Winzip requires a fee now?

[alfaniner]

I just downloaded some freeware in a zip file, tried to open it up, and found my Winzip wouldn't work. Went to the Winzip site and found that you can use it for a short time now, then have to pay for it.

Are there any alternatives? Thanks.

[Dark Jaguar]

Winzip has always operated like this. While you can simply uninstall Winzip (which to the best of my knowledge, if the uninstall program is "honest", will remove any and all registry entries related to the program) and then reinstall it, the legality of such an act is questionable.

You want a free zip file program? Try Windows. If you are using XP (and heck, even back as far as at least 98 second edition), it already can handle zip files. The Windows shell won't be able to do quite as many fancy things, but my guess is you won't be concerned with the majority of that. If you uninstall Winzip, Windows should be capable of opening zip files and treating them like a "normal folder". Now, the problem is this treatment is misleading. Never forget when you are in a zip file or an actual folder, and you should do fine.

[bruto]

I've always used a freeware program called Zip Central on my win98 machine. It looks just about like winzip, but it's free and it works. Here's one link for a download:

http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file_description/0,fid,6531,00.asp

[Dark Jaguar]

There's a solution as well. I was simply offering a way to open zip files with the least amount of effort involved. Hmm, I'll have to check that program out some time.

[Godmode]

Winzip has always been shareware. It's not very expensive, I've always used it until RAR extensions became more common, then I switched to Winrar, which is also shareware, but doesn't stop working. (Just pops up an annoying message!)

[El Greco]

7zip

[Ryokan]

People still use zip?

http://www.rarlab.com/

[TobiasTheViking]

rarlab.com

[scribble]

http://www.7-zip.org/

As stated, WinZip has always required payment. Maybe you just ignored all the messages about how it is UNREGISTERED SHAREWARE.

The folks recommending use of WinRar are just putting you back in the same boat. It is also shareware, and requires payment for use of all features.

http://www.7-zip.org/

7-zip has no such limitations, and works with ZIP and RAR and other formats as well. 7-zip is Free software, and it is Open Source software. WinZip and WinRAR are neither.

[GodMark2]

WinZip has always required payment.

I am using WinZip 8.1, whch is functional, and does not require a payment for most of it basic features, zipping and unzipping. Nor did the previous two versions I used.

Some features are not available (using an external archive program to comres/decompress) and require registration with payment.

[Zbu]

Do a search for IZARC, the Sourceforge freeware program that unzips or RARs everything for free.

[scribble]

I am using WinZip 8.1, whch is functional, and does not require a payment for most of it basic features, zipping and unzipping. Nor did the previous two versions I used.

Have you read the EVALUATION LICENSE you keep agreeing to every time you run the program? No?

SHAME ON YOU.

Allow me to quote some important bits (empahsis mine):

This is not free software. Subject to the terms below, you are hereby licensed by WinZip Computing LP ("WinZip Computing") to use for evaluation purposes only one (1) copy of WinZip, on one (1) computer or workstation, without charge, for a period of 45 days after you first install WinZip on any computer or workstation, during which period both the Standard and Pro features of the WinZip software will be accessible. If you want to use this software after the 45-day evaluation period, you must acquire from WinZip Computing for a fee a single-user license or multi-user license for WinZip. Refer to www.winzip.com for information about Standard and Pro license pricing, multi-user licensing, and ordering options

A) It's not free software.
B) Every time you start the program, you have been agreeing that it's not free software.
C) According to the license, if you EVER installed the Evaluation Version on any computer, then 45 days later, you started breaking the license.

[UserGoogol]

Well yeah, technically you're violating your license if you use it for more than forty-five days without paying. But the vast majority of people use it for years without paying. And I really have to assume Winzip Computing is relatively okay with this. It would be very easy for them to build a timer into their code so that they simply refused to let you run their program after the limit runs out. But they don't. They just say, "You've run out of time! You need to register now! Uh... or you can just click here to start it anyway." Wink wink nudge nudge say no more.

Winzip is using the honor system in the flagrantly dishonorable world of the Internet. They know what they're getting into.

[El Greco]

SHAME ON YOU.

No, shame on Winzip Computing for choosing a sneaky way to keep their bloody program on users' PCs. Make the bloody thing NON-FUNCTIONAL, it's not that hard.

[Hagrok]

Have you read the EVALUATION LICENSE you keep agreeing to every time you run the program? No?

SHAME ON YOU.


You've got to be kidding me...

[scribble]

You've got to be kidding me... It real easy to take a apathetic attitude towards the legal contracts you sign every day. It's real easy to say, if they wanted you to stop using it, they'd make it not work. Greco is right, if they wanted it to stop working, they would. It's obvious that they would rather you use their product in violation of the agreement you have entered into, rather than notuse it or use a competitor's product.

You guys can excuse it however you want, but the fact remains that you're agreeing to not do something, then you are doing it. The fact remains that you have absolutely zero right to use their software. On top of that, the fact remains that there is software that doesn't ask you to agree to anything if you'd just like to use it, has the same functionality, is made by nice people without shady licensing policies, and is Free in every sense of the word, not just "hey, I can get my grubby hands on it and use it; that makes it free!" That isn't free. It's just saying you can get away with taking it. Great, if getting away with it is good enough for you. I prefer not having to "get away with it."

Frankly, I'm shocked that you people would take such a apathetic approach to what is potentially a legally binding contract. "I agreed to WHAT? Well, who cares, that company sucks anyhow." If they suck, why use their products?

How many other agreements are you breaking?

[Hagrok]

I speed all the time :)

[El Greco]

It's obvious that they would rather you use their product in violation of the agreement you have entered into, rather than notuse it or use a competitor's product.

And by using these tactics they have managed to earn a lot more money than if they made it non-functional. In fact, every single unregistered user makes their program more popular so they earn money. Why do people keep using it ? Exactly because so many unregistered users have made it so popular. That's why they keep finding it pre-installed on their PCs and they keep using it. That's why I bought it back when I knew few things about computers. Because if people knew about eg 7-zip they'd never even look at Winzip. Winzip computing rely on unregistered users to make money. Attacking those unregistered users is pure, simple, unadulterated hypocrisy.

[scribble]

I speed all the time :)

Fair enough - you can break the law and not care and there's no argument I can make against that.

As I'm a software developer by trade, the issues surrounding user licensing agreements are obviously going to be more important and "real" to me than the average Joe.

Still, I can't fathom why someone would WANT to use WinZip, given there are Free alternatives. Is it really possible to be so apathetic that even provided an easy alternative, you'd still prefer to stick to the shady side of the law, and the shady company's product?

[scribble]

And by using these tactics they have managed to earn a lot more money than if they made it non-functional. In fact, every single unregistered user makes their program more popular so they earn money.

I can't tell whether you're arguing FOR using their software while breaking the license or AGAINST it. If it's for, it sounds a lot like this:

"Listen, everyone beats whores. Besides, the whore WANTED to be beaten... why else would she act that way? What do you mean?! There's nothing inherently wrong with beating whores!"

[El Greco]

I can't tell whether you're arguing FOR using their software while breaking the license or AGAINST it. If it's for, it sounds a lot like this:

"Listen, everyone beats whores. Besides, the whore WANTED to be beaten... why else would she act that way? What do you mean?! There's nothing inherently wrong with beating whores!"

Nice strawman. I'll save this post as the definition of strawman.

I'm pretty sure you understand perfectly well what I mean, but I'm not sure whether coherent communication is possible after what you just wrote.

To make it simple: You attacked an unregistered user when thanks to that very unregistered user WC is making money. WC want that unregistered user. WC adore that unregistered user. WC want to make love to that unregistered user. Without that unregistered user Winzip would now be as popular as salted Jello.

[Hagrok]

Fair enough - you can break the law and not care and there's no argument I can make against that.

As I'm a software developer by trade, the issues surrounding user licensing agreements are obviously going to be more important and "real" to me than the average Joe.

Still, I can't fathom why someone would WANT to use WinZip, given there are Free alternatives. Is it really possible to be so apathetic that even provided an easy alternative, you'd still prefer to stick to the shady side of the law, and the shady company's product?
Actually, I too am a software developer by trade. If I were to distribute my software in the manner that WinZip does, I would expect the thousands of unregistered users that WinZip has. I would, in fact, embrace them, as El Greco has pointed out. It's a fairly shrewd marketing technique.

*shrug* There are a great many rules in life. I don't consider something unethical simply because there is a rule against it. Life would be so much less fun that way...

[Solitaire]

How many other agreements are you breaking?

I'm probably breaking a bunch of covenants with an infinite number invisible gods that I do know about. There really is no substitute for a door-to-door salesman and a signed contract.

[scribble]

Nice strawman. I'll save this post as the definition of strawman.

I said, "I'm not sure what you mean... if it's this one thing, then here is my reply." A strawman would be, "You mean this: <thing you don't mean> and here's why you're wrong." The difference being, I fully admit what I responded to may not be your stance.


I'm pretty sure you understand perfectly well what I mean, but I'm not sure whether coherent communication is possible after what you just wrote.

To make it simple: You attacked an unregistered user when thanks to that very unregistered user WC is making money. WC want that unregistered user. WC adore that unregistered user. WC want to make love to that unregistered user. Without that unregistered user Winzip would now be as popular as salted Jello.

Yes, all that I understand. But it fails to let me know whether you approve or disapprove of this, and whether you take this as a reason to avoid their software and to educate users and to encourage people to move to Free software. I, obviously, do.


Actually, I too am a software developer by trade. If I were to distribute my software in the manner that WinZip does, I would expect the thousands of unregistered users that WinZip has. I would, in fact, embrace them, as El Greco has pointed out. It's a fairly shrewd marketing technique.


Yes, if you read back, I myself mention that the obviously want those users to use their product unregistered, breaking the contract, rather than to move to another product.

That doesn't make it legal or right to do so. What it DOES is makes you a tool for going ahead and breaking the license and continuing to use it. Doubly so when there are Free (in every sense) alternatives.


*shrug* There are a great many rules in life. I don't consider something unethical simply because there is a rule against it. Life would be so much less fun that way...


I agree. It's not just a matter of breaking the rule, it's a matter of breaking the rule when not breaking the rule is just as easy, doesn't buy into WinZip's marketing schemes, and is so much more satisfying.

[monoman]

Have you read the EVALUATION LICENSE you keep agreeing to every time you run the program? No?
SHAME ON YOU.


I thought you were joking at first until i read the rest!

Shame on me! Hehe. Yes, scribble, most people sit there scrolling down the legal stuff until there eyes glaze over.
Of course people don't treat all contracts like that. Even if you could click 'ok' for, say, a house purchase you'd still get a lawyer to translate it.

Come on everyone, hire a lawyer & extra chair for you workstation so he can read through the agreement everytime you install some software.

[El Greco]

Yes, all that I understand. But it fails to let me know whether you approve or disapprove of this, and whether you take this as a reason to avoid their software and to educate users and to encourage people to move to Free software. I, obviously, do.

I certainly endorse using a free alternative. However, I do not consider unethical for someone to continue using an unregistered version of Winzip. This is one of the cases that I consider something illegal (?) to be ethical. Relying on ignorance to make money otoh, while legal, is of questionable ethics.

[ZirconBlue]

Apparently, it's ok to steal if it's easy.

Or if you don't like the people you're stealing from.

Or if you don't want to read.

[Hagrok]

Apparently, it's ok to steal if it's easy.

Or if you don't like the people you're stealing from.

Or if you don't want to read.
Or, it's not "stealing"...

[Zbu]

Or we can simply forget about all of this and go here:

http://www.izarc.org/

IZARC is freeware that unzips or unrars everything. Check it out, it's not a bad little program. I swear I'm not pimping, but since XP and this are available, I don't see why arguing over a silly program is needed.

[ZirconBlue]

Or, it's not "stealing"...

In my book, stealing is taking or keeping something you're not legally allowed to possess. If you borrow a book from the library, then decide to keep it, you are stealing. Same principle, here, IMHO.

[ZirconBlue]

I speed all the time :)

If they really didn't want you to speed, they would mandate that all vehicles be equipped with governers to prevent speeding. If you get pulled over for speeding, see if that argument gets you out of a ticket.

[El Greco]

In my book, stealing is taking or keeping something you're not legally allowed to possess. If you borrow a book from the library, then decide to keep it, you are stealing. Same principle, here, IMHO.

Well, concealing knowledge of a crime is also a crime AFAIK. Do you know of people who have stolen software and if yes, have you reported them ?

[Dark Jaguar]

There is a difference between taking a library book and keeping it vs copying everything out of a book in the library at Kinko's and then returning the book.

Some people hold to an older definition of stealing, which is taking something that belongs to someone else. By that definition, if it does not belong to someone else or is a copy you made yourself but the original owner still has their copy, it isn't stealing.

Keep in mind I do actually think copyright law is beneficial, however the fact of the matter is, KIDS are buying these products and signing these agreements without any idea of what they are signing. People can't and should not be expected to actually agree to a contract generated by a soulless automaton. I merely expect people to obey existing copyright laws, not imaginary contracts which I can't reasonably expect everyone to read and actually agree to. Do you, when installing software, actually read the contract or do you, as I do, simply assume it covers existing laws in the books and click "okay"?

Besides, how about this then. How about hacking the software to circumvent the contract agreement?

[ZirconBlue]

Well, concealing knowledge of a crime is also a crime AFAIK. Do you know of people who have stolen software and if yes, have you reported them ?

Of course.;)

Actually, no. In fact, I'm sure I've used shareware without paying for it, too. The difference is that I didn't try to rationalize it as the right thing to do. I take responsibility for my theft. Just like, if I get caught speeding, I'm not going to try to rationalize my behavior and claim it was ok. I broke the law, I got caught, I'll take my lumps.



But I hope I don't get caught.

[ZirconBlue]

There is a difference between taking a library book and keeping it vs copying everything out of a book in the library at Kinko's and then returning the book.

Some people hold to an older definition of stealing, which is taking something that belongs to someone else. By that definition, if it does not belong to someone else or is a copy you made yourself but the original owner still has their copy, it isn't stealing.

Keep in mind I do actually think copyright law is beneficial, however the fact of the matter is, KIDS are buying these products and signing these agreements without any idea of what they are signing. People can't and should not be expected to actually agree to a contract generated by a soulless automaton. I merely expect people to obey existing copyright laws, not imaginary contracts which I can't reasonably expect everyone to read and actually agree to. Do you, when installing software, actually read the contract or do you, as I do, simply assume it covers existing laws in the books and click "okay"?

Besides, how about this then. How about hacking the software to circumvent the contract agreement?


I don't really want to have a semantics debate about the meaning of the word "stealing." (No, really.) I supplied my working definition. If you want to use another word for that, fine. I don't like using "piracy", though, because I don't want to conflate the issue with our current global shortage of Pirates and subsequent atmospheric effects.

Now, I haven't used WinZip in several years, so I don't know what it's like on later versions, but the older versions had a very brief, clear, statement that would popup each time you opened it letting you know that you were supposed to pay for it once your trial period was up. It wasn't like a MicroSoft License Agreement. Of course, as I said, that may have changed in the intervening years.

[Dark Jaguar]

That could be the case. I don't use it any more myself, nor do I condone "piracy" or whatever term one may like to use for copyright infringment. I just think it is important to get a proper understanding of what I think is the standard view most people have of what stealing is and that there is a pretty distinct difference to many people in just copying someone's belongings and outright taking them. I myself recognize that distinction and don't really make a big deal out of it when friends or family engage in that practice.

What I am basically doing is just playing devil's advocate. Copyright violations like illegal copies DO do harm to the copyright holders by depriving them of money. I just think it's a bit much to say it is "the same as walking into a store and robbing it" when it's more like walking into the store and making an exact copy of it and taking the copy.

I also am playing devil's advocate by pointing out the reality of the situation in how most people handle the admittedly ridiculous nature of all those software contract agreements. I am all for honesty and obeying contracts one has agreed to, including software contracts. However, the reality that most people have no idea what they are agreeing to, and the fact that a lot of kids, who legally are not obliged to obey contracts they sign (to the best of my knowledge) is something that must be recognized.

I prefer software that is agreement free, like a gameboy game or a DVD video.

[El Greco]

Whether you call it stealing or not there different degrees of stealing as any court will affirm. There's the 5-year old stealing his cousin's candy and there's armed robbery. Don't try to make it look like armed robbery.

[El Greco]

I take responsibility for my theft.

So, how exactly did you take responsibility ? Did you turn yourself in ? :D

[Mongrel]

Keep in mind I do actually think copyright law is beneficial, however the fact of the matter is, KIDS are buying these products and signing these agreements without any idea of what they are signing. People can't and should not be expected to actually agree to a contract generated by a soulless automaton.

Besides, how about this then. How about hacking the software to circumvent the contract agreement?


Whilst kids aren't allowed to sign legal agreements of this nature it should be the parents responsibility to make sure this quandary doesn't occur. As for hacking the software that's one of those "reasonable expectations" that the EULA has a clause about modifying the software, therefore it's still a legan no-no.

There's a nice article here (http://www.okratas.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=45&mode=nested&order=0&thold=0)about EULAs, slanted towards MMORPGs but covers the basics of all of them nicely

[ZirconBlue]

Whether you call it stealing or not there different degrees of stealing as any court will affirm. There's the 5-year old stealing his cousin's candy and there's armed robbery. Don't try to make it look like armed robbery.

I actually agree with you 100%. There ARE degrees of stealing. There are degrees of (moral) "right" and "wrong". As such, I am willing to commit some "lesser" wrongs in my life. I just don't tell myself that those wrongs are right. In the grand scheme of things, keeping your unlicensed copy of WinZip is not a big deal. But it's not right. It's one thing to say, "I know I'm breaking an agreement and I'm willing to live with that." It's another thing to say, "I don't agree with copywrite laws, and believe it is perfectly moral and justified to break them at will."

[ZirconBlue]

So, how exactly did you take responsibility ? Did you turn yourself in ? :D

Maybe. I could be typing this from prison.:p

[Dark Jaguar]

But if you hack the software so that you don't even SIGN the EULA, then you wouldn't even need to worry about obeying the "do not alter the software" clause, would you now?

[scribble]

edit - whatever.

[kevin]

Yes if Winzip really wanted all those users to pay they would make the software stop working. Hmmm, what was the first message on this thread?

I just downloaded some freeware in a zip file, tried to open it up, and found my Winzip wouldn't work. Went to the Winzip site and found that you can use it for a short time now, then have to pay for it.

I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you that Winzip appears to be doing just that. I guess they decided that having a 90% market share with a 1% paying user base wasn't really better than a 10% market share with a 100% paying user base.

Many companies will ignore piracy in their infancy (Microsoft and Autodesk are prime examples) and then once they achieve a significant marketshare of "dependent" users they start cracking down.

This doesn't make it ethical to violate the end-user agreement. I agree that to a certain degree copyright law has over-stepped it's bounds (length of time of copyright and the whole DMCA are wrong.) You can choose to violate the law and claim some sort of ethical superiority for your civil disobedience -- unless of course you forget to actually participate in the process against copyright laws (you know like donate some of your saved bucks to the EFF or vote or something), in which case you're just stealing.

Personally I prefer the ethical route -- use the free/open source software to encourage those developers, let the propriatary companies sink or swim, AND donate to the EFF (and sometimes vote). I got my cake and eat it too.

[moopet]

I can't fathom why someone would WANT to use WinZip, given there are Free alternatives. Is it really possible to be so apathetic that even provided an easy alternative, you'd still prefer to stick to the shady side of the law, and the shady company's product?

People stick to their hooky copies of windows, don't they?

Of course people don't treat all contracts like that. Even if you could click 'ok' for, say, a house purchase you'd still get a lawyer to translate it.

Come on everyone, hire a lawyer & extra chair for you workstation so he can read through the agreement everytime you install some software.

I totally fail to understand this train of thought. Sure, most people don't really bother to read EULAs, but so what? You must have some idea whether it's legal to own or not, whether it's shareware or freeware or commercial or GPL or whatever. Actually, you mustn't. People come into my shop every day asking for help with their computers and they don't even know what brand they own when it's written on the lid. Nobody has that problem with which brand of car they own. People seem to go through life in a perpetual daze, and what I can't get to grips with is how these people manage to use the software in the first place.

/ramble

[bigred]

I just downloaded some freeware in a zip file, tried to open it up, and found my Winzip wouldn't work. Went to the Winzip site and found that you can use it for a short time now, then have to pay for it.

Are there any alternatives? Thanks.Yeah - download other zip-type programs or just keep re-downloading the trial version of WinZip.

PS I have XP and there is no "built-in" zip feature. Did I get ripped off?

[monoman]

I totally fail to understand this train of thought. Sure, most people don't really bother to read EULAs, but so what? You must have some idea whether it's legal to own or not, whether it's shareware or freeware or commercial or GPL or whatever. Actually, you mustn't. People come into my shop every day asking for help with their computers and they don't even know what brand they own when it's written on the lid. Nobody has that problem with which brand of car they own. People seem to go through life in a perpetual daze, and what I can't get to grips with is how these people manage to use the software in the first place.

/ramble

You misunderstood me, I understand if software is free, shareware or whatever, it says so on the website. Eg. limited functionality, expires after 30 days etc. What I was saying is people just don't read the EULAs. They could put f*ck you all!!! in the middle and no one would notice!

[kevin]

PS I have XP and there is no "built-in" zip feature. Did I get ripped off?

If you right-click a file/folder, go to send to, does Compressed (zipped) Folder appear? If so -- select that and you can add a file to a zip file.

If you have a zip file on your drive you should be able to treat like a normal folder (except the icon is different). This is frequently broken by having another zip program installed that takes over the .zip extension.

XP treats a zip file like a folder. If you do a search for a file XP will automatically look inside zip files for the file too (frequently this annoys me). To get files out of zip file with xp just double-click the file to open it in a window and copy the files out with drag and drop.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;306531

[kevin]

You misunderstood me, I understand if software is free, shareware or whatever, it says so on the website. Eg. limited functionality, expires after 30 days etc. What I was saying is people just don't read the EULAs. They could put f*ck you all!!! in the middle and no one would notice!

Heh, actually they pretty frequently do put that in there (Autodesk's EULA says if you go bankrupt you lose the right to use their software, makes it kind of hard to get out of bankruptcy).

Here's a good web site that covers many EULA abuses:
http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/

[alfaniner]

Found I still have a workable copy on my Windows 98 computer, so I can still use that.