walt, ASSIST WITH KEY

So you can use the program for FREE TO SEE the files that were deleted, but you need to PAY TO SAVE the files that were deleted. Gotcha.

Sorry Bitwar, I will definitely pass on this one.

H.M.,
WHAT?
Then why the "H" does anyone want if just to "see" if something can be recovered........then IF YOU WANT TO BUY first, then you can "maybe".........that's BULL
There are a LOT of good recovery programs....even one's that been on here, that you don't have to "pay the bank to recover.

Kurt, ...not so...you get the 'paid' version here and it will 'recover' your files as it did mine

Hermano2020: your comment is baffling. As I pointed out way back at post #3, I can't find any price for this product on the developer's own website. I've now had another look but can't find any reference to "VIP", either. The only thing that's actually noticeable is the developer's self-congratulation on winning an, er, "award" which has been "granted" to it by Softpedia. . . for marketing something that's malware-free. But that's not an "award". It's just a statement.

Sadly, if this all Bitwar can say about its wares, it might like to go back to the drawing board and start over. Today's promotion of a 6-month license for freeware makes no sense and its misunderstanding of Softpedia clearance, downright worrying.

TK, Thanks TK: I never got past the developer's website. Kudos to you for going much nearer to this offer than I would've found comfortable. 'Bait 'n Switch' has (thankfully) largely vanished from the software world so it's disappointing that a developer partnering with GOTD is trying it on: when a website is created to mislead, as is now obvious here, then there's no future for the producer nor for its products. (PS: apologies to Hermano2020, and kudos, too, for also treading where I wouldn't set foot.)

Hermano2020, Sorry to baffle and befuddle; a clarification should have been provided: I followed Earlier link to free download and installed and directed the program to recover a suggested recoverable file from an SD. Selected file and clicked RECOVE and received this notice: "To recover, create account and upgrade to VIP," at which point I bailed out. Again, I apologize for the confusion.

No need to apologize. You did the work, as did TK, and all here will be grateful to you for that. This is yet another of those special kinds of threads which GOTD is allowing to run and thus I've no criticism at all of GOTD itself. As far as the developer, Bitwar, is concerned though, I've only the same contempt for it that it so obviously has for me and every other computer user out there.

TK & MikeR,

Thanks for the novel...you both really need to get a life...Trump is a dick and China is gonna do whatever they want.

Robert,
Try recovering what the program finds for you and all your questions will be answered.

Kurt, I've tried several "FREE" data recovery tools and all of them (with the exception of Recuva) are limited in some way.

Techfixes, Judging by some of the reviews here today, I wouldn't even give the setup a chance to be recovered from the recycle bin.

Min,

I agree with you on every point except the copyright portion. My comment applies to just the copyright statement you observed.

>(And I also note their website is "Copyright © 2018" - even less reason to be trusted...)

On the bitwar.net page regarding the Data Recovery Software, the copyright statement contains only 2018, as does the individual pages for each of their products, however if you check their other pages, you will see that most have copyright 2014-2018. It appears that the individual product pages have a slightly different template or design than the the pages that have 2014-2018 on them, probably from a partial re-design.

From WhoIs information, the domain name registration was "created" in 2016, so the 2014 referred to in the pages that have a range could (and should) be nothing more than referring to the page content dates, not the domain name or company itself. From the waybackmachine, it looks like the domain name was used back in 2010 by a programmer/game developer, then went dormant for a year or so (up for sale) before the current registration took place in 2016. Bitwar was also the name of an early computer game (do not know its current status or its connection to the domain name at any point in its history). Very likely the original registree could not afford to keep the domain name registered or didn't need it. I see more and more of this happening, and due to shorter domain names becoming scarce, they get registered by larger companies that can afford to keep them registered.

Several companies have domain name creation dates that are long after they have been in business. As a result of this, you cannot put much weight in when a domain name was created as basis for whether a company is reliable or not. Most likely the company used a different domain name prior to registering bitwar.net.

Companies also spin off new divisions with a newly registered domain name, or for a specific product (Google keeps coming up with new ones often), as do many others.

One example of a product that many will be familiar with is the irfanView program. It's history log shows that it goes back to 1996. The current domain name is irfanview.com, but I recall updating many times before seeing that the developer had acquired irfanview.com, and was exited for him having done so. The domain irfanView.com was created in 2000. At that time, the IrfanView program was at least version 3.10 (38 releases at that point).

The single copyright year may just be a web developer's oversight, a matter of lesser concern, or it may be because it is correct.

Having the current year without other years is not only common, but possibly very accurate. A page should have the copyright year that the page was first written. Unless a page has "substantial revisions," (per copyright law) there is no need to add following years (although it is very common to do so), and likewise, there is no need to precede the year of creation with the year that the company first went live (although, again, it is very common that websites will have the preceding year to form a range). Having the range (or not) is not illegal per any common copyright law. There are a wide range of how copyright statements are made on websites, due to the wide range of people putting them there. There has been a push to ignore (legally) all copyright statements on the Internet for this very reason.

One example of incorrect copyright statements found online: It is more common to see "Copyright" followed by the copyright symbol on websites, but by copyright law, the symbol should come first. Does that make the content not enforceable in court? No, content is copyrighted whether any statement exists at all, although it is easier to prove the intent to to a copyright if any form of statement is present.

Having written many legal documents with copyright statements, I am always conscious of copyright statements on websites. I have seen many large corporation websites that have a single year on a page. Many of those same pages, I know have had significant changes since the copyright year, but the copyright line still did not have a range. It may depend on what software they used to edit pages or the common footer is a separate file that got overlooked, or it was intentional. It is becoming more common for web developers to have the last year in a range be the current year programmatically. That way at midnight of the start of a new year, the copyright line changes. Since it does not really matter whether the date accurately reflects that the web page had "substantial changes" or not, it is totally permissible. Mainly, if nothing else, it ensures people that think an older date suggests the company or product is out of date, that everything is just fine, or for a current year date to indicate the company is too new to be trusted, or is a scam, that it is not. Granted year ranges win over a single year date.

If you judge by a single date to be scam, you will have to start distrusting a lot of companies that we have trusted for a long time. Likewise, date ranges do not imply a company should be trusted either. Do you trust Google? Some do, so do not. But the fact remains that they are a large company. We have heard of them for several years, whether we trust them or not.

The copyright date really isn't significant enough to be of any concern or mistrust. The rest of your comment outweighs the copyright year concern by a factor of 1,000 to one, and I agree with you on those points.

Alireza, once you installed the software and register with your own email address,or login by twitter /google+ account, the software can be used surely within 6 moths,you can check the duration in user center.There's a License start date and Expiry date there for you to check.

Gary,
license start date: 2018/4/26 12:39
license expiry date: 2018/10/26 11:39

Alireza, my license,
License Start Date:2018/4/26 16:19
License Expiry Date:2018/10/26 16:19

Gary ..

i don't have any license to this ... Bitwar Data Recovery 6.3.5 .

License Expiry Date:2018/4/26/11:15 > infinite ... .

Alireza/Gary, it's likely that the calculation includes any anticipated Daylight Savings Time change. Without knowing your time zones, it's safe to guess that between now and Oct. 26th, Alireza will "exit" DST, but Gary won't.

That being said, I do find it a little odd that this company would track their 6-month license down to the _minute_. Most other places will take it to midnight of the next day. I mean, what's 8 hours between friends?