Messages - lotusrootstarch [ switch to compact view ]

Pages: prev1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33]
General Software Discussion / Re: Complaint: Softwrap (nasty eula)
« on: September 21, 2009, 10:33 AM »
heh, i'm not getting myself into this "first post" insinuation. I'm just saying the fact that you disagree with something does not mean the author/eula is "nasty". I think as someone like you who likely knows a fair bit about intricate issues like DRM *should* be mentally above and beyond this. No offense.

Have a nice day :)

General Software Discussion / Re: Complaint: Softwrap (nasty eula)
« on: September 21, 2009, 10:00 AM »
Ya what's the big deal here.. strong DRMs do work and will deeply affect a company's bottom line. There's never an insufficient supply of users/whiners who don't give a damn of revenue of the software company or what the hell fair use is about in the eula -- if they can get away with it (be it piracy, abuse or whatever), there's simply no reason not to. Statistically speaking, "honesty, willingness to support developers..." all these factors are directly dependent on how well you implement DRM, that's just it, i don't care how ppl *claim* otherwise.

Take Blizzard's Starcraft II, irrc there're literally hundreds of thousands of signatured whiners out there already (and growing) against it DRM policies, but guess what Blizzard is in a perfect position now to boost sales thru strong DRM, not piratable/abusable weaklings like Starcraft I.

I don't know what softwrap makes, but I bet if there were an easy alternative to Softwrap's stuff in question there probably wouldn't be such a debate in the first place -- end-users would just walk away because of the "annoyance". Looks like Softwrap is in a position to implement strong DRM w/o noticeably losing sales, why not protecting assets with strong DRM?

There's no such a thing as unreasonable drm eula agreement coz nobody points a gun at the end user to decide whether to agree to it or not.

Pages: prev1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 [33]
Go to full version