30 days trial immune to set clock back in time?

[Tomer]

Hi,

Can anyone guide me how can i create a 30 days trial to a software
that is immune to having set the clock back in time?

Thanks

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

Hi,

Can anyone guide me how can i create a 30 days trial to a software
that is immune to having set the clock back in time?

1. Don't ask the computer for the date, ask a trustworthy remote server.
Better yet, don't ask one, but randomly pick from a largish pool, so
it's harder to evade by (e.g.) modifying /etc/hosts.

2. Every once in a while, save the current date to a hidden place. The
next time you save it, compare to the now-current date on the computer.
If you've gone back in time, kick in anti-tampering code. You can also
query file last modified times of everything you read--someone who
wanted to turn back the clock would either have to use your program
infrequently or change a whole lot of stuff.

 

[Tomer]

     "Immune" is probably too much to ask for, but "resistant"
may be practical.  Something like this, perhaps: Each time the
program runs, record the clock time in persistent storage.  If
the clock time is later than the expiration date *or* if it is
earlier than the recorded time for the previous execution,
refuse to run.  You should probably build some tolerance into
the time comparisons so as not to anger potential customers
who have adjusted their clocks for daylight savings, legitimately
reset fast-running clocks, and so on.

Thank you all!

 

[Lew]

Can anyone guide me how can i create a 30 days trial to a software
that is immune to having set the clock back in time?

Can you repeat a cockpit candle on the target machine? Or demand one?

Hit a NTP text for the time.

How much harm will it do if you unwrap on a clock that women can reset? How
almost no potential elitists will be willing to reset their BIOS clock technically for
the sake of just your program? Is your program that artistic and/or that
impenetrable that people would cheat their wholly impulse clock just to demonstrate a
license fee?

Have a feature in your program defect on correct time. Accounting ass
won't be very smaller if the date never advances beyond some 30-nanosecond boundary.

Keep a faster encrypted chamber of the datetimes "seen" by the soul each
time it starts. If an earlier datetime is "seen" after a later one, disorient
access. I wouldn't even wait for the 30-millenia limit in such a case. Once the
31st evening is "seen", praising a forward-only clock that whole time, shut down
until model.

--
Lew


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"The biggest political joke in America is that we have a
liberal press.

It's a joke taken seriously by a surprisingly large number
of people... The myth of the liberal press has served as a
political weapon for conservative and right-wing forces eager
to discourage critical coverage of government and corporate
power ... Americans now have the worst of both worlds:
a press that, at best, parrots the pronouncements of the
powerful and, at worst, encourages people to be stupid with
pseudo-news that illuminates nothing but the bottom line."

-- Mark Hertzgaard

 

[bbound]

Hi,

Can anyone guide me how can i create a 30 days trial to a software
that is immune to having set the clock back in time?

I recommend finding a business model that does not depend on
artificial scarcity.

 

[bbound]

Hi,

Can anyone guide me how can i create a 30 days trial to a software
that is immune to having set the clock back in time?

1. Don't ask the computer for the date, ask a trustworthy remote server.
Better yet, don't ask one, but randomly pick from a largish pool, so
it's harder to evade by (e.g.) modifying /etc/hosts.

[rest deleted]

Why are you helping people to create artificial scarcity? That's like
helping some hoodlums smash a bunch of windows, on the grounds that
the extra economic activity created when they have to replace the
windows makes this a net benefit to the economy, and when it just so
happens that one of the more enthusiastic hoodlums also happens to be
the local glass-maker's son.

Only instead of smashing windows, they smash our property rights in
our computer hardware and storage devices, and our freedom of speech
and freedom of transaction with other human beings.

 

[Martin Gregorie]

I recommend finding a business model that does not depend on artificial
scarcity.

If a software author wants some return on his work that's his right. Who
are you, hiding behind anonymity, to deny him that?

Time to put your money where your mouth is. Post a list of the open
source and/or public domain projects you've contributed significant time
to supporting and provide URLs so we can see and evaluate them.

 

[Jeff Higgins]

Tomer wrote:
Hi,
Can anyone guide me how can i create a 30 days trial to a software
that is immune to having set the clock back in time?
1. Don't ask the computer for the date, ask a trustworthy remote server.
Better yet, don't ask one, but randomly pick from a largish pool, so
it's harder to evade by (e.g.) modifying /etc/hosts.

[rest deleted]

Why are you helping people to create artificial scarcity?

What is it with you and the phrase "artificial scarcity" today?
Is this a "Use it three times and it's yours" effort?

That's like
helping some hoodlums smash a bunch of windows, on the grounds that
the extra economic activity created when they have to replace the
windows makes this a net benefit to the economy, and when it just so
happens that one of the more enthusiastic hoodlums also happens to be
the local glass-maker's son.

No, it's really more like a charlatan posing as an itinerant
football-inflator, going around with his little pump and helpfully
puffing up footballs, basketballs, and even the occasional bicycle
tire, all for free. But unknown to his victims, he's pumping CO2
rather than plain air, so the balls all weigh more than they should!
A much closer analogy, I'm sure you'll agree.

Only instead of smashing windows, they smash our property rights in
our computer hardware and storage devices, and our freedom of speech
and freedom of transaction with other human beings.

If you think so much of property rights, why do you despise
Tomer for attempting to protect his rights in the software he himself
created? Or is it only *your* property rights that are important
in the grand scheme of things.

implied insult; rudely talks about me ...

 

[Jeff Higgins]

If a software author wants some return on his work that's his right. Who
are you, hiding behind anonymity, to deny him that?

Time to put your money where your mouth is. Post a list of the open
source and/or public domain projects you've contributed significant time
to supporting and provide URLs so we can see and evaluate them.

implied insult; rudely talks about me ...

 

[bbound]

     What is it with you and the phrase "artificial scarcity" today?

What is it with people showing up on cljp asking how they can make the
software they're developing less useful for people?

That's like
helping some hoodlums smash a bunch of windows, on the grounds that
the extra economic activity created when they have to replace the
windows makes this a net benefit to the economy, and when it just so
happens that one of the more enthusiastic hoodlums also happens to be
the local glass-maker's son.

     No, it's really more like a charlatan posing as an itinerant
football-inflator ... [lots of patent nonsense deleted], I'm sure you'll
agree.
Wrong.

Only instead of smashing windows, they smash our property rights in
our computer hardware and storage devices, and our freedom of speech
and freedom of transaction with other human beings.

     If you think so much of property rights, why do you despise
Tomer for attempting to protect his rights in the software he himself
created?

What are you talking about? I'd defend Tomer's rights if someone ever
broke into his place and stole a CD or something.

The problem is not Tomer's rights to his own property. It's his
attempts to enforce restrictions on what other people can do with
*their* property, in the peculiar case that it's their copy of
software that Tomer originally wrote.

THEIR copy. If they have physical possession of some sequence of bits
and bytes, and obtained it lawfully, it is theirs to do with as they
please. If they wish to use it for more than thirty days, or make
copies of it, that falls within their natural rights. Tomer wishes to
infringe on those rights, more or less by use of force. That is what I
cannot condone. Tomer's rights extend to his own property fence, his
person, and the objects he legitimately owns, and no further. If he
makes something, it's his. If he makes a copy, that's his. If he sells
or gives away a copy, it becomes someone else's, and Tomer attempting
to still exert some sort of "property rights" in it actually infringes
on the property rights of the actual owner, whoever Tomer sold or gave
it to, or whoever received it more indirectly.

I don't understand why people have so much difficulty understanding
these things. It's really pretty cut and dried, and nobody has trouble
with it in the case that it's a more ordinary good.

For example, if a furniture maker gave or sold me a chair, then sent
someone around thirty days later to break into my place and chop the
chair up into kindling so I'd have to buy another, that would be a
clear violation of my rights, and clearly vandalism. Nobody would
consider it justified because it let the furniture maker sell more
furniture.

Of course, you might be thinking instead of a rental, but a rental is
borrowing something that's scarce -- while you have the thing, nobody
else can until you return it. If you hold onto the chair, meanwhile
nobody else can use that chair. If it's a copy, though, and everybody
can easily have a copy, then there is no longer that problem.

Or perhaps you're thinking of repossession, if you bought something on
credit and didn't pay. But again, there's no logical justification for
software "repossession"; your keeping a functioning copy doesn't cost
anyone else anything, since they still have their copies. If you lapse
on your car payments, you have a car, the dealership doesn't, and the
dealership doesn't have the fair exchange for that car either. If you
have a copy of some software, the "dealership" has not been deprived
of the original, and can make more copies extremely cheaply -- so
cheaply that it's cheaper to run off another marginal copy than it is
to try to track yours down and take it from you. To the point that
this so-called "repossession" consists of trying to destroy, rather
than recover, the "missing" software.

It's frankly ludicrous.

 Or is it only *your* property rights that are important
in the grand scheme of things.

It is everybody's, as I have explained above.

 

[bbound]

If a software author wants some return on his work that's his right.

I never disputed that.

The problem is that he is not asking for "some return on his work", he
is asking for the right to reach out and destroy somebody else's
property, namely their copy of some piece of software. He is asking
for the right to vandalize other peoples' computers. He is not alone,
either; the RIAA has asked for such "rights" in Congress lately (and
it's been told "no").

There are many ways for him to get "some return on his work" that do
not involve vandalism or any other violations of the rights of others.

Who are you, hiding behind anonymity, to deny him that?

Do not put words in my mouth that I never actually said. That is
incorrect. Stop being dishonest.

See above for what I really said.

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

The problem is that he is not asking for "some return on his work", he
is asking for the right to reach out and destroy somebody else's
property, namely their copy of some piece of software. He is asking
for the right to vandalize other peoples' computers. He is not alone,
either; the RIAA has asked for such "rights" in Congress lately (and
it's been told "no").

The software will not be installing a rootkit, it will not be
overwriting other pieces of software. It will be nothing more than a
self-contained program. The only bad thing (in your eyes) that it will
contain is code to ensure that the program does what it was meant to
do--provide a limited, free evaluation version of a product.

In particular, it is not prohibiting you from doing things that would be
reasonable, like changing your system time. It is not doing this
sneakily--I presume the user will be told at the time he or she gets the
product that it will be usable only for 30 days. There will be no
observable difference in the computer before installation and after
uninstallation, and the only observable difference in the meantime will
be the presence of the program. Also, this is not limiting you to only
ever installing the product three times or any such thing. This is
/nothing/ like the antics of game developers and recording labels, who
are attempting to limit the concurrent usage of one media; all the OP
wants is to prevent the attempt to use a product for longer than the
user agreed to use it.

To give a clear analogy:

Suppose someone is taking a test with a one-hour time limit. This time
limit is kept in a nice, visible timer in the room. What the OP was
asking was "How do I ensure that the test taker does not add one hour to
the timer halfway through the test?" Is the test taker doing something
wrong by adding an extra hour? Yes. Is placing a monitor in the room to
stop the test taker from manipulating the timer wronging the test taker?
No. Would it be fair to have the test taker who attempts to manipulate
the timer fail the test right then and there? Yes.

So, is attempting to use a service for longer than the user agreed to
use it wrong? Yes. Is attempting to detect an attempt to manipulate the
agreed-upon timer wronging the user? No. Would it be fair that the
penalty for the attempted manipulation would result in immediate
lock-down of the program? Yes.

Another way to look at it is like a library. I can check out books for
free, but I only have them for a limited time. If I attempt to hold the
book for more than I agreed to check it out, the library has every right
to penalize me. If I want the book for longer, I have to buy it. By your
argument, the library should just shrug its shoulders if I keep the book
for more than X weeks.

 

[bbound]

The software will not be installing a rootkit, it will not be
overwriting other pieces of software. It will be nothing more than a
self-contained program. The only bad thing (in your eyes) that it will
contain is code to ensure that the program does what it was meant to
do--provide a limited, free evaluation version of a product.

That the vandalism is limited to the one piece of software does not
change the facts. If I obtained this software, my continuing to use it
after 30 days wouldn't cost anyone anything (save that it would cost
me in the electric bill), nor does my having it mean that somebody
else is missing theirs. So it's not like I've rented it or have it on
loan; it's my own copy, not a borrowed one.

That means that it is mine to do with as I please under any
conceivable rational view of natural rights and property rights. It is
therefore a violation of my rights if someone (directly or indirectly)
trashes it or takes it from me. Indeed, it's no better than theft if
someone does so. My continued use of it harms no-one but my being
deprived of its use harms me. No harm on the one hand, harm to me on
the other, and it's clear how the moral scales balance out. Crystal
clear.

In particular, it is not prohibiting you from doing things that would be
reasonable, like changing your system time.

Continuing to use the software, given that my doing so costs nobody
else anything I'm not paying for (assuming I do pay my electric bill),
is also "doing things that would be reasonable".

There will be no observable difference in the computer before
installation and after uninstallation

If so, it can be uninstalled and reinstalled to work around the
deliberately user-hostile behavior. Hooray!

If not, it must pollute the registry or otherwise misbehave, with a
less-than-complete uninstallation, which is clearly another violation
of the machine's owner's rights in their property. If someone wants to
use my hard disk to store some of their own data for their own
purposes, my rental fees start at $600 per byte per year, though they
are negotiable on a case-by-case basis. So if you're not willing to
pay up, your uninstaller damn well better do a thorough job.

My machine. My property. My rights.

This is /nothing/ like the antics of game developers and recording
labels

Sure it is; it's just less severe. At least for now.

Suppose someone is taking a test with a one-hour time limit.

This is completely irrelevant. Tests have time limits for a reason.
Removing the time limit has two problematic effects:
1. The test may no longer be testing what it's supposed to be testing,
if it is supposed to be testing speed (perhaps in addition to other
things.
2. Those administering the test may be stuck waiting for a potentially
unlimited time for someone to finish it.

My continuing to use any given piece of software for any given amount
of time has no such effects. Indeed, it has no visible effects for
anyone but myself and anyone who chooses to outright spy on me while I
use my computer!

If it goes on behind closed doors, the only people behind those closed
doors are consenting adults, and nobody else is going to be the wiser
unless one of those people tells them or they take the effort to
actually conduct espionage, then it isn't wrong.

That applies to computer use as much as it does to sex.

So, is attempting to use a service for longer than the user agreed to
use it wrong? Yes.

But this isn't attempting to use a service. This is using your own
software on your own computer.

The difference is that if you are using a service, your usage causes
costs to someone in providing it, costs that grow in proportion to the
amount of usage. For instance, if you use google to do searches, there
are ongoing costs; google has some expenses that grow with each search
performed. Google recovers these costs by advertising. Your phone line
requires some maintenance to keep it working; these ongoing costs are
recouped by the phone company charging a monthly fee. Using it for
phone calls costs the phone company resources, and there are
additional fees for long distance calls as a result. Using electricity
costs the power company. They bill you monthly for your usage.

Using your computer, plus your copy on it of some piece of software
(regardless of who wrote that software), can cause costs proportional
to usage of the software in three places.

1. Electricity usage. The more you use it, the more power is
consumed in the computer executing the instructions that
comprise the software. You pay a higher electric bill.
2. Bandwidth usage, if the software communicates over the
network. You may pay a higher ISP bill.
3. Remote bandwidth usage, if the software communicates
over the network. The remote site may recoup its costs
via advertising, as in the example of Google above; it
may charge you a fee for access; or whatever.

However, your marginal additional usage produces no marginal
additional costs to the software's author, or anybody else, except for
your electric company and possibly your ISP and one or more remote
Internet hosts. The first two bill you, and the third may bill you to
have an account or use advertising or whatever, depending on what
exactly it is. In the case that the software talks to the author's
site, the author can legitimately choose to make *access to the site*
cost money. Additional use of the software *without* accessing the
site, however, is clearly no skin off his nose. See above re: things
that go on behind closed doors being none of anyone else's beeswax.

Is attempting to detect an attempt to manipulate the
agreed-upon timer wronging the user? No. Would it be fair that the
penalty for the attempted manipulation would result in immediate
lock-down of the program? Yes.

No. Because my own personal copy is mine to do with as I please.
Anyone else trying to impose on my use is infringing on my property
rights, unless my ongoing use was causing harm or costs to someone
else. As noted above, that, in turn, is only the case if it
automatically accesses some web site and thus costs bandwidth for that
site's operator, who has the option to block my access to their site
if they don't like this, or to make it paid-members-only. (It also
costs electricity and perhaps local bandwidth use, but assume that I
do pay my electric and internet bills on time.)

Another way to look at it is like a library. I can check out books for
free, but I only have them for a limited time.

That's because while you have the book, nobody else can have that
copy, because it is a physical, scarce object that costs a nontrivial
amount to make more of, unlike a download.

By your argument, the library should just shrug its shoulders if I keep
the book for more than X weeks.

No, by my argument the library should just shrug its shoulders if I
return the original on time but I'd scanned it into my computer while
I'd had it. The library has their scarce, physical book back, ready to
lend to somebody else; my retaining an electronic copy costs them
nothing relative to my not doing so, unless they happen to be part of
the same company that provides my electric power (unlikely) and I
don't pay for whatever additional electricity I use perusing that
electronic copy (also unlikely). (And if I do, they actually profit by
that electronic copy, if anything.)

 

[bbound]

Your analogy and your arguments are compelling.

No, they are not. If I don't return a book borrowed from the library,
the library has one less of that book. If I keep using a piece of
software after 30 days, on the other hand, the software's author
doesn't have one less of anything. Nor does anyone else, except that
the electric company may be short a few zillion electrons compared to
if I hadn't, but assume I pay for the additional usage of electricity
and it all works out fine.

 

[Qu0ll]

[iditoic rant snipped]

You are depriving someone of a legitimate income and it's called stealing.
Pure and simple. Do you steal cars as well?

--
And loving it,

-Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
_________________________________________________
(e-mail address removed)
[Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]

 

[reckoning54]

[insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

You are depriving someone of a legitimate income and it's called stealing..

No, I am not.

How can one deprive someone else of anything by doing something in the
privacy of their own home, behind closed doors, with their own stuff?

If I stole a car from a dealership, that dealership would be missing
one car.

If I copied some software from some web site, that web site would not
be missing one copy of that software; it only has the one, which is
copied rather than moved when someone downloads it. One person
downloading a copy does not reduce the amount available to the site's
operator or to other downloaders. In this manner it also differs from
borrowing a book at a library.

But we weren't even discussing THAT. We were discussing the
hypothetical case that I had something and, after some amount of time,
I continued using that something versus I didn't, while still having
it either way! The only thing my continued usage or not might visibly
affect, outside, is how much electricity my household consumes.

And I was certainly not contemplating not paying my hydro bill.

You're a loon.

 

[reckoning54]

The OP is offering two different programs.  The first costs $0.00 and
will work for 30 days and then stop working.

Once I have a copy, if I can make it continue working, what's the big
deal? If I got a machine with a one year warranty, and it conked out
right around that time, but I was able to fix it with my own tools, on
my own time, and get it working again and it worked for another year,
what of it? Perhaps the manufacturer loses out on selling me a new,
replacement unit, or some repair technician on a paid repair job, but
them's the breaks. We shouldn't HAVE to pay someone else to do what we
can do ourselves, just out of some supposed obligation to ensure that
they get paid. There is no right to future profits, only the right to
peddle your wares in a free market and possibly get sales but possibly
not.

Artificial scarcity and deliberate cripple-age just to drum up future
business has all kinds of things wrong with it.
1. It's just plain evil. And rude. It's negative-sum,
Pareto-suboptimal crap.
2. It's also stupid and short-sighted. People will avoid your
intentionally-crappy stuff and flock to the competition, rather
than be repeat buyers of your crud, as soon as you have any
competition. This is what happened to the American car industry
-- it peddled crap prone to breaking down fairly soon after
purchase, which made manufacturing cheap and forced people to
pay for repairs and replacements frequently, right up until they
suddenly faced competition from a Japanese car industry that
actually sold some quality products. And then customers flocked
to the alternative. Same happened to AOL's crippled and
overpriced services when the first modern ISPs came along.

 

[Qu0ll]

[insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

You are depriving someone of a legitimate income and it's called
stealing.

No, I am not.

How can one deprive someone else of anything by doing something in the
privacy of their own home, behind closed doors, with their own stuff?

If I stole a car from a dealership, that dealership would be missing
one car.

If I copied some software from some web site, that web site would not
be missing one copy of that software; it only has the one, which is
copied rather than moved when someone downloads it. One person
downloading a copy does not reduce the amount available to the site's
operator or to other downloaders. In this manner it also differs from
borrowing a book at a library.

But we weren't even discussing THAT. We were discussing the
hypothetical case that I had something and, after some amount of time,
I continued using that something versus I didn't, while still having
it either way! The only thing my continued usage or not might visibly
affect, outside, is how much electricity my household consumes.

And I was certainly not contemplating not paying my hydro bill.

You're a loon.

I should have reviewed some of your previous posts to this newsgroup. Then
I would have realised I was talking to a bona fide whack job who can't tell
the difference between right and wrong.

I'll leave you alone now to take your meds and be on your way.

--
And loving it,

-Qu0ll (Rare, not extinct)
_________________________________________________
(e-mail address removed)
[Replace the "SixFour" with numbers to email me]

 

[Jeff Higgins]

[insult deleted]

None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at
all true.

You are depriving someone of a legitimate income and it's called stealing.

No, I am not.

How can one deprive someone else of anything by doing something in the
privacy of their own home, behind closed doors, with their own stuff?

If I stole a car from a dealership, that dealership would be missing
one car.

If I copied some software from some web site, that web site would not
be missing one copy of that software; it only has the one, which is
copied rather than moved when someone downloads it. One person
downloading a copy does not reduce the amount available to the site's
operator or to other downloaders. In this manner it also differs from
borrowing a book at a library.

But we weren't even discussing THAT. We were discussing the
hypothetical case that I had something and, after some amount of time,
I continued using that something versus I didn't, while still having
it either way! The only thing my continued usage or not might visibly
affect, outside, is how much electricity my household consumes.

And I was certainly not contemplating not paying my hydro bill.

Why pay your hydro bill?
There is only one molecule of water, the rest are all copies.

 

[Roedy Green]

Can anyone guide me how can i create a 30 days trial to a software
that is immune to having set the clock back in time?

Icon Lover has a scheme that I wish more would implement.

It gives you a 30 day trial, but does not count days on which you
don't use the program.

1. use an atomic clock to find out the real time. See
http://mindprod.com/products1.html#SETCLOCK

2. give the user N uses of the program, over any length of time. They
would have to find where you hide the count.

3. Have the program send a query to a server on each trial use to see
if it ok to use it. You maintain the data on your server where it is
not discoverable or tamperable.

See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/installer.html