Software piracy! Cracked serial numbers! Thousands of commercial
products are posted on the warez sites and become available to all
every day! Companies lose millions of dollars every year to software
piracy, and faulty protection programs. Shareware developers look for
unbreakable protection for their products and create some protection
themselves or try many of the ready-made tools. Unfortunately most
tools have already been cracked, and self solutions often only take one
determined cracked a few hours to bypass. As a result they soon find
the stoles keys and product cracks on thousands of hacker Internet
pages.
No solution ? Well there is
It is time to turn to time tested, EXECryptor protection product.
EXECryptor is a powerful software tool that provide developers with
software protection from reverse engineering, analysis and
modifications. Its main difference from other protection tools is its
brand new metamorphing code transformation technology.
With EXECryptor the protected code block is not just packed or
obfuscated like many other packers, but also disassembled into
nondeterminate transformations, effectively scrambling the visible
logical code structure and making it impossible to reverse. After the
code transformation, it remains executable and working as it is
supposed to but it cannot be analysed, modified, or circumvented.
It is not just a question about code encryption but also code
transformation. You can optionally wrap additional parts of your code,
at a source code level, in special flags which then transform into
virtually impossible code to trace, crack, or bypass. Protected code
blocks are never decrypted during execution they remain in their
transformed code state. Code restoration becomes an NP-hard problem.
EXECryptor has the innovative very powerful antidebug, antitrace and
import protection features to stop the latest cracking software.
EXECryptor allows to use short registration keys of 12/16 characters
long, based on a new generation of our HardKey algorithm,
cryptographically strong ultrashort digital signature.
The power of software protection with EXECryptor is proved out in
practice: despite numberous cracking attempts and challenges, the
EXECryptor's 2.x series has not been cracked since its inception in
July of 2004.
In addition to its advanced protection features, EXECryptor allows you
to compress the code and resources of your application.
EXECryptor is able to protect any 32bit PE executable file (exe, dll,
bpl, vxd, wdm). It has been tested with W95/98/ME/2000/NT/XP/2003. SDKs
are available for Delphi, C++Builder, Microsoft Visual C++, LCC,
PellesC, Visual Basic, PowerBASIC and PureBasic.
What's new in this version :
* added sdk and example for IBasic
* improved antidebug and antitrace
* improved: compatibility with MS signcode tool
* improved: PowerBasic 8 compatible
EXECryptor is distributed electronically over the Internet; free trial
version is available at http://www.strongbit.com for evaluation.
> On 28 Oct 2005 02:46:20 -0700, "SoftComplete" <igor@softcomplete.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>No solution ? Well there is
>
> but does it prevent advertising in newsgroups ?
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com
SoftComplete wrote:
> Software piracy! Cracked serial numbers! Thousands of commercial
> products are posted on the warez sites and become available to all
> every day! Companies lose millions of dollars every year to software
> piracy, and faulty protection programs.
They don't lose near that much. You cannot get blood from a stone.
Just because someone circumvented copy-protection does not mean that
the originator LOST money. No money was ever invovled. If they
thought the product was reasonably priced they would have just bought
it in the first place. The reason people try to circumvent
copy-protection is because they are aghast at the price of the product,
and find it to be out of their reasonable spending range. If the person
were unable to defeat the copy protection, they would not automatically
fork up the money for the product, they would more than likely go
without, or seek a cheaper alternative.
Not saying what they are doing is RIGHT, just saying that it irritates
the hell out of me to hear that "Millions of dollars are lost to
piracy" because it just wasn't "lost" there was no money involved, and
the reason for further investigating circumvention hinges on the fact
that the person *WILL NOT* pay that much for it.
>
> SoftComplete wrote:
>> Software piracy! Cracked serial numbers! Thousands of commercial
>> products are posted on the warez sites and become available to all
>> every day! Companies lose millions of dollars every year to software
>> piracy, and faulty protection programs.
>
>
> They don't lose near that much. You cannot get blood from a stone.
> Just because someone circumvented copy-protection does not mean that
> the originator LOST money. No money was ever invovled. If they
> thought the product was reasonably priced they would have just bought
> it in the first place. The reason people try to circumvent
> copy-protection is because they are aghast at the price of the product,
> and find it to be out of their reasonable spending range. If the person
> were unable to defeat the copy protection, they would not automatically
> fork up the money for the product, they would more than likely go
> without, or seek a cheaper alternative.
>
> Not saying what they are doing is RIGHT, just saying that it irritates
> the hell out of me to hear that "Millions of dollars are lost to
> piracy" because it just wasn't "lost" there was no money involved, and
> the reason for further investigating circumvention hinges on the fact
> that the person *WILL NOT* pay that much for it.
>
> x1134x
"x1134x" <x1134x@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130556367.844369.280540@g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> SoftComplete wrote:
> > Software piracy! Cracked serial numbers! Thousands of commercial
> > products are posted on the warez sites and become available to all
> > every day! Companies lose millions of dollars every year to software
> > piracy, and faulty protection programs.
>
> They don't lose near that much. You cannot get blood from a stone.
> Just because someone circumvented copy-protection does not mean that
> the originator LOST money. No money was ever invovled.
Well, quite. The company would have gained at least some money from sales
(although undoubtedly not all). I'll even give a Real World(tm) example..
A while back, we received a helpdesk request from a customer that was
evidently running our software, but hadn't bought it from us or - so we
thought at the time - one of our authorised resellers. We explained that we
couldn't find their contract, and would they please send in the license
file.
Definite eau de rattus rattus: the file worked, but was nothing like the one
that would be generated by the legitimate tool. It was a crack.
So, did we "lose" hundreds of thousands of dollars? No. But we didn't *make*
hundreds of thousands of dollars because a Dutch reseller was flogging
pirated code and maintenance contracts that didn't exist - when they /did/
get a problem, they pretended it was pre-sales, and got someone like me to
help.
We had a similar situation with some hooky keys bought for a very old
version of the product (at a massive discount, but subject to a stock
rotation charge) that were transformed into "valid" keys in a different
country.
A fellow techie (and good friend) in our Dutch office lost his commission
due to that.. the Italian reseller was dumped in no uncertain terms, and has
now gone bust. The Swiss architect of the deal is currently still in gaol -
if wasn't just our stuff that he got "inventive" with. The former employee
(that I personally suspect of being involved with the crack mentioned above)
was prosecuted, but stayed out of clink.
I suppose that you could say that at least we made _something_ - but a
half-million dollars less than we would have reasonably expected to.
> If they
> thought the product was reasonably priced they would have just bought
> it in the first place. The reason people try to circumvent
> copy-protection is because they are aghast at the price of the product,
> and find it to be out of their reasonable spending range.
While I definitely agree about some products, this definitely doesn't apply
to others (ours usually pays for itself in 9 months, and the warez lists are
loaded with software costing £50 or less).
In our case, I can also put my hand on my heart and say that this most
definitely isn't stuff that a general retail user would purchase - the only
reason for cracking would be to sell it illegally to a business, or to
deploy DR licenses to a live environment (seen that as well, in a French
bank of all places!)
We've since upgraded our copy protection. A lot. Enough to make it a bit of
a PITA - and a hardware-based solution is out, because we're cross-platform.
> If the person
> were unable to defeat the copy protection, they would not automatically
> fork up the money for the product, they would more than likely go
> without, or seek a cheaper alternative.
>
> Not saying what they are doing is RIGHT, just saying that it irritates
> the hell out of me to hear that "Millions of dollars are lost to
> piracy" because it just wasn't "lost" there was no money involved, and
> the reason for further investigating circumvention hinges on the fact
> that the person *WILL NOT* pay that much for it.
Absolutely. Just be wary of saying that stealing a Ferrari from the factory
is fine, because someone /might/ not have bought it
(If you see what I mean... ;o)
--
Hairy One Kenobi
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion
in the first place. So there!
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:27:36 GMT, "Hairy One Kenobi"
> <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>Absolutely. Just be wary of saying that stealing a Ferrari from the
>>factory is fine, because someone /might/ not have bought it
>
> Of course the difference is that the Ferrari cost money to make
> wheras copies of software involve no cost to the manufacturer.
>
> However, on trying to sell someone our payroll package, they
> already had a nice one, does it do xyz oh yes. indeed it did all
> the things ours did because it was. Pleased to say they went
> bust.
>
> But a lot of the 'piracy costs millions' is hype.
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com
I agree....it is hyped to persuade legislators to pass laws protecting
software companies and the entertainment industry....
"Jim Watt" <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:q3u6m11fu38h979efvi13s59vl76aa1ot4@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:27:36 GMT, "Hairy One Kenobi"
> <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Absolutely. Just be wary of saying that stealing a Ferrari from the
factory
> >is fine, because someone /might/ not have bought it
>
> Of course the difference is that the Ferrari cost money to make
> wheras copies of software involve no cost to the manufacturer.
Yes and no to that one: you recoup your development cost from your expected
sales. Until you make that back, you're down (I'm utterly sure that you well
understand this, but I'm trying to make it crystal clear to everyone..)
In other words, if you invest $1m developing something and expect to sell
exactly two, a price of less than $500k is going to leave you in trouble.
Expect to sell 100k of 'em, and you can start the bidding at $10 plus your
profit, cost of capital, etc. If, OTOH, you expect 90% of the 100k users to
be using pirated copies, you set the price a bar higher, at $100. So that
the 10% of legitimate users end up footing the entire development bill.
Of course, the pirates then respond that they're only doing it because the
software costs ten times what it should...
Basically a chicken-and-egg situation.
> However, on trying to sell someone our payroll package, they
> already had a nice one, does it do xyz oh yes. indeed it did all
> the things ours did because it was. Pleased to say they went
> bust.
Ditto - that's why we've pretty much pulled out of the Far Eastern market:
there are a helluva lot of legitimate customers to be had, but it just got
too expensive to compete against our own software :o\
> But a lot of the 'piracy costs millions' is hype.
Agreed. Particularly in the music industry - wish they'd make up their mind
as to whether I'm buying a license or the media. Having already had money
from me for both vinyl and CD, damned if I'm going to start buying the whole
lot all over again in electronic format!
> "Jim Watt" <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> news:q3u6m11fu38h979efvi13s59vl76aa1ot4@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:27:36 GMT, "Hairy One Kenobi"
>> <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >Absolutely. Just be wary of saying that stealing a Ferrari from the
> factory
>> >is fine, because someone /might/ not have bought it
>>
>> Of course the difference is that the Ferrari cost money to make
>> wheras copies of software involve no cost to the manufacturer.
>
> Yes and no to that one: you recoup your development cost from your
> expected sales. Until you make that back, you're down (I'm utterly sure
> that you well understand this, but I'm trying to make it crystal clear to
> everyone..)
>
> In other words, if you invest $1m developing something and expect to sell
> exactly two, a price of less than $500k is going to leave you in trouble.
>
> Expect to sell 100k of 'em, and you can start the bidding at $10 plus your
> profit, cost of capital, etc. If, OTOH, you expect 90% of the 100k users
> to be using pirated copies, you set the price a bar higher, at $100. So
> that the 10% of legitimate users end up footing the entire development
> bill.
Here in the United States the insurance companies used the same claim that
"bad" drivers were jacking up the costs for "good" drivers. The started a
points system and behold, people started getting in less accidents and
making less general driving infractions (speeding, etc). Now, they want to
change the points system to a system based on your credit (even though your
credit has nothing to do with your driving skill). So, what is the point?
The point is that companies will use any excuse they can to justify
increasing their profits (including bold faced lies)
"Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Q6OdnS7eOqM6E_7enZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@adelphia.com ...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
> > "Jim Watt" <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote in message
> > news:q3u6m11fu38h979efvi13s59vl76aa1ot4@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:27:36 GMT, "Hairy One Kenobi"
> >> <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >Absolutely. Just be wary of saying that stealing a Ferrari from the
> > factory
> >> >is fine, because someone /might/ not have bought it
> >>
> >> Of course the difference is that the Ferrari cost money to make
> >> wheras copies of software involve no cost to the manufacturer.
> >
> > Yes and no to that one: you recoup your development cost from your
> > expected sales. Until you make that back, you're down (I'm utterly sure
> > that you well understand this, but I'm trying to make it crystal clear
to
> > everyone..)
> >
> > In other words, if you invest $1m developing something and expect to
sell
> > exactly two, a price of less than $500k is going to leave you in
trouble.
> >
> > Expect to sell 100k of 'em, and you can start the bidding at $10 plus
your
> > profit, cost of capital, etc. If, OTOH, you expect 90% of the 100k users
> > to be using pirated copies, you set the price a bar higher, at $100. So
> > that the 10% of legitimate users end up footing the entire development
> > bill.
>
> Here in the United States the insurance companies used the same claim that
> "bad" drivers were jacking up the costs for "good" drivers. The started a
> points system and behold, people started getting in less accidents and
> making less general driving infractions (speeding, etc). Now, they want to
> change the points system to a system based on your credit (even though
your
> credit has nothing to do with your driving skill). So, what is the point?
> The point is that companies will use any excuse they can to justify
> increasing their profits (including bold faced lies)
Firstly, apologies for letting that post sit on the screen for a while
(didn't see your reply)
Funnily enough, this system - known as the No-Claims Bonus - has been in
operation for a fair few decades (longer than I've been driving, which makes
it more than 20 years old). The latter system - variously tried, but only
really properly implemented during our current regime - is used for driving
fines: the severity of a sentence depends upon the ability to pay, rather
than the actual crime.
As Jim says: politics, rather than a comment on pricing.
I still stand by my comments, though - software piracy /can/ push up costs
for honest users, and can also be used as excuses for profiteers.
Just to add a twist to this: excessive piracy /could/ (stress "could") also
have a major impact on professionally-written Open Source software and
freeware.
Put it this way, if the Industry starts to implode at a greater rate, then
I've got the choice of coding to eat, or of changing careers to make ends
meet. Can't see much scope in that for giving up spare time to generate
software that I'll simply give away... same with many other people in the
Industry.
"Jim Watt" <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:lhg7m1disd7u3568qhmm7ilhge739nqgst@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:46:42 GMT, "Hairy One Kenobi"
> <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
> >> But a lot of the 'piracy costs millions' is hype.
> >
> >Agreed. Particularly in the music industry - wish they'd make up their
mind
> >as to whether I'm buying a license or the media. Having already had money
> >from me for both vinyl and CD, damned if I'm going to start buying the
whole
> >lot all over again in electronic format!
>
> I think you were always buying a licence, looking at the wording
> on my vinyl, it sought to restrain me from broadcasting the work.
Indeed. But the whole industry becomes strangely at odds with that view if
you buy the same CD as an LP that you already own - the license is
[uniquely] bound to the medium. Not that it /says/ so explicitly, of
course...
> You are right about the cost of software, but your analogy with the
> car is not the same as the software.
How so..? OK, so the bits to make a Ferrari cost a deal more than a CD,
package, distribution, support, and a 35% minimum retailer discount, but..
we're just arguing in the same way as Wilde: not over what's on offer, but
merely the price.
> The one that puzzles me was my attempt at shareware, which was
> half decent and achieved 10,000 downloads yet not one registration
> I'm tempted to post a keygen for it to see if anyone is interested.
>
> Quickly checking google, I see the software available on a number of
> warez disks, yet without a licence code its not very useful at all
> and the security was pretty good and specific to the machine.
Haven't checked warez sites (I've had around 34k direct downloads since
2003, but all freeware - with a thoroughly open license, there's no point in
even pretending that someone is saving money! http://www.codecutters.org/software/license.html)
Not sure how the overall development "cost" would stack up, if declared - I
don't take notes of my free time ;o)
Personally, I pay for decent shareware (and "naggers" violate my view of
"decent"). Most of it's crap, TBH. The good stuff is worth the payment but,
TBH, I think that shareware has pretty much been killed by a combination of
cooperative freeware and the ease in being able to simply sell software over
the 'Net.
Anything that purports to do something useful, but actually doesn't without
a license key, well, that doesn't get too far down my personal evaluation
procedure...
Software protection against cracks and piracy 
Linear Mode
