PureBasic Forums - English

utopiomania wrote:pdwyer and citystate, thanks for the input!

About my idea, if you buy a copy tomorrow for say 5 $, you can use it for as long
as you like, then fork out another fiver for new version when you feel it's worth it.

Just like any other gadget you buy!

As for code protection, can these criminals really unprotect a crackme protected by
apps like EXECryptor or CodeVirtualizer ROUTINELY now

Yes you bet they can, see at some point if you like it or not your going to have to decrypt your code to run it, once that is done your goose is cooked.

In fact the harder you make it the more they like cracking it.

Listen to INNER and Localmotion34, what they are saying is true.

In the event that you really do want to use protection then create your own and don't tell anyone, especially a forum, how it works. lol.

I reckon your far better off forgoing protection ideas entirely and saving development costs, and making your product cheaper to buy.

It's really based on how much money you have to spend, anything over $80 is out of the question for me, but in todays climate of economy that would be closer to $10-$20.

> Just like any other gadget you buy!

This got me thinking... imagine if an app was coded so that it expired after
X amount of days (or years) so that the purchaser had to buy another when
it expired. Would that be so bad? I mean: everything else eventually dies, be
it a CD, car, hammer, whatever, so why should software have to live forever?

Before anyone says that's a dumb idea, it sort of exists already: some apps
only run for a short time due to beta status and then newer betas are required
to be downloaded to keep using it. The same could apply for paid non-beta apps.

PB wrote:> Just like any other gadget you buy!

This got me thinking... imagine if an app was coded so that it expired after
X amount of days (or years) so that the purchaser had to buy another when
it expired. Would that be so bad? I mean: everything else eventually dies, be
it a CD, car, hammer, whatever, so why should software have to live forever?

Before anyone says that's a dumb idea, it sort of exists already: some apps
only run for a short time due to beta status and then newer betas are required
to be downloaded to keep using it. The same could apply for paid non-beta apps.

And what is to stop a cracker from walking in and changing that part of your code that makes it expire and forcing it last forever? nothing, they already do this to shareware applications and other software that deploys this method, comes down to pointless busy work for zero effect.

ed: I should point out here as the economy crashes piracy will go through the roof to levels never before seen, the only way your going to get money out of software is to price your software at a reasonable and affordable price by the masses not an elite few that have more money than sense.

Either that or people will shift over to linux and since that has a software base that is mostly freeware, people out for the big $$$ are going to lose out big time.

> what is to stop a cracker from walking in and changing that part of your
> code that makes it expire and forcing it last forever?

Of course that'll happen, but you're missing my point. My point is, no app out
there is ADVERTISED as having a limited life. People buy software expecting
it to work forever. Like, imagine going to buy PureBasic and it said that what
you buy will only last for 1 year, then you need to buy a new license. Would
you therefore pay for it, if it was only $10 instead of $99? And then pay $10
again in another year's time? That's what I mean. (Or would you get a crack?).

I'd only add a minor twist:

1. Keep the base sum low but a little higher than the upgrade price.

2. Once purchased, all updates / upgrades for the first year are free.

3. One can always buy another year of free upgrades, for let's say half the new purchase price.

That way no one feels cheated when suddenly a new version pops up, people can decide when they think the software has enough new bells and whistles to upgrade.

Watermarked code is perhaps easier than you think. What you'd need is a little automated front end, which modifies the source code just before passing it on to the compiler, by a. shuffling the code around, and b. add customer specific information.

However, the problem with that is that people cannot use keys to activate their copy, as their copy is unique.

PB wrote:> what is to stop a cracker from walking in and changing that part of your
> code that makes it expire and forcing it last forever?

Of course that'll happen, but you're missing my point. My point is, no app out
there is ADVERTISED as having a limited life. People buy software expecting
it to work forever. Like, imagine going to buy PureBasic and it said that what
you buy will only last for 1 year, then you need to buy a new license. Would
you therefore pay for it, if it was only $10 instead of $99? And then pay $10
again in another year's time? That's what I mean. (Or would you get a crack?).

Ahh now I understand your point now good idea, it does however have a flaw that you as seller have to tell the customer before purchasing, because if you don't the software comes under fare trading laws and you'll get sued for extortion.

My point is, no app out there is ADVERTISED as having a limited life.

There are lots of apps that have limited life licenses.

I have a limited life licence for Elementary Reports (for single user use) - it works for 1 year after the licence first use. To use it for another year you buy another licence.

See http://elementaryreports.com/public/prices Look at the 'Individual Pricing and Licence information' bit at the bottom.

In effect, getting the software changes from buying an asset to a valid expense - no depreciation and easier to account.

> you as seller have to tell the customer before purchasing

Of course. The app would be sold with a "Use By" date all over it.

Now, I'm not saying I would do such a thing, this is all just random thoughts
and musings about such an approach. I mean, why should software work
forever? You buy a physical book and if it gets wet or damaged, you have
to buy a new one. Why should software be any different? Yes, I know that
software doesn't "get damaged" as such because you'll always have the
original install media (unless THAT gets damaged). Hmm. I just don't know.
Just thinking out loud. I find it an intriguing approach to software release,
because if your app is popular, it guarantees an income forever... nice!
Think about it: 10,000 users worldwide paying $10 a year to keep using
it, year after year after year...

PB wrote:> you as seller have to tell the customer before purchasing

Of course. The app would be sold with a "Use By" date all over it.

Now, I'm not saying I would do such a thing, this is all just random thoughts
and musings about such an approach. I mean, why should software work
forever? You buy a physical book and if it gets wet or damaged, you have
to buy a new one. Why should software be any different? Yes, I know that
software doesn't "get damaged" as such because you'll always have the
original install media (unless THAT gets damaged). Hmm. I just don't know.
Just thinking out loud. I find it an intriguing approach to software release,
because if your app is popular, it guarantees an income forever... nice!
Think about it: 10,000 users worldwide paying $10 a year to keep using
it, year after year after year...

Yes I know there just thoughts the same as mine really, of course telling the user that it has a use by date also tells the crackers too.

A book is probably a bad choice to use since some books are hundreds of years old properly kept, software can with the same care be kept forever too I have source code and programs I've written dating back almost 15 years.

I can't think about it like that, because I don't think like you for one thing which is why we have a thing called "freedom of speech", but I digress, when I first brought software back in the day (this'll show my age) you'd go to the store and pick up a tape for about 1-3 pounds, 5.2" disk games cost a little more 2-5 pounds.

Now given that admittedly back in those days piracy wasn't at the level it was today, it could be argued that piracy back then was lower because the price of software was lower, if software was the same price today as back then I would own an original of everything I have without question bar none.

The reason we have high prices? because software companies are almost making Hollywood production games, which takes years of development time and money, which is passed on to the consumer but what is also passed on is brand name, and cost to protect the software as well, reduce those costs to zero and you'll have more consumers.

If you raise the cost people will pirate it plain and simple, and will go to any lengths to do so, look at WoW they actually went out of there way and developed a server for it so they could pirate it, Guild Wars even though free to play online unlike WoW, still get hacked accounts and some people where developing a server for that too.

But however having said that I think personally we'll have bigger things to be concerned about in a couple of years or less than how to stop piracy, you'll be more concerned with putting food on the table.

PB wrote

This got me thinking... imagine if an app was coded so that it expired after
X amount of days (or years) so that the purchaser had to buy another when
it expired. Would that be so bad?

Thats exactly what I suggested in my initial post?


About protection.. Inner, localmotion and doubledutch are wrong. I've done my homwork on this.

Apps protected by ie code virtualizer or execryptor are so difficult to break that nobody really wants to try anymore.

If you disagree, I'l be happy to hand over a crackme to prove my point.

I don't know any app/game (thats popular) that hasn't been cracked in one way or another (except a subscription game like Eve).

Thats just because execryptor & codevirtualizer are both new, and these games have been on the scene for a while.

utopiomania wrote:PB wrote

This got me thinking... imagine if an app was coded so that it expired after
X amount of days (or years) so that the purchaser had to buy another when
it expired. Would that be so bad?

Thats exactly what I suggested in my initial post?


About protection.. Inner, localmotion and doubledutch are wrong. I've done my homwork on this.

Apps protected by ie code virtualizer or execryptor are so difficult to break that nobody really wants to try anymore.

If you disagree, I'l be happy to hand over a crackme to prove my point.

Okay show me 3 applications protected by those methods, obviously I won't be posting links to the cracks or anything but I'll come up with something.