Biker.GA Posted July 2, 2010 Author Share Posted July 2, 2010 Possibly, and if it is related, I don't see how it couldn't be taken a step further to help ensure it's a valid installtion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Walk in Faith Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 You guy bring up a valid thing.. I do wonder why IPS don't offer a call back that will disable the software if it's not legal. As a paying customer I would have no problems with them doing that. :thumbsup: the only ones I can think of that would make mad would be the people that didn't pay for it to being with. Jamie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyF Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 You guy bring up a valid thing.. I do wonder why IPS don't offer a call back that will disable the software if it's not legal. As a paying customer I would have no problems with them doing that. :thumbsup: the only ones I can think of that would make mad would be the people that didn't pay for it to being with. Jamie There would be little point in adding any kind of callback that could disable the software, as those who intend to use it without a licence would simply remove or bypass said measures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haku2 Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 Yes, we saw several instances where someone would "sell" a license on a third party site, then they'd simply add that person as an alternate contact. Of course it would take a while to figure out what happened, and then in the end we'd of course have to cancel the license and ask that any sites on the license be taken down. It's a difficult scenario to address. Maybe displaying a warning notice to alternate contacts would solve this problem. A message similar to "You are an alternate contact and therefore do not own this license. If you have been sold this access by the license holder, please demand a refund from the license holder immediately." might suffice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Walk in Faith Posted July 2, 2010 Share Posted July 2, 2010 There would be little point in adding any kind of callback that could disable the software, as those who intend to use it without a licence would simply remove or bypass said measures. Ah, true.. sorry I don't think 'crook' in these matters and missed that they would simply disable it somehow.. It's a shame that something can't be as a solution though because someone like Biker here that is a legal Alt Contact needs access in order to do what he is hired to do..but I do understand where IPS is coming from.. A tough situation it would seem... Jamie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfarber Posted July 6, 2010 Share Posted July 6, 2010 These things always are. It's a balance between doing right by our honest paying customers (which of course is the vast vast majority) and ensuring we don't have a free-for-all setup for the small number of users who are less than totally honest. I'm sure some more ideas can be tossed around and something figured out. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Management Lindy Posted July 8, 2010 Management Share Posted July 8, 2010 Perhaps allowing alternate contact(s) download ability should apply only to the Business License as I would assume those would be less likely to have potential problems (hence why it was removed originally) Just a random thought. :) I like the idea of making that a feature of business licenses. It seems like a reasonable compromise and if you're to the point of having multiple corporate contacts, you're likely considering a business license anyway. We may look into that further when we reach the point of migrating over to IP.Nexus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker.GA Posted July 8, 2010 Author Share Posted July 8, 2010 And for those sites that don't have a business license? Doesn't help them at all. I'm all for finding a way that allows the alternate contacts to do what they need to do, but let's not forget those sites that aren't a business. As I stated earlier, I'm willing to provide personal information to verify who I am. But to limit this to just business licenses doesn't solve the underlying issue for those sites that aren't businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painted Horse Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 And for those sites that don't have a business license? Doesn't help them at all. I'm all for finding a way that allows the alternate contacts to do what they need to do, but let's not forget those sites that aren't a business. As I stated earlier, I'm willing to provide personal information to verify who I am. But to limit this to just business licenses doesn't solve the underlying issue for those sites that aren't businesses. Don't let the name "business" license confuse you - that license is simply a priority support one (people with that license, regardless of whether they are a "business" or not, receive expedited support). I imagine it is labeled "business" because that's primarily the people who would have mission critical needs that would require such a support level, but you don't need to actually be a business to have that license. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker.GA Posted July 8, 2010 Author Share Posted July 8, 2010 At double the price of a regular license? I don't think so. Considering I do all the work on the server, and the majority of the work within the forums, it makes absolutely no sense to purchase something that I would rarely, if ever, use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Painted Horse Posted July 8, 2010 Share Posted July 8, 2010 At double the price of a regular license? I don't think so. Considering I do all the work on the server, and the majority of the work within the forums, it makes absolutely no sense to purchase something that I would rarely, if ever, use. But not everyone is as technically capable. Just because you wouldn't doesn't mean that other people wouldn't, and some people even though they are technically capable, prefer to pay the extra just so that any problems that arise will be dealt with quicker. and don't get me wrong, I was simply saying don't let the labeling of that license confuse you. It is simply a priority support license. As it relates to the rest of your previous comment though, I agree that limiting it to that license type probably isn't the appropriate solution, but I wasn't commenting on that part of your answer; I was simply commenting on the license label. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Management Lindy Posted July 8, 2010 Management Share Posted July 8, 2010 And for those sites that don't have a business license? Doesn't help them at all. I'm all for finding a way that allows the alternate contacts to do what they need to do, but let's not forget those sites that aren't a business. As I stated earlier, I'm willing to provide personal information to verify who I am. But to limit this to just business licenses doesn't solve the underlying issue for those sites that aren't businesses. We've done alternate contacts with an ability to download before. The abuse rendered it unfeasible to continue. People were adding their friends who would take and distribute (the software, people were selling licenses and adding the buyer as alternate contacts. Put simply, the headaches of verifying personal information and dealing with abuse may not be worthwhile for the select few that need such a service. What we do is not entirely uncommon - most organizations don't allow multiple people download access, outside of an enterprise environment. You should see what we have to go through to submit updates to our Apple developer account -- only the account owner is able to do such things, you can't designate anyone else. I'm afraid I don't really have a solution for you, Biker. I know you're willing to provide your personal information and we appreciate it, but it's just not a road we would be willing to go down again with the general public. Again, we may consider it for business type licenses as it does come up more frequently on that level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker.GA Posted July 8, 2010 Author Share Posted July 8, 2010 While I can appreciate the issues that occurred in the past, preventing alternate contacts from downloading the software doesn't cure the problem. There is nothing that prohibits the purchaser from downloading the software and providing it to their friends, nor does it prevent anyone from selling a so called license. If someone is going to pirate the software, they're going to do it regardless of what's in place. All you've done is prevented them easily obtaining it at the source. However, it's not going to prevent anyone from obtaining the software if they really want it badly enough. Preventing it at the source doesn't cure the problem. However, it does create additional headaches for those of us that DO have a valid need for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Management Lindy Posted July 8, 2010 Management Share Posted July 8, 2010 Fair enough. We find our current approach to work best for us, but appreciate you taking the time to provide your feedback. We will take it under advisement for future updates to the client system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.