Hack poll

[hubird]

That's the question:
Do you seriously believe anyone on planetz ever hacked or pirated any original or 3rd party plug? (otherwise than what's simply possible with regular entries to the surface of the plugs and otherwise than using that information to it's own advantage)?
Yes or no
If only two (or possibly three) positive counts will happen, the result of the poll is that noone of the regular (not D*S) members believes that.

[katano]

interesting result so far

[hubird]

people don't wanne get involved obviously, which is anyones good right.
but those who think positive on the poll question will vote, that's for sure...

[next to nothing]

anti-pirates would leap for negative as well. . c'mon.

[astroman]

there are more than 3k members on this forum
to assume that noone would take advantage of a pirated device is bare nonsense

as is the endless loop in which cher Eric has fallen obviously - the doctor suggest a hearty dose of buscopan to release spasm...

I have never dealt with any of their finalized devices, my private message on january was about an old demo of the RMX 160 - I only used this Polteq thing once in these 'extinguishing' tests - all their other stuff wasn't even used in demo mode. I don't need it and I don't want it. Period.

And I repeat it once again: I only made a note about it after Eric told people their '...devices could be 'open'(ed) to remove protection for example...'
That 'protection' is the demo beeper thingy and has nothing to do with what CWA applies to 'protect' a device for the shop.
This not hacking as it's just what Eric said: open the file.

the whole bla, bla is only about a tiny little side-effect for those with an SDK, as obviously you can double-click the items and they reveal their inner structure.
Which I only know from hearsay, as I don't have SDK.
Obviously it might reveal that the Polteq is infact just a couple of regular PEQ4s basically (there may be hidden parameters...), something that Eric has vehemently denied - I'm convinced that this pants-down situation is what really kicks him off.

as already mentioned you don't want me to write me about true hacking here, but even CWA (or it's successor) is aware that it exists - the demos weren't taken offline for no reason - [censored]

yet I'm convinced that the 'exotic' status of SFP and it's majority of (at least semi-) professional users prevented major economic harm, otherwise that demo bug (as it was called) would have been noticed much earlier.
At least that's how I'd like to see it - on the other hand it is technically possible that 1k planetZ members have a full rig of CWA demos working...
(I'm just combining some evidence - I have no idea if it's like that or not, as I've never seen it - and NO I didn't try it at home, I don't have the time...)

I'm not the first one to mention it and only the most naive may assume that certain people don't take certain peeks, regardless if the location is declared out of bounds or not. That about hacking

cheers, Tom

[hubird]

anti-pirates would leap for negative as well. . c'mon.

I'm not sure if I do understand this well, I'm not confident with 'leap', and I keep on wavering about the exact meaning.
But the question is not 'do you pirate' but 'do you believe there are pirates around'.
maybe this helps?

@ Astro, you could be right about the 3k members, but it may be clear that the focus of the poll was on the well known SDk group members that are active here.
The accusations by D*S were not exactly directed to anonimous and unknow occasional SDK users in general.
The question looks different, true, I would like to change it, but obviously I can't anymore, the poll having been started:-)

[Liquid Len]

Obviously it might reveal that the Polteq is infact just a couple of regular PEQ4s basically (there may be hidden parameters...), something that Eric has vehemently denied - I'm convinced that this pants-down situation is what really kicks him off.

Yes, the implications behind DAS not fully understanding how to properly render their final product, the stock-eq claims, and their over-the-top defensive behaviour, add a grimly humorous subtext to all this. It's too bad the documentation for the SDK did not get the attention it should have (apparently), I think this was a contributing factor. (To be fair, try wading through the MSDN to find a reason why some M$ product doesn't work off-the-shelf, while your blood pressure rises).