Your Universal Remote Control Center
RemoteCentral.com
Complete Control by URC Forum - View Post
Previous section Next section Previous page Next page Up level
Up level
The following page was printed from RemoteCentral.com:

Login:
Pass:
 
 

Page 4 of 14
Topic:
WARNING!!! New CCP Update requires dealer login!
This thread has 195 replies. Displaying posts 46 through 60.
Post 46 made on Tuesday July 20, 2021 at 11:44
roydonaldson
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
October 2003
64
Now I can agree or disagree with their access to software policy, but ultimately it's their decision and business call on how they provide access to programming software.

However, doing it in this manner to lockout end users with no notice doesn't particularly sit well. It would have been straightforward to have delivered a 'sunset' version that notified you that if you upgraded past it it would require credentials to continue use.

This would have been a straightforward and friendly way to migrate to logins being required.

Now, I find myself with a new OLED tv, Lexicon processor and 4k Blu Ray player in my living room that I cannot now control. I went to program up and hit the upgrade button on CCP with no knowledge that I was effectively locking myself out of the software.

I guess I could go and buy some new remotes, but based on this I'd rather go and buy a Control-4 system from my friends who is a Control 4 dealer and I know I'll get access going forward.
Post 47 made on Tuesday July 20, 2021 at 11:52
Ernie
Founding Member
Joined:
Posts:
November 2001
80
On July 20, 2021 at 11:19, Johnny Canuck said...
Yet another reason to back YIO Remote Two when it goes live.

I was looking at this.  So can this do everything the URCs can including the base station.  I nearly invested in a similar kickstarter-based remote a few years ago (forget the name) since it has similar specs.  Thankfully, I hesitated and they company announced a few months later that it was abandoning it.  That would have been a waste!

I am so ready to drop URC now!
Post 48 made on Tuesday July 20, 2021 at 12:17
Johnny Canuck
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
January 2003
289
On July 20, 2021 at 11:52, Ernie said...
I was looking at this.  So can this do everything the URCs can including the base station.  I nearly invested in a similar kickstarter-based remote a few years ago (forget the name) since it has similar specs.  Thankfully, I hesitated and they company announced a few months later that it was abandoning it.  That would have been a waste!

I am so ready to drop URC now!

YIO One was done on Kickstarter and he delivered the product (to really positive reviews/feedback) so I have a fair bit of confidence that this one will be legit as well.
Post 49 made on Tuesday July 20, 2021 at 12:30
daves22
New Member
Joined:
Posts:
July 2021
12
Agreed wholeheartedly. Quick call with the authorities this morning. This appears to be a clear violation of URC's implied contract to the purchaser. There is a letter on the 'net, from URC's legal representation in 2013, where point 5 states that "only URC's authorized dealers and distributors are permitted to download and *distribute* [...] CCP software." The term "clear cut" was used here.

Given the amount of $$ I had into this, I'm advised that I might seek a full refund in small claims court (as I suspected) while they look into it and consider more broad remedies.

Thanks for the link to YIO. I'll be backing it too. At this point, given the parallels to ransomware attacks, I no longer even trust CCP to be installed on my machines, and certainly no live updates with surprise 'payloads' from URC.
Post 50 made on Tuesday July 20, 2021 at 12:37
daves22
New Member
Joined:
Posts:
July 2021
12
On July 20, 2021 at 11:44, roydonaldson said...
Now I can agree or disagree with their access to software policy, but ultimately it's their decision and business call on how they provide access to programming software.

But not quite. While they can certainly change their policy going forward, they are not free to rewrite history and lock out existing users who made purchasing decisions based on URC's stated policy of leaving it up the authorized dealer to distribute the software. URC's publicly stated policy, by their own staff and representatives in public forums, constitute an implied contract with end-users even though URC now tries to hide behind their distribution model. Those end-users likely made purchasing decisions based off of URC's statements, and they are not free to unilaterally change them.

I agree they were also free to provide a sunset version with no further updates, since they never implied updated into perpetuity. But they were not free to disable software on users' computers with a stealth attack disguised as an update.
Post 51 made on Tuesday July 20, 2021 at 18:14
hdtvluvr
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
September 2002
313
WOW, I'm glad I found this thread. I generally update CCP randomly every few months to keep it updated. But I've now blocked the files mentioned using the Windows firewall program. My dealer (Surf Remote) has been out of business for years so getting new access (if even possible) wouldn't ever happen. I doubt dealers will give their log ins to anyone as I'm sure damage to their accounts could occur.

THANKS again for posting this!!
Post 52 made on Tuesday July 20, 2021 at 18:16
shokwaverider
Junior Member
Joined:
Posts:
January 2021
39
Just keep the "Exe" files you have, update it and then copy the older EXE's into the program directory, all good.

Not sure why there are a lot of folks complaining about liabilities and such. Just spend the time fixing the update instead and keep on programming. :)
Post 53 made on Tuesday July 20, 2021 at 19:02
goldenzrule
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
July 2007
8,333
On July 20, 2021 at 11:44, roydonaldson said...
Now I can agree or disagree with their access to software policy, but ultimately it's their decision and business call on how they provide access to programming software.

However, doing it in this manner to lockout end users with no notice doesn't particularly sit well. It would have been straightforward to have delivered a 'sunset' version that notified you that if you upgraded past it it would require credentials to continue use.

This would have been a straightforward and friendly way to migrate to logins being required.

Now, I find myself with a new OLED tv, Lexicon processor and 4k Blu Ray player in my living room that I cannot now control. I went to program up and hit the upgrade button on CCP with no knowledge that I was effectively locking myself out of the software.

I guess I could go and buy some new remotes, but based on this I'd rather go and buy a Control-4 system from my friends who is a Control 4 dealer and I know I'll get access going forward.

Control4 allows access to programming software.  It is not the full blown software though.  It will allow you to program everything, but not add devices, for that you'd need the dealer's help (your friend in this case).

As far as URC, for years everyone bitched about dealers being the bad guys.  URC put dealers in a bad spot by claiming they could give the software out.  It was not a dealers responsibility, but URCs and never should have been passed down to a dealer.  What they have done here is nothing new for them, just just decided to screw a different base of their customers this time.
Post 54 made on Tuesday July 20, 2021 at 19:45
Johnny Canuck
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
January 2003
289
On July 20, 2021 at 19:02, goldenzrule said...
As far as URC, for years everyone bitched about dealers being the bad guys.  URC put dealers in a bad spot by claiming they could give the software out.  It was not a dealers responsibility, but URCs and never should have been passed down to a dealer.  What they have done here is nothing new for them, just just decided to screw a different base of their customers this time.

I'm going to put a different spin on this. URC at one time built itself by competing in the same space as Harmony (pre-Logitech, early Logitech days), Philips Pronto, and similar DIY, often PC programmable, universal remotes. They continued to do so through the development, marketing, and release of remotes that were part of the Complete Control lineup (MX-880, MX-980, MX-1000/3000/5000/6000 to name a few). They willingly sold these remotes to retailers who would sell them to end-users (remember BlueDo and Surf Remote for example?).

While originally supported through their own individual editors, URC subsequently transitioned the programming for all these devices from MX-Editor to CCP. It was after this point that they then changed the terms of their licensing to offload the distribution of their software to dealers.

As a dealer, you might have a legitimate gripe, but as a consumer who has owned (at various times) most of the remotes above, URC already pulled a bait and switch on us once but wiggled out of it by saying that their dealers were able to distribute the software (as both BlueDo and Surf did).

They were always in the clear on TC and MX-Home. They never directly encouraged the sale of those products to end users and never positioned the line as a DIY product. They did do that with CC and then changed their minds when it became more profitable for them to do so. That time, they essentially shifted support from URC to dealers (I didn't care, I've never needed support) but continued to allow authorized resellers to sell hardware and package it with the software. What they did this time is malicious. They secretly and without warning disabled their software meaning that the very same MX-980 that I bought from Mike at Surf years ago that is still working fine at a friend's place can no longer be edited to support the new AppleTV he may have just bought. That's a degree of high-handed and arrogant bad faith that trumps anything they've done before.
Post 55 made on Tuesday July 20, 2021 at 20:07
goldenzrule
Loyal Member
Joined:
Posts:
July 2007
8,333
On July 20, 2021 at 19:45, Johnny Canuck said...
I'm going to put a different spin on this. URC at one time built itself by competing in the same space as Harmony (pre-Logitech, early Logitech days), Philips Pronto, and similar DIY, often PC programmable, universal remotes. They continued to do so through the development, marketing, and release of remotes that were part of the Complete Control lineup (MX-880, MX-980, MX-1000/3000/5000/6000 to name a few). They willingly sold these remotes to retailers who would sell them to end-users (remember BlueDo and Surf Remote for example?).

While originally supported through their own individual editors, URC subsequently transitioned the programming for all these devices from MX-Editor to CCP. It was after this point that they then changed the terms of their licensing to offload the distribution of their software to dealers.

As a dealer, you might have a legitimate gripe, but as a consumer who has owned (at various times) most of the remotes above, URC already pulled a bait and switch on us once but wiggled out of it by saying that their dealers were able to distribute the software (as both BlueDo and Surf did).

They were always in the clear on TC and MX-Home. They never directly encouraged the sale of those products to end users and never positioned the line as a DIY product. They did do that with CC and then changed their minds when it became more profitable for them to do so. That time, they essentially shifted support from URC to dealers (I didn't care, I've never needed support) but continued to allow authorized resellers to sell hardware and package it with the software. What they did this time is malicious. They secretly and without warning disabled their software meaning that the very same MX-980 that I bought from Mike at Surf years ago that is still working fine at a friend's place can no longer be edited to support the new AppleTV he may have just bought. That's a degree of high-handed and arrogant bad faith that trumps anything they've done before.

I'm not disagreeing with any of that.  What I am saying is they have put dealers in a terrible position for years by doing what you mentioned.  Never should a dealer have been put in the position.  A end user just sees "dealer is a crook that wants to sell me services at some crazy price".  The reality is that no dealer is going to take on the support aspect that URC claimed would fall on them if they choose to distribute the software, which URC themselves directly told end users that a dealer could do.  They basically failed to inform them the dealer would then have to support that end user with any software related issues.  That is total BS.

Now, you may or may not know that TC was, at one point, sold through distribution.  Overnight, they decided to pull the line from distribution and only selling to direct dealers, which is how it initially was sold.  So dealers that were purchasing through distribution were cutoff from the line they were selling and could not fill orders on jobs they had quoted and taken deposit on.  Instead, URC released CCGen2 which was just a fancy control system being that they didn't do any great automation at the time.  It lacked all of the audio functions that set TC apart at the time.  They then discontinued CCGen2, leaving THOSE dealers in the lurch.  URC has a track record of doing this stuff, to both dealers and end users.  Its a sad but unfortunate truth, and the list of people left in their wake just keeps on growing.
Post 56 made on Tuesday July 20, 2021 at 21:00
Johnny Canuck
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
January 2003
289
On July 20, 2021 at 20:07, goldenzrule said...
I'm not disagreeing with any of that.  What I am saying is they have put dealers in a terrible position for years by doing what you mentioned.  Never should a dealer have been put in the position.  A end user just sees "dealer is a crook that wants to sell me services at some crazy price".  The reality is that no dealer is going to take on the support aspect that URC claimed would fall on them if they choose to distribute the software, which URC themselves directly told end users that a dealer could do.  They basically failed to inform them the dealer would then have to support that end user with any software related issues.  That is total BS.

Now, you may or may not know that TC was, at one point, sold through distribution.  Overnight, they decided to pull the line from distribution and only selling to direct dealers, which is how it initially was sold.  So dealers that were purchasing through distribution were cutoff from the line they were selling and could not fill orders on jobs they had quoted and taken deposit on.  Instead, URC released CCGen2 which was just a fancy control system being that they didn't do any great automation at the time.  It lacked all of the audio functions that set TC apart at the time.  They then discontinued CCGen2, leaving THOSE dealers in the lurch.  URC has a track record of doing this stuff, to both dealers and end users.  Its a sad but unfortunate truth, and the list of people left in their wake just keeps on growing.

I don't think we fundamentally disagree about how crappy URC are as a business. As a dealer at least there are competing products from RTI/ProControl. Control4, etc. For a consumer, there really is only Logitech left and that's at end-of-life (although they at least aren't screwing over current owners). For the more tech savvy consumer/DIYer ... that leaves Complete Control (until this week) or getting our hands on an XSight and learning Remote Master. It's a very sad state in the marketplace generally.
.
Post 57 made on Tuesday July 20, 2021 at 21:08
808htfan
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
June 2005
63
---nothing to see here---

Last edited by 808htfan on August 5, 2021 22:37.
Post 58 made on Tuesday July 20, 2021 at 23:28
buzz
Super Member
Joined:
Posts:
May 2003
3,918
Unless the URC user agreement is grossly inadequate, hosting here would be subject to legal action.
Post 59 made on Wednesday July 21, 2021 at 00:50
daves22
New Member
Joined:
Posts:
July 2021
12
On July 20, 2021 at 23:28, buzz said...
Unless the URC user agreement is grossly inadequate, hosting here would be subject to legal action.

What user agreement? I just installed the latest (2017) standalone installer that I have. InstallShield displays a "WARNING: This program is protected by copyright laws and international treaties." And then proceeds to install without a user license agreement. I also didn't need to break any seals on envelopes etc since this sw was digitally distributed.

fwiw no user license agreement on live update either...
Post 60 made on Wednesday July 21, 2021 at 01:58
mhe4
Long Time Member
Joined:
Posts:
January 2003
44
On July 20, 2021 at 18:16, shokwaverider said...
Just keep the "Exe" files you have, update it and then copy the older EXE's into the program directory, all good.

Did you replace all the EXE files?

Did you try it with just replacing the CCP.EXE file? That is a tiny file and would be relatively easy to help out those that got screwed and don't have a prior backup available.

Did you need to replace any of the DLL files with old versions?

Note: I haven't updated since I learned of the problem, so I haven't been locked out nor have I tried the fix myself. Currently on v4.0.1106.6.
-Mark
Find in this thread:
Page 4 of 14


Jump to


Protected Feature Before you can reply to a message...
You must first register for a Remote Central user account - it's fast and free! Or, if you already have an account, please login now.

Please read the following: Unsolicited commercial advertisements are absolutely not permitted on this forum. Other private buy & sell messages should be posted to our Marketplace. For information on how to advertise your service or product click here. Remote Central reserves the right to remove or modify any post that is deemed inappropriate.

Hosting Services by ipHouse