Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should I pirate CAM software? (hypothetical question)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • boslab
    replied
    i dont feel theres anything wrong with trying a pirate verson, TRYING it that is [i include learning also] but if it works then buy it, then you get the support!
    [unless it SAP then you need a spare half a billion!, thats for all the modules and its still crap]
    mark

    Leave a comment:


  • lwalker
    replied
    You'd be surprised to know how many software companies are "little guys" themselves. For a competent and business-oriented programmer, it's trivial to start a one-man business.

    I used to work for a hardware/software vendor that had 6 employees when I joined. I can't count the number of times our customers were surprised to find out how small we were, because they just assumed it took a huge corporation to do what we did.

    And yes, our software was pirated, and you bet your butt it bothered us.

    Originally posted by cuslog
    I don't think most software companies are interested in (don't really care about) the little guys (hobby or student) using pirated versions of their software. Its the commercial use that hurts them.
    And there is an avantage to having a larger number of the population familiar with their software.
    For me, it was when I started earning money with it that I felt compelled to purchase a legal version.

    Leave a comment:


  • ftl
    replied
    There is a stand-off between some of the large software vendors and the hackers. Once you have a big market share for your product, you are better off allowing it to be hacked and used for free by some.

    If you make it very difficult to hack, or to use a hacked copy, the people who won't pay to use your product will use a different product (for free) anyway. What you gain is the total market share that keeps your competitors at bay.

    For both Windows and most Adobe products (I know of several other examples), a relatively simple way of hacking them has existed for two major versions now. Both vendors were completely capable of changing their products in the second version to disable the common hack, but did not.

    In the case of Windows, they are effectively making it free to people that wouldn't buy it anyway and are keeping many of them from using Linux. It would be a disaster for Microsoft for Linux to gain significant market share and become a valid option for many other users that currently pay for Windows. It is better to (unofficially) give Windows away for free than to make these people switch to Linux.

    The same thing is true of Photoshop. Some people use it for free, but they contribute to the universality of the product, and were not going to pay for it anyway.

    The very cheap educational versions of software fall into the same category. You do it for long term market share.

    So the bottom line is that it is in the best interests of some software vendors to allow some unpaid use of their software. They'll never admit it, but by leaving major holes unplugged in their licensing security, they encourage it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Your Old Dog
    replied
    Originally posted by John Stevenson
    ................................
    I have been bit too many times buying something that doesn't do what it says on the tin, then because of the unique selling regulations on software you can't get a refund.

    ..........................................
    Ain't that the truth. Can't tell you how many times I've sprung good money for software only to find out I (for a change) was taken.

    Only in the world of photography have I been really satisfied with my software purchases. PhotoShop, LightRoom and Silver Efex Pro are/were worth the money.

    ************************
    Evan, the pic in post 7 will never work unless it's a high tech ant farm.
    Last edited by Your Old Dog; 09-23-2011, 09:29 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • beanbag
    replied
    It turns out that TechShop was able to get SprutCAM (relatively high end CAM) as part of an "educational institution" deal, so for now there is no moral quandary.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    There is a trivial piece of code that causes the drive controller to erase the bad block table in the firmware. This causes a checksum conflict on boot that prevents the drive from starting and also prevents the drive from acessing the contents of the platters. While it can be done it cannot be undone without access to the original servo writer that formatted the platters at the factory. I am surprised that it hasn't shown up in a virus although that would defeat the purpose of most viruses.

    Leave a comment:


  • dp
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan
    Assembler is all about control. Absolute and total control. By far my favorite way to code but not on an X86 machine. Give me something with predictable instruction timings.

    About total control, do you know how to trash a hard drive with only 17 bytes of code? I mean trash, not erase. No, I won't post it here.
    It used to be you could open the disk controller (in software) and poke in the commands to do anything you wanted to the disk. Haven't thought of that since around 1988 or so.

    The 8086/8088 CPU was a fun machine to write assembler for. I never had to write any real-time stuff but came close when I wrote a Morse code reader/writer in ASSY.

    Leave a comment:


  • spope14
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan
    About total control, do you know how to trash a hard drive with only 17 bytes of code? I mean trash, not erase. No, I won't post it here.
    4 to 6 - 1/2 inch drill bit holes through the drive/ body.

    I have done this with our administrative hard drives, server hard drives, and DOD and healthcare institution donated computers ( to their hard drives.) The disk platters seem to be pretty hard and generate a lot of heat, especially when the students attack them. I let them use clapped out bits to assure more heat and buggered up holes.
    Last edited by spope14; 12-23-2010, 08:17 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mochinist
    replied
    Originally posted by lazlo
    FWIW: I just looked at the size of the latest Solidworks 2011 distribution, and it's well over 5 GBytes.

    But that's the whole Solidworks suite, including the 3D Solid Modeling, assembly tools, sheet metal, weldment, pipe/tubing, mold design, and electrical harness tools and the PCB plug-in, plus all the multi-lingual support tools.
    yep, I just downloaded 2011 service pack 1 and it took about 45 mins on my kinda high speed connection

    Leave a comment:


  • lazlo
    replied
    Originally posted by bborr01
    Very Evanesque,

    Keep it coming.
    FWIW: I just looked at the size of the latest Solidworks 2011 distribution, and it's well over 5 GBytes.

    But that's the whole Solidworks suite, including the 3D Solid Modeling, assembly tools, sheet metal, weldment, pipe/tubing, mold design, and electrical harness tools and the PCB plug-in, plus all the multi-lingual support tools.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Evan
    Assembler is all about control. Absolute and total control. By far my favorite way to code but not on an X86 machine. Give me something with predictable instruction timings.

    About total control, do you know how to trash a hard drive with only 17 bytes of code? I mean trash, not erase. No, I won't post it here.

    I trashed two of them last year in my 20 ton hydraulic press. I didn't need any code at all....

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by photomankc
    Well, I'm not going to argue forever. The understanding I had from discussions with some folks that deal with it was that the crack is itself a violation. The key is generally an encryption algorithm and reverse engineering it to generate one without authority is circumvention of copy control. Eveyone is of course free to operate on thier own understanding. As I said the odds of a federal prosecution is low for a dude at home.
    Writing a crack is no different than the guy who disables the built in gps on his car with OnStar. His car, his rights, your computer, your rights.

    Leave a comment:


  • photomankc
    replied
    Originally posted by IanPendle
    Photomankc wrote:

    Everyone is of course free to operate on thief own understanding.

    Great typo - was it intentional?

    Ian.

    LOL..... no. [email protected]@ IPhone.

    Leave a comment:


  • IanPendle
    replied
    Photomankc wrote:

    Everyone is of course free to operate on thief own understanding.

    Great typo - was it intentional?

    Ian.

    Leave a comment:


  • photomankc
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan
    The DMCA make defeating encryption illegal. Generating a key is not the same as breaking
    Well, I'm not going to argue forever. The understanding I had from discussions with some folks that deal with it was that the crack is itself a violation. The key is generally an encryption algorithm and reverse engineering it to generate one without authority is circumvention of copy control. Eveyone is of course free to operate on thier own understanding. As I said the odds of a federal prosecution is low for a dude at home.
    Last edited by photomankc; 12-22-2010, 04:38 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X