You're not getting my MONEY! Buyer Beware!

[mgh 89]

I am only looking at the extracts you posted as I couldn't care less about the EULA so based on the quotes above I would interpret that as :'The software is licensed on a per copy per device basis' = 1 copy installed for every 1 device. Assuming a device is a computer then I could install on as many computers as I want as long as each computer only had one copy installed.Another way of interpreting it would be one hard copy ie physical disks bought from the shop can only be installed on one device using one licence code. Each successive install requires another paid for licence code.BUT the above doesn't state that in that line. Nor does the term 'per copy' be interpreted as one license key install. A copy could be just that. It doesn't state original disk with one license key.'The licensed device is the device on which you use the software' = A computer that has FSX installed and is now in use then becomes the licensed device. As nothing in the above states I can only use one device at a time then in effect I could install onto as many computers as I want and use them all at the same time.There may be other definitions with the EULA which help clear up the above but I am only responding to the quotes presented.

The only rights you have are those given in the EULA as quoted. Beyond those you have no rights, other than any statutory ones. The only rights to install use that you have are specified by You may install and use one copy of the software on the licensed device. That is the only right you have. Note it states one copy and the, singular, licenced device. Once you intsall FSX on a computer that computer become the licenced device, and the only licenced device. You have no right to install another copy on the licenced device - nly one is allowed Also, you have no right to install it on another computer at the same time because that computer can't the licenced device. Obviously, you have the right to uninstall it and re-install it on another computer which then becomes the licenced device.

[TheDanger 182]

I agree. I wouldn't install two copies on the licenced device as that is in breach of the EULA as it clearly states only 1 copy per device.BUT the keyword here is 'copy'. It does not state a single licence keycode that has to be unique for each installation.My argument still stands - 'The software is licensed on a per copy per device basis' therefore 1 copy on one device = 1 license. It does not state '1 unique licence keycode per device basis'.

Once you intsall FSX on a computer that computer become the licenced device, and the only licenced device.

No it becomes a licenced device as does any another computer when FSX is installed on that.(Based only on the two quotes provided - I haven't read the rest of the EULA)

[mgh 89]

I agree. I wouldn't install two copies on the licenced device as that is in breach of the EULA as it clearly states only 1 copy per device.BUT the keyword here is 'copy'. It does not state a single licence keycode that has to be unique for each installation.My argument still stands - 'The software is licensed on a per copy per device basis' therefore 1 copy on one device = 1 license. It does not state '1 unique licence keycode per device basis'.

I do not see the relevance of keycodes. If as you say 1 copy on one device = 1 licence then that is the same as 1 licence = 1 copy on one device. If you have bought 1 licence then you can only have 1 copy on 1 device. It does not allow you to install additional single copies on as many different devices as you wish.

No it becomes a licenced device as does any another computer when FSX is installed on that.(Based only on the two quotes provided - I haven't read the rest of the EULA)

The EULA reads "The licensed device is the device on which you use the software". Note again the use of the singular. There can only be one licenced device per licence.You cannot imply rights other than those explicitly set out in the EULA. Without the sentence You may install and use one copy of the software on the licensed device, you would have no rights either to install or use the software. The only rights you have are those set out in that sentence.

[TheDanger 182]

I do not see the relevance of keycodes. It does not allow you to install additional single copies on as many different devices as you wish.

Unless the purchase of a serial/keycode or even just a basic installer states clearly that I am only purchasing the ability to install 1 copy on 1 device and that when 1 copy is on 1 device then no more copies can be installed until that existing copy is removed then I can still install as many times as I wish as long as it is on a separate device each time.

The EULA reads "The licensed device is the device on which you use the software".

So I can still install on as many devices as I want as long as I only use one device at a time.

You cannot imply rights other than those explicitly set out in the EULA. Without the sentence You may install and use one copy of the software on the licensed device, you would have no rights either to install or use the software. The only rights you have are those set out in that sentence.

As long as there is only one copy on one device then I would be within the terms of the EULA and therefore free to install on other devices as long as I only use one at a time.Regardless installing/configuring one copy of FSX is enough for me :(

[JSkorna 137]

Graham,Try installing Vista or Win 7 on more than one device and try to use it.So if you have 5 computers do you think that you can install FSX on each one and run them at different times and that they would all activate?

[mgh 89]

Insert the definition of licenced device into the authorisation and you get:You may install and use one copy of the software on the device on which you use the software.That is all you are authorised to do. It does not authorise installing additional copies anywhere else. You are interpreting it to mean:You may install and use one copy of the software on the device on which you use the software and install one copy on as many other different devices as you want.It just doesn't bear that meaning.

[quadraspleen 7]

Phew! I've been following this thread since its creation by Jose (good work, my man..somone say cat; pigeons?)It's a very very emotive subject, and one that for some years now has been close to my heart. I run an IT support company. Have done since 2001, and have been involved heavily in PC's and Macs in both a professional and personal capacity since the old Mac Classic, the 8086 and Windows 1 days. I'm not a dev, nor a "pirate" arrrr. I'm a techie. I know people who have cracked software - some very serious dudes who cracked way back and now work for the MOD and the Met Police (funny that, eh)I saw the first real frenzy of piracy, back in the mid to late 90's. I heard, as did most of you other oldies out there who cared (not many, given) about the literally millions of dollars that Kinetix/Autodesk spent on "protecting" 3D Studio Max 5; the second proper Windows-based version. Something like $20 million on "heavy protection". Two Hours. That's right. Two Hours. Oops. I realised then that you guys (the devs) cannot ever hope to win. I'm not saying you shouldn't try! But I am saying you cannot win. Ever. There is always some script-kiddie out there who will whip your butt given the right tools. I make music on the side (yes, it's really good ) There is a system called iLok made by Pace (it's a dongle thingy - And OMG I bow down to Pete Dowson; I had like _no idea_ dude, that you invented the term!! I'm not worthy) so, this Pace "anti-piracy" thing has been used on loads of Mac music softs for years. It works (it did) Loads of people used it, and guess what? You only needed one dongle! Cool! Oh, what's that? I can get Un-Paced copies of software? No? I can get a tool to un-Pace my own software? You cannot be serious? (no, I haven't got it; I don't own any Paced softs) but my point here is that someone has gone the extra mile and created a tool for people to not only use, but actually crack what was considered to be "un-crackable" software. Ouch.I come across people every day who sit both sides of the fence. Bigtime, too. I have met serious collectors of "pirated" titles. People who are like magpies, and have to get every "scene" release, no matter whether it's a game or an obscure bit of engineering soft that can only talk to a particular, old-school russian CAM machine; they don't care. I have also met people who obsessively collect a particular brand or software house (go figure...) and also proper companies who have installed many, many times the amount of software that they own. We have a game development company as a customer, and also many, many non-games related companies. It's funny how, when confronted by the fact that they are using too many copies of a particular soft, and that they may be running foul of copyright law, they are genuinely suprised. Even the games co who had too many copies of Office! ("NOT MY COMPANY IS IT!!!") were a bit "hazy" as to the continued usage ("it's £400 a copy though")And while we are about it, let's get this one out now: software piracy is not theft. It is copyright violation. Stealing a car/handbag/computer is theft. There was a device/item/tangible object; you stole it. There is no longer an object. Stealing a game from HMV is theft. When you copy software, there are still millions of copies of that exact same software in existence. It's the license to use it that you are violating. You fall foul of an individuals stated terms of "ownership", the EULA. Read one. They are craaaazy (well, certainly Apple and Microsoft's are). usually you don't "buy" a piece of software, how can you? It doesn't really exist as a discrete item. It's like trying to buy an idea. You buy the right to install and use it. This is fundamentally different from actually "owning" it. Where software and literature (and in some cases, music) are concerned you need to talk about it in terms of IP or "Intellectual Property". This is, and will continue to be a very hazy, and often hard-fought section of copyright law. If a person was to be prosecuted by a company for the violation of the EULA, it would be, as CoolIP has said with such alacrity, for the presiding judge to decide if the company even had a case against this individual. If they were prosecuted, they would not be prosecuted for theft. They would be prosecuted for copyright violation. So, let's inject a bit of reality here. And CoolIP and Jose, I'm on your side, dudes - Company B for me every time. Innocent until proven guilty still in the UK.I am not advocating the unauthorised dissemination of softs by any means, nor do i think it's ok to install two bits of soft on two machines unless, like Adobe, they actually say so in their EULA in big letters (which they do; so do M$ for certain titles) I just think that the paradigm has to, and will, shift. We are slowly seeing it with the music industry, as we will with the software industry. Some companies are already there. An example: We were recently given £25000 worth of software licenses (note: the software is free, we paid for the right to install and use it, except that we didn't) by SAP. 5 Professional licenses of their SAP Business 1 software. Why? Because we said we would mention it to our existing and new customer base. Huh? We don't have to commit to any sales? Nope? We don't even have to produce any evidence of having spoken to any of our customers about it? Nope. What gives, you might ask, as I did. It's like this: They know that people can "pirate" their software and get it for free. Big deal; it's really complicated, you need support to install and use it. Even so, why are they giving it away to a reprobate like me? Becuse it is bloody good software. Because I now really like SAP, because they have given me something. I am now commited to trying to sell it for them, even though I don't have to. I like their approach to selling. They treat everybody as a potential customer, not just the people who already own their software. This is how devs should think of "pirates". As a person who, as we have already seen will purchase a piece of software if they can't find it "quickly" enough. And while we are on that one, please Jim and the other devs who keep on about the impossibility of finding stuff on google. With the utmost respect to all of you, and please guys, I have no beef with any of you or what you've said; it's a free-speech thing. It's sacrosanct IMHO. You have your opinions and I totally respect them, but I can find you pretty much any soft you need of any kind without having to use my CC, on Google, within 30 minutes. It's all out there. The stuff that hasn't been cracked hasn't been cracked because no-one can be bothered, or it's just gone under the script-kiddies radar. No disprepect, again, but whatever hasn't been cracked now, will be. You go on particular IRC channels and say: hey, this software has a really cool protection system - any takers? Two weeks, max. Probably more like a day or so for the protection on most smaller titles. I am very doubtful that any popular title would still not have been cracked a year later, but I am ready to stand corrected. My point is this again: you cannot win (but again, this does not mean you should not try) EDIT: forgot to add: all the Steam titles are cracked. Portal 2 appeared about 18 hours after it was released. They all work in offline mode. I bought it (and about £100 of other Steam titles) so I can moan at the devs when it doesn't work lol And, I bought it because I am honest. END EDITThe basis must be in trust, not distrust. Treat people well and they come back, again and again, and I think, in essence, this is what Jose was saying, and CoolIP trying to elaborate on. Company B for me. I hate having to call the M$ woman to re-use the software I "own" "on how many computers have you installed this sofware? Don't you just love her?Anyway, I agree with Jose and CoolIP. Treat people as honest, and they will be honest. Forget the "pirates", you can't stop them, no matter what you do. Concentrate on us, the people who've already given you money, and we'll tell all our mates how cool you are (not give them our software lol)

[JSkorna 137]

Please do not conclude that I don't believe that Google cannot find stuff. Please do conclude that I believe that many-most of the Google links lead to dead ends, "open your wallet and give us your personal information, or to software that doesn't work. And stealing anything that belongs to me/the company I work for, is stealing. I am not into splitting the legal hairs of words. I am interested in preventing the lowest amount of theft that I can reasonably prevent.Let me ask you a question: Does your bank trust you?And one more: If Wolfgang or a customer like him was your customer, would you trust him?

[mgh 89]

Treat people as honest, and they will be honest. Forget the "pirates", you can't stop them, no matter what you do. Concentrate on us, the people who've already given you money,and we'll tell all our mates how cool you are (not give them our software lol)

Why don't banks treat people as honest and leave cash on display?If a company has anti-theft measures in place and then removes them what do you think its revenue will do - increase or decrease?

[CoolP 283]

Let me ask you a question: Does your bank trust you?And one more: If Wolfgang or a customer like him was your customer, would you trust him?

Up for another example run, Jim? How many are already there, from you, WarpD or N4gix? Do you really want any of the open minded guys to answer to it? I'm asking because we've already answered to all your previous examples with the outcome that you had to use another one to convince people since the last one always failed there. So see this as a friendly asked question.This thread shows three guys not getting the point while running against the same wall of ignorance over and over. There are people which tried to explain things much better than I ever could, and they all spoke about the actually need for a look at you, yes you when it comes down to really "fight" piracy and to not spoil valid customers at the same time.So if you don't trust my words and explanations, you may want to look at those guys. Quadraspleen is just one of them and his post or the one from ANZ121 are nice readings you should really take a closer look them. Not to mention all the other aware people around, already having posted some things.First of all, DJ Jose, who's complaining about the very nature of the thing. He, as a valid customer, actually got spoiled and is up to (or already has) left this or that company. He won't buy there, never again, until a change happens. A change to a 'we trust and like you mood', with a basic protection only as the fancy stuff doesn't help against pirates at all.But what happens is that your arrogance and 'hard-coded' (I really liked that word) fact basis is even stressed some more, showing more and more of the 'I don't trust people' attitude. Yes, I'm honestly feeling some kind of compassion for you guys since your world (you've described it in some of your posts) really is 'black' (sic!) when looking at the words you are using to describe it.The outcome of mistrust towards valid customers is .. mistrust, you've named it!If a customer gets treated like this, he will abandon you and switch to the friendly company which also protects the stuff, but doesn't do it in this across-the-board mistrust attitude and also doesn't use any of the unsympathetic force which already was described. How do you call such a customer by the way? Must be a word close to pirate when looking at your viewpoints.You bank example therefore will be a bank always thinking that the guy's money is fake. So he has to prove this not-fake status every day until .. he leaves the bank and chooses one with a single check only. Doesn't fit in your black/white world with the "easy" examples, huh?You still think that e. g. DJ Jose is demanding a open bank and money for all. Am I correct? Well, then read his statements and at least try to understand his valid viewpoints and the ones of some other people around. That would be a discussion worth to follow.Please stop digging your own grave when it comes to the ability to actually follow a discussion and convince people reading it. :wink:I won't help you digging that grave, but I'm losing more and more of the drive to help you out then, it's very deep already.As I'm always talking about some open question you guys are leaving in the open status intentionally while using some very professional descriptions like 'hard-coded numbers', I may repeat a vital one then.How, in rough terms, are piracy numbers, losses of sales, gains of sales through protection and customer happiness measured on your very end, Sirs? You seem so confident about your data base there. So this question really has some vital interest, I must admit.Let me help you a bit with the fact that the big industry of music, films and maybe other computer gaming titles (flight sim business isn't big, as mentioned) never ever was able to offer any valid database on those items. "Valid" means 'to be used in a lawsuit" and does not mean 'to impress naive customers with oh so big losses through piracy to enable a shocked mood for giving "good reasons" for heavy and data mining protection mechanisms'. The last sort of numbers can be found all over the Net, intentionally published by side companies of the big content providers. Sadly, they fail to "impact" so far and they also fail when a judge asks about their scientific fact basis.So, what about the measurement methods then? You seem to trust them (more than your customers maybe), so maybe you, therefore, are able describe them a bit to allow us "naive" customers a view. :smile:So you are able to measure pirates but you can't hold them back or even get them to take responsibility? That's odd, and strange. For me, you can only say that they are there, but how often, how strong or how successful they are, you don't seem to be aware of. Impolite assumption, I know.My true and honest opinion doesn't call your numbers to be wrong, I just say that, since you can't measure piracy, you don't even have valid numbers but assumptions only. Oh, some guy around may be offended by this assumption of mine, I know. Sorry for that.I don't call you a liar, I have no prove for it. So, as an outcome, I trust you, but I still ask questions. Hard to fit in the black/white only world, I know, but there's always something to learn about, right?

Why don't banks treat people as honest and leave cash on display?If a company has anti-theft measures in place and then removes them what do you think its revenue will do - increase or decrease?

You don't get the point it seems since nobody in this thread ever demanded "no protection" or "give away your stuff for free". By still trying to reduce all those valid statements from other guys to this simple and wrong view of yours, you only prove .. well, no good thing I guess.So lets hope that we can help you. First step, start reading what people stated here and don't assume the outcome of a post by just catching some signal words only. :(If you are intentionally "simplifying" things (in the wrong tenor) here: Nice try so far. Seems like some of us are able to spot your intention as well as some of us seem to be able to spot the arrogance and ignorance in the statements of the three 'I must know, I'm the dev' guys.As you see, awareness is a strong factor in a fight. And as a discussion is some sort of fight on a text basis, you should really know about your enemy and his abilities. Speaking in the piracy related thing, this awareness therefore is needed (vitally!) when trying to fight the thing.Some of the guys like quadraspleen gave you some awareness input, so please use and don't ridicule it. Thanks. :smile:The military guys around will know that you have to know your enemy before starting to shoot. Sure, when trying to shoot in all directions, you may hit some but you also may hit some of your close friends.Heavy copy protection does exactly that, shooting in all directions. Nice example, huh? Can't spot the pirates? Still shooting with the heavy guns? 'Ouch!' (quote from a valid customer)

[mgh 89]

You don't get the point it seems since nobody in this thread ever demanded "no protection" or "give away your stuff for free".

Treat people as honest, and they will be honest. Forget the "pirates", you can't stop them, no matter what you do.

That seems to be advocating no protection.

[CoolP 283]

That seems to be advocating no protection.

Wow, impressive. I mean, even if these quoted sentences were the only ones written, I wouldn't even dare to reduce their tenor to 'everything for free'. I also must have missed all the 'we are not speaking for getting everything for free' statements in this thread then, which are already stated in countless numbers.So, yeah, want to read them again? No problem when a guy understands things in the wrong way or reduces them too much, really.This happens, as seen. If it doesn't happen intentionally, I'm ok.

[JSkorna 137]

mgh,Trust everyone.Don't set limits.Don't attempt to protect your property from theft.If you do this, you will never go out of business, you will be richer than you ever thought you would be, you will have no cares in the world, and life will be perfect.

[CoolP 283]

mgh,Trust everyone.Don't set limits.Don't attempt to protect your property from theft.If you do this, you will never go out of business, you will be richer than you ever thought you would be, you will have no cares in the world, and life will be perfect.

Thanks for that attitude and reading ability statement, Jim. Maybe the'll make it sticky, like those numbers you seem to rely on are "sticky".Remember Ghandy? You're still in the "ridicule step", next one will be to fight the truth. Could be a hard time for you, so: all the best from your former customers.If your statement would really show your conviction and wasn't written in that funny way, I would question some senses of yours. But, as long as it stays there to just ridicule the valid statements of others, I'm ok. Sort of acceptance, expressed in your way. I respect your way.

[mgh 89]

Wow, impressive. I mean, even if these quoted sentences were the only ones written, I wouldn't even dare to reduce their tenor to 'everything for free'. I also must have missed all the 'we are not speaking for getting everything for free' statements in this thread then, which are already stated in countless numbers.So, yeah, want to read them again? No problem when a guy understands things in the wrong way or reduces them too much, really.This happens, as seen. If it doesn't happen intentionally, I'm ok.

Tell me what is it advocating?If you post in these forums you need to accept that not everyone will agree with you and not revert to personal attacks on those who don't.