Asking why they are doing this yields an obvious answer: "Product activation is a simple way to stop unauthorized use of Macromedia products with a minimal effect on our loyal customers."
Even with all that, Intuit's product activation on its TurboTax 2002 failed miserably. Consumers complained about the extra hassle when switching computers and a lawsuit has even been filed. The lawsuit charges the company with "unfair and deceptive business practices by failing to fully disclose the mechanisms and consequences of its product activation technology". While Macromedia has been very descriptive about the product activation and even included screenshots, none of the screenshots show what happens when the activation fails.
Users of TurboTax 2002 complained about the memory usage taken up by having the activation piece run in the background at all times. Macromedia’s FAQ suggests that the activation processes will only run while Macromedia software is running (but, really, who quits apps anymore?), and has only a minimal effect on system performance.
The less extreme approach is to just implement product activation.
But no matter how many product activations a company implements, there are always going to be non-legit copies running around. With a major hurdle like product activation, the theory is that there will be less. Or will there?
I know of several people who have non-legit copies of Windows XP and Office XP on their machines. Microsoft implemented product activation on these products in a draconian fashion. So how do non-legit copies exist? I don't really care. But the point is that the pirates still found a way. I've switched computers once and reformatted my hard drive three times in the past few years. Each time I have to reactivate my Windows XP and my Office XP. It's a little bit of a pain, but multiply that pain times millions of users and it becomes a dull growl.
Intuit is removing their activation feature from TurboTax and they've even stated that using it didn't help increase sales at all. If Macromedia's experience becomes anything like Intuit's, the only people who suffer are the "loyal" customers who no longer feel trusted.
Replies: 107 comments
1) Killing the buzz
Another side-effect that we see occurring is the "death of the buzz" surrounding Macromedia’s products, Flash and Dreamweaver in particular. We know from first-hand experience that most of Flash’s biggest evangelists got started using hacked and pirated copies of Flash.
The people with the biggest mouths and most vibrant enthusiasm aren’t usually the ones with a software budget. Sure, you’ll be keeping the corporates in line, but what about the tiny shops and amateurs that really make Macromedia’s products buzzworthy? Easy. They’ll either set up a revolving Windows virtual machine on their computers to keep the 30-day trials from ever expiring, or download a reverse-engineered license generating application.
Or, they’ll just keep using Flash MX.
Or...
They’ll find another toy that isn’t so fucking difficult to share.
All in one easy, anonymous step.
posted by emberton (), 07/18/2003 11:03 AM CST
2) Not that I'm bitter.
posted by emberton (), 07/18/2003 11:45 AM CST
3) While I see that as a legit try by MM, I definitely don't think it'll ever stop piracy. Pirates will simply find a way around it, crack the EXE, and distribute it already cracked.
The only way I've seen this kind of anti-piracy working was on gaming servers (CS, Q3): but then, simply because the check is done by the game server and not the client machine. You can still play locally with no authentic software. Still, the cdkey check was a great move and definitely helped getting crack-happy kids out of legit servers (cracker servers with no verification exist anyways).
On local applications, where you have to rely on the exe itself and there's no outside verification or communication performed, I don't think it'll ever work. Cracked versions of windows XP prove that - and it's an operational system for christ's sake, you aren't even supposed to boot if it's not validated, but people do pirate it and do use it successfully.
As for activation, I don't think it'll be a big hassle, as long as it's delay-free and it works from "distant" countries such as mine.
posted by zeh (), 07/18/2003 12:01 PM CST
4) I don't think pirates should be beware and the buzz will stop. There will be as many as pirated copies for pirates and for people with biggest mouths.
Because, the activation won't affect these guys. It'll be cracked in a day and even if not, corporate licensed copies that don't require activation will be floating around which will be better than a cracked copy (just like it is for WinXP).
So what's activation good for? It's good for legit users who might be unaware they are breaking the license terms if they install on 10 computers with one license. It's good for having an excuse not to share your serial number with a "friend" and not having to deal with the choice of either breaking your friends heart or the law.
I think it might well be an option to install "activation support", so that you'll feel good that you won't be doing anything illegal.
"It does have some minimal effect." Yes. It wouldn't feel good to know that pirates running the same app have some more free memory, don't have their hard disk written at some unused part and less hassle...
But provided that there are no privacy concerns, this is a step forward. Nobody reads the small print licenses, nobody even reads the manuals. So the software is taking care of that. Helping legal users to stay legal.
posted by Burak KALAYCI (), 07/18/2003 12:09 PM CST
5) You have a point.
posted by zeh (), 07/18/2003 01:53 PM CST
6) Like Burak said, I think is "feature" is mainly to keep Mom and Pop shops honest. Contribute's target market does not exactly include many l33t war3z haXorZ. :-)
I've seen the activation demo and it does not seem very intrusive. To switch machines, you can just use a menu item in the program's Help menu.
posted by runtime (), 07/18/2003 04:54 PM CST
7) Contribute is the first. I suspect ALL Macromedia software will be deploying this form of activation with each new version.
Runtime is right in that this will effectively eliminate the instances "casual" sharing amongst the general population. Which IMHO is not such a bad thing.
I would say that its inevitable that pirates/hackers will still develop cracks but how many general users will go scrounging Astalavista for their crack of choice.
posted by Matt Voerman (), 07/18/2003 07:04 PM CST
8) How come no one is making a business of opposing this crap nowadays? When I started using PCs, Lotus 123 had a stranglehold on us with their copy-protected disks until utilities like Copy2PC became readily available. I even bought their add-in board that could copy anything!
I never pirated anyone's software. But I always felt a lot better knowing that I could be self-sufficient when a hard drive crashed or when I lost my disks. And I HATE allowing some mega-company access to my machine, first to do their little activation and then to burn up resources to keep me honest.
This bulls**t of having to activate XP and lock it to a single computer is completely unacceptable and I hope we can find some way to thwart it.
It's enough to make honest users go bad!
posted by John (), 07/19/2003 09:08 PM CST
9) Screw Macromedia, product support (in India) just sucks for starters. Why would I want MM to know when and how often I use my software? Macromedia is the Microsoft of the Design Community. Dump Macromedia products and convert to SVG ASAP!
posted by Start Simple (), 07/20/2003 07:16 PM CST
10) and another thing,
This has nothing to do with pirates and everything to do with data gathering and aol /microsoft type software "subscriptions".
You will not buy Flash MX you will have the right to use the software for a year. Suckers!
Macromedia is Big Brother.
--
posted by StartSimple (), 07/20/2003 07:45 PM CST
11) Ask multidmedia what they are doing to protect flash studio pro ... Start distributing hundreds of fake versions of flash via kazaa, limewire etc. Also set up a fake cracking group and produce fake cracks for distibution over the popular crack sites. That could all save a few million, here and there.
posted by Anon (), 07/21/2003 01:49 AM CST
12) >Why would I want MM to know when and how often I use my software?
Actually, we don't track usage. You can see a third party audit on the privacy and security of activation at:
http://www.macromedia.com/software/activation/audit/
more info at:
http://www.macromedia.com/software/activation/
mike chambers
mesh@macromedia.com
posted by mike chambers (), 07/21/2003 08:50 AM CST
13) How much this companies grow whitout piracy?
A fact is that many of this companies keep a very big market paticipation because EVERYBODY is using his soft.
A very small group of people use alternative soft to develope SWF content, FLASH is the standard, and all the pirates have contribute to make it that way.
posted by _Proto.Cultur(a) (), 07/21/2003 09:03 AM CST
14) Mike, I notice you left out the link to the Macromedia End User License Agreement (EULA), The least you could be is honest.
http://www.macromedia.com/software/activation/tour/full_eula.html
"(e) You agree that Macromedia may audit your use of the Software for compliance with these terms at any time"
"By accepting this EULA, you are also accepting the additional terms and conditions, if any, set forth therein."
And from your site:
"Macromedia may occasionally update, amend, or change this Privacy Policy based on user feedback and as needed or appropriate."
posted by Your Crafty (), 07/21/2003 10:04 AM CST
15) .
> "third party audit on the privacy and security of activation"
Mike, Is is really independent if macromedia is paying the tab for the audit?
I also noticed it mentions "activation" and not use of the software.
.
posted by You had me going there for a second (), 07/21/2003 10:46 AM CST
16) what really stinks is the fact that i installed my legal copy of flash at home as well as the office. okay, two uses i know but i rarely use it at home and don't want to buy another version for there...
posted by cd (), 07/21/2003 10:57 AM CST
17) .
If anyone else thinks macromedia is wrong on this topic I urge you to suggest this as a topic to the experts over at slashdot or the register. ( I already did)
http://slashdot.org/submit.pl
drew.cullen@theregister.co.uk
.
posted by for slashdot (), 07/21/2003 11:48 AM CST
18) If this is about piracy and not data collection why would macromedia seek to hassle the people that actually buy software?
posted by activation (), 07/21/2003 12:43 PM CST
19) I have a better idea, just don't use the software, it's not like Contribute is all that usefull anyway.
And if macromedia adds it to the next version of Flash don't upgrade. Most sites that I develop Flash advertising for only accept 4.0/5.0 and not MX/6.0 format anyway, so MX should last into 2008 using 5.0 as a guide.
There is always another option.
posted by Options (), 07/22/2003 03:28 AM CST
20) .
"product activaton" is usually the first step to having a key server at the software vendor that everytime you use the software you have to connect.
It may start as having to connect just for "product activation" than it will need to connect every 6 months than every month.. week... day... at launch...
Look long term, they want to heard users like cows to slaughter, it always starts as lets just go into this pretty building...
just my 2 cents
.
posted by act (), 07/22/2003 03:38 AM CST
21) Macromedia, get your stinking fingers out of my computer!
posted by x (), 07/22/2003 03:48 AM CST
22) Good article about product activation
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110487,00.asp
Product activation enforces software licenses by limiting installation, usually to just one computer. It generally associates the program's unique product key, entered during installation, with a randomly generated number or a "fingerprint" of the computer's hardware configuration that is then transmitted to the vendor's server. If, on subsequent installations, the product key is paired with a different random number or fingerprint, the user must explain why no license violation has occurred.
The technology certainly inconvenienced some TurboTax customers. In PC World reader mail and posts on Intuit forums, some buyers complained about not being informed that they wouldn't be able to print or e-file returns on more than one computer. Others said initial versions left the product activation software installed and running--hogging as much as 1MB of RAM--even after TurboTax was removed. At least some people who called tech support got incorrect information.
posted by x (), 07/22/2003 03:55 AM CST
23) Anoother
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1194849,00.asp
Contribute 2.0, which will be available for download July 25, uses Macrovision's SafeCast technology, the same DRM technology in Intuit's current TurboTax tax-filing software. Macromedia executives said the
While the flexible licensing agreement allows licenses to be transferred between machines, the SafeCast software still writes information to track 0 of a user's hard drive, as it does in TurboTax.
Conscious of the consumer backlash that forced Intuit to disable product activation in future versions of TurboTax
.
posted by in the open (), 07/22/2003 03:59 AM CST
24) .
.
.
Mike,
you should have told us that Macrovision's SafeCast technology would also be used or installed.
...and it writes information to track 0 of our hard drives
Not very honest. how can we trust you in anything you say or tell us?
.
.
.
posted by crafty (), 07/22/2003 04:06 AM CST
25) XP protection makes it sensible for legit users to buy a legal ver for there consciences and install a hacked ver so that they can alter there PC without problems. May seem strange but if you try to trouble shoot some hardware and spend half the time explaining yourself to M$ then how long does it take to accept an offer of a russian ver? Then when the company comes to buy XP2 or whatever will they bother?...
So I do not know anything about MM system but I doubt it stops hackers, maybe it is to force companies to buy enough licences, although I think it may have the effect I have seen and discribed above.
Lastly I expect there are cheap alternatives to MM's technolgies, there is more than one way to create a swf and as the small competitors improve thier products the kids will end up being educated on other packages...
But I think that MM has every right to try to make everyone pay to use thier software, but that is no guarentee that it will achieve the desired effects, after all not all of us apply to have our lives watched on big brother.
My believe is that as with music large software companies selling bulk products will need to sell software at prices more of its users can afford especially with the dot.com bubble burst.
Although I have mentioned hacked software I do not condone its use but understand that it is not uncommon.
posted by undisclosed (), 07/22/2003 06:14 AM CST
26) It's all about customer service.
Why buy the software if Macromedia is going to consider everyone as evil.
posted by x (), 07/22/2003 06:49 AM CST
27) Interesting ...
(the software that macromedia is using for the "product activation")
A California attorney has filed a class-action lawsuit againt Intuit for deceptive trade practices related to the secret bundling of SafeCast digital rights software. Macrovision's SafeCast software protects the license for Intuit's TurbotTax 2002 tax software. This software was not disclosed to customers and is not removed when TurboTax is uninstalled. As a result of the negative publicity, Intuit has started distributing an uninstaller. Unsurprisingly, the uninstaller doesn't work.
Intuit and Macrovision both have been trying to deceive the public about this software. For example, documents that were once available at Macrovision's web site which detailed the abilities of SafeCast and contradicted statements made by Intuit started disappearing after I started linking to and quoting from them. An investigation by extremetech found that Intuit's claims that you could use the software on more than one computer in limited mode without activation was a blatant lie. Without activating the software on additional machines using the internet (or by calling Intuit on the phone), the software refuses to function at all.
Extremetech's investigation dispelled some rumors about SafeCast, and also confirmed others. For instance, it was originally believed that the SafeCast technology installed by TurboTax was spyware. Judging by the documents formerly available at Macrovision's web site (which have now all vanished), SafeCast's abilities would technically make it spyware by giving publishers the ability to "gather valuable data about [their] customer base". Each publisher who uses SafeCast can decide which features to use and which not to use. The investigation shows that Intuit probably did not enable the features which would have allowed it to gather information about their users. This means that TurboTax is probably not installing spyware.
http://www.spywareinfo.com/newsletter/archives/march-2003/10.php
.
posted by out in the open (), 07/22/2003 04:05 PM CST
28) Bitch n' Moan. Get used to it. Grow up. Other software companies have been going this same route. It protects their intellectual software. You're going to use the software anyway. If you are a legit owner of the software you won't need to worry.
posted by Rollo (), 07/22/2003 09:24 PM CST
29) Rollo,
You must live in North Korea, Iraq, or Iran and are used to submission, I live in the US and am used to FREEDOM from oppressors.
I buy all my software, I will not use Contribute because I don't think Contribute is all that useful, but I am concerned with the future of Flash.
This is what some Technology Industry Public relations firms provide as recently leaked about RFID
- - - > "Assess consumer reaction if press develop scare stories and develop best messages to pacify".
- - - > "most consumers would be apathetic and resign themselves to the inevitability of it rather than taking action".
You fit right into the latter group.
What the "legit owner" should worry about:
SafeCast, with it's HISTORY as our guide:
1. SafeCast software writes information to track 0 of a user's hard and you could lose all your data on your hard Drive.
2. Others said initial versions left the product activation software installed and running--hogging as much as 1MB of RAM--even after the software was removed.
3. Documents that were once available at Macrovision's web site which detailed the abilities of SafeCast have disappeared.
4. This software is not removed when uninstalled. Unsurprisingly, the uninstaller doesn't work.
5. SafeCast could be used as spyware. "gather valuable data about [their] customer base".
What Macromedia Has said:
From the Macromedia End User License Agreement:
"(e) You agree that Macromedia may audit your use of the Software for compliance with these terms at any time"
"By accepting this EULA, you are also accepting the additional terms and conditions, if any, set forth therein." I would think this is Macrovision's policy.
Audit could also be to "MONITOR" your use of the Software. And if it trashes your hard drive YOU are SCREWED.
.
posted by Crafty (), 07/23/2003 04:57 AM CST
30) .
Some Questions to ask:
1. Who PAID FOR the @Stake security audit?
-
2. Why did Macromedia not also seek acceptance from a TRULY INDEPENDENT group such as Electronic Privacy Information Center.
-
3. It would seem that if a user "registers" the software with all the usual personal information, name, home, serial number of the software.
Than in a different process the user starts the "activation process" of the software where the serial number and "no personally-identifiable information" is passed backed to macromedia.
It would be very easy at macromedia's location to match the activation id with with the users registration "personally-identifiable information" and not have the "personally-identifiable information" transmitted during activation but have the same spyware effect.
It's all about privacy, spying, and monitoring the users
.
posted by x (), 07/23/2003 05:34 AM CST
31) Audit the use of my software? Does that mean I'll have to be hooked up to the internet before I can fire up Flash MX 2 or whatever? No more laptop on the road development? Can anyone provide details as to whether or not, beyond initial internet registration, you'll have to be hooked up to start the software?
posted by Greg (), 07/23/2003 09:24 AM CST
32) crackers are going to crack it... thats inevitable...its a game to them, a fun one... one they play everyday and are really good at. they dont get paid for cracking software.... they do it for the same reasons hackers hack into servers, freedom of information and all that jazz. macromedia studio MX costs $899 retail... i cant even pay my car insurance for christ sake, so the thought of buying software seldom crosses my mind, especailly for alomost $1000. i'm not using any of this software to start a business, or in anyway turn a profit....i probably never will... i could see paying for it if i used it to do so, but i simply do not. so in the off chance that crackers cant crack it, i aint gonna use it. im sure some people feel the same way. now dont get me wrong... if you got a business goin, with a budget capable of buying the software.... buy it! to create a seamless, totally interactive web site that you're customers will love going to is well worth your money. but i dont have customers, or even a product for that matter... i just **** around with flash when i get through working my 10 hour day at the BBQ joint, making my $7.00 an hour. let's call it my anti-drug.
as far as the whole "big brother" ****...dont be stupid. they're just doin their corporate giant thing, probably tired of only making $1 billion, when they think they could be making $1 1/2 billion....they're not trying to plant the fucking v-chip. get real.
now to the flash developers: awesome product, superb job...too bad im poor, eh? maybe i should of stayed in school...
posted by eyeopener (), 07/24/2003 11:07 AM CST
33) Scott, I'm assuming most of these posts from "x" and "crafty" and (perversely) "outintheopen" and what-all are all from the same person, because they all have reply-to for Steve Jobs' .MAC email account.
If you actually see different IP addresses from this long series of copy/paste and self-replies then could you advise, please? I don't need to know his IP... just need to know if I'm incorrect in my reading that it's a one-person campaign, thanks.
(fwiw, I'm assuming most such campaigners are bright enough to change their stats when they're trying to impersonate many people talking to each other, so, as usual, comments with a public reputation behind them carry more weight than anonymous "at least you can be honest" type of stuff.)
posted by John Dowdell (), 07/24/2003 02:27 PM CST
34) John,
Good catch. The following posters all have the same IP address:
Start Simple
StartSimple
Your Crafty
You had me going there for a second
for slashdot
activation
Options
act
x
open
crafty
Everyone else's is unique.
Scott
posted by Scott Manning (), 07/24/2003 04:10 PM CST
35) John, steve Jobs email is steve@apple.com and not mac.com, it's sort of like the same way you were wrong with the product activation stuff.
posted by OPEN (), 07/25/2003 09:23 AM CST
36) Hi John,
It's PR / Marketing 101: If you don't like the message go after the messenger, divert attention away from the topic. I would have thought better of you, not to mention that it is off Topic for this thread.
No one cares who I am, but if your interested I work at a Web Product Development Firm in NYC. http://www.startsimple.com, my FlashMX Reg number is FLM600-08602-07266-33(XXX you have the last 3 digits), I have one dog, and now that YOU EXPOSED ME how has this changed the facts that:
-
Scott Fegette: "we paid for the @stake audit." "software that can't simply be 'released' to external firms."
Than the audit is not truly independent as you have stated. and you seem to say that in your response "can't be released to external firms", than you consider @stake an internal firm.
-
Scott Fegette: "the two datasets are stored" "no plans to connect the two."
Macromedia EULA: "(e) You agree that Macromedia may audit your use of the Software for compliance with these terms at any time" "Macromedia may occasionally update, amend, or change this Privacy Policy based on user feedback and as needed or appropriate."
If it's not "no" than it is the same as "yes we will"
-
Scott Fegette: "this is, again, not connected to any registration information"
But it could be at any time you choose. see above.
-
JD: "they're trying to impersonate many people talking to each other"
A Direct LIE to this thread!
Please show 2 of my posts that are directed at each other. Truth will set you free. Not to mention that you use "they're", as in more that one when you are making the point that it's one person.
Again, A Direct LIE to this thread! The Truth will set you Free
posted by OPEN (), 07/25/2003 11:29 AM CST
37) Scott, thanks for investing your time there... appreciate the confirmation, I owe ya one.
"open", you said I was wrong about everything else because "steve Jobs email is steve@apple.com and not mac.com". But you seem to be assuming that Steve Jobs has only one email address... see:
http://homepage.mac.com/steve/Resume.html
Now, are you saying that that "steve@mac.com" is your address? If so, why did you use it with a bunch of different names? And if so, then Steve, why th'heck didn't you talk to Rob Burgess directly about this? ;-)
Okay... so long as we're at it, who are you, really? I can see that this really matters to you, otherwise you wouldn't invest so much time writing replies under different names in different discussions, but I'd really like to understand what's important to you here. No sarcasm, I really want to understand what's going on here better, thanks.
posted by John Dowdell (), 07/25/2003 08:05 PM CST
38) As another perspective, I hope what's going on here is the beginning of a rebellion against greedy, manipulative corporations who seek to fight piracy by making life more difficult for their honest customers.
I like MM's software. I BUY MM's software. But I'll be damned if I will be treated like a common thief. If MM add product activation to the next round of products I'll do as another person suggested and simply freeze our tools at the current versions.
You see, it is none of their damn business if I choose to buy a new computer and install the software I PAID $$ FOR on it. And, I do not intend to dial them up and waste my time waiting and pleading to continue to be able to use what I have paid for!!!
I hope there is enough uproar over this to blast the whole thing right out of the water. And, if not, I'd suggest we resort to petitioning our governments to get involved and help stamp this crap out.
posted by John (), 07/25/2003 11:54 PM CST
39) Hi "John"... I'm assuming you're not the "Crafty" guy.
Sure, you can buy a new computer. Matter of fact you can have them both simultaneously. If you work on three during a day then that might require a call, true.
"l be damned if I will be treated like a common thief." How's that? I mean, what, specifically, gets your goat here?
I know that some balk at showing picture ID when boarding an airplane... is this a similar reaction, or is there something specific in the process that you fear will compromise you somehow?
"greedy, manipulative corporations" If you could tone down the prejudice and rhetoric a bit then it would be easier to talk together, thanks.
posted by John Dowdell (), 07/26/2003 07:05 AM CST
40) "I know that some balk at showing picture ID when boarding an airplane... is this a similar reaction"
Oh John, *yawn*. What a disingenuous argument.
posted by tom (), 07/27/2003 03:57 PM CST
41) Can we just stick with the thread subject and discuss the pros and cons like people over 15? I find these threads interesting, but this one is over the top.
posted by luxuryluke (), 07/27/2003 09:26 PM CST
42) JD,
"I'm assuming you're not the Crafty guy."
I'm not sure what you mean by this?
"what, specifically, gets your goat here?"
Well, a lot of it is the Big Brother aspect. You want access to people's computers and we are supposed to accept your promise that you won't compromise us in any way. Sorry. I don't trust you. You are NOT in business to protect my rights and interests (unless, of course, they happen to be aligned with your own.) And even if I do telephone activation that is still giving you far more access than you are entitled to.
Also, in your zeal to protect yourself from hackers and crackers you are continually adding baggage to your honest, paying customers. Baggage like the activation process and the extra code that is consuming my resources so it can keep an eye on me remotely for you.
And, like all products, yours often contain bugs, security holes and other potentially dangerous "features". Well, I don't want my systems exposed in this manner when this problem is compounded by the activation system.
Do you need more? Check out the TurboTax fiasco. Now, I'm sure MM has some sharp people who will try and make sure your activation is smoother than the way Quicken did it. However, I for one hope you have a much bigger problem and if there is anything I can do to "Contribute" to the argument against your new product activation scheme I will gladly do so.
"is there something specific in the process that you fear will compromise you somehow?"
See above.
"If you could tone down the prejudice and rhetoric a bit then it would be easier to talk together"
What else could it be other than GREED that would cause MM to decide to burden their Customers with this nonsense? In the hopes that they can improve the bottom line a bit by catching a few cheaters they are willing to impose this CRAP on everyone using their products. And JD, regardless of whether you perceive this as prejudiced or not, it is in fact, CRAP!!!
posted by John (), 07/27/2003 11:59 PM CST
43) Firstly, what a lot of the noise coming off this topic has missed, is this is just a TRIAL. MM have decided to test it out on one of there 'lesser' products.
At NO point have they said is certain this will be migrated across to their whole product suite.
Secondly software theft costs us ALL. The honest software users who pay their upgrade/purchase costs suffer becuase there are so may spotty 16 year olds out there using bootleg copies. Product activate will bring the price of software down, its simple economies of scale.
This isnt about MM interest in all your private information. I doubt very much if they give a **** waht color underpants your wearing today. This is about MM protecting its IP, investment, and its honest customers.
If you realy dont like it that much, the please be my guest and go off and use the 'third-party' software. But remember this. You will contantly be playing catch up, as it is MM who will drive the development and capabilaties of the .swf format. If your happy being an 'also-ran' in life then continue to do so, but I can asure you, the back of my head is very boring to look at.
There have been a lot of people flaming MM here, which is nothing short of childish (and demonstates a complete misunderstadning of economic, finalncial or for that matter social understanding of modern socitety). All that is happening here is MM are making an atempt to secure their investement and make more money.
I deffy any man/woman or child here to stand up and say they wouldnt like to make more moeny.
posted by pete (), 07/28/2003 05:29 AM CST
44) Sure, but you don't have to outright *deceive* or intentionally *mislead* them to make a dollar. Perhaps this is just endemic of a new conservative attitude? Oh wherefore art thou internet of information sharing and freedom of exchange?
Beware of the Online Survey scam!
taken from ttp://www.acidics.com/get_paid_to_scams.htm:
First two sections are all about Get Paid To programs - those that offer you to make money watching ads, clicking banners, filling out paid surveys etc. Visit GPT Scams to learn why the "get paid to do whatever" concept is stupid and unproductive, why GPTs resemble pyramid schemes and what common tricks GPT fraudsters play on their victims.
~
There are two main kinds of the scam. With the first one you are required to pay an up-front fee (usually $40). After your payment is process the scamsters inform you that the opportunity is basically about promoting their scheme via sending the same ad message you received to other people. These will be the only "envelopes" you stuff. If anyone signs under you the referrall commission will total $4-$5 (fraudsters will make $35). Moreover you'd be encouraged to spend money on advertising in various offline and online media. Only if the victim answers directly to your message shall you get the commission. Obviously it's an illegal chain letter.
------------------------
So again, what's with the paid scam advertising on the top of every page on *this* site?!
posted by Public Integrity (), 07/28/2003 08:49 AM CST
45) sorry this has ** WHAT ** to do with product activation
posted by pete (), 07/28/2003 09:14 AM CST
46) First off it may be a trial for MM but not the technology they are using for product activation. The History of Microvisions SafeCast DRM Technology is:
1. SafeCast software writes information to track 0 of a user's hard and you could lose all your data on your hard Drive.
2. Consumer backlash that forced Intuit to disable product activation.
3. A class-action lawsuit related to SafeCast and Intuit.
4. Others said initial versions left the product activation software installed and running--hogging as much as 1MB of RAM--even removed.
5. SafeCast has said: "gather valuable data about [their] customer base"
http://www.spywareinfo.com/newsletter/archives/march-2003/10.php
-
Macromedia is using a updated version of the software but:
1. MM PAID FOR the @Stake security audit and in my opinion not INDEPENDENT.
2. Why did Macromedia not also seek acceptance from a TRULY INDEPENDENT group such as Electronic Privacy Information Center.
3. MM: "the two datasets are stored" (Registration and Activation) Macromedia EULA: "(e) You agree that Macromedia may audit your use of the Software for compliance with these terms at any time" "Macromedia may occasionally update, amend, or change this Privacy Policy based on user feedback and as needed."
4. MM can connect the Registration (your personal info) and Product Activation data at any time.
5. Profits before Privacy is the goal of most public companies (my opinion)
-
Second, "product activation" provides no benefit to the user of the software and it has a down side.
1. You could lose all your data on your hard Drive.
2. You have to contact MM every time you want to change your Boot Drive, Load it on another computer and it seems that you have to fill out a form. Not to mention if you have more than one computer or many start up drives. (I use both OSX and 9 on one computer) This would be problems for me.
-
In my opinion "product activation" is usually the first step to having a key server at the software vendor that every time you use the software you have to connect. It may start as having to connect just for "product activation" than it will need to connect every 6 months than every month.. week... day... at launch...
-
Pete are you speaking for Macromedia? It seem that you are speaking of knowledge of Macromedia's Future Plans.
1. "Product activate will bring the price of software down" is macromedia going to lower it's prices?
2. "This isnt about MM interest in all your private information." Really? Macromedia EULA: "(e) You agree that Macromedia may audit your use of the Software for compliance with these terms at any time" "Macromedia may occasionally update, amend, or change this Privacy Policy based on user feedback and as needed."
4. I do think your comment that Macromedia wants to MAKE MORE MONEY is true. Unfotuntally it is at the expense of your and my time or all the data on your hard drive.
posted by OPEN (), 07/28/2003 10:30 AM CST
47) "sorry this has WHAT to do with product activation"
Pete, I think this has to do with ads running at the top of Actionscripts.com
posted by OPEN (), 07/28/2003 10:35 AM CST
48) I switch between Mac OSX and 9.2 and this would also be a hassle for me. I wonder who pays for all the time lost?
It seems that this is a win-win for macromedia, they are shifting the TIME and COST it takes fight piracy to the users of the software. But it's at the expense of YOUR COMPANYS PROFITS.
posted by OPEN (), 07/28/2003 10:51 AM CST
49) Pete,
All the noise is to provide MM with VALUABLE feedback about how much their customers think this idea sucks! If you sit quietly by, companies like MM will do whatever benefits them the most with no regard for your losses or inconveniences as long as you are buying their products.
And don't hold your breath for the prices to come down. Once everyone is fully hooked up and accounted for I'd expect them to go up instead.
Finally, piracy does NOT "cost us all". That is a bull#### myth the large software companies would like you to believe so they can justify their higher prices and intrusive protection schemes. Show me the documented evidence that those "spotty 16 year olds" would actually purchase MM software if they did not have access to a cracked copy. Fact is they would not.
If you could magically destroy the all illegal copies of software in existence today it would not result in a substantial number of new purchased licenses.
Companies like MM know there is a distinct market available to them for legal distribution of their software. And they know their are criminal elements who will steal their software if they can. They also know that those criminals are for the most part never going to be paying customers no matter what.
So why make the product even harder to crack? I think it is to tighten the license agreements even tighter around the throats of their paying customers.
Own a single copy of Flash? Before, you could use it in multiple locations so long as you weren't sharing it with someone else. Product activation makes that harder and may cause you to finally give up and buy multiple licenses.
Upgrading your computers? You may decide the product activation process is such a hassle that you buy new licenses. Or, since MM holds the key, they may decide for you that you must buy a new license because they don't believe your request is legit.
This whole direction is BAD, BAD, BAD. For years marketing departments have wished for a way to FORCE customers to register and join the pool of prospects. Now, they may have found the way to force this intrusion down our throats and all in the name of protecting their investment.
If you ask me, it's time we donned our headresses and tossed a few boxes of Contribute into the harbor!
posted by John (), 07/28/2003 12:59 PM CST
50) Recap: Folks at Macromedia are actively seeking out actual problems from this implementation.
(fwiw, as of Monday morning a few hundred people had already activated their Contribute 2.0 purchases. One person had a problem with a particular serial number and we were able to fix this problem quickly.)
I know there are some people who are philosophically opposed to people ensuring they get a return on what they create... I'm still trying to pick out actual scenarios from what they write so we can make sure it does work as intended for all concerned.
posted by John Dowdell (), 07/28/2003 10:39 PM CST
51) JD,
That is such a LAME response!
Do you really think that everything that has been said here is just being made up and that in reality we "are philosophically opposed to people ensuring they get a return on what they create"?
Why don't you address the very real concerns people here have expressed instead of practicing deflection and deception?
posted by John (), 07/29/2003 12:52 AM CST
52) John,
I understand how you can be so pasionately opposed to this issue, but I'd like to correct you on a few points.
"And don't hold your breath for the prices to come down. Once everyone is fully hooked up and accounted for I'd expect them to go up instead"
Prices may go up according to inflation but no more. The MM people are business man trying to make money. Yes they want to make as much as possible, but they're not stupid. A price hike above the norm WOULD drive customers away - but its about percentage gains and growth...
"Show me the documented evidence that those "spotty 16 year olds" would actually purchase MM software if they did not have access to a cracked copy."
This is freshman Economic's realy simple stuff. It's economies of scale. If you bring the price down for example as little as $50 (or £'s €'s what ever) you bring you product into a price range accessable by more people. If you want proof go out and buy an ecomoics book.
"If you could magically destroy the all illegal copies of software in existence today it would not result in a substantial number of new purchased licenses."
Absolute crap - if such a thing were possible then it would. There are too many people relying of pirated software for a living for this not to happen.
"Companies like MM know there is a distinct market available to them for legal distribution of their software."
Duh ! Yea - talk about stating the obvious. I thnk you ment ilegal distribution ????
I have a question for you John, when you do work for clients do you hand over all source code (.FLA's ect ????) or do you just include .swf's and HTML ?
This is a very similar issue. In essance are you allowing clients full use of what you build them, or are you just licencing the use of it ???
posted by pete (), 07/29/2003 02:05 AM CST
53) Honestly, bu really HoNESTLY!!!!!
Who of u started with a legitimate copy of flash?????
I will be the first to answer:
I DIDNT!!!!
I DID ALL OF MY TRAINING ON A PIRATED COPY OF FLASH!!!!
Once i really liked the software and i was sure i could make money out of it, i bought the original.
Macromedia, dont bullshit us and yourself. Accept the truth that piracy has been part of your fortune!!!
posted by Pippo Gregoretti (), 07/29/2003 06:27 AM CST
54) JD,
> "(fwiw, as of Monday morning a few hundred people had already activated their Contribute 2.0 purchases. One person had a problem with a particular serial number Contribute 2.0 purchases. One person had a problem with a particular serial number."
Can we see any supporting data for this claim. if you can't support it than it is worthless.
posted by OPEN (), 07/29/2003 10:49 AM CST
55) Pete,
All of your "corrections" are wrong. Reread my post and think about it before responding.
posted by John (), 07/29/2003 12:13 PM CST
56) btw, the new flashbeta has product activation too.. so much for TESTING on contribute
posted by samsonite (), 07/29/2003 01:37 PM CST
57) "the new flashbeta has product activation too" ha ha ha suckers
"Firstly, what a lot of the noise coming off this topic has missed, is this is just a TRIAL."
I guess Pete is out of the loop at MM
posted by OPEN (), 07/29/2003 02:06 PM CST
58) I suspect the decision to use product activation was made some time ago at MM. The supposed trial is to soften up the beachhead and diffuse the initial negative reaction. It's all marketing, folks!
And do you know what really sucks? The fact that consumers of MM products will probably roll over and accept this.
posted by John (), 07/29/2003 04:07 PM CST
59) What this is really about is control.
Who controls the software You or Macromedia. I don't want to beg MM to "let me" load it on a different drive or computer. In my opinion this is only the first step in the path to subscription software (like aol). suckers, don't upgrade.
posted by OPEN (), 07/29/2003 07:10 PM CST
60) John,
My corrections are NOT wrong. I carefully read the tosh you've been contributing to this trhead before I answered. All your adding is noise. You demonstating a clear missunderstanding of business and ecomonic practice and theory.
OPEN
as for your "ha ha ha suckers " comment. You are clearly the thickest peice of turd to ever walk this planet(not least contribute to this thread). Of course Macromedia want to tightly control the distribution of the new Flash Beta. It is just that.A BETA. do you know what that is little boy? You always control the distribution of Beta, to solicit contsructive feedback from trusted users. You dont want every tom, dick and Harry ussing what is quite possibly incomplete builds of software.
as for being out of the loop at MM. If you had read my earlier posts. I am in NO WAY associated officaly with MM. I am meerly a more than happy customer - using their outstanding products to earn a living.
This has become a MM bashing thread. Its pathetic to shout "suckers, dont upgrade". I said before, doing this leaves you as an 'also-ran' - vainly trying to catch up with the leading pack.
If you are a professional user of MM products, then you are MM's one most profitable customers. It's the 80:20 rule. And as a business I can write of the cost of software upgrades off as an expense. It doesnt cost my any more how ever I have to activate/use my software.
So personaly I dont care for all you wingers and moaners, who if the roles were reversed here, and if any one of you were the top bod at MM, and here you saw an oportunity to incrase profit margins, then I'm sure you would make an attept to do so. Sure you might loose the bottom 20% of you customers, but the reality is ther not profitable anyway, so it free's resources up to concentrate on the top 20% of your customers who make 80% of your profits.
posted by pete (), 07/30/2003 01:43 AM CST
61) Hey what is most important here is the fight against PIRACY. Thats the first word of this article isn't it? If you can't play your part as a responsible/considerate/helpful netizen then don't even bother to be one. Please try to cooperate with MM as they are beginning on a journey to end piracy and its full of hardships. I don't think this activation thingy is gonna last forever. Yes customer service and all those crap they are important but if MM is down we dont get them at all.
posted by Qw (), 07/30/2003 04:15 AM CST
62) This has nothng to do with PIRACY I agree it's about control of the software. Right now I can install my Flash 4.0 or 5.0 on my computer if I wish without asking MM if I can do so, with a activation based system you may be forced to upgrade. IT's ABOUT CONTROL OF THE SOFTARE ON YOUR COMPUTTER. "product activation" will not matter to people that subscribe to piracy, there will be a crack.
posted by Bob Franz (), 07/30/2003 05:45 AM CST
63) "This has become a MM bashing"
I thought blogs were about diversity of opinion. Or is this site just for MM wanabies, maybe you'll get the chance to meet with JB "backstage" for some real FUN. MACROMEDIA does not care about YOU, it seeks to SELL MORE UNITS.
posted by Bob Franz (), 07/30/2003 06:00 AM CST
64) There isn't enough proof to show that MM doesn't care about you so your stand is completely biased. If you feel that the activation system by MM has got loopholes suggest another way to improve it instead of whining away.
posted by Qw (), 07/30/2003 06:13 AM CST
65) Oh PLEASE! Of course MM "does not care about you"!!! MM is not a person, they are a company. And they are driven by the bottom line. And if you even for a moment think otherwise...
They WILL use product activation or whatever technique they think will help their bottom line UNLESS a large portion of their customers rebel. As Pete would say, it is simple economics. (And Pete, that is about the only thing you have said that makes much sense! Love ya, but you can't communicate a cohesive thought.)
posted by John (), 07/30/2003 09:45 AM CST
66) I thnk that macromedia makes a fine product, in fact I do not know of a better vector based animation program out. Anyhow, yeah its wrong to pirate products such as macromedia. On the other hand, who is holding the bigger can of vasoline you? Or macromedia?
posted by The FLash (), 07/30/2003 05:52 PM CST
67) John,
Love ya too (appologies if all my ramblings havn't been completely cohesive )
But i have to still disagree about MM caring for their customers. I know of no other major software vendor that listens to its customers as much as MM. All their products features are driven by requests from users. They are comunity focused with the likes of Mesh and JD spending a significant amount of time comunicationg with the various product/user groups.
Ultimately, its highly likeyl that this 'trial' with Contribute will no return favourable results. The volume of 'dislike' towards the proposal on this thread alone would suggest that the Against's far outway the For's.
But rember this, the great MM's profits, the more there is in the coffers to pour into re-investmenr and to further develop new and existing product lines.
posted by pete (), 07/31/2003 01:51 AM CST
68) I think all the Designers and Developers are selling themselves short! YOU do great things with Macromedia Software. YOU would also do great things with Adobe, Microsoft , Alias or any other software vendor. Macromedia "listens" because you are their product developers you Help them sell more units, get more market share and your great designs help them look good to web surfers. This is not a bad thing.
BUT:
"PRODUCT ACTIVATION" IS ABOUT CONTROL OF THE SOFTWARE ON YOUR HARD DRIVE.
Macromedia wants to control the software that you purchase, I would like to control the software I purchase. As they have stated the software that YOU PURCHASE will not work unless macromedia makes it work on your system. AND you have to ask "beg" them to make it work every time you change your boot drive, load it on another system or for some reason the activation data key stops working.
This could be used to get more information about YOU (data collection) and can be used to strong arm you into upgrading new products or even worse the start of a new trend "subscription software" where the vendor would have full control over the software on your computer. Microsoft has started this trend, and other vendors want in. The great thing about the WEB is that it is an OPEN system, software vendors want to CLOSE the system.
posted by Bob Franz (), 07/31/2003 08:04 AM CST
69) >"PRODUCT ACTIVATION" IS ABOUT CONTROL OF THE SOFTWARE ON YOUR HARD DRIVE.
Yes. That is why we changed the EULA to give you more control. You can now install the software on two computers for non-concurrent use.
In the past, you were only allowed to install it on one computer.
more info at:
http://www.macromedia.com/software/activation/faq/#itemL-3
>AND you have to ask "beg" them to make it work every time you change your boot drive
Actually, you only have to click a button.
http://www.macromedia.com/software/activation/faq/#itemE-5
http://www.macromedia.com/software/activation/faq/#itemE-7
>This could be used to get more information about YOU (data collection)
??? first of all, that has nothing to do with Activation. Anytime you install any software on your machine it theoretically "could" be used to get more information about you.
However, i think that we are very clear on this on our FAQ (which i strongly suggest you check out):
"The process is completely anonymous—no personal information is ever collected or requested."
http://www.macromedia.com/software/activation/faq/#itemG-1
"None of the collected information can be used to identify you or your individual hardware components in any way."
http://www.macromedia.com/software/activation/faq/#itemG-2
>start of a new trend "subscription software"
fyi, we already have a subscription software service:
http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/subscriptions/
Finally, here is the link to the FAQ. It addresses most if not all of your concerns:
http://www.macromedia.com/software/activation/faq/
mike chambers
mesh@macromedia.com
posted by mike chambers (), 07/31/2003 09:08 AM CST
70) Thanks Mike,
Hopefully thats dispelled a few Myths.
posted by pete (), 07/31/2003 10:27 AM CST
71) > "You can now install the software on two computers for non-concurrent use."
> "Actually, you only have to click a button."
Thanks but no thanks, my statement still stands. "PRODUCT ACTIVATION" IS ABOUT CONTROL OF THE SOFTWARE ON YOUR HARD DRIVE. As they have stated the software that YOU PURCHASE will not work unless macromedia makes it work on your system. And YOU have to ask "beg" them to make it work.
MACROMEDIA HAS ALSO NOT STATED THAT AT "ANY TIME" IN THE FUTURE I CAN ACTIVATE THE SOFTWARE. mike, CAN I ACTIVATE IN 2005, 2007, 2010, 2020? AND WHY DO I HAVE TO ASK YOU?
PLEASE TELL US WHY I HAVE TO BEG MM TO USE SOFTWARE THAT I HAVE SPENT HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS ON.
> "The process is completely anonymous—no personal information is ever collected or requested."
As was stated, Macromedia already has Personal Information about YOU from registration. MM just split the process into registration and activation. THEY COLLECT BOTH DATA SETS. So "no personal information is ever collected or requested" mike, THIS IS A LIE.
> "very clear on this on our FAQ"
mike, the faq is not a binding contract and MM in a BINDING CONTRACT has stated that they can update the privacy policy at any time as well as the EULA also states that MM can collect data "audit" your system. mike, ANOTHER LIE.
ANOTHER THING FOR MM USERS TO THINK ABOUT: Notice how MM states that they are trying to PROTECT the software? Why has MM not put any resources into protecting the code that YOU THE USER spends days, weeks months working on? A mass of programs are available to uncompile the swf, user have asked MM to address it for years now. MM DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU, ARE THEY TRYING TO "PROTECT" YOUR WORK.
NO
posted by Bob Franz (), 07/31/2003 11:58 AM CST
72) Mike,
I know you have to tow the company line but this really is a BAD thing. There are lots of legitimate problems that people have described here. There are NO benefits to your customers to have to put up with this, only hassles and risks. Then there was the TurboTax fiasco.
We pay you money (or we don't) and we get something in return, the use of the software. When you start intruding on our legitimate use of the software it is TOO MUCH.
Why should I put up with extra code running and the possibility of failures of that code or the security of my info, all so that you can ensure you sell a few more legal copies? The answer is, I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO.
Piracy may be a problem (although I doubt it is as big a problem as software companies would like us to believe). However, solving YOUR problem by saddling every honest, paying customer with this extra baggage is NOT right.
Just because there is a problem is no reason to encumber all honest Customers with this. If I used MM's strategy in everyday life we would retrofit our cars so that any time we creeped over the posted speed limit a citation would be issued on the spot.
And how about sensors on the ground to detect whether I've dropped my gum wrapper so I could be immediately ticketed?
And why not assume a suspect is guilty until proven innocent (as you are doing with product activation)?
I'll tell you why. It is because our society (the same one MM is located in) has grown beyond that kind of bull#$#$. We understand that we will let a few criminals get away in return for not risking punishing innocent people.
Yeah, I know using Flash and being shot by a firing squad are pretty different things but there is a similar thread. And that is MM has decided to distrust everyone to catch a few cheaters.
As Emberton said at the beginning of this post, this decision will go a long way toward KILLING THE BUZZ that MM has benefited so greatly from. Maybe MM feels they have ridden the buzz as far as it will take them and it's time to be Microsoft; if so then this is a sad day for those of us who LOVE your products.
We need more Microsoft's like we need a hole in the head.
posted by John (), 07/31/2003 12:28 PM CST
73) >As was stated, Macromedia already has Personal Information about YOU from registration. MM just split the process into registration and activation. THEY COLLECT BOTH DATA SETS. So "no personal information is ever collected or requested" mike, THIS IS A LIE.
<
Not a lie. Activation processes do not record any personal information, as Mike and many others have already stated. Registration is a completely separate, and OPTIONAL process. We've already stated that we will not be connecting the two, but if you don't believe us that's also your decision, just don't register your product. Then no personal information about you could ever be connected to the anonymous product activation request.
>Thanks but no thanks, my statement still stands. "PRODUCT ACTIVATION" IS ABOUT CONTROL OF THE SOFTWARE ON YOUR HARD DRIVE. As they have stated the software that YOU PURCHASE will not work unless macromedia makes it work on your system. And YOU have to ask "beg" them to make it work.
<
If you consider clicking a button after entering a serial number 'begging', then I suppose that opinion's certainly your prerogative.
It's a simple process- enter your serial number, click 'submit', wait a few seconds, go on with your work. To be honest- activation or not, you've had to follow a virtually identical process when installing previous versions of Macromedia software.
posted by Scott Fegette (), 07/31/2003 12:45 PM CST
74) Scott,
Some Questions you missed or did not want to answer in your reply:
> ANOTHER THING FOR MM USERS TO THINK ABOUT: Notice how MM states that they are trying to PROTECT the MM software? Why has MM not put any resources into protecting the code that YOU THE USER spends days, weeks months working on? A mass of programs are available to uncompile swf, and users have asked MM to address it for years now. MM DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU, ARE THEY TRYING TO "PROTECT" YOUR WORK.? NO
IT WOULD SEEM THAT MM IS CONCERNED ABOUT "ITS" WORK BUT NOT "YOUR" WORK.
AND
PLEASE TELL US WHY WE HAVE TO BEG TO USE AND ACTIVATE MM SOFTWARE THAT WE HAVE SPENT HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS ON. MM HAS TOLD US WE HAVE TO USE PRODUCT ACTIVATION, WHY SHOULD WE!
my Reply to scott,
> "We've already stated that we will not be connecting the two"
PLEASE SHOW ME THIS IN THE PRIVACY POLICY OR PRODUCT LICENSE. MM has stated that THEY CAN UPDATE THE PRIVACY POLICY AT ANY TIME AND MONITOR/AUDIT THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE.
So your comment as a post is worhless, and mike has lied, if you were honest in you communicaton let us see it stated that "MM will never connect the two data sets" EVER.
> "OPTIONAL process." (registration)
REALLY? Who on this thread when they installed MM soft can has not had the registration screens during instillation.
> "begging"
IF I HAVE TO ASK MM FOR PERMISSION TO INSTALL SOFTWARE ON MY COMPUTER AFTER I HAVE SPENT HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS ON. IF I CHANGED THE BOOT DRIVE, I HAVE TO ASK AGAIN, AND IF I PURCHASE A NEW COMMPUTER, I HAVE TO ASK AGAIN. AND IF THE KEY INFO JUST HAPPENS TO FAIL ;-) , I HAVE TO ASK AGAIN.
YES, I WOULD CALL IT BEGGING. (AND REMBER THIS IS AFTER SPENDING HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS.)
.
I'm starting to see you point, when I move i should have to "activate" my fridge again to work in my new house, and I should call the magazine publisher because i could have xeroxed some pages and now the mag needs to be activated again.
IT"S ABOUT CONTROL EVERYONE, THINK THE APPLE COMMERICAL 1984.
posted by Bob Franz (), 07/31/2003 01:47 PM CST
75) Scott,
The issue is not how simple you can make the intrusion. It is the intrusion. Sheeesh.
I understand you MM guys have to spout the MM policy but don't insult our intelligence.
What if your local police decided to install a webcam in your bedroom so they can ensure you are not practicing some sort of deviant behavior. Would you be comforted by the fact that it was really simple to operate and required no intervention from you?
Yeah, I know, another radical example. But I STRONGLY believe you have no business fingerprinting my computer. I paid with real money to buy your product and I should not have to endure your police state tactics in order to use it!
posted by John (), 07/31/2003 01:51 PM CST
76) And Bob, you are RIGHT ON.
posted by John (), 07/31/2003 01:53 PM CST
77) And I have another interesting point to make.
MM tells us over and over they would never use our private info to spy on us.
However, earlier in this thread when JD (from MM) suspected that someone here was posting comments under different names HE ACTUALLY ASKED SCOTT TO CHECK THE IP ADDRESSES FOR HIM AND REPORT BACK TO HIM. AND SCOTT DID SO!!!!
JD, tell me again how MM would never peek under the hood and link up my registration and activation!
Methinks your actions speak louder than your words.
posted by John (), 07/31/2003 01:57 PM CST
78) (And anyway, IP addresses are not a reliable way to detect this sort of thing. If I use AOL you'll see a different IP every time I post. And, on the other hand, if I have a static IP, multiple different posters from my company would appear as one.)
posted by John (), 07/31/2003 02:01 PM CST
79) Recap: Folks at Macromedia are actively seeking out actual problems from this implementation.
I know that some people do actively campaign against any-and-all such work on principle, and it remains their choice whether to invest in and employ Macromedia tools. The goal here, however, is to find new info -- we're actively trying to research how the activation implementation may not work as intended, and may not be as transparent as planned.
(So far, I haven't seen significant problems with Contribute 2.0 activation among consumers... there was one bad serial number which got squared away pretty quickly, but otherwise it is working out for people. Still bears continued testing, though.)
posted by John Dowdell (), 07/31/2003 02:33 PM CST
80) Translation: We don't care what you think about this. We are simply going to do it and are only interested in hearing things that help us figure out how to get it done.
posted by John (), 07/31/2003 02:47 PM CST
81) At least we're getting to the truth...
posted by John (), 07/31/2003 02:50 PM CST
82) Scott or JD OR MM,
AGAIN, Some Questions you missed or did not want to answer in your reply:
> ANOTHER THING FOR MM USERS TO THINK ABOUT: Notice how MM states that they are trying to PROTECT the MM software? Why has MM not put any resources into protecting the code that YOU THE USER spends days, weeks months working on? A mass of programs are available to uncompile swf, and users have asked MM to address it for years now.
IT WOULD SEEM THAT MM IS CONCERNED ABOUT "ITS" WORK BUT NOT "YOUR" WORK.
AND
PLEASE TELL US WHY WE HAVE TO BEG TO USE AND ACTIVATE MM SOFTWARE THAT WE HAVE SPENT HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS ON.
my Reply to scott,
> "We've already stated that we will not be connecting the two"
PLEASE SHOW ME THIS IN THE PRIVACY POLICY OR PRODUCT LICENSE. MM has stated that THEY CAN UPDATE THE PRIVACY POLICY AT ANY TIME AND MONITOR/AUDIT THE USE OF THE SOFTWARE.
So your comment as a post is worhless, and mike has lied, if you were honest in you communicaton let us see it stated that "MM will never connect the two data sets" EVER.
> "begging"
IF I HAVE TO ASK MM FOR PERMISSION TO INSTALL SOFTWARE ON MY COMPUTER AFTER I HAVE SPENT HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS ON. IF I CHANGED THE BOOT DRIVE, I HAVE TO ASK AGAIN, AND IF I PURCHASE A NEW COMMPUTER, I HAVE TO ASK AGAIN. AND IF THE KEY INFO JUST HAPPENS TO FAIL ;-) , I HAVE TO ASK AGAIN.
YES, I WOULD CALL IT BEGGING.
posted by Bob Franz (), 07/31/2003 03:58 PM CST
83) mesh@macromedia.com wrote:
(...) Actually, we don't track usage. You can see a third party audit on the privacy and security (...)
name one reason why we should take your/MM's word for this - MM (as well as other software co's) goes to greatest lengths to make their EULA's 100% waterproof - where ever their rights are concerned.
so unless any of MM's reps here can present a document which, in a legally binding manner, clearly states that this activation/audit mechanism will never be used to track usage habits and/or to create personally identifiable user profiles, i see no reason why i should trust MM any further than MM trusts me - which, judging by the recent implementation of said activation/audit process tells me rather clearly that they don't trust their customers any further than they can spy on them.
P.S. - any statement by any representative of MM made in this forum about how MM will protect our (their customers') privacy is moot anyway since all MM EULA's clearly state: No Macromedia dealer, agent or employee is authorized to make any amendment to this EULA.
posted by eff (), 07/31/2003 04:47 PM CST
84) Very good point.
Hey MM, I trust you just as much as you trust me. Not at all.
posted by John (), 07/31/2003 06:01 PM CST
85) Eeek ….. its all got so bitter in here.
First, Bob, Wow your really hurt by this thing aren’t you. All this SHOUTING really must be giving you a headache. Here’s my opinions on you comments.
“ANOTHER THING FOR MM USERS TO THINK ABOUT: Notice how MM states that they are trying to PROTECT the MM software? Why has MM not put any resources into protecting the code that YOU THE USER spends days, weeks months working on?”
Bob, you running away with your self on this one. MM has not stated that it is certain that product activation will occur in Flash in the future, which if I may assume, is the technology you refer to as being unprotected. If it isn’t, and your worried about code protection in Contribute, then I’m sorry to have to tell you, but it is impossible, and far outside of MM’s remit to try to protect HTML code.
“PLEASE TELL US WHY WE HAVE TO BEG TO USE AND ACTIVATE MM SOFTWARE THAT WE HAVE SPENT HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS ON. MM HAS TOLD US WE HAVE TO USE PRODUCT ACTIVATION, WHY SHOULD WE!”
Your not going to have to beg. If your are a legal purchaser of a MM product the there’s no begging to be done. By handing over the money you are entering into an agreement with MM under terms which are public. My taking your money MM are obliged to provide you with use of the product. Is this really all that different from ordering an iPod from Amazon, and waiting for it to be delivered as apposed to walking out of a shop with it?
“the faq is not a binding contract”
Bob, sorry wrong again here – but only just. The faq, as a statement on webiste, would be viewed in a court of law as a public statement made my MM, and as such be legally binding.
“REALLY? Who on this thread when they installed MM soft can has not had the registration screens during instillation.”
Please thing things through before you post. What Scott was saying is you have the CHOICE to enter valid information or not. If you don’t want MM to know your ‘real’ identity then make one up. The is cool because it invalidates the value of MM’s DB. See you can get one over on them.
“I'm starting to see you point, when I move i should have to "activate" my fridge again to work in my new house”
No – When you purchase the fridge, you are doing so under different terms.
Bob, you obviously have string opinions on this, which you have a right to express. It is rather unfair however to shout other posts down as ‘worthless’, and be careful about accusing people of lieing in a public forum, that is ‘slander’
What I find most incredible about the comments, John and Bob are making, is neither of them are doing so with ANY experience of the activation process. Only then, realy do their opinions count.
posted by pete (), 08/01/2003 01:56 AM CST
86) Pete,
if you think that text the MM FAQ is a binding contract when the Privacy Policy and product license states the opposite, than you are an idiot. At the very least you have no understanding of contracts.
MM has turned from a cool company to the Microsoft "take what you want" "most users are to stupid to understand" "users have to be told what they want". This is the new MM.
and by the way having an OPTION is "would you like to fill out the registration info" an not putting in incorrect information. MM as usual has lied.
and my point is that MM has put alot of resources into protecting it's code and NO RESOURCES into protecting YOUR code. this speaks to my point MACRROMEDIA DOES NOT CARE ABOUT YOU.
posted by Bob Franz (), 08/01/2003 06:11 AM CST
87) Another interesting view on markme.com
"If it means we have to move to less "mainstream" products then so be it. We have enough on our plate without having to deal with BS like activation. Product Activation on windows has done nothing to stem piracy in fact in Australia piracy of XP is now at higher levels than any previous version of windows."
http://www.markme.com/mesh/archives/002885.cfm
and Pete, your only "legal purchaser" comment is wrong, only the "legal purchaser" have to deal with activation crap, as history has proved with XP and cracks.
- -
and, if anyone reading this thread knows anyone in the media please pass along this url for them to review. I have already sent it to my media contacts.
posted by Bob Franz (), 08/01/2003 06:34 AM CST
88) Pete,
a few comments regarding your post above:
(...) By handing over the money you are entering into an agreement with MM under terms which are public. My taking your money MM are obliged to provide you with use of the product. Is this really all that different from ordering an iPod from Amazon, and waiting for it to be delivered as apposed to walking out of a shop with it? (...)
Yes, it is all that different - because the iPod you bought does not have the potential to collect your name, address, credit card etc. etc. and connect that info with your listening habits (what, how often, when) and transmit this entire shebang to Apple in form of a beautiful user profile.
Aside from the various technical implications mentioned upthread, privacy should be any users' single largest concern - especially since it is not part of the legally binding agreement you enter into with MM that none of this data will ever be collected and/or used.
To rehash the facts:
1. MM does not state (in a legally binding manner) that they will never collect and/or use usage habit data.
2. The only thing being said/written are nebulous statements regarding privacy protection - and that only in parts of their site/documentation which can be changed anytime they feel like it.
3. You should seriously ask yourself why it is that MM doesn't state (as part of my legal contract with them) that they will never aggregate said data/user profiles. Companies like MM spend millions each year for legal counseling and you can be 100,000% certain that this is no coincidence - it is a backdoor, nothing else.
As stated in my post above - I'd like to challenge anyone from MM to name a single reason why I should trust a business partner who, in their dealings with me, mistruts me to such an extent that they deem it neccessary to create legal backdoors to my disadvantage.
If you don't take my word that I won't violate your rights - why would I take yor word that my rights won't be violated ??
Or, to stick with your iPod example - How would you feel if one day you received an email from Apple stating that from this day forth they will be assembling/using/selling user profiles like the one mentioned above and that, if you don't happen to agree with their conduct, you must destroy your iPod immediately. This example can easily be applied to any product - e.g., what DVD's you watch at home, where you drive in your car, what groceries you put in your fridge, what kind of TV programs you watch (let's all get a TIVO PVR)
And just so no-one gets a skewed perspective of what I'm trying to say here - MM should absolutely have the opportunity to protect their intellectual property.
But not ever on my buck (my computer resources, my time) and by accidentally or intentionally violating my privacy
P.S. - I'm sorry but unless you are a lawyer your statement regarding the legally binding aspect of an FAQ on a web page isn't worth the source code it's stored in (see my quote of MM's EULA above.) - I strongly encourage you to check out MM's TOS (terms of use) for their web site, especially the paragraph titled "Indemnity"
posted by eff (), 08/01/2003 06:41 AM CST
89) Pete,
two (I'll make it quick, I promise) comments regarding your post waaaay upthread:
(...) This isnt about MM interest in all your private information. I doubt very much if they give a **** waht color underpants your wearing today (...)
a) How do you know? Do you have that in writing? No? I didn't think so. b) I work in marketing/advertising and I can tell you that user/customer profiles are worth a lot of money. Why do you think so many companies reserve the right to, more or less, do with your personal data whatever they want? Because it's big $$$! I strongly suggest you read up on database marketing.
(...) All that is happening here is MM are making an atempt to secure their investement and make more money. I deffy any man/woman or child here to stand up and say they wouldnt like to make more moeny. (...)
Why should I lie? Of course do I want to make a living. And MM should be allowed to do the same. The problem here is that MM simply bought an off-the-shelf product that puts all of the burden on you, the customer - simply because it was cheaper than having to come up with their own idea.
Corporations will go to any length to push this envelope (more of the burden on the customer) until one day you (the customer) stand there, naked and they still want to reach for your pocket. I for one will fight developments like this any way I can. If you're happy being spied upon that is of course your choice. I have seen these profiles/held them in my hand - and the thought that every software co., whose products I have installed on my computer, now wants one as well makes me shudder - it should make you shudder as well, trust me.
* Sorry for hogging/hijacking the thread - I promise I'll better myself :-) *
posted by eff (), 08/01/2003 07:28 AM CST
90) I'll repeat my earlier request for clarification to JD,
Why should I trust that MM won't violate my privacy when JD's first post to this thread was to ask Scott to check IP addresses of posters?
And you want me to believe MM won't do the same and more to prevent piracy?
This is an easy one folks. And to JD's credit he said it fairly straight a few posts ago. MM does not care what you think about this unless you are helping them to get it implemented.
It's a done deal and you can expect it on the next Flash, Dreamweaver, Freehand, etc.
The only way this might get pulled is if we continue to raise the issue and increase awareness. I'd recommend you spread the word far and wide. Write your elected officials about this unfair business tactic. Stay up to date on the lawsuit in the TurboTax fiasco.
If we all object loudly enough, they just might listen. If not, you'll certainly see this in all new MM products. Mark my words.
posted by John (), 08/01/2003 01:55 PM CST
91) My mistake. I went back and read what JD actually said, and he specifically didn't ask for the IP addresses, he just wanted to check whether all those different pseudonyms were actually one person trying to sound like a crowd.
I apologize for casting such unnecessary and intemperate accusations!
posted by John (), 08/01/2003 03:33 PM CST
92) Wow. That's funny!
Someone posing as me (John) trying to submit an apology on my behalf!
For the record, I DO NOT apologize and all my previous comments STAND as I have expressed them!
(Maybe JD could have Scott check the IP addresses again to verify what I am saying!!!)
posted by John (), 08/01/2003 10:55 PM CST
93) OK. You caught me.
But you gotta admit it was funny!
(I actually agree with everything you've said about this product activation being bad!)
posted by Knucklehead (), 08/01/2003 11:12 PM CST
94) Oh my god, what an emotional thread we have here. But theres an awfull lot of sadly misguided fools in here
bob, I'll takcle your point first.
Firstly, your the one who needs to talk to a lawyer about this. A web page is a PUBLIC STATEMENT, as such can be used as evidence in a COURT OF LAW. Pete is right. Sorry !
MM DOES care bout it customers. They listen to requests for features in their software, and hwre viable, impliment them. Products are driven by the comunity
Bob, your input to this discussion is valued but your not making a viable argument. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over about what MM haven’t stated yet. You have made a presumption that MM are using this as a data gathering tool. Untill you have documented proof of this, and not just here-say then you argument has no foundation.
Elf, moving to your comments.
You work in advertising. good for you, guess what - so do I. Should we collect our medals now.
I'm sure Pete quite ware of the value of marketing DB's. It's not exactly a highly garded secret. We've all sufered becasue of MSN selling the hotmail DB to the highest bidder, but to insult the guys intelligence, based only on the fact he disagree's with you and is presenting an argument against your side is well - 'its just not cricket ol boy'.
Moving onto the iPod – youv'e missed Pete's point. Go back and read it again. When you’ve grasped that there is a separation from the product and the vendor then maybe the penny will drop. Amazon, collect a HELL of a lot of data about their customers. Pete was not suggesting that the iPod be used as a data gathering device, that’s a crazy idea (But Apple might like it – why not propose it to them – you could make some money :-)), but was meerly arguning that to purchase the device, and get it at the price Amazon were offering, you had to make the purchase under their terms.
Elf, also – read above in my reply to bob. I’m not a lawyer my self, but I use them , and I’m aware of the implications a public statement made by a company have. They can be held accountable to them in law. Pages on a website, are regarded as public statemtns, so as such as included in this remit. Again, maybe you need to talk to a lawyer as well.
Pete asked you all a question above, which is think is a good one.
Who out of you have ACTULAY tried out this product activation. Only then are you comments worth ‘the source code their stored in (sorry for pinching you quote elf – liked it too much )
I hope I haven't fanned the flames to much on this, its a good discussion.
posted by dreamer (), 08/02/2003 03:20 AM CST
95) dreamer
"nomen est omen" - I am almost tempted to say. First off, calling the people whose statements you'd like to invalidate/counter/rebut "fools" is not the most intelligent way to converse - insulting people pisses them off and usually, you can't expect a reasonable answer from someone you've just insulted.
On to your points:
a) Statements on a web site and their legal status
In a court of law, they might be regarded as legally binding - emphasis on might, and you have to go to court first. If MM has no intention of violating the privacy of their customers then i'd like to ask you why they don't put in a legally binding document. Can you answer this?
The point is not that MM is using this software as a data gathering tool. The point is that they have "built" the capability/ability to do so into their product and are not stating in a legally binding manner that this tool will not be used for that purpose.
b) Database Marketing
the point here is quite simply that Pete's statement "I doubt very much if they give a **** waht color underpants your wearing today " is quite untrue. MM (and any other company, for that matter) cares a whole lot about my personal data and they go to great lengths to accumulate as much of it as they possibly/legally can. I assume that, if Pete was fully aware of the value of customer profiles, he would have worded his statement differently.
c) the iPod
Sorry, but you (and Pete) missed the point - the problem is that Pete compared a product that does not have the ability to violate my privacy with another product that has this functionality built into it.
Again, the whole point is potential abuse by MM and the fact that MM has not stated in a legally binding manner that they will not use this functionality built into their product to violate the privacy of their customers!
And finally - if you honestly think I mentioned the fact that I work in advertising to show off in this thread - then you didn't get a 1/2% of what I was trying to say and any further discussion seems rather pointless.
But just like I said to Pete - if you're not concerned about the potential abuse that comes with this new "functionality", that is perfectly fine.
Just don't go putzing around, telling me I can't comment on Contribute's activation scheme unless I actually tried it. I'm quite familiar with the software that enables this functionality and the potential for abuse is there - stating that this potential does not exist is simply a lie.
posted by eff (), 08/02/2003 04:46 AM CST
96) The Fact still remains that that "product activation" is not about Piracy. As history has proved (with XP) activation has no effect on piracy.
So you ask, what could this be for:
1. DATA COLLECTION.
Statements from MM like "we have no plans to" is the same thing as yes we will. In fact the EULA is clear, it states: "(e) You agree that Macromedia may audit your use of the Software for compliance with these terms at any time" audit is the same as Monitor. (MM has also paid for the security review) and if Anderson/Enron has told us anything...
2. CONTROL.
MM would like to control the software on your computer. Period. MM decides how many systems you can install in on, how long it works. MM can also decide that after 2 years that users have to upgrade to a new version. Subscription software is the Trend. FYI, I had asked MM how far into the future can I activate the software. MM DID NOT REPLY.
IT"S ABOUT CONTROL EVERYONE, THINK THE APPLE COMMERICAL 1984, or OLIVER TWIST, MAY I PLEASE HAVE SOME MORE, MR MACROMEDIA.
ANOTHER thing MM has failed to answer, why should users adopt "product activation"? It has no benifit and can harm our hard drive.
It's like if I purchase something from a vendor, and now I give them the right to go into my computer and decide whether I'm worthy of activation, like some stinking velevt rope ****.
MM is a just like Microsoft, tell users what they should do. Put users in a position of NO CONTROL.
Macromedia, GET YOUR STINKING FINGERS OUT OF MY COMPUTER!
AND it is true the only thing to do is not purchase or upgrade software with product activation.
posted by Bob Franz (), 08/02/2003 03:05 PM CST
97) Elf,
I call ed nobody a fool. If you took offence to my ramblings then I appologise. I meant none - but I feel you are the pot calling the kettle black are you not. The tone of some some you posting is IMHO opinion, significantly more offensive. The term 'Putz' springs to mind. I know this is 'firendly' term, but still one could take offence and get 'pissed' off at this.
The iPod thing, ok, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree - but consider this. Is there a binding contract that says Amazon (or who ever you purchase it on on-line) will NEVER EVER sell you details. Nope ! That was the point Pete was trying to make.
Furthermore, I didnt think you were trying to show off by mentioning you work in advertsing, I was merrly making the point that you have no idea what I or Pete or any contibters to this thread do, so to insult Pete's intellegence by saying he has no appreciation of DB marketing, just because your 'in the know' wasn't fair.
Your self and bob clearly feel reayl strongly about this, and if its a true refelction of the majority of the MM customer base, then I'm sure MM will shelf plans to roll-out activation to the rest of its product suite.
Pete, clearly doesnt have a problem with it, and I have to agree. I can see both of your arguments (and John's point's) about the extra intrusion ect - but you all getting hot uner the collar about what 'might' happen. MM have been trusting you (to use the software under the correct terms) for the last n years. Is it so bad thant they now ask to you return a little of that trust. A bus, has the potential to mount the pavement and run you over. But you dont moan and bitch about 'that'?
If they do breech it, and change the temrs of the EULA, or sell the data on ect. Then believe me, I'll be the first one singing about it from roof tops. but untill that time, it's just somthing I'll have the plan and deal for as I go about my business.
posted by dreamer (), 08/02/2003 11:55 PM CST
98) Dreamer,
a few quick points regarding your post above:
a) Insulting Pete's (and others) intelligence
I have never hinted towards a lack of intelligence on Pete's side - I merely suggested he dig a bit into the topic of DB Marketing, because I deducted from his statement (MM not giving a sh*t about my underwear) that he didn't really know what this topic includes and what these people (DB Marketers) do for a living.
The point here is that not knowing something is never a sign of low intelligence. For each of us, there's plenty of stuff we don't know - that doesn't make us stupid. The only thing that does make us stupid is not knowing something but publicly pretending we do - and this is not what Pete did.
b) about this iPod comparison
Pete's comparison (MM Contribute <-> iPod) was flawed from the get-go. It's not about who sells the product (Amazon/MM) but what potential for abuse the product itself has built into it. The iPod has no such potential, MM's Contribute has plenty - that's a fact and there's no discussing and/or denying it.
c) MM have been trusting you (to use the software under the correct terms)
Sorry dreamer, but this is clearly where your argument trips over its own feet - MM (and any other software company) has never trusted its customers to the extent you describe - sharing their product with 3rd parties has always been illegal, it has always been stated in the EULA.
They only thing they have trusted you with is that you won't do something that according to their EULA has always been illegal - stealing. This conduct is identical to your government enacting a law and then trusting its citizens to follow/obey this rule. Your government does not send a cop after you, permanently monitoring your behavior simply because it just outlawed stealing (see "1." below).
What they have implemented now bears two large problems:
1. MM now spies on you preemptively - It it exactly the same as your government sending out a cop to walk behind you wherever you go on the off-chance that you might steal a car or break into someone's house. Regardless of whether you're a law-abiding citizen or not, you're being followed.
This spying I could actually live with. As I have stated above, I think MM absolutely has the right to protect their intellectual property. I would have preferred them not to be so lazy/cheap to just go out and buy an off-the-shelf
