More On Policing Shareware 509
RHW22 writes "Washington Post's Rob Pegoraro looks at shareware, focusing on the question of whether or not this industry can survive if people never actually cough up $$ for the product. He mentions Ambrosia Software, 'a developer of Macintosh games and utilities in Rochester, N.Y., could stop guessing after it revised its payment system last year. The new system aims to stop people from using pirated registration codes in two ways.' Read his column here." We mentioned this several weeks ago, with a link to Ambrosia's description of their system and what led to its adoption.
Most shareware these days isn't really shareware (Score:4, Interesting)
If it can't save - It's a demo
If it pops up excessive nag screens - It's a demo
If major functionality is locked - It's a demo
Re:Most shareware these days isn't really sharewar (Score:3, Interesting)
One of my friends is the co-developer of Cover Your Tracks [ffsoftware.com] and I joked with him once that he made it to the "big time" when there were cracks published for his program's licensing code algorithm.
I *TRIED* to buy shareware.. this is the problem.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think shareware authors should be paid for their work. Shareware is cheap, shareware is great..
But...
In fact, I tried on 3 instances to buy/register shareware.. and this is what happened.. I think this is part of the problem...
1)Trumpet (a TCP IP stack from several years ago).
Buy the program, registration never shows up in m ail.. wait.. email back and forth..wait some more.. in meantime, trial expires, re-install wait somemore. Client I am billing hours for is getting unhappy.. Calling to Australia to get it sorted out was not fun either.
2)DFX (an sound effects addin for winamp)
Liked it, and tried to buy a copy with their VISA card purchase screen... then.. nothing happens.. no registration comes.. nothing..wait days... nothing happens, no reply, no program... nothing.. I write email to them.. nothing happens..no reply..
Finally I *CALLED* the company, to ask them what is going on. They said that my visa transaction was rejected (but they never bothered to inform me of this, even though they collected my email address (just to send me spam I guess?). When I asked the sales rep at DFX what is wrong, they told me that my destination address and billing address were different, (I am an expat overseas) so.. transaction just gets automatically rejected, bin'ed.. period. No mail, no reply, no followup, nothing.. rejects just goes to
They didn't email me when the Visa was rejected (or ask where I live.. or anything), nor did they even bother to reply my original emails.
The answer the DFX rep gave me on the phone to all this was... "well, it is just a $15 program, so we can't spend too much effort (ie any!) to deal with things that might come up".
3)NJstar
It is a great program. But they wanted me to send checks to Australia or something in AUS dollars.. gee.. how to I do that.. the bank will charge me $50 in processing fees (after waiting in 3 lines at 20 minutes a pop because no one would know how to draw up a foreign denominated check), for a $25 program..
Those are my stories..
..and people wonder why they don't register their shareware...?!.
...because it is too complicated
to pay for it, thats why.. fix that, and then
I am ready to buy lots of great stuff.. but
right now it is just too much hassle I discovered,
so I just stay away from it..
Re:I *TRIED* to buy shareware.. this is the proble (Score:2, Interesting)
I've only registered two shareware programs, both times it was a snap.
Since I started using Linux there isn't much that I want to do that isn't solved by Free/Open Source software. But, when I was doing the Windows thing I found a few shareware proggys that I liked and I registered them when they became programs that I relied on. However, I never would have mailed in a check -- if I wouldn't have been able to pay online I wouldn't have registered.
Now that there are several easy ways for merchants to collect money online (Yahoo!, PayPal -- even though PayPal seems a little sleezy these days...) there should be no reason why it should be difficult.
Re:I *TRIED* to buy shareware.. this is the proble (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, Ambrosia themselves admit they have a flawed design. They admit they have inconvenienced paying customers. The fact that I should ever have to interact with them after the initial purchase of their product, just to use the product is absurd. Their prices for their products are more than reasonable (except SnapzPro X, I can create an AppleScript that does everything it does with only a default install of Mac OS X), but if any time I go to run an application, and it won't run because of something the author has programmed, that sounds like a bug.
The story on their website is fascinating in terms of a study of human nature, but they have twisted the reality that they tried to base a business around their hobby (which is exactly what they said), then throw in the "baby factor" (which sounds suspiciously like stories you hear from welfare queens: "I need money for my baby I made without thinking about the fact I had to have money to support it.").
Their editorial would have been more effective if they had left out all of the starving artist ridiculousness, it only sells their talent short. I wish more shareware authors would just say, "I am a talented programmer that makes worthwhile applications, and I made them with the intent of being paid for it. Stop ripping me off." Instead you always hear, "You should pay me for my program so I can eat and put diapers on my baby."
The truth of it is that shareware is a sketchy business model, and if you're going into it without realising that, you're going to get burned. I also don't see any difference between these new shareware registration schemes and Windows XP's Activation.
Sorry if I sound like I'm downing shareware, I'm just downing shareware authors attitudes. It's just in my mind Shareware = Application one or a couple talented programmers have worked on, Open/Free (as in speech) = Application tens to hundreds of talented programmers have worked on, and you don't hear OpenSource or collaborative programmers spouting the "will program for food" mantra.
Re:I *TRIED* to buy shareware.. this is the proble (Score:3, Interesting)
Shareware for Palm OS devices have a nice solution for this: they have agreements with various online sites to take payment for them, & apparently have ways to accept foreign currencies. (For an example of this see http://www.tealpoint.com/register.htm.)
Is there an equivalent service for Windows & Mac customers?
Geoff
Re:Most shareware these days isn't really sharewar (Score:2, Informative)
True shareware has absolutely no limitations whatsoever. I would still consider software with nag screens shareware, but I suppose that might be something of a grey area.
Re:Most shareware these days isn't really sharewar (Score:3, Informative)
From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (13 Mar 01):
shareware
requests some payment, usually in the accompanying
documentation files or in an announcement made by the software
itself. Such payment may buy additional support,
documentation or functionality.
See also {careware}, {charityware}, {crippleware},
{guiltware}, {nagware}, {postcardware}, and {-ware}; compare
{payware}.
{The Conception of Shareware
(http://www.halcyon.com/knopf/history.htm)}.
[{Jargon File}]
(1997-10-11)
Re:Most shareware these days isn't really sharewar (Score:2, Interesting)
The internet defeats the purpose of shareware. Back in the day shareware was distributed by one person sharing his collection of shareware floppies with another friend. If someone liked the program, they could mail a check to the author.
The only limitation ever put on shareware back then was like... a game that had maybe 1 episode. You could mail money to the author and get 10 extra episodes.
What do these folks expect? (Score:2, Interesting)
Is troll your middle name? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why shouldn't shareware authors expect to make a profit? Because you say so?
Shareware is a distribution model - you like it so you register it, recommend it to your friends, etc - nothing more, nothing less.
Too many people equate shareware with free, and those that resort to password cracks are the worst kind as they can't even use the "I just wanted to see if it was what I wanted" defence.
Sure, most people will take advantage of the situation and never register software that they decide to use beyond the trial period, but some people are more honest and will happily pony up $20 for a package that does the job they want done.
But saying that the authors, the people who invested their time and effort into code that other people benefit from, shouldn't expect to see a return on their work is downright unbelievable.
Re:Is troll your middle name? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Is troll your middle name? (Score:3)
Why shouldn't shareware authors expect to make a profit?
And then you answer your own question:
Sure, most people will take advantage of the situation and never register software that they decide to use beyond the trial period, but some people are more honest and will happily pony up [...]
That's exactly why they shouldn't expect to make a "profit", because most people aren't going to pay for something if they get it up front without having to pay for it.
Re:Is troll your middle name? (Score:3)
No, because the shareware model, having been around for a long, long, time only makes money if you have something really slick to offer. You only deserve remuneration commensurate with the quality of your offering.
Years ago I released several useful programs as shareware. While they were useful to some, they weren't, in any way, "killer apps." I found out that even though I spent my time on creating quality - though marginally useful - applications, that time didn't translate into monetary remuneration.
Should I be bitter about the fact that a few used my programs and didn't pay? Or more accurately, should I re-examine what I think is valuable?
An example of a shareware program that made money is ProComm. It stands alone as a defacto standard of exceptional usefulness, a 'killer app' that deserved its success.
Profitability in shareware is a measure of the author's ability to offer something of fantastic value. While the author spent hours in development and thinks he deserves monetary gain for doing so, the public will decide whether it merits squat.
So, no, shareware authors should not expect to make a profit.
Re:Is troll your middle name? (Score:2)
..and how is this different from any other business?
Preserving what the moderators missed. (Score:2)
Re:Is troll your middle name? (Score:2)
Why shouldn't shareware authors expect to make a profit? Because you say so?
In a free market, nobody should "expect" to make a profit. If a shareware author's chosen activity doesn't make him enough money, he should find something else.
A shareware author shouldn't look at how many copies are in use, they should ask themselves, of all the things I could do to create income, am I getting the best return by writing shareware? If Yes, continue writing shareware, if No, then do something else.
Of course, when you actually check the number of copies, most shareware authors will find that people are using the software without paying.
The same is true for music as well. I read a sound bite somewhere that 2 albums were copies for every 1 that was sold. This was BEFORE the "MP3 (r)evolution". Yet the music business survives. Because they have nice profit margins.
Now, I don't fault people for trying to get MORE money for the same amount of work. But if they don't succeed, there isn't much else to do, because they're not entitled to it in the first place! The harsh reality of free markets.
Re:Is troll your middle name? (Score:2)
I read a sound bite
*sigh* time for bed
Re:Is troll your middle name? (Score:2)
No, because for the most part it's a silly distribution model. They can expect anything they want, but that doesn't mean they're going to get it.
Or in other words, they shouldn't expect to turn a real profit, because only a few people are actually going to plunk down $20 for their crappy utility.
See, the problem with shareware is that people want $5-$20 for something that's usually inane and/or poorly written, and people are either going to use the trial version for as long as they want (if that's an option), find a crack (for the less-ethical), or find a different solution. Buying it would make people feel ripped-off, and most people don't like to feel like that.
There are exceptions of course, as id software and others have shown in the past. Heck, I paid for the Crossover plugin, because it did what I wanted and the money is supporting a decent cause. (I don't know the numbers for how many others have bought it though... this would be interesting to know.)
But otherwise, people shouldn't expect to write their first VB app that does some inane thing (crappy address book or take a screenshot or something) and expect people to pay $5 for it. They have no right to make money. That's not how the system works. (Although many businesses would like to think they're guaranteed such a right, from the CueCat people to the RIAA and MPAA.)
If you've got a good business model, plan, product, and your target market actually exists, you can expect to make money (although there are no guarantees... your competitor may still be one better.) But if you've got a crappy product, silly business model, and a target audience who isn't going to pay, don't expect a profit to come your way.
So shareware authors are all gullible? (Score:2, Funny)
Show me (and the authors) a distribution model that gets as much potential exposure with next to no marketing spend and perhaps I'll consider your argument.
Relying on the honesty of others might not be as profitable in 2002 as it was in 1952 but to say that it can't work at all is foolish. Ever heard of WinZip?
Re:What do these folks expect? (Score:4, Interesting)
Shareware authors, and everyone on the internet for that matter, need to ask "Why would I spend my money on this"? I'm sick of hearing websites complain that people don't register for what amounts to a few worthless extras. Would you register for that worthless trash? No? Don't complain.
A good example: If I didn't view the slashdot subscription as a tipjar, there is no way I would EVER consider paying for it. As a long time /.'er, I probabably will.
The shareware, software, or service I see being successful is that which has a service behind it.
Codeweaver's Crossover plugin is arguably worth the money. (As an above poster said, this really isn't shareware as much as it is a demo though.) Those that provide extras for registering - such as sending a CD. For the internet age, DigitalBlasphemy is a another excellent example. Providing an excellent freeware sample gallery, and then a relatively low annual fee for access to the full gallary and then discounts to artwork CD's/etc...
When providing something extra to those that pay, the honor system works. When treating your customers DECENTLY, the honor system works. But when you suspect your cutomers to be criminal from the start, and treat them like trash, you deserve what you get. Registration of shareware should be EASY - not something that requires a complete hardware identification of my machine, 3 CDKey's, all my personal information, and a blood sample. - And if they aren't having that many people register - they're probably asking too much or selling trash.
What the internet needs a little bit of old-style business sense. Something I see almost none of.
The only effective way (Score:4, Insightful)
Headlight Software has made lots of money from Getright registrations, despite some people having pirated it. I've registered it myself. (I think it was $20, not $25, when I did, though.)
If a software company wants too much money for a piece of shareware, users will get a patch or key generator rather than pay. If the software nags the hell out of the user when he installs it, he'll get mad. I know I do.
Re:The only effective way (Score:3, Informative)
That's where the real revenue hits come in - when downloading the key/krack is easier than registering, and users who would have paid, if they had been forced to, take the easy way out.
BTW, there was a brief experiment done by a shareware author (Colin Messitt), who inserted code that would cripple his app for half the users, and have full functionality for the other half. Who would get which version activated was totally at random. One of the observations from this experiment was that the crippled version had a MUCH higher rate of registration/payment than the non-crippled version. The price for the utility was $25. A copy of the article is here (google version) [google.com].
Mind you, if you release "true" shareware (no restrictions), you essentially provide the "krack", and can fall victim to users just being too lazy to register (or falling victim to the perception that since they can use the software for free, that's all its worth.)
This isn't true of all users, of course. But the grim truth is that there aren't enough scrupulously honest users out there that value your software enough for you to build a thriving business without some protections in place (at the very least, some sort of nag.) Most of the shareware authors I know would agree with me on this point.
Re:The only effective way (Score:3, Interesting)
It's probably the best-designed shareware I've seen in my almost 9 years of computing. You can really feel like you got your money's worth.
And registration really does kill off the adware component.
I've seen altogether too much shareware that is either ill-behaved junk, some species of spy/adware that doesn't turn off gracefully when registered, or is overpriced for what it does, to the point where now I very rarely download shareware at all. Free alternatives aside, sometimes a much better commercial product costs less!
Re:The only effective way (Score:2)
It also made my price point; at $20 I register some shareware programs, while at $40 it'd have to be a truly amazing piece of software. (I've actually registered software at that price level; Conseal Firewall, back before McAfee bought them out.)
From a former Warez K1dd13 (Score:2, Interesting)
1) A key generator: Create your own personalized registration key. This was my favorite way to pirate and it usually doesnt take the professionals long to create a keygen either.
2) A crack: completely disables the 'time checking' on the shareware by altering the binaries in some way
The piracy prevention methods outlined in the article won't have any effect on key generators or cracks.
P.S. This is such old stuff. I remember shareware companies keeping blacklists and time stamping keys in 1997. It did not slow me down at all
Why is this news?
Re:From a former Warez K1dd13 (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course -- but then, that only applies to those who can't make their own cracks.
It takes time, of course -- but that's good; it means that those whose time is valuable (ie. those who have jobs and can afford to register) have a financial incentive to buy a legitimate license; while those whose time is cheap (ie. a high school kid without a job who's trying to learn reverse engineering.. that is to say, me, back in the day) can fend for themselves. (And no, I never redistributed my cracks -- helping those who could afford to pay get out of doing so isn't something I aspired to).
Re:From a former Warez K1dd13 (Score:2, Insightful)
Alright, as a math major and a former warez monkey, ill bite. We know the public key. I'm assuming the program itself is the holder of the public key. Assuming you couldn't just pull the program itself apart to grab the private key, which is pretty unrealistic assumption imho, but alright... it would boil down to, worst case, factoring n. Which isn't trivial, but the important thing here is that it's constant. One person needs to do it on one machine. Once. Then, you make a wonderful keygen, and it's all over.
It's a bit disturbing just how insecure most programs are. Sorry to be the one to tell you...
Many people have issues running executables from sources as trustworthy as warez sites
jeeesus, you know this is grasping at straws. Try to tell me that your average amatuer punter who seeks out cracks on http sites in the first place will balk at running something from a website.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Then you never really own the software! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Then you never really own the software! (Score:5, Informative)
If done right, this isn't strictly true. A registration system only needs to rely on central servers if data used for the authentication process changes, such as a System ID or a timestamp, the latter being used in Ambrosia's system.
A simple authentication system would take the registree's name, address, and perhaps a keycode given at regtime to create a hash for the authentication server. If that hash is valid (meaning the registration actually happened), the authentication server will respond with a countercode that the program uses to unlock itself. If this countercode is not time-limited in any way, there's nothing logisticially preventing it from beging shown to the user, and thus permanently recorded; it will still be valid so long as the user remembers his name/address/etc.
If changing data is used for the hash, however, then there's a trickier situation if the authentication servers go permanently down. Most schemes would have the server respond with a sepereate countercode, and thus an old one would not work to unlock the program.
One solution to this problem is a master-key; a nonchanging constant that could be released if the company goes out of buisness. This creates security flaws, however, if the key is found out before the company goes out of buisness. Also, having a master key for the product out there would significantly reduce the possible value of the software "asset" in bankruptcy proceedings, so the courts might not allow the key to be made public.
A possibly better alternative would be to have the company release a patch that turned off the date-checking code in the program. Although this doesn't create any security holes in the product while the company's still alive, it does require that the company know it's irrevocably going bankrupt, and the programmers must have enough knowledge about the banakrputcy and power to release the patch -- neither of which are particularly likely in large corporations... after all, management can spin off the now-crippled masses as a "customer base" for future revisions to be sold at auction.
What's really needed is some sort of "dead-man's switch" so that if the company suddenly drops off of the face of the earth, the software will still work. To do this, the software should become non-functional if it receives a negative response from the auth server, instead of becoming non-functional if it fails to receive a positive response. The reg-server hostname should be hardcoded into the software somewhere (binary data file or program executable -- NOT a plaintext file), and the software (given use of an expired regcode) will try authenticating with the server on run and every hour or so until it receives a positive or negative response, in which case it will update its datafile and not try again (with that regcode).
"But Wait!" you say, "Isn't that system inherently insecure, as malpeople can crack the software or selectively block access to the auth servers?"
This is true, but, as the Ambrosia article says, the vast majority of people will do very little beyond trying a cracked regcode -- even installing a crack is beyond the vast majority of people who would typicially use the software; configuring special firewall rules is probably out of the question. (This is also why I said "put the server info in a binary file", as instructions to remove the data from a textfile is easy enough for most users.) Software registration is a game of 90%'s, so eliminating 90% of potential copyright infringers is about as good as you can get for reasonable effort. For people who _do_ tell Zonealarm to not allow the program to connect, a nag screen on startup to the effect of "This software has not verified its registration, click OK to continue" will get another fraction or two to register -- admittedly, it would be a pain if the company went out of buisness, but it doesn't have any bearing on the functionality of the software, especially for something noncritical like a game.
Running the software on a computer without internet access at all is another possibility of getting aroud the auth scheme, but that's becoming increasingly less likely as time goes on -- more and more computers are getting connected in some way, shape, or form, and shareware is largely distributed over the Internet now anyway.
Admittedly, this isn't a 100% perfect solution to the tradeoff between infringement-possibilities and functionality in the face of bankruptcy, but I'd guess that it's 80% of the way there, and it would require no changes to the keygen routines themselves.
--
The ideas expressed in this writeup are expressly placed into the public domain.
Re:Then you never really own the software! (Score:3, Funny)
I'm really glad my Linux machine is totally free and if Microsoft, or Ambrosia goes out of business it will still keep working.
Isn't it the other way around? If your Linux machine keeps working then MS will go out of business?
:) (oh, all you MS-bashing bashers - try not to take this too seriously?)
yeah, yeah - off-topic. I've learned my lesson and will never stray from the righteous path of the all important "topic" ever again. After this one.
Re:Then you never really own the software! (Score:3, Insightful)
No, these things are not guaranteed, they could just piss all over you. But considering they trusted you enough to pay, maybe you can trust them not to leave you high and dry if they go out of business.
Re:Then you never really own the software! (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, the whole point is that they didn't trust you to pay. This is a company that's out to make money (that is not a bad thing), and they admittedly will inconvenience the end-user if that means they can make more money (that is a bad thing). From a business standpoint, when you're going out of business, it's because you can't make money anymore, or because you can't make enough money, so it doesn't make business sense to pay people to work on the very thing that is causing the company to go out of business* (*see also BeOS). The only probable scenario is that they might release the source, which has been mentioned, but that's just a scenario. We've yet to see that played out by anyone but Bungie, and if I recall correctly, the Marathon source code release was under the radar of Microsoft.
Re:Then you never really own the software! (Score:3, Interesting)
I think either you or I have misinterpreted how Ambrosia's system works.
My reading of Welch's explanation [ambrosiasw.com] is that if Ambrosia goes out of business, your key file will still work. It's just that if you lose it (e.g. hose your system and don't have a backup), you won't be able to make a new file from your old numeric registration code (assuming Ambrosia is out of business).
So really all you have to fear is: you have a catastophic data loss and Ambrosia goes out of business. Only then do you face the situation of losing the game you paid for. That is bad. But it doesn't sound any worse than old-fashioned commercial software, where if you lose your distribution media and all backups, you're equally screwed.
Ambrosia will free(beer) its SW if it goes under (Score:2)
I would expect Ambrosia to put out a fix for this when they went under.
According to a moderator on an Ambrosia board, if Ambrosia Software goes out of business, it will release source code for all its software [kuro5hin.org], essentially turning it into free(beer)ware, if not free software.
Re:Ambrosia will free(beer) its SW if it goes unde (Score:2)
Re:Ambrosia will free(beer) its SW if it goes unde (Score:2)
...unless the code is already in escrow (as the link discusses), in which it's too late to do anything about it.
"can't function without Internet"? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not Shareware (Score:4, Insightful)
Shareware is fully-functional software for which you are *encouraged* to pay the developer (if you find it useful). You are also encouraged to share it with your friends, hence the name shareware. It is not time limited. It is not missing any functionality necessary for normal operation. It may have annoying messages nagging you to please pay, but if it is hampered in any way in which you must pay to get the fully-functional version, it is a commercial demo.
It's offensive that so many people these days seem to be freeloading off the good will and generosity of the shareware community in order to sell their commercial products!
Re:Not Shareware (Score:3, Insightful)
Basically, shareware is an trialware that never expires. Every single shareware program that came out in past 5 years is exactly like that (if not more restrictive). Check their licenses and you will see...
Futhermore, this was never ever point of shareware - it was always ment to be free to try & share but pay if you use it (not pay if you want to pay).
You wishing it to be something else, does not make it so... I work for shareware company and we depend on sales to pay out salaries... the fact that we hold to the true meanings of shareware (full functionallity, no expirations) only hurt us today. We dont drive BMW's or have expensive office's, we dont have overhead yet most of shareware companies are struggling. I suspect this to advance futhermore and you will see more and more restrictive shareware programs in future, same way you see more and more freeware going into some kind of payware.
Reason that modern shareware went into trialware zone is that people like yourself do not want to pay for something if they dont have to, hence developers could not pay off their own bills anymore, much less anything else. What you are talking about is modern freeware programs, most of which have donation pages for people to donate few bucks for developement... and few ever do, even with huge freeware programs, I doubt anyone would get enough money to pay their own hosting bills.
Sad part is that pioneers of modern shareware, such as Jasc (whose Paint Shop Pro was one of the major shareware contributors long, long time ago) now release time limited demoes because thats the only way to sell their own programs.
Re:Not Shareware (Score:2)
The strange thing about my copy of PaintShop Pro 4 was that the time limit didn't work. It would fire up even after it said "you have -437 days left on your free trial period". I finally felt bad enough about this to go to their website with my $49 to buy a copy. Problem was, they hiked the price to $99 for the next version. Threshold exceeded.
That prompted my to learn the GIMP. My initial reaction to its GUI was revulsion, but I wiped the puke off of my keyboard and kept learning it. Now I am actually getting used to it. It's more powerful, zero cost and guilt-free.
I think that over time there will be less room for old-style shareware writers to operate squeezed between established commercial vendors and ever-improving free software.
Why I hate shareware (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I'll just quote Linus: " In my opinion, shareware tends to combine the worst of commercial software (no sources) with the worst of free software (no finishing touches). I simply do not believe in the shareware market at all. "
Perhaps I've been spoiled by Linux, but I'm getting into Mac OS X now, and there are tons of little apps that on Linux would be free, but some chump wants $9 for on OS X. Yeah, part of it is me being cheap, but I keep going back to Linus's quote and end up not buying it.
"Shareware + source" might be interesting, even with a non-RMS-compliant license, but I haven't seen it. (And of course, I'd prefer full GPL if possible.)
OSX (Score:3, Insightful)
Mostly what needs to be ported, IMHO, are small things. Network and system monitoring tools that can go in the dock, or other little things like that. Sure, the big stuff would be nice too, but I'm certain there are a ton of little apps that might even only take a few days to port for someone who can get used to Cocoa.
Re:Why I hate shareware (Score:2)
I do take issue with the latter portion of the remark - things like DragThing are quite polished and stable, and remarkably cheap (the Windows market would easily have it at a much higher price, I suspect).
There are people out there creating free apps that challenge the shareware market. I really wish more shareware authors would give out source, if only to accept patches from interested developers, but I think the rampant piracy of the shareware world makes that unattractive. How long before someone released a version with protections completely removed? The authors don't want that.
Re:Why I hate shareware (Score:2)
Anyway, are there any companies that do this kind of thing? I wort of wonder if it's feasible or not -- whether people would actually buy a set of data files.
Re:Why I hate shareware (Score:2)
macosx.forked.net [forked.net]
Re:Why I hate shareware (Score:2)
"Shareware + source" might be interesting, even with a non-RMS-compliant license, but I haven't seen it. (And of course, I'd prefer full GPL if possible.)
Depending on how you mean "shareware + source", I might be doing that with what I call "serviceware", which is the idea that once my programming services are paid for, the source is released. Users are under no obligation to register, making it essentially freeware for anyone but developers. At this point, not a single bundle available at our website [subsume.com] has had their development paid for in registrations. I still like the concept, though.
Re:I was thinking about something like that (Score:2)
The developer tools CD ships with every copy of OS X and is also freely available from developer.apple.com. How much cheaper can you get (the compiler is gcc so it's even RMS compliant). In fact most of the tools you'd use for developing on OS X is the same stuff you'd use on Linux.
Ultra cheap, easy to pay (Score:2, Interesting)
let's examine it in depth.
What are 94% of FTP client users doing? WAREZING
now that we know that, we can assume, that most people won't pay $35 or whatever.
So the solution would be to make it ultra cheap, say in the neighborhood of $5 a license. That would greatly expand the user base, and if they implemented payment via paypal as well as credit cards, people would be more likely to impulse buy.
$5 is nothing, i'll spend that impulsively. Even $10, after that, we move into the area where we stop caring about the company (think of how many sharware progs you use, (wellyou linux people dont')). If they were that cheap, i'd by each one that I use.
The problem with $5 shareware (Score:2, Insightful)
Blatant theft? (Score:2)
In this way, it's obvious that if you take a Ferrari from the dealer without paying, there is one less Ferrari the dealer can sell. This is not the case with 'intellectual property'. What's more, it is concievable, that were the authors so inclined, every single computer on the planet might have this shareware. The cost would be negligible. No matter how generous the exotic car dealer is though, there are a finite number of Ferraris. These are too completely seperate things.
I'm not sure that there are any moral rights to what modern law calls intellectual property. Certainly, someone has the right to take credit for software that they have written, and those attempting to infringe that right are in the wrong. Do they have a right to make certain no one is playing the shareware game, unless they have paid an arbitrary sum? Should the exotic car dealer be allowed to forbid you from loaning your Ferrari to a friend (not that he would have to, it would have to be a damn good friend) ? If the exotic car dealer has no rights once the car has left his possession, how can a software author? Can the author be certain, that the pirated copy they are trying to prevent, isn't just a legit copy that was loaned to another person? Lots of questions.
You could claim that I'm comparing apples and oranges, and that these are new laws for new problems. Except that I don't see a real problem. People with vested interests have decided they want to make a profit this way, and when normal human *non-pathological* nature gets in their way, they buy a bunch of laws. I think that deep down, most people can see how twisted this is... as I'm sure that shareware titles vs. open source titles statistics will show.
Re:Blatant theft? (Score:2)
They have the right to do whatever they feel the market will bear. Microsoft charges for Office, Oracle for their DB, and whomever else for their wares. (Warez?)
>Can the author be certain, that the pirated copy they are trying to prevent, isn't just a legit copy that was loaned to another person?
It's shareware. Just download a copy. There is no need to "loan" a copy. In many cases, it is 100% functional until it expires. Compare this to Word, which has to be paid for up front, even if it turns out you'll do better with a less capable (read: bloated) word processor.
Re:Blatant theft? (Score:2)
If there is no need to loan a copy, they how can the authors be so upset over "piracy" ? Clearly, it's not theft at all. They're not upset that someone has taken a copy of the software that they can't sell... rather they've lost the chance at opportunistic extortion (though legal extortion). I'm supposed to be sympathetic?
Hell, M$ threatens economic treason, if the DOJ becomes uppity. The nerve that these people have, is incredible. No wonder it's such a mess.
Re:Blatant theft? (Score:2)
I'm going to presume you're not just trolling, although it's hard to tell. Here's the scoop:
They put the software out there and say "If you're going to use this, pay us; if you don't think it's worth paying for, don't use it." If you take their software, use it, and don't pay, from their perspective it's hard to interpret that as other than a big "fuck you".
Do they lose anything? For an individual case, it's hard to say, but statistically, it's certain: at any given price, some of those people would have paid, and all of them would have paid at some price. $50 too much? How about $5? $0.50? $0.000005?
Do you gain something? Assuming you're not a moron, sure, or you wouldn't have bothered to invest the time to take their work.
So you get something for nothing, and they get nothing for something. Great deal, eh? Maybe it's unclear whether they have a "moral right", but it's pretty clear that you have no right, moral or legal, to boost their work and then step up on a soapbox and wag your finger at them.
So if you aren't going to bust open your piggy bank and send them a little dough, howzabout you stick to the tens of thousands [freshmeat.net] of [sourceforge.net] packages [rpmfind.net] that were given away freely? Or better, maybe go out and write something?
Re:Blatant theft? (Score:2)
Re:Blatant theft? (Score:4, Insightful)
If a developer spends 1200 hours of her life making a game, is it your right to disregard her terms?
The DEVELOPER is the OWNER of her own product. She does indeed have exclusive rights to her own creation; if she kept the only copy of the software encrypted on a CD and locked in a filing cabinet, you have absolutely no right to tell her that she must give it to you. If she gives it to you on the condition that you don't give it to anybody else, you have absolutely no right to give it to other people. She can choose to develop and distribute it however she sees fit, and she gets FINAL SAY in this matter. It doesn't matter if you don't want to cough up ten dollars; it doesn't matter if she wants to set up a registration scheme that forces you to call a 900 number every time you want to use the program. The terms are completely up to the DEVELOPER, not the consumer.
If you don't like the terms a developer has set forth, then don't use that developer's product. It's that simple. Cracking a developer's product for the express purpose of using it on your own terms is incredibly disrespectful to the developer. She worked hard to produce that software, she deserves respect, and she has the right to set out her own terms. You the end user, on the other hand, did exactly jack shit to create said software. Where do you get off telling us that it's morally okay to tell the developer to go piss up a rope?
If you disagree with a developer's terms, them do not use the software. Period.
Software development takes time. Software development takes energy. Software development takes thought. Software development is always, at some point, a royal pain in the ass. Software development is a labor of love. That you have the gall to even suggest that the end-user has the right to dictate their own terms to the developer tells me that you have never, ever developed software of any real magnitude.
There are precious few ways to keep people from pirating software, but damned if I'm going to let you claim that it's the right thing to do.
Re:Blatant theft? (Score:2)
As for me attacking developers, I've never done such a thing. But if they think that they deserve some special moral consideration, when they are constantly advocating draconian measures and laws designed to take my moral rights away, then they can go to hell.
I never claimed that "piracy" was the right thing to do, but apparently I questioned your religion, which can't bare the scrutiny. There obviously can't be any reason behind it, or you'd spend your time defending your cherished notions.
Re:Blatant theft? (Score:2)
Developers deserve the same moral consideration as anyone else. If they make something and give it to the world with certain conditions, it follows that the world should honor their conditions. And I'm sure you really don't mean to say that developers can go to hell, seeing as you're not attacking them.
Your contention that "software" is synonymous with "thought" is laughably naive; by that reasoning, it would follow that "building" is "brick", "symphony" is "tone", and "Water Lillies" is "paint".
What draconian measures are shareware developers advancing that infringe upon your moral rights? Does nagware infringe upon your moral rights? Do polynomial time-sesntive registrations infringe upon your moral rights? How can something that you willingly acquire infringe upon your rights?
Describe -exactly- what it is that shareware develpers do that infringes upon your moral rights.
What you conveniently forget (Score:2)
Re:Blatant theft? (Score:2)
Re:Blatant theft? (Score:2)
>distributing a game or any other software?
Let's say, because the author owns the software.
You might say, once you sell a product, it is not yours anymore, so people should be able to redistribute. I remember at one point of time, it was true for software too - people can redistribute - provided that they destroy their own copies.
But how many people do that?
Let's agree on the assumption that software is sellable, just like any merchandise. Then, there must be some way to maintain the "scarcity". Making sure what you sell isn't going to duplicate is one way to do it. But since everybody who redistribute is keeping a copy for herself, the author must protect that scarcity by making himself some sort of copy protection.
>If she spent 1200 hours writing legislation
>trying to forbid people from speaking freely,
>do you think it is ethical and right to allow
>her?
Of course not. However, your example is scewed.
You may not agree with what the author says about free speech, but you STILL CANNOT REDISTRIBUTE THE LEGISLATION in question. It is NOT the content, but the redistribution, that matters. Please don't try to muddle up your own arguments to make them seem correct.
Re:Blatant theft? (Score:2)
First, software isn't scarce. Therefore your argument is unsound either because a) your assumption "software is sellable" is false or b) your argument is invalid "you need scarcity for something to be sellable". This is just simple logic.
Fact is, we don't create scarcity to satisfy business models. We don't write laws so that software developers can make money. We only write laws for the public good. A good topic for debate is whether allowing software developers to make money is for the public good. I wouldn't jump to conclusions however if allowing software developers to make money means restricting the rights of end users. Then, the public must decide, which is more important.
Ownership, naturally, means possession. If I own a chair is because I possess it. I have it in my hands or in my property. However, if the software is in my hard drive (in my possession), how can the author still own it?
You're right, that was a bad example.
Re:Blatant theft? (Score:2)
You spend the entire body of your post pontificating on The Benefits of Open Source, then in your last paragraph you proceed to say that you'd do exactly what I'm suggesting one should do. You said yourself that you would not use a piece of software if you disagreed with that software's terms of use. That's -exactly- what I said people should do.
Your post isn't so much a response to what I said as it is a diatribe on what you feel makes an acceptable license. That said, do you agree with my assertion that the end user must either respect the terms with which a developer has released her work or not use that work at all? If you disagree, how would you feel about a person yanking GPL'd source, claiming it as their own, and re-releasing it under the BSD license?
Re:Blatant theft? (Score:2)
Software industry is much more like service industry in the sense that its products are indefinitely replicable. The supply-demand cycle works a bit differently here, since there is no scarcity involved - once a software has been written, providing it is a service.
And to say that one should not pay for services is just dumb.
Re:Blatant theft? (Score:2)
Besides, there is no service involved, not in the sense you mean. Redhat continues to sell services despite giving software away.
Re:Blatant theft? (Score:2)
See the analogy? Providing software is more analoguous to providing service than to providing Ferraris.
Redhat sells services. Period. They just give away the part that needs service - this is really no different from Microsoft, who first sell you the software and THEN sell you also support services.
Stupid scheme (Score:2)
Some helpful links with reg code generation info? (Score:3, Interesting)
Right now I am just creating a 32-bit value from a random 32-bit number the application gives the user and a name. The name is hashed using something like (2^0 * char0 + 2^1 * char1 +
Re:Some helpful links with reg code generation inf (Score:5, Informative)
My advice:
1) Use RECOGNIZED encryption & hashing algorithms. Do NOT invent your own!
2) Don't shorten the result from a hash. I recommend at least 128 bits of entropy in the key (if you use Base64 to represent your key, you need 22 characters)
3) Use public key encryption to prevent giving away your secrets.
An example protocol:
User sends his name (case sensitive) and the current timestamp (both of which the client stores to use in future validation) to the "authentication server" which also takes his credit card number. After receiving payment and validating the timestamp, it generates the registration code as follows:
1) Take the username, timestamp, and a secret symetric string (which will be embedded into the client, but, thus, vulnerable to attack). Concatenate them together with some sort of seperator (like a NUL character).
2) Take this new concatenated string and do some bit scrambling if needed. Take the MD5 hash of this new string and use for the next step.
3) Using RSA and a PRIVATE KEY (*NOT* embedded in your application!), encrypt this hash. Send the encrypted hash value in Base64 to the user. Remember he may need the timestamp as well to re-enter this value. The timestamp can be simply a day/month/year string.
To VALIDATE a registration string,
1) Decrypt the encrypted hash string using the PUBLIC KEY (embedded in your application). Because it is a public key, it doesn't matter if anyone knows it.
2) Verify that that hash equals the value of a hash constructed on a client using the user's name, his registration timestamp, and the shared secret embedded in the application.
Really, this isn't a secret science. But every game designer seems to think he is more creative then hundreds of experts on encryption. This is basically no different then a FFI (Friend or Foe Identification) system used on a military aircraft.
Re:Some helpful links with reg code generation inf (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Some helpful links with reg code generation inf (Score:4, Interesting)
A hardware-based system like this is many orders of magnitude more secure than a software-based system, because the software remains encrypted all the way up to the CPU. The only way to break it would be to find one of the embedded private keys ($$$ equipment)... Or to convince a software vendor to encrypt with a made-up key that you know both public & private parts of...
BTW, this is also the basic framework for audio/video copy-prevention systems. (CSS works like this, except there are only a handful of private keys, and the CSS encryption algorithm is flawed)
Re:Some helpful links with reg code generation inf (Score:2)
I realize as another poster noted that some assembly work to skip the check routine could be done, but that is another problem. Maybe by varying releases with different checks in different places I can minimize that effect.
On a side note - yeesh, why do I feel like I'm treating my users like criminals here? I've done a bit of pirating myself in the past, particularly as a student. I don't really blame them, since their not exactly rolling in the dough. I just want to thwart all but the most determined users, typically the students who have the time to search all over IRC for the right crack. In some strange way I can relate to them, and consider it an acceptable loss. People earning money usually don't care enough or have the time to do that, the cost is too high to find the right crack so they'll buy it.
Re:Some helpful links with reg code generation inf (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Some helpful links with reg code generation inf (Score:2)
I get software that is above most shareware in quality and features off the 9.95 rack in the office supply store. Why pay more for less?
Lables Unlimited II by softkey ($12) is far better than any shareware I checked. Any halfway decent shareware wanted over double the price to support half as many barcodes. None of the overpriced shareware would support photos and clipart. Why is a bargan rack title generaly a much better product at a much lower price? I'm serious, not trolling even if it may look like a troll. It's just my experiance with shareware features verses price (value) compared to off the rack software.
Re:Some helpful links with reg code generation inf (Score:3)
A few points:
Doing everything mentioned in the third bullet is obviously a significant amount of work, probably more than you put into the software to begin with. You decide how much effort is enough. If your software is both very good and very expensive, you'll need a lot of protection. If your software is really cheap, you don't need much protection at all. If your software sucks, find another hobby, because chances are you aren't a good enough programmer to implement a good and bug-free registration system. Also keep in mind that this sort of registration checking may prevent some amount of infringement, but it's also likely to piss off some customers who would have paid a reasonable fee if you'd just asked nicely and made it easy to do so.
IMO, however much effort you spend on making it hard to crack, you should spend ten times that much on making payment easy.
Shareware Experience (Score:5, Insightful)
I think I had world wide revenues of $15 on my two shareware packages.
I did get a nice letter from a German magazine telling me that one of my programs was the 2nd most downloaded program in Germany.
If you are thinking about trying to support yourself with shareware my advice is to learn the most important phrase any shareware programmer can know:
"Would you like fries with your burger, Sir?"
Re:Shareware Experience (Score:2)
Re:Shareware Experience (Score:2)
Your opinion is amusing, but there are several (now famous and very profitable) companies that practically built their business on shareware.
Re:Shareware Experience (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a real job now, but checks still come in from time to time.
Captain Hector (Score:3, Funny)
You would be cruising along the galaxy when a ship buzzed by and a Captain Hector would send you a message reminding you to register if you liked the game.
If you waited too long to register, or just never bothered, Captain Hector wouldn't just buzz by anymore. He would stop, and train his guns on you and blast away at your ship.
He proved to be quite effective, to say the least.
QoS (Score:2)
On the other hand, I found most of the time that the people behind the shareware I was using just unreliable. The kind of programmers who worked on some quick home project and didn't feel like finishing it, but still expect a ROI. It is this kind of people who are putting a bad image on the word "shareware". So, the end of the story is I guess, no pain, no gain.
PPA, the girl next door.
THe guy is a moron (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm... Sharware worked fine on BBS's and through mail order in the late 80's and early 90's. In fact, at least 75% of the software my family used when we started in the computer world was mail order shareware through regular old snail mail. WE didn't even have a modem until we had the PC for about 3 and a half years.
In fact, it was truly shareware... These days, whats called shareware is little more than functional demos. If it dies after a period of time, lacks critical abilities, etc... it isn't shareware.
Shareware registration normally wasn't required to use the program. REgistration generally got you nice things like automatically mailed upgrades, clip art collections(in the case of programs that used such things) printed manuals, document templates, level editors, stuff like that... Cool stuff that made the program more useful, but the program still did all that it was advertised to do even without registration.
These days, it may do all its advertised to do... For 30 days.
What do you mean it isn't free as in beer? (Score:2)
It's rare that you see someone complaining about anything whose price ranges from free to cheap, but yet the two highest rated posts in this thread as I write this do exactly that. They complain about software whose full functionality isn't available for free and about the greed involved with liscenses that expire over time.
But the real case of greed is simple. The industry and the open source movement is filled with it. From software pirates to the people who support but fail to contribute to the open source movement, the goal seems to be to watch out for person number one.
If you're a geek there are two simple rules of life you should know by now. Writing software takes time and food and shelter costs money. Unless you have someone else to support you, the best way to provide food and shelter for your family is to sell your software.
But people don't pay. And if you charge for your efforts, people complain and attempt to enforce their will upon your creation.
Let's be honest. When Microsoft commits and act of pure greed we scream bloody murder. Why then do we not scream bloody murder at every software pirate out there? Why are we outraged at the actions of a large company but not at the actions of a band of warez distributors? Is it because we have become so selfish that we only care about people stealing from us and we're willing to turn a blind eye to people stealing from other programmers?
"Software wants to be free"
Bull. It's software. It doesn't care one way or the other. Greedy people want it to be free for them. The software is too dumb to care.
In my opinion, the biggest problem facing the open source movement is that someone has to figure out how, in a world where people are unwilling to pay for a good product, we're going to feed our families. Because if there's anything I've seen in the past year it's the fact that the Open Source movement has definatly attracted a large number of people interested in Free Software.
Free as in beer that is.
Re:What do you mean it isn't free as in beer? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's quite easy actually.
As the industy has faild utterly to convince people that ones and zeroes could possibly be worth money, stop selling said ones and zeroez. Sell the time for aranging them instead.
When I download and install KDE I'm also becomming a member of the KDE user community. The user community depends on KDE developers to deliver a usable product. The same community should pay those devolpers, as in hire programmers.
So when I becom a member I pay a members fee that goes to the KDE developers. That fee gives me quality code, frequent updates and bug fixes and community support when I have problems.
KDE might be a bad example, but you get my drift. The ones and zeroes are worth squat without the developers and community.
All programmers, stop selling your code, sell your time.
-
Shareware is unethical (Score:2, Informative)
Shareware authors must have a distorted belief that software users deserve no rights at all without direct compensation. Then they might allow their customers the right to use the software and thats all. They still forbid rights to modify and distribute the software. This seems to me to be rather a large breach of ethics.
Good thing we have free software and can avoid all this crap.
Re:Shareware is unethical (Score:2)
It does not mean what the shareware authors do is wrong. After all, it is their creation. If he chooses not to post it on a website at all, so there.
Did he download his shareware down to your hard drive? No. Who did it? Probably yourself. So, what do you have to complain about "your right being taken away using the software for any purpose"?
By your reasoning, is it my right to take GPL software and make closed derivations off them too?
Re:Shareware is unethical (Score:2)
The same happens with all proprietary software. Look at the number of Windows installations, look at how many people's computers they controll by their license agreement. That is also wrong.
To pay or not to pay... (Score:2, Interesting)
This is not because I'm a cheap lousy bastard, I'am but it is not becaus of that.
I want to give the program a fair trial and get the most out of it before I decide if its good or not. If I cant find a crack I won't even bother, I just find another program.
Then I face another problem, if I like the program I'm to lazy to get around paying for it.
Windows Commander is such a program. I've been using it for years and it is well worth the $20,
but I'm a lazy bastard...
Here are my tips:
Popups, banners and other anoying things, are just that: anoying. This will lower the score on the program.
Crippeling of the porgram won't even let me test it.
Skip all those. Just give me some friendly reminders in a few descreet places.
Paying should be a one click thing.
Windows has this Add/Remove program feature, how about extending this to Add/Remove/Pay.
I just fire upp that app, check the programs I like to pay for and click apply. The rest is automatic.
The only copyprotection needed is that the program refuses to install without this kind of payment handling app.
As copyprotections will be cracked anyway, it's enough with one app handling the protection.
Come to think about it, that would be a killer app to write, a copyprotection/paymeny handler.
Time to fire upp those C skills.
-
Simple Solution? (Score:2)
If a code has been previously updated they should not allow the automatic process to update it again surely this is obvious? So in the majority of cases people will have to remember the latest code they recieve and all will be well. In the case where they genuinly forgot OR some pirate has already used that code then they need to make a phone call. Generally people that actually bought the software will think this is a hassle, but then again it should only be a few of them and it's their fault for losing the code. I'm betting the mojority of pirates won't be making phonecalls to get codes.
The right way (TM) (Score:2)
2. Don't make the demo time limited.
3. Let the full product have extended functionality.
4. Give registered users a key to always download the latest version.
5. Make the registration process a breeze.
(1) You need the goodwill of your customers - unless they really depend on your product.
(2) They'd feel annoyed that something was taken away, and look for countermeasures.
(3) People don't pay for what they already got.
(4) A clean and simple way. Doesn't prevent piracy, see 1.
(5) How often did you turn away from complex or insecure registration forms?
Registration code idea (Score:2)
The problem with today's Shareware (Score:3, Insightful)
I can definately understand that people get a very strange idea of the Shareware market. Originally, Shareware was fully functional and often complex software packages that the author asked $10 or so for. Today it's often nagware or crippleware (i.e. not at all fully functional software), and the price is often set way to high.
Of course people get the idea that Shareware is (somewhat exaggerated) "expensive crap".
I think that if the Shareware market cleaned itself up, by making sure that crap software, or very simple software, is released as PD (or Open Source) as it "should", and also making sure that the prices asked are, in fact, cheap, things could be very different.
I personally am glad to pay $10 for a better datebook for my Palm, but I won't pay $15 for a program that edits one entry in the Windows registry. And the very fact that so many people release shareware waaay to expensively puts me off the entire market.
Price as a Barrier to Entry (Score:3, Interesting)
What is important is that most of these people will not pay for the software if it is made inaccessible to them. This is the reason why the software industry has been pretty soft on places like China. If they force compliance they will just lose users because the people in question find the price (whatever it's level) a barrier to entry.
Look at a given game. You like it, you install it and you find the "crack" to make it forever playable. Play it lots and then find that the software stops working, you are miffed, (since no new crack can be found) but because its just a game, you move on to the next crackable game, or better yet an 80% as good freeware version. This _is_ the way a lot of software consumers work. A specific piece of software is worth nothing to them whilst "accessable" alternatives exist.
So there are two alternatives. Make all variants inaccessible (and oh how the media industry is burning cash to do that) or change the pricing model so that until you have a viable paying user base the software does not exist.
Oh and in case you didn't notice, Free Software falls into the latter category (really. It does).
Re:How does this work? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know what they mean by "polynomials", but a public key algorithm would avoid any realistic possibility of a key generator. You would have to crack the codes a different way.
Re:How does this work? (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't write a keygen if the key system uses public key encryption to sign the timestamp (a few implementation details ignored here as you get the idea). You'd have to crack the software instead then - and who knows what that software crack will install on your system.
This kind of 'strong' key isn't appropriate in all situations due to its length - for instance where the user has to type it out (eg a key printed on the softwares CD), but in the case of shareware where it is emailed to you (or supplied on a web page) and the user can just cut it and paste it, it's fine.
I thought the idea of only accepting keys less than 30 days old was quite a good one actually (one of those really damn obvious in hindsight things), sure the determined user can roll back their clock (if the key was provided with a date) but it adds two more hoops a pirating user has to jump through without affecting a legitimate user - calling up the server to auth the key is a Very Bad Idea, you get a tonne of paranoid users telling their friends and posting everywhere that you are spyware because their zonealarms went off (found that one out the hard way too
Re:Yawn... Copy Protection... (Score:3, Interesting)
Blithering idiocy (that doesn't impress me in the slightest) deleted
Translation: "Please stop using copy protection so I don't have to go to all this trouble."
That's like asking the attendant at the gas station "Please, can you do me a favor and allow me to rob you WITHOUT a gun this time?"
If you're going to be a thief, then you're going to be made to jump through hoops. Tough luck for you, you thieving loser.
Re:Yawn... Copy Protection... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who cares about shareware? (Score:2)
Regards.