Piracy - The Battle

[Andrej]

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")

I don't see the point in making this an option. If a member is licensed, he/she should have a badge saying so. There is no way this could be breach of privacy. Why this would be a concern?

PS: I dont target cclaerhout - its a good suggestion.. but its redudant.

 

[Biker]

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.

Other than identifying license holders and those who are beholding to the license holder, I'm not sure XF should be involved any further. At that point, it's up to each individual developer as to whether they wish to do business with those on that account.

 

[Biker]

I don't see the point in making this an option. If a member is licensed, he/she should have a badge saying so. There is no way this could be breach of privacy.

PS: I dont target cclaerhout here.

It's not so much the license holder as it is those he or she appoints to act on their behalf by adding them to the Associated list.

 

[jmurrayhead]

Other than identifying license holders and those who are beholding to the license holder, I'm not sure XF should be involved any further. At that point, it's up to each individual developer as to whether they wish to do business with those on that account.

I disagree, I think it is a concern to XenForo that a license holder has associated known pirates to their account.

 

[Sheldon]

I disagree, I think it is a concern to XenForo that a license holder has associated known pirates to their account.

Agree about the xF part. However, how can it be reported if its not known who the main license holder is?

 

[EQnoble]

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.

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

I connected my own dots...

People running their mouths cause me to fall behind when i had nothing but the best intentions...

Earlier in this thread I said I felt bad and offered a donation...

I was accused of having a guilty conscience....

I didn't buy the addon because of the way this has been going for a long time...and all of the devs friends constantly talking about pirates...

Now if I had bought it...im SURE that I would be accused of being one of the pirates..which i was by being asked....Guilty conscience?

That is what I am talking about...

This is going too far...you want to verify a user is a license holder ...fine...who is attached to their account is none of your buisness..period...get over it.


You want to deny people....do it with your own tools...

 

[jmurrayhead]

Agree about the xF part. However, how can it be reported if its not known who the main license holder is?

Simply by providing the details that you know. They can search their database and find out what's going on from there.

 

[cclaerhout]

• Concerning the API:
  1. It's just an idea and I repeat its access should be protected by the username and the password of the developer.
  2. The return of this API don't need to have any name, pseudo or anything. Boolean and ID would be enough. Actually I just see a few possible returns: protected-hasLicensed-noLicense-isAssociated. I do believe another field about the original Paypal address would be nice to prevent scams. But this should be discussed after.
  3. The developer would be responsible to use the API in a proper way - if he's caught to perform too many requests, his accreditation should be revoked. If he is caught to play a double game (I'm thinking of someone who is not there anymore), his license should be cancelled.
  4. This API would also allow some forums (I'm thinking of foreign forums who want to fight piracy... and I know what I'm saying here) to check if the support must be provided to the user (you think they are many piracy here, well just go to foreign forums then). Actually I do think that every trusted foreign forums that wants to provide support for XenForo should use this API. It would really really help to fight piracy. But I know it's not the subject here. Just an idea.
     
• To people who are still afraid:
  No need to go to see a psychiatric (at least no yet), a solution can be found: a third protected user field with a random number. This random number should be provided to the developer to authorize him (or an automatic system of him) to perform a check.
  
  
• Who should be authorised to use this system?
  1. Two ways to see things in theory:
     • XenForo create a developer program (It's late here, I forgot the English name of it, Microsoft has one, Lenovo has one with its retailers, etc)
     • XenForo choose who they want, this is a company forum, that's their move
  2. One way to see things in real life: XenForo staff is a very small team. I prefer to see them developing and create things than doing policy that will take too much time. So moderators can choose who they want. If a developer wants to be part of this program, he can ask. If he gets a "no", no need to be angry. He can just try later to prove he is serious. He's not happy with that. Too bad for him. He can go elsewhere (I'm thinking the same thing for foreign forums... but I understand that the language problem would make hard to check how serious the forum is).
  3. If any serious problem occurs the accreditation could be taken the same way it was given.

 

[Sheldon]

....

Ummm, what?

 

[EQnoble]

Sorry, if I was invited to the party years ago I might know your plan...

 

[Sheldon]

The only person I know of in this thread that was accused of being a pirate wrongly was me... by Mythotical, which he later apologized for. Certainly didn't stop me from buying other add-ons, or asking to BETA test them, or anyone to not sell me anything.

Paranoia is funny.

 

[EQnoble]

The only person I know of in this thread that was accused of being a pirate wrongly was me... by Mythotical, which he later apologized for. Certainly didn't stop me from buying other add-ons, or asking to BETA test them, or anyone to not sell me anything.

Paranoia is funny.

Listen dude ...you don't know me...don't pretend you do....

You have something to say to me say it like a man...dont be underhanded and say some dumb crap like that...take off that skirt and be a man...say "dude you are paranoid.. so it sounds like the insult that it is.


and I was talking about a developer accusing me not you....and if you are not aware stop fanning you little clubs flames and go read what people are saying unless of course you are only interested in manipulating people into your way of thinking that is....

 

[Deebs]

I have to agree with EQnoble, some of the licensed customers who have voiced concerns (and quite within their right to do so) have been made to feel as though they are in the wrong. Last time I checked software developers cannot check with Microsoft to see if I run a legit copy of Windows before allowing me to buy their software.

Don't get me wrong I do not wish to see piracy ruin software developers or XF but I too have concerns over what is proposed here. I've bought addons I will never use just to show support for the developers and I fear that asking XF to become custodians of such an idea/solution would lead them down a dodgy legal path, it would not just be the permission of the account holder but also the permission of any associated accounts. XF will be showing relationships between users who may want them to be kept confidential.

 

[Shelley]

I think at the end of the day it's really in the hands of the 3rd party resource providers. I can see both side to the suggestion (why it's wanting to be done) and the other side with legitimate users feeling they've been accused or under suspicion. At the end of the day resource providers will do what they have to do to protect their works, and I feel this option would have a bigger impact where we could see some extreme measures where the active resource providers will stop providing, sell to only those they trust or another 1000 reasons which I could mention.

Eitherway, I don't think we're any closer from when the thread started till now of coming up with any solution that keeps both legitimate users and resource providers happy.

 

[Shelley]

Eitherway, I don't think we're any closer from when the thread started till now of coming up with any solution that keeps both legitimate users and resource providers happy.

Note to self: No s-it Sherlock.

 

[jmurrayhead]

Eitherway, I don't think we're any closer from when the thread started till now of coming up with any solution that keeps both legitimate users and resource providers happy.

Unfortunately, you're right. I think someone might want to create stopresourcepirates.com and have a database that resource providers connect to. They'll have to populate it themselves from information they have.

 

[Shelley]

Unfortunately, you're right. I think someone might want to create stopresourcepirates.com and have a database that resource providers connect to. They'll have to populate it themselves from information they have.

Well i've already made measures to try and protect my works + there were other factors that decided that but the measures I will be taking aren't good and won't be embraced by the community here but since I need to start thinking of my own interests I'll be doing what I feel is necessary now and if/when I do business with anyone it will be of my own choosing who i know i can trust.

 

[jmurrayhead]

Well i've already made measures to try and protect my works + there were other factors that decided that but the measures I will be taking aren't good and won't be embraced by the community here but since I need to start thinking of my own interests I'll be doing what I feel is necessary now and if/when I do business with anyone it will be of my own choosing who i know i can trust.

Gotta do what ya gotta do...

 

[Sheldon]

Listen dude ...you don't know me...don't pretend you do....

You have something to say to me say it like a man...dont be underhanded and say some dumb crap like that...take off that skirt and be a man...say "dude you are paranoid.. so it sounds like the insult that it is.

Read into it what you'd like, as you have the rest of this conversation.

If I had something to say to you directly, I certainly would, no worries there.

 

[Russ]

All I'll say is as someone newer to selling styles it's honestly gut-wrenching with some customers who contact you not knowing whether or not it'll end up on the usually sites we all dearly love.

Anything that is reasonable to help us make wiser decisions is a plus in my book of course as we need to do our best to protect our work for ourselves and our existing customers.