Dream Weaver get their finger out ! wha ?

Hobbes

Or rather then trying to continue to break the law you could, you know actually trying paying for the product you are so obviously using (as you have your website set up in it).

PiE

Just let me get my wallet...

Bard

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ToM-theboxnetwork.net:
I suspect the dreamweaver cracks can now be read by dream weaver from the html.</font>

As a long time user of Dreamweaver, knowing the kind of code it produces, I seriously doubt that this suspicion has any founding whatsoever.

If software is worth using for a substantial length of time, it is WORTH BUYING. Quit ripping Macromedia off,- they've got an excellent product which is well worth paying for.

[This message has been edited by Bard (edited 12-04-2001).]

Bard

Not meaning to labour the point or anything, but Ireland has a shameful record of software piracy.

The "Actual measureable loss" to the industry caused by software piracy, according to MSNBC:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">From: http://www.msnbc.com/news/553728.asp?cp1=1

US 25% $3,191.1 m
UK 26% $679.5 m
Japan 31% $975.4 m
Ireland 51% $117.9 m

</font>

---

Bard

---

"and there was much rejoicing..."

Hobbes

But here is a thought. If a company has a budget of lets say 1 million to produce a product (1 million really isn't a lot btw). Should they spend most of that budget on producing a quality product or most of it on putting in anti-piracy code?

logic1

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Well, people like free things =] and whether the software is worth paying for or not doesn't matter to most people.</font>

Well that's rather a rash generalisation. Most Corporations, businesses or indeed individuals who work in the computer industry at least that I have ever come across would rather pay for a worthy product than used a ripped off version simply because they're not as unscrupulous as some and will generally pay for a product if they intend on using it alot. Most big companies have estremly strict serial and multiple user license IT agreements in place and frequent random audits do take place. So I certainly won't agree that "most people" won't pay for a product if they can crack it or rip it off.
However I do believe that 90% of this piracy is carried out by home user or non professional users and to a lesser extent users in small businesses. I beleive that the piracy figures are also a bit misleading. The lost revenue indicated is the approximate revenue net that would have been gained if every user had paid for a licence or registered the software but a hell of alot of those users may have only used the product once or used it in a small non professional manner there fore not generating any revenue from the use of the product. But still piracy is clearly an issue which will have to be dealt with and the polymorphic techniques you outlines above do seem quite impressive. Would you have any more links I can find out more on this subject?
(Bit art site is quite impressive in content)

Thanks,
.logic.

AI_inferno

Well, software makers are to an extent benefitting from a lot of piracy in the sense that if someone can use their software and they start working for a company using that software then the company has to buy a license. I have no problem with home users making personal sites using pirate software - the average home user is in their teens and can't afford a copy. If however they themselves are making money from it with commercial sites then they should pay for a full copy - educational copies of software are quite cheap, for example i'm a heavy 3d studio max user. I started on a cracked copy a few years back. I now own an educational copy at home which I use for showreel stuff and personal projects (within the license agreement) - i now work in a post production company who have bought 3 licences at a cost of £8,000 as a result. For the people fiddling at home though - i think a cracked copy is okay after all pro software shouldnt be a privilage by any means. If you take it seriously especially. Those who want to do a rotating logo dont need 3dsmax. But for an animator or someone that wants a career using high end software there should be a way to facilitate them.

And p.s. - html files are nothing but text. There is no way to trace where they came from if you delete the generator and meta tags. Macromedia have a lot of stupid policies too - they rip off people in a lot of ways...

[This message has been edited by AI_inferno (edited 13-04-2001).]

Bdellium

hobbes:
Maybe the companies should work together on a protection scheme.I'll bet there are plenty of crackers out there that would develop it too, if the price was right.

logic1:
There's generally very little information on the subject except for in virus tutorials and zines.If you search the internet you usually end up with sites that simply distribute virii along with nukers and mailbombers...etc *sigh*.
You're best bet is virus e-zines.
Theres a good article in 29a#5 by The Mental Driller on advanced polymorphic engine construction.Also, alot of freeware PE encrypters and polymorphic engines are available with source code usually in win32 assembler from http://protools.cjb.net/
Some of the PE encrypters won't work with NT.
Articles in 29a#4 + 5, DDT#1 and some of the stuff here:

http://vx.netlux.org/lib_vx.shtml
http://vx.netlux.org/lib.html

Apart from that, thats about it, a few old scattered virus tutorials about the net, there, and the odd comment on dongles (same thing almost).
In 29a#4 there is an article on metamorphism.
Weird article, but definetly somthing to watch for.

Hobbes

Why should they spend time on a protection scheme? Why don't people play nice and just buy the product if they use it.

There is really no point getting into this argument again, just do search on the boards you'll find a lot more details on this argument. Basically your stealing. Copying the product and using it with the intent to buy is one thing, using it and not paying for it is another.

Btw I worked briefly in Macromedia (in California), I'm sure they will all love to hear that those endless hours of them killing themselves to get a product out on time didn't get them any cash, but that's ok because it's helping other people gets jobs.

AI_inferno

the point being hobbes,that if a person learning on a cracked copy gets a job using that software - the company they work for will buy a legal copy. I.e. macromedia get their money in a roundabout way.

Hobbes

Not really, because the company will buy it anyway. Most companies offer "try before buy" or student versions of thier software. Macromedia being one of them.

Bdellium

Well, people like free things =] and whether the software is worth paying for or not doesn't matter to most people.If they can find software that will let them use the product for nothing, or for less, thats what they'll use first.
I'm not encouraging the use of priate or patched software at all, but the statistics speak for themselves.
Maybe what the developers need to do is actually invest in a protection scheme that is extremely expensive to crack.More so than the product sells for, that should solve their problems for a few years.As an example in software cracking.BitArts have a program called crunchsp (other progs) which currently compresses,encrypts, adds anti-debug/dissasembly/patch code among other features to exe/dll/ocx...etc files of an application on windows.So far its been uncrackable.
And now they've recently developed a polymorphic encryption engine based on virii techniques.Each time the program protected with the engine is loaded into memory, it can mutate its code locations whenever it wants *randomly* in memory, making it *almost* impossible (not impossible) for most crackers to break.Dissassembling the executable is pointless because the dissassembled code will be different every time.Debuggers are not effective against it because operations are encrypted in memory or "wrapped".Although the same technique has been used for years by virii coders, the best encryption they used up until a few years ago was a lame XOR crypt, making it sinch for AV's to detect, Now they have polymorphic engines for anti-hueristics *grin*.Updates!!
BitArts are on the right track for cracking.This is the type of software that will almost certainly be used before too long against crackers.And before you know it, cracking could actually become an ancient art ;] surely not?
As for CD copying, same rules, there are ways, they're just too expensive for the companies to implement.

http://www.bit-arts.com/

Jademan

Add to all the above the "free" limited edition such as "SE" and "Express" editions!