Use an illegal copy and wipe your device clean
Software piracy is bad. No one disputes that fact and I know software developers lose sleep over pirated copies of their program flying around the internet over P2P networks. From time to time a developer gets fed up and puts malicious code in a publicly distributed program so that something bad happens to anyone who uses an illegal copy of the software. This has recently happened again and interesting discussions are flaring up with supporters of both sides of the argument marking their position in the sand and firing away at the other side.
Anton Tomov distributes a number of capable programs for the Windows Mobile platform including Pocket Hackmaster and Pocket Mechanic. The program that is causing all the shouting matches in this case is Pocket Mechanic. It appears that Mr. Tomov recently distributed an update to the Pocket Mechanic program that includes some malicious anti-piracy code. Of course whether or not it is malicious depends on which side of the firing line you fall on. The program apparently detects if the executed program is a legally licensed one and if not it erases your entire Windows Mobile device by hard resetting it. It has reportedly wiped out a removable storage card, too. I have contacted Mr. Tomov about this situation but have not gotten a response as of the time of this article.
Software developers must understand that consumers tolerate certain levels of inconvenience to help combat piracy but there is a limit. Alienating your loyal customer base because they find your practice intolerable only makes you the developer the loser. I wish all software pirates would just disappear but reality tells me they won’t do so and I sympathize with the developer who loses out as a result. Even so I cannot use nor recommend any products that have the potential for causing damage to user’s computers or gadgets and once the developer takes that tactic I lose a great deal of trust in his practices. May not be fair but that’s the way it is. What are your thoughts on this practice?
Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.
I’ve used Anton’s PocketHackmaster in the past, but I’m not so sure I will again. Regardless of where you stand on illegal software piracy (I am against piracy for the record), you have to be up front with your customers. I’m wondering if Anton indicated in advance what his software would do if it was run on an illegal copy of WM. Perhaps it is in his license agreement, but the reality is: very few people read those word for word.
KCT
I consider this an outright stupid move. I also used his products in the past (yes, legit) but this move is going to keep me from using them again.
What happens if the application is unable to authenticate your key? Wipes your device? Granted, AS creates backups but only of your data, you’d still have to go thru the installation of all the apps again – which is, to put it nicely: a horror :-(
I’d rather see an app that deletes itself, or at least force the user to actually buy the programm but not to wipe out the data.
Bad idea, very bad.
And for me – there is no “on the other hand” – such a move is just unacceptable. No matter who you are or how much you lost thru warezing.
If someone would be stupid enough to delete my PC’s harddisk I would probably check with a lawyer and see what could be done about it. Especially if the condition that your disk will be wipped wasnt in the EULA…
I cannot agree with this at all.
Look, there have been times when I just could *not* afford to pay for a piece of shareware and was grateful for the “share” part of that contract. Similarly for programs that “expired” after a trial period yet which could be resurrected using some sort of finessing. It was not my intent to pirate, to give copies to other people, or to deprive the author of his payment. Lack of money happens to everyone from time to time and can go on for an unexpected period of time. Program authors should take this into account.
As for those who *do* pirate at the expense of one-man shops, these people are despicable and I don’t know what to do about the situation.
This is interesting to hear. I was considering buying this program recently, installed the demo, ran the scandisk on my 1 gb sd card, and it was totally corrupted. I’ll never consider his programs again.
I think the practical answer is that the hacking community will ID the antihack stuff pretty quickly and work around it, if the s/w is at all interesting.
Noooo.. I’m a big fan of Anton’s prodct as well as the man himself (very responsive, quick to implement user suggestions, help with questions, etc), I highly recommend him and all his products… or I have in the past. Now I’m not sure what to think. I’m trying not to have a knee-jerk reaction either way. I’ll have to think about this.
-arebelspy
Well, he’s shot himself in the foot. I haven’t used his products and now I’d be afraid to try a demo even if available straight from his site.
I’m gonna email him, maybe he’ll change his mind if enough users say they’re against it..
-arebelspy
I feel like this is Deja Vu…a similar thing happened to a Mac video editing program about a year ago.
*Everyone* disagreed with the program author, and eventually, he changed his ways.
I wish I had the thread in front of me..I seem to recall the folks at http://www.unsanity.com weighed in.
Even other developers disagreed with this practice.
The reality is that causing irreversible damage to someone’s data and hardware is essentially a criminal and hurtful behavior. It should not be tolerated. I doubt Anton will have many supporters in this.
Bhavesh
Something similar to this already happened with a PalmOS developer’s software.
I believe it was Liberty (Gameboy Emulator) for Palm. If it detected any hacking attempt, it would wipe out your Palm’s entire memory.
I think the program was labelled a “Palm Virus” at that point. Perhaps I’m remembering it wrong, but I think that’s how it happened.