Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest wathomas777

Confessions of an ex-game pirate

Recommended Posts

Guest Steve Small

>Life's realities remind me that we'll never really be rid of>the pirates. All we can try and do is make it less easy to steal. Piracy is just a polite word for theft.>This sort of activity is difficult to stop. Yes, but that is no argument for doing nothing. I don't subscribe to the theory that if rape is inevitable you shold lie back and enjoy it. >Another major concern to me is the hit on commerce that>anti-piracy methods have created. In their effort to stop the>casual pirate, software developers are unwittingly pushing>their customers away. Not so much of a concern for us at all simply because the VAST majority are not impacted because the VAST majority are thoughtful and honest people who accept the reality of life. In those two marathon threads were very few of our customers but there WERE a number of subscribers to the Warez URL we have been reading and monitoring for many months and they were having a good deal of enjoyment at the expense of our asses.It was a difficult call to blow that clandestine access but a few folks contributing to or watching our assassination needed a wake-up call. We have close to five thousand individual customers and we hear from maybe 5% of them ever. Most never comment in public for fear of the lynchings or flamings that will follow but a huge number write privately. Developers also write to us and say how much they support us, but almost all stop short of saying anything in public for the same reasons, the fear of the lynchings. Even co-developers and Publishers we work with and whom we considerd friends (?) suffer as we do but are typically reluctant to stand up and actually take a stand. Of all the contributors to the marathon threads, conspicuous by their integrity were Tom A, Bob K, Ken S and several other folks of principle who I won't mention but alone as developers were Rob Young(RealAir Simulations) and Ron Hamilton (Eaglesoft Development Group). Their files were available through that site as I also forgot to mention yesterday was the MAAM B-25. These developers (friends, not competitors) we consider friends who we'd help any time at all - not that they need it. Their views represent those of the vast majority of developers and users but these guys were alone in actually saying something on the occsasion of our latest lynching. As developers they stood up to be counted because they are principled, ethical men of character and they have seen some of the correspondence we get. Most developers place sales above principles : it is dreadfully inconvenient to have principles and sometimes it takes a toll but we really respect folks who refuse to be doormats. >The two recent monster threads in this>forum have opened my eyes to the extent that software sellers>are reaching into our lives when we purchase their products. >Methods like machine binding are short sighted and doomed to>fail. Still, you have to get used to them or the advances you demand in operating systems or applications just won't happen ...>It's ironic that this particular technolgy can only>achieve success on computers that are not upgraded, yet>computer technolgy changes so fast that many folks (especially>us gamers) are driven to live by an almost constant upgrade>schedule.I think it's unfortunate how few people really actually READ how these processes work. You change hard drives or operating systems and you reinstall. We support that many times daily, like Mr Richards' fifteen re-activations. Speaking of that person, after all the support and all the external costs we incurred supporting him, we refunded all his sales and terminated the licenses to be spared future encounters.>I have now made the choice to limit my online software>purchases. I simply don't want the intrusive and inconvienent>technology in my life. I think it's a good thing to make choices that suit the individual. I'd comment that I don't like Government or Taxes either, but I also like the fact we have a welfare system and a defence force. All we do is stop the redistribution of unprotected installers that can be passed around at will and reinstalled. We had to ditch our old delivery system because we knew we were fighting a losing battle to get it tightened up in any appreciable way. >Terribly short sighted IMHO.Yeah, crime is dreadfully inconvenient isn't it ? Epecially so for the victim.It is apparent to me that many people get lost in the philosophical aspects of this discussion and need simple, everyday examples to get clarity on basic issues. I am always looking for the analogy that illustrates a point, as some just don't get it. Like ... do you leave your car in the street, unlocked, with the keys in it and expect to find it there in the morning ? Do you leave the house unlocked and the doors ajar even when you are not home ? Would you leave your manufacturing plant open all night long with no security ? It's a real nuisance, but it's the price you have to pay to participate in contemporary society and in the unaccountable anonymity of "internet life" (likely an oxymoron) you have to take similar precautions. Like, I'll bet you have a firewall and anti-virus application installed on your PC's. These are poor analogies perhaps, but until you convert an esoteric discussion into everyday examples that have a personal dimension, many folks don't get it ...Best,.....Steve SmallCanberra, Australiahttp://www.fsd-international.com/team/Steve_signature.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Funky D

This may be on a bit of a side tangent, but it's something I was discussing today with a good friend of mine (who probably fits into group 1 and 4). We were talking about bigger software apps... Office, Photoshop, etc. The value of software is highly dependent on what it's used for. For instance, if you use Photoshop every day at work to create ads for magazines, it's well worth the $600 price tag. If you use Photoshop once a month at home to create a new signature banner for your AVSIM account, it's worth maybe $50 in your eyes. I think there should be a sub-category under the casual pirate: the person that pirates because the software's cost puts it out of their reach. This person causes no financial damage, because the software is too expensive for them to ever justify purchasing for themselves given the amount they will use it. This pirate may be the most beneficial to the software companies, which I'll get into below. I'm not justifying this type of piracy, but I think the software companies should cater to this group of people.Software companies should sell non-commercial versions of software: versions that are priced the same as educational versions, but can be used by anyone for non-profit use. Microsoft has started using this trick on Office to build market share. Place the $150 "educational version" MS Office box right next to the $400 "standard" version, put no true limitations on who can buy the $150 version, put an "OFFICE! $150!" sign above the educational version, and see what people buy. I'm guessing there are many people that bought the educational version without even knowing any of the licensing "restrictions" placed upon it.Back to the piracy issue

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

And your point is?That's it's OK to pirate software because the losses they anticipate are in the price anyway?That's just another lamer excuse along with the "punishing big companies for overcharging" or the "it's really a patch which they should give away for free" lamer excuses.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

That's indeed what he's saying it seems...

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

>This may be on a bit of a side tangent, but it's something I>was discussing today with a good friend of mine (who probably>fits into group 1 and 4). We were talking about bigger>software apps... Office, Photoshop, etc. The value of>software is highly dependent on what it's used for. For>instance, if you use Photoshop every day at work to create ads>for magazines, it's well worth the $600 price tag. If you use>Photoshop once a month at home to create a new signature>banner for your AVSIM account, it's worth maybe $50 in your>eyes. I think there should be a sub-category under the casual>pirate: the person that pirates because the software's cost>puts it out of their reach. This person causes no financial>damage, because the software is too expensive for them to ever>justify purchasing for themselves given the amount they will>use it. This pirate may be the most beneficial to the>software companies, which I'll get into below. I'm not>justifying this type of piracy, but I think the software>companies should cater to this group of people.>Actually it DOES cause a financial loss.Ever wonder why many companies now sell "lite" or "limited" versions of their fullblown applications?The person who claims he pirates only because he can't afford the product has more than enough choice of cheaper of free alternatives either from the same company or some other.You don't go into a car dealership for BMW and steal a 530i because you can't afford it do you? You go to a Ford dealership and buy a Focus or Fiesta (just an example).Same with software, piracy ALWAYS hurts someone. Maybe in your example Adobe isn't hurt by you pirating Photoshop, but JASC is because you would have bought Paintshop Pro had you not pirated Photoshop.>Software companies should sell non-commercial versions of>software: versions that are priced the same as educational>versions, but can be used by anyone for non-profit use. Some companies have this model, it doesn't help much.They are of course usually stripped down versions lacking the functionality only large corporations would need (like a development environment lacking integration with Oracle and Sybase databases).The pirates don't want that, they want the full product (even if they never use the extra functionality...).>Microsoft has started using this trick on Office to build>market share. Place the $150 "educational version" MS Office>box right next to the $400 "standard" version, put no true>limitations on who can buy the $150 version, put an "OFFICE! >$150!" sign above the educational version, and see what people>buy. I'm guessing there are many people that bought the>educational version without even knowing any of the licensing>"restrictions" placed upon it.>That's not Microsoft, that's the reseller...>Back to the piracy issue

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

Plus of course the vital (in that industry more than anywhere) issue of trust.You're a known cracker who now offers his services to a large software house to help them prevent other crackers.How can they trust you not to betray them and actually help those other crackers with the inside information you gathered while employed there?

Share this post


Link to post
Guest

Steve,Your comments were enough to get me to register to this forum. First off, I feel for your issues of theft but I believe your wrong on your choices of theft prevention. Your process is just to restrictive to the user. Very poor example with comparing software theft to rape. What really floors me though. I cannot believe that you would be more concerned with how and when an end user installs YOUR software that he or she paid for, than keeping a sale of that product. You will refund his money because its a hassle to you or your company to deal with. It is YOUR restrictions that are causing the problems not the customers. I can understand this more if you were providing a service and terms of a contract were not met by either party, but you are offering a sale of a product. How can you be conerned about financial loss with piracy when you don't seem concerned about holding on to the customers that you have.I wish you luck on how to find a balanced way to deal with piracy and hopefully these recent threads will at least let you look into other options for theft prevention.A folk that thinks he gets it.M. Terry

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Funky D

>Actually it DOES cause a financial loss.>Ever wonder why many companies now sell "lite" or "limited">versions of their fullblown applications?Companies wouldn't need to spend the money developing these extra applications if they just sold non-commercial licenses for the full versions in the first place. Many people are drawn to the full-blown application because of its popularity. They want to learn a professional program, possibly because they're interested in a future career in that field. The only option for these people is to buy the full program at full cost.I know this argument has been made many times before, but I think the financial loss as a result of piracy is completely overblown. Mind you, I'm talking about the higher-level programs here, not games and FS addons. I'm guessing most pirates are under the age of 25, with little or no income. If they can't acquire the program illegally, they'll just give up. They have no intention of ever purchasing the software at full retail price.I'm not defending these people; I just think the cost of software should depend on what you do with it. If you use it to run your business, it deserves a high price tag. If you use it to tinker and build your knowledge, it's not worth the high price tag.I think the future will probably come down to renting software, and I'm not really opposed to that if companies implement it correctly. People should have the option of buying software outright, or renting on a per-usage basis. The programs should be "smart" in determining how to charge the individual, based on their productivity and what they produce. Using Autocad as an example, a person creating a patio in 4 hours should be charged less than someone designing the first floor of a building in 2 hours. Using this example, each person is charged a fair price for what they personally create with the software.>You're still trying to make up excuses for pirates by saying>software is too expensve when it's mainly the piracy that's>responsible for that...Actually, I'm just trying to think of other ways for companies to curb piracy while making it fair to the individuals that use the software. The methods out there now are obviously not working; whether the future holds non-commercial licenses, utility computing, or tougher, more restrictive copy protection will determine the future of software piracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest IanP

So... When I bought Visual Studio 6 for just under half it's 'shelf' price, because I owned a legal copy of Borland C++ Builder, then my mother was offered the same package for just over half what I paid, the price of VS6 is entirely set by piracy? I'm sorry Jeroen, but I don't think so.In the example I gave above, Microsoft would have made a profit, selling the product at a quarter of the 'shelf' price, to a teacher. The only difference would have been the printing on the box and the enclosed license. How do I know this? Because the person who tried to sell the product to my mother was from Microsoft U.K. - not a reseller, they were trying to generate more business in schools.Would Microsoft lose money if a teacher sold software they had developed using an eductional software? Only because they set the price for a "commercial development" version versus a "non-commercial development" version where the only difference is words on a piece of paper.Don't get me wrong, Microsoft, the same as any other company, are fully entitled to set any price that they want for their products. Is this a sensible state of affairs, though? You may have your opinion, but I think it is utterly ridiculous.Ian P.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest wathomas777

Steve,I am very happy you joined this discussion. I will be the first to admit that piracy is a problem. Huge problem. But, I also doubt that anti-piracy methods have been very effective. There has never been any data that certain methods help deter or stop piracy at all. Hardware binding has been effective but does come with a pretty steep cost both financially and public relations wise. (Ask Intuit....)Which brings me to the method you folks have chosen to protect your intelectual property. In another message, I mentioned that the hardware binding method was pretty effective at detering corporate piracy, of piracy stemming from system integraters selling multiple spawned copies of an Operating system. You said in an earlier post that you use the same method as Windows XP. I can't help but wonder if that is overkill on your part. While hardware binding works well in static environments, on higher priced software packages, I can't believe that this method is leaves you any profit at all.The price point of your software surely can't cover the costs of even one support call. And yet, the customer you mentioned, must have finally sucked up the profits of over 15 sales, not to mention his own.Now I'm not one to tell you how to run your company (well, I guess I am...(grin)). But I would like to know something. Is this method of anti-piracy protection actually increasing your profits? I would think that this method has some real costs associated that come close to overshadowing your loss from piracy. Kind of like paying $10,000 for an anti-theft device for a $3,000 car.All philisophical debates, privacy concerns, bad karma from users who are now championing the 'poor user' aside. Is this method doing it's job? I am simply asking out of curiousity. I have done product activation with windows XP several times and have not had any issues with it.However, some things concern me when a "smaller" company employs the same methods.First is, that I may not be able to just reinstall the software at my convenience should something catestrophic occur to my system. Even at Microsoft, they have a time limit AND a 24 hour web and phone line that ensures that I can not only activate at any time, but have no need to reactivate immediately.Second, am I able to "resell" or "give away" the software. (Not piracy, simply uninstall, and give all CD's and documentation to a new owner), and if so, what notifications must I make so that the new owner is not stuck with software that is unusableThird, What happens if the company decides to "retire" or goes out of business.? I'm not just talking about a lack of support, I'm talking about a complete lack of functionality.I own Diablo 2, and that CD copy protection is horrid. In Windows XP it failed to function after a period of time. I had to go back to Windows 98. I would GLADLY support product activation to get rid of CD-Keys, and having to have the CD in the drive and all the other garbage. However, It's the percieved requirement of Always having the company around to "reactivate" it that gives me the heebie jeebies. Especially when I know that every support call you take, cuts deeper into your profits than other more passive measures.Thanks for your response and attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest Steve Small

Hello, Sorry I don't know your name and can't address you ... ?>Steve,>>I am very happy you joined this discussion. Well, it is hard not to speak up when folks with agendas want to lynch honest people :-(>Hardware binding>has been effective but does come with a pretty steep cost both>financially and public relations wise. (Ask Intuit....)We are mindful of that, but the option of doing nothing isn't really palatable.>Which brings me to the method you folks have chosen to protect>your intelectual property. In another message, I mentioned>that the hardware binding method was pretty effective at>detering corporate piracy, of piracy stemming from system>integraters selling multiple spawned copies of an Operating>system.We have a few customers who reinstall their operating systems every two or three weeks to 'keep them fresh' and regularly write for more activations. Our Licensing measures can't withstand operating system reinstalls without reactivation. There may well be valid reasons why folks like PR need to routinely reinstall XP every three weeks but I have yet to hear one. Your question about operating systems is interesting ...>You said in an earlier post that you use the same method as>Windows XP. I can't help but wonder if that is overkill on>your part. Our system is only like XP in that it is 'license management'. All our system does is bind the software to that machine just as Helge Schroeder did some years ago with FSNavigator and the mobo serial number. Some folks fairly ask 'what if FSD quit and we can't reinstall the software?". Well, in that case we have already the measures in place. If developing loses it's remaining appeal we certainly will NOT insult all our customers by dumping all our products into the freeware file libraries unprotected as an avionics developer recently did : to do that would be a monumental insult to all honest folks who have supported us. >While hardware binding works well in static>environments, on higher priced software packages, I can't>believe that this method is leaves you any profit at all.Well, you are correct that it is expensive, because part of the solution is externally managed and costs $$ to run. Trouble is, there is no cheap way to do it and as I said elsewhere, principles are sometimes costly, inconvenient, and in this case are both. >The price point of your software surely can't cover the costs>of even one support call. And yet, the customer you>mentioned, must have finally sucked up the profits of over 15>sales, not to mention his own.We blew all profit very early on but on balance it evens out because we never hear from 95% of customers. The demands on developers to support extraordinarily complex works of minimal commercial value are quite high in terms of time. Cost-wise ... you blow more at Pizza Hut in 30 minutes than you do on any quality FS add-on which lasts for a couple of years with constant updates. FS projects generally are way undervalued in real terms of time invested.>Now I'm not one to tell you how to run your company (well, I>guess I am...(grin)). But I would like to know something. Is>this method of anti-piracy protection actually increasing your>profits? No. But it is decreasing our costs in some areas, like bandwidth charges. Our product file delivery bandwidth (as opposed to website bandwidth) is down over 75% whilst sales are normal. There is a message there and the message is that 99% of our supporters accept the reality of life. >I would think that this method has some real costs>associated that come close to overshadowing your loss from>piracy. Kind of like paying $10,000 for an anti-theft device>for a $3,000 car.No, more like paying $2,000 to protect a $10,000 car and when you look at how we cut existing users huge discounts you can see that made no business sense whatsoever. It was an act of simply keeping faith.>All philisophical debates, privacy concerns, bad karma from>users who are now championing the 'poor user' aside. Something folks forget is that developers are customers / users too. >Is this method doing it's job? I am simply asking out of>curiousity. I have done product activation with windows XP>several times and have not had any issues with it.It seems to be but we are not complacent. There are no issues with reactivations and no data collected. How can there be ? A string of numbers are meaningless. >However, some things concern me when a "smaller" company>employs the same methods.>>First is, that I may not be able to just reinstall the>software at my convenience should something catestrophic occur>to my system. Why would you not be able to ? You only have to send us an email and you will have replacement files and activations immediately.>Even at Microsoft, they have a time limit AND a>24 hour web and phone line that ensures that I can not only>activate at any time, but have no need to reactivate>immediately.Well, you may have to wait a few hours for an email but that's all.>Second, am I able to "resell" or "give away" the software. No. Licenses are not transferrable and in most countries that's illegal. >Third, What happens if the company decides to "retire" or>goes out of business.? I'm not just talking about a lack of>support, I'm talking about a complete lack of functionality.See above. >I own Diablo 2, and that CD copy protection is horrid. In>Windows XP it failed to function after a period of time. I>had to go back to Windows 98. I don't know anything about that protection system, sorry. >I would GLADLY support product activation to get rid of>CD-Keys, and having to have the CD in the drive and all the>other garbage. That is what we have implemented. Once you install the software it is Licensed permanantly and unless you reformat repeatedly you never have to even contact ...>However, It's the percieved requirement of>Always having the company around to "reactivate" it that gives>me the heebie jeebies. Unfortunately there are no solutions that satisfy everyone. Discussions on Copyright and Piracy are always polarising arguments. >Especially when I know that every>support call you take, cuts deeper into your profits than>other more passive measures.I've been doing product support and reworking 2002 files for FS2004 since 04:00 and now I am going to have my first cuppa coffee. Truly ... I need to get a life !Best,.....Steve SmallCanberra, Australiahttp://www.fsd-international.com/team/Steve_signature.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Guest SoarPics

<>Just curious, Steve... What agendas are you speaking of? Indeed, who is trying "to lynch honest people"?.Your objectivity seems to be clouded by your overwhelming passion to stop the thieves. A noble positiom and one that many of us here share with you (despite your insinuations to the opposite).And since you feel so compelled to offer me a lesson in ethics (above), I'll return the favor by offering you a lesson in business.I recently lost $1800.00US in my company because of a bad lot of material. We actually spent $8000.00 doing all the work with the material before we realized there was a problem. The material certs showed that all was fine (me thinks the vendor is no longer employing the inspector who signed the certs), we simply did our job machining the material to our cutomer's specs. But the material was bad. Now, I could have picked up the phone and turned the matter over to my attorneys. But in the whole scheme of things what would I have gained? Their bill to me to retrieve that lost revenue would have far exceeded the loss itself. So I had to eat my principles, and take the lesser of two evils... because that was best for my company. In the end, an agreement was reached where the material manufacterer will send us a check for $4400.00, and the distributor (whom I purchased the material from... and did nothing but pass the stuff through his inventory) will send me $1800.00. Of course, none of this was fair, just prudent.I'm not suggesting that you "write off" a certain percentage of loss to the pirates. I respect your determination in trying to stop thieves from stealing from you. But when you start losing customers due to the methods you utilize, many here can clearly see that the return on investment simply isn't there. Soon FSD will be known as the "thief hunters" rather than a premier FS addon developer. And then where will your company be?Regards,Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Guest TimD

Greg,I'm very sorry to hear about the business loss you suffered. But as someone who has lost experienced this, you surprise me with your inability to walk in the other fellow's shoes.We have no desire to start a crusade. We are simply trying to survive Greg. Why are you so unwilling to appreciate that? I have read your messages with interest over the past several years, so I know you are not callous. As I pointed out to you in the thread in the general FS forum, an FS development house is not a get rich operation. The number of units an FS developer generates is not the multi-million volume that big retail software houses generate. This is a very small hobby. Ask any FS developer what sort of numbers are involved here. An FS developer does this for love of hobby, not love of money. But siphoning off 30 - 50% of this already low volume is not simply just some kind of inconvenience. This is the difference between life and death of a small development house, and in the case of Steve and me, the difference between making the house payment or not.You also wrote:

Share this post


Link to post
Guest SoarPics

Tim,<<...you surprise me with your inability to walk in the other fellow's shoes.>>The fact that I am involved in this discussion is proof enough that I do indeed have the ability to walk in your shoes. I simply choose not to. That fact is not born of any callousness. It stems from my right to choose with whom and where I spend my hard earned money. And why. For me, it is a simple business decision.It is my belief that the technology FSD utilizes to verify rights of use bona fides is intrusive and inconvenient. The inconvenient aspect may well be proven by the troubles you, Steve, and I had a few weeks ago trying to get the Commander upgrade installed on my system. The technology's intrusiveness is something I'm still researching.Beyond the all important privacy issue (which is rooted in each customer's principles), the matter of inconvenience (the business aspect of this debate) may well cost more than it's worth to you. The sad truth is that FSD is not Microsoft. Many people will simply choose to pass on your products rather than deal with any inconvenience during purchasing. Each of us MUST submit to MS's activation policies just to make our computers work. Sadly, companies like yours do not have the same captured audience. Many potential buyers will simply choose to pass on purchasing your products.And therein lies the point of greatest concern to me. I very much want to see FSD offering it's great products for some time to come. But if customers are driven away, you won't be around very much longer.You folks should understand that most flight simmers choose to stand with you in your ethical battle. But many of those same simmers may very well choose not to be customers for the reasons we're discussing here. My involvement in this discussion isn't because of the ethical issues. From that perspective my commitment is unwavering. My involvement here is rooted solely in the business side of this anti-theft methodology. And what those methods may cost (in lost customer sales) the provider.My challenge to you is to provide a strong system of protection for yourself without sacraficing customer trust and dedication. This doesn't necessarily have to be an "either/or" predicament. It all comes down to creating a solution that works. For anybody else reading this... I wish to point out that the decision to cease the efforts to install the Commander upgrade on my machine earlier this spring was mine and mine alone. The support and assistance I received from Tim and Steve over several days was patient and thorough. But after several hours of lost effort on all our parts I finally concluded that a $7.50 upgrade wasn't worth all the effort we were throwing at it.Regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Guest TimD

"The fact that I am involved in this discussion is proof enough that I do indeed have the ability to walk in your shoes. I simply choose not to."Pardon me for pointing this out Greg, but this does sound rather callous. But I don't believe that is what you intended.What you are not telling everyone here Greg is that the problems you were experieincing installing that upgrade had absolutely nothing to do with the license management system. You never got that far. The problem had to do with a bug in the installer (which was clearly my fault) that was quickly corrected. No association whatsoever with the software's protection system, so I don't know what "ethical issues" you are referring to. What you are doing here is spreading misinformation.Your unwillingness to wait for us to find a solution to the problem, unlike the other users, is the only reason why you never installed the upgrade. And we gladly refunded your purchase, did we not? http://www.fsd-international.com/team/TD_forum_sig.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...