Maxx, No offense, but playing semantics was not my intent. Basically, the way I read your post was that "corrupted" would mean "something that intentionally not allow the program to run". Therefore, from that perspective, your suggestion is quite similar to the current activation scheme. Only by recieving the response code (or "patch") to the "corrupted" file, can you use and operate P5. All in all, I can see you point-of-view as well. But warezers/hackers are very creative and would be able to find and most likely decipher any information within the file structure regardless of placement. === I, too, noticed a lot of, um, questionable legality to CLs EULA and mentioned it in one of the previous threads. (Or maybe this one, I did not reread it.) Hopefully, they took my suggestion and will pass it through some form of "legal filter" before commercial release of P5. To me, the EULA looks like a "brainstorming session" to protect their IP without application in the real world from a users'/lawyer's perspective. I think that it could be misconstrued from many vantage points, creating a lot of legal misundersdtandings. Again, it would be interesting - to say the least - to find out what CLs' "official" response will be upon their return.