Like many people, I do not like the idea of response codes with my software. Luckily, as Poser users we have a unique opportunity to communicate and perhaps even negotiate with the company. I understand Curious Lab's desire to protect their software, but I'm sure they also don't want to lose customers who consider their chosen method unacceptable. So, I'd like to start a string about possible security measures that we would find acceptable. I realize, of course, that it is MUCH too late for Poser 5 (at least the initial release), but maybe we can come up with some ideas for future software. Please, I would appreciate it if we kept this string only to sincere suggestions. The arguments about the current security schemes have plenty of room on other threads and won't be settled here. Now, a couple of suggestions I have. * I think it would be GREAT to offer a choice of measures. Say, take 3 or 4 that don't negate each other, and the user can chose which is implemented. There will never be a single method everyone will agree on, but maybe this way the majority of people can be satisfied. Each user can pick the one they find least bothersome, and CL can still be protected as well as possible. * Diablo II is set up so that the original CD, which cannot be easily copied (i.e. by the typical person who might "share"), must be in the drive for the game to work. I know this would be unforgivably annoying to some people, but I would prefer it to a response code. Maybe this could be an option if a choice was given.

As I stated in that other thread, if a person choses to register using their name and address with the currently implemented scheme, then subsequent installs should be logged to that account and unless it is grossly misused, a person would not have to call in and re-register and explain themselves. If a person choses to Activate without their name and address then they could stay in the current method throughout the lifetime that they use the product. That way, the current scheme is still valid, but the computer that checks the challenge codes would not deny activation to someone who chose to fully register. ScottA also had a good idea, but he should post it here, it would be better from him. JDexter

1. Make the user's name a part of the serial number. 2. Make updates available only to registered users. This wouldn't eliminate piracy because it would still be cracked. But who would want to give out copies of a program with their name imbedded in the splash screen? - Jack

I personally have no problems with protection schemes. I have dongles installed on my systems, I have Challenge Code protected software, etc. Everything works ok and gives me no problem. Piracy on the contrary is a real problem not just for companies but for users too (we pay for piracy, because if companies don't sell many, they have to sell pricey). Challenge Code is an effective way to keep piracy under control. It will never stop professional pirates (nothing will: as technology progresses, piracy does too), but it will effectively stop the friend-to-friend copies of "normal" people who doesn't know how to crack a program but has friends "willing to share". So if a company needs Challenge Code to stay in business, I'll support it. At the same time, the company has to support me, by not placing obstacles to my computer use. This means that there must always be a person available to provide unlock codes. And it also means that there must be a will to understand that several users do intensively use their tools and anyone who uses Windows (especially sick OSs like the Millennium I am using on this machine) knows that there CAN indeed be the need to make several scratch installations per year to keep a system efficient, fast, and clean. My support for Challenge Code would be even more convinced if there was no restrictive "flag" implied. Five flags seem too little to me. I know flags are somewhat necessary to avoid people abusing or "going around" the obstacle, but at the same time, as a WinME user, I had one time so many bad problems with drivers that I had to re-format C drive some... I don't know, maybe 5 or 6 times in a week. That was for sure a borderline (limit) situation, but sometimes it can happen. As can happen that, like now, I am running this computer it's almost an year now without C drive reformats. Who can predict for sure? Impossible. Actually, the so-much blamed and criticized initiative of placing serial numbers into Intel processors, would have solved the problem. If at registration time people gives the serial number of processor, then the software during installation checks that the unlock code is matching with processor SN, this would make flags obsolete. A given serial number will work ONLY with that given processor. But I am going too far now :-) In conclusion I will support Challenge Code without a problem, but the company must be ready to support my installation needs when I have them. This too, like everything in commerce, is a give and take situation. If it can make both happy, then there's no problem - at least not for single honest users like I am sure most of us are, who have no habit to make pirates copies out of their software. We must remember that the copy protection of a software we own, does not only protect the company, it protects us too, in the end. It means no competition (in case we're in business) coming from people who didn't pay for the software and can invest that money in something else. It means also lower prices, more upgrades, more assistance, more committment form the company, and ultimately, the survival of the product itself.

This will be a popular idea (NOT ;-) ) .. all the online communities request proof of software ownership before you are allowed to upload your gallery .. a one time thing for each piece of software you use .. this info is automatically sent to the companies and it is their problem to cross reference it ... Takes the onus off us .. the legit owner .. and on to the companies who want to protect themselves .. I know it is not likely to happen ;-) .. but I do think it a solution...

I think part of the problem is that software publishers somehow think they deserve some special sort of immunity. Every experienced retailer knows they are going to lose a certain amount of inventory to shoplifters. Statistics suggest that even more inventory (and money) is lost due to staff theft. Retailers certainly do not like this but they simply do what they can and then accept the rest as an expense of doing business. Instead of fighting the inevitable they just get on with it. If there is good evidence to believe that 10% of a program's users are pirates then raise the price 10%. After all, if one can afford $329 for Poser one can probably also afford $361.90. (Not for a moment do I believe that every pirated copy means a lost sale.) Perhaps the best response to piracy is no response. Instead, spend the same effort and money on increasing customer sales through more effective marketing and incentives. People have been selling things for a thousand years or more. In all that time we have still not found an effective solution to theft. I don't know why software publishers think they are any different. - Jack

I've had problems with WindowsME and XP (especially XP) because it hates old hardware and reformatting my hard drive several times a year is not uncommon. I've installed XP at least 6 times in the last six months and have had to "initialize" it through Microsoft's site each time. I'm hoping the problem has gone away and the bugs have been worked out of this computer because I don't think that CL will allow me to keep re-installing Poser5 that many times without getting suspicious. Over on the other board, CL has stated that it can be installed on more than one computer as long as they both aren't used at the same time. And it can be installed several times, but the software will generate a different code for each installation. There seems to be some tolerance for re-installations to a point. I'd much prefer this method over the dongle with the CD in the drive. I much prefer to have my software stored safely. I had a laptop stolen last year with CD's in the case. If this were to happen again, I'd have to wait to receive another one just to run the program. Dongles are a bad idea and just shows how paranoid software company management is. Look what happened to LipSync.

The challenge code IS one of the less invasive choices. Personally, I work on a laptop and travel. Any company that requires me to carry a physical dongle must not want my money. Requiring the CD be in the drive is almost as much of a pain, but fairly easy to get around.

I have to agree with jval on the "solution" to the problem. There are certain expense items that all companies must face as a fact of doing business. Since the anti-piracy movement is ineveitably due to fail regardless of the security scheme implemented, it seems to me an unnecessary expense to add on top of a software development and distribution system. Not only does it cause headaches for the people who purchase the product, (and provides momentary "amusement" for those who do not) but I am sure that it increases administrative costs - if nothing else - of the software company as well. Therefore, by diverting the resources away from the anti-piracy money pit and concentrating on your core business to ensure that you offer the best product(s)/service(s) you possibly can, you will reap the benefit of increased sales simply because your product excels over the competition. There are inevitably more honest than dishonest people in the world, otherwise no software company would exist for very long. By providing a superior product/service combined by exceptional customer service/relations, any company will make more than enough money to survive. After all, even if you have the absolute best product/service, without customers to purchase the product, the whole business model goes out the window. Take care of your customers and they will take care of you.

I find call home, activation required etc copy protections despicable, even though I am a proffessional programmer. The bottom line is that once a program starts sending info back home, you have no guarantee about what it will send. Regarding activation, it is my own business if I install or not and I don't think anyone has the right to snoop into that. Another thing is that any copy protection can be easily hacked, leaving the only ones bothered by it the legitimate users. I have a laptop running XP, and even though I have a licence, I run a hacked version just to get around the annoying activation (and reactivation everytime I docked it...). It is a good example of backfiring copy protections. Another thing that annoys me whas when I bought Poser 3 full price, and when Poser 4 whas release less than a month later I had to pay full price for that also! No upgrade protection at all. There is a lot of software out there with lifetime registration. I don't say that you have to go that far, but I still think that it is better business to get more customers instead of bleeding a smaller number dry. For me it is a matter of principle, I do not want any program sending any info about my system. I will probably run a hacked version of poser 5 (which will appear within a week after the release), even if I buy it. Given their crappy upgrade policy, I might just let the magic of the internet provide for me this time. /troberg

So much for the "positive suggestions"

I think a key disk that needs to be in the CD Rom drive at the time of the first installation of the software is the least intrusive method of software protection there is. MIMIC uses it and I never find it problematic. -jjsemp

I'm afraid I agree with troberg....I hate the idea of installing software that reports back to the mother-ship. Once that starts, people like me have no way of controling what's sent or received by our sysyems....or even knowing what it was. If I just wanted to install spyware, there are a lot cheaper options. Beav

anybody here heard of a firewall before? I set mine up to not allow anything to access the internet without my permission, it does mean I have to upgrade programs the hard way but it's better than having my machine tell everyone what I'm doing all the time. Rob

Given their crappy upgrade policy, I might just let the magic of the internet provide for me this time. Ok, taking dibs on how soon this thread goes into LOCK DOWN. Anyone?

jjsemp has the best idea IMO. Bryce uses this; you must have the CD handy for installation or upgrading, but you don't have to keep it in the drive the whole time (that would be far too much hassle). I also agree with Cyberstretch. Look at it from a retailer's point of view. It's like saying "We must protect ourselves from shoplifters, and security cameras aren't good enough. Therefore we must search every customer as they leave the store. It's the only thing guaranteed to work." Then there will certainly be people like Orio above, who will say, "Sure, I don't mind being searched, it's a minor inconvenience and doesn't cost me anything. If it keeps the store guys happy, that's fine." And others who will say, "Well, they've just lost MY business!"

I agree with the idea of NO copy protection whatsoever. I develop software myself, and I can sympathize with losses do to piracy, but copy protection is a joke and royal PITA for the honest customers. It reminds me of the BIG BROTHER liberal-Democrap State where I live, in which there are so many anti-weapons laws. You can't even carry mace, a stun-gun, bullet-proof vest, etc. let alone a gun, in one of the most dangerous cities in America. In other words, the honest citizen can't protect him/her-self. But you can sure as hell bet the criminals are going to use ANY and ALL of the above. It's total bass-akwards way of thinking, just like any copy-protection scheme. It hurts the user, and does not impede the criminal (pirate) one bit. [Steps down from podium and nearly trips.] -Tim

Debating how much money they "really" lose to piracy doesn't change the fact they think they're losing money and will try to reduce the loss. I for one, don't want their estimate tacked onto the price. If all the purchases were done online from CL, they could simply use the re-enter your CC# and get an activation code, similar to re-downloading store items. Unfortunately that wouldn't cover retail purchased. Absent that, JDexter's idea seems best to me, log reactivations and require a phone call after a certain number. Perhaps even a small fee like a duplicate CD fee of $10 after you've installed more than a dozen times in a year. Maybe it's just me but if my system is crashing multiple times in a week, I'm more worried about getting it stable than reinstalling Poser multiple times. I can understand how this might be a problem for professionals on a deadline but how many people who make their living with a computer can survive for long with that flaky a system? 'Course, they could use biometrics and include a free fingerprint scanner in every box. Oh, but what if I lose my hands when my hard drive explodes - I can still use a mouse with my feet but I won't be able to reactivate Poser. Bound to happen to someone.

"I for one, don't want their estimate tacked onto the price." Using common business sense, this is already done, just like the retail scenario, insurance premiums, credit card charges and nearly every other form of commerce. As stated elsewhere, the software industry seems to be the only one that have been taking drastic measures to reduce piracy, with the exception of the digital music industry in recent years. If someone can build it, 20 others can destroy it. Anti-theft is a losing battle on all sides, but a fact of doing business. However, making the legitimate consumer the recipient of additional measures to "ensure" a decrease in theft that will never happen is a very poor business model. Even the CD code can and has been broken, so that option does not provide any protection either; except maybe from the casual Joe and Jane User. CDs are touted as being nearly indestructible, yet they can and do fail; which would leave people in a lurch until it can be replaced.

This idea that 'we'll-never-stop-piracy-so-let's-just-let-them-get-away-with-it' is becoming a royal pain! We'll never stop crack dealers either, but do you want them in your neighborhood and the cops doing nothing about it? I have no suggestions whatsoever to replace the Challenge Code, but I accept it as a necessary evil. I don't like it, but I'll put up with it. And hope that after my '3 strikes and you're out', CL will 'reset' me without any hassle. If they don't....I'm gonna be one MAD bunny!! I've pre-ordered my poser 5 here in Italy, through CL in the UK and I have no desire to be phoning CL in the States when I've used up my 3 'chances'. But hey....what can I say? Life's a bitch and then you die. There are people in this world who've never seen decent food and clothes in their lives, so who am I to bitch? mac

Now consider this: 1) During the CD burning process ALL P5 data is ZIP'ped (or SIT'ed) with password protection. 2) The install program simply accepts the password to unpack the data and install. 3) The password is your CCard number, CVV code, Name on card and expiration MM YY. This info is unique and long enough as a password to prevent finding it out in this millennium (or the next!). Resulting in: a) Curious Labs needs to store the info in 3) anyway to bill your card so no extra effort, but changing their installer has to be put into the matter. (Should take only a few hours of programming). b)The buyers need not worry about the password as no personal data is burned on the CD. They can install as much copies as they want without Curious Labs having to worry about EULA issues. What buyer would give away such password? (Legit user anyway...) c) No challenge code, no callback robot, no phoning, no hassle. If only life was that easy... Cheers everyone! MaxxArcher

My problem with the activation code and piracy is thus: To extrapolate upon your analogy about the Crack Dealer... Fact: Crack (Warez) Dealer distributes illegal drugs (Software) Fact: Crack Dealer markets drugs on the street (Internet) Fact: Crack Dealer uses car (Computer) to transport drugs Supposition: Anyone who owns/operates a car (Computer) on the street (Internet) is a Crack (Warez) Dealer distributing and marketing illegal drugs (Software). Solution: Search and seize all cars on the street for evidence of being a crack dealer. Costs: Hire enough police officers to cover every street and search/seize all cars of suspected Crack Dealers. Effectiveness: Since the Crack Dealers are a relatively small portion of the overall populace, the chances of the suggested solution eliminating Crack Dealers or the sale of illegal drugs is negligible, if even measureable, compared to the number of law-abiding citizens that will be inconvenienced by the proposed solution. Logical Determination: The solution, when evaluated on a cost-benefit basis, is far too costly for the potential outcome. Therefore the solution is not a solution but more of a hindrance and adds more problems than it solves. I hope this makes it clearer as to why I, if not others, feel that this scheme - regardless of who implements it - is a bad business decision.

Cyberstretch, those long lines at the airport are caused by that exact strategy, search everybody, whether they look like Osama Bin Laden or your grandmother. People put up with it because they value their lives over inconvenience. It comes down to whether you value Poser 5 over the (much less intrusive) activation code. MaxxArcher, CD's are mass produced in pressing plants, they can't burn your CC# to the CD as a password. Like my idea, it wouldn't work for packages bought at the store either. This might become practical when everyone has a gigabit connection and downloads all their software, which won't happen for some time.

lmckenzie, And, as has been demonstrated by the airport security failing several times, even that scheme does not work. I would like to see the numbers behind how many supposed purpetrators were caught vs how many people went through with no problems. Then, an honest assessment on how many have actually circumvented the security and managed to bring weapons on board. I think you would be surprised at its ineffectiveness if the truth was known. To tell you the truth, I highly doubt the "commercial airplane as bomb" tactic will be used again, at least until the general populace become lax as they always do. There are plenty of other avenues that can be taken to achieve the same end results.

Been a couple of incidents in the past week or so. I believe one woman somehow got thru with a .357. I'm more worried about the tactical nuke in a container from Mexico. As with everything security related you have to weigh the threat vs. the potential loss vs. the cost monetary and otherwise. CL made that assessment and this is what they came up with. Seems annoying but acceptable to me. Others obviously disagree but that's what makes a horse race.

Wow, I can't believe this thread has not been locked. Guess you missed that one post Jeff, eh? Or am I missing something ... has policy changed, or was it never the policy. Oh well, I'm enjoying the discussion on terrorism and security anyway! ;-)

tim/Jeff, Perhaps removing the "illegal entries" would be more beneficial than closing the door on everyone? Other than that, any exchange of ideas and information done in a mature, responsible way should be encouraged. I actually prefer people to disagree with me, because it allows me to see and evaluate others' opinions and ideas. I may not agree, but it does enter the other possibilities in my mind. Sometimes, I play the "Devil's Advocate" just to see how strong someone's convictions are. It is great to see how throughly people have thought about their positions and how willing they are to back them up. At least this discussion seems to have avoided the devolution into a P&M match between participants; which I absolutely abhor.

As for the "couple of indicents", I would venture a guess that it is more wise-spread than even the media has let the world know. Although there is the "Freedom of the Press" in the US, they only have so much time to report news. I also suspect that some of the attempts were possibly staged to see if the "new security system" was functional. However, after more thought, the comparison between using lethal force of any kind vs the copy protection scheme has gained less validity. There are far more people who view "extended beta testing" of software as harmless than someone who feels the need to arm themselves during a flight. After all, software piracy seems to be a "victimless crime" to many if you analyze it enough. I have been involved with computers since the mid-80s and I have seen the licensing schemes from then on. First, it started out that you licensed a copy of the software to do with as you pleased; except calling it your own and selling it. Then, you licensed the use of the software. Also, came the security dongles, etc. And now, were are having more and more restrictions placed upon us based off of fallacies and fictitious "facts". There has to be a point when people stand up and say "That is enough!" If this train of thought is allowed to proceed, we will soon be using biometrics and other more invasive schemes developed in order to support a losing battle. Each small victory for the fallacy, means less chance of a victory for the users. There are other software vendors, some in the freeware/shareware arena, that are offering products that mirror the functionality of Poser and, in some respects, exceed it. Granted, they may not be as feature-packed as Poser, but they seem to be able to do the same job, without the added inconvenience to the user. I am currently investigating some of these other packages in lieu of upgrading to P5. One of the beauties of the Internet is that there will always be other choices by other inspiring software developers that will fill the gap where necessary. It will definitely be interesting to read CLs' "offical" take on all of these discussions and see which path they choose. Although I do not think this issue alone will be a major milestone in their lifecycle, their response should indicate more clearly where they stand on this issue and their customer service/support.

If I may be a bit hard, I would say that one should follow the first rule of conflict management: "Never, ever let an unwanted action get the desired result.". I know a lot of people in the hacker/pirate scene, and there is a code of honor among them. One of the things you can be sure of is that the more invasive the copy protection, the more they will try to crack it. Software that relies on trust and honor will be less copied (I once bought a prog that only required me to give my word of honor that I would not spread it. I never spread it.). The bottom line is that if you do not like invasive copy protection, make sure it is ineffective, but also make sure you pay for programs that behave. Companies has to learn that it is bad business to harass or snoop on customers. Show them that the pain threshold has been reached. It is a matter of positive and negative feedback. Someone mentioned firewalls. Don't make the mistake of thinking that they are a bullet proof protection. They block traffic based on port and protocol. They will not stop the sending of data if it is sent as HTTP on port 80, because they can't separate it from normal web traffic. /Troberg

Well put, Cyber and Trog. Your talk of the 80's and the history of anti-piracy steps in the software industry reminds me of the "Great Switch to CD-ROM" era ...

I remember before software was available on CD-ROM, software houses were complaining about piracy, and used it as an excuse for why titles were $40-$50 ... they had to "recoup their lost sales."

Well, lo and behold, the almighty CD-ROM came out and for a while (albeit a short while) it effectively destroyed the pirates' ability (and certainly the "casual copier") to copy software (especially lengthy titles), as CD burners were but a distant dream. Did prices drop as a result of the increased security CD-ROMs offered the software publishers? Heck, no!

At least that's the way I remember it ... anyone have a different recollection of that era?

-Tim

"At least that's the way I remember it ... anyone have a different recollection of that era?" Yeah... I was a software developer for a living when CD-ROM came out... and like most places our software was less expensive on CD than it would have been otherwise. Was it more expensive than the previous floppy releases? Sure. It was also a new versiona dn would have been more expensive anyway. Software pricing is easy... it's basically... unit_price = ((development_cost + production_cost) / unit_sales) * profit_factor Where profit_factor is 1.3 for 30% profit and so on. Publishing on CD-ROM dramatically reduces production costs over floppies, and piracy reduces the unit_sales.

soul, Since you were "in the business", what was the default unit_sales figure used to compute the unit_price, since no one can "magically" determine how well the software was going to sell? How was this figure even determined, without enough knowledge to support it? And, how many times did the presumed unit_sales exceed/fall short of expectations? Although, mathematically, your equation is sound, there are other factors that should be included (especially with multiple version relases [home, pro, server], volume pricing, etc), but it does give a perspective. Also, I would like to know how software companies can make a profit with "academic pricing" being, hypothetically, 33%-50% of retail pricing. The way I figure it, being a consumer, if you can sell it to X number of people at (Retail_price - Academic_Discount), then you should revamp your pricing scheme so that the cost is equitable on all fronts, not favoring better pricing for one group over another. (No offense meant to those who recieve Academic Pricing, but economically it would make sense that if they could still make a profit at a lower price point, then they are gouging those who pay "full price".)

"what was the default unit_sales figure used to compute the unit_price, since no one can "magically" determine how well the software was going to sell? How was this figure even determined, without enough knowledge to support it? And, how many times did the presumed unit_sales exceed/fall short of expectations?"

You make an educated guess. This is an extremely common business issue and some people (not me) are very good at it. You do research, you survey customers, you go with your gut and you look at your competitors. IN the case of an upgrade you look at your existing customers.

This is not specific to software, car companies launch new models based on estimated future sales and so on.

In answer to your last question, almost always :) The question is, what do you do to adjust? Will lowering the price increase sales (usually) but will it do it ENOUGH to have a net profit effect?

"Although, mathematically, your equation is sound, there are other factors that should be included (especially with multiple version relases [home, pro, server], volume pricing, etc), but it does give a perspective."

Of course there are. It is meant only as a rough model for discussion purposes. Pricing is an art as well as a science. You have to "know" the market and have a feel for it.

"Also, I would like to know how software companies can make a profit with "academic pricing" being, hypothetically, 33%-50% of retail pricing. The way I figure it, being a consumer, if you can sell it to X number of people at (Retail_price - Academic_Discount), then you should revamp your pricing scheme so that the cost is equitable on all fronts, not favoring better pricing for one group over another."

You don't make money on academic pricing generally - you don't LOSE money (the price is almost always enough to cover your cost on that unit) but you don't factor it in to profit.

Why do it then? Because what people use in school is usually what they recommend when they get out. Alternately, a lot of graduates who know "X" create a pressure on companies to use "X" so they have easy access to trained candidates.

This has a huge positive effect on your market share. Also, equitability is not a relevant factor.

In my experience (as a professional developer), pricing is based on a single factor: pain threshold. You make a (more or less) educated guess about how much the customers are willing to pay, and then you use that price. If you sell a lot=huge profit. If you sell very little=loss, but minimized. Face it, the software industry is not nearly as mature as most other manufacturing industries. /Troberg

"In answer to your last question, almost always :) The question is, what do you do to adjust? Will lowering the price increase sales (usually) but will it do it ENOUGH to have a net profit effect?" It is a well proven fact that volume sales at reduced prices will effectively preserve a profit margin. (Hence the existence of volume pricing for corporations, academia, government offices, etc.) Generally, businesses "overprice" their products with this very thought in mind. For example: If you sell something for $100 and have 10 people purchase it, your income is $1000. However, if you reduce that price to $75 making it affordable for 20 people to purchase it, your income is $1500. So, therefore, a mere 25% reduction in price nets an additional 50% in income. This, coupled with the "conservative method" of estimating the unit_sales that you described, pretty much assures that a net profit would be achieved. "Why do it then? Because what people use in school is usually what they recommend when they get out." In my experience, companies are very much entrenched in their own needs and necessities far before any recent college graduate is offered a job; unless the company is a relatively new startup. Therefore, although this population may recommend products, unless it fits into the companys' business model/projections, the recommendations will fall upon deaf ears and are thereby ineffective. Also, from working in academia, college curriculum is more driven by existing and established market requirements (and, to a degree, projected requirements) than trying to change them. Therefore, it is the corporations that drive the curriculum, and not the other way around. "Alternately, a lot of graduates who know 'X' create a pressure on companies to use 'X' so they have easy access to trained candidates." Unless the world is different from where I stand, I do not see "Corporate America" bending over backwards to accommodate the recent college graduates' choice for software vs well established business necessities. The companies I have worked for all have their own internal methods of determining what best fits their business needs, and this is generally powered by the company's vision of the future and their current portfolio of products and services. These decisions are usually made on a level that the recent college graduate would hardly know exists, nevermind influence. In addition, hiring managers are given specific information on what to look for in potential employees. Unless the recent college graduate has the desired skills for the available positions (aka they were trained, to an extent, for the job in college), chances are negligible that they would be able to infiltrate a company and influence their buying habits. "Also, equitability is not a relevant factor." Perhaps, then, it is time for a change. It only stands to reason that the more people you get accustomed to Product X, the more likely that Product X will be chosen as the de facto product to use. A case in point is the very computer industry we speak of. When computers first came out, very few companies purchased them, despite the obvious advantages they had over older manual operations. It was not until the advent of the PC (personal computer) market that more and more businesses began to invest in them in a more widespread manner.

It seems to me these days, listening to many software and record companies, as well as, retail chains, add in the factor of "Pirates" or "Shoplifters" into their equations. I can see why this mistake is often made, as accountants jobs are to find ways to report Loses and Earnings. However, realistically, factoring the fact that a product or merchandise will illegally hit the streets doesn't quite pan out. Yes. It is a definate fact that Poser is often times hacked/warezed. However, as someone else pointed out in another thread (I think it was Ironbear), those individuals would've never bought the software in the first place. I have seen shareware programs that only cost $5.00 to register hacked and cracked all over the Net. So for these sort of individuals, it has nothing to do with cost or money... mostly because they are too damn cheap to reward the people that busted their ass to provide the program, product, merchandise or music. So hacked copies of a software package doesn't really count as a "Loss" since 9/10's or more of the people who steal it would never pay for it in the first place. However, I think the retail chains started this practice, of making their Customers believe that the cost of Loss by theft is outweighted by the slight increase in the cost of said product. Which is untrue. Having worked as "security" for many popular retail chains, any shoplifter caught with an item(s) totalling less than $100 must pay back 10x's the ammount of that item. Therefore a shoplifter stealing a music CD (often shoplifted) totaling $15 must pay a fine of $150 dollars. This was done to cover any potential "loss" of items unrecovered. Rather than making the customer jump through flaming hoops of Activation Codes, convoluted EULA's that are questionable, would it not make more sense to adopt a practice that Retail Chains have adopted and seems to work. Granted, most software totals more than $100, so the 10x's principle would have to be adjusted, say $500. I think many warez distributors would think twice before possibly getting caught distribution something that could cost them a fine of $5,000.00 and/or jail time. I think many of Curious Labs customer base would support and agree to such a standard being adopted in order to protect the IP of Curious Labs, DAZ and other companies. The cost of doing such would help to balance imaginary "losses" that a company would receive from supposed warez activities. And I certainly know for a fact that many of the artists in the Poser Community would step up to the plate to help these companies to protect their IP. Obviously the current solutions to this problem is about as friggin effective as the war on drugs are. Making the Customer pay for the crime of others is surely not a way to install trust and repeat business practices. Just my thought on this. Jack (who wished he was as good at this as Cyber is)

I agree that piracy is not necessarily a lost sale. For instance, I would not feel guilt for using a copy of (for example) lightwave, since I's probable only play with it for a while a couple of times each year, and there is no way I's be preparared to pay their high price for that. On the other hand, if I find that I like it and were to start using it professionally, of course I'd buy it. I think that piracy is divided something like 1/3 free PR, 1/3 people who would never buy it anyway and 1/3 pure loss. The best thing to change this is to provide value to the customers, in the form of a good product, good documentation and good support. /Troberg

CyberStretch - "It is a well proven fact that volume sales at reduced prices will effectively preserve a profit margin. (Hence the existence of volume pricing for corporations, academia, government offices, etc.) Generally, businesses "overprice" their products with this very thought in mind."

It is also well known that under pricing a product too much causes problems in some markets. For instance, there is no way Poser would be taken seriously in the professional 3D world if they were say, $69... and the hobbyist market may not be large enough to take up the slack.

If it WASN'T complex then companies would simply price all software at $5 over cost of unit production and sell a copy to everyone in the world.

Obviously there are other factors beside price that effect unit sales. That means that the lowest price possible is not always going to translate into larger sales.

CyberStretch - "In my experience, companies are very much entrenched in their own needs and necessities far before any recent college graduate is offered a job; unless the company is a relatively new startup. Therefore, although this population may recommend products, unless it fits into the companys' business model/projections, the recommendations will fall upon deaf ears and are thereby ineffective."

In some areas? Sure. In others... not so much. I work with several development houses that will allow a graduate to use almost any tool they want as long as the job gets done and the final work can be saved in a common format (PSD, EPS, PDF, OBJ, 3DS etc).

So those students who learned 3DS max in school due to educational pricing DO sometimes translate into sales at the back end.

Obviously the software need to meet business needs - but there is often more than one solution that will meet those needs.

CyberStretch - "Unless the world is different from where I stand, I do not see "Corporate America" bending over backwards to accommodate the recent college graduates' choice for software vs well established business necessities. The companies I have worked for all have their own internal methods of determining what best fits their business needs, and this is generally powered by the company's vision of the future and their current portfolio of products and services. These decisions are usually made on a level that the recent college graduate would hardly know exists, nevermind influence."

Your point does not conflict with mine :)

When a company is determining what "fits their needs" one of the questions asked is how much training will be needed? Can we find skilled users? IS this standard... can we get support and consultants if need be?

A educational program that results in a large pool of skilled users of an application means that the answers to some of those questions is usually favorable :)

CyberStretch - "In addition, hiring managers are given specific information on what to look for in potential employees. Unless the recent college graduate has the desired skills for the available positions (aka they were trained, to an extent, for the job in college), chances are negligible that they would be able to infiltrate a company and influence their buying habits."

You misunderstood my point. When a company is developing those guidelines, or as they implement them they will realize that many applicants are already skilled in using "X" as opposed to "Y". All other things being equal, they will then use "X" to lower their total cost per employee on training and/or salaries will be lower do to competitive pressure among candidates.

CyberStretch - "Perhaps, then, it is time for a change. It only stands to reason that the more people you get accustomed to Product X, the more likely that Product X will be chosen as the de facto product to use."

Please use that in answer to your own question on educational pricing :)

Again, since customer pools are clearly NOT infinite, a company must offer discounts where they will do the most good (large companies, students) for their market share and have higher prices for average users.

That's life. And it is fair even if it isn't equal :)

Jack D. Kammerer - "Yes. It is a definate fact that Poser is often times hacked/warezed. However, as someone else pointed out in another thread (I think it was Ironbear), those individuals would've never bought the software in the first place...

[snip]

...So hacked copies of a software package doesn't really count as a "Loss" since 9/10's or more of the people who steal it would never pay for it in the first place."

A few thoughts. The first is that WindowsXP has proven to me (and others) from personal, eye-witness experience that a good copy protection scheme will result in pirates purchasing legal copies.

Now, if you'd like, you may be able to make a case that an OS is an exception... but I don't think so. I know of 3 licenses for 3DS Max that were purchased because the "hacked" versions would not operate after an update from discreet was installed. The management was simply tired of dealing with the hassle and made a call... purchasing 3 legal copies.

The point is, that even if 9/10 would not buy the software... that last 1/10 will. And the revenue from them only need to offset any development cost and customer problem support cost to be worth while.

And then there is another important issue:

It is not immoral to attempt to make it harder for people to steal from you. it does not make you "evil" or "greedy" to dislike being ripped off and to try and prevent it.

Piracy hurts sales. I am not sure why there are folks who want to try and pretend this isn't true, but it is.

Jack D. Kammerer - "Rather than making the customer jump through flaming hoops of Activation Codes, convoluted EULA's that are questionable, would it not make more sense to adopt a practice that Retail Chains have adopted and seems to work. Granted, most software totals more than $100, so the 10x's principle would have to be adjusted, say $500. I think many warez distributors would think twice before possibly getting caught distribution something that could cost them a fine of $5,000.00 and/or jail time."

The penalties are already much more severe than that you know. Federal jail time, federal criminal records and the potential for huge fines. This deterrent may be stopping some pirates but it sure isn't stopping many.

We live in a time when people seem to feel that piracy is their moral right. That any attempt to prevent it is evil and wrong. Look at the screaming hordes trying to manufacture a moral defense for trading MP3's and warez on Napster and like systems.

troberg - "For instance, I would not feel guilt for using a copy of (for example) lightwave, since I's probable only play with it for a while a couple of times each year, and there is no way I's be preparared to pay their high price for that."

Like stealing the neighbors car - it's not wrong if you only do it every now and then? The problem with piracy is the moral grey area many people convince themselves they live in. If we ever wondered if the average human would steal if they wouldn't get caught... now we know. The answer is yes.

Piracy is stealing. If you are going to steal, fine... I can't stop you. But at least admit up front that you are stealing. At least face it. At least be proud :)

This "yeah, of course I stole it! Hey, if they don't want me to steal it they should bribe me into buying it (lower price)." thing is bizarre to me.

Actually, in legal terms it is not stealing, but that's a detail. You are missing my point. My point is that there are some very bright shades of grey here. My point is also that to a certain extent, companies bring piracy on themselves. What I'm trying to say is that if I were not going to buy a prog anyway, it is a victimless crime, one that perhaps even benefits the company. I'm not arguing right or wrong, just trying to see both sides. /Troberg

"Actually, in legal terms it is not stealing, but that's a detail."

Yes, it is. You are taking something someone else built and you are not paying for it  - when that thing is not yours to take nor was it offered to you.

That's stealing. Call it what you want in court.

"You are missing my point. My point is that there are some very bright shades of grey here. My point is also that to a certain extent, companies bring piracy on themselves."

I am really not sure how. Are they, somehow forcing you to steal it? No. What they are doing is tempting you. You see it there, you want it... you clearly want to possess it even if you don't want to use it - but you don't want to pay.

So you steal it.

That is not their fault, and it is not their moral responsibility.

"What I'm trying to say is that if I were not going to buy a prog anyway, it is a victimless crime, one that perhaps even benefits the company."

No, it isn't. The company you stole from is still a victim... even if you would never have purchased it. They created it, the intellectual property is theirs - it is their right to grant or withhold the use of it on their own terms within the legal boundaries set.

When you violate their rights they become a victim.

"I'm not arguing right or wrong, just trying to see both sides."

I see both sides :) One "side" is stealing something and trying to claim it is not a moral theft. The other side isn't buying it :)

Now, we can discuss the effect of pricing on sales and piracy, and we can discuss whether protections is an efficient method of maximizing revenue... but there is no grey area on the moral issue. Look, software piracy isn't morally equivalent to rape, or armed robbery or murder. I know that and you know that - so I am not trying to make casual pirates out as the next John Diillinger. But lets' be honest about what it is - theft.

You go into a K-Mart, you see something you want but wouldn't buy or couldn't afford so you steal it. There isn't a grey area there either. You don't blame Timex for making a watch so useful you just had to steal it. You don't claim that since your only going to wear it every now and then you don't have to pay for it.

You stole it. You know it, and we know it.

I am not saying it is wrong to protect yourself against theft... I don't recall ever saying such. I was only merely trying to add possible solutions that might've been overlooked or not discussed. It is very clear to me that there are a number of people that are having trouble accepting this Activation Process. Knowing CL's past willingness to listen to suggestions and even acting upon those suggestions proves to be there being no harm in making them. Not when it might increase product sales. A decision best made is an informed decision, particularly when that decision effects the cost of living. As I said, though I am unhappy about the Activation Process, I'd probably unhappily live with it. My biggest source of headache... the thorn in my paw is the EULA. Jack

Soulhunter, you are reading extremes into what I am saying that are not there. Try to read it again without trying to make the worst out of it. I will not continue this discussion, it has already strayed to far off topic and into rant land. /Troberg

"It is very clear to me that there are a number of people that are having trouble accepting this Activation Process. Knowing CL's past willingness to listen to suggestions and even acting upon those suggestions proves to be there being no harm in making them. Not when it might increase product sales. A decision best made is an informed decision, particularly when that decision effects the cost of living." I agree, really. I think these things are something a software firm has to weight carefully.