They could only sue based on copyright infringement for damages that they incur from the distribution of the software. As they are not actually selling the software (they're only retaining from the public), they are not incurring any damages, so their argument would be null and void.

Ya know.... I don't F&%KING care. I'm sick of the whinning. Either accept it and enjoy the product, or shut your pie holes and buy something else.

No one is forcing you to buy URC products. It's their rules...like it or leave it. URC could easily shut the door on the consumers using their SW. You people should be praising them for allowing you the chance to diy.

The Harmony forum is looking for more lemmings.

I'm officially done with SW threads.

The system as implemented by URC doesn't (on the surface) provide a facility to use IP address lookup as a method of copyright protection. For that to be the case, there would have to be some sort of link to a trackable / traceable control item - like a serial number. The software does not require a serial number to be entered. It appears as if everyone uses the identical installer, so each individual install does not seem to be tied to a specific download of the app. The only feasible way that I can see for them to do it is if the remote has its serial number installed in the firmware somewhere and that serial number is transmitted to the mothership during a live update. Then they could theoretically link the user of that software install to the owner of a remote they know to be sold on the grey market, or is stolen.

Other than that, all they know is that some dude out there is using the software who may or may not have accessed it legally. Knowing what I know about URC, I would suspect that this is the case. Any kind of sophisticated tracking-based copy protection system is incredibly expensive to build and maintain.

That was what confused me as well.

Again, where there is a will, there will be a way. They can't shut the door any more than MS, Adobe, or any of the other big software companies can. Hell, Crestron and AMX software is out there if you look hard enough.

The whole problem with this "traceable IP address" idea, is that such a scheme is easily worked around. You can use any of a number of free anonymizer sites. If I'm really paranoid, I use one to contact another, and my IP address would then be several orders removed. Since most of the anonymizer sites are in locations where there is no requirement to maintain IP logs, problem solved.

There are ways for URC to track down unauthorized sellers. Each remote would be encoded with a serial number, and use SHA-1 authentication. The serial number could be verified to be genuine. If it isn't genuine, the software should just refuse to program the remote. URC would then just need to keep track of who they distributed a specific serial numbered remote to. (This can easily be done with a bar code scheme on the boxes, and a shipping database where remotes are scanned as they go into a box to a distributor.)

Anytime a remote was programmed, they would have the software send back the serial number and authentication code back to them. They could tell if serial numbers were being hacked in software (which I doubt is the case, but this system would prevent that), and they could match any remote, with who it was sold by.

They could then make purchases of remotes through unauthorized channels, and be able to trace the remote, to who they sold it to. They'd then know who to cut from their distribution channel, as they were selling to unauthorized resellers.

This isn't rocket science. Systems to do this are easily possible when hardware is what is being traced. It is much more difficult for someone to hack the hardware, especially when the hardware contains a key. Such a hardware key with a 64 bit secret based on SHA-1 is available for well under 50 cents for a manufacturer like URC.

Those of you who think such a device is easily hacked, might find this interesting:
[Link: maxim-ic.com]

I believe that URC's actions, or rather the lack of actions, speak louder than their words. How many unauthorized distributors is this policy stopping? I would argue their policy simply makes it more difficult for DIYers like myself, who don't want to have to reinstall software every time we want to update our remotes, and would like access to updated IR codes.

I've made my decision. I recently had to decide between putting up with URC's "Complete Control Suite" software restrictions, or buy something else. I think URC makes nice products... but I decided to buy from a company that wants my business. I own an MX-3000, and was ready to buy several MX-980's.

After having set up two of the Logitech Harmony One's, I was really impressed by the ergonomics, and how good the IR database is. The fact that in one case, I had a TOAD to deal with, made setting things up with the Harmony even sweeter. With the URC I would have had to struggle with the strange way URC handles "variables", it was handled without me having to worry, using the Harmony. The Harmony One also included a charge cradle, with a price of about 1/4 of what the MX-980 would have cost me. After comparing price, I'm ready to sell my MX-3000 and buy another Harmony One. I'll probably be cash positive after doing so.

I'm changing a piece of equipment, and the fact that I'll have to play games to get the URC software to load and work correctly on my Vista PC is another nail in the URC coffin for me.

Bye Bye URC. You make a nice product. But since you don't really wish to have me as a customer... you won't have to worry about me. Be careful what you wish for. Soon you may have only a few of your die hard CI's to sell to.

Sorry, I had to respond to bcf.

bcf: I know you're an intelligent guy, although we've never directly spoken. Your posts within other discussions are very thorough and well constructed, which leads me to believe that your above post is not based out of newbie SW rage. However I can honestly say that if you feel that the Harmony One is a superior remote to either the MX-3000 or 980, that your programming skills are the issue, not URC policy, (although it's a nice excuse for moving on). The variable programming is not difficult at all to those who grasp what's being done. Your's is another example of why URC considers this remote a pro model. So, don't knock URC because you couldn't figure it out. You were never intented to.

As far as URC going out of buisness. I suggest you take into consideration RTi's business model before you claim URC is laying on their death bed.

New rules beginning 1/1/09.

Wow... I hadn't checked this thread in a few days due to travel. Another circus!

Okay, to be clear: I never said "URC is tracking you," so to those of you who took it that way, I apologize. I answered that post from the browser on my phone, so I wasn't exactly spelling out all the details.

My point was simple: Pirating a piece of software that requires a direct connection to the manufacturer is kind of like using Caller ID to prank call the phone company. Yeah, there are ways for crafty people to do it, but most folks leave themselves open to identification with even the first, second, or third things they think of to try to cover their tracks.

To all other points: Take whatever stand you feel is right regarding URC sales and distribution policies. They're business strategies, not personal affronts. I'm not going to soap-box about the reasons or justifications behind those strategies—that's been done ad nauseum. But I will say that the very policies that make one hobbyist turn away are the very policies that make countless dealers choose URC in the first place. Whether you agree with the policies or not, they serve their business purpose.

As a hobbyist myself, I think it would be cool if URC offered a line of remotes for guys like me. But as a product designer, I get paid to understand the economic viability of such a strategy. There's a place in the market for such products, but URC's Complete Control line simply isn't that niche.

In any case, I wish you all a Merry Christmas, and I hope that the new year brings you lots of home theater happiness, regardless of whose products you ultimately choose to use.

Best regards,
Dale

Programming a "Professional" URC is quite simple. Even the most average user can figure it out, provided they aren't afraid of computers and can read. I believe you're misreading his above post. I don't believe he's having any issues with programming his "Professional" remotes from URC, I believe he's just ticked off with their software policy, holding it back from people that are quite capable of programming it for no real, fair, arguable reason. He's right, too. They make a fantastic product, but they obviously don't want DIYers as customers.

I'm sorry, but no. "Countless dealers" are attracted to their quality products that are incredibly customizable and near-limitlessly programmable with ease, not because they hold back "hobbyists", as you word it, from downloading their software. To argue that holding the software back makes "professional installers" money is BS. The guy with the $2000 A/V system that truly appreciates their products is not going to pay some guy $100-200 on top of the price of the remote to get a remote he'll need to go back to the guy to reprogram when he decides he wants more out of it. There will always be these kind of customers and no one is making money in the end from a stupid software policy that sounds like it's straight out of the early '90s. You're always going to have the customers with the $15000+ A/V systems that haven't a clue about technology, or businesses needing an easy-to-use solution for an A/V setup, that are the target markets for installers. That will never change, whether or not the software policies are in place.

Cover my tracks for what? I own several URC remotes. Most came from an authorized dealer. The other came from a different seller and I got a disk with some files on it. So what did I pirate?

I have a remote and the software to program it? I have not given the osftware to anyone else and so what if URC knows my IP address. Unless they have a database containing all sales of their remotes to authorized dealers and who those dealers sold to, then all they know is I programmed a remote with their software.

And probably buying another one in less than 2 years. They are nice, they are ergonomic, but they are not built to anywhere near the quality standards of URC.

Don't worry, even if you helped others attain the software, Bubby, you aren't pirating. URC does not sell the software - it's free, they only limit it's distribution. Additionally, they aren't making any money off of it - no royalties, no advertisements. It's like DRM, but on stuff that has no value. There's a reason DRM is dying on products that do make people money - it's stupid and serves no real purpose but to hurt people in the end. In the case of this controller software, it's even more worthless. It reminds me of Creative back in the day where they wouldn't let you download your drivers unless you registered your sound card and retained your paperwork - in the end, everyone just downloaded the drivers from a driver site.

Wow... a whole lot is being read into my posts that I never said.

I started to write up a big reply trying to explain my point of view better, but then I realized that minds are already made up, and positions are already in standing because of what each party considers to be the facts.

My personal position comes down to this: We don't hate hobbyists. We just didn't design this line of products for hobbyists. We designed them for installers, so that's the sales and distribution channel we have to support. From the outside it may seem like the two goals are compatible, but when you get down to the nuts and bolts of doing business, they are not.

I wish you all the happiest of holidays.

Best regards,
Dale