A320-X DRM: What happened
Gotta say, on reading this I went <i>&quot;They did what?!&quot;</i>.  This raised my eyebrows so much, I&#x27;m fairly certain they&#x27;re now lost somewhere in my hairline.  In the US, at least, I&#x27;m fairly certain they&#x27;ve broken more than a few laws.  Kudos to them for admitting it, entirely; I guess that would be the only hope they&#x27;d have of ever re-gaining any sort of trust with their install base, but they&#x27;d be equally smart to find a lawyer[0].<p>I get that a <i>lot</i> of time and effort goes into developing a product and it&#x27;s <i>really</i> frustrating when you find out that your product is being pirated.  I can&#x27;t imagine if I&#x27;d happened upon a whole community sprung up around pirating my product; they had to be incredibly angry and this likely led to this terrible idea.  And no matter how often you repeat to yourself that &quot;piracy does not represent lost sales&quot;, when you&#x27;ve poured your time into something -- time that you hope will make you a nice living, time that you took away from your family or other enjoyable pursuits -- you tend to get <i>really angry</i> when you find out there are people that think it&#x27;s perfectly OK for you to work for free.<p>I like to repeat the mantra that &quot;piracy does not equate to lost sales&quot; and tell myself that those wouldn&#x27;t be paying customers anyway, or they&#x27;re not my real target audience, or that it speaks to the popularity of the product if someone went to the trouble to crack it.  And I&#x27;m a believer that effort spent on DRM is wasted (especially efforts like this).  It&#x27;s not entirely, true, of course.  I always think back to the story I read a few years ago about the TCP&#x2F;IP stack that nearly every DOS PC used -- a piece of shareware that, at the time, was probably the most popular piece of shareware in existence.  I&#x27;m sure I, like many, didn&#x27;t even think to pay for it and operated under the assumption that large corporations were probably using it and the developer was probably using $20 as kindling by now when in reality I think he netted somewhere in the <i>thousands</i> of dollars for his efforts.<p>At the same time,... well... <i>this</i>.<p><i>This</i> is exactly what happens when you focus on piracy so hard.  Developer time is a finite resource and this company wasted that time developing a piece of DRM that is indistinguishable from malware.  It succeeded in <i>not</i> stopping the pirates, <i>not</i> catching the pirates, angering their <i>paying</i> customers, easily exposing them to civil legal issues and possibly exposing them to criminal legal issues.  That little bit of wasted developer effort could very well <i>end</i> the company that made this product in a way that piracy probably never would have.  Assuming their customers <i>like</i> the product and would like it to continue to exist, this company basically did everything in their power to <i>not</i> serve their customers.<p>To be clear, I&#x27;m not completely against purchase verification in software products.  If it&#x27;s light-weight, and doesn&#x27;t get in my way as a customer, it&#x27;s fine (i.e. provide the ID&#x2F;password used when it was purchased with a fallback to an offline serial number ... asked <i>one time</i> and <i>never again</i>).  I get it.  A small road block is enough to keep my mom or dad from grabbing a copy that a friend attached to their e-mail.  Heck, in the case of my mom or dad, they may not even <i>realize</i> that it&#x27;s not a free product if it <i>doesn&#x27;t</i> ask for some form of verification.  I don&#x27;t mind how Steam works or how the variety of stores handle these sorts of things.  If your DRM effort goes any beyond this, it&#x27;s wasted effort.  You&#x27;re not going to stop a determined pirate even (especially?) if the product your selling <i>is an anti-piracy product</i>.  Just don&#x27;t.  Don&#x27;t waste the effort.  It&#x27;s <i>never</i> worth it.<p>Even as I write this I&#x27;m still <i>amazed</i>.  I get frustrated when I upgrade my CPU&#x2F;memory&#x2F;GPU and <i>Office</i> won&#x27;t run without some extra steps.  I can&#x27;t <i>imagine</i> if step #2, after falsely identifying me as a pirate, was &quot;send a bunch of personal data to the authors&quot;[1] so they can turn me in to the authorities.  Pro-DRM folks like to equate piracy with theft, so I&#x27;ll make an equally poor analogy and say that&#x27;d be like if I purchased bed sheets at Wal-Mart, and the processor in those sheets[2] decided I stole them, so they started sending the GPS location of my house along with pictures of my bedroom to corporate so that they could turn that information over to the police.<p>[0] Sure wouldn&#x27;t be difficult to compare this with any other piece of malware in its behavior, but IANAL.<p>[1] And yes, I realize that they&#x27;ve stated that they&#x27;re looking for specific information from a specific pirate that they consider to be the <i>source</i> of the problem, but including that payload in the installer makes me question the truth of this statement.  I don&#x27;t have any reason to dis-believe them, especially considering they&#x27;ve basically written up a post admitting to a bunch of activity that may very well be illegal in nature, but having no way to verify that they are telling the truth, or that there isn&#x27;t a circumstance that could false-positive flag someone who <i>isn&#x27;t</i> that very specific case, I will err on the side of assuming the worst in this case.<p>[2] I laughed when I wrote that, then I thought ... there&#x27;s probably already sheets with processors in them.  If there isn&#x27;t, there will be.  Shortly followed by the first case of DDoS by IoT bed-sheets.