Take that file-swappers!
A big blow to parasitic companies..
Monday, June 27, 2005 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize News
Today was a big win for those of us who value intellectual property. Companies like Grokster and Kazaa and others who profit off of enabling people to conveniently steal software, music, videos, etc. are now on notice thanks to today's Supreme Court ruling on the issue.
The Supreme court found that peer-to-peer providers are indeed liable for how users make use of their network. I for one am pretty pleased with this outcome on a number of levels.
A few years ago, Napster took the world by storm. Its developer was hailed as a visionary and the company became a household name. But many developers, including us, were pretty unhappy with the whole thing. Automated piracy is not revolutionary or innovative. Many companies (including Stardock) had thought of such file sharing concepts in the past but did not invest in them because it would be difficult to keep people from pirating. But companies and individuals with fewer scruples not only went forward with such ideas but profited greatly from them and won both fame and fortune.
These companies exist, IMO, purely to profit from people pirating other people's work. Perhaps these guys will find real jobs now and earn money honestly.
The Supreme Court wrote:
"There is no evidence that either company (Grokster or StreamCast) made an effort to filter copyrighted material from users' downloads or otherwise impede the sharing of copyrighted files," Souter wrote. "Each company showed itself to be aiming to satisfy a known source of demand for copyright infringement, the market comprising former Napster users."
While the court will, in future cases, need to clarify some of the elements of its ruling, I think this is a big win for people who create intellectual property. I don't have a huge angst about piracy per se, but I have a lot of angst about companies in the business of profiting from it.
 |
|
Page 2 of 11 | |
|
|---|
Tecumseh
Reply #22 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 2:44 PM
"#4 by Admin Jafo
Mon, June 27, 2005 11:26 PM Reply
Quote Watch
It's a shame you couldn't just report the news. There is enough spin, we don't need it here too.
Wincustomize.com is a Skinning site...aka 'Graphic Art' Site. Its members/contributors own 'Intellectual Property' here and therefore logically also 'value' it.
Thus, the comment is not 'spin', it is simply recognition of audience..."
Damn straight!
Reply #22 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 2:44 PM
"#4 by Admin Jafo
Mon, June 27, 2005 11:26 PM Reply
Quote Watch
It's a shame you couldn't just report the news. There is enough spin, we don't need it here too.
Wincustomize.com is a Skinning site...aka 'Graphic Art' Site. Its members/contributors own 'Intellectual Property' here and therefore logically also 'value' it.
Thus, the comment is not 'spin', it is simply recognition of audience..."
Damn straight!
S3vyn
Reply #23 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 3:28 PM
Reply #23 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 3:28 PM
The Supreme Court wrote:
If you are upset about this ruling, read that. If you're still upset, read that again. Rinse and repeat. The problem the courts outlined is that the networks have made no effort whatsoever to limit activities which had ALREADY been labeled a Federal level offense. In other words, these people made no reasonable effor to remain within the confines of existing laws, so new laws are going to have to be made to further ensure intellectual property remains profitable.
I don't think the ruling is meant to provide back door access to anyone into your machine, steal your children, kick your dog or keep you from enjoying legal digital entertainment. I think the Court did well in making sure this wasn't a "blanket" ruling which made file-swapping illegal, it simply requires that those who foster file-swapping make a reasonable effort to ensure the files being swapped are not illegal. Something they SHOULD have been doing anyhow!
| "There is no evidence that either company (Grokster or StreamCast) made an effort to filter copyrighted material from users' downloads or otherwise impede the sharing of copyrighted files," Souter wrote. "Each company showed itself to be aiming to satisfy a known source of demand for copyright infringement, the market comprising former Napster users." |
If you are upset about this ruling, read that. If you're still upset, read that again. Rinse and repeat. The problem the courts outlined is that the networks have made no effort whatsoever to limit activities which had ALREADY been labeled a Federal level offense. In other words, these people made no reasonable effor to remain within the confines of existing laws, so new laws are going to have to be made to further ensure intellectual property remains profitable.
I don't think the ruling is meant to provide back door access to anyone into your machine, steal your children, kick your dog or keep you from enjoying legal digital entertainment. I think the Court did well in making sure this wasn't a "blanket" ruling which made file-swapping illegal, it simply requires that those who foster file-swapping make a reasonable effort to ensure the files being swapped are not illegal. Something they SHOULD have been doing anyhow!
Gusteau
Reply #24 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 4:01 PM
Reply #24 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 4:01 PM
Let ye that is without sin cast the first stone....
Bichur
Reply #25 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 4:02 PM
Bah! News boring. Spinning fun. specially under fluffy clouds.
Reply #25 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 4:02 PM
| It's a shame you couldn't just report the news. There is enough spin, we don't need it here too. |
Bah! News boring. Spinning fun. specially under fluffy clouds.
markus11CU
Reply #26 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 4:09 PM
Reply #26 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 4:09 PM
First of all anyone that wants to claim that the Supreme court is going to eliminate DVD burning software needs to research the subject a little bit. In Sony vs. Universal City Studios in 1984 the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sony and its Video tape recorder... similar to a DVD recorder stating that the Sony Betamax had sufficient legal intent to allow Sony to continue to sell the product. Secondly simply renting and copying DVDs is not going to bankrupt anyone or even show the slightest decrease in sales that file sharing does. Many people may not know this but every blank VHS or DVD has a small fee attached to the price that is given to the MPAA and its participating members in order to reimburse them for any lost profits that they may incur. Also on a mere sense of scale clients like BitTorrent can allow for exponential growth of the distribution of copyrighted materials, simply burning the same number of copies of the same material does not come close in any regards to the distribution numbers. The court has in the past seemed level headed when making court rulings on technology. This ruling took them over 6 months to deliberate showing that they will not make any rash decisions on eliminating technology. The file sharing services should be held responsible for the materials that are distributed over their networks, the best analogy to file sharing is drug trafficking. In drug trafficking someone grows, creates, ... etc. the drugs usually in a country where it is legal (this would be someone that buys the copyrighted materials). Then the grower does not want to hold onto the drugs because they are not what he wants. So the grower or whomever it is that the drugs originate from then gives the drugs to a transporter (a file sharing service) in exchange for money (other illegal files). The transporter if caught with the drugs is liable for them even if he had no idea that what he was transporting was drugs. Now someone that grows pot in their attic is similar to someone that burns DVDs. The government still wants that person to stop but is not outlawing growing plants indoors because the plant may be pot. The government is trying to eliminate the distributors in drug trafficking at the borders of America and inside of America. The government does not attack the growers in other countries either, they try to get that government to stop allowing the drugs to leave their country. They government wants to stop this but does not know how... this is what needs to be fixed with file sharing if the government can regulate what is put onto file sharing services then the problem of legality of it as it is transported is negligible.
Well this post is much longer than I intended, but I wrote a 15 page paper on file sharing this last semester at college.
Well this post is much longer than I intended, but I wrote a 15 page paper on file sharing this last semester at college.
_TAPPER_
Reply #27 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 4:39 PM
True only to a certain extent. If transported by truck and the load is sealed at the point of origin the transporter is only liable for what is on the bill of lading. Containers from overseas or crossing borders are an example, because you need a federal court order to break the seal unless you are the consignee or a federal officer. Off topic,yes, but wanted to clear that up. Its what I do for a living.
Reply #27 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 4:39 PM
| The transporter if caught with the drugs is liable for them even if he had no idea that what he was transporting was drugs. |
True only to a certain extent. If transported by truck and the load is sealed at the point of origin the transporter is only liable for what is on the bill of lading. Containers from overseas or crossing borders are an example, because you need a federal court order to break the seal unless you are the consignee or a federal officer. Off topic,yes, but wanted to clear that up. Its what I do for a living.
kona0197
Reply #28 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 6:12 PM
One problem with that statement. On a P2P network no one steals from each other - they SHARE everything.
Oh and by the way - A Supreme Court ruling can br overturned by a general vote or something right?
Reply #28 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 6:12 PM
| These companies exist primarily to enable people to steal from other people. That was their "business model". Shame on them and shame on anyone who thinks that's okay. |
One problem with that statement. On a P2P network no one steals from each other - they SHARE everything.
Oh and by the way - A Supreme Court ruling can br overturned by a general vote or something right?
Jafo
Reply #29 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 7:19 PM
Reply #29 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 7:19 PM
| On a P2P network no one steals from each other - they SHARE everything. |
Normally it's called 'handling' or 'receiving', both of which are criminal acts, along with 'taking'....
SoftRain
Reply #30 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:12 PM
Reply #30 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:12 PM
File sharing is great for finding rare things that cannot be purchased and although any other use would be stealing, I have yet to read a suitable explanation regarding the nature of so-called "intellectual property." One might as well illegalize human memory, thereby forbidding a man from singing a copy-writed song in pubic. The fact that this very thing has been done, for example with "Happy Birthday," only brings to light the layers of absurdity that define human affairs. If I own a thing a wish to give it away to anyone I choose, I absolutely have the right to do so. However, in regard to software, mass re-production in the form of P2P sharing is obviously amoral. Vae Victus.
wombatDK
Reply #31 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:19 PM
Reply #31 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:19 PM
From a intellectual property point of view I applaud the ruling. I'm also pretty glad that noone here made the usual claim "that's lost sales for us!". P2P made pirating music, movies and software so easy it got out of hand. There HAD to be something done about it, and this ruling is still not enough. As far as I am concerned, it's a tough matter though. Look at DVD decrypting software: Without it, I could not watch my LEGALLY purchased DVDs (because I moved across continents). Of course the MPAA would probably say "sell them and buy new ones". Yeah, right.
The industry needs to wake up. Their idiotic copy protections are a hassle only for people who legally purchase their goods. Games that need the original CD in the drive to play them? Annoying as hell. Music CD's which cannot be played on a PC? Stick them up yours, my dear RIAA & associates. Long live No-CD hacks. Think they make you lose sales? I doubt it - people who pirate rarely would have bought the original anyway.
I'm grateful for companies like Stardock, who still maintain a healthy balance between protecting their interests and the interests of customers. I'm loathing companies that go way overboard to protect their own interests, and to hell with the customers.
The industry needs to wake up. Their idiotic copy protections are a hassle only for people who legally purchase their goods. Games that need the original CD in the drive to play them? Annoying as hell. Music CD's which cannot be played on a PC? Stick them up yours, my dear RIAA & associates. Long live No-CD hacks. Think they make you lose sales? I doubt it - people who pirate rarely would have bought the original anyway.
I'm grateful for companies like Stardock, who still maintain a healthy balance between protecting their interests and the interests of customers. I'm loathing companies that go way overboard to protect their own interests, and to hell with the customers.
Windspirits
Reply #32 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:43 PM
Reply #32 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:43 PM
Hey man, I'm with you in intent. Stopping or lessening wholesale piracy would be great. As would the destruction of the euphemistic "sharing" term which is of course stealing. I put food on my table based upon software sales too.
But...
Decisions for what or a person or company can be held liable for now depends upon what other people do with their product? Um, ok. Is posting a note on your sales brochure "Not intended for transfer of copyrighted material" good enough? If not, what is? Is there any concrete criteria that could indicate to a developer ahead of time what they are doing is "illegal"?
Or does someone like Bram Cohen have to pray people don't pirate games with his software. After all if they do, he's a bad man who is facilitating in wholesale piracy and theft. On the other hand if people only use it for legit purposes - he's a really smart guy who developed a working mechanism for content distribution for people without dedicated servers and big $$$.
This line of common sense of course is totally secondary to the facts that US law doesn't mean jack in other countries, there is no person or company to sue for open source projects, and people who want pirate will not be inconvenienced by this in the slightest.
Good lord what a ludicrous thing to pass. My beautiful country is losing its mind.
But...
Decisions for what or a person or company can be held liable for now depends upon what other people do with their product? Um, ok. Is posting a note on your sales brochure "Not intended for transfer of copyrighted material" good enough? If not, what is? Is there any concrete criteria that could indicate to a developer ahead of time what they are doing is "illegal"?
Or does someone like Bram Cohen have to pray people don't pirate games with his software. After all if they do, he's a bad man who is facilitating in wholesale piracy and theft. On the other hand if people only use it for legit purposes - he's a really smart guy who developed a working mechanism for content distribution for people without dedicated servers and big $$$.
This line of common sense of course is totally secondary to the facts that US law doesn't mean jack in other countries, there is no person or company to sue for open source projects, and people who want pirate will not be inconvenienced by this in the slightest.
Good lord what a ludicrous thing to pass. My beautiful country is losing its mind.
orb351
Reply #33 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 10:59 PM
Reply #33 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 10:59 PM
And you'll do what with your intellectual property? It's all pretty temporary.
All things are interdependent and built on the things that came before.
All things are interdependent and built on the things that came before.
Maktaka
Reply #34 Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:59 AM
Aye, there's the rub. A physical object can only be in one person's possesion at a time, but digital data can be reproduced, so there needs to be a way to tie the purchased digital data to a person. Tying the data to a particular computer is flawed since that prevents uploading the files to other devices that person owns. Biometrics would be nice, but that requires the check system to be in the hands of the user, and thus possibly in the hands of people who would try to crack it. If some of the emerging technologies regarding data encryption work, it may finally be possible to lock data to hardware, yet still allow that lock to be changed to new hardware. I like the idea of iTunes and WMA encryption schemes, but more MP3 players need to support those encryption schemes for the system to really work.
Reply #34 Wednesday, June 29, 2005 9:59 AM
| If I own a thing a wish to give it away to anyone I choose, I absolutely have the right to do so. |
Aye, there's the rub. A physical object can only be in one person's possesion at a time, but digital data can be reproduced, so there needs to be a way to tie the purchased digital data to a person. Tying the data to a particular computer is flawed since that prevents uploading the files to other devices that person owns. Biometrics would be nice, but that requires the check system to be in the hands of the user, and thus possibly in the hands of people who would try to crack it. If some of the emerging technologies regarding data encryption work, it may finally be possible to lock data to hardware, yet still allow that lock to be changed to new hardware. I like the idea of iTunes and WMA encryption schemes, but more MP3 players need to support those encryption schemes for the system to really work.
ActionJay
Reply #35 Wednesday, June 29, 2005 10:08 AM
Reply #35 Wednesday, June 29, 2005 10:08 AM
so much for my Thundercats torrent
On the bright side, maybe activists could take up the whole 'guns don't kill people' arguement again with this new ruling in mind.
On the bright side, maybe activists could take up the whole 'guns don't kill people' arguement again with this new ruling in mind.
OhGimmeABreakWhatIsThisFor
Reply #36 Wednesday, June 29, 2005 12:47 PM
Reply #36 Wednesday, June 29, 2005 12:47 PM
Conceivably, this could put a damper on any web hosting company. If somebody gets caught (for example) posting MP3s onto an unlinked folder of his or her web site, and the prosecutors can show that the web host did not scour that person's web page, trying to crack encrypted files, etc., the web host could be implicated in the webmaster's "crime."
More ominously, if somebody gets caught simply e-mailing MP3s to friends, and the ISP (again) was found to have respected the privacy of its customers by not unzipping packages and not trying to crack encryption algorythms, the owners of the ISP could be in d'deep d'doo!
I essentially had to close down major sections of my web project due to wholesale thievery on the part of my allies (of all people). The web site's still there, but the vast majority of the work I've done for her sits unposted on my local machine. However, I still cherish my freedom and privacy over the ability to protect my work from a practice which, lately, is being stigmafied by the word "piracy."
Rake care!
The Cliff Walking Fool
More ominously, if somebody gets caught simply e-mailing MP3s to friends, and the ISP (again) was found to have respected the privacy of its customers by not unzipping packages and not trying to crack encryption algorythms, the owners of the ISP could be in d'deep d'doo!
I essentially had to close down major sections of my web project due to wholesale thievery on the part of my allies (of all people). The web site's still there, but the vast majority of the work I've done for her sits unposted on my local machine. However, I still cherish my freedom and privacy over the ability to protect my work from a practice which, lately, is being stigmafied by the word "piracy."
Rake care!
The Cliff Walking Fool
drsparks
Reply #37 Wednesday, June 29, 2005 5:27 PM
Reply #37 Wednesday, June 29, 2005 5:27 PM
While I agree that it sucks having your stuff stolen, this guy (Citizen Orb351) has the answer. Your bits and bytes wont mean squat in 6 months. Another program will replace the one before it and no one will care. Windows ME, or even 2000 anyone?
Regardless, I don't agree that file sharing encourages people to steal software. I have seen numerous copies of Stardock.com progs, and yet I still choose to purchase them. Why? Because I respect the programs author. I downloaded a trial and liked it enough that I bought it. Call me old fashioned, but I still believe that there are more people with good intentions than bad in the world, and I honestly don't think that the few idiots who illegaly copy programs or music make that much of a difference. So much for hope, I suppose.
| And you'll do what with your intellectual property? It's all pretty temporary. All things are interdependent and built on the things that came before. |
Regardless, I don't agree that file sharing encourages people to steal software. I have seen numerous copies of Stardock.com progs, and yet I still choose to purchase them. Why? Because I respect the programs author. I downloaded a trial and liked it enough that I bought it. Call me old fashioned, but I still believe that there are more people with good intentions than bad in the world, and I honestly don't think that the few idiots who illegaly copy programs or music make that much of a difference. So much for hope, I suppose.
michael havard
Reply #38 Wednesday, June 29, 2005 8:06 PM
Reply #38 Wednesday, June 29, 2005 8:06 PM
Everything in moderation - including moderation.
First of all... file sharing is not anything new. It started out much smaller, trading a disk with a friend much like you would a cassette tape or maybe you dialed into a local BBS and downloaded something. Later came the internet and with its FTP sites, binaries in the newsgroups, warez sites and IRC. "Pirates" then were still a fringe element - people who infringed on some work and replicated it either for ego or for profit. The technology didn't matter then and it shouldn't really matter today. It's the act that is important.
Distributed file sharing is just another technology. It has significant practical legal uses despite also having a significant share of illegal uses. What I feel that the court ruled on was not the technology or even a group of people (e.g. file sharers) but an act. You cannot, as part of your business model, promote an illegal act. If you do so you are liable and can be sued for illegal acts performed by your customers. It's very simple.
Unfortunately I don't think it's going to change much about copyright infringement. Right now it still continues to be an issue more about entitlement and not an issue of ease of access. Once you provide a mechanism to break people of their sense of entitlement then you will ease the infringement issues, not until then. Deterents and force will not be the proper mechanism.
First of all... file sharing is not anything new. It started out much smaller, trading a disk with a friend much like you would a cassette tape or maybe you dialed into a local BBS and downloaded something. Later came the internet and with its FTP sites, binaries in the newsgroups, warez sites and IRC. "Pirates" then were still a fringe element - people who infringed on some work and replicated it either for ego or for profit. The technology didn't matter then and it shouldn't really matter today. It's the act that is important.
Distributed file sharing is just another technology. It has significant practical legal uses despite also having a significant share of illegal uses. What I feel that the court ruled on was not the technology or even a group of people (e.g. file sharers) but an act. You cannot, as part of your business model, promote an illegal act. If you do so you are liable and can be sued for illegal acts performed by your customers. It's very simple.
Unfortunately I don't think it's going to change much about copyright infringement. Right now it still continues to be an issue more about entitlement and not an issue of ease of access. Once you provide a mechanism to break people of their sense of entitlement then you will ease the infringement issues, not until then. Deterents and force will not be the proper mechanism.
monde
Reply #39 Wednesday, June 29, 2005 10:03 PM
Reply #39 Wednesday, June 29, 2005 10:03 PM
I used to be a paying Stardock customer. Then, the admins of this site and others connected to Stardock started to become more and more heavily into "intellectual property". That attitude of yours made me decide to take what little money I have and spend it elsewhere. You have people here charging for bloody cursors and icons. What started as a fun pastime is now all about "premium" this and "pro" that. It figures you would hate file sharing so much.
It's easy, you say. Just be legit! Get a job, pay for your software. Yeah, when you're forty years old and disabled with a debilitating liver disease you're just the top of the resume pile. I'm lucky if I can afford an internet connection. Does this make what I do to learn how to be a better artist and musician "right"? I never called it right, but there's a limit for how much "right" alone is worth, and frankly, it's not very satisfying, especially when all the fat cat corporati steal from us over and over again, steal from the public utilities, steal from the US Treasury, fight illegal wars and treat the planet like a video game world to be dominated and exploited. And these people walk and talk as if they've got halos glowin' round their heads. Morality is becoming very subjective, although frankly, I think it always has been mostly subjective anyway.
I would never sell anything I obtained for free. That's a credo. Perhaps worthless to you. I don't see it as an excuse, it's merely sensible and ungreedy. Software companies do not offer viable products that I can afford. I either do without or go underground. Looks like the latter option is going to die, now, along with everything else I've spent four decades of my life enjoying and believing in. I get the feeling Stardock hails the coming of the corporatist state in which the laws will make it horrendously easy for citizens to rat each other out on petty drug possession and copyright infringement crimes, and where anyone can be free of the consequences of criminal behaviour if they simply are in the 1 per cent Owner Class.
Have a day.
It's easy, you say. Just be legit! Get a job, pay for your software. Yeah, when you're forty years old and disabled with a debilitating liver disease you're just the top of the resume pile. I'm lucky if I can afford an internet connection. Does this make what I do to learn how to be a better artist and musician "right"? I never called it right, but there's a limit for how much "right" alone is worth, and frankly, it's not very satisfying, especially when all the fat cat corporati steal from us over and over again, steal from the public utilities, steal from the US Treasury, fight illegal wars and treat the planet like a video game world to be dominated and exploited. And these people walk and talk as if they've got halos glowin' round their heads. Morality is becoming very subjective, although frankly, I think it always has been mostly subjective anyway.
I would never sell anything I obtained for free. That's a credo. Perhaps worthless to you. I don't see it as an excuse, it's merely sensible and ungreedy. Software companies do not offer viable products that I can afford. I either do without or go underground. Looks like the latter option is going to die, now, along with everything else I've spent four decades of my life enjoying and believing in. I get the feeling Stardock hails the coming of the corporatist state in which the laws will make it horrendously easy for citizens to rat each other out on petty drug possession and copyright infringement crimes, and where anyone can be free of the consequences of criminal behaviour if they simply are in the 1 per cent Owner Class.
Have a day.
Kuruus
Reply #40 Wednesday, June 29, 2005 10:06 PM
Reply #40 Wednesday, June 29, 2005 10:06 PM
It is an idiotic ruling.
Ford makes Mustangs. They've made them since I was a kid. We loved 'em growing up and judging from the number of them I see on the road today they're still appreciated. Particularly the souped up ones that will do well, well over one hundred miles per hour. Anyone who thinks they are being bought by folks simply to tool around the neighborhood under the posted speed limits is foolish indeed. They're bought because they can go over the posted limits. Think Ford doesn't know that? Think Ford doesn't promate that fact? By this ruling then Ford should be held liable for selling cars that are built to break the law. And every other car company that sales a "muscle" car of any sort.
Libraries loan books out by the million. Should they be shut down because they're allowing people to read materials without paying for them?
For intellectual property to be properly safeguarded wherin there is no possibility of it ever, ever being pirated the end product would be so cumbersome and difficult to actually use, or to move from one platform to another should an end user say upgrade their computer, as to be useless.
Produce a good product and sell that product at a reasonable price. That's any company's best bet at being lightly pirated. Most folks will buy and use such products. Those that won't will always find another way around whatever blocks are put in place. Don't punish me for their transgressions.
Idiocy. Sheer idiocy.
Ford makes Mustangs. They've made them since I was a kid. We loved 'em growing up and judging from the number of them I see on the road today they're still appreciated. Particularly the souped up ones that will do well, well over one hundred miles per hour. Anyone who thinks they are being bought by folks simply to tool around the neighborhood under the posted speed limits is foolish indeed. They're bought because they can go over the posted limits. Think Ford doesn't know that? Think Ford doesn't promate that fact? By this ruling then Ford should be held liable for selling cars that are built to break the law. And every other car company that sales a "muscle" car of any sort.
Libraries loan books out by the million. Should they be shut down because they're allowing people to read materials without paying for them?
For intellectual property to be properly safeguarded wherin there is no possibility of it ever, ever being pirated the end product would be so cumbersome and difficult to actually use, or to move from one platform to another should an end user say upgrade their computer, as to be useless.
Produce a good product and sell that product at a reasonable price. That's any company's best bet at being lightly pirated. Most folks will buy and use such products. Those that won't will always find another way around whatever blocks are put in place. Don't punish me for their transgressions.
Idiocy. Sheer idiocy.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 11 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Tuesday, June 28, 2005 2:40 PM