Free Technology Newsletters
» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters
Technology & Business Daily
 
InfoWorld
 
   

Activation as a Business Decision

By Ed Foster, Section Columns
Posted on Tue May 10, 2005 at 12:11:47 AM PDT
If a software publisher finds that 30 percent of its customers are trying to make illegal copies, does that justify implementing copy protection? Adobe officials think so, and as a business decision, it sounds like it might be awfully hard to argue with them. Nonetheless, I think I will.


I've been learning a number of things about Adobe's anti piracy practices in the weeks since I wrote about a reader who found his RAID array wouldn't work with Acrobat 7's product activation. To its credit, Adobe takes problems like this seriously. They were anxious to find out who the reader was so they could isolate the issue, as well as providing him with an activation-free CD. "The information we were able to gather with your reader's help was very valuable, and it appears that one specific RAID controller is involved," said Drew McManus, director of worldwide anti-piracy for Adobe. "Our (DRM) vendor, Macrovision, has provided a fix that we are confident will address the issue."

Of course, I've also learned from other readers that there are some things besides RAID arrays that can cause difficulty with Acrobat or Photoshop activation. Partitioned drives, anti-virus software, docking stations, firewalls and Dell laptops are among the possible culprits readers say Adobe support has identified to them. But, at least in most cases, readers they were ultimately able to at least persuade Adobe to send them a volume license CD if they couldn't actually solve the problem.

As I've said before, activation problems are often support problems in disguise, and vice versa. As Adobe gears up to include activation with its Mac products as well as its Windows offerings, McManus says the company has made a major investment in the infrastructure to keep the problems to a minimum. The company treats activation like another product, with a dedicated product manager, a number of support facilities worldwide, and development teams that customize the Macrovision technology for Adobe's products.

"The infrastructure for this is not an insignificant investment for us," McManus says. "We are trying to do it the right way and not punish the honest customers. It's important that your readers understand that we don't see this as the be-all-and-end-all answer to software piracy. It's true it's not a hindrance to counterfeit bootleggers." And he acknowledges that customers have no reason to like activation as it stands now. "To be perfectly honest, there is no customer benefit to activation. One of the things we have our activation team doing is looking for ways we can change that."

But while activation isn't the best of all possible anti-piracy solutions, Adobe thinks it does do the job of keeping the honest customer honest. "It is pretty effective at dealing with casual piracy," says McManus. "We've done several million activations now since we started with Photoshop, and several hundred thousand with Acrobat. The denial rate steadily averages about 30 percent, with the rates in different countries reflecting the piracy statistics the BSA reports in those countries."

One could quibble that at least some of that 30 percent are legit customers who are running into some of the problems we've heard about, but they would doubtlessly be balanced out by additional illicit copies that would be made if no copy protection was there at all. So let's assume that almost one in three activations really do represent an attempt to make an illegal copy. It's certainly easy to see how any software executive would look at a figure like that and decide that product activation is the only thing that makes sense from a business point of view. But is it?

Personally, I can't shake the feeling that Adobe has made a mistake in going this route. Is getting to deny that 30 percent really worth the expense of building and maintaining the infrastructure to support activation? After all, not all those who are denied activation will turn around and buy a legitimate license, since they can get a cracked copy if they want or just stick with what they're already using.

More importantly, activation represents an unknown potential for loss of customer good will. Some honest customers who've upgraded in the past will just choose not to do to avoid dealing with product activation. How much of Adobe's considerable popularity in the Mac community is it putting at risk if it experiences activation problems there?

Software companies have to make the best business decisions they can, but so do software customers. As long as it remains true that there is no customer benefit to activation, I think that companies are risking their long-term future for a dubious short-term gain in fighting piracy this way. But what do you think? Reasonable minds can differ on an issue like this, so post your thoughts below and let Adobe, me, and your fellow readers know what you think is the best decision.

--------------------

Post your comments about this column below or write me directly at Foster@gripe2ed.com. To receive this column every week in my free e-mail newsletter, please go to my subscription page and follow the instructions to opt-in for the EdFoster mailing list.

< Terms of Deception | It's Hard to Say Goodbye to AOL >


Display: Sort:
Activation as a Business Decision | 203 comments (203 topical) | Post A Comment
I've Made My Business Decision[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by Anonymous User on Tue May 10, 2005 at 04:04:45 AM PDT

For the past few years I have steadfastly refused to by any software that requires activation. Adobe's McManus is correct when he says, "To be perfectly honest, there is no customer benefit to activation." What he fails to mention activation is often a detriment to users. A few quick examples:

  • Different activation schemes can interfere with each other, leading to finger pointing among vendors and more headaches for users. As more and more software makers begin using activation in their products, this problem will only worsen.
  • Activation often has problems with some hardware and OS configurations. It is infuriating when something that does not affect the program itself prevents it from running because the stupid activation scheme cannot deal with it properly.
  • Upgrading hardware and re-installs can easily become a nightmare when involving software requiring activation. For all the varied reasons users purchase hardware and software, I assure you that so they can spend hours making technical support calls to reactivate something they already paid for and have a legitimate right to use.
  • The presence of an activation scheme in a mission critical piece of software leaves you vulnerable if it fails. This has happened twice to me personally when I hours away from a deadline. Having to stop work to call tech support on these occasions was unacceptable and the chief reason I no longer use products that must be activated.
  • Activation leaves users vulnerable to changes in policy. No matter what promises are made by a company today, they can stop activation for older product versions tomorrow if they want to force upgrades to newer versions. With the lack of customer concern in this industry, this would not be surprising. Of course if the company goes out of business, users will no longer be able to activate either.
  • For smaller IT departments that cannot take advantage of volume licensing, being able to ghost machines and quickly restore them (or even building a standard system install CD containing the OS and core applications every user needs) is hampered by activation. Its mere presence makes life more difficult for system administrators.
  • Last of all, it seems that vendors employing activation too easily dismiss the fact that it is an insult to honest users who do not pirate software, casually or otherwise. They dismiss it, but it is nevertheless true. I for one refuse to pay for something that assumes I am a thief right out of the box

  • BR> It is unfortunate that Adobe has added activation to its CS2 line for Macintosh. I used to upgrade both my Macs and PCs with each new release of Photoshop. I stopped upgrading the Windows machines when activation was added to the Windows version of Photoshop CS. Now that activation has made its way to the Mac release of Photoshop, I will not be upgrading those machines either. For the reasons listed above, I make no exceptions to my no activation policy.

    [ Reply to This ]


    What really matters[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#3)
    by Anonymous User on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:35:39 AM PDT

    What really matters is whether the customer has any reasonable alternative products he can buy. In the case with Adobe he does not. So I think it's a mute point that customers may be upset and go elsewhere. Unfortunately that's the price we pay for the consolidation of the software industry. Once companies become so dominant they just seem to become more and more onerous. I think Adobe is one of the better companies in this regard, but look at Intuit and Norton whose policies are truly awful.

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    Not at all[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#14)
    by Anonymous User on Tue May 10, 2005 at 09:47:22 AM PDT

    That's not necessarily true at all. In the case of upgrades, we can choose to stick with old versions instead of upgrading, which is exactly what I have done with my copy of Acrobat 6. Or, in the case of new purchases, we can decide to do without altogether. Non-activated alternatives are definitely a great convenience, but they aren't a necessity.

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    Adobe product activation[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#8)
    by Anonymous User on Tue May 10, 2005 at 09:24:24 AM PDT

    As mentioned, in future years they may elect to not reactivate the procduct if you have to reinstall. Seems like a similar tact has been already taken by Intuit ... they have bullied the banks into using a new file format, which now means you have a procuct that is useless. I personally stopped at ver 7.x of Photoshop for Windows, and version CS for the Mac. I have no intention of following along with the later upgrades. I'll find another solution. Like I tell people, the computer can't do anything that you can't do without it; just makes it a little quicker, and hey, I have time, so I might learn something new and rewarding if I don't use the computer :O)

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    Cheap and Free Alternatives[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#22)
    by Anonymous User on Tue May 10, 2005 at 11:41:52 AM PDT

    For every popular software product such as Photoshop and MS Office there are both cheap and free alternatives. For Photoshop there is the free Gimp. For MS Office there is OpenOffice. I'll bet these are perfectly satisfactory for most of the "30%" who make copies. My wife, a photographer, uses Photoshop, but I don't - I use Gimp. I sometimes use MS Office at work (but more often OpenOffice) and OpenOffice all the time at home. As several have said, Adobe (and others) are only hurting themselves by creating an expensive infrastructure that will not create much, if any, new business - I don't expect it will pay for itself and will piss off the customers. In addition to that there are sites (Eastern European) that sell "OEM" copies of the disks at 10% of the retail price.

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    PS != Gimp[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#48)
    by foxyshadis1 on Tue May 10, 2005 at 05:17:33 PM PDT

    A comparison of photoshop with Gimp is laughable at best. Maybe Photoshop 4. (In term of user interface, they're both equally bad though.) PSP is a much closer match. Of course if all you need is the features of photoshop 4 (and a dusting of later ones), then fine - but many graphic designers enjoy the widespread standardization of .psd and photoshop plugins - some of which work in PSP or Gimp, but not most - as well as a number of workflow improvements and automations that Photoshop simply has the best handle on. (Though you wonder if they aren't so plodding about introducing them to keep people on an upgrade leash.)

    I've tried 7 and 8, and I'll probably try 9, but 6 is still fine for my needs. If I could merge remappable keys to 6 I'd consider it the perfect massive image editor.

    OpenOffice is easily about as capable as Office 2000, and the groupware and enterprise management introduced in xp/2003 are useless to single users, so I'll agree with you there.

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]



    yes[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#153)
    by maderikapapa on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:54:25 AM PDT

    出会い出会い系サイト出会い喫茶出会い掲示板ナンパ出会いカフェ人妻出会い無 009;系サイト優良出会い系攻略 完全無料。アダルトビデオアダルト動画アダルトアニメアダルト画像アダル 488;サイト無料DVDアダルト風俗サンプル無料風俗優良アダルトサイト比較海 806;。人妻画像人妻パラダイス知合い人妻援護会人妻コレクション風 439;告白。熟女画像東京熟女掲示板動画熟女ビデオおまんこオナニーエロ画像エロフラッシュアニメ 456;ロ動画エロゲームエロ漫画無料エロサイト。エッチ画像エッチ動画エッチ小説写真エッチ 450;ニメエッチ0930。セックスアナルセックス画像セックス動画セックスフレンドスワッピングSEX写真セックスボランティセ 483;クス体位東京セックス仕方 SEX。おっぱい画像おっぱい村長おっぱい楽園掲示板お 387;ぱい命おっぱいゲーム。巨乳動画巨乳画像アイドル巨乳 522;示板風俗。セフレ募集セフレ掲示板セフレ画像掲示板セフレの作り方出会い無料素人セフレ。童貞狩りエロ漫画童貞狩り童貞喪失童貞オークション素人童貞逆援不倫パートナー不倫出会い人妻不倫不倫を楽しみたい方にはお薦め 154;妻画像など満載出会いサイトを楽しむならココ無料出会いで一緒に遊ぼう出会いはLOVEアゲインで決まり

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    fvbh[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#161)
    by Anonymous User on Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 07:21:49 AM PDT

    SEXlink1

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    fgbb[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#164)
    by Anonymous User on Thu Oct 23, 2008 at 09:57:33 AM PDT

    ,ff,,,f*f不倫

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    gfdd[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#168)
    by Anonymous User on Sat Oct 25, 2008 at 11:34:57 AM PDT

    出会,,,ff,,素人

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    fgkk[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#171)
    by Anonymous User on Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 09:52:40 AM PDT

    ,fff巨乳熟女

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    fdmm[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#173)
    by Anonymous User on Mon Oct 27, 2008 at 10:55:56 AM PDT

    ,ffff"f,,ff,,童貞

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    fbvd[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#176)
    by Anonymous User on Tue Oct 28, 2008 at 01:12:08 PM PDT

    童貞,f*ffff`

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    gfmm[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#179)
    by Anonymous User on Wed Oct 29, 2008 at 09:00:37 AM PDT

    ,fff^,f不倫

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    fdgg[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#183)
    by Anonymous User on Fri Oct 31, 2008 at 12:45:43 PM PDT

    SEX,ff,,おっぱ,,

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    ffgb[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#186)
    by Anonymous User on Sat Nov 01, 2008 at 10:58:08 AM PDT

    不倫熟女,fff風--

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    fkoo[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#189)
    by Anonymous User on Sun Nov 02, 2008 at 12:31:39 PM PDT

    ,ff,,SEX逆援

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    okmm[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#192)
    by Anonymous User on Mon Nov 03, 2008 at 11:00:45 AM PDT

    不倫童貞ff',

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    jdhh[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#194)
    by Anonymous User on Tue Nov 04, 2008 at 07:56:09 AM PDT

    ,f*f熟女,fff

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    mkoo[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#197)
    by Anonymous User on Wed Nov 05, 2008 at 01:14:32 AM PDT

    人妻,f*f,ff,,

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    gfbb[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#200)
    by Anonymous User on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:11:10 AM PDT

    ,fff^,f熟女

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    fvbb[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#203)
    by Anonymous User on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 03:39:56 AM PDT

    人妻,fff不倫

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    ggfd[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#206)
    by Anonymous User on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 06:45:32 AM PDT

    ,fff^SEX逆援

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    fgbb[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#209)
    by Anonymous User on Mon Nov 10, 2008 at 02:10:13 AM PDT

    童貞,f人妻

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    fdii[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#211)
    by Anonymous User on Sat Nov 15, 2008 at 10:19:13 PM PDT

    ,fff^熟女,,-<sup>TM</sup>,fff^<*"</a>

    [
    Parent | Reply to This ]


    fffg[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#214)
    by Anonymous User on Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 10:23:28 PM PDT

    ,ff,,童貞風--

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    The GIMP[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#51)
    by Anonymous User on Tue May 10, 2005 at 07:41:30 PM PDT

    Problem with the GIMP is its interface is weird and it comes with no documentation. Trying to be quickly productive with it, even with much experience with computers in general and paint software in particular, seems to require a Ph.D. in theoretical physics or something. :P Free software in general tends to suffer from poor/undocumented/cranky/obscure/unusable/nonexistent user interfaces. Doesn't anyone with HCI knowledge ever work on any open source project? It seems not. :(

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    Try Ulead's PhotoImpact[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#60)
    by RocDoc on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:44:43 PM PDT

    It's very similar to PhotoShop ... the interface is VERY similar, and it does about 85-95% of what PhotoShop can do. It'll even edit and save files in the .PSD format! Costs under $80, and my copy (version 8.5) had no product activation, just an install key. RocDoc

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    Activation as a business decision[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#34)
    by Anonymous User on Tue May 10, 2005 at 03:05:51 PM PDT

    I have been saying the same thing about loss of goodwill and being thought of as a thief until I prove otherwise by activating my software and been flamed for it on many occasions. I told Adobe when I first heard about them activating their software that I would no longer be upgrading any of their products. I have legitimate versions of Photoshop 7, Premiere Pro, Acrobat 6.0 Pro, and with the exception of Illustrator 9, these are all their latest non-activated versions of software. If they don't want my business then they have made the decision easy for me....see ya! I'll go find someone who wants my business and won't insult me for my trouble. In addition their is another reason to add to your list...take 321 Studios for example, as soon as I rebuild my current machine I will lose the use of DVDXCopy as they are now out of business and there is no way to re-activate my software. Can someone show me where in the EULA it says "This is a license to use our software as long as we are in business..." Out of spite I'd like to see Adobe suffer and go out of business for this stupidity but there is not much chance of that especially as they have a two-tier system where the corporate CD's are not activated and so the problems the rest of us small business and non-business users alike have to deal with are not seen by a large population of Adobe users. That being the case they couldn't care less about our plights.

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    Product Activation = No Sale[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#42)
    by Anonymous User on Tue May 10, 2005 at 04:24:41 PM PDT

    I 100% agree. A software license is a right to use and should survive bankruptcy of the software vendor. Sure, you will not get any support from the vendor (but maybe you can from the Internet or user groups) but you are absolutely entitled to continuous uninterupted use. Otherwise, what is the point of paying when you can lose your paid software license due to the installation of a bigger HD or upgraded CPU ?

    I vote with my wallet too ! Product activation = no sale, no exceptions.

      I suspect that many companies (including Adobe) will seriously review feedback from the public but will continue onwards with product activation. Why ? Because product activation is a license compliance tool which yields quantifiable benefits (like quantification and rejection of casual piracy). This metrics can be added to quarterly management and financial reports and promotes the idea that the vendor is doing the right thing for their stakeholders. The hard to quantify issue is the customer alienation caused by product activation. The people who will walk away first are the early technology adopters who can be the most fiercy loyal customers. Funny thing is that the mass market always follows and by the time these companies see the downward trends it will be too late to stop the exodus...
    If you can be philosophical about the issue of product activation, then have confidence that the issue will be resolved by the creative destruction process of the free-market system. The customer is always right and has the power to both build and destroy these companies. Vote with your wallet and discuss it your friends. Encourage them to consider the pros and cons of software activation and make an informed decision by voting with their wallets.

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    321 Studios CAN up your activation count[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#59)
    by RocDoc on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:41:38 PM PDT

    I just finished getting 321 Studios to up my activation count. Goto www.dvdxcopy.com and read the forums about upping the count. You'll end up going to www.dvdxcopy-international.com to request a trouble ticket, but if you have a legitimate copy of the software and have a reasonable explanation for requesting the count be bumped up, they are happy to accomodate, and within 24 hours, too. RocDoc

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    Yup[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#70)
    by Anonymous User on Tue May 10, 2005 at 09:56:00 PM PDT

    And if you were using activation-free software, you would just be continuing to use your product without jumping through all these gratuitous hoops to protect the profits of ... a company that NO LONGER FREAKIN' EXISTS ANYWAYS AND HAS NO REVENUES LEFT TO LOSE!

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    It was a "use or lose" situation[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#98)
    by RocDoc on Thu May 12, 2005 at 01:27:39 PM PDT

    I purchased the software product because at the time of purchase I was not aware that it required activation. There was NO WAY to return it once it was opened and installed on my system (thanks to the EULA). So I was in a "use or lose" situation.

    Next, it may suprise you to know that the company still exists (at least in name), and is serviced in a country where the US DMCA laws do not impact it. So, we DO have some measure of support.

    What would you have done?

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]



    That wasn't the point[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#102)
    by Anonymous User on Thu May 12, 2005 at 06:08:17 PM PDT

    The point was that the activation is still evil -- even though you've managed to get yours reactivated, it was by jumping through lots of hoops that shouldn't have been necessary. And now the hoop jumping benefits nobody. The software isn't being sold anymore so it's not protecting a revenue stream, its dubious justification back when the software still was being sold. It's turned into a support cost for them, it seems. And it's turned into a hassle for consumers. It's a lose-lose situation.

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    Good question[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#107)
    by foxyshadis1 on Thu May 12, 2005 at 07:02:36 PM PDT

    I think his question has merit. Given the reality of the marketplace having activated products, rather than the wishful hope of no activation, would you burn the $20-50 spent on a product once you found out it needed to be activated, since you've already "supported" them and a CC company isn't going to be very helpful?

    Personally, once it quit working if I couldn't get it working right away I'd toss it for one I was sure was unactivated.

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]



    catch22[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#146)
    by Anonymous User on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:47:10 AM PDT

    If you check the Eula it usually says "if you do not accept this agreement you may return this to place of purchase" Just pack it up and get a refund. I've done it before, to which they stated that they could not take it back because it was opened. I told them you can't read the Eula until you go to install it and That my friend requires me to remove the companies shrink wrap, Right? So the company is only FORCING you to read the eula by removing the wrap and then saying if you don't agree to return it and then saying no you can't return it ,it's open. They can't have it both ways....

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    DVD Xcopy[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#116)
    by Anonymous User on Fri May 13, 2005 at 12:26:24 PM PDT

    I had to rebuild my PC. I reloaded DVD Xcopy and entered my key and it installed fine. They setup a server out of the country to keep the product working. And they moved the company to another country. They are still selling the product but have renamed it. Search Google and you will find them. They still offer tech support for the older products too. All the RIAA did was to keep the States for recieving any income from their stuff. If more companies would do this I think we'd see a change of heart at the congressional level.

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    Adobe Acitivation[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#92)
    by Anonymous User on Wed May 11, 2005 at 08:14:08 PM PDT

    Hell's bells. They are all rich beyond anything anyone deserves. Trying to pick up a few more bucks by busting people's chops is just stupid. Most people with pirated copies of anything wouldn't buy it if they had to. Photoshop? Hundreds of dollars? That's a lot of money for the home user who likes to tweak his digital pictures, or play around with some images. If that person had to pay $500 in the first place, he would never see the program, and never consider buying it. He gets a copy, plays around, gets proficient with it, and goes out an buys his own license. Sales without any work on Adobe's part! :-) Microsoft was built on pirated software. I don't mean we should emulate the beast, but it worked for them, so why not everyone else? Activation software is on the "no can do" list around here. Not gonna happen. I would rather just get rid of my PC that put up with that crap. John

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    23et[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#155)
    by Anonymous User on Fri Jul 04, 2008 at 10:41:52 PM PDT

    Hello, there. This is a quick summary of the goodness of buying wow gold from wow gold, wow power level, the World of Warcraft network of trust wow power leveling, warcraft power leveling and understanding for WoW PL'ers warcraft gold. Come to here for wow leveling. If you are in the mood for Final Fantasy XI gil, then please go to FFXI Gil, Buy FFXI Gil, FFXI Gil Sale, Cheapest FFXI Gil, Buy Cheap FFXI Gil, final Fantasy XI Gil, Cheap FFXI Gil.

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    Activation[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
    by Anonymous User on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:01:06 AM PDT

    The one thing that is missed is the marketing nature of stolen copies. I am always leary of claims of lost sales. I do not think many of them would turn into real sales. However some of them might - and that is an opportunity for the software vendor. I would wager that much of the 30% that is talked about is for employee's who are bringing the application home. While some of these may cause a company to buy an additional copy for the home use not many would. However that person - if they had it running at home - is much more likely to bring it with them to a new company when they move.

    [ Reply to This ]


    Where is the resulting sales increase?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#13)
    by Anonymous User on Tue May 10, 2005 at 09:45:27 AM PDT

    Exactly. Adobe should see sales increase significantly now that they're denying 30% of their activations. It's interesting that the percent sale increase was left out of the story; you'd think that if the end result of enforcing activation was both (a) a 30% denial rate and (b) a 15% increase in sales, they'd report the latter as support for the policy. That no such sales increase was reported speaks volumes about the "loss" that those 30% denials represent.

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    Cost of Activate Enforcement[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#17)
    by Anonymous User on Tue May 10, 2005 at 10:12:16 AM PDT

    Those are good points.  I would also like to see the figures on how much that "activation department" actually costs them versus how much they are supposedly saving from preventing casual copying.  Is it really worth it?  Somehow I doubt it.


    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    SAVING?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#26)
    by Anonymous User on Tue May 10, 2005 at 12:18:06 PM PDT

    Actually, Adobe doesn't "save" ANYTHING by preventing casual copying. They MAY make additional sales. But DO they???

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    Re: Activation[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#29)
    by Anonymous User on Tue May 10, 2005 at 02:08:50 PM PDT

    "The one thing that is missed is the marketing nature of stolen copies. I am always leary of claims of lost sales. I do not think many of them would turn into real sales."
    I agree. The same thing goes with the music industry. Just because I downloaded the one song that I like from a given band because their other 13 songs SUCK ASS doesn't mean they lost a sale, it just means I got the one song that I do like without having to pay $15 or so for a CD. If they'd make that one song available as a flac/shn download, you can bet your ass I would buy it if it were reasonably priced.

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    Use of Software as a Business Decision[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
    by RocDoc on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:50:35 AM PDT

    Caution, rant mode is activated.

    History repeats itself.

    Product activation and product protection didn't work in the early Eighties with Lotus 1-2-3 (Hello, SuperCalc). It didn't work in the late Eighties with Aston-Tate dBase (Hello, FoxPro). It didn't work in the early Ninties with various small and not-so-small vendors. It didn't work in the late Nineties and early Two Thousands with Microsoft (Hello, Linux [no flames please]) and Intuit (Hello, Peachtree and TaxAct).

    We, as end users, have been bitten, inconvenienced, and outright denied the ability to use the software which we licensed (not bought). I just got done working with 321 Studios on product reactivation for software that is "technically" no longer supported within the USA. At least I can now request that the activation count be bumped up, rather than be denied the ability to reactivate the product at all.

    I've recently discovered that I can still get quite a bit of work done with an (gasp) old fashioned sheet of paper and pencil. And that 37 cent stamp still sends my message from one end of the continent to the other. So I may not NEED all of the convenience that comes from the computer and the software that runs on it. However, I do appreciate the increase in productivity it provides.

    So, to the software vendors, I respond: "Go ahead, install the product activation scheme! I have several choices. I can re-evaluate my need of this specific type of software product. I can choose not to use your software and find a suitable replacement. Or, I can find a way to defeat the "protection" mechanism of your product in order to use the product in the way that meets my needs, but still honors the copyright agreement of the work you and your employees produced."

    As an aside, this issue goes hand-in-hand with the EULA. The EULA (typically one-sidedly) states that the vendor is supreme and the end user can either "lump it or leave it". Or, as shown in other forums on this site, the vendor can add charges (ad nausea) for trying to get out of an agreement that was not legally made in the first place. So, the EULA is also included in my decision making process.

    Oh, for the days of the MIT Tech Model Railroad Club and free source software. Suggested reading: Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution by Steven Levy and Silicon Snake Oil: Second Thoughts on the Information Highway by Cliff Stoll.

    O.k., rant mode is now off. Have a nice day!

    [ Reply to This ]



    Fellow TMRC Member 67-71[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#47)
    by DennisSimi on Tue May 10, 2005 at 05:05:10 PM PDT

    I had gotten burned by Early Copy Protection schemes - on PC Layout Software and Design software, and te company went under. If I can't make a backup copy, I willnot have the software on teh networks I administer. No Way - Been there - got burned.

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    Free Links Please![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#52)
    by Anonymous User on Tue May 10, 2005 at 07:55:15 PM PDT

    Those links are to barnesandnoble.com, and therefore presumably to pages that will want a CC number before they will deliver any kind of content. Know of any *free* online sources for either of the documents you mention? Nonfree (including "free" but registration/"age verification" CC#/whatever required) links suck.

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    Free links to copyrighted published book content?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#54)
    by ekuns on Tue May 10, 2005 at 08:34:54 PM PDT

    You are aware that the reason the links are to a book store is because the links are to books that are still being sold today? If the content of those books is available online and is not by the actual author (or with that author's or the publisher's explicit permission) then it is probably online illegally.

    That said, it took very little Googling to find two chapters of Steven Levy's book online at Project Gutengerg as sample chapters to entice people into purchasing the whole book. There are many, many online reviews of both books if you want to learn more about them. Use Google. It is your friend. If the reviews and sample chapters are interesting enough, I hope you will be willing to either pay for the whole book or go to a library to read the book.



    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    Eh?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#69)
    by Anonymous User on Tue May 10, 2005 at 09:54:17 PM PDT

    Are you making the preposterous claim that there are no legitimate, free online versions of these documents? Despite coming from the hacker/open source movement? That would be a remarkable irony (and evidence, perhaps, of hypocrisy) were it true. And the original poster is well advised that people want instant gratification on the web. When you link to some documents for more information, they want the result of clicking the link to be the documents right there on their bloody screen. No please insert a CC# to continue. No please register to continue. No "splash page", these days as often as not an ad rather than a real splash page. And most certainly nothing that actually will take 4-6 weeks to deliver *after* jumping through these hoops. Even dial-up users want faster results than that, nevermind broadband users. Likewise the suggestion to actually leave their computer, find some library, jump through some more hoops to get a laminated card(tm), and then do more extensive searching to locate a copy of the documents (or, far more likely, fail to locate a copy) is also a non-starter. Web links are meant to be nearly-immediate here's-what-you-were-looking-for, not a sales pitch, not some other interruption, and certainly not an invitation to actually go somewhere offline in order to continue!

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    Geez, impatient much? :) Good grief![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#87)
    by ekuns on Wed May 11, 2005 at 03:39:19 PM PDT

    I am not making the preposterous claim that there are no legitimate free online versions of those documents, but I will say that I am not aware of any. Again, Google is your friend. I disagree that it is hypocracy to be a member of the hacker/open source movement yet to publish a book intending to make a profit. Everyone has to eat, and the profit motive is not evil nor immoral. Giving one thing away for free does not require one to give everything away for free, and no-one is entitled to receive everything they want, for free.

    It is OK to want instant gratification on the web, but to expect it is to be immature and usually disappointed. The original poster was providing information, and did so successfully, IMO. Not everything is available for free, and even if the full text of those books is available online for free, legally, it's not a requirement that anyone referencing those books be aware of the location of those books online. Are you that unwilling to do any research on your own?

    Your post, if serious and not tongue-in-cheek, is the most blatant and demanding display of impatience I have seen in quite a long time. It really is not the job of others (who you are not paying) to baby-feed information to you!



    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    Open Source and Profit[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#96)
    by sconeu on Thu May 12, 2005 at 11:58:38 AM PDT

    Stallman himself has no problem with selling FOSS.  Heck he did it himself with GNU Emacs.
    But I had no job, and I was looking for ways to make money from free software. So I announced that I would mail a tape to whoever wanted one, for a fee of $150. In this way, I started a free software distribution business, the precursor of the companies that today distribute entire Linux-based GNU systems.
    (cite from Peter H. Salus' serialized version of "The Daemon, the GNU, and the Penguine", chapter 8, on Groklaw.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States of America.
    [ Parent | Reply to This ]



    Apples and oranges[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#101)
    by Anonymous User on Thu May 12, 2005 at 06:05:32 PM PDT

    RMS was selling something on physical media that the monetarily challenged could obtain legitimately for free by other means. That is very different from not providing a free, online alternative to buying a physical copy at all.

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    Do you have a clue how copyright works?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#103)
    by foxyshadis1 on Thu May 12, 2005 at 06:31:05 PM PDT

    Have you considered that any links to this content would be illegal to download in America? Even if it's perfectly legal to host in Siberia, international copyright laws state that a published work in copyright is still under copyright in any form anywhere that international law holds. Just because something can be distributed in a form with costs near zero, doesn't mean the time the author spent will be any better.

    If you move to a country where copyright law is far looser/nonexistent, you're perfectly free to download all you want with no repercussions, however.

    Also consider that any links would be deleted by the Fosters and the account likely banned.

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]



    That...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#118)
    by Anonymous User on Fri May 13, 2005 at 08:54:09 PM PDT

    ...is entirely beside the point the original poster made, which is that it's hypocritical to champion information freedom and make some stuff available for free online (while charging for physical media distribution), but refuse to do the same with some other stuff. And the further-back poster posted "links" that can't be followed without pumping quarters into the slot. Nobody likes encountering such "dead ends" on the Web, whatever the supposed justification. Same as with members-only or please-give-us-an-addy-to-spam-to-continue barriers, splash pages, and broken links -- it's frustrating to be doing Web research and encounter dead ends of any of these types, whether they're actually continuable by paying a price (a time-consuming search for a moved page, say, or money, or giving your email address to someone who has no logical reason to demand one unless they intend to spam it) or not.

    [ Parent | Reply to This ]


    Do you just not get it?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#119)
    by RocDoc on Fri May 13, 2005 at 10:38:16 PM PDT

    As the originator of the post with the links, I just have to say, "You don't get it!"

    Education is not free, contrary to the appearance of the public school system. Your parents, and perhaps even you, pay taxes that fund education of K-12. You will pay for higher learning, whether it is a tuition fee for college classes or in non-monetary terms for "the school of hard knocks".

    The adage really is true: TANSTAAFL: "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch". Someone pays. Every time. It may be with monetary instruments. It may be with labor. But someone pays!

    Free Open Source Software is, contrary to popular misconception, NOT free. Never was. It is disseminated with the expectation that if you