Author: David Mitchell
Date: 04:29:03 10/29/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 28, 2005 at 18:49:21, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 28, 2005 at 18:21:37, Jake Sisko wrote: > >> >> >> Is Fruit 2.2 copy protection scheme the trend of the Future? I hear that there >>is not one cracked version of the program. Perhaps Other companies will adopt >>the same practices of Fruit to ensure that programmers actually get paid for >>there work? Seems like a good ideal to me! > >1)How do you know that there are not cracked version of fruit? >I think that you never can know something like that and you may know only the >opposite. >The best that you can say is that you did not find a cracked version of fruit. > >2)I thought first that it is a good idea but I changed my mind about it after >reading a lot of complaints in this forum and after understanding that there is >probably no copy protection that cannot be cracked by crackers and I think that >the fact that the copy proterction of fruit cannot be cracked by most people(and >maybe by most crackers) does not help much because one cracker may share fruit >with a lot of people. > >Uri Very true, Uri. It's important to try to protect your product, however. From a legal point of view it's very helpful. No one can claim a defense of "I didn't know it was wrong", or "I did it by accident your honor". NFW Also, it's far easier to sue a few people for damages from illegal infringment of copyright, than it is to try and hunt down hundreds of small-fry copiers. The amount of gripes you see posted here, are not representative of the whole of Fruit's customers. Remember, lots of buyers will have had no problem, and they will post up nothing for us to see. So we see mostly only the negative comments, and from the several I've read, it's mostly a case of just a minor correction, or the user just didn't bother to RTFM, at all. Dave
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.