Nosfiratu wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Curious Labs does NOT receive ANY information about your machine whatsoever! <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Presumably, the system that generates the challenge code operates by identifying certain devices on the user's machine. Obviously, those devices are identifiable because if the hardware is changed significantly the challenge code is no longer acceptable. So, theoretically, if it is known how the challenge code is generated, it is possible to glean some information about the user's machine. Although this transfer of information may seem an absurd concern at face value, it is actually a very important principle. Whatever the problems over illegal use of its products a company faces, it should be regarded as completely unacceptable for that company to place devices or code on a user's computer that sends information about that user/computer back to the company. Unacceptable no matter how obscure the information is. It is, in principle, the same as a 'big brother' state placing a camera in every home to watch for illegal activity, with the justification that illegality is a problem and, after all, 'only the guilty have anything to fear'. What CL is proposing seems, and probably is, harmless enough as it is. But it is the thin end of an insidious wedge. Once consumers accept and get used to companies doing this, they won't be particularly careful about watching what is going on. How long before a challenge code is generated based on something other than obscure hardware tags? Moving back into slightly more practical concerns, let's assume this type of system does become more prevalent. A user has an operating system, twelve programs and twenty-seven commercial models from various companies, all using similar systems. After a hardware crash, that '3 times and you phone home' clause suddenly becomes a rather daunting prospect.