I would disagree with your assessment. The reason large software companies have their stuff cracked is because it is popular. The more popular the software, the more likely it is that a clever individual will develop a method of circumventing the protection.
Why are you disagreeing? I specifically point out that fact by saying "If a hundred thousand people obtain something from MS or Apple illegally, it will barely make a dent in their bottom lines. So, while it is important to them, it's not the be all end all. The cost vs benefit may simply not be worth it for them to go beyond their current choices, in order to pick up what may equate to a <1% loss.".
URC does not have the massive user base that an Adobe has. If they put a "phone home" style of protection on CCP it is less likely that someone will put in the time to crack it. And keep up with the updates that make alterations to the protection scheme.
That's correct. As a matter of fact, it's a part of what I had suggested in a previous post.
That being said, there are plenty of small software developers who have their protection schemes compromised. But the point is to make it difficult for the "casual pirater". Only a fool would believe that they could make a protection scheme that is "foolproof".
Again, we are in agreement. I never said it doesn't happen or that there is any foolproof method of protecting anything. If it was created by a human, it can be deconstructed just the same. So to repeat what I said "There are software publishers who make software which is substantially harder to crack than what MS and Apple produce. Why? Because those smaller companies will go out of business if they do not make money and protect their products, so I'm well aware that it can be done.".
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding of what I said.
Damon
