Slashdot Mirror
Pardon, Is This Your File?
Teknogeek writes "The BSA says piracy is thriving. At least, according to this article. Note one interesting statistic: '...the group found that 57 percent of respondents never or seldom pay for copyrighted works they download. And 12 percent admitted to pirating software.' How much do you want to bet that 45 percent gap is freeware and/or open source?" On a similar note, an Anonymous Coward writes: "MIT Technology Review reports on the process of scanning the entire internet for digital signatures matching copyrighted work (watermarking not required), and automatically emailing threats to the offenders and their ISPs."
Well, that and in many cases the licenses forbid you from selling the software you buy. Especially OEM versions of software. Even if I delete it from my machine, and give you all the discs I've ever had it on, with all the docs, it's still "illegal" (provided the EULA stood up in court) because it's not a product per se, but a license to use it on that particular physical piece of hardware. And they blame the auction sites for letting me sell it to you.
Yeah, those guys have been trawling the web for a while, looking for lord knows what. I have a ModRewrite rule in my httpd.conf that feeds them a bunch of garbage whenever they come by (thanks, Sugarplum). I ought to feed them some Jennifer Lopez files next time, see what happens...actually I should just firewall them away.
Cyveillance netblocks:
65.118.41.192 - 65.118.41.223
63.148.99.224 - 63.148.99.255
Anybody know what blocks BayTSP uses for their spiders?
CRC-16's are trivially easy to find matches. At somewhere around 256 files (I'm too lazy to do the math) you have a 50/50 shot of two having the same checksum. CRC-32's mildly harder, requiring ~64K images. One hopes that they are using a cryptographically secure hash, like MD-5 or SHA, where the chances of "accidental" collisions are astronomically remote.
This whole idea is trivially easy to defeat, however. Simply make minor modifications to the copyrighted work before reposting it. Take that picture of Natalie Portman, load it up into the GIMP, and change one pixel to a slightly different shade. Then post. One important feature of cryptographic hashs (like the aforementioned MD-5 and SHA) is that changing a single bit flips, on average, about half the bits. I.e. small changes in the picture make for large changes in the hash value.
Opps. Did I just fall afoul of the DMCA?
The artical from MIT does not say that anyone is using CRC's. Firms have sprung up with technology that takes a sample of a song, compiles a fingerprint based on the characteristics of the song. They go on free file services, download copies of shared files, and compare them to their fingerprint. It is implied that the file does not have to be a perfect match to figure out if the song being shared matches one of their clients songs.
There are no statistics given as to the frequency of false positives and true negatives.
No need for your boss to call the cops, the BSA shows up *with* the cops. That is their standard practice, they come to the door with a legal warrant and the officers to back it up. At that point everyone is typically ordered away from any and all computers and wiring closets are "neutralized" along with any T1 lines or similar broadband circuits to prevent anyone from working remotely to hide evidence. Then they install their nifty software on every box they can find (usually destroying non windows boxen) and proceed with their audit while you and your boss begin to sweat. Sounds nice huh?
I believe you're referring to the case Softman Products Company, LLC v. Adobe. The decision basically states that software bundled with another product can be unbundled and sold separately if you haven't used it at all.
The ruling was made in November of last year, however - I'm not sure whether or not it's been appealed since then.
So, I checked the ZDNet article. It said the same thing. "Ah," I thought, "typical ZDNet incompetence, twisting the words of the press release."
Next, I checked the press release, and found the same claim yet again. Now I was starting to get worried, but at least the press release provided a link to the actual report (PDF). The report says,There you have it. In the (distressingly significant) opinion of the Business Software Alliance, any individual who downloads a copy of Linux, Netscape Navigator, the latest Windows Service Pack, or any other software provided without charge, is "knowingly violating copyright law." That's terrifying.
(I apologize for taking so much time just to repeat what was said in the original submission, but accurate hyperbole is so rare on Slashdot that I thought it should be highlighted.)
As an aside, I'm actually very surprised that 41% of those surveyed indicated that they pay for downloaded software "most times" or "every time." I've been on the net since Pipeline NY (those were the days...), and I have paid for downloaded software perhaps 3 or 4 times in my life. Even in today's "internet economy," it's awfully hard to find someone who will sell you software without including an oversized box and ten marketing flyers. I strongly suspect that this survey was poorly designed, and that the results are garbage; however, that only makes the BSA's interpretation of it more disturbing.
MSK
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When you make a copyright violation, you are forfeiting someone copyright grant and that is a civil offense. Nobody except the grant receiver may prossecute you.
Sorry, but that's not accurate as of 1992. You snooze, you lose. Copyright violation is and can be a federal felony offense. That is, a criminal offense.
http://www.cybercrime.gov/CFAleghist.htm
FEDERAL PROSECUTION OF
VIOLATIONS OF INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS
(COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS AND TRADE SECRETS)
VI. APPENDICES
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY - COPYRIGHT FELONY ACT
H.R. Rep. No. 997, 102ND Cong., 2ND Sess. 1992, 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3569,
P.L. 102-561, CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR COPYRIGHT
INFRINGEMENT
DATES OF CONSIDERATION AND PASSAGE
Senate: June 4, October 8, 1992
House: October 3, 1992
Senate Report (Judiciary Committee) No. 102-268,
Apr. 7, 1992 (To accompany S. 893)
House Report (Judiciary Committee) No. 102-997,
Oct. 3, 1992 (To accompany S. 893)
HOUSE REPORT NO. 102-997
October 3, 1992
[To accompany S. 893]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the Act (S. 893) to amend title 18, United States Code, to impose criminal sanctions for violation of software copyright, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the Act as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following:
SECTION 1. CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
Section 2319(b) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
"(b) Any person who commits an offense under subsection (a) of this section-
"(1) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense consists of the reproduction or distribution, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, with a retail value of more than $2,500;
"(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if the offense is a second or subsequent offense under paragraph (1); and
"(3) shall be imprisoned not more than 1 year, or fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, in any other case.".
Coming soon - pyrogyra
You can refuse all audits.
However, you can't refuse a court ordered search... As you see... there is a little diference.
And if you are victim of a search... be sure that all people involved in it has authorization and authority to be there. Would be funny to see the cops be the only ones with authority to enter to do the search...
As for damage to non-windows boxes... well... you can sue them for damages! If they don't know how to do the job they shouldn't touch it!
Cheers...