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."
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.
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?
These guys need to lay off a bit. One or two unarmed agents would have sufficed to bring the guy in.
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.
"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!
*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.
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?
It kills me everytime I hear people equate software piracy with actual theft.
When Joe Blow downloads Photoshop, he doesn't deprive the company of the money of someone else buying it.
When Joe Blow steals a car, he completely deprives the company, not only of his money, but of ANYONE ELSE that might have bought the car.
See the difference? No? The world is not black and white. It's shades of gray. Is Joe Blow wrong? Yes. Is Joe BLow "as wrong" as a car thief... no way.
Were the horrible pirates mentioned in the times article wrong? Yep. Do you think they caused more pain than Mr. Enron? Hahahah!
If people don't understand why its wrong that our government is criminally prosecuting people at the behest of corporate america, over CIVIL crimes, then I truly don't know that you ever had an understanding of what our country was supposed to be about.
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
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...
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
Then let's look at the REAL problem of this analogy.
When Joe CEO buys a JAG for $60k, what is he buying, really. S-T-A-T-U-S. (I can think of no other luxury car, perhaps except the Cadillac or Lexus where the customer is charged so ridiculously much higher for what is essentially not much of a car, compared to say, a Porsche, BMW, or frankly, a Corvette). All to be seen driving down the road - careful man, I'm a big shot. I pay more to park this car than you do for rent. My suit costs more than your college education. I can afford the gas guzzler tax, unlike you SUV posers.
So is that what really is troubling people here? Paid $600 for the top of the line premier professional graphics software - I'm a hot shit pro graphic artist, yet can't stop those snotty little pimple-faced warez d00ds from getting to use a copy (perhaps developing pro-level skillsets in the process) for nothing?
I can see where it would be unfair for a professional to use a pirated copy of software to compete with other pros who are legit. I say bust those motherfuckers.
But for casual, or even educational purposes, you'd be hard pressed to make a case with me that that's as wrong (and as deserving of enforcement effort) as Accountants shovelling fraud trial evidence into a shredder. (yes, where were the 40 heavily armed agents when they were shredding documents at Arthur Anderson for MONTHS, and it was not only public knowledge, but a top news story, while they continued to shred?).
Again - this illustrates the sheer triviality of the crime of software copy infringement. And the low regard in which I hold the BSA, and current government policy.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.