Black copies again :((

yoxola · Post by **yoxola** » Mon Jul 24, 2006 3:09 pm

I prefer per-user based key, and this key has to be hard to anaalyze and embedded into the exe.

So that you can track who leaked the copy.

Or a online update/verification process like BlitzMax does....

GeoTrail · Post by **GeoTrail** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:40 am

Inf0Byt3 wrote:@Fred, I think the only way to stop this is to create a small server and modify PureBasic a bit to support serial-based registration. After somebody executes PureBasic, it authenticates the user data with the server and if it is wrong or the guy used a keygen, etc., get the ip and ban it (or anything else).

I agree with that idea.

I just did a quick search for purebasic 4 crack and found a bunch of results. I tried the first one I found and it is an exact copy of the pb4 version from our private user section.

The way Reelmedia does it is pretty good to prevent piracy, allthough it gets abit much having to send an email to request a new serial each time I re-install Windows after some time. Which I do alot hehehehe

But using a serial check on a server would be best. That way the only way to crack PB would be to actually modify the package which could also lead to the program being unstable or unusable.

GeoTrail · Post by **GeoTrail** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:43 am

another idea would be to somehow sign the program before download, so if someone distributes it we/Fred can see the name of the user or something like that.

gnozal · Post by **gnozal** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:19 am

yoxola wrote:Or a online update/verification process like BlitzMax does....

So you can't use Purebasic without an internet connection ?

DarkDragon · Post by **DarkDragon** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:33 am

gnozal wrote:
yoxola wrote:Or a online update/verification process like BlitzMax does....
So you can't use Purebasic without an internet connection ?

Would be horrible, wouldn't it?

Michael Vogel · Post by **Michael Vogel** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:00 am

DarkDragon wrote:
gnozal wrote:
yoxola wrote:Or a online update/verification process like BlitzMax does....
So you can't use Purebasic without an internet connection ?
Would be horrible, wouldn't it?

yes, I don't use internet very frequently (and when, I still use a slow modem at home;)
But a serial number or name which is also coded into each exe would be ok - of course this can also be cracked, but it will be a problem for a lot of people and they will (hopefully) ask themself if it is worth the risks...

yoxola · Post by **yoxola** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:16 am

I didn't clearify that enough, so I pot the details.

BlitzMax releases update/fixes around weekly basis, you must have a valid account to retrieve that, and some fixes are critical.

If the online update mechanism is OK, then a "fingerprint" with each update should be trackable, and embeddable into the executable, some compiler does this already.

Kale · Post by **Kale** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:47 am

gnozal wrote:
yoxola wrote:Or a online update/verification process like BlitzMax does....
So you can't use Purebasic without an internet connection ?

DBPro originally had an net validation system, so i cracked it (for my own use). I hate that crap!

Post by **freak** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 12:17 pm

Trying to fight black copies is a waste of time. There is no protection that *really* works anyway.

> DBPro originally had an net validation system, so i cracked it (for my own use). I hate that crap!

Exactly my point. Any sort of verification process will just annoy the honest users.
For those who use a black copy, it is just a matter of getting the right crack.

A little bit of protection is needed so people can't just turn the demo into a full version,
so they actually have to get themselves a clearly illegal copy if they want to steal the software.
Other than that, all you can do is hope that there are enough honest people left
in the world who are willing to pay for the hard work you do.

I am not going to waste my time trying to come up with a system that will
only hurt those who actually paid, and keep the others away for just a few days anyway.

yoxola · Post by **yoxola** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 1:19 pm

>A little bit of protection is needed so people can't just turn the demo into a full version

Yes, completely agree that.

aaron · Post by **aaron** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 2:29 pm

GeoTrail wrote:another idea would be to somehow sign the program before download, so if someone distributes it we/Fred can see the name of the user or something like that.

Maybe that is happening already..... ever notice that the downloads have a set of random numbers behind the name? Guess what else might be going on behind the scenes.

GeoTrail · Post by **GeoTrail** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:54 pm

aaron wrote:
GeoTrail wrote:another idea would be to somehow sign the program before download, so if someone distributes it we/Fred can see the name of the user or something like that.
Maybe that is happening already..... ever notice that the downloads have a set of random numbers behind the name? Guess what else might be going on behind the scenes.

Yeah I've seen that number, I'm guessing that is just to "hide" the direct link to the file.

Phoenix · Post by **Phoenix** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 9:43 pm

yoxola wrote:>A little bit of protection is needed so people can't just turn the demo into a full version

Yes, completely agree that.

From what I can see from the demo version it already has that sort of protection????

Thalius · Post by **Thalius** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 2:51 am

Best way imo is to give Fred and Crew all links and hints we find so he can contact their providers and shut them down.

Thalius