Slashdot Mirror
Former DrinkOrDie Member Chris Tresco Answers
1) How clueful are they?
by jeffy124
In your opinion, how did the each party (prosecution, your lawyer, and
most important - the judge) look when it came to their understanding of
technology? Did they know every nook and cranny, or seem lost in a maze
of confusion? Do you think an understanding of the issues in question
was a significant factor in court proceedings?
Chris:
That is a tough question to answer considering the organizational structure
of the government's side of things. The prosecution works very closely with
other units of law enforcement when it comes to technically challenging
cases like mine. In my situation, the government prosecutors were very well
briefed about how the technical aspect of the warez scene work. They are
briefed by law enforcement agents who are very technically savvy and able to
sift through all of the data that they are presented with at the time a
warrant is carried out. With this data, the agents build a packet of
evidence that the procecutors can look through and easily understand. They
had a plethora of evidence on which to build a case against me and it boiled
down that all the ones and zeros that the agents were able to pick through
added up to copyright infringement in the prosecution's eyes.
The judge doesn't really see the technical aspect of the case. He sees a report of the evidence, which is written in clean English, and makes his decision based on that.
My lawyer isn't very technically adept, but lawyers are pretty bright. He was able to grasp the concepts of everything, if he wasn't able to, he wouldn't be my lawyer. :) Besides, I was able to coach him through most of it.
2) "The Bust", WarGames or Matrix?
by msheppard
What was "The Bust" like? Was it like _WarGames_ where they showed up in
black vans and confiscated your computers and rifled through your
trash? Or was it more like _Matrix_ where they called you in and
presented all sorts of evidence they collected online etc.?
Chris:
I would say that it was a cross between the two. I will lay out exactly
what happened to me:
I was sitting at my computer chatting with a fellow DOD member on IRC. All of a sudden I noticed my net connection died. When I went to walk out the door, a U.S. Customs agent met me. "Mr. Tresco, My name is XXXXX, I am with the U.S. Customs Department. Would you mind coming with me?" As I turned the corner, there were about 20 law enforcement officials combing the halls of my workplace. We proceeded to a conference room where I answered questions for the better part of the day while the agents proceeded to carry out their warrant. They were looking for specific systems that were on the warrant. They had IP addresses. Technically, they had the authority to take everything on the network that the computers identified on the warrant were on, however they followed the warrant pretty strictly, taking only the stuff on it. It was really the hardest day of my life. I had no idea what was going on most of the time. I felt like I was in a dream.
3) Was there a feeling that DoD was too big?
by crunnluadh
The incredibly large volume of warez DoD was trading must have been
staggering. At any point in time did you or anyone else in DoD ever
think that the whole ring was getting way out of hand? If so, what ever
came from that or those discussions?
Chris:
In terms of percentages of releases put out by DOD in relation to the scene,
we weren't doing all that many. We did, however, have quite a large number
of ftp sites that were being heavily utilized. One of our private leech
sites was larger than a terrabyte of games and movies. It was constantly
being uploaded to and downloaded from. This should give you an idea of the
amount of trading that was going on.
To answer your other question... I felt on a daily basis that things were getting out of control. There were times that I did actually quit, but only for a day or so. IRC always brought me back online. That was my biggest mistake. DOD was a warez group, yes... but imagine a bunch of guys/gals sitting around talking all day and suddenly you stop showing up... You start to miss that type of interaction.
4) Feelings?
by Sebastopol
Are you scared about going to prison? Do they prepare you in any way
before you enter the facility, or do they just throw you in and that's it?
Just typing these questions make me uncomfortable.
Chris:
I am very scared to go to prison. I have never been in any sort of jail in
my life. They prepare you in the sense that they tell you where and when to
go, what you can bring, and what type of facility it is. The rest is done
through books and my lawyer, who has been really great through this whole
ordeal. I am fortunate enough to be assigned to a minimum security facility
close to my home.
5) If it wasn't about the money, what was it about?
by wackybrit
You were a sysadmin at MIT, so were probably pulling in a pretty good
wage.. at least, probably better than 50% of the Slashdot readership anyway.
So if it wasn't about the money, what was it about? Prestige is one option, but people in these groups need to keep hidden, so that doesn't fit. Was it for the ideals? If so, what ideals are there in ripping off software?
I can understand why people who can't afford software rip it off.. they have stuff to do, and can't afford $500 for Photoshop or whatever.. but tell me why someone with a decent salary will work in secret to beat the software companies.. what is the motivation?
Chris:
My motivation had absolutely nothing to do with the software, the prestige,
the civil disobedience, or the mysteriousness of it all. My motivation was
purely and simply putting technology to work. I have always been a curious
cat, like most of you that read Slashdot. I was basically the Sysadmin of
DrinkOrDie. I love to make computers work together, build up networks,
install services, lockdown boxes... you guys know the drill. I got very
carried away with what I was doing and forgot to confide in my moral self.
I knew I was doing wrong, and yes... to clear anything up... it is
absolutely wrong to steal software from a company. Whether it is ones or
zeros or bags of money, it is stealing. If for no other reason, it is wrong
because of the license agreement. If you don't agree with the license,
don't use the software.
6) questions from a fellow cracker
by Anonymous Coward
I am a cracker from a fairly well known group, living in the US. We take
normal precautions (encrypted email/irc), but there are clear
vulnerabilities that cant easily be eliminated (topsite accounts and the
possibility of trojaned supplied software, etc.). The dod bust stunned
all of us with the lengths of the sentences, which seem out of
proproportion to the crime. I find myself asking more and more whether
the risk is worth the fun. We are all in it for the commaraderie and the
friends (and the access to files); of course none of us are making any
money from it. My question is, if you had it to do over again, would you
stay out of a group, and of the scene? Were there risks you took that
you sholdn't have? What were they? Any advice to someone still in the
scene who wants to stay but worries about being caught?
Chris:
If I had to do it over again, I would absolutely not get involved with the
scene. The scene is technically organized crime... that is it. Mobsters
have friends too, but would you want to go to prison for what you and your
fellow comrades are doing on the net? Isn't it better to pay for the
occasional piece of software you might want than to pay with 33 months in
federal prison? I think so... And you say here:
"I find myself asking more and more whether the risk is worth the fun."
That is the wrong way to think about it. You are asking yourself if it is worth something to commit a crime. What you should be asking yourself is, if what you are doing is fundamentally wrong. If it is (and I would say that it is) then stop doing it.
To answer the rest of your question... The only pertinent risk was getting involved with the scene in the first place. You will get caught sooner or later if you continue doing what you are doing. My advice to you is to get out while you still can. Any precautions you take are easily circumvented. For example, email encrypted via PGP is only as strong as the people who get the email. If the government busts 20 people in your group, the odds of one of the people giving up their passphrase is pretty good. from that point, all the mail is readable. Encrypted IRC is not going to do it either. What if one of the people you are chatting with is an informant? Encryption becomes meaningless.
My advice: get out of the scene.
7) Plans for your stay?
by zbuffered
One of the things about jail is that you have nothing but free time. So
what do you plan to do? Study for a new career? Work out constantly?
Plan your escape? Learn to speak Sanskrit?
When you get out, you will have had 33 months of basically no real responsibilities. If you find a nice, cushy prison, you can get some real work done. Are you going to use this time to make your life when you get out of jail better?
Also, when you get out, what do you plan to do? Something in the computer field, or do you plan to change your path when you get out? If I were in your place, I think I'd just get fed up with computers and become a florist or something.
Chris:
During the time I am in prison, I will educate myself. I will hopefully be
able to take some classes towards a degree. Since I love working with
systems, I will hopefully be able to school myself in the art of business
and compliment my technical skills. My passion lies with IT, I would love
to take the education I get from prison (formal or not) and use it to better
my career and make me a better person.
8) Rise of P2P?
by Rayonic
How do you feel about the rise of P2P and its affects on the Warez
community? Do you think it makes it safer (safety in numbers?) or do you
think that it'll bring down the fist of the law even harder?
Which P2P networks did you prefer, if any?
Chris:
In the context of the warez scene, P2P networks don't play any part. They
are essentially mutually exclusive members. I think that people in the
warez scene used P2P networks just as frequently and for the same purposes
as the majority of P2P users. P2P and the warez scene do, however, relate
in one fashion. Both networks utilize the internet as a means to illegally
distribute copyrighted works. This will affect both entities in that the
more illegal activity that goes on in general, the more law enforcement will
be trying to put an end to it. This puts more heat on both services.
Technology crimes are also a hot topic as of late. So popular that there
are many organizations, like the Software and Information Industry
Association (SIIA) at www.siia.net and the Computer Crime and Intellectual
Property Section (CCIPS) of the Department of Justice at www.cybercrime.gov,
whose sole purpose is to stop them from happening. Software companies
really do lose money from piracy, why else would they support these types of
organizations?
Oh. and I preferred ftp.
9) What is your opinion of free software?
by Billly Gates
If you plan not to pirate software again would you chose to pay for
commercial apps or would you use free software?
Has your opinion changed about free software vs commercial software because of your unfortunate experience?
Do you think strong armed tactics by the BSA and upcoming drm will actually help spread free software?
Chris:
I generally try to run linux on the desktop where ever possible. That being
said, I love free software, I used it when I was pirating and I use it now.
I am composing this in OpenOffice btw. :)
I think both free and commercial software have their place in the industry. I also think that DRM and the BSA won't really have any effect on free software. People and businesses who pay for software don't have to worry about these features because what they are doing is legitimate. In my mind, I would think that companies who are completely compliant who are targeted by the BSA would be happy about it. They would clear their name and be finally exonerated. With respect to DRM, I think this technology is mainly targeted at media right now. That being said, I don't think it will help spread free software. except for maybe free Ogg codecs and players. and a lot more Ogg-files.
10) Prove me wrong.
by _xeno_
I want you to explain if you disagree with the following and if so, why.
My understanding of this is that you were involved with the illegal distribution of copyrighted works, depriving the potential owners of money for the works (possibly - the reality may be "probably not," but...). You then received 33 months of jail time (or just under 3 years) which seems to me to be rather fair.
Based on the Operation Buccaneer information, you received counts of felony (criminal copyright infringement, probably), and conspiracy (to commit criminal copyright infringement, probably). (Both probablies are guesses based on the document.) This seems to be in line with what one would expect for charges against a ring of people whose sole goal is to steal massive quantities of software and redistribute them to as many people as want them at no charge. (The fact that there was no charge probably reduces the sentence to a degree, but the fact that it required specialized skills and involved a large collective of people acting together to commit criminal copyright infringement probably both outweigh that.)
So... why should I feel sorry for you? You got what you deserved. You stole from people and gave copies to as many people as you could. Based on the MIT press release, you illegal utilized systems you were supposed to be administrating for the purposes of illegally distributing software. As far as I can see, you got exactly what you deserved.
So - prove me wrong. Demonstrate that my understanding is flawed or that I am misunderstanding the crime. Demonstrate that it should not be a crime. Or - accept my view. Explain if you feel sorry for your actions and believe that you did indeed commit the crimes. Or come up with another response that does not fall directly between agree and disagree.
Chris:
Is this flamebait for the interviewee or what? :) I won't bite. Your
question seems to start halfway through your rant, so I will start there.
You shouldn't feel sorry for me. I committed crimes that I shouldn't have committed. I stole from innocent companies and now I am feeling the repercussions. I am not asking for pity nor am I looking to be put up on a pedestal for what I have done. I am simply here to tell people what happened and that it can happen to anyone who takes part in this type of thing.
Addendum:
My nickname wasn't mentioned when the call for questions was posted, I guess I forgot to tell Robin. I was known as bigrar, BiGrAr on irc. If anyone wants to ask any questions besides the ones I have answered, you can send me email at nospam@rarcom.com. Actually you can take a look at my website as well, at www.rarcom.com (my hosting company is going to kill me). I am setting up a service there called the "Free Software Mirror Project". Through this site, I hope to start a huge mirror system for free software. When these questions are posted to slashdot, I am going to make the URL all text, so as to not completely slashdot my hosters. The mirror system is unique because it will work the same way the warez scene works. with couriers, suppliers, etc. Drop me a line if you possibly want to help me out with this.
Thanks,
- Chris
Required so that he doesn't get a stiffer sentence. I don't buy it--I don't believe you really think warez is theft, but I understand why you're parroting the party line.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
Hmm, it seems to me that you're making another warez site, and you are using the phrase "Free Software Mirror System" to cover it up. The other possibility is that you're trying to do warez with free software, which is completely ridiculous and unnecessary. So, before you do that, make sure you absolutely have boundaries set for yourself and know exactly what you're doing, because the feds might not see it as a free software repository but as a warez site. And what do you mean by "Free Software"? Is it software that you got for free and posted to the system, or is it truly GNU software. You have to be sure to make it clear to everyone that it is GNU software, and to make sure that the illegal software doesn't mysteriously appear. So, I would say, it's in your best interests to stay on the ethical side of things right now, and that seems kind of borderline.
The standard rationalizations that I'm complaining about are, in no particular order:
- I steal because it's too expensive.
- I steal music because the RIAA is "evil".
- I steal software because it helps the company I'm stealing from.
- I steal because I don't believe in intellectual property.
- I steal music because the CD only has one song I like on it.
- I steal as a test drive.
- I steal music and movies because they are just corporate shit, not art.
- I steal because the artists don't get much profit from purchases.
- I steal MS products, because MS is "evil".
and so on and so forth.Thank you Chris, for taking the unpopular position that copyright infringement is wrong.
Software companies really do lose money from piracy, why else would they support these types of organizations?
Prove it. You're telling me that if a high school kid who messes around with with Photoshop occasionally downloads a pirated copy off IRC, that Adobe loses 500 bucks?
Don't get me wrong, piracy is basically theft. I make it a point to buy software that I find useful, especially in the case of shareware, because I have a moral obligation to myself to do so. But this is the same flaw in logic the music industry uses to brand us all theives and legislate against us for the "good of the artists".
The laws have really gone over the line. Copyright violations used to be civil matters, going into criminal if somebody sold copies for financial gain.
It is a sad time when corporate entities have so many more rights than citizens.
Good thing for open source software.
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
A world of DRM software might reduce revenue for the BSA. "Poor, poor BSA!"
Method of processing duck feet
I don't know. Based on my perception from reading a lot of the posts here, I'd guess that three years without sex is nothing for the typical slashdotter. Only difference being, this guy has a good excuse.
Everyone, Chris included, has the right to their own opinions. But, to me, this seems a hideous sell-out. One can only wonder whether there was some clause in the guy's plea bargain or whathaveyou that forces him to keep saying "piracy is bad", "stealing is wrong", without any mitigation.
Quite aside from the arguments as to whether piracy *really* costs anyone all that much, and about whether the industry grossly inflates the figures of the costs of piracy (hint: they do) - the punishment is ridiculously out of proportions with the crime. There are people who torture animals or beat their wives getting smaller sentences.
The fact is that most people dealing in warez aren't making any money from it. They're often not stealing things which they would otherwise buy. They're not causing anyone any physical pain. They're not taking money directly from anyone's wallet. And yet these people - often, young kids who spend most of their time just chatting with one another - are faced with the risk of *years* in prison. This is ridiculous. Irrespective of whether you think piracy is "wrong", I find it incredibly difficult to believe that anyone genuinely thinks that someone should be *sent to jail* for this kind of thing - least of all when, for example, people who drive drunk often aren't sent to jail. It is *wrong* that crimes that ostensibly affect big business carry a greater punishment than do many crimes against humanity. It is *wrong* that people should be locked up for several years for this kind of thing: who amongst us doesn't have the odd mp3 lying around, the odd tape copied from a friend, the odd copy of Office made on numerous computers?
The fact that everyone's doing it doesn't mean that it's not 'wrong', of course. But can anyone really endorse having _two years_ of someone's life being taken from them for the sake of something which almost everyone is doing?
This makes me sick.
Though what he did was illegal, I just dont feel it to be immoral. Sharing information or music or ideas just doesnt raise the sin-o-meter at all.
The fact is that something which is not naturally immoral (sharing) can be made to give people pangs of guilt through conditioning. The "IP" establishment thinks that if they continue to pound into peoples heads that "Copying is stealing" and "Sharing is evil", then people will actually start to believe it. (In fact it does work to a limited extent) What will actually happen is that the harder they push the party line, the more people will see through it, and the harder they enforce the rules, the more people will protest them (or realize they exist at all).
At some point in the future, the whole copyright cartel is going to falter. Its not human nature to hoarde information, opinions, or ideas. It is in our nature to share ideas that we have discovered, and hopefully our economies will have enough time to get out of the way and figure out new business models before its too late.
He did not act from a desire of profit, or even of fame. He did not do anything with an intent to hurt someone
It is indeed sad, and I personally think the punishment may be a little harsh, but if we measured the seriousness of a crime based on intent, we'd be in trouble.
"I didn't mean to crash while driving drunk"
"I didn't mean to hit that little girl while I was randomly firing bullets into the woods"
"I didn't mean to psychologically ruin that 12-year-old for life when I seduced him"
A lot of laws are meant to punish people for not thinking about the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, since there is sometimes no way to ascertain intent, we legislate against lack of foresight. These are usually lesser crimes/penalties. 3 years seems long, still... hopefully he'll get out sooner.
By the very same logic, anyone who provides a product that competes with mine and "steals" my business would be guilty of theft. The only difference in this case is whether the potential customer has my software or my competitor's, which appears, functions, and performs similarly. Clearly this is theft!
Except that it isn't. In the worst case, it's a copyright violation. Unauthorized duplication of software is a copyright violation. It is not theft.
this would go a long way toward getting me an innocent-til-proven-guilty approach,
I think this pretty much sums up everything that is wrong with the system.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
That is the wrong way to think about it. You are asking yourself if it is worth something to commit a crime. What you should be asking yourself is, if what you are doing is fundamentally wrong. If it is (and I would say that it is) then stop doing it.
I wonder how fast his lawyer can type, or if his lawyer just dictates slashdot responses to his secretary.
I'm married, have a paid-for car, a good job, and share a house with the bank. I've got responsibilities. At this point, I'm using 100% paid for (or free or Free) software. Please allow that fact to color my response.
Everything in life is a cost-benefit analysis. Sure, the MBA people will tell you they came up with it, and they're the only people who truly understand how it works, and now I wonder if they're right. There's a risk in driving to work every day. Is it right? Well, it puts money in the grubby hands of a greedy corporation that cars about the environment to the extent required by the EPA. I could get killed. Therefore I shouldn't drive? Certainly are downsides to working, not to mention risks. Flying home for Christmas to visit the in-laws? Well, that involves the pollution of the airplane, more money in the hands of terrorist supporting oil barons, and again, that risk of death on my part.
Everything in life is a trade-off. Just sticking with what's right isn't enough -- few things are inherantly right. Just sticking with what's legislated isn't right. Now, say I am interviewing students for a job that involves using windows on a daily basis. I'll choose the candidate who pirated windows to get practice over the candidate who did the "right thing" and has honestly never seen windows because he can't afford it. Explain to me what is right there? Those who are too poor to "do right" shouldn't take risks?
Take a survey of college students. Some will certainly agree, but many won't. Don't bother asking attorneys, or people worried about their next parole board, but ask people with little money and a great concern for their futures.
Now, back to Mr. Tresco's situation. Is it "right" to hijack Institute computers to violate copyrights? One could easily argue the "Robin Hood" perspective; less easily, one could attempt to learn how much software enters MIT illegally then compute a net flow.
Let's assume that Mr. Tresco, or someone like him, is single, and has very few obligations. What's the risk??? Get caught, stripped of your job, sent to jail for almost 3 years. No freedom. Potentially unkind things happen there. If done well, someone could take advantage of the free room and board, earn a GED, BA or BS, and put together an outline on your experiences and sell the book/movie rights on how you're a better person. There are a lot of people out here for whom jail is not a punishment, but rather a new place to live with new opportunities. "What's right" is for the ethicists. Cost benefit analysis for the rest of us.
Clean record, time with my wife, commute to work for me, please.
Why is it that so many of here either use dictionary distinctions to clarify whether something is theft/stealing, but when that fails they switch to legal definitions?
"Stealing" and "theft" are generic terms that apply to anything that deprives someone of something that is rightfully theres, directly or indirectly. Copyright violations deprive the copyright holder or agents of the payment that is rightfully due to them, just as the GPL requires copyright "payment" in the form of derived works being under the GPL, openly distributed, etc. (I presume that every single person who yaps about software theft not being theft has no problem with Microsoft taking GPL code and copy out with Microsoft Winux?). Copyright violations are _theft_, and dictionary distinctions ring a little ridiculous.
Counterfeiting, like copyright violations, is easy to justify: I mean, where's the victim if you print off $100? Of course the victim is society as a whole, but that is hard to comprehend for the simpleton thought process of "Theft is stealing my bike" that we see on Slashdot.
You need to be very careful when you ask if it's "wrong" to do something. In all cases, if the cure for cancer is patented/copyrighted, and you do not have permission from the owner of the rights to redistribute the cure, then yes, stealing the cure for cancer is "wrong" in the sense that it is illegal. By stealing the cure for cancer, you're depriving the owner of his rights.
However, it is "wrong" for the owner of the cure to withhold it from the world in the first place, in the sense that it is immoral.
So here we have a sticky situation: he's doing something wrong, you're doing something wrong in order to counteract the effects of his doing something wrong. Do two wrongs make a right? No; they don't cancel each other out. But your wrong cures the world of cancer, whereas his wrong prolongs human suffering.
Given the choice in this situation I would steal the cure for cancer every time, and damn the jail sentences. Ultimately, the effects that your actions have on the world matter much more than whether they weigh as right or wrong on someone else's moral scales.
Of course, warez are not a cure for cancer. They're a relief valve, a way for people who cannot afford the exhorbitant price of commercial software to obtain the benefits of that software without selling a testacle to do so. Warez are wrong, but that has never stopped me from engaging in light warez trading, and it never will. I'll buy the games and apps I think are worth the price, but if I can't afford it then I wouldn't have bought it in the first place, and I'm not hurting anyone by stealing it.
Marijuana is illegal, despite the fact that it is neither wrong nor harmful, and would save countless lives if legalized--from medical marijuana users, to people who smoke deadly cigarettes because they are "right," to the thousands of people who are killed or exploited every year in the underground drug trade.
Until recently, the perfectly normal act of homosexuality was illegal, despite the fact that it is a naturally occuring biological phenomenon.
The Patriot Act and DMCA have made free speech illegal in circumstances, despite the fact that our nation was founded on the belief that free speech is an inalienable right.
Right and wrong have nothing to do with legal and illegal. By diluting the lawbooks with meaningless rubbish, legislators are depreciating the value of the judicial system in the eye of the common citizen. I cannot abide by a system of laws that I do not respect. If you wish me to follow the reasonable laws, then get rid of the unreasonable laws, and show me that the legal system makes sense.
It's a ***FELONY*** because it's a combination of a variety of PROPERTY crimes, including THEFT, FRAUD and DISTRIBUTION of stolen property.
Would we argue the nature of this if someone had broken in an electronics warehouse or a bookstore or a Costco and taken an equivalent dollar amount of goods and given them out to their friends?
I doubt it.
However, because software is "intangible" in nature compared to a frozen cheese pizza or bottle of Jack or Sony Walkman, some of us look at it differently.
However, the manufacturers of the software have to pay ALL those same expenses that Sony does.
They have to pay executives, engineers, marketing staff, assembly workers, packaging, warehousing, shipping, et al.
When you distribute a stolen copy of a piece of software and by so doing, reduce the numbers of copies that will be sold, you make it harder for a company to survive.
While it's easy to imagine that every s/w company is a MS, Oracle, IBM or Sun, it's not true.
Most s/w companies are much smaller and are fighting for their survival on a daily basis.
And we all have to wonder what would have happened to our entire marketplace, if their had been less piracy.
What would have been the fate of WordPerfect Corp, Lotus, Novell, and many other dead products if there had been less piracy?
What impact on Apple's conversion from a $10BN a year company to $1+BN company?
There have been many jobs lost, products destroyed and careers sidetracked in our industry by sales declines.
Sone of these SURELY have been as a result of warez.
If you lost your job and maybe your family, and knew warez had been at least partially responsible, how would you feel about warez?
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
Wrong. Using a specific term generically does not make it less specific. "Theft" implies the removal of a physical object (or pseudo-physical, such as money in a bank account) depriving the owner of its use. Illegal copying, while it deprives the owner of the copied work of compensation for the use of his work, does not deprive him of the work itself. That is why it is not theft. It is illegal copying, and is wrong, but it is not theft.
The BSA (also MPAA & RIAA) deliberately use the inaccurate terms "stealing" and "theft" because peoples' gut reaction (such as yours) is based on their experience of the true nature of those crimes. If they correctly used the terms "illegal copying" and "copyright ingringement" their case would arouse much less public sympathy. Their arguments are misleading in other ways, as well. It has been pointed out in other posts that they assume everyone who obtained an illegal copy would have paid for the software if the copy was not available. This is obviously misleading, and it is not the only example.
Of course I have problems with anyone who illegally copies someone else's work. But it is not theft. Software theft would be me shoplifting a copy of Windows from a store. This would deprive the store of a physical item (which they paid for) which they can no longer exchange for money (or something else of value). If, however, I work at that store and make a copy of the Windows CD, putting the original retail box back on the shelf, the store still has the copy for sale. My action in that case is illegal copying, not theft. The only thing the store (and MS) are out is the possibility of a sale. It is not certain that I would have bought a copy of Windows if I hadn't copied it. Thus, while making an illegal copy is wrong, it is not theft and does not have the same impact on the victim. It has some impact, but not the same. That is why equating "illegal copying" with "theft" is misleading and should be avoided.
There isn't one. There is only a victim if I then represent the fake $100 as real and use it to purchase something. In that case I am guilty of fraud, but it is still not theft (though it is closer to it than copying is).
No. Dictionary distinctions are what keep us from talking about everything as if it is the same thing. Rape != Murder, though both are violent. Blue != Purple, though they can be close. Theft != Copyright Infringement, though both are wrong. Talking about things using the correct terms is important if we are to properly understand them and their consequences. Without proper understanding we can not create a proper response. It will likely be either excessive or inadequate. Right now I think it is excessive, and will remain so until the discussion is couched in the proper terms.
This is my .sig! Get your own!
Yes as a matter of fact, it is wrong.
If for instance a cure for cancer is developed by a research team at WhiteHat Pharmaceuticals, don't they deserve to be compensated for their years of effort in R&D? Say that BlackHat Pharmaceuticals, a rival company that doesn't have the talent and knowledge to develop this on their own "just steals the formula" and releases their version of the drug for 20% of the price that WhiteHat charges (they can make money at this price point after all, since they don't have to pay for R&D) effectively destroying any possibility that WhiteHat will ever be able to make a profit, let alone recoup the money they spend on R&D. Do you think that WhiteHat is going to invest anymore of their time and talent in developing other drugs if this is allowed to happen? Absolutely not. This certainly does NOT advance our society! Now these "People that cannot afford it" that need other drugs are still up shit creek because the drugs that they need will never be developed. Even if the people that stole the formula gave their version of the drug away for free, the overall impact of this action would be extremely negative if it serves to discontinue the further development of new drugs.
Yes, sharing of intellectual property has many benefits to society. The key to this however is that everyone must decide for themselves what they are willing to share, who they are willing to share it with, and under what terms. The Open Source community is a stellar example of the wonderful things that can happen when the fruits of intellectual labor are shared. Just realize that this is not the perfect solution for all cases, and that it is ultimately up to the owner/creator of intellectual property to decide how it should best be used.
Respectfully submitted, The Woobman\/\/oobie
Just another reason to be paranoid, another reason to use exclusively free software, and another reason to avoid Flash.
Sig:Why copyright isn't a fundamental human right
While I applaud the government in catching this group and meting out something approaching justice in this case, I cringe every time I see the DMCA mis-applied to squelch criticism or competition.
Perhaps when we can get those making the laws to begin a sane discourse about the future of copyright, people's opinions won't seem quite so stigmatized in this area... Is it wrong to share a copy of your favorite game with your best friend? Probably not (at least it didn't used to be illegal and you'd be able to do it with a book). Is it wrong to share a copy of your favorite game with 10,000 of your closest friends? Absolutely.
Copyright has been chosen by the current establishment. But it is optional. The more IP infringes on important things (like free speech) the more likely it is to be thrown out by the next generation. I am a voting member of the population, and I currently wonder if a reasonable set of IP laws can ever be reached. If not, I'd much prefer no IP over the alternative.
I write software because I love to. If you compete with me using dirty tricks instead of technical merit you devalue not only what I do for 10-20 hours a week. You devalue the usefulness of computers everywhere.
This kid didn't write this stuff himself.
I can seem him feeling that what he did is wrong and going a little over board toward the copy infringement is theft camp, but somebody had to put those words in his mouth. The BSA are closer to customs agents at the Mexican boarder than they are to any useful policing force.
Lost your printed license documents? Oooh that's gonna COST ya!
sounds pretty interesting.
Not that I want to become a cracker, but it's a lot more complex than I ever thought.
I'd love to learn more. I've never really had that mob-obsession the rest of America has (sopranos, godfather, etc..) but this on the other hand is fascinating.
hell, I'd even read a Katz book on the topic.
Chris, you should write a book in prison. I'd buy it. Then I'd scan it and upload it to a DorD server in your honor.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
Everything you say may be true, but it is really beside the point. Just because a company has bad practices, or in some cases has suffered from turnover (whether self inflicted or not), doesn't mean they should have to worry about the BSA auditing them. Unless they have a solid legal basis to claim a violation has taken place, the BSA doesn't have any right to make anyone prove they are in compliance. Lots of organizations just don't have the time or talent to do every administrative task (IT, or otherwise) completely right, but they manage to focus on their customers enough to stay in busingess.