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."

Comments

BayTSP, Cyveillance

[Dr. Awktagon]

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?

Re:BayTSP, Cyveillance

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work for Cyveillance as one of their IT Admins. In fact for a while I ran the data center.
The best part of the job was getting all the irate emails that we were hacking people's networks. They say their spider is an IE client because they claim that some websites give false data to spiders which is probably true. I do know that if you send them an email to abuse@cyveillance.com and ask them they'll add you to the spiders ignore list. Configuring the spiders was tricky because we could easily DDOS an entire website faster then any slashdotting. When I worked there the biggest thing we did was check images and porn sites for copyright violations. They had a snapshot of each website they visited that would make the Feds envious. However, eventually they outgrew their system and couldn't get the new one online fast enough, which led them to lay people off including myself. Great place to work though at the time.

Oh and as a note when I left those weren't the only IP ranges they were scanning from. And I know they planned to bring some more online including one hooked to an onsite T3 line.

Re:Signature Practice has Sucked Badly in the Past

[bhurt]

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?

Re:Article Says:

[Roosey]

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.

Slashdot is right... go figure

[kaphka]

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?

I've been trying to fight the urge to post to Slashdot lately, but when I read that quote, I was all set to rant about it. Surely, by "copyrighted works" the researchers meant "unlicensed, commercial copyrighted works", and someone had stupidly or deceptively misinterpreted their point.

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,

A significant percentage of Internet users knowingly
violate copyright laws.
57 percent of downloaders either seldom
pay or never pay for the copyrighted software
they download. And 36 percent of all Internet users say it is not likely they will ever pay for software they download.
Of all Internet users, 12 percent admit to acquiring unlicensed commercial software.

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Article Says:

[spectecjr]

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.".