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."

167 of 575 comments (clear)

  1. Hi by JeanMarieLepen · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anyone knows an FTP site when I can download Linux Warez? K Tnx!

    1. Re:Hi by FreeUser · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sure Warez Dude!

      Gentoo
      Source Mage
      Debian
      Freshmeat - More Free Wares than you can shake a stick at.

      Course, in the world of Free Software we don't need to write wares with a Z, 'cuase it's already free. ;-)

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    2. Re:Hi by JeanMarieLepen · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually it's GNU/Warez, unless you want to get sued by RMS.

    3. Re:Hi by FreeUser · · Score: 2

      Actually it's GNU/Warez

      heh! Actually, wouldn't it be GNV/L1NuX W4r3z, or is the u->v valid only when it is written in stone? :)

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    4. Re:Hi by Jucius+Maximus · · Score: 2
      "Actually it's GNU/Warez, unless you want to get sued by RMS."

      Only fools use GNU/Warez. Go get some of the real warez instead.

  2. This is like by sheepab · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is like the chicken and the egg story. Only with warez, what came first, extremely high prices for software or software pirates? Software developers always whine about how pirates drive costs through the roof, and pirates always whine about how they dont but their software because its too overpriced.

    1. Re:This is like by dciman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:This is like by jat850 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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
    3. Re:This is like by sheepab · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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....

    4. Re:This is like by Clay+Mitchell · · Score: 2

      uh, you can't pirate it.

      maybe look into something that costs $10 or something, but throwing out "how often does apache get pirated!?!?!" isn't the best example

    5. Re:This is like by Clay+Mitchell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    6. Re:This is like by bcrowell · · Score: 2
      Yeah, there are cases where the "victims" brought it on themselves. If you feel you've been screwed over, it gets a lot easier to justify to yourself that you're breaking the law. Personally, I've gone looking for warez exactly once, and the reason was that I'd bought software that stopped working when I upgraded my OS. Their response was that I could upgrade to the latest version of their software. In other words, I could pay for the privilege of continuing to use software that I'd already paid for.

      Another example would be MS's abusive licensing setup. I'm sure a lot of the "piracy" of Windows consists of people who don't want to pay for a new copy of windows just because they bought new hardware. Another MS example is when people pay for Word, but then don't want to pay for an upgrade a couple of years later when people start sending them e-mail attachments made with a newer version of Word, which they can't read.

      And how about licenses that say you can't reverse-engineer (or even benchmark!) the code? They shouldn't be surprised at the negative reaction they get, if they go out of their way to antagonize people.

      Even in cases where the vendor isn't abusive, they could probably increase their profits and decrease piracy just by doing stuff like offering a student version of their software at a much lower price.

    7. Re:This is like by Surak · · Score: 2

      This is like the chicken and the egg story. Only with warez, what came first, extremely high prices for software or software pirates? Software developers always whine about how pirates drive costs through the roof, and pirates always whine about how they dont but their software because its too overpriced.

      Piracy is as old as packaged software itself. When mainframes ruled the Earth, software was mostly 'free' and came with the machine.

      Then some moron named Bill Gates came around and started a company called Traf-O-Data and started selling software to municipalities. Later this same guy and his equally moronic partner Paul Allen started selling this thing called MicroSoft BASIC under the company name of MicroSoft. Maybe you've heard of them. :) Initially they sold stuff to OEMs and then later sold stuff directly to customers.

      Then they started whining about people copying their tapes. This would happen at places like the Homebrew Computer Club, where legendary engineers like Steve "The Woz" Wozniak would hang out. Of course they'd all doing nothing but copying MicroSoft tapes and Bill Gates wanted to kill them all, but he was just a little tyke then. :)

    8. Re:This is like by telbij · · Score: 2
      Photoshop is expensive because of the professional quality of the tools. The money is reasonable because if you are the type of individual who needs that much power then it will increase your productivity enough to pay for within a matter of weeks if not days.

      If you are a more casual user than Adobe still offers a product for you at a more reasonable price...

    9. Re:This is like by moogla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
    10. Re:This is like by GMontag451 · · Score: 2

      Yes he has a degree from Berkeley, but all of his major hardware hacking work (his games for Atari, work at HP and of course the Apple 1 and 2) were done before he had a degree. He dropped out of Berkeley in order to develop Apple into a company, and returned to Berkeley and finished his degree after he got pissed off with how Apple was being run in 1983-84.

  3. Man.. by taernim · · Score: 4, Funny

    Forget this registering for an account at the NYTimes! Time to go post and ask if anyone has any cracked versions of it! hehe ;)

    --
    "PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
    1. Re:Man.. by Abstrakt · · Score: 2, Informative
      Sure! Here you go:

      NY Times Random Login Generator

    2. Re:Man.. by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 2


      Well, maybe they where just nice to someone they though was ... very stupid.

      There actually are people that are as ignorant as you seamed to be in the first post.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
  4. WAIT A FREAKING MINUTE by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Last week, at age 29, John Sankus Jr. moved out of his parents' house for the first time.

    Wait, a warez d00d aged 29 still living at home? NO WAY. This totally shatters my image of them.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    1. Re:WAIT A FREAKING MINUTE by swankypimp · · Score: 5, Funny
      To quote Weird Al's timeless "All About the Pentiums":

      Fella, I bet you're still livin' in your parents' cellar / downloading pictures of Sarah Michelle Gellar / And postin' "Me too!" like some brain-dead AOL-er / I should do the world a favor and cap you like Old Yeller / You're about as useless as JPEGs to Helen Keller

      --

      --All your stolen base are belong to Rickey Henderson
  5. Re:End of an Era. by TheDick · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Oh yeah, downloading on the OC-192 at work (ISP) sucks compared to the 14.4 modem I used to have. gimme a break. Stuff moves WAY easier now across the state/country/world without all those pesky LD charges or blue boxen.

    --

  6. really? by mike77 · · Score: 2, Troll
    What? A news page actually taking the time to get both sides of the story and write an intelligent informed article?

    Must be a sign of the coming apocalypse and end of the world!

    --

    --Keeping the flame wars alive, one post at a time

  7. Warez by LordYUK · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Warez by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 3, Funny

      D000d, I hear ya! There's this sweet Jag that I jacked last year, but I've only driven it twice, and once was just down to the Circle-K ya know? That was NOT worth the hefty ($60 G's!) price tag associated with it, although I'd've probably payed $50.

    2. Re:Warez by Clue4All · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your point might be valid if Photoshop were for the casual user, but it's not. It's a high quality image tool designed for graphical artists who need the capabilities it features and will pay for them. Adobe offers a home version for under a hundred bucks, but I'm sure you won't be paying for that one, either.

      --

      Is your browser retarded?
    3. Re:Warez by sheepab · · Score: 2

      Just my $.02

      And that $.02 isnt enough to pay for $600.00 software LoL :)

    4. Re:Warez by Clay+Mitchell · · Score: 2

      take it from somebody who has done graphics design professionally, and spent many an hour with both Photoshop and the Gimp

      Photoshop > Gimp.

    5. Re:Warez by jilles · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that I'm not a professional user does not mean that I want a dumbed down program full of wizards. Most knowledgeable users probably appreciate the feature set offered by photoshop and enjoy messing about with their holliday pics in it. However that does not exactly justify a 600$ pricetag and I doubt many users would actually pay 600$ for some occasional playing around.

      For that kind of users a warezed copy is tempting to say the least. Arguably this style of copying is what actually mada adobe succesfull since a lot of their paying users probably started messing about with illegal versions when they were students.

      --

      Jilles
    6. Re:Warez by hendridm · · Score: 2

      > and [programs] are too expensive because of warez

      Do you really think that if Warez were eliminated that software prices would decrease? I see warez as a form of competition, in some ways. I release a piece of software and charge $19.95 for it, hoping that most people will just buy it instead of passing it around on KaZaa.

      I think many, if not most people have a limited conscience. They'll pay $10-$20 for their favorite applications to support the starving author. But if that price rose to $100, they would open up their favorite P2P app and just download it.

      Eliminating piracy doesn't mean the manufacturers necessarily make more money, either. It just means the average person has less software on their desktop. Do you think the majority of people who pirate Adobe Photoshop would actually purchase it if they couldn't download it? If they are a professional, they probably already bought it. If not, I have a feeling they would migrate towards something cheaper like Paint Shop Pro or The Gimp.

    7. Re:Warez by gethane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Warez by catfood · · Score: 2
      When Joe Blow downloads Photoshop, he doesn't deprive the company of the money of someone else buying it.

      Maybe not. And copyright infringement is not the same thing as stealing. But clearly it can (and does) get to the point where it does hurt the copyright holders.

      In any case, let Adobe decide how much to charge for Photoshop, and let Joe decide whether it's worth the price to him. It's not up to Joe to tell Adobe how to price their product.

    9. Re:Warez by ebyrob · · Score: 2

      It's not up to Joe to tell Adobe how to price their product.

      Sure it is. If he feels it is over-priced, he should vote by not using it or creating a free alternative.

      When people start to confuse alternatives with piracy is where things get really scary...(DMCA et al)

    10. Re:Warez by fmaxwell · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's this sweet Jag that I jacked last year

      You need to stop watching the BSA/SPA propaganda films.

      When you take a Jaguar, someone else is missing a Jaquar.

      When you pirate a copy of software, no one has fewer copies of it.

      If you pirate a copy of Photoshop instead of buying it, you deprive Adobe of income.

      If you pirate a copy of Photoshop instead of buying Paintshop Pro, you deprive JASC of income.

      If you pirate a copy of Photoshop instead of using the GPL GIMP program, no one has been deprived of income.

      Now, this being the Internet, I'll sit back and wait for the self-righteous indignation, unfounded accusations, and heavy-handed diatribes about the legality and morality of software piracy (despite the fact that I never addressed the morality or legality of it).

    11. Re:Warez by jafac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    12. Re:Warez by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Ok, it would have watered down the satire, but I really should have commented about where the analogy breaks down. Here goes, courtesy of the rapid-response team that is the slashdot community:
      • Cars are physical property, software is bits.
      • Creating physical property incurs significant expense, copying bits does not.
      • jacking a car deprives the person who purchased that car of something, taking/making a copy of software does not remove anything from the publisher, and per your argument doesn't even deprive them of potential revenue.
      Ok, fine. My point is that your argument of "It costs too much for my intended use, so I used an illegally obtained copy instead of paying for it" doesn't cut it with me. You're not on better moral ground because you didn't use it very much, you still got software, used it, and didn't pay for it.

      Its not that I dont think the program is worth it, its just the fact that FOR ME PERSONALLY to use it ONCE or TWICE doesnt justify the exorbitant price tag, whereas something cheaper might have led to to buy it.

      Then don't use it! If Gimp didn't do it for you, then find something else that OSS that does. If you can't find free software for your once-or-twice use, then find cheap software and pony up the bucks.
    13. Re:Warez by jilles · · Score: 2

      I fully agree with the last statement but not with the first (in fact I think it is a rather arrogant statement). I'm sure Photoshop Elements is a fine program and I'm pretty sure the real deal is better (in terms of features). One of the fun things about photoshop is actually learning to use it properly (i.e. including the so-called professional features).

      --

      Jilles
  8. "Pirates" by maynard-lag · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:"Pirates" by symbolic · · Score: 2

      It also applies to acquiring value without due compensation, or supplying this value to others. Face it...software has value, because if it didn't, there would be no demand for it. So, you might not be making a profit, but you ARE benefitting from its value.

    2. Re:"Pirates" by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2

      And your point is?

      Maybe you wouldn't have ever made a purchase but you have got to admit that there is a possibility that someone who would have made a purchase didn't because they were able to get it for free.

      The fact is that as a consumer, you or I don't have the right to decide the method a product will be distributed if we don't hold the IP rights to that product.

      Sure, the police inflate the figures by counting every download as loss of revenue but that's irrelevant to the question of who has the right to decide how a product gets distributed. The IP holders have already decided the method and it isn't by being placed on a free-for-all FTP site.

      --
      The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    3. Re:"Pirates" by Danse · · Score: 2

      Sure, it's irrelevant, but it's also extremely dishonest. Kinda hypocritical coming from people complaining about others being dishonest.

      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    4. Re:"Pirates" by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2

      You are right that we are assuming a loss of sale but you are also assuming that the pirate wouldn't have bought it if he couldn't download it for free.

      The reality is that if enough people go to a WAREZ site and download a piece of software the odds are that there will be a loss of sales. i.e. Someone who downloads it won't buy it simply because they got it for free.

      No, we can't prove it but it is true nonetheless. The race isn't always to the swift... But that's the way to bet.

      --
      The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
    5. Re:"Pirates" by Eric+Damron · · Score: 2

      I agree totally.

      --
      The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
  9. Enforcement by Templar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    To me, an interesting aspect of the fight against piracy is the teaming-up of companies/divisions.

    Right now, the MPAA is trolling IRC for servers, and reporting infringing IPs back to Time Warner, who promptly warns customers against their usage. I've seen some of the letters.

    There may or may not be antitrust concerns, but it's certainly schizophrenic... In cases like these, whose profit is considered to be more important?

    1. Re:Enforcement by sheepab · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Right now, the MPAA is trolling IRC for servers, and reporting infringing IPs back to Time Warner, who promptly warns customers against their usage. I've seen some of the letters.

      If thats sucessful, they will just move to an IRC server that doesnt support finger/dns. I know a few irc servers that you cant get other peoples ip, you can dns/finger them all you want (get your mind out of the gutter!) but it will still return YOUR ip. With that said the MPAA/RIAA might try and force the server to release the ips of certain people, but the server has every right to deny that request do to 'security' reasons.

      "I want the list of ips for all these people!"
      Sorry, that poses a security threat not only to our servers, but to our many faithful users :)

      *sigh* Please dont flame me for what I have just said...Im only stating what will most likely happen.

    2. Re:Enforcement by damiangerous · · Score: 2

      they will just move to an IRC server that doesnt support finger/dns. And how will that help? They're not going after people in the channels, can't prove they're doing anything. They're going after people running fserves. You have to allow people to connect to your server for them to download anything. Once they're connected they know who you are.

  10. OSS killed warez by Tsugumi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:OSS killed warez by Iridar · · Score: 2, Funny

      Simple. Make fixing bugs illegal...oh, wait, MS is already working on that ;-)

      --


      Information doesn't want to be anything

      .
    2. Re:OSS killed warez by qurob · · Score: 3, Insightful


      You're nuts.

      There's no OSS equivalents of the latest version of TrueSpace, AutoCAD, PhotoShop, Quark, Flash, etc etc

      Half the mystique of WaReZ and Crackers is getting to be the first group getting a crack out, having copies of EVERYTHING, and having software just to have it.

      Do you think every WaReZ kiddy has all this software installed? Hell, they might not know what half of it is, but they have it.

  11. It gets better :) by Boba001 · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Most of the people I have been around with are not out to cheat anybody," said Mr. Sankus, a large, shy man who worked as a computer technician at a Gateway store. "They are out to have fun. It's just a hobby."

    Leader of an international warez group... works as a gateway tech. Priceless :)

    1. Re:It gets better :) by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:It gets better :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      But godDAMN are they a useful person to have around when you need something!

      I love the guys who take thirty minutes to find the CD you asked for in their four suitcases full of software ;)

  12. FBI Scaremongers by maynard-lag · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  13. clarify something for me... by shren · · Score: 3, Informative

    Although release and courier groups engage in little direct commercial activity, a 1997 extension in federal copyright law made piracy a crime even if there is no monetary profit.

    How were pirates prosecuted before then? I seem to recall that they busted hacker rings long before 1997.

    --
    Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
    1. Re:clarify something for me... by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2

      How were pirates prosecuted before then? I seem to recall that they busted hacker rings long before 1997.

      Back in the days of pirate BBSs (up here in Canada, at least), they'd mostly ignore the pirated software and go after BBSs that were involved with carding (warezing stolen credit card information).

      Most of the serious pirate boards did carding, so there was never a shortage of targets to keep the authourities busy.

      Boards that just traded files weren't big enough targets.

      I suppose they could have nailed boards on child porn charges too, as any large porn archive would likely have people of borderline age somewhere in it, but credit card takedowns were the ones I heard about.

  14. Losing billions? by AAAWalrus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    *snip*
    "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.

    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.

    I certainly feel bad that small businesses that rely on software licensing for revenue are having their stuff pirated, but another company like Blizzard who sold something like (correct me if I'm wrong) 1 millions copies of Warcraft III on pre-sell alone... how are we supposed to feel sorry that their "losing" money, when we can't be sure that people who pirated that software would never have bought it because they don't have the money or whatever? Maybe that's a lame example, but you get my point. Replace Warcraft III with some $500 publishing software, like Photoshop or CorelDraw. Is everyone who pirates those someone who would pay for them if they couldn't obtain them illegally?

    Now here's a good hypothetical question: Suppose someone illegally downloads a copy of Warcraft III just to "try it out", with the intention of buying it if they like it. They play it and don't like it because of the 90 food limit, or something like that. They delete the game and never play it again. Do they owe Blizzard $55 because they should have bought the game in the first place to "try it out"?

    1. Re:Losing billions? by Sanity · · Score: 2
      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?
      No, of course they don't. They make the rediculous assumption that every person who obtains a free copy of the software would have purchased it had the free copy not been available. The result is a hugely inflated idea of financial loss, which is exactly what they want.

      The reality is much more complex, in many situations the avilability of free versions of software, which - say - poor students can play with, can motivate that student to purchase, or persuade their employer to purchase, the software when they leave school.

      I am just waiting for the day when you get a longer prison sentence for copying the wrong set of bits and giving them to a friend, than you would if you murdered him.

    2. Re:Losing billions? by Kenja · · Score: 2

      They are assuming that people who use a product should have paid for it. Stealing something because you wouldn't pay for it anyway in no way makes it less of a theft. If you use the software you owe the company money for it.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    3. Re:Losing billions? by symbolic · · Score: 2

      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.

      Whether or not they would have paid for it is beside tbe point. It still involves theft of the value that the software provides.

    4. Re:Losing billions? by liquidsin · · Score: 2

      Suppose someone illegally downloads a copy of Warcraft III just to "try it out", with the intention of buying it if they like it. They play it and don't like it because of the 90 food limit, or something like that. They delete the game and never play it again. Do they owe Blizzard $55 because they should have bought the game in the first place to "try it out"?

      According to the RIAA, yes. I've said the same thing about people downloading mp3s to sample more songs off of an album than just the released singles. But the RIAA would have you believe that you're doing something along the lines of drowning kittens when you download *their* music. So I'd imagine that the rest of corporate America feels the same.

      --
      do not read this line twice.
    5. Re:Losing billions? by Geeyzus · · Score: 2

      another company like Blizzard who sold something like (correct me if I'm wrong) 1 millions copies of Warcraft III on pre-sell alone... how are we supposed to feel sorry that their "losing" money, when we can't be sure that people who pirated that software would never have bought it because they don't have the money or whatever?

      Perhaps because it's wrong? They have spent YEARS creating this game, maybe the best RTS game ever (not really sure yet, still just starting out playing it right now). Aren't they entitled to every penny they charge for it?

      Just because YOU think they have made enough money doesn't make it right to pirate the software. I am thankful there are people out there that will pay Blizzard for their hard work by purchasing the game (like myself).

      And for the fun it gives you, it is NOT expensive. Taking a chick to a movie, buying popcorn and everything comes to $20+. And thats 3 hours of entertainment tops. WC3 is months of entertainment, at least. Isn't it worth the money? Granted, Photoshop is a little steep, but Warcraft 3 is not.

      You want to "try it out"? Play it at a friend's house that has it. Read the reviews and see what you would like/dislike about it. I don't ask for my money back halfway through a shitty movie at the theater (although some times I want to).

      Mark

    6. Re:Losing billions? by jafuser · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

      Is there a term for this? If not, someone must invent one. It must be a fairly unique word which is distinct enough to make it clear that companies do not lose money to people who would never have bought something in the first place. It seems like lately this concept has been explained over and over (software, mp3s, movies, etc), but until we label it, it will never sink in.

      I will concede that a portion of the people would have purchased it if there were no piracy, but there has to be a stop to this incessant and inane meme that, for example, one million users illegally downloading software "X", valued at $100 per copy is not a net loss to the company of 100 million dollars - maybe one million, maybe five million, maybe ten million - but no way in hell 100% of the people who copied the software would have bought it if piracy never existed.

      DIE MEME DIE!

      --
      Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
    7. Re:Losing billions? by jafuser · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What about in a restaurant? If the person doesn't like the food, should they be able to just up and leave, telling the waiter on the way out that they didn't like the food, so they shouldn't have to pay for it?

      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
    8. Re:Losing billions? by elandal · · Score: 2
      Suppose someone illegally downloads a copy of Warcraft III just to "try it out", with the intention of buying it if they like it. They play it and don't like it because of the 90 food limit, or something like that. They delete the game and never play it again. Do they owe Blizzard $55 because they should have bought the game in the first place to "try it out"?

      No.
      Assume they'd sell the game used, and got something like 40% of the pricetag back. So, in that case, they paid about $33 for the game, and someone else paid about $22. Now, that someone else probably wouldn't have bought the game for full price (he bought it used - most people who buy used wait for new game to be on the used market, or a "value" edition that's half the price). But, assuming that he'd bought it later as "value edition" for about $25, the question becomes, how much do the game companies get for those value-, platinum-, and so on editions?

      I would guess that game, movie, and CD piracy doesn't really cost much money to the companies, as those who have a pirated copy would spend at most the price put to old games and so on - at least 40% off the release cover price (very few people pay the cover price - most new relases are available for "incredible discounts" of 10-25%).

      I don't really pirate much nowadays. I don't actually know where to get the latest games and such.. So, my piracy is more like burning a copy from a friend who bought it. And even then, I most often buy it later when the initial high-price period is over. And if I don't get a copy from a friend when it's new, so what? I don't need to play the newest games - I don't think they're always the greatest. If I really want it, I buy it. If I'm just curious, I'll see if I can get a copy, and if it's good, buy it later when it's cheap.
  15. Overkill by Dolohov · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Wow, they used 40 armed agents to bust a 29-year-old still living with his parents? I guess they must have decided that they can spare the manpower from, say, the anthrax investigation or the war on terror.

    These guys need to lay off a bit. One or two unarmed agents would have sufficed to bring the guy in.

    1. Re:Overkill by realdpk · · Score: 2

      Inflated costs are hard to justify if you don't treat them as "Big Deals" throughout the entire operation. It's all part of the show...

    2. Re:Overkill by JUSTONEMORELATTE · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ok, this is offtopic so mod to your heart's content, but I love to tell the story so I'm gonna

      I friend of mine back in the BBS day had always steered clear of guessing MCI codes for fear of getting busted. Lots of people we knew were doing it, and had been for a long time without any problem, so finally someone talked him into running a kind of war dialer to find MCI codes. He gets the program, finds a local MCI dialup number on a BBS and sets it to run overnight.
      Sadly, the dialup that he finds is an FBI plant -- they had been trying to get some big-time LD thiefs in the area and my buddy stumbled into the sting.
      His computer was a flaky old Apple II, which didn't quite run before the CPU warmed up a bit. The way he booted it was to turn it on, wait a few seconds, then hit the red button connected to a non-maskable-interrupt card (NMI cards, ahh the memories!) to restart, and repeat the cylce until it worked.
      So these two FBI goons greet him at his door, and ask to see the computer. He shows them the computer on his desk, and they ask him to turn it on. As he's reaching for the red button, he notices that the two goons have shoved their hands inside their jackets, just shy of drawing guns on this dorky kid, and ask him "just WHAT does that button do?!?"
      To this day we can't figure out what they hell they THOUGHT it was going to do. (release the hounds!)

    3. Re:Overkill by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 3


      I would imagine that any law enforcement agency has a better idea of risks assessment than J. Random Slashdotter.

      Obviously there was a reason they assigned 40 armed agents to bust one man, and I guarantee you that it's not because 38 guys were sitting around with nothing better to do and decided to go out there on a lark.

      Maybe you would have cooperated and gone in quietly if 2 unarmed agents showed up. Maybe this guy would have pulled an unregistered shotgun from his closet and blown them both away. You don't know, and they didn't either.

    4. Re:Overkill by sedawkgrep · · Score: 2

      Jesus Christ. That has to be one of the most moronic and ill-conceived rebuttals I've read in months.

      Crimes committed were basically the most non-invasive of any white-collar crime. The other poster has it correct - it's all part of the show.

      Perhaps two men is too few, but two to fetch him and three more for "backup" if something goes wrong is certainly more than enough. 5 men to fetch one conceivably harmless white-collar, still-living-at-home-with-mom-and-dad 29-year old has certainly got to be adequate.

      40 is blatant misuse of resources and eeks of an agenda.

      --
      Is that a salami in my pants or am I just happy to be me?
    5. Re:Overkill by Cryptnotic · · Score: 2

      The Anthrax investigation DOES have a billion-dollar biological weapons industry backing it. After all, those terrorists are illegally copying anthrax bacteria without permission. All these trillions of copies of Anthrax that the terrorists make costs the biological weapons industry money because it deflates the value of the product line the bio-weapons industry provides. Not only does it deflate the value of the legitimate Anthrax by reducing the scarcity, but it also makes the entire Anthrax industry less valuable by forcing friends and enemies to acquire anti-bacteriological weapons equipment.

      My guess is that the bio weapons industry has something better in store, with copy protection to prevent pirates from using it.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    6. Re:Overkill by ENOENT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Holy fscking sh*t. Maybe cops shouldn't pull over speeders without air support from a squadron of AH-64s, just in case there's a big bad terrorist driving that Mercedes. Maybe meter maids should drive armored personnel carriers (fully loaded with a platoon of Marines) just in case the minivan they just ticketed is carrying a bunch of really short ninjas.

      OK, maybe these examples aren't realistic. Most people's moms don't drive around town with a bunch of ninjas in the back of the minivan, while everybody knows that it takes years of intense training in hand-to-hand combat, not to mention superior marksmanship, to download "The Sims: Hot Date" warez from the net.

      --
      That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
    7. Re:Overkill by dattaway · · Score: 2

      The other poster has it correct - it's all part of the show.

      That's all it is, a show? I can see the warezers outdoing each other:

      "Man, I had FIFTY ARMED agents storm my house last night."

      "Oh, that's NOTHING! I had the US ARMY dispatched to my employer and they stripped searched everyone. Too bad I called in sick that day and I missed it all"

      "You all are a bunch of pussies. Why just this MORNING, I had the BSA itself raid my house and they took my dog! They took my dog man!"

  16. Warez hot or not? by I_am_Rambi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  17. Re:End of an Era. by gatekeep · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  18. Warez becomes an addiction... by Alric · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Don't be too quick to label these people as warez kiddies or people who are somehow different from you.

    Warez can become an addiction, just like mp3's. It starts out with you downloading the newest Dreamweaver for your new flashy website; then you get the latest Photoshop to doctor your home pics. Then three months later, you have a 60g hard drive on your cable modem server, running a cracked version of XP, that is full of the latest and greatest graphics and rendering software. It's very, very easy to become immersed in the scene.

    However, most people eventually leave the scene, because they realize they never use any of the cool programs. And the new people in the scene are just greedy and selfish. Then they move on to loftier anti-establishment movements.

    Peace.
    Al.

  19. Very good, very good. by Renraku · · Score: 2

    Its more expensive to jail these people for 'stealing' than it is to let them run free. Imagine it. They don't even have to pay taxes in prison, they just...sit there. At least on the outside they had to pay taxes and didn't leech off of the government's money. l

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    1. Re:Very good, very good. by swankypimp · · Score: 2
      I think this is a justifiable use of resources. Let's think of it in AD&D terms: my lawful good cleric (the police) walks into a vampire nest and starts Turning Undead (W4r3z D00dz and H4x0rs). The vamps either (1) run away in terror and don't bother anyone for a long while, (2) die gratuitously (are sent to jail), or (3) are converted to my side (become white hats).

      Of course in real life hackers and vampires are different, since putting Windows 2000 on an FTP site is a tad more benign than sucking the life out of a struggling human being, feeding your twisted bloodlust and creating yet another member of a terrible legion of undead. And software pirates don't give you any experience points or gold when you kill them. Actually, now that I think of it, this AD&D thing is a fairly shitty analogy. Sorry. Oh well, time to go feed my Baldur's Gate 2 addiction.

      --

      --All your stolen base are belong to Rickey Henderson
  20. Yet another example of government screwups... by BitGeek · · Score: 5, Interesting


    This article shows just how out of control our government is, when 40 armed agents "bust" a guy who's pirating software.

    First off, let me point out that I'm a software developer, and I'm in the process of creating a shrink wrapped application which I intend to charge for and which I expect a number of people are going to try to pirate. Since I am a one man startup in this situation, if piracy affects anyone, it affects me directly in my pocket book.

    But this situation is absurd. Teh government should not be wasting time going after people who are pirating software who aren't profiting from it.

    If someone steals my software, then they are liable to me under the law-- not to the feds. The feds have no rights to my code and no rights to lock people up for violating my rights in this way.

    If someone pirates my software, then I should be able to take them to civil court and sue them for damages-- possibly twice actual damages, but I have to show damages to recover the money.

    The Feds are busting people, claiming that "millions of dollars" have been stolen when this is a bald faced lie-- millions of dollars have NOT been stolen.

    The only way a pirated piece of software is "theft" is if the person who uses it would have OTHERWISE bought the product. IF someone tries it out and then discards it and never would have bought the product, then the software company has not experienced damage-- they got some free advertising and didn't happen to pick up a customer.

    IF someone pirates your software and then sells it, well then that would be theft. But those who give it away a guilty of mischief, but do not belong in a federal prison.

    As for the guy who claims his software costs $9,500 but lost out because it was pirated-- make your software not work without authentication with the mothership. This is really easy these days-- get the MAC address, and send it in, and return a cryptographically signed authorization code that the program needs to run-- if the MAC address changes too much, or you['re getting identical requests from dozens of IP addresses, then don't return the key. Hell, make it such that a key set of code for the App is stored in an external runtime-loaded framework, and encrypt that bit with the key so that it never exists on the CD or hard drive in decrypted form... and of course keys have an expiry so that the program has to check in every 90 days or so. Or whatever less draconian version of this works for you, hell dongles are cheap enough.

    Yes this can be defeated, but my experience with warez sites is that they just have CD images, the programs security hasn't been defeated, and people just share license keys-- in this case reporting the key to a central server and the ability to turn it off when it becomes obviously shared is easy.

    This seems to be working for ambrosia and idsoftware.

    But sending the feds in is NOT the solution-- we cannot tolerate this. MS has sent teams of armed men into small offices where they suspect the people are not licensing all their copies of windows. This is unacceptable.

    As long as we accept government stormtroopers doing the bidding of private companies we will not be free-- it will just get worse and worse.

    What's next- 40 armed marshalls bust some 13 year old for sharing MP3s?

    All the while real crimes are going on and are ignored.

    These are civil issues and belong in the civil courts. And anyone who doesn't protect their IP is just asking for it.

    This is the equivalent of cops busting down dorm room doors because 20 kids in the same class photocopied pages from a library book to study from.

    But because its computers they're "pirates" and the idiot press and public go along. Who's to stand up to the invasion of police in what should be civil matters? If anyone- US. Don't tolerate your company using stormtroopers-- protest loudly if they do. And protest to anyone who has the ability to affect change in this area-- such as your congressman (though I don't hold out much hope that they will listen, idiots that they are.)

    Civil disobedience is going to be what this comes down to eventually-- sooner or later, they will be tightening the noose. who here doesn't have an MP3 that they can't prove legal ownership of?

    --
    Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    1. Re:Yet another example of government screwups... by MisterBlister · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yes this can be defeated, but my experience with warez sites is that they just have CD images, the programs security hasn't been defeated, and people just share license keys-- in this case reporting the key to a central server and the ability to turn it off when it becomes obviously shared is easy. This seems to be working for ambrosia and idsoftware.

      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).

    2. Re:Yet another example of government screwups... by karnal · · Score: 2

      Quote: "Yes this can be defeated, but my experience with warez sites is that they just have CD images, the programs security hasn't been defeated, and people just share license keys-- in this case reporting the key to a central server and the ability to turn it off when it becomes obviously shared is easy."

      Bzzt. Wrong. Trusting the client is definitely not the best way to go. Heck, there's no way to go as long as someone else has your code. Also, most (all) of the warez I've seen HAVE defeated the checks -- why would someone want an iso of a cd that can't be used? Either that, or there is an .exe that is provided that probably just "nop's" when the original code said "Check this mac and report to the mother ship".

      Trusting the client will never work. For applications such as photoshop or word etc; there's no good reason to need to check. They're all standalone (if need be). Now, games on the other hand CAN be checked (cheats etc) if played online. However, in a closed environment, again there's no need to check the mother ship. And that's where warez groups can crack and say "Oh, it's ok, don't check with the mother ship" (can you tell I like that reference?)

      --
      Karnal
    3. Re:Yet another example of government screwups... by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2

      As for the guy who claims his software costs $9,500 but lost out because it was pirated--
      make your software not work without authentication with the mothership.


      Problems with this:
      1. It's only appropriate for software packages that already require a network connection. There's no reason I shouldn't be able to run for instance a $10,000 professional CAD package on a standalone workstation with no Internet connectivity.

      2. This only works until someone writes something that spoofs the 'mothership' server and always returns a valid key.

      3. Privacy issues. Would you be upset if a company was grabbing information about your hardware and sending it off to a mysterious remote server periodically? What if the remote server is owned by Microsoft?

      The point is, no technical solution to digital copyright violation will ever be failsafe, and many of the possible solutions just make things worse for the legitimate users.

      The only solution that makes sense is to revise commercial software licensing and sales pricing structures so that there's no incentive not to pay for the software that you use.

    4. Re:Yet another example of government screwups... by sedawkgrep · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?
    5. Re:Yet another example of government screwups... by Wanker · · Score: 3, Interesting
      As for the guy who claims his software costs $9,500 but lost out because it was pirated-- make your software not work without authentication with the mothership.

      ...

      Yes this can be defeated, but my experience with warez sites is that they just have CD images, the programs security hasn't been defeated, and people just share license keys-- in this case reporting the key to a central server and the ability to turn it off when it becomes obviously shared is easy.

      I think you had the right idea-- software this expensive can/should have special checks to deter hackers. I would argue that for this kind of coin the software company could afford to custom build each copy.

      Imagine if you knew that each binary had the name of your company watermaked inside it somewhere. Not the company you enter on the stupd registration screen, but the name of the company they shipped to on their invoices. Heck, throw the ship-to address in there too!

      Bury that, encoded, several places inside each binary. Burn it on CD. Ship it.

      It's important that the company know that all their binaries are encoded like this. It will "encourage" them to be more judicious about keeping them under control. The flip side, of course, is the software should no longer need some stupid license server associated with it. (The same process could bind a copy to a particular system. Yes, you'd need to build and burn a new copy for each system. Charge accordingly.)

      When the image shows up on the Warez board, de-watermark it, call up the company, terminate their license, and start filing suit.

      This has some nice advantages:
      + Accountability
      + No "can't run because the license server is dorked up" problems

      And a disadvantage mitigated by the already high price tag:
      + distribution costs go up
    6. Re:Yet another example of government screwups... by Wraithlyn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
    7. Re:Yet another example of government screwups... by Rasta+Prefect · · Score: 2
      This article shows just how out of control our government is, when 40 armed agents "bust" a guy who's pirating software.

      I highly doubt there were 40 armed customs agents there because they felt they were going to need the firepower. I'm sure there were 40 customs agents there because gathering evidence is something that needs to be done thoroughly and methodically if you'd like to get a conviction in our legal system (Hey, remember OJ?). So they brought a lot of agents. Customs agents are generally armed - just like cops. Hence, 40 armed agents. I'd guess the majority were just carrying their sidearms that they wear to work every single day.

      --
      Why?
    8. Re:Yet another example of government screwups... by PolyDwarf · · Score: 2

      I've seen similar scenarios take place in my industry.
      For instance, some programs have an authorization key which is tied into a particular client's name, address, phone number, serial number, etc.. All of that hashed together with some other junk makes a nice key. If it doesn't decrypt, they've tried to change some piece of their info, without contacting the mothership.
      Then, every report is hardcoded to print off that information. The IT guy may not care that he pirated it and that his reports say "Harry's Happy Home of Homosexuals" when his company is actually "Bibles R Us", but Sally Secretary might wonder, as well as anyone else who saw the reports (IE customers of Bibles R Us)

    9. Re:Yet another example of government screwups... by Fizzlewhiff · · Score: 2

      Can you rape a prostitute using your logic?

      I don't see why current copyright laws can't protect software and music. When I see a label saying not to make unauthorized or illegal copies why shouldn't that mean something? Using the excuse "well I wouldn't have bought it anyway" is just an excuse and it screams of the lack of ethics and morals in America today.

      --

      'Same speed C but faster'
    10. Re:Yet another example of government screwups... by fferreres · · Score: 2

      If someone steals my software, then they are liable to me under the law-- not to the feds. The feds have no rights to my code and no rights to lock people up for violating my rights in this way.

      In certain way, big companies allowing piracy (bad protection, negligence) are hurting you and they are in reality using discriminatory price policies.

      Because they know they are better off letting piracy go on (college kidz, home users), so that whoever call/will pay wil use their better product. And whoever can't (or won't and can't be enforced to pay (note: forcing them to pay != forcing them to not use the product)) will use the pirated version.

      So you get NO revenues from a product that say has "95% of the features of the big player", and they get all that's enforceable.

      And MS and others (Adobe) knew and know piracy is their #1 ALLY. They never inluded real anti piracy. The companies that included strong anti-piracy suffered like hell (because of MS and the like policies).

      Bottom line: anti-piracy can only work if EVERYONE PLAYS A FAIR GAME (ie: everyone uses strong anti-piracy). If there are some "cheaters" with no anti-piracy, they're just doing it to kill your revenue and get a decent userbase. After all we already know a huge userbase means money.

      --
      unfinished: (adj.)
    11. Re:Yet another example of government screwups... by BitGeek · · Score: 2

      "Bzzt. Wrong."

      Maybe you're reading comprehension isn't what it should be.

      In this case, a key part of the logic is downloaded from the server. The client, on its own, cannot run.

      I never said it was foolproof, just that most all the warez out there are unmodified because it only takes a serial number to activate them.

      If the program won't run without checking in with the mother ship, the crackers woudl be forced to re-write the missing code in order to get that running-- this means that tehy would probably have better spent their time writing a replacement for your app because the critical code doesn't exist in the distribution.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    12. Re:Yet another example of government screwups... by BitGeek · · Score: 2

      1. It's only appropriate for software packages that already require a network connection.

      If you're paying $10,000 requiring a net connection is not inappropriate. Who doesn't have net connections to their desks anyway? IF you want to run it standalonw iwthout internet connectivity, you can, in my example, almost all the time. you just have to connect to the net to authenticate every 90 days.

      3. Would you be upset if a company was grabbing information about your hardware and sending it off to a mysterious remote server periodically?

      If I'm prirating, then I'm fair game. If I'm a legitimate user, then no- the serial numbers being transmitted are identifying. Its not like customers are anonymous-- they bought your software- you have a relationship with them. If you don't trust the company, don't run their software!

      The point is, no technical solution to digital copyright violation will ever be failsafe, and many of the possible solutions just make things worse for the legitimate users.

      My solution does not make it works for legitimate users-- you're nit picking. Yes, its not failsafe but it doesn't need to be.

      The only solution that makes sense is to revise commercial software licensing and sales pricing structures so that there's no incentive not to pay for the software that you use.

      Except that many of the people pirating software are not doing so because the software is overpriced, but are doing so because they are TOO CHEAP.

      Its a fair deal: You want this for this amount? No? Ok, then you don't get to use it. That you decide not to buy it does not make it overpriced--if you don't like it, go write your own alternative, or join an open source group writing an alternative.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    13. Re:Yet another example of government screwups... by BitGeek · · Score: 2


      That's an excellent idea.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    14. Re:Yet another example of government screwups... by BitGeek · · Score: 2

      Prosecutors decide what to prosecute, and don't need the victim's permission. Usually they won't bother when the victim objects to a prosecution (why waste the time), but they can if they want to.

      Yes, that is exactly the problem with the system. There is no moral justification (using objective morality) for this... and it leads to prosecuters executing vendettas against people which is actually pretty widespread-- some prosecuters are executing vendettas against whole classes of people.

      This just shows the fundamental corruption of the prosecutors and thep olice-- the police work for the prosecutors, so they have no objectivity, their agenda is to get the "bad guy" whether or not he's really the bad guy. How is it that these agents of the prosecution have the right to sully the crimce scene without oversight when they "collecting" evidence?

      And prosecutors can prosecute people based on crimes that are not rational, and often do.

      The only people who ahve a right to complain are the victims. If they need legal help to press their case, provide that as you do for defendants.

      But Prosecutors going out and persecuting people because they want a judgeship (Where they can persecute more people) is why we have so much crime and so little justice here.

      In the case of victimless crimes- there is no crime to prosecute-- which shows their inanity.

      In the case of crimes where the victim is dead, then friends, family or other private parties (such as charitis formed for the purporse) can take the case to court and pursue the criminal and get retribution.

      Crime is not the creation of debt to the STATE-- but to the VICTIM.

      Unfortunately, criminals, like everyone else in the US is viewed by the state as their slaves to extract money from, or to incarcerate for the mildest excuse (And this piracy ring is a mild excuse) of misbehaviour.

      No damages- no crime.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    15. Re:Yet another example of government screwups... by BitGeek · · Score: 2

      These cd images you speak of either include cracks or are pre-cracked.

      NO THEY WEREN'T. when I go to my favorite warez site, the images are straight copies of the CDs.

      Furthermore, you ignored my proposed solution-- how is the cracker supposed to emulate teh code I wrote? He'd have to re-write it, thereby re-writing a major part of the functionality of the product.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    16. Re:Yet another example of government screwups... by BitGeek · · Score: 2

      Copyright infringement is a criminal offense, not civil.

      Duh. That's what I'm protesting-- it is a civil offense that has been made into a criminal one.

      That is WRONG.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    17. Re:Yet another example of government screwups... by BitGeek · · Score: 2



      You start of by describing natural forces... but do you not realize that it is natural forces that keep software prices high?

      Some people seem to think $50 is a lot of money. But they will pay $7 to go see a movie. Is a game that gives you 50 hours worth of entertainmend worth $50? To some it isn't, but to others, its a much better deal than that $7 movie.

      Piracy does distort this situation, but then the response brings it back into balance-- the $50 game wihtout manuals is the "balance" state we're currently at, pricacy is a known given, and CD Keys are the response that we're at now- balancing hassle with protection.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    18. Re:Yet another example of government screwups... by BitGeek · · Score: 2


      I think your an idiot. you should read the comment before you reply and reply with something more useful than "WRONG."

      Notice how the drug war (another immoral non-crime "crime") and software piracy war are both failing miserably.

      "Stopping it at the source" does not work,... that's just stupidity. Or at, more precisely, this kid ripping the software is NOT the SOURCE.

      The software company is.

      Furthermore, only the software company has rights that are being violated not society. Therefore this is a civil issue, not a criminal one.

      Why am I repeating myself, you didn't pay attentio n the first time.

      Sheesh.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
    19. Re:Yet another example of government screwups... by BitGeek · · Score: 2

      ut the leeches would never be able to pirate the appz without their help

      this simply isn't true. I haven't seen a bit of cracked software since the late 80s. Companie have stopped using software protection and started using license key protection-- nobody has an incentive to crack the software anymore-- they just make keys, and that's the challenge.

      Drug growers bear the responsibility to provide good clean heroin. Anyone who ruins their life with it bears the responsibility themselves.

      If I sell you a car and you use it to kill yourself, or others, YOU are responsible, not me.

      Its sad that so few people have any concern about human rights. you do not have the right to prosecute people who do stuff you don't like when what they do is morally correct. Drug manufacturers are morally correct when they make drugs. IF you think this is "obviously false" then you don't know what human rights or morals ARE.

      --
      Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
  21. Correct by unformed · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And I remember an article I read a while ago where the releasing group for audio software (I forgot the name) only released programs that could not be afforded by the ordinary person. Things like SoundForge run a couple hundred dollars, and therefore only businesses or professionals could use it. What about the little guy who wanted to consider entering the profession, but didn't have the money (yet) to buy it. -- Generally, business -do- get legitimate copies pecause of audits and support.

    Anyways, back to point, this same group -refused- to release any programs that were under a hundred dollars, because these are generally writting by individuals or extremely small companies, and are generally affordable by the common man.

    1. Re:Correct by crawling_chaos · · Score: 2
      Things like SoundForge run a couple hundred dollars, and therefore only businesses or professionals could use it.

      This has got to be one the lamest arguments I've ever heard. Gee, Your Honor, I wanted to try making jewelry as a hobby, but since gold is several hundred dollars an ounce, only businesses and professionals can afford it. So it wasn't really theft, you see? After all, we didn't steal any aluminum. Everybody can afford that!

      The software vendors of the packages in question have fixed a price. You and I can't afford it. Therefore we have several choices before us:

      1. Do without.
      2. Find an alternative. (This could include finding cheaper software, writing a replacement, or paying someone to write a replacement.)
      3. Steal it.

      Don't romanticize the third alternative. If they are charging too much for the software, they'll lower prices or go out of business, as long as competition is allowed in the market.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    2. Re:Correct by Stonehand · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, no, no.

      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 /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.

      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 /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.

      {*} Major exception: A market dominator temporarily selling at below cost to annihilate competition.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
  22. "war on warez" by Mad+Quacker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:"war on warez" by jafac · · Score: 2

      how in hell will that bring us out of recession if everyone on the outside is unemployed because they have to compete with slave labor?

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  23. Re:Prices.... by csimicah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's technical software... the market is limited, yes, but it's not just about the support. We sell a $16,000 piece of software and there are 3 PhD theses worth of research behind the algorithms. It's a point and click program and most of our users get along with no tech support. A lot of our buyers are universities, in some cases graduate students. If these guys could download our software on WinMX, they would. This kind of thing could put a small company like us out of business.

  24. Re:Pronounciation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Wares" is the correct pronunciation.

    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 ;). 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.

    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).

  25. Not qutie by unformed · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yes, in that sense it's different. And I quite agree with what they're saying, but you pulled it out of context.

    His next workds were: "They're hanging out on the cyber-street corner." I used to in the priacy rings; and it -is- like a gang, it's a place to be accepted, to be around similarly-minded people, etc.

    Then again, joining the football team is also like a gang. Adolescence is about joining "gangs" regardless of whether or not you commit crimes.

    (Read: A gang is a group of people, not a group of people who kill other people.)

  26. Like that makes much of a difference. by RembrandtX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They can arrest all the people they want. Realistically though .. People have been pirating software since the 80's.

    Anyone remember Mr.Nibble ?

    Not that its justification, but there are products that wouldn't have market share .. or obtained market share if they didn't embrance piracy.

    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 .. but they have better sales over lightwave because of college piracy of their product.

    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 .. legel or not?

    Internet piracey is a joke, You want real piracy .. ask Games Workshop how much of their product is illegally produced in Russia or Poland.
    [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 .. (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.

    Its kind of like how the music industry was all over MP3 .. crying wolf about lost sales during their HIGHEST sales year in history.

    What people tend to forget .. 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%.

    --

    --Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
    1. Re:Like that makes much of a difference. by macsox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      hehe i actually work at one of the four companies you mentioned, building demos for the products that i learned to use from pirated copies.

      not that i still pirate of course. i stopped pirating software (x + 1 days : x = statute of limitations on piracy in days) days ago.

    2. Re:Like that makes much of a difference. by demonbug · · Score: 2, Interesting
      How many car manufactureres buy, and reverse engineer their compeditors autos?

      Actually, I believe this is perfectly legal, as long as they do not then turn around and put pateneted parts or technologies into their own automobiles. If you buy a car, you can do with it what you will, take it appart and put it back together again as many times as you want. You may not be allowed to dreive it on the highway if you change it, but you can tear it appart and learn all you can quite legally.

    3. Re:Like that makes much of a difference. by wfrp01 · · Score: 2

      Not that its justification, but there are products that wouldn't have market share .. or obtained market share if they didn't embrance piracy.

      Personally, I hope that these mofos succeed in their ambitions to squash unauthorized copying of their precious intellectual poop. The consequences will serve them right.

      --

      --Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
  27. Thoughts on warez and piracy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Software companies should be pricing software to maximize revenue.

    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.

  28. Re:Prices.... by Steffan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Has anyone seen the site? Why would anyone want to pirate *their* software? Not that it probably isn't good software, but other than the value of collecting it? It's all pretty high-level engineering stuff. I can't imagine any use for it outside of specialized fields, and those people would probably purchase anyway, as stated previously, for the support, training, documentation, etc. Strange...

  29. How to do this by unformed · · Score: 2
  30. Wow .. sorry .. I just realized that i probally.. by RembrandtX · · Score: 2, Funny

    Wow .. sorry .. I just realized that i probally broke Taco's record for the number of gross-mispellings in a single post.

    My bad :(

    --

    --Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
  31. Now this is interesting..... by nicke999 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If the software developer community have raised their prices to make-up for the sales lost to piracy they should in theory be making just as much money as if their software weren't pirated (because the price would be lower then). So the reason why software developers are chasing pirates is so that they can lower prices?

    --
    Thanks for browsing at -1
    Please vistit my blog: www.framtiden.nu
    1. Re:Now this is interesting..... by ebyrob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  32. Armed Agents Raiding His House by qurob · · Score: 4, Funny


    Ironically, what if this guy had been playing something like Rainbow 6 as his house was raided!

    1. Re:Armed Agents Raiding His House by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2

      Ironically, what if this guy had been playing something like Rainbow 6 as his house was raided!

      Penny Arcade had an interesting take on that idea a few weeks ago ;).

  33. Re:Its the prices stupid! by BigJimSlade · · Score: 2

    price it more reasonably and MORE people will buy it

    I totally agree. However, this is a bad example, as they had something on the order of 1 million pre-ordersat $60 a pop ($75 if you got the "collector's edition"). Obviously there is a market for $60 games. However, like you, I cannot afford that. I have a wife and a house payment, and will not be spending $60 on something that will be half that in one year or less. Hell, I didn't pick up Starcraft Battle Chest until last Christmas when the local Best Buy had it on sale for $8. (Ok, maybe waiting that long is being a little cheap, but you get my point)

  34. the last time by Apreche · · Score: 2

    there was an article about piracy I posted a highly moderated insightful comment. However, this time I will say the same thing only shorther :-)

    First of all, the last line of the article was kind of lame, the rest of it was good though. The software company exec talked about burning houses down. Yes, a person is hurt if you burn their house down. That is not comparable to warez though. If I make a copy of photoshop, adobe hasn't lost photoshop, they still have it, it doesn't belong to me. All that happens is that I now have a copy of 500$ software that I can use, that I wouldn't have bought anyway, because I'm a poor college student with no money. NO, I didn't actually pirate photoshop, I bought PSP it's only 70$, when I bought it anyway.

    Anyway the reason there is warez is because software companies charge too much for software. 9500 dollars for an engineering program? Nobody can afford that! If I'm an engineer who makes say 80 grand a year and I use that software at work. Now I want to use it at home, to get work done at home. To be completely legal I need to spend 1/8 of my yearly income! insanity! Of course I'm just going to copy the cd-roms at work and pirate it.

    Warez will always exist as long as software is expensive. Software companies will keep increasing software prices as long as people keep pirating software. It's a vicious cycle of doom. Eventually software will become so expensive that nobody can afford it. The software companies are putting themselves out of business.

    The only way I see out is to use WS_FTP style licensing. Home users, college students, and generally anyone who isn't a company can get WS_FTP for free legally. If you need the crazy advanced features that only a corporation would need, or even if you are a small business that needs only the light features, you have to pay. If all software was like that i guarantee a large decrease in piracy and increase in profits for software companies.
    Games are another story since they are only 50 bucks. But even though warcraft 3 is out for free, I still see over a million pre-orders. I guess that the piracy really isn't hurting them that much is it?

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
    1. Re:the last time by catfood · · Score: 2
      Anyway the reason there is warez is because software companies charge too much for software. 9500 dollars for an engineering program? Nobody can afford that! If I'm an engineer who makes say 80 grand a year and I use that software at work. Now I want to use it at home, to get work done at home. To be completely legal I need to spend 1/8 of my yearly income! insanity!

      You don't know that, child.

      Lots of companies give home-use riders on their commercial licenses for exactly that reason--they know it makes the customer happy and it doesn't hurt their revenue stream. But you know what? That's the vendor's choice, not yours.

      All we know from the article is that it's some "engineering program"--we don't even know whether it's the kind of thing one would even try to use at home. (Hint: not everything is a game or a desktop application.)

      NO, I didn't actually pirate photoshop, I bought PSP it's only 70$, when I bought it anyway.

      So what's your point? You're outraged at Adobe for their pricing on Photoshop, which is ridiculous, but then you bought PSP legitimately for about a tenth of the price. And now you have something with most or all of the functionality you really wanted for far cheaper. Isn't that a good thing?

      *shrug* I'm really having a hard time seeing where this outrage is coming from. DMCA, CBDTPA, elimination of Fair Use, those are outrageous. High-priced specialized software? What's outrageous about that? It's a product, go ahead and buy it or don't buy it, but quit whining about everything you want in the world not being cheap enough for your pleasure.

  35. You are right to be very skeptical by FreeUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    *snip*
    "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 := real lost revinue the company would have gotten were it not for copyright violators
    P := 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.
    N := Number of copies obtained illegally
    and
    C := 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),

    then

    R := C * P * N

    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
    1. Re:You are right to be very skeptical by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 2

      Pirated software is an alternate supply for the software in question.
      Supply and demand being what they are, that means the optimal price for legitimate copies of the software goes down.
      IOW, the real cost of pirating isn't just how many copies weren't sold, but how much less money was made on legal copies.

      It's not likely that you'll hear the BSA say "Pirates force us to charge less for our software." but that's what really happens.

      -- this is not a .sig

    2. Re:You are right to be very skeptical by gimpboy · · Score: 2

      you left something off of your equation. the amount of negative loss or profit due to people who would not have purchased the software if they did not get the chance to try it before they buy.

      --
      -- john
    3. Re:You are right to be very skeptical by jafac · · Score: 2

      There's also the VERY real effect on marketshare when a software company ALLOWS it's product to be pirated (by providing no copy-protection whatsoever).

      This is essentially "dumping". But since evil people are pirating their software, the software maker gets to pretend they're on the moral high-ground. Then, when they've got market dominance, and all the competitors are wiped out because they included copy protection (people were locked in by file formats, or OS compatability, or whatever) - the monopoly now starts beefing up it's copy-protection, because there's no longer any competition, the consumer has no choice.

      This means that software, in general, HUGELY magnifies rules of supply and demand, but it's very much masked by the "official" prices charged, because there's no way to mathematically express what the market value is for a product that may have sold 1000 copies at $500 per, but was pirated 10,000 times. Legitimate accounting does not recognize this marketshare - but the marketshare exists nonetheless - AND the mindshare. And the demand. Multiply the demand of 11,000 people who want to use the software, by the price of $500 per copy, and you can see how skewed a view you can get of what's really going on. There's no demand in the marketplace worth $5,500,000, and the only way you could find out what that demand really is would be in a thought experiment: how much would the pirates have paid for the software? $50? $100? Some may have paid $500, but maybe couldn't legitimately get the software in their country. (old encryption export restrictions) - some people would have pirated if the software cost $1. And an average figure doesn't give you a good picture either.

      In the end the way this demand can be measured is how few adopters their are of the competing product. Piracy rate ought to be measured and applied here. And you can't go charging the software company with dumping in these cases, or anticompetitive practices.

      Just another big reason why strict adherence to open standards is the only way that won't lead to monopolies and proprietary closed systems, etc. Otherwise people won't be able to switch when the dominating player starts applying the thumbscrews.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    4. Re:You are right to be very skeptical by FreeUser · · Score: 2

      Pirated software is an alternate supply for the software in question.
      Supply and demand being what they are, that means the optimal price for legitimate copies of the software goes down.
      IOW, the real cost of pirating isn't just how many copies weren't sold, but how much less money was made on legal copies.


      Interesting hypothesis. However, given that 'copyright' is a government granted monopoly (that at one time had a limited length, but now for all intents and purposes, at least from a mortal human's point of view, is unlimited), one could argue that copyright violations are not distorting this particular less-than-free marketplace, they are an inherent part and a natural manifestation of that marketplace. Indeed, although I do not ethically agree with violating copyrights (despite my contention that copyright law should be replaced with a less draconian regime for protecting artists' credit and even profit for their creations), I would argue that it underscores the profound absurdity of a government granting artificial monopolies to publishers and thereby trying to dictate what would otherwise be a free market.

      Particilarly when something less draconian (like a tax benefit to the creator and/or his duly authorized publisher) would allow a free market to flourish, even for so-called intellectual property, without sacrificing the free market altogether as we have done with copyright (and with patents BTW, though that is a discussion for another day).

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
  36. Yep, warez is addictive as hell by Mindjiver · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yep. I had a brief stint in the warez-scene in high school. Ran a hidden ftp-server on a computer connected to the school network. I thought I was really cool until I realised that I was throwing so much time away. It's really easy to get hooked into the warez-scene and all th "l33t" stuff that comes with it. Like using stolen ISP-accounts for "free" (this was in Sweden without flatrate) dialup access or using creditmaster 4000 to make your own compuserve account.

    God I don't miss that period of my life...

    --
    I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
  37. Heh. by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sankus should have raped someone, or robbed them at gunpoint. He'd be out in half the time.

  38. Re:Difficulty in "Cracking" by DeionXxX · · Score: 2, Informative

    Cracking has many different faces and tools. There are crackers that simply disassemble the files with software like W32Dasm or IDA Pro, use a runtime debugger like SoftIce, and then find the "jumps" that say "This is shareware" or "This is licensed" and patch them. Usually it takes as few a 2 bytes.

    There are also crackers who do keygenerators. They use the disassembled code and softice to trace through the serial number making routines and figure out how the sn# is made. They then code an app in either ASM or C that generates a correct serial number.

    Lastly there are crackers that only crack protection schemes and code, like the ones on game CD's. They crack Dongle's, game protections, all sorts of encryption.. blah blah.. They code tools to disassemble, to unpack, to remove difficult protections. These are the most l33t of all crackers.

    So I guess what I was trying to say is that ... yeah.. cracking is VERY difficult. You learn a lot by disassembling and figuring out how programs work. I know I got most of my computer expertise from cracking shareware protections. Becoming a decent cracker involves a lot of time and a lot of knowledge of ASM and Mathematics.

    -- DeionXxX

  39. Article's author by stere0 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Pirates of the Web
    By JENNIFER 8. LEE

    Her middle name is eight? She's 31337 too!

    --
    Trollem mirabilem hanc subnotationis exigiutas non caperet
    1. Re:Article's author by namespan · · Score: 2

      Or maybe she has 7 older siblings named Jennifer...

      Eight older siblings if one of her parents is a programmer, of course.

      Or maybe she went to a school like mine where there were so many darn Jenny's even using last names wouldn't work. There were several Jennifer Christiansens, Jennifer Jensons, Jennifer Smith. We could have used numbers.

      --
      Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
  40. Re:I have a different take on it... by symbolic · · Score: 3, Insightful


    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?

  41. Re:Prices.... by Cryptnotic · · Score: 2

    All it takes is another PhD student in the same field to put his Matlab scripts online for free, and your business will be in danger. Of course, some people will always decide to pay money rather than think for themselves.

    --
    My other first post is car post.
  42. Re:God forbid... by symbolic · · Score: 2


    How about teaching them that it's wrong to steal? I guess it's not that hard to figure out why disasters like Worldcom and Enron happen.

  43. Priority challenged? by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the article:
    "It's the same reason that people join gangs," said Allan Doody, the Customs Service investigator who led the DrinkorDie investigation, part of a broader anti-piracy campaign called Operation Buccaneer. "They're hanging out on the cyber-street corner."

    But in contrast to petty criminals and warring gangs, Internet piracy groups have a worldwide impact of at least tens of millions of dollars, if not more. Such groups secure their reputations by releasing thousands of free movies, games, music and software programs on the Internet each year.


    So, distributing copyrighted materials is worse than such "petty criminal activity" as drive-by shootings, drug sales, and car theft? I'm glad our law enforcement dollars are being invested wisely to get this vicious criminals off the street.

    (And yes, they are criminals, I just object to the implied severity of their crimes.)

    --
    --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
    1. Re:Priority challenged? by Peyna · · Score: 2

      You forgot one: Steal a few grand from all your employees, get elected to high political offices, and then condemn your peers when they get caught with their pants down and 2 billion short.

      --
      What?
  44. Re:Prices.... by Danse · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These companies are like the RPAA

    It's RIAA (recording industry) or MPAA (motion picture). :)

    I pretty much agree with you I think. If I was selling a program for 10K or more and I only expected to sell a couple thousand copies, then I would most likely have some serious security features. Even ~$3K 3DS Max uses a hardware dongle. Not foolproof, but a lot better than a lot of companies do. But like you say, the more the software is worth, the more security it should have. I also think that companies that use pirated software should have the proverbial legal hammer dropped on them. They are attempting to profit at the expense of the companies whose software they are stealing. I'm not as convinced on home use. I think that the argument about people using a program in order to learn it is a good one. I know that I wouldn't want to blow 500 bucks or more just to see if I really wanted to use this program. If it weren't for warez, I probably never would have learned a lot of software packages that I now use at work. It helped me get a decent job.

    --
    It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
  45. I'm Waiting... by akiy · · Score: 2

    I'm waiting for the day I see the headline, "New York Times Looks at Porn"...

    --

    --
    http://www.aikiweb.com - AikiWeb Aikido Information

  46. Bad metaphor by quantaman · · Score: 2

    "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."

    Perhaps that comparison would kind of work for crackers taking down a webserver (or the /. effect for that matter) but in that case egging the house would be better, however it makes no sense pertaining to software piracy. There is no direct collateral damage to the victems. The only loss is in potential lost sales due to the fact that the product you made is now being offered for free so people may not spend the money to buy your product. Even in this case the majority of the time the people who illegally use your product are very likely not the ones who would be buying it. A better analogy would be if you charged admission for people to walk around your house without disturbing anything and people were sneaking around for free (although this is a pretty contrieved analogy).

    --
    I stole this Sig
  47. Read the name out loud to yourself by MadFarmAnimalz · · Score: 2

    Cannibalism is what it is.

    --
    Blearf. Blearf, I say.
  48. Strictly rental vs purchase by st0rmshad0w · · Score: 2

    When I can go to Blockbuster and rent Photoshop for a weekend (just like a PS2 game) cuz I want to play around with some personal photos then there won't be a need to pirate it.

  49. Good for OSS! by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    OSS should want to stop traditional software piracy. When people can't get those expensive programs for free anymore(ms office anyone?) they will either pay the price, find an alternative, or do without. I would bet that most of the time a free OSS alternative will do just fine for the average user. This could actually cause a increase in the usage of OSS.

    1. Re:Good for OSS! by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 2

      But what would OSS have to gain from another person using their software?

      More testers, more proponents, etc... By your logic why should any OSS developers release their code? It sounds that by releasing the code and letting people use it just hassles the developers.

    2. Re:Good for OSS! by Beliskner · · Score: 2
      More testers, more proponents, etc... By your logic why should any OSS developers release their code? It sounds that by releasing the code and letting people use it just hassles the developers.
      Releasing the code is great, having more testers that know what they're doing is great, but having 500 million people use the software, 1000 of which is developers and 499,999,000 of which is Joe sixpack, well what's the point of having the Joe sixpack users? They can't fix the bugs, they can't even report the bugs "Mommy computer went funny, kernel panic uhhhh hmmmm KFC is doing fine so I can't see why the colonel is panicking". I mean what's the point of these users?
      --
      A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
  50. The advantages of a good distribution network. by ivan_13013 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  51. Havard Vold (The shocked company man) by theolein · · Score: 2

    At Vold Solutions seems like he was sort of asking for it in a way. His product "rotate" is dongle protected although a lot of people have known since the days of autocad that dongles offer next to no protection as a cracker will get past it very soon in any case. In fact, dongles only hinder the customer at using the product legally and add incentive to a cracker "just to show off a bit".

    I know that while his company survives off this single product, and it has a limited niche target market, I can't imagine many people wanting to use a crack of this thing. A product like this lives and dies on the support offered by the vendor, not on the protection offered by the dongle. My guess is that old Havard Vold was just too pickled pink at the free publicity offered by the NYT article.

  52. I want a hyped story about corporate theft next... by weave · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Another one of those wild claims where these naughty boys are depriving certain industries of billions of dollars of theoretical money.

    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...

  53. How Did He Find His Attorney? by idonotexist · · Score: 2

    Really curious. He was represented by Harvey Sernovitz of Philadelphia. I cannot find even a web page for this attorney.

    Was he appointed one by the court?

    --
    "There ought to be limits to freedom"
  54. Am I missing something? by telbij · · Score: 2
    A quote from the pirate:
    "We never anticipated that a company would lose a sale as a result of one guy in China downloading it and burning it onto a CD and selling it to half of China."

    The article presents this as an attempt at a legitimate argument, but I can't imagine it being said with anything less than dripping sarcasm. I mean it already goes way beyond what any sane defendant would verbalize in this situation. I guess the guy really hasn't left his Mom's basement since high school.

  55. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  56. Re:Ahem... look at Ambrosia by Jason+Earl · · Score: 2

    They should have simply charged for support, DUH! If ten times as many people wanted support as there were that bought the game then chances are good that they were sitting on a gold mine.

  57. Pornography by theolein · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I ask myself if the customs officials sending 40 men over to arrest a 29 year old juvenile delinquent and getting the poor fool sentenced to 4 years while fucking bastards like Ebbers and lay get away with a little embarrassment isn't pornography? It seems that it always amounts to the haves whipping out their shlongs and urinating in the faces of the have-nots, and having a good laugh about it while the have-nots grovel about in the dirt, choking.

    I wonder when normal people in this century will finally have had enough of being treated like fucking peasants in medieval Europe with agencies, big corporations and governments acting like feudal barons and start to say "Kill the RIAA, Kill the MPAA, Kill Microsoft, Kill the BSA"?

  58. Re:End of an Era. by RESPAWN · · Score: 2

    When your name could mean something to everyone within your area code?

    There were certain disadvantages to being the only person most of my friends knew with a CD-RW drive back in the day. :) It's not exactly uploading warez to BBSs, but...

    "You can copy CD's with your computer? Wow. Could you copy this software for me? Hey! Everybody! This guy can copy CD's with his computer!"

    OK, it wasn't that bad, but I tried not to let it be known that I had a CD-RW drive since everybody was always asking me to pirate software for them. Geez. Ever heard of a job?

    --

    If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

  59. ... took root only in the early 1990's ... by dougmc · · Score: 5, Informative
    Although the warez scene took root only in the early 1990's, piracy has expanded rapidly, particularly in the last five years.
    Um, no.

    The `warez scene' was alive and well long before that. Back before the Internet explosion, warez was traded via BBS's, and by people bringing boxes full of floppies to their friends houses who had copy parties. Or they'd borrow a school's computer lab (rows of Apple II's) and set every one copying ...

    It seems that the NYT thinks that the warez scene needs the Internet to `take root' in. Not at all -- it'll root in anything it can, be it face to face meetings, BBS's, the Internet, or whatever comes next.

  60. Re:Pronounciation by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 2

    Actually, it would be akin to giving everyone a free car of their choice unless they used it for profit (If the law was changed, it wouldn't be stealing). Also, to make the analogy more accurate, assume that cars have negligable fabrication cost and that an inexperienced driver isn't a menace to themselves or others.

    Maybe the analogy doesn't work.

    --
    __
    Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
  61. Re:I want a hyped story about corporate theft next by markmoss · · Score: 2

    And they certainly won't send 40 stormtroopers to bust Ken Lay...

  62. Article doesn't debunk the #1 myth by splorf · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The copies "become the raw materials that others use for commercial piracy," said Bob Kruger, president of the Business Software Alliance, an industry group that asserts that software piracy costs $10.1 billion a year in lost sales worldwide.
    The BSA loves to calculate these ridiculously inflated numbers based on estimating the number of pirated copies out there and multiplying by the full retail value of a single copy, as if all those people with pirated copies would have ever paid full retail if the pirate copy wasn't available.

    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.

  63. Send the money directly to the artists!!! by God!+Awful · · Score: 2

    Game companies charge exhorbitant prices for their products. Where does this money go? Mostly to cover the cost of marketing, programmers, middlemen in retail, etc. But ask yourself what has been the biggest breakthrough in game design in the last 10 years. It's mostly the art design, isn't it? Game companies employ overworked, underappreciated artists who are treated like ordinary employees. They generally receive a flat rate for designing the look of the game and they don't get any significant percentage of sales. Rather than buying the game at a store, get it off Gnutella and send a couple of $$ to the people who really deserve it.

    -a

  64. Re:I can answer this by GutBomb · · Score: 2

    if you are only downloading the mp3's to "try" why do you need a good bitrate?

  65. Re:moral vs legal by symbolic · · Score: 2

    morally wrong to deprive another human being access to a tool that they could use to improve their condition because they cannot afford it, when it costs you nothing at all to provide them the tool.

    Based on what, exactly?

    You are making two very false assumptions: first, that it did, in fact, cost me nothing to produce, and second, that you are somehow entitled to reap the benefits of my labor an expertise for free simply because it will improve your lot in life. I have a news flash for you: I'm not your freaking keeper, and neither is anyone else. If you want what I have to offer, BUY it. If you can't afford it, I don't see how it's my problem. STEALING is the moral issue here, not selling the fruits of my own labor.

    You sir are in the untennable position of proposing that money is the ultimae judge of a mans worth.

    As opposed to what...one's abilty to simply take what ever they feel their entitled to? I'd hardly call this an indication of positive worth.

  66. Re:how is that besides the point? by symbolic · · Score: 2


    Simple - you are deriving benefit from the value that the software offers, and the company gets nothing in return. Another way of looking at it is how much it would cost you to accomplish the same thing without the software. That's what gives the software value, and that's what you're paying for.

  67. Yes quite! by Erris · · Score: 2
    The article was very disturbing and intentionaly so. The lead character was portrayed as a friendless loser living in his mom's house who did horrible things to others in a vain attempt to make friends. It's a clasic loser gets used by bad guys and goes to jail story.

    First let's examine some of the extreemist language used. How about arson? "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." This was used to justify 3 to 4 year jail terms. "Pirates," must be everyone's favorite. Somehow, I just can't see the techie with a sword or even a " ringleader of an international gang of software pirates that deprived companies of millions of dollars through the illegal distribution of copyrighted software, games and movies ." He was delclared worse than "petty criminals and warring gangs". The launguage seems to have worked as he says, "I felt like someone who had just murdered 50 people," Don't forget the criminal code of conduct secretive and vicious even to each other, "warez groups themselves tend to operate in secrecy, relying on encryption technologies, disguised Internet Protocol addresses and invite-only chat channels. And their world is highly structured, with a strict hierarchy and rules." Is that violent and sinister enough a description for a group of people who, horors, copy DVDs?

    Did this poor sap really "...have a worldwide impact of at least tens of millions of dollars,

    Or is the BSA, which routinely raids public schools to extort millions of dollars a larger threat to society? The NYT cluelessly quotes the BSA for dramatic effect: " The copies "become the raw materials that others use for commercial piracy," said Bob Kruger, president of the Business Software Alliance, an industry group that asserts that software piracy costs $10.1 billion a year in lost sales worldwide." Rat shit, extra coppies of movies are typically seen in the same places that made the "official" versions of popular culture. They come encrypted, just like the "official" ones two. In fact, they are often identical, wonder where they come from? Must be some dude living in his mom's house and all his evil friends.

    They are then portrayed as hurting the little folks worst of all,

    Vold Solutions, was horrified to discover that DrinkorDie had released a free version of a specialized engineering program that his company sold for $9,500. "That was very scary," Mr. Vold said. "They do not understand the impact of copyright infringement, especially on the smaller companies."

    Incredible! Show me an engineering firm that would use unlicensed software and I'll show you a firm that won't buy software! But here is that "pirate" stealing the bread from the mouths of Vold's children. Show me one of the world's five music publishing firms that is NOT making a killing despite killing Napster and seeing their sales fall back to earth. Show me one movie company that has not had it's "best year ever."

    OK that's enough picking that thing apart, it's depressing. It bothered me when I read it yesterday, but the more you look at it the dumber it is and the more depressing the stupidity is. People really believe that kind of shit. They absorb it without thinking. I'll bet the author even thought it was true.

    The article tells us the bad guys got away and other bad dupes quickly took up the missing "pirate" slack. I'm afraid that the bad guys are the ones did get away, and get richer everytime you turn on the radio, watch a movie, eat the crap food they advertise (that's why we are obese), and the shoddy merchandise that's product placed and subliminally linked to your deepest desires. They are the ones creating an unhealthy need to consume more than we need without ever achieving more than momentary pleasure. The Warez movement is a direct result of a "consumer" society. It's what they really want us to be, slaves to garbage, willing to sacrifice our time and ...

    I'm going to play with my baby girl now.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  68. Re:You are not stealing BITS you are stealing LABO by BitGeek · · Score: 2


    This would make sense if every piece of software were custome constructed.

    But software has a zero marginal value-- you spent all the money on the first one. Each copy is free.

    When someone pirates the software, tehy are making free copies-- it didn't cost you any more to make the software because they made free copies-- it cost you the same.

    Maybe the argument can be made that you make less revenue due to decreased sales- but I don't buy it-- most software I've pirated in the past has resulted in a sale in the future for the company and at the time I wouldn't have afforded to buy it, but by using the pirated copy, I learned ot love it and did buy it. Eventually, though eventually is sometimes only a matter of days or weeks.

    The problem is the sales boost from piracy has not been calculated, and the sales loss has not been shown.

    --
    Yeah, and you guys panned the ipod too: http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/23/ 1816257
  69. Re:Pronounciation by Beliskner · · Score: 2
    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
    Ahhh but that software has a business use. If you look at residential-only software like ACDSEE, that'll be hit hard by piracy because there's no reason to have that software at work, because nobody in their right mind would store their pr0n collection at work, and there's no point rotating an image by 90 degrees using ACDSEE at work when you have photoshop licensed and installed.
    --
    A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
  70. Re:I've seen Hollywood movies by Beliskner · · Score: 2
    So these two FBI goons greet him at his door, and ask to see the computer. He shows them the computer on his desk, and they ask him to turn it on. As he's reaching for the red button, he notices that the two goons have shoved their hands inside their jackets, just shy of drawing guns on this dorky kid, and ask him "just WHAT does that button do?!?" To this day we can't figure out what they hell they THOUGHT it was going to do. (release the hounds!)
    ...
    From my knowledge of US produced films, I know that all US police officers have the right to shoot anyone in the back if they run away after the cops say "Stop or I'll shoot".
    Dorky kid reaches for the red button: "Scotty, fire photon torpedoes."
    FBI: "Don't even think about it, we're gonna take you down asshole"
    Dorky kid: "I hate cops. I pop a cap in your ass, you punk ass motherf*****"
    -- FBI fires rocket launcher, destroys entire building, FBI agents walk out covered in soot looking slightly dizzy, Dorky kid is decapitated with arms and legs strewn all over the place.
    FBI: "I told you we're gonna take you down beeeeatch"
    --
    A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
  71. Re:End of an Era. by RESPAWN · · Score: 2

    :) I was wondering if somebody would catch that. In reality, "back in the day" would be "back when CD-RW drives were brand new and cost an arm and a leg and your left testicle." Thank god my dad bought it instead of me. I'd like to keep both my testicles, thank you.

    --

    If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

  72. Re:End of an Era. by gatekeep · · Score: 2

    To me, 'back in the day' is when there was no such thing as a CD-rom, let alone a CD-rw. Back in the day is when a 9600baud modem was fast and a 286/12 with 1 meg of ram and a 40meg HD was a good machine. Back in the day is when modem speed could be measured in baud and not bps.

  73. Re:End of an Era. by RESPAWN · · Score: 2
    Well, I do remember some of that myself, but I am probably a little younger than yourself. Still, I remember installing my first CD drive into a 486/33 which itself only had a 400MB hard drive. I remember being really excited when we got this Zip drive and I could store all kinds of stuff on it, and I remember our old 286 vaguely. (For some reason I remember that it was an Epson PC.) In fact, I still have a coupld of old 286 laptops lying around my room that I use every once in a while for posterity's sake. But for me, I didn't really start using computers to any great extent until after we got our 486. It was around that time that I really got interested in computers. Sometimes I feel like I missed out on a lot of computing history by not seriously getting into computers until so late, but then I realize that the real reason I didn't get into computers until the 486 era was because I was too young to care about much other than playing games on the thing.

    Although in my defense, I did still start out in the MS-DOS command prompt days and at first was totally confused by this Windows crap that came installed on our 486. "I'm clicking on the picture, but nothing happens. Oh. I have to click twice? WTF? How is this any better than typing the command at a DOS prompt." But it still wasn't as bad as Bob. :))

    --

    If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.