Slashdot Mirror
NYTimes Looks at Warez
Flamerule writes "The New York Times has a new article up that relates the end result of the DrinkorDie copyright infringement case (the "ringleader" and 5 other guys are in prison), and talks about warez in general. They at least tried to get a story from both software companies and denizens of the warez scene. Pretty interesting stuff, even if you haven't been following the case closely."
Its a vicious circle: Warez exists because programs (for home users, anyway) are too expensive, and they are too expensive because of warez. Like Photoshop. I "have" a copy of ps 6.0, and I've used it twice in 4 months. I made some wallpaper, and one character portrait for NWN (Drizzt is available too!! www.threemoons.net/dnd.php if you want them!).
This is NOT worth the hefty (600 or so??) price tag associated with it, although I'd've probably paid 50.
Just my $.02
This is my sig. Its pathetic.
I love all the recent (well, last couple of years) banter about software pirates in the mainstream media. My favorite quotes are something along the lines of.. "software pirates cost us $x.x billion last year. When they are actually referring to people that haven't paid for the "illegal" copies of the software. I thought pirates were the people "selling" and gaining "profit" from "illegal" copies. How does putting a copy up on an ftp site relate to making a profit?
Have you hugged your Karma Whore today?
It's not exactly a new assertion, but Open Source quite obviously killed most of the motivation behind warez. Now we can just download the apps we need anyway. The desire to put your name out there, and to participate in the distribution of good software to people. Many of those creative people that would oce have been cracking software have a much more interesting, rewarding and legal outlet in devloping open source applications. Instead of "giving something back" by posting warez to ng's or pub ftp's, you can do your bit by bug testing, or contributing documentation etc etc
I would have to think that it isn't really a question of which came first. I think it safe to say that both evolved on their own and each became a good excuse for the others actions. People have been piriting software forever.... even on silly things that don't cost much money. I remember doing this back when I had my first comedore 64. Software developers charge high prices because they want to make money, and often they deserve it. Warez people do it because they enjoy seeing what they can find and accumulate.
When I first got in to connectivity with computers, communication, warez was always around.. My BBS was a 14.4 baud 486 dx4-100mhz with 8mb of ram running renegade software with around a 500mb hard drive chock full of full pieces of software that were about 6/8mb in size.
It was amazing the amount of traffic a BBS would get once it announced it went - "elite".
Now, it's the same thing, couriers, distribution FTP's, it's just on a much broader scale. It's always been around, it's just taken the NYTimes about a decade or so to publish something about it.
Who pays $9500 for a piece of software? I know I wouldn't. I don't have that much money, and if I did have, I'd buy a car. In fact, that sort of product probably sells less than 1000 copies. The people who buy it are not paying that much just for the software, but for the technical support as well. They simply aren't going to pirate it because a free copy isn't worth the money.
So although the industry criticises these people for costing them sales, the actual lost sales are probably non-existent. Added to this, some of thoise kids who pirate it are going to become familiar with it, and possibly get good enough with it to want to use it professionally.
I'm not saying that Piracy is good, but the penalties for this sort of thing are far too extreme.
I think you're right, pirates USE the excuse that its because software is too high priced that they don't buy it. However, I think even if software was relatively inexpensive, piracy would continue all the same. Lots of software pirates claim to do it because "they can", not because of money ... it's just cool to have hundreds of gigabytes of software they would never use ANYWAY archived. Cost is a piss-poor excuse to steal something, and anyone who falls back on that is just terribly illogical.
the blood has stopped pumping, and he's left to decay
the me that you know is now made up of wires
The difference is that piracy occurs no matter what the cost.
Not true, how much does Samba get pirated, or Snort, Apache, PHP, MySQL, Squid etc etc....
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
Here's a nice quote from the article:
"It's the same reason that people join gangs," said Allan Doody, the Customs Service investigator who led the DrinkorDie investigation...
Um.. yeah, script kiddies trading software like baseball cards is exactly like joining a gang so you won't get beat up on the way to school. I just love when the government/media feels the need to subtly add words that make things sound more evil than they really are.
Have you hugged your Karma Whore today?
i would even say that the pc platform wouldn't be where it is today if it wasn't for pirated software.
it just goes to show that these customs agents have too much time on their hands.
These guys need to lay off a bit. One or two unarmed agents would have sufficed to bring the guy in.
According to the /. article Warez is slowing down, but the articles say "Although the warez scene took root only in the early 1990's, piracy has expanded rapidly, particularly in the last five years." So, what is it? is Warez cooling down or still heating up? Warez is blocked (at my school at least), so that could be why most students are not downloading warez software anymore. Who knows what they do to the code anyway. Besides other things on their site, warez is never an option for me. I would rather buy my programs, write them myself or use open source. Open Source is the best option anyway.
Well, keep in mind that back when we were all on 14.4s (I still have my old Practical Peripheral's external, with the LCD screen.. *sigh*) stuff was a lot smaller. Ultima VI is one I remember fondly because it was large for it's day, and it was what, 6 1.44mb floppies? When games are that small, you can trade them across a modem link if you're determined. Try doing the same with a whole CD.. ouch!
So yah, the bandwidth has gone up significantly, but so have the size of the files. Maybe it's not proportional, and I agree with you that it's faster and easier now, but I just wanted to make a point.
Besides, don't you think there was something cool about the local warez communities we had back in the day? When your name could mean something to everyone within your area code? To this day I meet people in real life who remember me, who called the same BBSs I did and downloaded stuff I had a hand in cracking or distributing or whatever.
They tried to make an example out these few, look it's working great. Then they'll put the thousands on thousands of couriers in jail, then they'll put non affiliated users in jail. It works just like imprisoning people for marijuana possession. The US prison industry is booming, that's what will bring us out of this recession, a profitable prison system driven by slave^H^H^H^H^Hprison labor. When it's all over, that's all we will have. Everyone in prison.
Fear is not a good reason to do anything, as people will re-learn soon.
So do you think _real_ pirates in china/korea/russia/etc will have problems making copies? hah.
Destroy society for money, you won't live long enough to see it in ashes.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
"Wares" is the correct pronunciation.
;). No sane person would buy a $17K program for personal use, and any business that uses pirated software will get in trouble so I dont see what the problem is. Fair use rights for software should be the norm.. Free for personal or non-profit use. How many photoshop professionals learned photoshop at home on a pirated copy? How many of these professionals now do their work with a legit copy that some business provides for them? Repeat this question for any other highly pirated expensive software and ask yourself if anyone is truly being hurt by the process.
Searching for warez, mp3z, gamez, moviez, etc. is much easier than searching for wares, games and movies and makes it very apparent that the materials you are obtaining are of dubious nature.
Not that I was ever into the warez scene or anything illegit of course
The more widely pirated the software or movie, the more successful it eventually becomes so long as there is a significant benifit to not having the pirated version. Examples include games where network play requires an account (warcraft 3, NWN, quake 3, etc) and any business software (fear the BSA).
They can arrest all the people they want. Realistically though .. People have been pirating software since the 80's.
.. or obtained market share if they didn't embrance piracy.
.. but they have better sales over lightwave because of college piracy of their product.
.. legel or not?
.. ask Games Workshop how much of their product is illegally produced in Russia or Poland.
.. (or at least the big boys are) is because it gives upcoming companies the same ability to snake them like they did to others in the past.
.. crying wolf about lost sales during their HIGHEST sales year in history.
.. is that its better to be a company that sells billions and looses 5% revenue to piracy .. than a company that sells hundreds of thousands, and looses 2%.
Anyone remember Mr.Nibble ?
Not that its justification, but there are products that wouldn't have market share
Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, Quark.
All of these 'big names' became the 'standards' becuase folks were able to play with them.
3dMAX hates to admit it
College kids graduate, and eventually get into positions in companies that decide what software to actually buy. Do you buy something that you have never seen before ? or software that 1/2 of your staff already has at home
Internet piracey is a joke, You want real piracy
[were talking toy soldiers]
or Ask Black & Decker how many chineese companies made a knock off of the snake light.
piracy is nothing compaired to actual industrial espianage. How many car manufactureres buy, and reverse engineer their compeditors autos?
Or pick the solid state electrical giant of your choice. Chances are they are on the beta test list of all compeating companies through a friend of a friend of a friend.
The reason Software companies are so loud about it now
Its kind of like how the music industry was all over MP3
What people tend to forget
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
Price it too high, and the only users are pirates.
Price it too low, and there's no piracy but then eventually there's no company, either.
Piracy also indicates a good demand for a product, and if a warez hound does use the product, maybe he'll introduce it into a corporate environment later and spend someone else's money.
I therefore suspect that there's a certain tolerance of piracy, and that ringleaders of large pirate organizations would probably be the only real targets.
The problem with this is that unless you have some server-side logic, pirates can (and will) just hack the 'phone home' part of your program out. It works for id and other game companies because you need to connect to a server to get the full benefit of the game (and by the way, there are even hacked versions of the Quake3 server that allow people to connect with bad cd keys, though running one of these is obviously somewhat dangerous since it can be fairly easy for id to track down).
*snip*
:= real lost revinue the company would have gotten were it not for copyright violators := profit per copy of software company makes when it is purchased legally. This isn't the same as the retail price, as Id probably makes domething less than the $30.00 sticker price of a retail copy of Quake, for example. := Number of copies obtained illegally := Ratio of people who would have paid for the software had they not gotten an illegal copy over the total number who got a copy illegally (value 0.0 - 1.0),
:= C * P * N
"It's cool to release something that costs $18,000," said Mr. Grimes, the DrinkorDie member from Arlington, Tex. "Basically, if it wasn't for us, you would never see this piece of software."
*snip*
I understand how they figure that companies "lose money" whenever they're software is pirated. But do they figure into those billions of lost dollars statements like the one above? Seems to me it's hard to find out just how much money the software companies are really losing because not all people who pirate their software are people who would ever pay for it.
If we define
R
P
N
and
C
then
R
C is a value between 0.0 and 1.0, and probably almost never equals 1.0. E.g. if out of 500 copyright violators 250 would have bought the program otherwise, while the other 250 would have done without, C = 0.5
Still, the worst part is that because software piracy is so rampant, it enables people who would (can?) pay for proper licensing for software to obtain illegal licenses.
Actually, the value of money lost probably approaches $0.00 the more expensive the software becomes. I suspect C is quite high for really cheap software that is copied illegally, while it approaches 0.0 for really expensive software copied illegally.
Two factors play a significant role in this: (1) commercial entities almost always want to have their licensing in order (due to audits, liability, etc.) and (b) individuals have very limited budgets (comparitavly speaking).
I doubt very much a single copyright violator of an $18,000 program would have purchased it legally had it not been available on the internet. Indeed, I suspect C = 0.0000 in that particular example.
On the other hand, illegal copies of a $50.00 program (e.g a game) probably do mean that some percentage would have gone out and spent $50.00 on it had they not obtained it, so C is probably higher.
For a $2.00 piece of software (assuming its really easy to find and pay for), C probably approaches 0.9 or higher.
Of course, even this equation ignores the effect of advertising (someone copies the $18,000 program, then finds a need for it in their professional life and talks their employer into purchasing one or more copies), as well as the 'bleedoff' effect (a kid copies one $50.00 game, but goes and spends the $50.00 he would have spent on the first game on another game instead, perhaps by the same company, perhaps by a competitor. Statistically, assuming both games are roughly the same popularity, this is a wash, and neither company loses anything despite the kids having twice as many games as they could have afforded). It also ignores the very common practice of 'try before you buy', where people will in fact borrow a friend's copy of a commercial package, use it, get used to it, then quite often chose to buy a copy (for the documentation, for support, etc.).
I think it is obvious even to the IP zealots out there that the real losses due to copyright violations are tiny fractions of the amounts being deceitfully presented to the FBI and the courts, and in some cases (e.g. Napster) copyright violations have been shown to have the opposite effect, and even increase sales.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Well, I don't believe so. I much prefer having a legit version of all my software - but $600 or whatever obscene price they want for photoshop is, well, obscene.
When I saw WinXP being offered through Microsoft for $40, I was all over that.
I was looking for some database design software, like erwin, that supported postgres. eventually i settled on a $35 copy of Database Architect, even though it wasn't as good as the $250 Case Studio.
Sankus should have raped someone, or robbed them at gunpoint. He'd be out in half the time.
So you advocate the valuation of a sophisticated tool for skilled artists based on what you can do with it? It's not my intent to offend you, but might I suggest using something else that's more in line with your skills, price range, and scope of application?
Its true though - most of the warez collecting guys I've ran into in my travels spent every waking moment outside of work or whatever collecting the files. Hundreds or thousands of cd's full of software they rarely use.
Quote:
"Nonsense. If someone steals your car, but doesn't make any money doing it (i.e. just drives it around for fun, rather than selling it to a chop shop), that's still theft. Alternatively, someone who picks the lock to your house but doesn't break anything, and then hands out copies of your house key to anyone who wants one, bears responsibility if your stuff gets stolen."
You cannot compare the abstract to the physical in this fashion. It does *NOT* work. Stealing software for your own use does not in any way affect the vendor of the software, except that perhaps they may have lost a sale if you would've otherwise purchased it. If somebody steals your car, you are without the use of the car while it is gone. Yes, you've lost your mobility AND your several-thousand-dollar asset. There is an enormous difference there.
Digital information is its own paradigm and we need to establish sane grounds and a sane legal framework for dealing with copyright/IP infringement.
It's almost impossible for your argument to be more "apples to oranges".
sedawkgrep
Is that a salami in my pants or am I just happy to be me?
That's ridiculous. For one thing, a restaurant actually loses something if that customer doesn't pay, while the software company doesn't. They also provided personal service to the customers, whereas a warez obtainer does all of the work hirself.
Not all analogies work out, espeically when it comes to the difference between the tangible, physical world, and the intangible world of data. And I think THAT is the reason why we're going to be screwed by politicians and lobbyists who use bad analogies against the computer-enthusiast society.
Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
It's obvious that what these guys were doing is illegal. Still I feel sorry for them, with their multi-year prison sentences, because they really weren't costing the software industry that much money in lost sales, and because they are scapegoats.
As many others have said, most people wouldn't have bought the very expensive applications anyhow. When someone makes a pirated copy of Photoshop to do web graphics, at worst, they are depriving The GIMP community of a new user, or depriving Jasc of $99 -- usually not depriving Adobe of $600. There is some financial impact on the industry, but the numbers are lower. Also, there are plenty of software copiers. Software "theft" won't be reduced one iota by locking these guys up.
The reason for that is, they were just functioning as a completely essential part of a healthy information economy -- the underground. Why is it essential? One reason is that, espescially near the turning points in society and revolution, information occasionally must transcend barriers created by law. If these underground data networks -- very small ones, if you believe the numbers in the NYT article -- are maintained, hidden, and keep working based on an economy of commercially available pilfered information, and if more citizens are trained in how to communicate covertly, and people are indoctrinated to know that storing or exchanging illegal information may not actually be wrong, then our surveillance-laden society has paid a fair price.
The loosely hierarchical distribution network used by warez kidz is analogous in form and function to those used in China and other repressive regimes by political dissidents. Capable of passing only information, peer-organized, and with a medium level of identity isolation -- bring down one and you bring down a few others, but not the whole group. Personally, I feel more secure knowing that there exist these sophisticated illegal networks, capable only of traffic in information, that would be rather difficult for any authority to completely shut down. Who knows when they may be needed...
-=Ivan (actually not very paranoid at all)
"Here are a few notes from the underground / load them at your pleasure / These are the dusty pictures that I found / while on my search for treasure" -- Information Society: Mirrorshades
Now when will we read more about the CEOs and other corporate executes who have deprived the good citizens of this country of billions of REAL dollars through their skimming and shady accounting practicies? Can we give this corporate rape a nickname? Can we make comparisons like "The CEO of suchandsuch is kind of like the guy who robs the 7-11 except he hit 10 million of them and left behind several million victims. Their sentences should be served concurently."
Yeah, piracy is illegal, but I'm not seeing it at risk of pushing the world into a recession or worse depression, as investors and fund administrators move their money out of corporate stocks faster than they did in 1929...
It's too bad that product is craptacular. It begs anyone with two brain cells to rub together to get the full version of PS because it's so crippled. And of course, if you actually made the mistake of spending $100 on that, you then hit yourself in the head for even wasting the hard drive space for it.
Black holes are where the Matrix raised SIGFPE
Tell me about it. Check out this for example:
'But that argument fails to resonate for copyright holders like Mr. Vold. "If you like torching houses for fun, you don't gain anything from torching somebody's house," he said. "But that homeowner will certainly suffer a material loss."'
How can this guy possibly draw a parallel between digitally creating more copies of something, and destroying someone's physical property!? What nonsense. Warez pirates aren't destroying anything, just the opposite. (I'm not saying this guy doesn't have a legitimate grievance, just that his analogy is stupid beyond belief)
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
So the reason why software developers are chasing pirates is so that they can lower prices?
Don't buy the BS from either side. Software developers (like this Mr. Vold) charge money for what they create because like everyone else they must eat, but would like to do what they love (create software) to fill their needs. Large corporations(and governments?) are a different sort of entity. I don't think I need to go into what they care about or how far they will go...
Personally, my feeling is if you're going to charge big $$$ for a stream of bits, your support and other benefits should be good enough that piracy can never truly devalue what you sell. If you're selling to tons of people for low prices, there should still be that "something extra" between what you offer and warez. If you're missing that "something extra" prepare for a difficult time staying in business.
That said, speaking as a developer for a small company: I'd still throw the book (minus the DMCA) at anyone I might catch infringing our software. We've spent a lot of time and money on development effort, and the law currently says we control who has rights to own "a copy" and what price they will pay. Just don't expect me to make any corollaries with murder on the high seas, burning houses, or physical theft.
Bottom Line:
Intellectual property is different than physical property but has meaning nonetheless. Further, information will eventually be free, or people won't be. The equation is that simple. History will decide the rest.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And yes, while commercial piracy exists, does the BSA seriously think that commercial pirates aren't capable of doing their own cracks? They're in a totally different space from what it sounds like these warez guys are doing. The idea that commercial pirates wouldn't exist without the warez crowd is ludicrous. The most popular targets for commercial pirating (Microsoft Office, etc.) aren't even copy protected.
None of this is any news to /. readers but it's sad that the NYT swallowed the BSA line so readily. Some tougher questions definitely would have been in order.
No, no, no.
/takes away/ is the right to decide who gets access to a product, and under what terms. As a product is never developed for free, considering that at a minimum time and effort are always expended, the developer must either find a source of support, or eventually stop due to starvation. The publisher or developer has /full/ rights to charge whatever the Hell he wants to for a product {*}, because nobody else has /access rights/ to it.
/have/ been common before and public attitudes are quite permissive of them (well, less so for 'baccy now). Once infringement reaches high levels, it becomes difficult for people to /not/ infringe; the potential savings can provide a competitive edge, for instance, and there is the pressure to not look like a schmuck... In addition, infringers often increase the supply, as well, by providing access to their copies, which makes it even easier for others.
1. So you think Microsoft is being anticompetitive. Fine, I agree, at least with respect to bundling and pricing schemes.
The answer is NOT to simply steal from them. Two wrongs do not make a right; that's why we have courts and judicial systems.
2. Software piracy is infringement. You completely miss the issue that nontangibles are perfectly valid goods; for instance, if I took away your right to speak, you have genuinely lost something. If I took away your right to move, you are impaired. If I seize your mail, read it, and then hand it to you in neglible time (I made a copy), then you have lost privacy. If I take away your right to agree or disagree to a transaction, then you have lost _a lot_. The right to provide a product under whatever terms are desired is one such right; under very limited conditions do we EVER allow such things as compulsory licensing, and for good reason - in a just system, no ordinary transaction can occur without mutual consent.
What infringement
Your ONLY legitimate options are
a) Doing completely without.
b) Making your own. Hell, this site is heavily into open-source. What's the usual refrain coming from people who defend the GPL -- if you don't like it, WRITE YOUR OWN BLOODY SOFTWARE and stop whining. What pathetic, whining hypocrites moping about like children still locked in the me-me phase...
c) Buying it for whatever price is being asked. You can ask for a lower deal, but the owner is under NO OBLIGATION to provide it barring compulsory licensing.
d) Find an cheaper competitor.
In addition, it takes an utterly myopic idiot to believe that the actions of an individual can be considered in isolation, given the nature of modern society. For one thing, everybody who infringes software is contributing to an environment in which it becomes increasingly "ok" to infringe. Public attitudes do matter; for instance, the relatively prudish US has significantly less nudity on broadcast TV, because that's where the country's values lie. Alcohol and tobacco are common drugs, partly because they
{*} Major exception: A market dominator temporarily selling at below cost to annihilate competition.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
People keep saying the losses due to piracy figures are inflated. I don't disagree, but people here seem to think it's nowhere near $10 billion.
Well, if 200 million people (3.3% of the world's population) pirate $50 worth of something they would buy (I know I have), then that makes $10 billion. Though many pirate software they would never pay for, that's usually for expensive software and a small percentage can level out to $50 a pop. And don't forget that corporations also pirate software. And that people in many countries sell such illegal software. So, a $5 billion dollar mark per year wouldn't surprise me.
I know I'm part of the problem since I've downloaded Fifa 2002, Civ3, etc... It seems some people here in Slashdot are in denial. It's not that I buy into the BSA or shit, it's just that I'm a skeptic. As a skeptic, I must consider valid sides and not be a slave to ANY crowd.