4 ms·

Balsamiq's thoughts on software piracy

46 points by pchristensen 18y ago

pchristensen 18y ago
"The fact that the key has a name in it is a big psychological deterrent to sharing it. If I found a key on a cracked site, I’d be able to immediately trace it back to the owner." This is awesome and going in my toolbox.
- nihilocrat 18y ago
  It's a good idea, but like any scheme, can be worked around. If it's a standalone application (i.e. not perpetually online), a keygen could be written, and thus the names that are used to create the keys are garbage names / gibberish. In either case, people could buy valid copies of your software with fraudulent or stolen credit card information and share those keys. Only the crackers (red zone) have the emotional burden of performing credit card fraud, while the more moderate pirates still benefit.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- bugninja 18y ago
  Unless you figure out how the key is generated, then you just create a name "John Smith" and apply the code to create the key. Now he's looking for a John Smith, so I'm not sure this is really the best way to think about it.
sfamiliar 18y ago
the win on this article is the comments: he posted the article, someone cracked the license generator, posted the source. there was a brief, friendly discussion about this. if it were one of my previous employers, they would've immediately sic'd lawyers, the fbi, homeland security, and anyone within shouting distance on the commenter. (the head of the legal department once got up at a quarterly meeting and ecstatically announced how many people had been prosecuted that quarter. there was an uncomfortable silence that followed, as everyone began expecting security cameras installed in every room. they started appearing shortly thereafter.) the authors sense of humor about this and pragmatic outlook is appreciated, and in my mind, correct. do what you can, make it easy to buy, make it uninteresting to break, have free versions available for people who need them.
- Sujan 18y ago
  The comments really show how Peldi thinks: In the article he stated why he sees no point in making it hard to crack the code open, then someone posts this code and mentions that he is no pro hacker, but just was able to use his newbie-skills in flash because there was absolutely no obfuscation or something - and now Peldo is researching and asking for ways how he could do better. Well that's fast learning. Im really impressed.
  - balsamiq 18y ago
    Hi there, this is Peldi. A little update: I will be trying out SecureSWF tonight, after a twitter friend recommended it: http://www.kindisoft.com/secureSWF/ http://www.kindisoft.com/secureSWF/ - we'll see. :)
    - axod 18y ago
      From the article: "I don’t do anything to protect against decompiling, and I’m not worried about it." So I assume you've changed your mind a little, and you're now at least a little worried about it ;)
      - balsamiq 18y ago
        Yes, a little. The guy made a good point that making life harder to beginner-level hackers is a good idea, so that's what I think I'll do. I'll update the post after the dust settles a bit. :)
        Herring 18y ago
        x .-~~~~-. |\\_ .-. _______| @_/ / Oo\_ |=|/ / \ | \ \ _(") | |_____|_""_| \ W-| ||'--' |_|_[ ]_|____| \_\ \_\\ ^ ^ | | open barn door horses
        18y ago
axod 18y ago
Or, just run it as a webapp which people do not download. With desktop software, they download it, and you usually have no means to shut off access etc unless you build in some callbacks etc. Webapps on the other hand, you have complete control always.
- run4yourlives 18y ago
  Webapps have their own host of issues. Besides, Balsmiq clearly works better for people as a desktop app, as shown by his sales.
  - axod 18y ago
    I agree, with a mockup tool it's probably most useful as a desktop app so you can use it anywhere. However, it does seem like he vastly underestimates how simple it is to pirate if anyone wants to.
- maxklein 18y ago
  I'm not going to make an application that is a good desktop app a web app because I am afraid of it being pirated. Make a good product, don't let fear of 'what if' make decisions for you.
  - wheels 18y ago
    Don't let "details" like "making money" distract you from building a "product". Meanwhile, back here in reality, monetization models do play into deployment strategies. :-)
- bugninja 18y ago
  It's sell it and forget it or host it and regret it. Hosting a web app and peoples' data is a whole different business model.
tdavis 18y ago
Well, at least the "bad guys" are "hackers" ;) I must be in some other group; I buy software based on the value of the software to me. If it's valuable, I will pay for it; if it's something I already know I'm going to use once and never touch again, it's highly unlikely that I'll pay for that privilege. I think providing a fully-functional limited-time demo would deter a lot of cracking and redistribution that goes on. I think the fact that I paid for Adobe Web Premium CS3 or whatever the hell it was called shows that I'm pretty open to paying for software I'm going to use a lot.

46 points by pchristensen 18y ago

"The fact that the key has a name in it is a big psychological deterrent to sharing it. If I found a key on a cracked site, I’d be able to immediately trace it back to the owner." This is awesome and going in my toolbox.

nihilocrat 18y ago
It's a good idea, but like any scheme, can be worked around. If it's a standalone application (i.e. not perpetually online), a keygen could be written, and thus the names that are used to create the keys are garbage names / gibberish. In either case, people could buy valid copies of your software with fraudulent or stolen credit card information and share those keys. Only the crackers (red zone) have the emotional burden of performing credit card fraud, while the more moderate pirates still benefit.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
bugninja 18y ago
Unless you figure out how the key is generated, then you just create a name "John Smith" and apply the code to create the key. Now he's looking for a John Smith, so I'm not sure this is really the best way to think about it.

sfamiliar 18y ago

the win on this article is the comments: he posted the article, someone cracked the license generator, posted the source. there was a brief, friendly discussion about this. if it were one of my previous employers, they would've immediately sic'd lawyers, the fbi, homeland security, and anyone within shouting distance on the commenter. (the head of the legal department once got up at a quarterly meeting and ecstatically announced how many people had been prosecuted that quarter. there was an uncomfortable silence that followed, as everyone began expecting security cameras installed in every room. they started appearing shortly thereafter.) the authors sense of humor about this and pragmatic outlook is appreciated, and in my mind, correct. do what you can, make it easy to buy, make it uninteresting to break, have free versions available for people who need them.

Sujan 18y ago
The comments really show how Peldi thinks: In the article he stated why he sees no point in making it hard to crack the code open, then someone posts this code and mentions that he is no pro hacker, but just was able to use his newbie-skills in flash because there was absolutely no obfuscation or something - and now Peldo is researching and asking for ways how he could do better. Well that's fast learning. Im really impressed.
- balsamiq 18y ago
  Hi there, this is Peldi. A little update: I will be trying out SecureSWF tonight, after a twitter friend recommended it: http://www.kindisoft.com/secureSWF/ http://www.kindisoft.com/secureSWF/ - we'll see. :)
  - axod 18y ago
    From the article: "I don’t do anything to protect against decompiling, and I’m not worried about it." So I assume you've changed your mind a little, and you're now at least a little worried about it ;)
    - balsamiq 18y ago
      Yes, a little. The guy made a good point that making life harder to beginner-level hackers is a good idea, so that's what I think I'll do. I'll update the post after the dust settles a bit. :)
      - Herring 18y ago
        x .-~~~~-. |\\_ .-. _______| @_/ / Oo\_ |=|/ / \ | \ \ _(") | |_____|_""_| \ W-| ||'--' |_|_[ ]_|____| \_\ \_\\ ^ ^ | | open barn door horses
        18y ago

axod 18y ago

Or, just run it as a webapp which people do not download. With desktop software, they download it, and you usually have no means to shut off access etc unless you build in some callbacks etc. Webapps on the other hand, you have complete control always.

run4yourlives 18y ago
Webapps have their own host of issues. Besides, Balsmiq clearly works better for people as a desktop app, as shown by his sales.
- axod 18y ago
  I agree, with a mockup tool it's probably most useful as a desktop app so you can use it anywhere. However, it does seem like he vastly underestimates how simple it is to pirate if anyone wants to.
maxklein 18y ago
I'm not going to make an application that is a good desktop app a web app because I am afraid of it being pirated. Make a good product, don't let fear of 'what if' make decisions for you.
- wheels 18y ago
  Don't let "details" like "making money" distract you from building a "product". Meanwhile, back here in reality, monetization models do play into deployment strategies. :-)
bugninja 18y ago
It's sell it and forget it or host it and regret it. Hosting a web app and peoples' data is a whole different business model.

tdavis 18y ago

Well, at least the "bad guys" are "hackers" ;) I must be in some other group; I buy software based on the value of the software to me. If it's valuable, I will pay for it; if it's something I already know I'm going to use once and never touch again, it's highly unlikely that I'll pay for that privilege. I think providing a fully-functional limited-time demo would deter a lot of cracking and redistribution that goes on. I think the fact that I paid for Adobe Web Premium CS3 or whatever the hell it was called shows that I'm pretty open to paying for software I'm going to use a lot.