatsoever with Microsoft. The code could be used over and over again ad infinitum. However, the product could ONLY be installed upon the single specific machine for which the code was given out. So if an unscrupulous user tried to install it on the computer in the next bedroom, it simply would not work.To my way of thinking, so long as the software can run on one machine and one machine only, I reckon this is about as secure as you would need to get. This is what you are doing already. BUT importantly, where the Office 2000 implementation seems to differ from FSD's current implementation is that Office 2000 does not "care" if the user loves indulging in his or her private fetish of formatting their hard drive every week. The user can still only run the software on one machine. And that is my principal objection to the current FSD implementation - that FSD is still exercising a certain amount of control or discretion in terms of providing continued authorisations to users who re-format their machines and / or re-load their OSs.In terms of hardware upgrades, the Office 2000 implementation handled this quite well. Even with my unsatiable propensity to continued upgrading, I only needed to get a new code twice in two years from Microsoft.The second thing I would do is to ensure that a "master" unlock code would be made available in the event that FSD were to cease trading. Perish the thought and I reiterate I'm not suggesting FSD are doing anything to make this happen. But companies do come and go. People move on or retire eventually. By doing this, FSD are ensuring legitimate users can continue to use the products without concern as to where the next unlock code might come from. Unless of course, FSD would not want the users to continue using the product, in which case this should be mentioned at the time the product is originally purchased. The other option is to put an expiry date on the activation (say two to three years after the product is first issued). This would be my preferred way of doing things, and that is what Microsoft did with the Australian version of Office 2000. From 14th April 2003 onwards, the Australian version of Office 2000 no longer required activation. A possible problem here is that some users will put up with the major inconvenience of a system date put forward a few years in order to avoid this.I also think it would be a good idea to make FSD's anti-piracy measures clearly known in reasonable detail (not excessive detail for obvious reasons) to prospective purchasers before they actually went ahead to purchase a product. I think the purchaser is entitled to know these things. It seems quite a few people today have expressed surprise at the current measures FSD are adopting, and they are current customers. btw, it is perhaps a pity that FSD is practically the whole subject of this thread, as my views on the matter apply equally to other vendors of very high quality add-ons as well.So in summary, I don't object to vendors protecting their intellectual property, and I don't object to software activated to run on a specific machine, right down to the individual serial numbers of all the components. What does concern me is that I feel the user should have total freedom to perform as many re-installations on a specific machine as they like without the knowledge, blessing or discretion of the vendor concerned. The user should also be guaranteed an assurance that they can continue to use the software if the vendor were to cease trading for some reason. Otherwise, the user should be informed at the time of purchase that they may be unable to continue using the software in the event the vendor ceased trading.That still leaves the question of how much hardware modification constitues a "new" machine in the eyes of the vendor. Again, I say that Microsoft have a fairly reasonable implementation here both in Office and the XP OS.

[Guest]

Ditto.... I believe it is the developers job to decide if piracy has been commited or not. Using IP's is not the most reliable way of doing it (neither is mac addresses for thet matter) unless a developer knows FOR SURE that piracy has been commited then they have no grounds to stand on. I know of another developer which in my opinion handles the piracy issue quite well, once a pirate is found, believe me they nail the pirate to the wall and that to me is the right way of doing it.The other side of the coin here is quite simple ... Do not crucify FSD for this one incident, they are a professional crowd who produce good software. They DID give Peter his re-install. Ian Gwww.fstv.us

[Guest A321]

>The point is, before you demand that I give up 30% of my>income, you would have a lot more credibility if you were>willing to do the same.>>As far as the way license protection is implemented, we are>all ears. How would you propose this be done, without>monitoring usage in some way?>>http://www.fsd-international.com/team/TD_forum_sig.gif>>Ok tim, I dont think the license protection system, is as bad as the attituide some feel they have got, when asking for a key rest. Surley you must understand the Dynamic IP address with Dial up. Also I have not Installed My Commander Since I bought it in feb, If I were to requset A key Reset because, for example when FSACOF comes out, Im doing a clean install because, I have too much to unistall, so I want a clean start. Will I get a reply saying, "Your key is rest", or will I get a reply asking me "why", Which is, to be frank none of your business, and what if the IP is Differnt not to mention I have since upgraded My Motherboard and CPU, will I have to beg you again for my key to be rest to install a product I have bought, even though it was your server that caused the problem, and made me try more than 4 times.See Tim, maybe if it were all handled with a smile, maybe people would not mind.

[Guest Ken_Salter]

I am going to lock this thread since it is getting REALLY long and I am having a hard time looking at it (by if I'm having problem, then I'm going to fix it! ;-))Anyway, I'll start another thread on this subject and you can resume talking there....http://saltydogfly2.avsim.net/images/avsim_sig.jpg

[Guest Steve Small]

Ian,At no time has 'piracy' ever been inferred in any communications. All we asked for was an explanation as to the abnormal usage, and when we got it we accommodated the request. This guy has not EVER been disadvantaged and he has never been accused of anything. Heaven forbid he ever buys Win XP ... Microsoft will never be the same again. .....Steve SmallCanberra, Australiahttp://www.fsd-international.com/team/Steve_signature.gif