Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=925552

In the interests of not polluting the attached thread, which includes comments by Larry Weinberg of Curious Labs, I am starting a new thread. It repeats part of my post 144 on that thread. ... #2* A stringent and trouble-prone registration system. As a software developer, I thank you: better that you take the arrows in your back than I ;-) I would use such a scheme if I dared. When people talk about warez, and how there is probably already a crack out - irrelevant. The real issue is the basic human instinct that makes it easy to rationalize not paying for something unless you have to. The person who might otherwise make a copy or two for friends, who then might give away copies ... sometimes snowballs to many copies in use per legit copy - that's who this discourages, not the hard-core pirates. To users - by all means bitch and moan about the imperfections in schemes like this, but some scheme or another is going to prevail. Complain until all your issues have been successfully addressed. I'm betting on one of the universal hardware key solutions, like the one that I believe is offered by Poser5's security vendor. Maybe what is needed is a central company to hold keys, that could provide a "back-up source of registration updates" so that there wouldn't be total dependence on the original software vendor. -- ToolmakerSteve

And here is a re-post of issues CyberStretch raised upon reading my post. This is a copy of post #155 on the thread mentioned above: [CyberStretch ] Not trying to be demeaning, but trying to understand a seemingly contradictory statement. "#2* A stringent and trouble-prone registration system." "I would use such a scheme if I dared." As a software developer yourself, and your obvious opinion that some form of protection is needed, why do you state that you have not used such a system if it is overly effective and beneficial? Again, I do not think that anyone desires that CL, or any software developer, stops trying to protect their investments. However, in light of the financial struggles that have been alluded to, and the apparent ease of circumventing such "protection schemes", is it not wise to wait until "some scheme or another is going to prevail"? Personally, I think the competence of the "Software Liberators" is greatly underestimated. Any technological advances that are available to generate some form of protection are also going to be available for those who wish to circumvent it. The fight to protect software has raged on since software was first released. Every attempt thus far has been circumvented in one way or another. I do not foresee any universal solution in sight. I find it hard to believe that any system that is developed will ever sufficiently deter others from finding ways around it. That is not to say that developers should stop trying, there is a market for such protection, just that until a successful scheme is derived any attempt to use those schemes ends up being futile. "The person who might otherwise make a copy or two for friends, who then might give away copies ... sometimes snowballs to many copies in use per legit copy - that's who this discourages, not the hard-core pirates." There is nothing that is stopping people from repackaging the "cracked/hacked" version and distributing it as well. Therefore, the insinuated effectiveness of the protection scheme is a false sense of security, IMHO. If someone was willing to give away "free" copies based off their "legit" copy, they are equally as likely to distribute the cracked/hacked version as well. I really do feel for those whose livelihoods and IP are adversely effected by criminal activities. But, logically, I do not see where any "protection scheme" at this stage of the game is a beneficial addition if, with a little help, they can be easily circumvented.

Eek - the format of that post got scrambled when I cut-and-pasted, so I deleted it, and here it is more legibly: - - - - - I will gladly discuss at length this topic. First, be clear that protecting software is a pain-in-the-butt for software vendors as well. No vendor would be bothering, if they didn't believe the protection schemes were helping their sales. Now, a point-by-point response: 1. [cs] If someone was willing to give away "free" copies based off their "legit" copy, they are equally as likely to distribute the cracked/hacked version as well. [SS] That is a reasonable belief, but a mistaken one. There is a set of people for whom that is true. But there are other people who never touch cracked software, yet are sometimes willing to copy software they have for a friend. It seems harmless enough - and often it is. But other times, it snowballs. 2. [SS] A stringent and trouble-prone registration system. ... I would use such a scheme if I dared. [CS] As a software developer yourself, and your obvious opinion that some form of protection is needed, why do you state that you have not used such a system if it is overly effective and beneficial? [SS] I have indeed used such schemes, when releasing product via a large company. Currently, I have too small an operation to deal with the resultant headaches, so I have no choice but to forgo that protection. I also have no reputation to build on - negative responses by early customers might ruin me. A larger company might well choose to risk some of their resources and reputation to protect themselves, however imperfectly. These days, software vendors find themselves in a position not that different from the music labels: it has become too easy for customers to not pay money for our software, so legit customers may start feeling like patsies for paying for what so many others are getting for free. 3. [CS] is it not wise to wait until "some scheme or another is going to prevail? [SS] Exactly. Hence my thanking Curious Labs for "taking the arrows". But let me underline that the steps software vendors take, have proven to be far from futile. There may be nothing we can do about hard-core crackers. But they probably aren't potential customers anyway. In my experience, people who are making productive contributions to society, don't waste their time cracking. But it can be tempting to ANY OF US to not shell out hard-earned money. Consider software protection a "reminder" that each of us should pay for that which we receive value from. -- ToolmakerSteve

Pain in the ass as forced registration is, I have to agree with ssshaw. I went once, five years ago, to a site that supposedly had Photoshop serials-- the damn place scared the hell out of me. I would never go back to such a place, especially now with the virus hazards. I dont' think I could even do it to "Pick up the crack for safekeeping lest CL go belly-up" let alone package it up for my friends! But I might-- if I knew anybody fool enough to descend into the rigors of 3D-- pass along a legit copy. And I'm law-abiding, I even pay for shareware. Emily

The FlexLM system seems to work well in the UNIX world, and I believe there is finally something comperable in the PC world. The advantage of that system is that you don't ever have to go back to the vendor to get new keycodes should you need to reinstall, although you do need to go back to get new keycodes if you want to transfer the licence to a new machien. But this method of constanly having to go back to the vendor to unlock your software is just no workable, at least for me. I still have not bought Poser 5 and this method of copy protection is why. I'll stick with P4 for now but would upgrade in a heartbeat if this damned registration method went away. jon

I not having a perminent computer I am with jstro. Three installs then E-mails is not workable at least for me. CL successfully drove me away as a customer.

"There is nothing that is stopping people from repackaging the "cracked/hacked" version and distributing it as well. Therefore, the insinuated effectiveness of the protection scheme is a false sense of security, IMHO. If someone was willing to give away "free" copies based off their "legit" copy, they are equally as likely to distribute the cracked/hacked version as well."

Of course they will do so - but the net number of illegal copies involved there is much, much less than the casual copying would have allowed initially. This has been shown time and time again for programs that tie the software to a specific machine (as opposed to a generic "key" system like Win98 or Photoshop).

Of course there will be a crack.... but that isn't important. What isimportant is that relatively few companies and home users are willing to allow cracks into their systems... especially as security problems and viruses are on the rise.

I have personally seen client shops purchase many new windows licenses as a result of the XP protection, because there is NO WAY they are going to trust their data to a cracked OS whereas they felt completely confident using a keygen. Of course, WinXP keygens do exist but SP's have a tendency to break those -and they DO want the bug fixes in the SP's.

In the 3D community look to Brazil and finalRender. While both systems are highly desirable and expensive it is very uncommon to see cracked or pirated versions on the net, and I am willing to bet there are almost non in production use for example.

In the end, if you force users to crack your software rather than casually copy it your piracy rate goes WAY down, and will continue to go down the more security conscious people become. Because it is insane to try and secure your machine when you are letting some 15 year old who has already proven he is willing to be a felon (the cracker) put code on your machine.

The big issue is this - when someone makes a casual copy of software for a friend, in how many cases would the friend have gone out and bought it had he not had a "free" copy?

The big issue is, how many people are going to make casual copies? All they have are estimates and they're doing the estimating. Copy protection is another "product" plain and simple

[Phantast] The big issue is this - when someone makes a casual copy of software for a friend, in how many cases would the friend have gone out and bought it had he not had a "free" copy? SSS: I am personally sympathetic to this argument. Sharing is a worthy human act, and I hate to stand in the way of it. And as you point out, often it doesn't actually cause a lost sale. I cringe when I hear any company, regardless of industry, claim that piracy has cost them some insane number of dollars. The figures are utter bull. How many of those people weren't going to buy anyway? But here is where the rub is: those friends have other friends. Today's world is so well connected. Overall, that is good. But it has made it rather too easy to share, without regard for rewarding the creators of the goodies.

"The big issue is this - when someone makes a casual copy of software for a friend, in how many cases would the friend have gone out and bought it had he not had a "free" copy?"

It is demonstrably true that the answer is "some". Despite the propaganda, piracy does hurt the sales of intellectual property products. It does it with software, movies and music. While occasionally someone is moved to buy a product because a free version works well it almost never actually happens... and never in the numbers needed to offset the amount of lost sales the piracy caused.

What I find interesting how much much this issue really seems to only be a factor with people who are home users. In running 3DS Max with Brazil R/S I have two products in that chain that are tied directly to this particular workstation - and that is a accepted reality in the high end markets. BECAUSE IT WORKS. Salve of Brazil and Max are higher because of the protection. Sales of WindowsXP are dramatically higher than one would have expected if it wasn't protected.

I'll even say the unthinkable... I think the sales of Poser5 are higher than they would have been. I have no doubt that a substantial portion of this community was running on... shall we say borrowed... copies of Poser 4 until Poser 5 showed up.

Protection is a product to be sure, but like most products it only survives as a product when there is a demonstrable economic benefit... and there is. Good anti-piracy increases sales. Granted, bad anti-piracy hurts you but thanks to the 'net it is MUCH easier to do it "right" (Max, Brazil, XP, Poser et al.) than it used to be. No more grinding floppies or custom formatted CD-ROM's.

There is, of course, another factor; giving someone else a copy of a program is inherently bad. It's not sharing, it's theft. If your going to do it, fine but let's not get all high and mighty about it. It isn't RELEVANT whether you think it is going to hurt anyone really, you didn't write it, and it isn't your call to decide how to distribute it. Look at how many artists here feel if someone copies their IMAGES to someplace else - it's not like they lost a "sale", the image wasn't FOR sale. But they are still (rightly) upset because it is stealing.

Well I have three computers in my house, three capable computer uses that like computer art and ONE copy of Poser 4 on ONE comeputer, mine. I think the fear of casual sharing is more suspicion than reality. I don't base that on my family only, but on my entire circle of friends and associates. The inconvienace of having to go back to a vendor for the right to use what I have already purchaed on the other hand is a FACT, one I am not willing to live with. One of the reasons I am dead set against any kind of license management system that forces you to go back to the vendor to unlock your softtware is that I have experienced first hand the perminant loss of software under such conditions. I'm not willing to do that again. jon

[jstro] "I have experienced first hand the perminant loss of software under such conditions." SSS: I agree that that is UNACCEPTABLE. Keep on complaining, until vendors come up with a solution that avoids this!

I believe that over time: * inexpensive 3D and animation tools will become awesomely capable; * vendors will adjust to the issues raised by customers - hardware keyed protection will become reasonably painless and foolproof; * customers will adjust to the need of vendors to protect themselves in a world where information is so easy to share. Is that trio sufficient to satisfy everyone?

FlexLM works for me. The only time you have to go back to the vendor is if you actually change CPUs. It's a UNIX LM system that has worked well for YEARS. To bad there was such a hue and cry when Intel wanted to put IDs in CPUs a couple of years ago, it could have just as easily worked for PCs too. But as I said earlier, there is something similar out now for PCs. It's from Rainbow Technologies and might be closer to the answere we all are looking for. jon

As this issue has been raised and discussed ad nauseam over the past two months, I will not restate my position and the reasons behind it. However, I would like to ask the proponents of "protection schemes" to back up their statements with verifiable facts from unbiased sources. To date, I have not seen anything remotely suggesting the claims made, perhaps I am looking in the wrong spots? So far, the majority of the "facts" surrounding "protection schemes" have come from those who directly benefit from its use. To me, that is hardly an objective and unbiased source to base factual information upon.

My "facts" are completely unbiased... tehy are my own personal experiences. All told my client base puts me in contact with more than 100+ workstations that run some form of Windows... and of the 60+ that now run WinXP I can tell you for sure less than 5 of them were running legitimate licenses for Windows before conversion. Of those 60+, I know that 50+ of the are legit licenses now (I helped find suppliers for many of them) and abouyt 10 of them were running some form of cracked XP. That is, until SP1 disabled many of the cracks. Then suddenly 5 of those machiens went legit. So so far, that's Microsoft 55 or so, piracy 5. Of course, MS >DIDN'T< seel some copies fo XP because of the protection - but from my personal experience I know they came out WAY ahead. It is the same with all the >good< (usable, non intrusive) copy protection. For instance in my conversations with several game companies that make games playable online, once their servers were patched to prevent pirated programs from running they saw sales figures for those games jump. I am not sure why it is such an important article of faith for many ignore the simple, obvious reality. Most prople will not pay for something they can EASILY steal with little risk. If you can increase the RISK, or make it HARDER then you will sell more of it. Objective studies? I don't have any that one couldn't poke holes in if you wanted, but then again neither do those who wish to provclaim piracy is not a factor in software sales. As a developer who has sold software, as a consumer, as a security consultant who is in contact with pirates all the time (users, few crackers but on occasion) and as a consultant who sees how my clients make decisions on purchasing I >SEE< the effect.

It's a known and accepted that Hardware changes Rapidly and hardware failure is a given. To tie software varification to hardware that has a limited life is just setting itself up for failure.

CyberStretch - Darn it, I'M not a PROPONENT of software protection schemes. I'm a hard-working writer of software who has worked in consumer- and creativity- oriented companies for twenty years. My entire career is DEDICATED to PRAGMATIC ways to bring MORE CREATIVE TOOLS AND CONTENT BUILDING-BLOCKS to AS MANY PEOPLE AS PRACTICAL. NO COMPANY would waste their time with the ongoing hassle and the high consumer dissatisfaction of protection schemes if they weren't OVERWHELMINGLY CONVINCED that it was worth doing so. Why is it necessary to convince YOU of the evidence? You aren't the one who has to make that business decision. I am asking for vendors to respect you enough to: 1. Offer you lots of value for your money; 2. Address the legitimate issues you raise. I am asking you to respect vendors enough to recognize: 3. That they have a RIGHT to protect their hard work. Please don't misread what I just said: I ENCOURAGE arguing over the details, until the result is mutually satisfactory. If cool-headed minds in both camps can recognize that the result is FANTASTIC for everyone, then we can all go back to having fun, instead of paranoid peering over our shoulder to see who is trying to screw us, and how.

Attached Link: Early XP sales less than stellar

"Of course there will be a crack.... but that isn't important. What is important is that relatively few companies and home users are willing to allow cracks into their systems... especially as security problems and viruses are on the rise.

All told my client base puts me in contact with more than 100+ workstations that run some form of Windows... and of the 60+ that now run WinXP I can tell you for sure less than 5 of them were running legitimate licenses for Windows before conversion.

Of those 60+, I know that 50+ of the are legit licenses now (I helped find suppliers for many of them) and abouyt 10 of them were running some form of cracked XP. That is, until SP1 disabled many of the cracks. Then suddenly 5 of those machiens went legit."

Sounds a little contradictory to me. On one hand you are stating that companies would not allow cracked software on their systems. On the other, you are stating that it has been your previous experience that they do, in fact, use cracked or illegal software. Which is it?

Historically, companies have been one of the worse offenders for software piracy, not the home users. Likewise, if you take the stats from BSA and other groups that have studied software piracy, you will know that the US, and most of the leading nations of the world (with the exceptions of, I believe Russia and China), are not the areas in which software piracy is prevalent. Software piracy thrives in the nations and locations worldwide where they generally do not subscribe to the WIPO, WTO, and other international copyright/IP treaties. Therefore, regardless of what is done in the nations that do tend to agree with copyright/IP protection, there will always be those who do not providing the workarounds to whomever wants them.

"So so far, that's Microsoft 55 or so, piracy 5. Of course, MS >DIDN'T< seel some copies fo XP because of the protection - but from my personal experience I know they came out WAY ahead."

WAY ahead? As in the amount of sales they made outnumbered the ones they would have without the protection? I highly doubt this is the case. There are many businesses and consumers who have sworn that they will never purchase XP or any other OS that contains these protection schemes. I fail to see how a relatively small subsection of previously illegal users constitutes enough of a sample to claim that MS is "WAY ahead" in terms of overall sales.

Ref the linked article. It seems that the industry does not agree that XP (in this case, initial sales) has even lived up to the sales figures of W98.

Do you need other sources? How about 10 for starters?

1. Huge Windows XP sales save the world
2. Microsoft: Early Windows XP sales top 95, ME
3. Microsoft goes quiet on XP sales figures
4. Users won't rush to buy XP
5. Windows XP: After the Launch
6. Windows XP - a hit or a miss?
7. Windows XP retail sales fail miserably
8. Windows XP : Sales Update
9. Windows XP Lags Win 98's Sales Pace
10. Windows XP sales lag

Much of the sales claimed by MS are OEM copies. I know many people who have reformatted their new systems and used W98, W2K, Linux, etc, on these very same systems. So, although the OEM sales figures may make the impression that XP has sold in quantities that one could claim are "staggering", I do not believe anyone has conducted an after-market survey to find out how many people actually kept XP installed on those systems they purchased.

"If you can increase the RISK, or make it HARDER then you will sell more of it."

This too is an unfounded claim that I have not seen any indication of its validity. In fact, if you make something HARDER for the end user, you are more likely to push them more toward software piracy than away from it.

"Objective studies? I don't have any that one couldn't poke holes in if you wanted, but then again neither do those who wish to provclaim piracy is not a factor in software sales."

TTBOMK, no one is claiming that software piracy does not adversely affect software sales. However, just like in brick-and-mortar businesses, breakage and theft are accepted business expenses that businesses take on themselves, usually by raising the prices to cover the anticipated losses. In fact, even the "you break it, you bought it" adage used by many businesses is incorrect, however, many consumers generally pay for the broken item because they are unaware that they are not required to do so.

[Neurocyber] "To tie software varification to hardware that has a limited life is just setting itself up for failure." SSS: You are correct. Therefore, for a hardware-based solution to work, requires more than just the hardware: * It requires the existence of at least two ways for a customer to be gotten running again IMMEDIATELY under any emergency failure scenario, available 24/7/365. * It requires an institution in place that is so well backed and well run that customers have confidence that it will still be there to keep them running, even if individual vendors come and go. * It requires all CUSTOMER data FILE FORMATS to be PUBLIC-DOMAIN, so that the customer knows he can extract all his data, eternally, no matter what. - - - - - Rant (at no one in particular, just frustration): Given all this, why would any vendor take on the expense, inconvenience, and customer fears about hardware-based protection? Because all other attempted solutions at protection are becoming increasingly futile, given the interconnectedness of today's world. No, I don't have any unbiased evidence of that. But software executives aren't dumb, and don't lightly take on a cost that may include: * having to recall a huge shipment of CD's from customers, because of a glitch in the protection scheme; * significantly higher support costs due to problems with protection scheme; * customer anger at protection scheme; * lost sales from some customers. Come on - do a thought experiment, not based on anything anyone tries to convince you of - simply ground it in your own intuitions. I'm not asking you to believe software executives are altruistic. Or movie/music executives for that matter! I'm asking you to recognize them as human beings like yourself, and to look more closely at the costs they are incurring by adopting software protection. If you were that person, what would induce YOU to do that, rather than dropping it like the hot potato that it is?

"NO COMPANY would waste their time with the ongoing hassle and the high consumer dissatisfaction of protection schemes if they weren't OVERWHELMINGLY CONVINCED that it was worth doing so." This is incorrect. Companies, on a whole, do what is in their best interest, often at odds with what is in the consumers' best interest. For instance, CL had tried this before, and ran into the same objections and concerns, yet CL still went ahead and invested time and money in the Interlok system that would probably have been better invested in the development and coding of P5 so that the purchasing public would not have to download, what has it been?, three or four patches since release? I am beginning to lose count. ;0) "Why is it necessary to convince YOU of the evidence?" Because I, and many others, are the consumers of these products who have to deal with companies when these things "protection schemes" impact my ability to use a product I purchased. And, I would defy anyone to show a viable business model in which consumers are not an integral part of the business' survival. SSS: "I am asking you to respect vendors enough to recognize: 3. That they have a RIGHT to protect their hard work." CS: "Again, I do not think that anyone desires that CL, or any software developer, stops trying to protect their investments." You seem to be missing the point. Consumers generally agree that companies have the right to protect their investments. But when that protection is obviously a falacy, and at most a placebo, and it comes at the expense of the product and/or the consumer, are we supposed to sit idly by and let it happen? "If cool-headed minds in both camps can recognize that the result is FANTASTIC for everyone" I suppose if this was the general consensus, then we would not be having this discussion. I am not the only one who is opposed to the illogical inclusion of costly protection schemes that, in the case of P5, have generated more issues than they have solved. After all, if a "team of scientists" cannot get it right, then who are we to turn to? Larry Weinberg had stated previously that he was getting peronally involved with the troubles that users were having with the Interlok system currently in use. TTBOMK, there has been no further public comment about it. But when a CEO of a company has to become involved in something more suited to developers, I feel that merits some notice.

[CyberStretch] "no one is claiming that software piracy does not adversely affect software sales. However, just like in brick-and-mortar businesses, breakage and theft are accepted business expenses that businesses take on themselves, usually by raising the prices to cover the anticipated losses." SSS: Exactly. Hence, SOMETHING must have changed that cold business calculation about "acceptable losses", or businesses wouldn't be going through the pain of adopting new protection schemes.

"Hence, SOMETHING must have changed that cold business calculation about 'acceptable losses', or businesses wouldn't be going through the pain of adopting new protection schemes." Yes, the placebo effect that "protection schemes" have on the investors. Nothing more than following suit of other software developers, regardless if that pursuit is fruitful or not.

[CyberStretch] This is incorrect. Companies, on a whole, do what is in their best interest, often at odds with what is in the consumers' best interest. SSS: I agree. Go back and re-read my arguments. In no way do I suggest that companies are acting altruistically. [CyberStretch] I have to deal with companies when these "protection schemes" impact my ability to use a product I purchased. I would defy anyone to show a viable business model in which consumers are not an integral part of the business' survival. SSS: I AGREE with you on both points. I dare say EVERYONE in the industry agrees with you. Hence, any cost imposed on you by a protection scheme, it is entirely appropriate and constructive for you to push that cost back on to the company, until it is done right. [CyberStretch] You seem to be missing the point. Consumers generally agree that companies have the right to protect their investments. But when that protection is obviously a falacy, and at most a placebo, and it comes at the expense of the product and/or the consumer, are we supposed to sit idly by and let it happen? SSS: I am not missing that point. But in me eyes, you are partially off-course as to what is in your self-interest, and what is not in your self-interest. It is in your self-interest to let a company know, loud and clear, whenever they try to impose any cost on you, regardless of the reason. Why rant about the supposed folly? What does that accomplish, other than to increase defensiveness? Are you so knowledgeable and proven, that when you say when that protection is obviously a fallacy, and at most a placebo, that the executives at Curious Labs would rationally respond, oops, weve missed something. He must be right - were just fooling ourselves. *** Why not just stick to screaming about the costs, until those issues are addressed? [CyberStretch] But when a CEO of a company has to become involved in something more suited to developers, I feel that merits some notice. SSS: Right on. But do you hear what I have been saying: dont confuse: * the trauma to you and others of Curious Labs attempt at software protection; with: * they are running the business, not you. Push back costs. If they misjudge the relative costs, then the next company to come along will have an opportunity.

"Hence, any 'cost' imposed on you by a protection scheme, it is entirely appropriate and constructive for you to push that cost back on to the company, until it is done right." Why do you think I engage in these discussions? Does it somehow benefit me in any way to spend countless hours trying to get software developers to see the irrationality behind including protection that is so easily circumvented? If protection schemes inherently present very little, (or a lot depending upon which POV you subscribe to), of "casual copying", yet they cost the software developers money and time, and potentially all of the users (legitimate and otherwise) grief and disenfranchisement with the software developers, why do the software developers insist on trying to shove porous material into the holes in the dike? Overall, the structure of the dike (the legitimate users) is secure and far outnumbers the holes (the illegitimate users), so what is the big deal? To me, an outsider in the sense that I am not a software developer (although I worked for one), it seems utterly stupid and illogical to continually implement "security measures" that, in effect, offer little to no security whatsoever. Perhaps as an independent software developer, you could enlighten the rest of us as to what type of mentality goes into these decisions? CL surely has not made any public statement rationalizing why they included the protection scheme despite the overwhelming opposition from their users in the past; other than the generic "we are trying to prevent warez copies of our software", which, TTBOMK, has not materialized. If there is a logical reason hidden somewhere, then I am open to hearing about it. "Why rant about the supposed folly? What does that accomplish, other than to increase defensiveness?" Because "an independent software developer" bothered to regenerate the discussion? ;0) "Are you so knowledgeable and proven, that when you say 'when that protection is obviously a fallacy, and at most a placebo', that the executives at Curious Labs would rationally respond" Nope, they do not have to take my word for it. However, since they are the ones making the case for protection schemes based off software piracy and casual copying, I suppose I mistakenly interpreted that as meaning that they decided that there was enough justification for them to implement those schemes. I guess I should have known that they based their decisions off of suppositions and flagrant innuendoes. Perhaps I gave them too much credibility in being able to justify why they continually try to use "protection" that has holes in it; or at least protection that can easily enough be removed thereby making it a non-issue. "Why not just stick to screaming about the costs, until those issues are addressed?" IMHO, they are one and the same. Protection schemes cause the cost and it is all part of the discussion. Those who felt the protection was too much, either did not purchase P5 or have not installed it until something (legal or not) is available to circumvent it. I am not stating that I condone the illegal means, but it has been stated time and again by some that if illegal means is the only way, then they will pursue whatever it takes. So, how has CL benefitted from including the latest and greatest protection scheme? Does anyone have the financial statements or sales numbers to back up the claim that they have sold more copies than they would have without it? The only thing I have seen, which seems to indicate the exact opposite, is that within a mere 8 weeks after initially releasing the product, CL has reduced the price. Granted, the price reduction is mere chump change, but so was the 5-6% "discount" offered to pre-orders. That infers to me that they did not make the sales forecasts and that they are trying whatever is necessary to recoup some of those losses. I would like to challenge any software developer to release two versions of their software: one with and one without a protection scheme, and see what the purchasing public's "voting dollars" have to say about it. When you only have one option, it is hard to qualitfy and/or quantify what could/should/would have transpired if both options were available.

"I would like to challenge any software developer to release two versions of their software: one with and one without a protection scheme, and see what the purchasing public's "voting dollars" have to say about it. When you only have one option, it is hard to qualitfy and/or quantify what could/should/would have transpired if both options were available." I wish that such a test could be done - but think it through more carefully. It is pointless to sell both protected and unprotected versions - do you see why? CyberStretch - I pondered whether to respond point-by-point to the rest of your post, but I've decided that is fruitless. I have already tried that on each previous post. Whether you realize it or not, you attempt to manipulate anyone else reading this thread, by continuing to rage against points that I am not making, that OF COURSE most people would find wrong, in hopes that this will make your viewpoint look more rational than it is. I respect rants. Rants are important, and often contain emotional truth that we are not yet articulate enough to argue rationally. I respect you. You are upset about software protection. I trust that emotional instinct: if it bothers you, then there is a harm being done to you, that hasn't been sufficiently eliminated. I want to help clarify the costs and benefits of different courses of action, to the different parties involved. If I were to merely "out-debate you" - I might end up convincing others that you were being unproductive and irrelevant - but you would be left with a feeling inside that you had been had. You would be right, because I would have failed to help eliminate whatever the harm was. First, I will say the obvious, so that we keep it in mind: No matter what you and I say, you will leave this discussion partly unsatisfied, since it is a conversation you would really need to have with Larry Weinberg and Steve Cooper, of Curious Labs. Hopefully, by you and I airing it here, we can clarify the points at stake. Hopefully, we can arrive somewhere that would be worth bringing to the attention of Curious Labs' executives. I have invested enough time into this discussion. I judge it not worth my time to continue, given your repeated failure to hear what I have said. For this discussion to be of benefit to you and other customers, I need you to work harder. I need you to look more closely at what I am saying, at what YOU are saying; to look inside yourself to see what you hope to acheive. And to look at reality: what is realistic to acheive. Maybe we need to drop it for awhile.

I was going to stop there, but I've decided to make a stab at delineating where I think the discussion stands. I expect that you will want to respond to this; then I suggest we let it lie. Perhaps other customers will step in and add their two cents. I believe we agree on each of these points: * The creator of something has a right to decide what happens to it. If they are selling it for money, they have a right to insist that those who use it, pay for it. * Software protection sucks. It has important costs. Therefore, if it is used, there had better be a damn good reason. I think this is why you want to see hard evidence. You would like to judge for yourself whether the vendor is simply being "lazy" in choosing "software protection" as the way to go. * Software protection is a conflict between customer and vendor because the vendor reaps the (alleged) direct benefit - protecting their sales, and the customer bears the worst costs - inconvenience at best, inability to use what they paid good money for at worst. You question whether the vendor has rationally assessed the benefit they are receiving. * This is a business transaction. The vendor is offering a product/service. The customer is offering money. Neither party is obligated to be altruistic. The goal is a win-win trade between two parties. It would be nice to have both sides feel friendly towards the other afterwards, but both vendors and customers have repeatedly shown that when push comes to shove they will act in their own self-interests. I think this is where vendors went astray. Rather than stating absurd cry-baby statistics about how much money they were losing to piracy, they should have taken a more direct businesslike approach: The Vendor: I've decided it is in my interests to use software protection. It is none of your business how many sales that saved me. Oh, you think that IS your business? You mean, if I can prove that it saves me countless sales, you'd suddenly be happier about what software protection costs you? Are you really that altruistic? Now, lets focus on the transaction: do we have a deal or don't we? The Customer: You have underestimated how much software protection costs ME. Here is why: [ insert the points that have been raised about how this harms the customer, including potential harm in scenarios such as vendor going out of business. ] The Vendor: I understand. Here is what I am doing to lessen those costs: [ the discussion I have been attempting to hold with you ] The Customer: Not good enough. I want you to drop software protection. The Vendor: No. Given what I have done to lessen those costs, do we have a deal yet? Most Customers: I'm not thrilled, but since you are the vendor offering what is closest to what I want, I will accept your deal. But be forewarned, I will be keeping an eye out for other vendors. A Few Customers: No. - - - - - Speculation: Look more closely at what you are feeling. Is part of the issue "this is unfair"? The vendor has chosen a solution that they believe protects them. There isn't a damn thing you can do about it. This won't change, unless the market grows large enough to support multiple vendors. At some point, one vendor may decide to try the "no software protection" deal. If not, that's life. They aren't obligated to meet your terms; you aren't obligated to buy anything. If you know how to run a business more effectively than they, then do so. If you are right, you will reap the benefits. If you are wrong, you will pay the costs. If you are clear-headed, you will quickly decide in uncertain cases to take the less risky course. Given a highly connected world, protecting intellectual property, even imperfectly, is less risky than not. All you have at stake is: one little piece of software might stop being available to you. A vendor has MUCH more at stake than that. Think about it. - - - - - Nuts. I went on farther than I meant to. I hope I don't push any of your buttons and make you defensive. I spent some time considering whether to delete that previous section, but I've decided to let it stand. Signing off for now (I will read your response, but I won't respond this week), -- ToolmakerSteve

Well, I, too, think that you are not seeing my perspective in the correct light and, maybe, the discussion should be dropped because the more I look at it, there is no "mutually beneficial" solution that everyone would agree upon.

AFAIC, your opinions are yours, mine are mine, and whether they meet anywhere is immaterial and inconsequential in the grand scheme of things.

I harbor no ill-will toward you or any other software developer. Whereas I am not a software developer, I guess I do not think along the same lines. As a consumer, I tend to think logically:

What is the problem? Warez and illegal copying of the software.

What can be done about it? A) Nothing, B) Protection, C) Waiting for a Viable Option.

What are the costs/benefits of the actions above?

A) Nothing:

• Costs:

• Company: Product still gets warezed, copied, shared, whatever; loses out on money (supposing the warezers would have actually paid for it in the first place).
• Customer: Customers will have to pay higher prices to cover the costs of losses as with any B&M business.
• Warez: Unhindered.

• Benefits:

• Company: Developers can stay focused on the software; do not have to deal with the "protection overhead"; less customer/technical support costs.
• Customer: Customers get to use the software as intended without any additional "administrivia" to it.
• Warez: Unhindered.

B) Protection:

• Costs:

• Company: More administration; support costs; and the cost of the protection and implementation.
• Customer: Aggravation and frustration with the additional steps to use the software; longer hold times for support; less system/software stability.
• Warez: Unhindered.

• Benefits:

• Company: A supposed increase in sales and a corresponding decrease in illegal copies.
• Customer: May, eventually pay less to cover for theft (although many companies never reduce the price regardless).
• Warez: Unhindered.

C) Waiting for a Viable Option.

• Costs:

• Company: Product still gets warezed, copied, shared, whatever while awaiting the viable option; loses out on money.
• Customer: Customers will have to pay higher prices to cover the costs of losses as with any B&M business.
• Warez: Unhindered.

• Benefits:

• Company: Retains the status quo without incurring additional costs or alienating their legit customers; once the viable option presents itself, implementation will actually reduce the warezed, copied, shared, versions of the software.
• Customer: Retains the same rights and privileges; once the viable option is implemented, they can rest assured that their money was spent wisely knowing that illegal users who have not paid for the software cannot use it.
• Warez: Loses the ability to warez, copy, share the software closing the "black market" upon which they have created.

I realize that this is way over-simplified, but there is no sense in getting into the "nitty-gritty" since we do not see eye-to-eye, nor will the discussion continue. However, hopefully, this will give you insight as to where my confusion lies. Perhaps there is some sort of "inside information" that makes this all worthwhile that the consumers do not see. But, the consumers cannot educate themselves without the companies being honest and straight-forward as to the justifications of imposing an "across the board" solution to a problem that, seemingly in comparison, is the vast minority of the cases.

I do appreciate your involvement, your attempt to shed some light on the subject, and for sticking your hand into a veritable hornets nest. That is much more than many other companies have been willing to do. But, unitl I become a software developer or develop some sort of clairvoyance, I guess I will never be able to see the other side's POV.

I think the example of Windows XP is a special case, as every computer has to have an operating system. So if you can't cadge a friend's install disc, you do have to buy one for yourself. That's not the case with a program like Poser, where someone might accept a copy from a friend for free, but wouldn't bother buying it otherwise. As for REAL piracy, take a wander round downtown Bucharest sometime. In many countries people are driven to piracy because they simply can't afford the prices that are charged by big western software companies.

Hey guys - I am tossing this reply out there cause I had it laying around on my desktop for a few days; I realize that the discussion has mostly wound down but I wanted to add soem items.

CyberStretch - "Sounds a little contradictory to me. On one hand you are stating that companies would not allow cracked software on their systems. On the other, you are stating that it has been your previous experience that they do, in fact, use cracked or illegal software. Which is it?"

They were more than happy to run illegal software. Specifically in all Windows versions until XP all you had to do was be willing to put the same "key" into every machine you loaded. There was no technical risk and no inherent security problem.

There is no contradiction because that is specifically what I meant to convey :)

CyberStretch - "Historically, companies have been one of the worse offenders for software piracy, not the home users."

That would depend on how you see it. For instance of course a company will pirate more software at a time, but collectively I feel that home users account for much more total pirate copies. But in the end that isn't an issue... the issue is, does the protection stop enough piracy to be worth it and the answer is yes. If companies ARE the primary culprits than protection is even stronger an option because companies are much less likely to use cracked software.

CyberStretch - "WAY ahead? As in the amount of sales they made outnumbered the ones they would have without the protection? I highly doubt this is the case. There are many businesses and consumers who have sworn that they will never purchase XP or any other OS that contains these protection schemes. I fail to see how a relatively small subsection of previously illegal users constitutes enough of a sample to claim that MS is "WAY ahead" in terms of overall sales."

I can only speak from what I see as any studies on this are purely speculative. While I am sure many businesses swore not to upgrade - how many have since changed their minds? How many home users are now running XP on their new computer? In the industry itself I don't see any concerted resistance to XP outside of the fringe.

CyberStretch - "Ref the linked article. It seems that the industry does not agree that XP (in this case, initial sales) has even lived up to the sales figures of W98."

A few thoughts - Comparing the initial sales of XP to the initial sales of 98 and 95 is a useless number, though fun. :)

1. A large number of those who would have purchased a boxed upgrade purchased a new machine with XP in it, for example.
2. Many factors influence initial sales, a fact mentioned specifically in many of the articles you are pointing too.
3. Windows XP is a more expensive upgrade then Win98 was, and in weaker economy.

Just to name a few. In fact, to quote one of 'your' articles...

"Dyckovsky attributed XPs slow retail start to a number of factors including the weak economy, the saturated PC market, and presales of Windows XP PCs. While consumers had to wait until Oct 25 to get a boxed copy of Windows XP, PC makers shipped the operating system on new computers a full month earlier. Additionally, more consumers upgrade their operating systems by buying entirely new computers, rather than buying new versions of Windows to put on older PCs, according to Dyckovsky and several others. Sales were probably not what Microsoft expected last spring, he said. But its probably very close to what they expected after Sept 11.  - full text

"The XP sales figures also don't take into account copies of the operating system included on new PCs, which makes comparisons with previous products even more tenuous. Today more consumers upgrade their operating system by buying a new computer than they did in the past." - full text

And most importantly...

"The hype surrounding XP is more subdued than the Windows 95 ballyhoo, in part because of a marketing campaign that has been overshadowed by the 11 September terrorist attacks and the slumping economy." - full text

So a huge number of factors, including the most devastating attack on our nation in history might have had an effect on the sales, I think we can safely say that those sales figures mean very little.

I know what I, and those I work with, are seeing in clients and home users with our own eyes. IF you don't want to go with that then that's fine, but your articles don't make a convincing case.

CyberStretch - "This too is an unfounded claim that I have not seen any indication of its validity. In fact, if you make something HARDER for the end user, you are more likely to push them more toward software piracy than away from it."

I didn't say harder for the end user, I said harder to pirate :) And it isn't an unfounded claim, it is based on personal experience with clients and home users. You are welcome to not take my word for it - but it is far from unfounded.

CyberStretch - "TTBOMK, no one is claiming that software piracy does not adversely affect software sales. However, just like in brick-and-mortar businesses, breakage and theft are accepted business expenses that businesses take on themselves, usually by raising the prices to cover the anticipated losses."

And when technical means to reduce that loss come along many stores take advantage of it. For instance you woudl have a heard time finding a Blockbuster store that didn't have anti-theft devices o their inventory; even though those devices may occasionally inconvenience some customers.

Having been an area manager for a retail chain in NJ, I can assure you that every possible avenue for reducing shrinkage is evaluated, and many are employed when possible. From sensor tags ont he items to those dye markers on clothing in retail clothing stores.

Anti-piracy devices are EXTREMELY common on high ticket retail items.

CyberStretch - "Yes, the placebo effect that "protection schemes" have on the investors. Nothing more than following suit of other software developers, regardless if that pursuit is fruitful or not."

You are assuming that the effect is only a placebo and constructing your theory to explain it; that's fine but hardly a causal relationship. On the other hand, you are way off base if you think that such a placebo effect would be worth doing, investors care only about the bottom line - so if you could not show that the expense had been worth it there would be a strong backlash.

**CyberStretch - ** "I would like to challenge any software developer to release two versions of their software: one with and one without a protection scheme, and see what the purchasing public's "voting dollars" have to say about it. When you only have one option, it is hard to qualitfy and/or quantify what could/should/would have transpired if both options were available."

Such an experiment would be meaningless. The issue at stake is whether strong protection increases sales. The availability of an unprotected version would dramatically increase the piracy rate and invalidate the experiment.

Your option set is the important one, and the absolute core of our disagreement.

**CyberStretch - ** "What can be done about it? A) Nothing, B) Protection, C) Waiting for a Viable Option."

The issue is that me, and others, clearly believe that B >is< a viable option.

CyberStretch -

"B) Protection:

• Costs:

• Company: More administration; support costs; and the cost of the protection and implementation.
• Customer: Aggravation and frustration with the additional steps to use the software; longer hold times for support; less system/software stability.
• Warez: Unhindered."
   

The key one is the tension between (cost + customer) vs. warez. You are portraying warez as "unhindered", yet many of us who actually see this sort of thing have seen warez be hindered by good protection, in some cases dramatically hindered.

All I can say is that the evidence is from my (and many others points of view) obvious and clear but to you it will be anecdotal. When software developers decide to protect they are going with their experiences and those of their trusted advisers.

A cool discussion all around, thanks specially to CS for arguing his point well and without the sort of personal attack that often enters piracy discussions.

Well, soulhuntre, at least you can tell by the links that I provided and you quoted that I am not biased in my attempt to educate myself on the effectiveness of "protection schemes". As for the current thrust of the thread, most of what was discussed thus far is tangential to the real discussion: Do Protection Schemes Work? I have read many of the industry reports on piracy (ie, BSA, SIIA, etc) and I have not seen anything as of yet that proves that any form of past or present "protection schemes" have achieved anywhere near significant results. In fact, piracy is reportedly on the rise, which would directly contradict that presumption. All I am asking, is for a little insight (from a reputable source and not based solely on personal opinion or industry bias) and references that may change my mind. Do not presume that I would immediately "poke holes" into whatever information you provide, or that I will consider it "anecdotal", provide the information and let me decide. So, do your best to educate me. :0) I am not so big of a person that I would not admit I was wrong if the case should be proven. However, to date, nothing stated has provided any factual information that one could reference that would support the "protection works" side of the discussion.

Attached Link: SIIA's Report on Global Software Piracy 2000 [PDF]

"In fact, piracy is reportedly on the rise, which would directly contradict that presumption." I should have stated that "piracy is reportedly on the rise globally", as there are some geographical areas in which piracy has decreased, as well as many in which it has increased. However, the reason for the decrease cannot, or has not been, tied to the proliferation of "protection schemes". There are far too many factors that "could" be the cause of the decline, and I am sure that protection schemes are a part, but it would be difficult at best to qualify and quantify what has caused the decrease in piracy, say in the US: "In the United States, for example, the level of piracy has been reduced from 48 percent in 1989 to 25 percent in 1999." - SIIA's Report on Global Software Piracy 2000, page 21. (Ref the link.) However, the methodology in determining their facts and figures is stated only as: "The piracy loss and rate estimates upon which this report is based are the result of a commissioned methodology and study by International Planning Research Group (IPR). SIIA and the Business Software Alliance jointly commissioned IPR to develop and implement a methodology resulting in data both groups would jointly release annually." In an attempt to locate the "International Planning Research Group" to investigate just what that "commissioned methodology" is, a Google search only brings up two SIIA links; one of which is the PDF. This, to me, would indicate that it is only in use by SIIA and the "commissioned" part would indicate that they paid for the study which, to me, presents a form of bias in and of itself. Now, if the study was conducted by an impartial third party, it would hold more credence in my POV.

Since there is no impartial third party report, and since it would be an impossible thing to accurately measure in any case I can't provide youw ith anything. I will mention that my comments are not my "opinion" as far as what I have seen, it is a truthful retelling of facts personally witnessed - the protection scheme in WindowsXP has dramatically reduced piracy in the several hundred seats I can account for it in across multiple clients and home users. And my experience is not uncommon - that is why many developers are moving to protection - not as a placebo, but because we see that it works when implemented correctly. Sometime go to a GDC (Game Developers Conference) and talk to the developers there about releasing a new game without protection - they'll laugh themselves silly. Not to please stockholders, but because they wouldn't sell NEARLY as many copies. Int he end though, it is onlyt he personal experiences of a stranger to you... you have to decide whether you think the major publishing houses of games, and several of the largest software companies int he world are all being suckered by snake oil. I know it isn't, from personal experience. GOOD protections chemes work; it's that simple.

I find the lack of impartial and objective data to be questionable; especially in light of the general outcry from the purchasing public regarding the "evils", real or imaginary, of including protection schemes in software. Perhaps I will try to find some on my own. To believe that one side of the discussion has absolutely no impartial information about their stance is mind-boggling. I can only logicallty think that some impartial data must exist, but that peoples' perception of how that information will be viewed is the limiting factor.

There is no "impartial data" because >all< data research must be paid for by someone, and those people will always have an agenda someone could be suspicious of :)

Well, as usual, I tend to disagree. :0) If, say, CL was to put out a data research report on how many users illegally use CLs' products, I would find that as suspicious. However, if there was an impartial third party, say, the BBB or Consumer Reports that generated a similar report, I would find that more credible. Granted, every study, survey, etc, will have some level of bias attached to it. But, when the information is paid for and provided by those who stand to benefit the most from it, it practically begs for speculation and suspicion.

Attached Link: Curious Labs partners with "Adult Entertainment"

Hrm, talking about biases... (Ref the link)

Umm...

OK. So I am confused :)

I am completely unsure how the fact that one of my corporations does a decent business in the "Adult" side of the web is somehow supposed to be related to any bias on the issue of software piracy? In case you aren't aware of it, the adult industry is 99% about .jpg files - which require no dongle and allow for almost no protection.

If there is any bias to be found, it seems to be yours :)

No, the bias stems from someone defending a "partner" and not disclosing the fact that a partnership exists. I could care less if your sites were adult or not. However, the fact that you and CL have a business relationship is an important fact to consider when you are expressing your views to defend their intentions, no?

Well that woudl depend on whether or not I am able to back up what I say. If I am jsut saying "It's good! It's Good!" then your right, it would be a crucial factor... However, since I have independant reasons, and state them, for the support I give them then those reasons stand on their own - so take it into account if you want, but it isn;t a critical issue. BTW - I bothered to hook up with CP BECAUSE I think Poser5 is a good thing, not the other way around. There would be NO value in doing it if I thought the product was a turkey :)

Considering your positive stance on all things Poser (ie, the EULA, the software, the registration, etc) I am sure that you could see where having an interest in its success/failure would be a form of bias that should have been disclosed. Up to the point that I found out about your involvement with CP, I was under the impression that you had no other interest in CL/CP/P5 other than voicing your opinions about it. However, it does change perceptions if you stand to gain if CL/CP/P5 is either a success or lose if it is a failure. As far as backing up what you have said: I still do not see anything other than your posts that back up your position. You have offered nothing by means of any outside information other than your own personal experience. Now, if I knew you personally enough to accept you on your word, then that would be fine. However, for all I know, you could be stating anything as factual and I have no idea whether it is or not. So, if you can offer anything other than personal experience, please do. Would you take is as factual if I stated I was one of the original astronauts and I have actually walked on Mars? Surely you can see that statements of personal experience does not always equate to facts, especially if they cannot be (or have not been) verified by additional sources.

That's cool :) Your (as anyone is) welcome to make your own judgments. Of course, what I am finding interesting is the concept of bias in "all things Poser". I don't see it as a bias. I see it as honesty. * If you look up my position on WindowsXP registration you will see it is exactly the same (I poseted here on R'osity about it) and I CERTAINLY don't make any money from MS and that was before Poser5 existed :) * The software one is simple - I was part of the beta test and we simply did not see many of the bugs that were found "in the wild". This was verified by others - so I am unsure how it shows bias. * The EULA - if you'll note I had a COW about similar issues with Daz and was eventually happy with their offer to grant legal documentation of compliance to those vendors who needed it - this was WAY before the Poser5 issue. It is only honest and consistent that I suggest that as the answer to the Poser5 problem - since it was the SAME problem I had spend a month arguing. In other words - what seems to be bias in my opinions is actually consistent with my opinions before Poser5 existed on similar topics. Hopefully consistency isn't a bad thing :) All things considered I can't imagine it would be worth me sacraficing all my opinions for the little bit of revanue that I MIGHT get from a product or two on CP when we offer them for sale - especially since I could offer the same products on R'osity (actually PoserPros) without CP ... so I guess I am missing what the motive would be. Anyway - thanks for the thread and for keeping it all polite :) P.S. Sorry for the delay in my reply, crushing deadlines here.

NP. I can see you point. I was not around long enough for, or just did not pay attention to, many of the discussions you mentioned. But, I did notice that many of your posts surrounding CL/P5 were positive in nature, despite other people having some serious issues with them. C'est la vie! (Or something like that.) Consistency is a good thing. Right alongside courtesy, honesty, integrity, and many other words ending in "y". :0) I never meant to be impolite, and I am glad you took it that way. I just have an insatiable appetite for trying to understand and comprehend things; even from others' viewpoints. However, being human, I can and do make mistakes once and awhile; not many, but you will catch me on occasion. ;0) NP on the delay. RL has many people in a bind as of late. Hopefully, you will meet your deadlines and have some time to post some links to back up your personal experiences. lol j/k

yup it is effective, and yup it is available for windows. ( Alias-Wavefront uses the Flex-LM system for Maya. ) but even that can be ( and is ) circumvented. ( I saw a warez copy of maya for linux ) no protection scheme is going to maintain 100% effectiveness. the only way to stop illegal copies that will maintain 100% effectiveness? the GNU-GPL or LPGL free source code to any that ask. why pirate something that can be gotten free from manufacturer? 100% effective, always. ~l~

Thanks CS - and I'll try to keep it in mind. Actually, the GPL and LGPL are far from 100% effective in preventing piracy - since GPL code is occasionally use in ways that is incompatible with the virus like nature of that license it is in fact sometimes pirated. Now, the BSD license is much closer to free - and thus less open to abuse.

gonna have to open the book and re-read it, I had understood that the gpl only really had two restrictions, 1)you must include a copy of the gpl in your release, and 2) you must make available a copy of the source code of the app. I know you can't go back from a gpl to an oem license ( why on earth would you want to rip yourself off of the millions of hours of free coding from the community by going oem I don't know )

OK this thread has gone on far too long anyway, but it is a real hot button of mine so I will add my two cents worth anyway. I work for a startup, Anadgim Inc. as a Sr. Software Engineer. You can see my work on our website www.anadigm.com, my project is AnadigmFilter. The first generation software was free, the second generation costs around $2500 depending on what options you enable. We now have two people full time managing just who is allowed what options. We do it through a registration and encryption scheme and it is a never ending hassle. All of our software staff have MSDN Universal licenses which INCLUDES Win XP, but we ALL use WIN 2000 for our development because we have had five lockouts due to software glitches. One was directly traced to loading adozen upgraded drivers at once. A Win XP lockout is no joke - you entire system is a paperweight until you reauthorize the code. Since the default logon doesn't know about your LAN setup you get to do it all by phhone! About a two hour process when you include repeats for screwups. Just what you don't need when you are trying to get a enw software release out! So, we show on MS' books as having Win-XP (about 60 copies) but actually use win 2K! I suspect there are a whole bunch of people doing the same thing. Oh yes, I saw the first "cracked" WIN-XP a week after I got my MSDN copy, that was before they hit the stores. I don't like piracy any more than anyone else, but when the so called solution causes more grief for your honest customer than it does for the thieves it is supposed to protect against then it truly is not working! I use Win-XP as a horrible example, but there are now almost a dozen formerly good software packages which I refuse to upgrade for similar reasons.

Well, no offense but you are doing something seriously wrong. What you might want to do is look into the corporate version of WinXp, the systme doesn't do lockouts when used in that configuration - it was specifically designed to avoid the problem in large production environments with a lot of changout. Like yours. As for the rest of it, I am not going to comment much because I don;t have any information on your situation - but your problem is not one I have seen or heard of in the hundreds of WinXP systems that I or my partners are involved in on a constant basic through our consulting - if XP had a tendancy to lock out like that my beep would be overheating and I would be a wealthy man. So if it's a constant problem for your company, then I suggest you look for the cause of it ... cause it isn't a common problem.

sigh The good ol' threads, eh soulhuntre? :0)

The younger threads and I just don't have anything in common :)