SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
AnonTechie writes:
"Echoing a question asked on programmers.stackexchange.com - How can software be protected from piracy ?
It just seems a little hard to believe that with all of our technological advances and the billions of dollars spent on engineering the most unbelievable and mind-blowing software, we still have no other means of protecting against piracy than a "serial number/activation key." I'm sure a ton of money, maybe even billions, went into creating Windows 7 or Office and even Snow Leopard, yet I can get it for free in less than 20 minutes. Same for all of Adobe's products, which are probably the easiest. Can there exist a fool-proof and hack-proof method of protecting your software against piracy? If not realistically, could it be theoretically possible? Or no matter what mechanisms these companies deploy, can hackers always find a way around it ?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Tork on Saturday March 22 2014, @02:55AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 5, Insightful) by chromas on Saturday March 22 2014, @03:20AM
And support costs. There are even legitimate paying customers who crack the software just to get around any problems the copy protection introduces.
The software mentioned, and many others products, are as easy to get as download demo, insert key. Some do require a little patching. Nothing more complex. Yet the companies are still in business making software (even if it is buggy) and raking in moneys. Doesn't it say something that Adobe, Corel, MAXON, Microsoft (recently) and even Sony Creative Software (who acquired Sonic Foundry's products when they went Beta) just aren't that worried over buttpiracy?
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Tork on Saturday March 22 2014, @04:02AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 5, Funny) by chromas on Saturday March 22 2014, @04:12AM
There's only one possible explanation: A DRM salesman has modpoints ☺
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Tork on Saturday March 22 2014, @06:57AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 5, Insightful) by clone141166 on Saturday March 22 2014, @07:17AM
If you scan through the comments you'll see that someone has gone through and modded most of the comments pointing out that anti-piracy measures are not the best approach to stopping piracy as -1 Overrated.
I think the moderation system on SoylentNews is still in need of a rework. It was okay while the site was just starting out, but giving users 10 mod points all at once that expire very quickly seems to promote these sort of "mod attacks". 10 mod points is too much power to be placed in the hands of a single user all at once. At least moderation is limited to one-per-comment, which helps mitigate this.
I have also noticed that sometimes a single moderator will go through and mod all of a user's posts (even on unrelated stories) -1 Overrated simply because the user has made a single comment somewhere that has angered the moderator. A privacy option to prevent non-friended users from being able to view the list of comments you have made would stop this, but alas, no such option exists.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Tork on Saturday March 22 2014, @08:18AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 22 2014, @10:24AM
I don't think a quick expiry time is a big factor in this kind of attack (assuming that's what has happened here). If expiry time was longer, someone tempted to be a bad moderator would then be more able to wait for a story that they were particularly keen to influence, and still be able to use all 10 mod points on that one story.
I know the expiry of points is tough psychologically, because it feels like you've wasted them. But actually the system can be (and I suspect already is) designed so that the overall amount of moderation happening is fairly constant, even on days when a higher proportion than normal of users failed to use their points.
Instead, maybe we shouldn't get to choose which stories we could use mod points in? So, the system chooses potential stories for us? Again, there's a psychological issue there, but perhaps not insurmountable.
Maybe we should limit to 5 points per story? But in the past I've used all 10 points on just 1 story and felt justified in doing so.
Perhaps rather than countermeasures for this specific issue, and for the other issue you mentioned (one person being targeted), we just need to promote more heavily what counts as good moderation in general. To start with, instead of saying "you have 10 mod points", it could say "you have the possibility of 10 mod points. Click here to accept" which then takes you to the screen of moderation guidelines, "Do you understand these guidelines? Yes / No".
And maybe meta-moderation is part of the answer?
(Posting AC to avoid un-un-doing the example of bad moderation that triggered this discussion.)
(N.B. I had already decided to cancel out Tork's down-mod even before I saw his complaint about it, so please have some faith that 1 bad apple will normally be buried under 20 good apples, so to speak.)
(Score: 1) by Refugee from beyond on Saturday March 22 2014, @12:55PM
>Maybe we should limit to 5 points per story?
Where can I vote for 3?
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by lhsi on Saturday March 22 2014, @01:11PM
I've had an overrated mod on a post that was otherwise unrated, which made no sense.
I think if someone uses most of their mod points on negative mods their moderations should be reviewed to avoid abuses like that. The guidelines say to try to stick to positive mods anyway.
(Score: 1) by el_oscuro on Saturday March 22 2014, @09:55PM
The same thing happened to me on my first moderated comment on The Other Site, almost 10 years ago. My karma sucked for months afterwards. SN should have a preview button moderation too, as well as a meta moderation system.
SoylentNews is Bacon! [nueskes.com]
(Score: 2) by TheloniousToady on Saturday March 22 2014, @02:09PM
In my own case, the fact that they expire so quickly means that I virtually never use them. If I got 5 points that lasted for three days rather than 10 points that last 3 hours (or less?), I'd start using them. On the other site, I had gotten into the habit of deploying my mod points with great deliberation.
That said, I apologize for the dereliction of duty. I'm glad that others of you are using them - we all enjoy getting modded up. :-)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by DNied on Saturday March 22 2014, @05:11PM
Where "mod attack" is defined as "moderation you don't agree with" ?
(Score: 2) by clone141166 on Sunday March 23 2014, @03:27AM
Fair point; the definition in my mind would be more along the lines of a "mod attack" being the use of moderation points by a *single* user to *disproportionately* influence the moderation of comments in relation to the moderations applied by other users (regardless of whether they are down-modding or up-modding).
A single user modding up every comment questioning anti-piracy measures would be equally bad, though obviously much less likely to provoke a response.
It is my belief that the transient nature of the mod points in the current moderation system causes them to be somewhat devalued. If you are given $100 of credit that expires in 4 hours, you will probably purchase some necessary/useful items, but whatever is left over you are *probably* (will vary on personality and circumstance) going to waste it on something frivolous rather than not buying anything at all. Whereas if you are given $50 of credit that has to last you a week or a month, you are much more likely to hold on to it and only spend it on things that you absolutely need.
I just think that smaller quantities of longer lasting points would promote a more frugal application of mod points. If someone under these circumstances were to save up 10 mod points and apply them ALL to one story, similar to what has happened here, then you know that at least it was something they *really* cared about, rather than it just being something they did haphazardly to use up mod points before they expire because why-the-heck-not.
It's not really a big deal though, most of the time moderations applied by other users will drown out the problem. For the most part the current moderation system seems to work okay, but there's always room for improvement in any system.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday March 23 2014, @04:19AM
That's my feeling too, and I take moderating seriously. I'd rather not have to rush around... well, what really happens is that I wind up not using most of 'em. When I have 3 days to spend 'em, I too feel that I can be more judicious in how I spend them.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Foobar Bazbot on Saturday March 22 2014, @05:30PM
That option exists; it's called "[X] Post Anonymously". If that's not what you had in mind, perhaps you should take a moment to consider the implications of sophisticated spidering tools such as wget...
(Score: 2) by clone141166 on Sunday March 23 2014, @02:57AM
Posting anonymously could be used to mitigate the problem, however it is a suboptimal solution. I love that SN has the ability to post anonymously, although I have never used this functionality yet. That said, suggesting that registered users should hide by posting anonymously just because their comments might incite debate or disagreement is hardly something that we should be promoting.
And yes there are ways to scrape all comments from a user beyond looking at their user profile. But all of these methods require additional skill and effort, creating a higher technical barrier to performing this kind of abuse (no I don't need a wget example pasted in response; I realise it's not that difficult, but it requires effort beyond just clicking on hyperlinks).
Ignoring the effort required to implement the feature, I don't see what the down-side of having the *choice* to prevent unfriended users from being able to view your list of recent comments would be?
(Score: 2) by Foobar Bazbot on Sunday March 23 2014, @07:42AM
Well, I agree. But you're the one advocating that registered users should hide for fear of mod abuse; I'm just saying anyone who does feel the need to hide should hide behind an opaque object, while you're saying we should hand them a sheet of plexiglass and assure them that it's good concealment, and can't be seen through without "additional skill and effort".
"Ignoring the effort required" is silly, because absent any real benefit, the effort required is enough reason not to implement it.
But I'll play along: ignoring the cost of implementation, the downside is providing users a false sense of security, leading them to post pieces of information across many posts that, in total, represents a profile they'd rather not share, in the belief that any aggregation of these pieces will be limited by human memory.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 23 2014, @05:25PM
Being able to look at a user's posting history can also help you determine whether someone has a history of trolling or astroturfing. Another option would be to use Big Data analysis techniques to identify trolls. That would be expensive, but perhaps could be sold as a value-added service.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Saturday March 22 2014, @11:30AM
Try asking yourself, "how much profit do you make by preventing unlicensed copying?"
Answer: negative money. You make money by getting people to pay for your software, not by stopping them from not-paying for it. This is a subtle distinction but it is a critical one to understand because the harder you fight against "piracy," the more money you will lose. This, BTW, explains why no one does a better job of it. That would cost more and not improve revenue.
The real question you should be asking is "how do I get people to pay more money for my software?" There are two answers, equally obvious: convince them it's worth more money, or sell to more people. DRM does not help you with either.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 24 2014, @12:35AM
You make the key point - a lot of companies have yet to learn this lesson. (Typical attorneys hate to lose anything, including a possible license fee.) In my experience you lose customers/revenue or have to refund customers because of DRM problems.
We could spend X hundred hours building a hack-proof DRM system which cash paying customers would hate and not add any value to the product. Or put the same time into adding new value to our products and services. Which will increase sales?
Another twist to the DRM debate is that some large companies apparently don't really care about piracy in some markets because they know their pirated copies are preventing local competitors/startups from making sales and getting established.