Holy smokes. This Andy Kaufman comedy bit of yours is incredibly bad. At least I pray, for your personal safety, that this is actually you trying to be ironic and funny and you're not actually this _____. (Fill in the blanks)

nice

I found a video of Joe.Grims on

OneRemote:

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. 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.

What I'm suggesting is locking software down for installation and use, not distribution. If it's locked at the point of use, it doesn't matter if it gets distributed all over the internet and Walmart gives discs away for free. You can't use it if you can't get in.



Damon

If the US Goverment can't keep stolen property off the internet, how is private company like URC too? If its off-shore, probably its out of reach.

URC is not complacent on this issue. They are in fact, extremely proactive in policing these issues best possible. However, like Duct Tape mentions, the funds, effort and time it would take to remove the distribution of software issue is next to impossible to guard against. There is only one proven way to handle this issue and it is to license the software. There are drawbacks with that as well. Control 4 is doing it, and RTI is moving towards that on the new Apex platform. This problem is not URC's biggest concern, they are more focused and the selling of product through unauthorized channels via the web and other places is far more damaging. That is a problem that is very difficult to get a hold of and a HUGE effort to fight against.

First of all, Apple doesn't have any form of copy protection at all on its operating system software... just as an aside.

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. 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 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".

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.



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

Can't believe you guys are still going on about this. I agree with people if you don't like that website then don't go to it. No one is forcing anyone to download the URC software.

With how I have seen what I believe are dealers handling this, I will never purchase again from one. I will use Amazon for my remotes and use the free software my dealer never gave me that I found else where.

I think as other people read threads like this they will agree and do the same.

How dealers are handling it!?! WOW. All you've done this whole thread is deflect and rationalize your illegal acts. And you've even had a representative of the company confirm to you the illegalities, although, I think you well knew that going in. Just be honest and admit your too cheap to buy from a legitimate dealer and just want the cheapest option, and are willing to break the law to facilitate it.

You're stealing from the same dealers here you are degrading. Maybe not directly from my pocket, but it's not like you care about the distinctions.

Why do you keep engaging this guy? He is clearly the creator of the site and is working to drum up more traffic to his site. I haven't looked but would be it is ad based. Let it go, let it die. All we are all doing is helping his SEO for that site.

WTF IS SEO?
And sorry, i don't play the drums.

It's exactly what you know it to be. Thanks for playing the game. Good luck to you sir.

I'm all for URC trying to stop their product from being sold through unauthorized channels. I agree that this is overall good for the dealers, good for the industry, and therefore in the end, also good for customers.

The question is, how is URC not able to put a stop to this? There is someone currently selling a pack of 10 MX-780's on eBay. That guy is most likely one of our own -- a dealer who is trying to make a quick buck and neither cares about the brand or the industry. I highly doubt that's some end-user doing it...

And in this day and age, its not like URC is receiving 10 remotes at a time from their factories -- no, they're coming in on huge palettes. Each palette will have a list of the range of serial numbers for the remotes that are on that palette. Tracking those serial numbers via their palettes is Supply Chain 101.

Every company does inventory tracking this way and I'm sure URC has the tools and capability to do the same. When I worked at Intel many years ago, every palette was tracking from origin to destination and every serial number for product was scanned in with just one palette barcode. It is no different at the majority of other companies.

So then, how is it that they can't track down the distributor that sold to the corrupt dealer who is willing to sell online at prices that just aren't sustainable for any business to survive on.

There's a bunch of URC product on eBay, brand new, selling for $150-$200 under MSRP.

So the likely scenarios is that either URC knows which distributor is selling the product to shady dealers, but because that distributor is a vital part of their supply chain all they get is a slap on the wrist (if that), or URC just has no idea how to do proper supply chain control and has no clue which remotes are being sold where.

Meanwhile, the guy is selling 10 MX-780's for $850....awesome.

10 MX-780's for $850 is below (in my estimation) build cost for URC. Who would sell the 780 for that?