[starman]

http://developers.slashdot.org/devel...6&tid=98&tid=8

If you put in a known pirated serial number, this app deletes your home directory.

How does he get away with it? He places that in the EULA that nobody reads.

Mike

[voodoo]

I'm sorry but this is dumb.

Like there was a member here who found out that his sn had somehow without his knowledge or consent ended up on a pirate website.

Wow would his ~/ be erased fast! Even if he did pay for the app and all.

No this is not good.

[Tarambana]

Old news. It has been thoroughly discussed in MSJ and unsanity.org. The developer only had the App with the malicious code up for half a day (IIRC), and then it was pulled and subsituted with a normal version.

Anyway, it is also irrelevant now (except for the never endiing debate regarding piracy and counter-measures to fight it) as the App itself has come to an end (I bet he fears facing lawsuits); not that I care, as I never used it.


Cheers.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by voodoo:
No this is not good.

Software piracy is a problem for Mac shareware developers and it is really frustrating that there is no legal way that this is prosecuted.

[ManOfSteal]

Haha!

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Software piracy is a problem for Mac shareware developers and it is really frustrating that there is no legal way that this is prosecuted.

It's not an isolated problem...it exists on Windows and Linux also.

It's true that it can be frustrating but there are ways to combat piracy. Blizzard manages. Ambrosia manages.

Instead of deleting the Home folder why not something a little milder like self-destructing itself and preventing the reinstall of the app.

I don't know how legal this scenario would be but something like sending the computer's MAC address to the author of the app after a pirated serial number is entered and then app self-destructing should be a relatively harmless anti-piracy system.

The installer could then, before installing, check the author's blacklisted MAC addresses and prevent the app from installing on at least that computer...until an apology is sent to the author who could then remove the blacklisted address if the pirate finally pays for the software.

Of course, in that scenario, this would only work if you computer is connected to the internet...but then again, most pirates are connected to the internet and getting the latest SNs and cracks...a legal user wouldn't have that problem because his serial number would be legal and the app or installer wouldn't need to check the blacklist.

[eevyl]

He died killing at least...

Pirate serial == high probability of not using the software in the future

[Millennium]

This is what I mean by unethical antipiracy schemes. Ethical means do exist, but fewer and fewer developers are willing to use them.

What do I mean by an "ethical" scheme versus an "unethical" one? I summarize it in four principles, under the acronym PIFA:

Privacy - No antipiracy scheme may use methods which could track usage habits or personal data. An app might phone home once to verify registration data, but once it had been verified it must never connect again for that purpose. Furthermore, any app which phones home for any reason must notify the user of this.

Innocence - If an app cannot conclusively prove that a user is pirating it (such as by using a number known to be pirated) then it must assume that the user is not doing so. This is the standard "presumed innocent until proven guilty" principle, which is a fundamental human right. If an app cannot verify either way, then it can try again at a later time.

Fair Use - An ethical antipiracy scheme must allow for fair use of the application, and must not impede it in any way. In particular, it must not require intervention from the company to use the app once it has been lawfully purchased and registered. Among other things, this includes the time-shifting (the user must be able to use the app whenever he wants) and space-shifting (the user must be able to use the app on whatever medium or computer he wants) principles. Also, there must be a guarantee that when the software enters the public domain (for example, by copyright expiration), or when the company goes out of business, the scheme will cease to impede users.

Access - Even if an app is pirated, an ethical scheme must allow the user to access any data which the user has made: that data belongs to the user, not the app's creator. This access might be limited to viewing and printing (and export to some other format, if the app is capable of such); it need not apply to modifying existing data or creating new data. But to lock a user away from his own data is theft, just as much as piracy is. Furthermore, it could be considered to constitute extortion, which is illegal even when the victim is otherwise committing illegal acts.

Echelon's scheme violates the Access principle, and does so in the worst possible way, by irrevocably deleting data which the app has never otherwise touched.

[pliny]

pfft. I'll be sure to put this bozo on my never use a thing he puts out list.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
It's true that it can be frustrating but there are ways to combat piracy. Blizzard manages. Ambrosia manages.

I don't know Blizzard, but from their web site they don't look like a shareware developer. The way Ambrosia manages piracy comes with high monthly costs. It is not an anti-piracy measure that the usual one man shareware company could afford.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Privacy - No antipiracy scheme may use methods which could track usage habits or personal data.[..] Furthermore, any app which phones home for any reason must notify the user of this.

Copyright violation is illegal. It is in the rightful interest of the copyright holder to identify violators. I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that the identity of violators may be determined without the violator's allowance.

Innocence - If an app cannot conclusively prove that a user is pirating it (such as by using a number known to be pirated) then it must assume that the user is not doing so. This is the standard "presumed innocent until proven guilty" principle, which is a fundamental human right. If an app cannot verify either way, then it can try again at a later time.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a principal of criminal law. This is mostly a civil matter. If a user cannot prove he is the rightful owner for example because he can not enter a valid license key, the program may choose not to run. Just like the metro may choose not to transport you if you can't prove you purchased a ticket.

Access - Even if an app is pirated, an ethical scheme must allow the user to access any data which the user has made.

Nonsense. There is no obligation to provide software for read only and printing access to anyone let alone pirates. The user still owns the data and access them with software he rightfully owns (Finder, HexEditor etc. pp.)

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Access - Even if an app is pirated, an ethical scheme must allow the user to access any data which the user has made: that data belongs to the user, not the app's creator. This access might be limited to viewing and printing (and export to some other format, if the app is capable of such); it need not apply to modifying existing data or creating new data. But to lock a user away from his own data is theft, just as much as piracy is. Furthermore, it could be considered to constitute extortion, which is illegal even when the victim is otherwise committing illegal acts.

I don't know if I'd go that far.

While deleting your user's data is certainly unethical, I don't think there exists any ethical impetus that would require shareware designers and programmers to allow continued access to data from an unlicensed application. That is not to say that completely locking your users out would be a good idea (it would probably do more harm than good, especially for a small developer) - just that it would not necessarily be unethical to do so.

[Mrjinglesusa]

I find it quite silly that ethics is brought into to this in defense of software pirates. While I don't condone deleting a users home directory as an anti-piracy method, in a way it serves them right. If you weren't pirating (i.e. stealing from the developer, being unethical) to begin with, then his "unethical" act would never happen. Sounds to me like he is fighting fire with fire. I actually find it humorous, but then again, I don't steal software.

EDIT: BTW, it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that a developer has an obligation to allow a user to be able to access data created by pirated software. The person had no legal right to use the software in the first place and therefore has no right to the data created by said software. That's like saying I have the right to keep and watch the DVD files I ripped from the DVD I stole from Best Buy.

[starman]

It goes to show just how near-sighted you are. We're not talking about ethics, we're talking about the possibility of an honest mistake! What if a person's legit serial number were black-listed, or a user mistyped their serial number and lost their home directory?

NOBODY can bring the argument of "pirates deserve this" into the mix AT ALL. This is a horribly IRRESPONSIBLE software developer who should never touch Xcode again.

Mike

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by starman:
It goes to show just how near-sighted you are. We're not talking about ethics, we're talking about the possibility of an honest mistake! What if a person's legit serial number were black-listed, or a user mistyped their serial number and lost their home directory?

NOBODY can bring the argument of "pirates deserve this" into the mix AT ALL. This is a horribly IRRESPONSIBLE software developer who should never touch Xcode again.

Mike

Good point.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Copyright violation is illegal. It is in the rightful interest of the copyright holder to identify violators. I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that the identity of violators may be determined without the violator's allowance.

In most cases, law enforcement cannot search someone's property without a warrant. If law enforcement cannot be trusted with that right, then why should private companies?

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a principal of criminal law. This is mostly a civil matter.

Not anymore; not with the new waves of copyright legislation coming into place. More and more places are bringing copyright violation under the jurisdiction of criminal law, and so this applies.
[quote]If a user cannot prove he is the rightful owner for example because he can not enter a valid license key, the program may choose not to run.

Just like the metro may choose not to transport you if you can't prove you purchased a ticket.

Invalid metaphor. The presence or absence of a ticket is not proof that the ticket was obtained by lawful means.

Nonsense. There is no obligation to provide software for read only and printing access to anyone let alone pirates.

If you allow someone to create data, then you must allow him to access the data he has created. That belongs to him, not you, and to disallow access to it is stealing. Two wrongs do not make a right; the ends do not justify the means.

If you don't allow someone to create data, of course, then this point is moot. The same is true if you save that data in formats which other programs can read. If you save in your own format but have export capabilities, you might limit the functionality to exporting that data, not even allowing viewing in your own app anymore.

The user still owns the data and access them with software he rightfully owns (Finder, HexEditor etc. pp.)

If your software saves in a format which allows for this, then yes. A hex editor is by no means a satisfactory way of accessing one's own data, however.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
I find it quite silly that ethics is brought into to this in defense of software pirates. While I don't condone deleting a users home directory as an anti-piracy method, in a way it serves them right.

The real test of a person's ethics is when they don't seem necessary. "It serves them right" is not a valid excuse to breach ethics.

If you weren't pirating (i.e. stealing from the developer, being unethical) to begin with, then his "unethical" act would never happen. Sounds to me like he is fighting fire with fire.

It's not a causal effect, however. Last I checked, modern concepts of justice were not based on personal vengeance.

EDIT: BTW, it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that a developer has an obligation to allow a user to be able to access data created by pirated software.

If a person builds a house with stolen tools, the rightful owner of those tools does not have a right to burn the house down.

How the data was created is irrelevant. You can argue the morality of creating data using pirated software all you want, but either way, what's done is done. There is data which belongs to the user, and no one has any right to take that away.

The person had no legal right to use the software in the first place and therefore has no right to the data created by said software. That's like saying I have the right to keep and watch the DVD files I ripped from the DVD I stole from Best Buy.

No. There is a subtle but important difference: you did not create the data that you ripped. That data was created by someone else, and it belongs to that person, not you.

[Millennium]

For the record, I do not pirate software either. There was a time when I did, but I purged the last of my pirated programs from my hard drive years ago and have not pirated any software since then. I've fought piracy on these boards every bit as much as I have fought those who would use unethical means to prevent it. I have no problem with the concept of antipiracy schemes, so long as they in no way infringe on the legitimate rights of legitimate users.

[leperkuhn]

microsoft office 97 (don't ask why) was installed on my work computer today, and access reported i didn't have a valid license.

Turns out you have to rename a font to use it. Very stupid, very inconvenient.

For anyone that cares, I had to install access 97 to modify some old ass database that won't convert because of VB errors. Not my choice, I just work here.

[chris v]

I could see having the app delete its own directory and throw up a dialog telling the user that a pirated # had been entered, but to go after user data is out of bounds.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Millennium:
In most cases, law enforcement cannot search someone's property without a warrant. If law enforcement cannot be trusted with that right, then why should private companies?

That's an invalid comparison. Determining the identity of a violator is not the same as searching his home. If you have rightful claims against someone you have the right to determine the identity of this person by appropriate means. In real life this would mean you could hold the person against his will until police arrives and this wouldn't count as illegal restraint for example. With regards to copyright violation the transmission of MAC, IP and time for example is absolutely within the rights of the copyright holder and not exceedingly violating the violators personal rights. Think about it: If you disallow copyright holders to determine the identity of copyright violators, then what's the point of copyright law at all?

Not anymore; not with the new waves of copyright legislation coming into place. More and more places are bringing copyright violation under the jurisdiction of criminal law, and so this applies.

Then "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to the criminal part, but it doesn't to the civil part. Whether a program is obligated to run is a civil matter between vendor and user. If the user can not prove that he rightfully owns the program, the program can not be forced to run. If the vendor wants to bring criminal charges against the user than on the other hand he must prove that you have pirated it (and not just lost the key).

Invalid metaphor. The presence or absence of a ticket is not proof that the ticket was obtained by lawful means.

Valid metaphor. When you don't have a ticket they don't let you in the car. Doesn't matter that you tell them you bought one and lost it. You don't have one, you're not being transported. Same with software. You don't have the license key any more, the software may choose not to run any more.

If you allow someone to create data, [...]

You can not conclude an implicit allowance even when software is running for the pirate. Especially when such software is running with an illegally acquired license key.

[...] then you must allow him to access the data he has created.

Nonsense. No such obligation exists. Not even to the rightful owner of the software.

That belongs to him, [...]

He still has it.

[...] and to disallow access to it is stealing.

No, it's not. The pirate still owns the data. He didn't pay for the software required to access his data, then he isn't accessing his data. Tough luck. He knew beforehand.

There rest is just of the same nonsense. You grant rights to the pirate like the right to export his data, that not even the rightful owner has.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If a person builds a house with stolen tools, the rightful owner of those tools does not have a right to burn the house down.

But the owners of the tools have every right to take back their tools.

Let's make another example that is closer to creating data: You're stealing a camcorder. Let's say it's beta and this is the last beta camcorder in whole town. You happen to still own an old casette and make a great movie with the stolen camcorder. You own the casette, you own the movie you made, police finds you. Guess what happens? The police will return the camcorder back to the rightful owner. It doesn't matter that never again you will be able to watch your great movie. You don't own a tool to view the movie, you don't watch the movie. Tough luck.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
That's an invalid comparison. Determining the identity of a violator is not the same as searching his home.

That depends on the methods you use. Antipiracy schemes are becoming increasingly invasive.

If you have rightful claims against someone you have the right to determine the identity of this person by appropriate means.

If you have a valid claim, then yes. To have a valid claim, you must have reason for suspicion, and for that you need probably cause. Attempting to register software is not probably cause.

In real life this would mean you could hold the person against his will until police arrives and this wouldn't count as illegal restraint for example. With regards to copyright violation the transmission of MAC, IP and time for example is absolutely within the rights of the copyright holder and not exceedingly violating the violators personal rights.

IP and time, yes, as this is publicly-available information. MAC address, however, is another matter entirely.

Think about it: If you disallow copyright holders to determine the identity of copyright violators, then what's the point of copyright law at all?

If you have probable cause -for example, attempting to register using a pirated serial number- then by all means, go ahead. But it is unethical to simply gather everyone's personal information just because some of them might be pirates; to be ethical you must first establish this probable cause.

Then "Innocent until proven guilty" applies to the criminal part, but it doesn't to the civil part. Whether a program is obligated to run is a civil matter between vendor and user.

No, no it's not.

If the user can not prove that he rightfully owns the program, the program can not be forced to run.

Programs run. This is their natural state; they are not "forced" to run. Rather, they are forced to not run by the vendor on suspicion -not proof- of piracy. This is unethical.

When you don't have a ticket they don't let you in the car. Doesn't matter that you tell them you bought one and lost it. You don't have one, you're not being transported.Same with software. You don't have the license key any more, the software may choose not to run any more.

Invalid metaphor, because you don't have to keep getting new tickets during your ride. One ticket works for the entire trip.

You can not conclude an implicit allowance even when software is running for the pirate.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Especially when such software is running with an illegally acquired license key.

If the software is running with an illegally-acquired license key, then by all means, proceed with identity verification.

I am not arguing against verifying license keys. I am working on designing a system which would meet the PIFA guidelines, and it, too, verifies license keys. It differs in terms of privacy is in three ways:
1) Once the number is verified as legal, it does not continue phoning home.
2) Only the license key is sent, unless it is seen to be pirated. If a number is not verified as pirated, no personal data is sent.
3) If the verification attempt fails (i.e. the number cannot be verified at all, legit or pirated) then the program runs as normal, but will attempt to verify again at a later date.

He still has it.

There is no substantial difference between that situation and not having access to the data and not having the data itself.

There rest is just of the same nonsense. You grant rights to the pirate like the right to export his data, that not even the rightful owner has.

What rights does the rightful owner of the program have to access a user's data at all, much less to export it? That ability and right rests solely with the creator of such data.

Let me put it this way: I would see the creators of such unethical schemes thrown into prison for extortion, because that is what they are doing.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
But the owners of the tools have every right to take back their tools.

As long as the user can still get into the house, then yes, they do. But the owner of the software has no more right to steal people's data than the users of a program have to steal that.

[ambush]

well.. I know I pirated a lot of sw when I was a kid... now if the sw I pirated deleted my parent's home dir, that would have sucked.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If you have a valid claim, then yes. To have a valid claim, you must have reason for suspicion, and for that you need probably cause. Attempting to register software is not probably cause.

Attempting to register with a pirated serial is a probable cause.

[ I]t is unethical to simply gather everyone's personal information [...]

Who was talking about everyone? We are talking about pirates here!

[Programs] are forced to not run by the vendor on suspicion of piracy. This is unethical.

Not by the ethics of most everybody else.

Invalid metaphor, because you don't have to keep getting new tickets during your ride. One ticket works for the entire trip.

And one serial works for the software. If you lose the ticket, you might be thrown out of the metro car. If you lose the serial the software might stop running. Valid metaphor.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Again, this principle only applies to criminal matters. Whether a user can demand a software to run or not is a civil matter.
Anyway, your conclusion didn't have to do anything with this principle even. You concluded that software running with a pirate serial implies an allowance by the vendor to use this software to create data and that the vendor therefore is obligated to provide future access to such data. That is a nonsense assumption. The pirate never purchased the software or place another contract with the vender ex- or implicitly, so the vendor is obligated to nothing.

What rights does the rightful owner of the program have to access a user's data at all, much less to export it?

The rightful owner has not right to demand an export of his data. I find it ridiculous that the software makers should be obliged to export pirates' data. There is absolutely no legal basis for this.

I would see the creators of such unethical schemes thrown into prison for extortion, because that is what they are doing.

To determine the identity of an offender is not extortion. It's the rightful interest of the affected party.

[ManOfSteal]

TETENAL vs. Millennium Round 4

Battle 'til death!

[Uncle Skeleton]

Here's the way I see it. If your program thinks it's in the hands of a pirate, can it:

refuse to launch (or operate): yes
pop up a dialog: yes
a rude dialog: yes (but this might be bad PR if it's wrong)
call home to identify the pirate: yes
erase itself: yes
leave itself a note in case it's re-downloaded: yes
erase it's own documents: no
erase any other documents: absolutely not

basically, it can do anything that is reversible once the author is contacted. IMO

Mil: I'm having a hard time accepting that a program should be responsible for opening and exporting old documents when it knows it's being pirated and refuses to operate normally (like creating new documents). Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. Can you give an example (like the betamax example, that one was good). Even better would be an example from the world of Echelon and video encoding, if possible. Does Echelon even produce its own documents? I didn't get a chance to use it before it disappeared.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I was asked to comment but I don't really know where to begin.

[ManOfSteal]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I was asked to comment but I don't really know where to begin.

Happy early-Clinically Insane by the way...

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If you allow someone to create data, then you must allow him to access the data he has created. That belongs to him, not you, and to disallow access to it is stealing. Two wrongs do not make a right; the ends do not justify the means.

My God, this has got to be the most ridiculous statement I've ever read on MacNN.

And that's saying a lot.

[maxintosh]

I don't know how I feel about letting the user access data he/she created with the program, but erasing someone's Home folder is outragouesly reckless and irresponsible. Especially because it's not inconceivable there could be a bug that could call the [dumbDeveloperLibrary eraseHomeDirectory] function or what have you erroneously.

[decursive]

software should never have the power to delete anything. it's a basic concept.

(this of course does not apply if the program is designed to manage files, like the finder)

[pliny]

It's pretty simple, this bozo destroyed property that had nothing to do with a possibly pirated serial number, he's not just taking control of his app or protecting his copyright, he's destroying someone else's property because maybe they violated copyright, no law or rule allows for this, certainly not copyright law, which sets out clear remedies and penalties�property destruction not amongst them.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by maxintosh:
I don't know how I feel about letting the user access data he/she created with the program, but erasing someone's Home folder is outragouesly reckless and irresponsible. Especially because it's not inconceivable there could be a bug that could call the [dumbDeveloperLibrary eraseHomeDirectory] function or what have you erroneously.

Well, no argument there - as appealing as the the idea of teaching pirates a lesson is, deleting someone's files, especially with the risk of accidentally damaging non-pirates' data, is unacceptable. However, to take it to the level that Millennium has and say that the developer is stealing if he/she doesn't provide free software to pirates so they can view data they created is just plain absurd.

Let's put it this way - if a thief stole your computer and created some data with it and you were able to catch him, would you be "stealing" from him if you took your computer back, thus leaving him with no way to access his data?

Absurd.

[smeger]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
However, to take it to the level that Millennium has and say that the developer is stealing if he/she doesn't provide free software to pirates so they can view data they created is just plain absurd.

I think it's a bit out there conceptually, but not totally and completely insane. I can understand the concept.

But the idea that I would spend development effort to complicate my code path to provide a way to disable my software for a pirated serial number, but still provide a way for the pirate to export data to some readable format - that's insane.

Development time ain't free, and I'm not devoting a split second of it to providing conveniences for people who steal from me.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by smeger:
I think it's a bit out there conceptually, but not totally and completely insane. I can understand the concept.

Frankly, I don't.

Where would you draw the line? What if, say, I decide to stop paying my cable Internet bill and tap into my neighbor's connection instead? What if I decide to stop paying my electric bills and reroute a power line instead? Are the cable company and electric company obligated to keep giving me the service for free so I can access my data which is on the Internet? Are they "stealing" from me if they shut me off?

Hell no. If you need a product/service/whatever in order to access your data, pay for it. You knew when you created that data with that pirated program with the stolen serial number that you might not be able to access that data anymore if your stolen serial number quit working. Tough.

(edit: by the way, to any literalists who read this post: the pronouns "I" and "you" are hypothetical. I'm not accusing anyone in this thread of being a pirate. Sorry that I have to add this, but on MacNN it is, sadly, necessary.)

But the idea that I would spend development effort to complicate my code path to provide a way to disable my software for a pirated serial number, but still provide a way for the pirate to export data to some readable format - that's insane.

Development time ain't free, and I'm not devoting a split second of it to providing conveniences for people who steal from me.

This, on the other hand, is spot on. Why should developers have to pay to specially accommodate people that won't? That is just the dumbest thing.

[Maflynn]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Access - Even if an app is pirated, an ethical scheme must allow the user to access any data which the user has made: that data belongs to the user, not the app's creator. This access might be limited to viewing and printing (and export to some other format, if the app is capable of such); it need not apply to modifying existing data or creating new data. But to lock a user away from his own data is theft, just as much as piracy is. Furthermore, it could be considered to constitute extortion, which is illegal even when the victim is otherwise committing illegal acts.

Oh please, if a person who pirated an application and that app had some sort of check, so it deleted itself and even the documents. That's what the person gets for stealing.
Now I understand the problem in this thread is the app deleted all files, while extreme and unfortuniate, you play with fire your going to get burned. I really have no sympathy for someone who steals software.

Of course if the application in error thought it was pirated but really wasn't then thats a different story.

Mike

[starman]

Again, everyone's losing sight of the other part of the problem.

What if the app THOUGHT you were a pirate but you WEREN'T? It's like the whole "Buttle" thing - you get screwed for someone else's mistake. No software should delete ANYTHING except the executable, or make it incapable of launching. YOU DON'T DELETE THE DATA BECAUSE YOU MIGHT BE WRONG IN ASSUMING A PERSON IS A PIRATE.

Mike

[wataru]

As someone who has had his legally purchased serial number randomly generated and distributed by hackers (see this thread), I find this kind of antipiracy zealotry is very disturbing. TETENAL, read the thread I linked to, and then tell me you still support this kind of thing. What if you were in my shoes?

[diamondsw]

Interesting thread. How about a compromise on the "access data" idea - you're by no means obligated to allow them to access their data with your program, but if they have other means (other programs, conversion utilities, whathaveyou), then you should not take steps to block that.

For instance, someone pirates Photoshop (hell, lots of people pirate Photoshop - I sometimes wonder if Elements were created just to combat that). Then by this rule you can completely deactivate the program, and Photoshop could go so far as to delete itself. However, the Photoshop documents created could be opened in other programs. Similarly, small database-style programs that store bits of info in an XML file shouldn't delete those files, just the app itself.

With regards to the original topic, under no circumstances should you EVER touch a user's data.

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by diamondsw:
Interesting thread. How about a compromise on the "access data" idea - you're by no means obligated to allow them to access their data with your program, but if they have other means (other programs, conversion utilities, whathaveyou), then you should not take steps to block that.

For instance, someone pirates Photoshop (hell, lots of people pirate Photoshop - I sometimes wonder if Elements were created just to combat that). Then by this rule you can completely deactivate the program, and Photoshop could go so far as to delete itself. However, the Photoshop documents created could be opened in other programs. Similarly, small database-style programs that store bits of info in an XML file shouldn't delete those files, just the app itself.

With regards to the original topic, under no circumstances should you EVER touch a user's data.

This is certainly more reasonable than the idea that Millennium proposed earlier. Yeah, you shouldn't delete the user's data. But there's no need to bend over backwards to help pirates read said data!

[RonnieoftheRose]

The app should destroy itself and not tamper with anyone's computer. The financial loss to the person who was using a pirate serial number could be a greater loss than the developer otherwise. Then guess who's going to be sued for more?