Piracy - The Battle

[jmurrayhead]

+10000000

/patiently waits for the Privacy Resistance to rear its head

There should be no resistance. The suggestion is opt-in. Of course, people will always find a reason to complain

 

[Biker]

On XenForo for users:
Two new users fields =>
"Do you want to allow third party developers to check if you're a licensed member: Yes/No" (Default is "No")
"Do you want to allow third party developers to access the list of your 'Associated forum users': Yes/No" (Default is "No")

Third party developers can choose to only sell members who have activated one of these options, members can refuse and don't buy the addon. Everybody can choose, the free-will is safe. Everybody is happy.

On XenForo for third party developers:
> Access to authorized data from a page of the forum to some third party developers
> Access via an API with authentication (via developer username and password)

Been doing some thinking on this idea. Not sure an API is the route to go. Perhaps something in the RM that is viewable only to the developer?

 

[jmurrayhead]

Been doing some thinking on this idea. Not sure an API is the route to go. Perhaps something in the RM that is viewable only to the developer?

Explain. What are your thoughts on the API?

 

[Biker]

Explain. What are your thoughts on the API?

With vb.org, you had one central "repository" so to speak so it was easy to verify if a user was associated with a license. With an API, any website claiming to be a developer site could use the API. I'm not so sure that the API should be something that's freely available to use by anyone claiming to be a developer. If it is decided to go down that route, I think some type of vetting process needs to be accomplished with the developer.

Need to do some more thinkin' on this.

 

[EQnoble]

With vb.org, you had one central "repository" so to speak so it was easy to verify if a user was associated with a license. With an API, any website claiming to be a developer site could use the API. I'm not so sure that the API should be something that's freely available to use by anyone claiming to be a developer. If it is decided to go down that route, I think some type of vetting process needs to be accomplished with the developer.

Just because someone is talented (a developer) doesn't make them trustworthy...if they know they are being vetted and have ill intentions they will lie through their teeth.

Also once you give one person the info...all their friends have access...that is the way life works...and people here gossip between friends no different than anywhere else...

Not to mention, giving specific people access to it and not others puts xf in the middle of it...it is either for all or for none...

 

[jmurrayhead]

With vb.org, you had one central "repository" so to speak so it was easy to verify if a user was associated with a license. With an API, any website claiming to be a developer site could use the API. I'm not so sure that the API should be something that's freely available to use by anyone claiming to be a developer. If it is decided to go down that route, I think some type of vetting process needs to be accomplished with the developer.

Need to do some more thinkin' on this.

Got ya. Maybe allow access based off of number of downloads/votes. I know that can be abused.

Then again...does it really matter? If we're only returning true/false regarding license status, who really cares? Also, I'd like to allow more than developers access. I'd like to allow web hosts access so they can more easily verify if their customers are licensed or not.

 

[Biker]

Developers who violate the trust of their customers would quickly find themselves without any business. Just as users can choose not to do business with developers who check the validity of a user.

 

[Shelley]

Just because someone is talented (a developer) doesn't make them trustworthy...if they know they are being vetted and have ill intentions they will lie through their teeth.

Also once you give one person the info...all their friends have access...that is the way life works...and people here gossip between friends no different than anywhere else...

Not to mention, giving specific people access to it and not others puts xf in the middle of it...it is either for all or for none...

All they are seeing is your a verified user (username) and associated users on your license (also username) what's there to gossip about? Trying to understand your argument here.

 

[EQnoble]

If this system was as he said limited to vetted users...i have a hard time believing that if someone is allowed to use it and see associated members and another isn't that is friends with that person that they wont get the info from them... whereas someone else who wants to be in the know that was denied access might not be able to get that info...and who is on my account is important to me to be kept private....

If it is not a big deal...maybe xf should just compile a list of people who have multiple accounts for themselves here and publish that...not their real names of course...just other forum nicks they are associated so I can see who has been stuffing the proverbial ballot boxes over time...


Pretty much I can tell you that if xf allows anyone to see anyone associated with my license I'm gone (and there is no one attached to my account)...I know not a big loss but whatever...

 

[Steve F]

A API would be nice in certain ways but I think it is going to lead to more issues concerning privacy. IMO keep everything here as in a usergroup display stating you are licensed. If developers want customers on their site to be associated then they just need a required custom user feild when registering so the customer can input their XenForo.com user name. I know this can leave the door open for any random user picking a name.

As for the API as Shelley said above, just usernames is all that is needed, which seems ok to me. I know Waindigo does something similar to download a add-on from his site.

 

[Biker]

If this system was as he said limited to vetted users...i have a hard time believing that if someone is allowed to use it and see associated members and another isn't that is friends with that person that they wont get the info from them... whereas someone else who wants to be in the know that was denied access might not be able to get that info...and who is on my account is important to me to be kept private....

If it is not a big deal...maybe xf should just compile a list of people who have multiple accounts for themselves here and publish that...not their real names of course...just other forum nicks they are associated so I can see who has been stuffing the proverbial ballot boxes over time...


Pretty much I can tell you that if xf allows anyone to see anyone associated with my license I'm gone (and there is no one attached to my account)...I know not a big loss but whatever...

Did you even look at the suggestion? It's a voluntary system. If you don't want to participate, don't check the boxes.

 

[EQnoble]

Alright, since this is apparently what some people want...and though I dont have any users associated with my account I am completely against anyone knowing who is in my associated user list (again which is no one) based on principle...I wont be buying anyone's addons for the site I am in the process of building because I wont be able to buy their addons per their choice. Fine with me....do you.

In light of that....if anyone is listening and wants to make a bunch of money and knows how to program on a deep level inside of xf, msg me so I can get my own site started after 2.5 years...I just came into a lil bit of money and want to give it all to someone who gives a crap about me getting my site started and making a nice sum for themselves in the process...

I will own them, you can release them and you can collect any donations brought in by the addon and no one has to know I had anything to do with it and will sign an agreement to that effect...as far as the public is concerned it can be 'your addon'.

This is not offtopic....this is my only option for if this system happens...if I can't get someone who cares enough to help me get a site off the ground after two and a half years...I have no reason left to be here. Even after a bunch of people violated my trust, I stayed because I told myself I would be here until the case was done...case done and no site...I have no reason to be here anymore. Anything short of getting my site going will be my self dismissal from this place assuming this system is implemented.

also note...

Assuming this system gets implemented and I cant get my site going because no developer wants to take my jobs, anyone who's site I host for free will have to find a new home in the event I leave because I am jobless and spend money to keep my server up that I should be using to buy food. If at this point I cant get a site going and am only using using my server to try and for the most part make things for free for the community and individuals that I am capable of helping, I need to end the cycle and stop making myself suffer so others can freely enjoy things they love.

So anyways, I will bow out of this thread now and let the 'group' decide my fate.

Good day.

 

[jmurrayhead]

<snip>

So anyways, I will bow out of this thread now and let the 'group' decide my fate.

Good day.

I think it's kind of sad that it would have to come down to this for you when developers are just trying to protect themselves. How exactly is it bad for developer X to be able to see on their own site that customer A is a licensed XenForo customer? How is it necessarily bad for developer X to be able to see that customer B is associated to the account of a licensed customer? I just don't get the objection to this. It makes no sense.

 

[Steve F]

I'm sorry if I missed this explanation, but how does knowing what account a associated licensed is tied to going to help? Why not group them all in a "Licensed" group. I think that may be getting to in depth..

 

[Colonel Larry]

Not sure if this has been said.

But, over the years in general commercial software support boards I see devs and other support agents answering technical questions to normal users in pre-sales and public support boards. I always judge them to be using a piracy copy of the product. Now of course, they could be asking a question about the demo and how to function for demo testing, however I do believe that should be limited to registered e-mails for demo questions. It's like helping the pirates in a way.

Just saying.

 

[jmurrayhead]

I'm sorry if I missed this explanation, but how does knowing what account a associated licensed is tied to going to help? Why not group them all in a "Licensed" group. I think that may be getting to in depth..

I agree. I think the idea behind it is to know that they aren't necessarily the licensed customer, but associated to a licensed customer. IMO, it's enough to know that they are associated, but no need to know who they are associated to.

 

[Sheldon]

I agree. I think the idea behind it is to know that they aren't necessarily the licensed customer, but associated to a licensed customer. IMO, it's enough to know that they are associated, but no need to know who they are associated to.

I have an example of why it would be needed to know. Someone is responsible for allowing pirates on their account as associated users. Simple... they don't post with main, only this "associate" account until caught.... then they aft another under main license. Repeat process. Main license holder never takes responsibility, although they contribute to add these "pirate" associates. Main account is vied as hero good guy, when actually, they are just hiding identities.

 

[jmurrayhead]

I have an example of why it would be needed to know. Someone is responsible for allowing pirates on their account as associated users. Simple... they don't post with main, only this "associate" account until caught.... then they aft another under main license. Repeat process. Main license holder never takes responsibility, although they contribute to add these "pirate" associates. Main account is vied as hero good guy, when actually, they are just hiding identities.

I can understand that...but I think that's something that then needs to be reported to XF and they can handle it on their end.

 

[Ingenious]

So anyways, I will bow out of this thread now and let the 'group' decide my fate.

I'm totally lost now, sorry. This seems to be some sort of rant against some people or past experiences. The community here needs - through open discussion and a democratic process - to decide what's best for the community in terms of fighting piracy and helping developers, not what is best for individual members. We have, finally after 21 pages, thrashed out the basics and the concerns some of us had about some of the suggestions have been shown to be unfounded in terms of breaching privacy or misusing our personal data.

 

[Sheldon]

Until that would happen, this is a way devs would be able to "connect the dots". That is the entire point.