30 days trial immune to set clock back in time? - Java

This is a discussion on 30 days trial immune to set clock back in time? - Java ; On Sep 20, 8:17 am, "Qu0ll" <Qu0llSixF...@gmail.com> wrote: > [insult deleted] None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true. > You are depriving someone of a legitimate income and it's called stealing.. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 91

30 days trial immune to set clock back in time?

  1. Default Re: 30 days trial immune to set clock back in time?

    On Sep 20, 8:17 am, "Qu0ll" <Qu0llSixF...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > [insult deleted]


    None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
    all true.

    > You are depriving someone of a legitimate income and it's called stealing..


    No, I am not.

    How can one deprive someone else of anything by doing something in the
    privacy of their own home, behind closed doors, with their own stuff?

    If I stole a car from a dealership, that dealership would be missing
    one car.

    If I copied some software from some web site, that web site would not
    be missing one copy of that software; it only has the one, which is
    copied rather than moved when someone downloads it. One person
    downloading a copy does not reduce the amount available to the site's
    operator or to other downloaders. In this manner it also differs from
    borrowing a book at a library.

    But we weren't even discussing THAT. We were discussing the
    hypothetical case that I had something and, after some amount of time,
    I continued using that something versus I didn't, while still having
    it either way! The only thing my continued usage or not might visibly
    affect, outside, is how much electricity my household consumes.

    And I was certainly not contemplating not paying my hydro bill.

    You're a loon.

  2. Default Re: 30 days trial immune to set clock back in time?

    On Sep 20, 8:48 am, rossum <rossu...@coldmail.com> wrote:
    > On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:23:28 -0700 (PDT), bbo...@gmail.com wrote:
    > >The problem is that he is not asking for "some return on his work", he
    > >is asking for the right to reach out and destroy somebody else's
    > >property, namely their copy of some piece of software.

    >
    > The OP is offering two different programs.  The first costs $0.00 and
    > will work for 30 days and then stop working.


    Once I have a copy, if I can make it continue working, what's the big
    deal? If I got a machine with a one year warranty, and it conked out
    right around that time, but I was able to fix it with my own tools, on
    my own time, and get it working again and it worked for another year,
    what of it? Perhaps the manufacturer loses out on selling me a new,
    replacement unit, or some repair technician on a paid repair job, but
    them's the breaks. We shouldn't HAVE to pay someone else to do what we
    can do ourselves, just out of some supposed obligation to ensure that
    they get paid. There is no right to future profits, only the right to
    peddle your wares in a free market and possibly get sales but possibly
    not.

    Artificial scarcity and deliberate cripple-age just to drum up future
    business has all kinds of things wrong with it.
    1. It's just plain evil. And rude. It's negative-sum,
    Pareto-suboptimal crap.
    2. It's also stupid and short-sighted. People will avoid your
    intentionally-crappy stuff and flock to the competition, rather
    than be repeat buyers of your crud, as soon as you have any
    competition. This is what happened to the American car industry
    -- it peddled crap prone to breaking down fairly soon after
    purchase, which made manufacturing cheap and forced people to
    pay for repairs and replacements frequently, right up until they
    suddenly faced competition from a Japanese car industry that
    actually sold some quality products. And then customers flocked
    to the alternative. Same happened to AOL's crippled and
    overpriced services when the first modern ISPs came along.

  3. Default Re: 30 days trial immune to set clock back in time?

    <reckoning54@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:dbc09e18-e7cb-43fd-88fd-79873184275c@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
    > On Sep 20, 8:17 am, "Qu0ll" <Qu0llSixF...@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> [insult deleted]

    >
    > None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
    > all true.
    >
    >> You are depriving someone of a legitimate income and it's called
    >> stealing.

    >
    > No, I am not.
    >
    > How can one deprive someone else of anything by doing something in the
    > privacy of their own home, behind closed doors, with their own stuff?
    >
    > If I stole a car from a dealership, that dealership would be missing
    > one car.
    >
    > If I copied some software from some web site, that web site would not
    > be missing one copy of that software; it only has the one, which is
    > copied rather than moved when someone downloads it. One person
    > downloading a copy does not reduce the amount available to the site's
    > operator or to other downloaders. In this manner it also differs from
    > borrowing a book at a library.
    >
    > But we weren't even discussing THAT. We were discussing the
    > hypothetical case that I had something and, after some amount of time,
    > I continued using that something versus I didn't, while still having
    > it either way! The only thing my continued usage or not might visibly
    > affect, outside, is how much electricity my household consumes.
    >
    > And I was certainly not contemplating not paying my hydro bill.
    >
    > You're a loon.


    I should have reviewed some of your previous posts to this newsgroup. Then
    I would have realised I was talking to a bona fide whack job who can't tell
    the difference between right and wrong.

    I'll leave you alone now to take your meds and be on your way.

    --
    And loving it,

    -Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
    _________________________________________________
    Qu0llSixFour@gmail.com
    [Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]


  4. Default Re: 30 days trial immune to set clock back in time?


    <reckoning54@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:dbc09e18-e7cb-43fd-88fd-79873184275c@i76g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
    On Sep 20, 8:17 am, "Qu0ll" <Qu0llSixF...@gmail.com> wrote:
    > [insult deleted]


    None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
    all true.

    > You are depriving someone of a legitimate income and it's called stealing.


    No, I am not.

    How can one deprive someone else of anything by doing something in the
    privacy of their own home, behind closed doors, with their own stuff?

    If I stole a car from a dealership, that dealership would be missing
    one car.

    If I copied some software from some web site, that web site would not
    be missing one copy of that software; it only has the one, which is
    copied rather than moved when someone downloads it. One person
    downloading a copy does not reduce the amount available to the site's
    operator or to other downloaders. In this manner it also differs from
    borrowing a book at a library.

    But we weren't even discussing THAT. We were discussing the
    hypothetical case that I had something and, after some amount of time,
    I continued using that something versus I didn't, while still having
    it either way! The only thing my continued usage or not might visibly
    affect, outside, is how much electricity my household consumes.

    And I was certainly not contemplating not paying my hydro bill.

    Why pay your hydro bill?
    There is only one molecule of water, the rest are all copies.


  5. Default Re: 30 days trial immune to set clock back in time?

    rossum wrote:
    > On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:23:28 -0700 (PDT), bbound@gmail.com wrote:
    >
    >> The problem is that he is not asking for "some return on his work", he
    >> is asking for the right to reach out and destroy somebody else's
    >> property, namely their copy of some piece of software.

    > The OP is offering two different programs. The first costs $0.00 and
    > will work for 30 days and then stop working. If you do not like the
    > terms then do not "buy" that program.
    >
    > The second program costs $30.00 (or whatever) and will work
    > indefinitely. If that is what you prefer to use then buy that program
    > instead.
    >
    > You have a free choice as to which program you want to download with
    > the terms and conditions advertised up front. If you do not like the
    > T&Cs then do not download that program.


    The definition of "property rights" is asymmetrical. Only the downloader has
    "property rights". The author has none. If the author wanted to have
    "property rights", they should have stayed out of software development.

    --
    Lew

  6. Default Re: 30 days trial immune to set clock back in time?

    On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 04:53:43 -0700 (PDT), Tomer <tomerbd1@gmail.com>
    wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

    >Can anyone guide me how can i create a 30 days trial to a software
    >that is immune to having set the clock back in time?


    Icon Lover has a scheme that I wish more would implement.

    It gives you a 30 day trial, but does not count days on which you
    don't use the program.

    1. use an atomic clock to find out the real time. See
    http://mindprod.com/products1.html#SETCLOCK

    2. give the user N uses of the program, over any length of time. They
    would have to find where you hide the count.

    3. Have the program send a query to a server on each trial use to see
    if it ok to use it. You maintain the data on your server where it is
    not discoverable or tamperable.

    See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/installer.html
    --

    Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
    The Java Glossary
    http://mindprod.com

  7. Default Re: 30 days trial immune to set clock back in time?

    Roedy Green wrote:
    > On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 04:53:43 -0700 (PDT), Tomer <tomerbd1@gmail.com>
    > wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
    >
    >> Can anyone guide me how can i create a 30 days trial to a software
    >> that is immune to having set the clock back in time?

    >
    > Icon Lover has a scheme that I wish more would implement.
    >
    > It gives you a 30 day trial, but does not count days on which you
    > don't use the program.
    >
    > 1. use an atomic clock to find out the real time. See
    > http://mindprod.com/products1.html#SETCLOCK
    >
    > 2. give the user N uses of the program, over any length of time. They
    > would have to find where you hide the count.
    >
    > 3. Have the program send a query to a server on each trial use to see
    > if it ok to use it. You maintain the data on your server where it is
    > not discoverable or tamperable.
    >
    > See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/installer.html


    4. Do not provide time-limited or otherwise restricted copies of the software.
    Require payment of the full license fee to receive the software at all.

    --
    Lew

  8. Default Re: 30 days trial immune to set clock back in time?

    On Sep 20, 2:10 pm, Lew <no...@lewscanon.com> wrote:
    > Roedy Green wrote:
    > > On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 04:53:43 -0700 (PDT), Tomer <tomer...@gmail.com>
    > > wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :

    >
    > >> Can anyone guide me how can i create a 30 days trial to a software
    > >> that is immune to having set the clock back in time?

    >
    > > Icon Lover has a scheme that I wish more would implement.

    >
    > > It gives you a 30 day trial, but does not count days on which you
    > > don't use the program.

    >
    > > 1. use an atomic clock to find out the real time.  See
    > >http://mindprod.com/products1.html#SETCLOCK

    >
    > > 2. give the user N uses of the program, over any length of time. They
    > > would have to find where you hide the count.

    >
    > > 3. Have the program send a query to a server on each trial use to see
    > > if it ok to use it.  You maintain the data on your server where it is
    > > not discoverable or tamperable.

    >
    > > Seehttp://mindprod.com/jgloss/installer.html

    >
    > 4. Do not provide time-limited or otherwise restricted copies of the software.
    >   Require payment of the full license fee to receive the software at all.


    That's extremely poor marketing. I'd instead frame that as:

    4. Accept that some proportion of your userbase will subvert your
    demo scheme rather than pay for the product.

    -o

  9. Default Re: 30 days trial immune to set clock back in time?

    Lew wrote:
    >> Require payment of the full license fee to receive the software at all.


    Owen Jacobson wrote:
    > That's extremely poor marketing.


    And yet it's how almost all products are sold. Why not software?

    When I go to the grocery store and by a cut of meat, they make me buy it
    outright. Yet I keep going back.

    When I go to a bookstore, they make me buy the book before I can remove it
    from the store. Yet I keep going back.

    When I bought my car, I had to get money into the dealer's hands before the
    keys went into mine. I've bought three cars from the same dealer over the years.

    My computer purchase worked the same way. Buy first, take home second.

    Very few items are sold with free samples first, relatively speaking.

    This indicates to me that the burden of proof is on one who asserts that full
    payment first is "extremely poor marketing". /Au contraire/, it appears to me
    to be the standard, and "free sample first" the exception.

    Can you point to marketing research that supports your assertion? What seems
    obvious to me can be countervailed with evidence.

    --
    Lew

  10. Default Re: 30 days trial immune to set clock back in time?

    Lew wrote:
    > Lew wrote:
    >>> Require payment of the full license fee to receive the software at
    >>> all.

    >
    > Owen Jacobson wrote:
    >> That's extremely poor marketing.

    >
    > And yet it's how almost all products are sold. Why not software?
    >
    > When I go to the grocery store and by a cut of meat, they make me buy it
    > outright. Yet I keep going back.
    >
    > When I go to a bookstore, they make me buy the book before I can remove
    > it from the store. Yet I keep going back.
    >
    > When I bought my car, I had to get money into the dealer's hands before
    > the keys went into mine. I've bought three cars from the same dealer
    > over the years.
    >
    > My computer purchase worked the same way. Buy first, take home second.
    >
    > Very few items are sold with free samples first, relatively speaking.
    >
    > This indicates to me that the burden of proof is on one who asserts that
    > full payment first is "extremely poor marketing". /Au contraire/, it
    > appears to me to be the standard, and "free sample first" the exception.
    >
    > Can you point to marketing research that supports your assertion? What
    > seems obvious to me can be countervailed with evidence.


    Addendum:

    Microsoft seems to have succeeded pretty well with the "pay-first" approach.
    I've never heard anyone accuse them of "extremely poor marketing".

    --
    Lew

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast