Jump to content
brian!

[Locked]Unlicensed Installation

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, abjwebhost said:

us this code it's work

that code you posted is out of date and no longer works....

besides, perhaps you should be paying more attention to your WHMCS license... specifically the fact that your WHMCS installation seems to be invalid. 🙄

ueENHE3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's not my website website name is same to my profile name 
but it's not my i think's you can't see more 
LOL🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, abjwebhost said:

it's not my website website name is same to my profile name 

but it just so happens that you're both based in India... err ok then... what a coincidence! 🙄

in any event, the above site was reported to the WHMCS Legal Department - whether it's your site or not, they can deal with it... and I think they've been having a few successes recently! 🙂

in the absence of knowing that you're legit, i'm going to assume that you're not and act accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, brian! said:

whether it's your site or not, they can deal with it... and I think they've been having a few successes recently! 🙂

Really? I always feel like nothing happens, except the standard thank you response, so i mostly stopped reporting.
I've reported a few times pages hosted at webhosts that definitely would respond to an abuse. The sites were still online when i checked the last time, on the same IP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, string said:

Really? I always feel like nothing happens, except the standard thank you response, so i mostly stopped reporting.

I said 'few', not all or even a majority... maybe some are out of reach, or just not worth the effort of chasing...

i've reported 9 domains to the legal department in the last 4 months... of those domains, 3 are now using legit licenses, and 6 still aren't.... though of those 6, I know at least 2 of them did start using legit licenses, but have seemingly now reverted back to nulled licenses (or haven't renewed)... (FWIW - prohosty.com and redserverhost.com... with the latter selling WHMCS "licenses" *coughs*) 🙄

i'm just about to report the 10th... I won't out the user publicly at this stage (they've only posted once and that was 3 weeks ago), but I believe their site is @ asgx.ir - there's a WHMCS installation there, but it fails the license verification test... it seems to be hosted in Germany, so maybe they'll be able to take it down.

personally, if someone wants to use a nulled license, then that's up to them - and I don't lose any sleep over whether they choose that route - but what they shouldn't be doing is thinking that if they run into technical issues, they can some here and expect help... if others choose to help them here after i've pointed out their license status, then that's their choice... but I know which users those 6 domains belong to and if they try asking for help in the future, i'll happily mention their license status again. 🙂

i've got better things to do than report illicit WHMCS sites that aren't posting here.

of those 3 that turned legit, how much of that was the legal department or me outing them publicly here we'll never know - I don't particularly like publicly outing them, but it's the simplest way to let everyone else who might reply to those threads know about their license status... and it seems pointless to out them here, but then not officially report them to the legal dept.

perhaps there's an argument for submitting license, or domain, details when registering for this place (not for public display)... though as we have a part-time community leader, whether he has the time, or even the inclination, to check licenses and enforce that (along with the other rules that aren't being enforced), who knows... perhaps he isn't really interested in license statuses, and the more members this place gets, legit or otherwise, the more it suits his objectives. grattermenton.gif

21 hours ago, string said:

I've reported a few times pages hosted at webhosts that definitely would respond to an abuse. The sites were still online when i checked the last time, on the same IP.

AFAIK, those replies from the WHMCS legal department aren't auto-replies because i've often had a week go by before getting the standard reply from Joseph Palau... i'm not guaranteeing that they're on the ball, but it seems to be functioning as effectively as any other WHMCS department! 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Interestingly their home page showing 404 Error and /billing (WHMCS Installation) seems still working.

Edited by Jafar Muhammed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 4/27/2019 at 9:23 AM, Jafar Muhammed said:

Interestingly their home page showing 404 Error and /billing (WHMCS Installation) seems still working.

The site is obviously a  s c a m website when you read stuff like this:

http://abjwebhost.in/about.html

15K sign ups per day! And yet they cannot afford a $15/month software license....or a valid SSL certificate.

Edited by yggdrasil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better still:

Quote

ABJ WebHost was bootstrapped in 2004 and we’ve been on an epic ride ever since.

abjwebhost.in
Creation Date: 2019-01-26
Epic indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

I've tidied this and the previous thread up a bit.

All reports of unlicensed WHMCS installations are investigated and pursued to the maximum extent possible under applicable laws. Please make reports via WHMCS - Verify a Domain is Licensed  so our dedicated piracy staff can handle them directly.

I'd prefer if unlicensed installations were not widely discussed here, as accusations (no matter how warranted) could run contrary to the friendly, helpful environment we try to curate.

Whilst we aren't able to provide details on an investigation, sometime websites are hosted in jurisdictions where copyright and licensing law is less well enforced, or network providers are less co-operative then they should be.

Please do keep submitting reports, we very much appreciate your vigilance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WHMCS John said:

Hi,

I've tidied this and the previous thread up a bit.

All reports of unlicensed WHMCS installations are investigated and pursued to the maximum extent possible under applicable laws. Please make reports via WHMCS - Verify a Domain is Licensed  so our dedicated piracy staff can handle them directly.

I'd prefer if unlicensed installations were not widely discussed here, as accusations (no matter how warranted) could run contrary to the friendly, helpful environment we try to curate.

Whilst we aren't able to provide details on an investigation, sometime websites are hosted in jurisdictions where copyright and licensing law is less well enforced, or network providers are less co-operative then they should be.

Please do keep submitting reports, we very much appreciate your vigilance.

You probably are right, we can't just accuse some domain that shows as unlicensed since there could be valid technical reasons that can make a license fail even if the user/domain is licensed but I think in most situations the assumptions are correct. As for the legal jurisdiction I don't think there is anything WHMCS can do in most cases. I was very successful with take downs of my copyright by just copying on the emails the hosting company and datacenter in the same message. In most situations the infractor is more scared of the company on top of them, even put a warning that I will go to the upper carrier. So if its not the host taking him down, its the company that leases the servers to the host or the datacenter on top of all of them. So someone forces the take down the chain. Legally it would be cost prohibitive to do anything.

The other problem is that most people doing this are just night fly shady operations, some are just trying to cheat other people so they don't care about nulled licenses or copyright either. What works the best is public shaming. I think WHMCS had a site the hosts of shame or something like that in the past but its gone. While I understand these forums is probably not the best place, I believe making domains public that use invalid licenses is a proper measure and should be done because I don't like other people being deceived. Most fraud companies will use nulled WHMCS installations and they are doing more harm than anything else not only to WHMCS the company and brand, but also us WHMCS customers. I have read before that some people don't want to buy anything on sites that look as if they are using WHMCS. Others consider WHMCS companies not to be very serious players. This is damaging all those that are paying WHMCS and running valid installations. In other forums some people prefer to not use WHMCS because they don't want to be associated with cheap, budget or even fraud schemes. My point is that invalid licenses should be taken down as soon as possible because it also hurts everyone else using WHMCS on their sites.

Another thing I complained in the past, is that WHMCS should make it so, that we can customize the front end to the point of not being WHMCS identified. Just like several professional corporate PHP frameworks give you complete freedom in how you code and its more or less impossible to identify the CMS or framework, with WHMCS its the opposite. All sites have the same link structure, load all the same WHMCS names and references on the CSS/JS and some even look the same. I don't think this is good business for those that want to use WHMCS and don't because of the reasons I stated before. They would probably buy and use WHMCS if they could make it that way that their customers are not aware of what they are using. I understand WHMCS prefers its brand to be known, but you already have the branded licenses with a link for that purpose. For those that pay unbranded, unbranding and white label should be 100%. Believe it or not, it will increase sales as with most frameworks/software that allow 100% customization, branding and customization they are willing to pay for that feature. I'm talking about the custom/public facing site. The admin I just stick with the defaults that ship out of the box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, WHMCS John said:

All reports of unlicensed WHMCS installations are investigated and pursued to the maximum extent possible under applicable laws. Please make reports via WHMCS - Verify a Domain is Licensed  so our dedicated piracy staff can handle them directly.

it would be more helpful if the page actually worked for everyone - it now seems to only work for WHMCS license holders who are logged in! 🙄

mFWvLK0.png

if i'm not logged in as a member, then I see the above error - the browser isn't blocking the captcha from being shown, so it must be an issue at your end.

19 hours ago, WHMCS John said:

I'd prefer if unlicensed installations were not widely discussed here, as accusations (no matter how warranted) could run contrary to the friendly, helpful environment we try to curate.

firstly, nice use of the word "curate" - I haven't heard that used in that context in years. 👴

so given the choice between supporting users who haven't paid a penny for the software, or ruffling a few feathers by outing these cheapskates and sending out the message that you need to pay for a real license to get help, you want to choose a quiet life ?

that's utter spineless nonsense and speaks volumes as to why WHMCS is in the total mess that it's in.

it's bad enough if WHMCS staff help them here (or directly) - at least they're getting paid, but the rest of us do it for nothing and i'm certainly not here to help those who can't be bothered to buy, or are ignorant enough to not know they aren't paying for, a legit license.

19 hours ago, WHMCS John said:

Whilst we aren't able to provide details on an investigation, sometime websites are hosted in jurisdictions where copyright and licensing law is less well enforced, or network providers are less co-operative then they should be.

then OUT them! 📢

if they want a free lunch by not buying a license, then they're on their own. wave-smiley.gif

19 hours ago, WHMCS John said:

Please do keep submitting reports, we very much appreciate your vigilance.

if publicly outing 9 of them resulted in 5 (latterly 3) of them buying legit licenses, then that's $450 towards yours of Chris' wages each year... but no, let's not send out a positive message - everyone's welcome here whether they're legit or not.

17 hours ago, yggdrasil said:

You probably are right, we can't just accuse some domain that shows as unlicensed since there could be valid technical reasons that can make a license fail even if the user/domain is licensed but I think in most situations the assumptions are correct.

I have suspicions about many more users than I ever publicly mention here - those that I have outed, I know are not legit... and whether those threads get deleted or not, I stand by every one of them.... and in any event, absolute worst case scenario and i'm wrong, what happens - i'd apologise to the user, the thread will get deleted and nobody will be any the wiser... nobody will remember anyway, this is a minor semi-official support f*rum of a billing software that nobody pays any real attention to (other than me seemingly).

17 hours ago, yggdrasil said:

What works the best is public shaming.

precisely - i'm not doing this naming for the thrill of it, or some ego trip - i'm trying to ensure only real users get help, and those who mistakenly/ignorantly bought nulled licenses, see the error of their ways.

18 hours ago, yggdrasil said:

While I understand these forums is probably not the best place

it might be if this is where they're coming for help... though WHMCS should be doing it themselves as they have access to more info than I do... though I can often find these users domains within minutes - amazing what a small amount of effort can result in.

maybe at the weekend, i'll discuss privately with the other users that reply to posts here (there's only a handful or two of us!) and see what the general opinion is... there's no point in one or two of us not replying to these people, if others then help them... it's like the high press in football (soccer!), either we all decide not to reply to these users, or there's no point in any of us bothering.

possibly by the weekend i'll be calmer and realise that it's not worth getting bothered about.... but I don't feel that yet.

18 hours ago, yggdrasil said:

I believe making domains public that use invalid licenses is a proper measure and should be done because I don't like other people being deceived.

or do it the other way, if a user adds their domain and license details to their profile (not publicly shown), and WHMCS validate the details, then they can post everywhere... if they don't, then they can only post in the paid f*rums... let them pay if they want help - it'll soon be economical for them to get a legit license!

of course, that's not a viable suggestion as it requires WHMCS to do a bit of work here in the background - so that makes it immediately dismissible as feasible.

let's not embarrass users who can't be bothered to buy a legit license... in fact, why don't we also knowingly let all users live in ignorance that the .in whois server details have been wrong for over a month - contributing to lost income from .in sales.... tell you what, let's not even fix it until v7.8 in May/June, there's no rush... oh sure, we could hotfix the dist.whois.json file in seconds, but let's not bother... if the user realises there's a problem and they contact support themselves, then fine, we'll let them know.. and they'll be ever so grateful and impressed - but will we go out of our way to fix it quickly? no of course not!

I discussed that very issue with Matt three (yes 3) years ago and his response told me all that I needed to know about his views on customer support.. years later, and they're still doing it.... i'm starting to wonder what is the point in even caring about this stuff if WHMCS can't be bothered to??? Besides, John will probably think that last paragraph is off-topic or inflammatory, and delete it (or the whole past), but i'm long past caring... long past.

... and with that, i'll be gone for the next 3 or 4 days.... i'm suing a NHS Trust and I need to spend some time/effort with my legal team and i'm not going to get distracted by this nonsense any more... though the anger will help me when I get my chance to deal with these medical buffoons.

if I get the time, i'll also try and learn how to play "Nearer My God To Thee" on the violin, as I think it's starting to become appropriate that it gets played soon. 🎻

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time I read threads about unlicensed installations I would like to talk about a possible solution. The problem is that I'm not supposed to say it, not with this account 🤔 Let me try with an example. I don't want my dog to eat cookies so instead of asking him to stop, I add a secret ingredient that causes him constipation from time to time only to him. He can still freely eat cookies but his life would be miserable. He would become very popular at dog park for this particular trait he has. I don't think that it's unethical (okay it sounds hilarious but it's just an example 😁). There's a problem I can't solve but I can force my dog to start questioning its decisions and buy cookies from known sources instead of stealing them from a bastard like me that can't be trusted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your dog won't get it. He's unlikely to associate the result with the cause. 
Better would be to totally remove cookies from anywhere near him.

A thief is a thief. Stealing software because they can, or it's "cool", or they have no money....it's all the same. You won't change them. They might buy one month to calm folks down, but it won't last. Now if you could make the thief constipated...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Kian said:

Every time I read threads about unlicensed installations I would like to talk about a possible solution. The problem is that I'm not supposed to say it, not with this account 🤔 Let me try with an example. I don't want my dog to eat cookies so instead of asking him to stop, I add a secret ingredient that causes him constipation from time to time only to him. He can still freely eat cookies but his life would be miserable. He would become very popular at dog park for this particular trait he has. I don't think that it's unethical (okay it sounds hilarious but it's just an example 😁). There's a problem I can't solve but I can force my dog to start questioning its decisions and buy cookies from known sources instead of stealing them from a bastard like me that can't be trusted.

I'm not entirely sure what solution that is since nobody was able to come up with a way to solve piracy. You just deal with it and make it part of your business, trying to convert them into customers. There is something worse than people pirating your product, nobody using it. Piracy means its popular and people want it. No piracy means its garbage and people are not even interested on using it, even for free.

Edited by yggdrasil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bear said:

Your dog won't get it. He's unlikely to associate the result with the cause. 
Better would be to totally remove cookies from anywhere near him.

A thief is a thief. Stealing software because they can, or it's "cool", or they have no money....it's all the same. You won't change them. They might buy one month to calm folks down, but it won't last. Now if you could make the thief constipated...

This. They either don't have money, so you don't actually lost a potential customer because they just don't have the resources to pay for the license every month or they do but don't see any value on paying. Either way you cannot force someone into paying something they don't want. They have to see value in order to put their greens out. You don't want people paying by force and be upset, they have to be happy while paying otherwise they are bad customers and are going to leave your product/company the second they have an option out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, bear said:

Your dog won't get it. He's unlikely to associate the result with the cause. 
Better would be to totally remove cookies from anywhere near him.

A thief is a thief. Stealing software because they can, or it's "cool", or they have no money....it's all the same. You won't change them. They might buy one month to calm folks down, but it won't last. Now if you could make the thief constipated...

That's not the point. It's difficult to explain without saying the real thing but let's just say that he can freely eat all cookies he wants without any limitations. I'm just making his life miserable. He will start questioning what the heck is wrong with his body and waste an enormous amount of time trying to fix it looking for problems in the wrong place. In the end he will probably think cookies are terrible and switch to another brand also because he can't ask for help since he's a thief.

People that use unlicensed software are essentially lazy, unskilled and unwilling to hire someone to find out what is wrong with their system. I'm saying that it's possible to abuse of such things and eventiually make them waste a lot of money and patience trying to run something that has been crafted exactly to work improperly just for them. With a bit of imagination you can think about multiple ways to frustrate people.

Edited by Kian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Guidelines and understand your posts will initially be pre-moderated