You're not getting my MONEY! Buyer Beware!

[CoolP 283]

Being a typical teen, he'd never once considered that what he'd done was wrong.

Nice teen viewpoint, N4gix. Your world and the across-the-board viewpoints become more and more clearer and when you don't trust my statements, it seems perfectly ok. When I question yours, I'm a liar and therefore offending you. I got that, be assured. :(Bad thing about it, some of the readers might have caught that impression too so you are actually just "refining" your image and maybe the one of your company while I'm just showing something.May I be forced to remain silent now when you are speaking of examples (they are, you didn't give names or a reference) or may I, in a common understanding of personal freedom, still question your facts?This, Sir, was a rhetorical question, you don't need to answer it but, of course, you may. That's your freedom and I actually don't feel offended by it.Would it help you to know that I could be a teen too? Sorry, just trying to trigger some guesswork there. But forgot about the fact that you already know everything while not being able to answer some questions or to remain free of obvious attempts to drive a constructive discussion down.Sir, the customers in this very thread showed a more than open minded attitude for the most parts, following and enhancing a nice discussion, while around 3 or so (=not all, there are very positve exceptions around) devs in my eyes seem to struggle hard when explaining their moves or at least trying to raise some understanding for them.That's my very personal viewpoint on this and I'm always happy to get surprised, positively please.

[JSkorna 137]

Bill,You should have been nicer to him and that would have stopped him.Or maybe explain that software for personal use can be used in any way he wanted and that he didn't need to feel one bit guilty about it.

[Chock 17,769]

I mostly agree with the points made regarding the need to have protection on stuff, however there is one that has been put forward that simply does not make any sesne - if those Google searches don't lead to 'gold', then what are developers worried about? Surely that would mean there's no pirated versions about? which I know is untrue because I know people who have bent copies of stuff. In fact, I frequently come across people I train on Photoshop, Illustrator, Dreamweaver, InDesign 3DSMax etc, who have a bent copy of that at home on their PC. So to claim that those google hits are all useless is to shoot one's own argument up the &@($* if you are arguing in favour of protection for software.Al

[Wolfko 0]

Well, in that case, I agree with Jim. If you want to use 2, you need to buy 2.

:( Seriously now, off course I haven’t used the 2 rigs simultaneously at the same time! So I also haven’t used the software twice at the same time. Actually I haven’t ever fired up the old rig again after I got everything installed on new one (I still have it though).Wolfgang

[JSkorna 137]

Al,It's the folks that say: "here friend, I purchased this, but you can use it too, for free."It's the person that uploaded to MegaUpload last month that attempted to share with anyone, that I had removed.It's the person that posted a video on YouTube using a product and then posted a download link and license key to a product that I had removed last month.We cannot eliminate stealing %100 of the time, just as locks don't protect a house %100 percent of the time.Wolfgang,We know you are proud of what you do and don't feel guilty one bit. Multiple installs are still multiple installs whether they are used at the same time or not.

[n4gix 4,947]

Nice teen viewpoint, N4gix.

I'm sixty-two years old and have been dealing with teens (and their parents) as a priest for many decades now. Believe me, I've had teens tell me stuff in the confessional that would curl the eyebrows of a crusty old-school Marine drill sergeant... :( Your's is a typical debating style though, albeit far from original. It's not difficult to note that you failed to address even one single point in my previous reply. I simply call it the "bloviate to boredom" style of discourse. Perhaps it's simply that you enjoy the attention, not to mention the sound of your own virtual voice...As my late mother frequently said, "If you can't dazzle 'em with your brilliance, buffalo 'em with bull s..t!" :(

[CoolP 283]

It's the folks that say: "here friend, I purchased this, but you can use it too, for free."It's the person that uploaded to MegaUpload last month that attepmted to share with anyone that I had removed.It's the person that posted a video on YouTube using a product and then posted a download link and license key to a product that I had removed last month.We cannot eliminate stealing %100 of the time, just as locks don't protect a house %100 percent of the time.

Ah, that's so sad since really all "folks" are like this, right? But, from your statements, you seem to "know" about them all and also hunt them down, successfully. :rolleyes:If one guy then questions your oh so clear facts and knowledge, you state such matured things like this one.

Bill,You should have been nicer to him and that would have stopped him.

Impressive attitude! Who wouldn't respect it?Jim, you may be in the same role as N4gix. You are posting in this thread with the clear consequence that people see (because they, now, can read) what you're thinking about them, about you and you're (from your own statements) oh so nice and effective protection methods.It therefore really seems like some other devs act a bit more aware of themselves and their business focus (which still are the customers, not the pirates). They not only use basic protections only (since all protection fails so far, basic and fancy, very, very close in the time relationship), but also remaining polite and customer oriented without stating proud stories about hunted down pirates.I did state this before and I'll do it again. In my eyes, your attitude is more part of the "sales" problem than you may thing, the Eaglesoft guys are included there.

Your's is a typical debating style though, albeit far from original. It's not difficult to note that you failed to address even one single point in my previous reply.

Trying to turn the tables now, Sir? Lets, once again, let the readers decides who of us two explained things while another one just stated some and tried to play the victim role for more than one time now to avoid .. answers, Sir. :wink:I did not get the impression to sound very superficial, insulting or even impolite in the general meaning of it. I've also reacted in the most mature way there was to statements of yours and you may not trigger the heavy emotions on this end, sorry, Sir.Want to talk about the EULA or the success facts of heavy protection? Want to comment to my viewpoints maybe or some of the guys which already stated that they prefer type "B" companies, with a customer focus?Feel free to do so but please don't demand respect and good will by just telling the folks that you have seen it all. There may be things still out there to discover and one of them may be your own attitude.

[n4gix 4,947]

I mostly agree with the points made regarding the need to have protection on stuff, however there is one that has been put forward that simply does not make any sesne - if those Google searches don't lead to 'gold', then what are developers worried about?

Al, I never said that torrented, cracked versions of any software aren't available, only that links to them aren't likely to be found via Googling...Genuine peer to peer torrent links generally aren't available to the Google search engine. There are of course some well-known (and many not) websites that do aggregate torrent file links, but Google doesn't search them...For the most part though, one would need to know about and join one of the semi-secret usenet usergroups to be privy to most shared files and source links.As an exercise, do a Google search for any product at random. Follow all of the returned links. Try to find just one that doesn't ultimately wind up asking you to crack open your wallet and pay something for access to the "gold..."

[Wolfko 0]

Another "funny" (on the first view) thing is that one industry tells you that you "have" to buy nice PC systems, at least two for every person and the other one than sets up EULAs to force you to buy every software product twice

Same as you would buy a car and, after paying and loading up your family, a guy jumps in and states 'if you turn that key, you're accepting to only drive some left turns, not at night and only when the temps are above 20C'.

The above brought the following to my mind.You own a family car, but only the father is allowed to drive it. If the wife would like to drive too, the car has to be bought a second time, if the daughter...Sorry, I couldn't resist. Please don't stone me! And no, I'm not a teenager. :(

[CoolP 283]

As an exercise, do a Google search for any product at random. Follow all of the returned links. Try to find just one that doesn't ultimately wind up asking you to crack open your wallet and pay something for access to the "gold..."

Ehm, just wondering. What sort of proof would that trigger then, N4gix? Do you expect the guys to post their findings then? Here, at Avsim?Still not up to talk about e. g. some EULA statements by the way? Avoiding answers can happen in many ways, one would be to distract the readers with just another topic. Maybe even teens know about some basic rhetoric things, not only the older guys around. :(Lets talk about that customer viewpoint of yours for example. That 'black world' (citing there, from WarpD). Can you or any other guy describe it in some more detail?This may lead to a better understanding of some of your viewpoints and the strong believe that heavy, sometimes customer-spoiling, protection is the way to go while other companies show that there are more things to care about than bloody pirates.

[WarpD 824]

Facts:1 - There are people who do steal software. Those who steal software know they're unlikely to get punished.2 - There are people who share software they've purchased, knowing it's wrong. Those who share software they've purchased know they're unlikely to get punished.3 - There are people who crack software protection so it can be stolen. Those who crack software protection know they're unlikely to get punished.4 - There are people who purchase software and abide by it's licensing.Based on any customer information provided by said potential customer, no one can determine if the potential customer falls into any of the above four categories. Considering that there are four types of potential customer, it makes no sense to design copy protection to the benefit of type #4 if the other three types can easily get around it.It's just simple, plain common sense.

[CoolP 283]

Facts:1 - There are people who do steal software. Those who steal software know they're unlikely to get punished.2 - There are people who share software they've purchased, knowing it's wrong. Those who share software they've purchased know they're unlikely to get punished.3 - There are people who crack software protection so it can be stolen. Those who crack software protection know they're unlikely to get punished.4 - There are people who purchase software and abide by it's licensing.Based on any customer information provided by said potential customer, no one can determine if the potential customer falls into any of the above four categories. Considering that there are four types of potential customer, it makes no sense to design copy protection to the benefit of type #4 if the other three types can easily get around it.It's just simple, plain common sense.

And, to stay in that common sense thing (does it include any legal viewpoint too by the way?), if 'unlikely to get punished' is included, what use does all that fancy protection have then?Especially when looking at spoiled customers (running into limits, hardware-checks or something), avoiding to buy at a certain dev again? Who's punished there? I see both sides, customer and dev. Customer can't fly his bird, dev doesn't get money. Pirate still happy.Is that the targeted outcome of this heavy protection you are promoting here? Since this protection doesn't stop piracy, the question looks valid to me.If it is that useless (and it may also add costs when you are using some licensed protection, right?), why stick to it?Other thing, why even care about 1-3 when your only reliable (and influenceable) source of fun and outcome of your business are the No 4 guys? As said, other devs already seem to have understood that point, leaving the spoil-techs out of the game.

[Wolfko 0]

Wolfgang,We know you are proud of what you do and don't feel guilty one bit. Multiple installs are still multiple installs whether they are used at the same time or not.

Let me clarify first, I'm not proud of what I do!This is out of the FSX EULA (as quoted by mgh)"The licensed device is the device on which you use the software. You may install and use one copy of the software on the licensed device."So where does the above say that you are not allowed to have the software installed on more than 1 device? It only says that the device on which you use it is the licensed one and that you may have only one copy of the software on this very device.So no word about multiple installs on different devices.You see, I too am good in nitpicking. Jim, I always highly regarded your contributions to the Avsim forums, but today you are overshooting. I think you are better up focusing on the real pirates.Wolfgang

[WarpD 824]

And, to stay in that common sense thing (does it include any legal viewpoint too by the way?), if 'unlikely to get punished' is included, what use does all that fancy protection have then?Especially when looking at spoiled customers (running into limits, hardware-checks or something), avoiding to buy at a certain dev again? Who's punished there? I see both sides, customer and dev. Customer can't fly his bird, dev doesn't get money. Pirate still happy.

The customer is part of society. Society determines if/when/how a person may be punished for committing a crime. Since society (the customer) has seen fit to provide little to no recourse in that regards, it is in fact society (the customer) whom has set the 'path'. Also, since society (the customer) has seen fit to provide little to no recourse in dealing with software theft... society (the customer) has forced the developer to find their own method of protection. As for 'punished'... no one is punished. Copy protection isn't a punishment, it's a protection... much like carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense.

Is that the targeted outcome of this heavy protection you are promoting here? Since this protection doesn't stop piracy, the question looks valid to me.If it is that useless (and it may also add costs when you are using some licensed protection, right?), why stick to it?

We've already answered this more than once. It's protection, to protect the developer's assets and investments in their products from theft. Since society (the customer) is not going to bother, someone has to. It's effectiveness has also been answered, you just refuse to believe us. We stick to it because it works, and extremely well too.

Other thing, why even care about 1-3 when your only reliable (and influenceable) source of fun and outcome of your business are the No 4 guys? As said, other devs already seem to have understood that point, leaving the spoil-techs out of the game.

No single developer is bound by what any other developer does any more than you are bound to purchase the same brand of milk as everyone else on the planet. It's your choice, after all.Oh... and as for 'reliable'... you couldn't possibly be further from the truth. You have no idea of that which you speak.Since you don't develop software and clearly don't deal with customer service and/or support... how about you stop pretending you actually know what you're talking about in that regard?Oh... and let's make something crystal clear. The only person in this thread calling customers 'spoiled' is you.

[CoolP 283]

Oh... and as for 'reliable'... you couldn't possibly be further from the truth. You have no idea of that which you speak.Since you don't develop software and clearly don't deal with customer service and/or support... how about you stop pretending you actually know what you're talking about in that regard?Oh... and let's make something crystal clear. The only person in this thread calling customers 'spoiled' is you.

Since I really like this last paragraph and really couldn't establish a more clearer view on some "noble" attitudes and their "logical" fact basis around, I will not comment on it and just enjoy its presence. But, regarding that 'ain't no spoiled customer around' statement of yours. Did you read the thread title lately?