Former DrinkOrDie Member Chris Tresco Answers

Okay, former DrinkOrDie member and convicted warez dude Chris Tresco got his answers to your questions back to us, so here they are. (Note: Chris does not advise you to follow in his footsteps.)

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

Comments

Re:Show of remorse

[modus]

Actually, at this point it probably has more to do with an eventual parole application. He's already been sentenced to 33 months, no show of remorse is going to change that.

Happy about a BSA raid?

[Entrope]

In my mind, I would think that companies who are completely compliant who are targeted by the BSA would be happy about it.

That totally ignores the disruption, effort, and other impact that such an "audit" (sometimes just a jackbooted search without any warrant) has on the company. When you come down to all the commercially licensed software that is used at the "average" company, it becomes an enormous hassle for the IT staff to:

1. Figure out who is using what
2. Produce the proofs of purchase or whatever else is necessary
3. Convince the auditors that there is no additional commercial software being used

The payware mafia are proud of saying that most audits are based on tipoffs from disgrunted ex-employees -- which scares most companies because, no matter how hard they try, they will have some disgruntled ex-employees. It doesn't have to be a tip based on fact, it just has to be believable enough to warrant an audit.

Re:Happy about a BSA raid?

[Deagol]

When he said "happy about it", the "it" in question was the DRM stuff. If all software were DRM-enabled, and a company was audited, you could basically just say "Hey, it's running, so it must be registered and legeit, so bugger off!"

A world of DRM software might reduce revenue for the BSA. "Poor, poor BSA!"

Re:Happy about a BSA raid?

[Etrigan_696]

Just recently taking a job in IT, I've been thinking about this heavily. What if the Brown Shirts kicked in my server room door and threatened me unless I could produce liscenses for all the software in there?
Some of that crap dates back...What? FOUR IT managers ago? Two Office buildings ago.... At a couple of the workstations out in the workshop, they've got 386s and Win3.1...Just enough to let them run the purchasing database front-end...(and something that doesn't need a fan - which would be gummed up and on fire in days). Many companies go through this! WAUUUGH!

I wish I had enough money to write my own laws and have my own army to enforce them.

Who knows what survived the moves and the re-organizations, the buyouts ...etc. etc. etc.

Maybe I'll be joining Chris here in a "Federal Pound-me-up-the-ASS Prison"...

Re:Happy about a BSA raid?

[matt_morgan]

While I agree that I would never want to waste any time on an audit by the BSA, there are ways to handle this more easily. Point by point to your 1-2-3:

1) I have inventory. Yes, it costs me money and time. But I know what software is on what computer. My users do not have access to install software on their work computers. As IT manager, I am fully responsible for the software installed on their machines. I do this not only to prevent piracy, but because it makes support tons easier. Any software that's on their computers is software that someone in my department can support.
2) I keep track of licensing. This is not so hard. It's annoying that some licenses come on paper, some come in email, or whatever. Most payware companies also keep track of licensing for you, now. But I keep track of licensing not because I'm afraid of being audited, but so that upgrades are easier and cheaper.
3) Again, users have no ability to install software outside what is provided. I believe, although I may be wrong, this would go a long way toward getting me an innocent-til-proven-guilty approach, if not from the BSA, but definitely if it went any further.

There's no question that the BSA's methods are unacceptable in any enlightened sense. But I do things for other reasons that would help in the case of an audit. It's a lot of work to keep track of this stuff, but it's easier than having to figure it out every time you want to license an upgrade. Or doing a survey to see who needs that upgrade and who already has it. And it's hard to keep users from getting installation rights, but it's better than having them break their own computers, or ask my staff questions about stuff we can't support.

Even if I used all freeware, I would still want to keep control of all this stuff.

Re:Happy about a BSA raid?

[GigsVT]

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.

Re:Happy about a BSA raid?

[ergo98]

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.

Re:Happy about a BSA raid?

[2short]

I'm certainly no fan of the BSA, and being "happy" about an audit is certainly a stretch; but if they showed up where I work and wanted to know who was using what and see licenses for every copy, it would be no problem. We'd point them to the file cabinet in our IT guys office and say "knock yourself out".

If figuring out who is using what and finding the licenses is a problem for you, that tells me you're not already tracking it. Which means you don't really know if you're legal. Which means, frankly, you're probably not.

Re:Happy about a BSA raid?

[IceDiver]

"Stealing" and "theft" are generic terms that apply to anything that deprives someone of something that is rightfully theres, directly or indirectly.

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.

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?

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.

I mean, where's the victim if you print off $100?

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).

dictionary distinctions ring a little ridiculous

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!

Re:Happy about a BSA raid?

[matt_morgan]

Well, we don't really have developers, and I realize the problem is a bigger deal when you do have developers. We have only one, and he's in my department, and he has administrative rights to his machine. So he can install whatever he wants, with the understanding that adhering to the law is part of his job. Pretty much it's all open-source stuff that he wants, so it's not such a big deal. We don't really make an effort to keep track of his software, since he can be responsible for it.

We have a written policy for getting additional software approved. In general when people make requests, it turns out to be for something they already have, and just didn't realize, since we image computers with all the useful utilities that are most commonly wanted. But the policy does spell out, with some but not a huge amount of detail, what kind of software might be approved, and it specifies that the licensing, installation, and media (if any) will all be managed by information systems if the software is approved. It doesn't come up all that often.

We use an in-house OpenACS app (PostgreSQL back-end) to keep track of the licensing and software inventory. It only works because I'm a stickler about making the computer support staff keep it up-to-date. But when they get used to it, they do see the benefits and self-start with it.

My point, which I admit was not well-emphasized, was really to say that I think keeping track of these things is worthwhile independent of anti-piracy measures. Probably a little OT, and I guess the first post came off a little self-congratulatory. Poor rhetorical strategy on my part.

Re:Happy about a BSA raid?

[Gerry Gleason]

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.

Free Software Mirror System?

[nenolod]

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.

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.

Re:Free Software Mirror System?

[meis31337]

I see your point about it seeming to be another illegal system. I do, however, object that it is unnecessary.... How long did it take people to find a viable mirror of RH8 on Monday?? All day?? This release could have been available, w/o load, in 10 mins in countless places if there were an effective mirror system in place.

Re:Free Software Mirror System?

[fafaforza]

First, no one seems to be confused by the Free Software Foundation. Why would that be the driving factor here?

Second, the guy sounds pretty intelligent, and coupled with his recent ordeal of being drilled by prosecutors and his own lawyers, parents, friends, slashdot, as well as his warez experience, so he might know the difference between pirated software, and free software.

Third, he has a vision for a distribution system that he wants to create. What business is it of yours? You do not have a stake in whether it succeeds or not. In my eyes he wants to draw on his experience in the warez scene and transcribe the system of distribution into distributing files (whatever it may be) online.

What if the music/movie industries decide to distribute media online? Conceptually, the system he is envisioning might some day be viable to those companies, and he might end up living the high life. So quit bitching and putting down others' efforts and creativity.

Thanks, Chris!

[mosch]

I must say, I'm extremely impressed by Chris's responses. I find the standard rationalizations pathetic and sad, it's refreshing to see somebody advocating honesty on slashdot.

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.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[Jobe_br]

Amen. Nice to see a comprehensive list of all the bullshit reasons people put forth to justify their actions. Actions that are, have been and will continue to be simply wrong. Morally, ethically, judicially, whatever - they're wrong.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[ChannelX]

Nice rationalization. You most definitely are removing something from someone. The work is copyrighted....not the medium. Walking into a Virgin store and stealing the cd is stealing twice....the medium and the work. If you download an mp3 file that you don't own the cd for you are stealing. Pure and simple. That form of copying isn't covered under fair use.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[afidel]

Morals are by definition flexible and personal. My morals did not and for the most part do not consider trading or stealing software to be too high on the "wrongness" scale. I am an IT professional who has the money to buy software, and I do so, but I did not always have the money. As far as ethics goes I guess it is a matter of degrees, all out piracy, wrong; installing a copy of win2k pro from a cdrom and using a pirated key because the standard install process does not work and you know that despite what the exact details of the contract state that MS has been compensated for that software install, not wrong. Judicially is just a culmination of what the majority, or at least the majority of those elected think is morally abhorant enough to deserve punishment. And with the combined judicial code of the federal government and all 50 states running to many millions of pages I guess there is a lot of stuff that is wrong judicially, whether my moral compass agrees with much of it is for me to decide.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[Edgewize]

You are stealing. You have taken away the author's right to say who can have a copy of his work, and under what terms.

Is this the same as physical theft? No. Does that mean it should be allowed? Certainly not. If someone does the work to create something, he should be able to say what is done with it. Copyright is a good thing.

(To a point. 50+ year copyrights are a joke. Especially when the creator is long dead, and the money goes to his "estate".)

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[RatBastard]

But you are stealing. You're not stealing from your friend, but from the owner of the copyright. And you are adversly affecting others. In this case, the creators and distributors of twh media in questiion. Sure, the RIAA is rich beyond reason and hurting them feels like a morally justifiable action, but many of the artists who's work you steal are not. Not only does copying their work deny them the few measely pennies of royalties each sale creates, it also lowers the overall sales figures for their CDs, which can put their contracts at risk.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[poot_rootbeer]

Merriam-Webster's definition of "stealing" does not require that the original holder of something have it removed from their possession...

STEAL may apply to any surreptitious taking of something and differs from the other terms by commonly applying to intangibles as well as material things

Oops, I just stole than sentence from m-w.com!

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[MrHat]

No, you're violating a copyright. Stealing involves depleting a finite resource, copyright infringement involves violating a fixed-term government-granted monopoly on an idea or work. Stealing affects provable loss of a physical possession; copyright infringement dilutes the economic incentive set up by your government to promote the arts and sciences.

Potential profits are not material. Both property law and copyright law play a part in maintaining a healthy economy (read: allowing people who produce value to benefit from it), but they're not even close to being interchangeable.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[Graff]

To clarify something:

Downloading an mp3 is stealing, if you never bought the music you don't have the right to copy it for any use. This is covered under the distribution clauses of copyright law.

Taping a song off the radio is not stealing. It is covered by fair use law and it is called "time shifting". Under the idea of time shifting, you can record a radio or tv program for later personal listening or viewing. The idea here is that the broadcast, which presumably was made legally, may have been performed at a time not convenient for you to enjoy. You therefore have the right to enjoy the broadcast by recording it and playing it back later. You still do not own the broadcast and you can't redistribute it or play it for a large audience. It is just for your own personal use. This is why PVR devices like Tivo are legal.

It may seem like downloading music is a "victimless" crime, but if everyone who wanted the song got it for free online then the song would never sell and the artist would not get paid. An artist that doesn't get paid for their work is not going to be an artist for long. Remember, you are "voting" for them to be kept by their label with every album you buy. If you like the music, buy it so that the record labels and the artists know what is good and what is not.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[the_rev_matt]

What about downloading MP3s of albums you legally own but are too lazy to rip on your own? I've done this many times, particularly for tapes and vinyl. I own the media, I just don't feel like going through the tedious process of encoding analog stuff.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[ChaosDiscord]

I'm against copyright infringment. Copyright is a value tool for encouraging the creation of new works. I purchase my music, movies, books, and video games. That said, you're playing into the hands of copyright based industries. You're using inaccurate and dangerous sounding words. This sort of dialogue is giving the RIAA, the MPAA, and other copyright based industries ammunition to take our fair use rights away. Copyright is a balance, not a one way street.

Nice rationalization. You most definitely are removing something from someone. The work is copyrighted....not the medium.

If I engage in illegal copying, I have engaged in illegal copying, nothing more. Illegal copying is very distinct from theft of physical objects. "You most definately are removing something from someone." And what would that something be? The original author still has all of his copies of the work. The record store still has all their copies. The person I copied it from still has their copy. I have not taken something from anyone. I have infringed upon the copyright holders exclusive right to distribute copies, but that's different. I might have eliminated the sale of a legal copy, but it's hard to know.

Walking into a Virgin store and stealing the cd is stealing twice....the medium and the work.

That's just surreal. Copyright does not grant the author any sort of control over legally made copies. The CD in the store is legal. If someone steals the CD, they have stolen that copy, nothing more. The copyright holder has lost nothing, only the copies own (the store) has lost anything. Copyright law is completely irrelevant, the thief will be charged with good old fashioned shoplifting.

If you download an mp3 file that you don't own the cd for you are stealing. Pure and simple. That form of copying isn't covered under fair use.

If you download an mp3 file that you don't own the CD for, you are infringing copyright. Pure and simple. The copyright holder has lost nothing. He might fail to sell CD that he otherwise would have, but you're not allowed to count potential failed sales as a loss. Things are all the more complicated by people who sample CDs through MP3 and end up purchasing the CD.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[ChannelX]

Not a lawyer but I dont see any issue with that. The end result is the same. You have a copy of something you own.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[Graff]

You can put the radio broadcast into any format you want, so long as it still is for your own personal use. If you subsequently put the mp3 on a P2P network, you could be then be guilty of copyright infringement.

The difference here is how the copyrighted materials are distributed. If you legally obtained copyrighted materials you may use them however you want, so long as it remains only for your own personal use. When you start selling, trading, broadcasting in a public forum, etc. that is when your use of the materials becomes illegal.

So, yes, the situation may appear to be the same whether you download an mp3 or make one from a radio broadcast. The fact is that it's the process that matters, not strictly the content. Copyrighted materials are illegal to copy, except when you are given the rights by the copyright holder or when those rights are inherent to the fair use of the materials.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[Hobophile]

If you photocopy a page out of a book from the library, is that _stealing_? No. But it is copyright infringement (unless you have permission), and copyright infringement is illegal.

Whether or not it is copyright infringement depends on a number of factors, even in your hypothetical example:

• The length of the book. One page out of 4,000 would be more likely to be considered fair use, one page out of three not so likely.
• Your purpose in making the copy. Academic research, review, and several other purposes are specifically excluded from being considered copyright infringement on the face of it, although there are certainly limits.
• Finally, the copyright status of the book is important. Shakespeare's works have long since passed into the public domain, so a photocopy of a few lines from one of the Bard's plays is not copyright infringement. Copying the footnotes, on the other hand, might be, since those were likely written much more recently.

Notice that for any of these fair uses, I don't have to contact anyone for permission at all. Your attitude, that any copying without the copyright holder's express consent automatically equals copyright infringement, is the same mentality that the RIAA and MPAA are trying to promote.

But presently this is not true, at least for non-digital works, and our fair use rights are important enough that we should not willingly adopt the notion that any "unauthorized" use is automatically infringing and illegal.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[ChaosDiscord]

Rationalize all you want. Maybe it all depends on what your definition of 'is' is? You can trot out the dictionary all you want. Stealing is a crime. Copyright infringment is a crime. Call it whatever you wish. Its still a crime.

I would be no more rationalizing if I insisted on a clear distinction between manslaughter and murder. However, the copyright industries are working to set up such a virulent attitude against copyright infringment that it cannot be discussed rationally.

Copyright infringment is a crime and (to my beliefs) immoral, but copyright infringment is not theft of property. Referring to copyright infringment as piracy or theft confuses very different crimes with different levels of harm of society and different laws governing them. The copyright industries want to confuse the issues and portray copyright infringment as far worse than it actually is. Once armed with the public attitude that copyright infringment is far worse than it is, they can more easily justify taking rights we do have away ("Sorry, you can't record this show, we have to stop the pirates." "Sorry, you can't have your computer read this e-book aloud even if you're blind, otherwise thieves would take our money away.") I refuse to let copyright industries manipulate the discussion by manipulating the words used. They make inaccurate analogies like comparing my making an illegal copy of a CD (potentially, but not certainly, eliminating a sale) with my stealing a CD (taking a produced product away from someone who has paid for it, leaving them without access to their property).

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[spitzak]

Of course downloading the MP3 is wrong. The complaint here is that people keep calling it "stealing" when in fact you state right there that it is "violating the distribution clauses of copyright law".

Those clauses are not called the "stealing" clauses of copyright law" for very good reasons!

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[spitzak]

Actually I'm not sure if this is legal, though many people here think it is.

The realistic problem is that any such service is way to easy to abuse so that you can get copies of stuff you don't own.

But even from a legal point of view, that rip is not of *your* copy of the music, but somebody else's. It may be a different mix or master disk or you could even claim the arrangement of scratches (or CD errors) is different and in some way it is not a copy of yours. If you don't disallow this, it gets difficult to disallow the ability to download other band's versions of some song you own. I think this may be an acceptable position to take to say that even this is wrong, though I bet I'm in the minority here.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[Graff]

You are totally correct. Downloading an mp3 is not technically considered stealing, it is actually violating the copyright. I was using the word "stealing" simply because that is a common expression for the idea.

That being said, it still doesn't make it any more legal to violate the copyright than it does to "steal" the music.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[spitzak]

No, the argument is whether copyright infringement is "stealing" or not. It is not whether it is worse or not, though of course it is implied that "stealing" is worse.

Stealing the PhotoShop CD is 100% guaranteed to cost somebody some money (probably the store that purchased the CD from Adobe, they lost all the money they spent for it and also lose the potential profit from selling it).

Downloading the illegal copy of PhotoShop *may* mean you won't buy it, lets say it is 98% chance that it causes you to not buy a copy you would have (which is of course about 10,000 times too high of a percentage, but I am trying to humor you). In this case there is a 98% chance that you have deprived Adobe of the money the store would have given them and also you deprived the store of the profit. Thus by definition this is only 98% as bad.

I'm sorry, but it is impossible to make the damage equal no matter what you do.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[spitzak]

Even by your definition taking the disk from Virgin is not stealing twice. This implies that if you did not steal the disk, you would have bought TWO of them!

I hope this will point out exactly how illogical your arguments are, but I think it is a hopeless cause.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[spitzak]

Actually the common expressions seem to be "download" and "rip", not "steal".

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[isorox]

To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

take: 1. To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially:
1. To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress.
2. To seize with authority; confiscate.
3. To kill, snare, or trap (fish or game, for example).

You arent getting anything into your possession. You are rearranging things (electrons) that are in your possesion, but nothing changes ownership.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[isorox]

Stealing the PhotoShop CD is 100% guaranteed to cost somebody some money (probably the store that purchased the CD from Adobe, they lost all the money they spent for it and also lose the potential profit from selling it).

No, they dont lose potential profit.

• Shop ballance = $1000 stock = 0CD
  
• Shop buys cd from adobe for $100
  
• Shop ballance = $900 stock = 1CD
  
• Someone steals cd
  
• Shop ballance = $900 stock = 0CD
  
• Shop replaces CD with another one from adobe ($100)
  
• Shop ballance = $1000 stock = 1CD
  
• Shop sells CD for $150
  
• Shop ballance = $950 stock = 0CD
  

They lose $100, not $150.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[ChaosDiscord]

You are implying that copyright violation does a significantly smaller amount of damage to society than theft. Can you support this assertion?

I implied no such thing. I simply said that they are different, not that one is less harmful than the other. Sometimes crimes have similar levels of harm of society, but are treated different (manslaughter versus murder).

That said, you're basically right. :-) I definately think that copyright infringement is less harmful than theft. So I'll take your challenge...

Namely, can you explain the significant difference in societal damage between these two:

• downloading an illegal copy of Photoshop, and
• stealing a CD with Photoshop on it?

Sure enough.

If Bob steals my copy of Photoshop from my desk, there is real and certain loss. Previously I had a copy of Photoshop that I could use. Now I no longer do. Photoshop costs about $650, I presumably valued Photoshop at $650 (since I paid that much for it). My loss is $650. My local software store would suffer similar losses if the copy was shoplifted from the store.

If Bob downloads an illegal copy of Photoshop no one lost existing money or property. The only loss that we can be certain of is that Adobe's exclusive right of copying has been infringed upon. The only loss is that Adobe might fail to make a sale that otherwise would have. Let's say that 99% of all illegal copies lead to a failure to purchase a legal copy. So, averaged between all of the illegal copies, the potential lost sales will work out to about $650 * .99 = $643.50.

If you assume that a lost sale is equivalent to actual loss, copyright infringment in this case is about $6.50 less damaging to society than theft. That number grows if you believe an even larger number of illegal copies do not replace legitimate copies. My personal experience suggests that many illegal copies are either never used (and so would never have been sales) or are made by people who simply don't have the money to pay for the legal version (and so would never have been sales). I'm not saying that this is acceptable, legal, or moral! "Collectors" should get a real hobby (like writing Free Software), and people who can't afford it should find other options (Like Free Software. :-). I'm saying that I believe that many (maybe 50%) of infringing software copies do not represent a lost sale. If no sale was lost, the damange to society is greatly reduced. If we go with 50% instead of 99%, the damage is $325 less.

Theft takes propetry away from it's lawful owner. The lawful owner can not longer use (or resell, or whatever) the item. Copyright infringment leaves the owner with a perfectly fine item, but potentially deprives the copyright holder of sales.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[spitzak]

I'm assumming that the store lost a sale to *me*, since I stole a copy and thus no longer need to buy one. If you don't assumme this then the cost of downloading an illegal copy is zero, since you are not allowing the lost sale to be counted.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[isorox]

no they didnt lose a sale. They didnt have the sale in the first place. They have potentially lost a sale. I was going to buy a sandwich from shop 'A' today. I then bought one from shop 'B' instead. Shop 'A' havent lost anything, they just havent gained anything. Theres a difference.

P.S. I have a P166 laptop here for sale for $60,000. As you havent bought it I've ost a sale to you. Damn.

See, doesnt work.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[spitzak]

Sorry, I'm not arguing with you, I agree. What I am saying is the theft of a disk is not a lost sale, then you also must say that the person downloading an illegal copy also does not represent a lost sale either (which I assumme you would agree with).

The end result is that it is impossible to equate downloading illegal copies with theft unless 100% of the people downloading would have bought a copy if they had not downloaded one.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[ChaosDiscord]

If Bob steals your copy of Photoshop, you can normally contact Adobe for a free/low cost replacement, after proving ownership. It will cost, let's say around $1.00 in production and shipping for them to send you a free CD. But let's say they charge you $5 S&H to send the replacement out.

I must say I'm impressed if this is true, it's certainly not the standard for most of the software industry. In general, if my media fails or is stolen, I'm out of luck and have to purchase an entire new copy. I personally don't have much use for Photoshop (I'm a programmer, not an artist), so I don't have a copy sitting around.

It does raise the question of how do you prove that you own a copy. If I bought a copy at Best Buy, then threw away the receipt and box, never bothered to register, and shoved the license in the CD case so I didn't lose it (the same CD case that was stolen), I'd be hard pressed to prove my ownership. This is typical behavior for me and many other people. I've got enough things to worry about to not bother keeping my licenses carefully filed away.

Anyway, in either case Bob will not be buying a legal version of the software. Let's use your 50% number to represent the likelihood that Bob would have purchased the software if here were honest. The total societal impact of theft is $255, whereas the impact of the copyright violation is $250. This is a 2% difference.

Even if accept that logic, 2% is still a difference. :-)

But I don't agree. For most software I purchase, if it's stolen, I'm out of luck. I'll have to foot the entire replacement bill for $500. Life sucks.

Re:Thanks, Chris!

[isorox]

larceny: The unlawful taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of permanently depriving the owner; theft.

Not copyright infringment

theft: ...with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same

Perhaps I might steal profits (although very dubious), however I dont steal the information

Re:Show of remorse

[PunchMonkey]

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.

Or (are you ready for this?) Maybe... just maybe.... he really does think illegally distributing software is theft (and wrong).

OMG, is it possible for the "sysadmin" of a warez group to have morals and values? I think it is.

Crock of shit

[kableh]

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".

Re:Crock of shit

[joshsisk]

I've read that Adobe actually doesn't care so much about individual users pirating their software, since very few individuals would ever be able to afford $500 for Photoshop, anyway.

The clincher is that all those high school and college kids then get jobs and they all know photoshop... So what software do they pester their employers to keep up to date? You guessed it.

I know it worked for me. When I was in HS, I most assuredly had a pirated version of Photoshop (2.0?). This led me to convince more than one company I worked for later that Corel Photo-Draw was NOT a professional-quality photo editing program. And now I drop several hundred a year on keeping my Adobe install up to date...

Re:Crock of shit

[Jesus IS the Devil]

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?

No. Adobe loses the potential to earn 500 bucks from this kid.

And before anyone tells me that the kid would never have bought it anyways, does that mean anyone should be allowed to pirate software/music as long as they make the claim that they wouldn't have bought it anyways?

So how do we find out who's telling the truth and who's lying?

Re:Crock of shit

[Gendou]

What if you don't believe that Copyright exists? I believe that the First Ammendment to the Constitution invalidated the ability of Congress to grant Copyright. How can the kid be "using a copyrighted piece of software" if Copyright does not exist? The Corporations that have gained control of the government (using money they earned by violating the basic principles of economics by exploiting government-created artificial scarcity) will NEVER let this be decided by the public, because the corporations own the Congress, the White House, all the judges, and they even own the minds of a number of the citizens.

Re:Crock of shit

[Darth_Burrito]

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?

Not all piracy takes the form of high school kids downloading $1000 software packages. The kid can afford to pay $30 for Unreal Tournament or $2.50 to see spiderman in a second run theatre. Also, I imagine some of the stuff distributed through the warez markets ends up getting sold for $$ somewhere down the line.

There's also the matter of cheaper products. Do Sun's Office sales drop because a household pirates MS Office? How does piracy affect smaller groups trying to gain market share? If Adobe has the best graphics package and nobody has any qualms about "borrowing" it, then that stifles the business of cheaper graphics packages.

Re:Crock of shit

[SirWhoopass]

I believe that the First Ammendment to the Constitution invalidated the ability of Congress to grant Copyright.

Perhaps you should read the whole document. What did the authors mean when they said there shall be no law "abriding the freedom of speech or of the press"? Do you really think they meant that you can say and write whatever you want? Are they allowing slander? Libel? Are they allowing you to copy anyone else's work? No.

In Article I, Section 8, the authors explicitly gave Congress the power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". The Consitution does not invalidate copyright, it explicitly grants it.

Re:Crock of shit

[NeMon'ess]

An AC said this already but I'll say it louder. Adobe doesn't lose $500, but JASC loses $90 on Paint Shop Pro the kid could have bought. If the kid pirates something by Norton, Panda which sells comparable software for less, looses a potential sale because the kid could have afforded theirs.

Re:Crock of shit

[dubiousmike]

Having worked for a number of software companies, both in audio and video, piracy isn't really of the hugest concern, albeit when the pirate is a "home user" or enthusiast. The bottom line is that the more users you have, the more popular you are, the more revenue in the long run. Why?

If I pirate Photoshop and am able to get my chops up, I can then utilize those skills in the marketplace. When I go for a job, it is HIGHLY unlikley that my workplace will provide or condone illegal copies of Photoshop. Rather, they will purchase copies, upgrades, plugins, ect.

Software companies don't really care if indiviual users pirate software. They could try to sue individuals until the cows come home, and in the end, would only serve to piss off much of their paying customer base who WILL feel a sense of pity for those getting fined, inprisoned, ect.

In the end, most folks who use priated versions of popular software end up using it professionally in an environment where the copy they are using is perfectly legal.

Software piracy, in many cases, actually increases revenue in the long run.

Re:Crock of shit

[liquidsin]

I may be the exception to the rule, but when I was younger I always had the latest freshly ripped copy of illustrator and photoshop. When I was 16 I didn't have the money to drop on something just for the sake of learning it. Now that I've gone into graphic design as a career, not only is Adobe getting my company money for the copies I have at work, the get the money for the copies I keep at home too. And I upgrade at home faster than I do at work, since I want to make sure I like the newest versions before I spend company money on them. So I guess you could say that Adobe got two new customers off of the same pirated copies. Most people who are using software for profit will pay for it. Now the game industry on the other hand...they're getting hosed.

Re:Crock of shit

[Gerry Gleason]

Well, I guess we will have to wait until he is out from under both the sentence and any parole before he can really be candid about this.

I am impressed by his candor with respect to his involvement and responsibility. From what he says, he didn't think very deeply about the implications of what he was doing, ethically or otherwise. Did he think about the possibility of getting arrested? It doesn't even seem like he thought about whether it was right or wrong. Definitely a cautionary tale for anyone who might potentially be in the same (or similar) situation.

I'm also impressed that he doesn't quibble qbout any justifications or the severity of the sentence. In my opinion, 33 months for this is extremely harsh, which goes directly to the question of just how damaged the software publishers are.

The real criminals are the end users who copy this stuff to use in business activities, sometimes with many copies of such software, not people like him who allow for the exchange at no profit to themselves. Sharing for a test drive or when you can't afford it and you want to learn how is probably an economic benefit to the software producers, and they should get a clue and start actually promoting this kind of sharing (some do).

I think his comment about the BSA 'raids' is also a bit naive as well (although he could be holding back here). It is a basic legal principle that you don't have to let anyone snoop around your home or business just because they suspect you of something. Show cause or get off my doorstep.

If the cops come by and are investigating a serious crime (a murder, for example), I'm inclined to help them out if it isn't too much of an imposition. However, if I don't trust their motives, I might say get a warrant and call my lawyer when they go to get it. It is another basic legal principle that this does not say I am trying to hide something.

There is a social obligation to help find murderers and violent criminals that just doesn't apply to enforcing copyrights.

Re:Crock of shit

[jhines0042]

Lets take a comparative look at something somewhat similar, toll roads.

Why do toll roads exists?

Two reasons.

1) to pay for the initial building of the road
2) to pay for the continued maintenance of the road

Which do you think is more expensive? You guessed right, the initial building of the road/bridge/tunnel, whatever.

Rather than Tax Everyone in the State/Country etc... they only charge the people who use it.

Now then, if you drive on the toll road and you don't pay are you stealing? Yes. What are you stealing? The money that you were supposed to pay for the use of the service. Why were you supposed to pay it? To cover the cost of building the road.

Why should you buy software that you use? Because people spent time writing it and a company paid them to write it. That company raised capital to build the software (road) and if you use it without paying for it then you are gaining the benefit of the service without paying what the builder is asking for.

Do toll roads make a profit? Sure. Welcome to captialism.

Re:Crock of shit

[kableh]

Perhaps I should clarify a bit.

I take issue with Tresco's assumption that everything is so black and white. As you said, where do you draw the line? I also take issue with his assumption that these companies MUST be losing money if they are supporting organizations like the BSA.

When I was a kid, I pirated all sorts of software. The only reason I had a computer was because my grandfather got sick of me using his all the time =). Now that I'm a sysadmin type, and actually make a living using this stuff, I am rabid about supporting companies that make good software. I also do my best to instill this value in the users I support, as well as my friends.

As a USian, I get ticked off that my vote doesn't seem to mean anything these days. But there is one place I have a lot of influence, the free market, and that is why I do my best to give my business to companies that really do deserve it (and sometimes companies that don't *cough*Microsoft*cough*).

Re:Crock of shit

[spinkham]

There's this thing called "academic licensing" that such software companies have. Can't afford $600 Photoshop license? You're a student? Ok, just give me $100 dollars then.
If it's not worth it for you to come up with the $100 dollars it takes to get an academic license, you didn't really need it. Use Wingimp or some other freeware/shareware image editor.
No, I don't think that Adobe lost 500 bucks worth of value, but 100 seems reasonable. And the amount of money they aren't getting isn't the point, the point is that software "piracy" is illegal, and most people would agree it's immoral.
Perhaps the BSA and such overdramatize their side of the debate, and people such as you definatly do. Neither of those facts make it either more or less wrong.

Re:Crock of shit

[ferat]

By this logic Adobe should thank me if I download Photoshop because I'm depriving a competitor of a sale, and JASC should come after me for pirating Photoshop rather than purchasing their product.

And both of them should come after me with their attack lawyers because I decided the GIMP was good enough for my graphic editing needs - therefore denying both of them a sale.

The "Pirating Novell is bad because it hurts Banyan!" argument doesn't really hold water. Just stick with "Don't steal software".

Re:Crock of shit

[sweetleaf]

It doesn't cost Adobe $500, but it does
potentially limit the emergence of lower-priced competitors.

If there was a larger market of people who would pay $50 / title but not $500, then perhaps another
product would emerge to fill that niche. Similarly, products already in that market might have more funds to improve.

Perhaps piracy contributes to the lack of
competitors in a market - this might be its most
severe impact.

Re:Crock of shit

[jhines0042]

Depends on how many times you don't pay the toll. Usually they would just fine you something like $35 for skipping a $0.50 toll.

So that is, what, a 70 fold increase in penalty over actual loss?

If he was really pirating as much software as he said he was then he stole millions of dollars from various companies.

Would you rather see him fined $70 Million dollars, declare bankruptcy and then end up having the taxpayers bail him out?

Re:Crock of shit

[Restil]

Piracy is typically referred to as theft, but only when it deprives a software company of a sale it otherwise would have gotten. In your example, no, the kid who farts around with photoshop is not costing adobe any money.

It gets tricky where you actually NEED that software. If your job or hobbies require the use of photoshop and you pirate it, then you ARE depriving Adobe of a sale. The argument could always be stated that there are less expensive and/or free alternatives (like The Gimp), and this may very well be true. But if this is the case, someone using the software in a professional environment should be using the less expensive/free alternative anyway, otherwise the deprivation argument actually has teeth.

In a business environment, there is no excuse. The entire company could be built around free software solutions from the beginning if it wants to remain neutral in the piracy war. But when corporations utilize commercial software to make money and don't purchase the licenses that enable them to do so, that is strictly a lost sale, and there's not really anything that can be argued about it.

One sidenote though, the highschool kid with photoshop is learning to use softwere he would otherwise not be able to legally obtain. Should he use alternative software, along with many others, that alternative solution would inevitably become more popular, to the detriment of Adobe. While you can debate the ethical piracy issues regarding that one illicit copy, in the long run, it probably helps Adobe that the kid uses it instead of Gimp on a regular basis.

-Restil

Re:Crock of shit

[DaytonCIM]

Don't get me wrong, piracy is basically theft.

No. Wrong. Piracy IS theft.

Yes, when you download a song from the Internet and "use" it, you are cheating the artist out of money.

Yes, when you download a "cracked" copy of Adobe "Anything," you are cheating Adobe out of $299.

Whether or not the artist, label, or software company is "over-charging" for their product; or the MPAA or RIAA are justified in their attacks on P2P; or Microsoft, et al are justified in their attacks on Open Source is a red herring and not relevant.

Stealing is stealing, whether you're Martha Stewart, Bill Gates, or geek from any town USA.

Re:Crock of shit

[Billly Gates]

I read in the NYtimes that the FBI mentioned that they do not target guys who download maybe an app or 2 off the net.

They go after people who setup servers that offer tens of thousands of downloads of copyrighted programs. He did not just pirate 2 or 3 apps. He probalby did end up costing some of these software companies tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Many small to medium sized bussinesses pirate. Also Asian and European companies pirate alot more then American ones and I am sure they used his servers to bootleg. This is a much larger scale then a kid downloading photoshop off of limewire.

Re:Crock of shit

[Kaz Riprock]

Unless you live in Boston, in which the E-W toll roads exist to build other roads that the N-S regular commuters will use but you paid for...

But I'm not bitter or anything...

Re:Crock of shit

[ChaosDiscord]

Now then, if you drive on the toll road and you don't pay are you stealing? Yes. What are you stealing? The money that you were supposed to pay for the use of the service.

Erm, you didn't steal that money any more than shoplifters are stealing money that they should have paid for the product. If you fail to pay tolls on a toll road you're stealing a service, in this case access to the road. You're causing wear and tear on the road, congesting the highway (requiring more to be built), and increasing the risk of accidents (requiring more police and paramedics to be hired).

Why should you buy software that you use? Because people spent time writing it and a company paid them to write it.

So far, so good...

That company raised capital to build the software (road) and if you use it without paying for it then you are gaining the benefit of the service without paying what the builder is asking for.

...and then this logical error. I'm not paying for a service when I buy software, I'm paying for a product.

When I pay a toll, I am paying for the service of using the road. I don't get to take anything home with me. When I purchase a book, I'm not paying for the service of the author writing the book, I'm paying to take a book home. When I purchase a car I'm not paying for the service of my car being designed and manufactured, I'm paying to take a car home. When I purchase software I'm not paying for the service of the software being developed, I'm paying to end up with my very own copy. When I purchase a product, I am paying for that particular instance of the product. Previously the supplier had the product and I had money. The supplier wants my money and I want the product. We trade and are both happy. I don't care that the supplier needs to recoup his investment to create the product, that's his problem. I don't care if he spent the effort to create the product himself, purchased it from someone else, it from the future and matter replicated it, or it magically appeared in his stockroom for no reason.

(That said, copyright infringement is harmful to society and should be fought against. I just want to clarify that copyright infringment is different from theft of service.)

Re:Crock of shit

[ChaosDiscord]

...but JASC loses $90 on Paint Shop Pro the kid could have bought.

Apparently allowances have gone up. When I was a kid, $90 would have represented my major purchase for the year (even adjusted for inflation). Hell, even in college $90 was pretty hard to scrape together.

Re:Crock of shit

[psin psycle]

Your analogy has one major flaw: when you use a toll road you usually pay for what you use, not for the maximum use of the road. (ie. $.25 every 10m)

For example imagine if there was a toll road that was 500 miles long. At the center of the toll road you had to pay a fee of $10.00. (this might sound familiar to those in BC) That fee is for the entire use of the toll road. Now, imagine if there was an on ramp 1m south of the toll both and an exit 1m north of the toll both. You have to take the 500m toll road for only the 2m distance between the on ramp and the exit. There may or may not be alternative routes, but this is the fastest/easiest way. You decide not to pay the toll. Have you just stolen $10.00? I don't think so. You've stolen about 4cents (2m/500m*$10).

What happens if you pay the $10.00 toll? That's right, the toll operator is stealing (over-charging) you by $9.96!

Let's now relate this to SW:

• 1st run: There is a $500 software package that you would like to use. You pay the $500 for the full use of the SW and discover that you only needed 2/500ths of what was sold to you. The SW company overchanged you by $498 ($500-2/500*$500).
• 2nd run: This time you copy the product from a friend. You use the same 2/500ths of the product. Did you steal $500? No. You stole only $2. (2/500*$500).

Ok. Stealing is still wrong - whether it is $2 or $0.04. The point of this whole thing is the SW industry overcharging (price fixing?) by such huge amounts is being just as immoral as the student who copies the software.

Re:Crock of shit

[jhoffoss]

The thing you [and others] halfway miss is software is not directly comarable to a product or a service. Things like security updates and patches, those kinda fit under a service. The disc you bought, sorta like the product. But Adobe sure as hell doesn't pay over $1 for the jewel case and CD you buy. You're paying for the code, which is a product, albeit not directly physical beyond the bits on whatever media it's stored on. But it's still a product, it's still something you can use daily to perform tasks, be it code other programs, create images, or balance your checkbook.

No, copyright infringement doesn't fit directly under theft, but it's akin to theft. Anyway, this is all semantics and we could run in circles for hours saying the same shit.

Re:Crock of shit

[Reziac]

WordPerfect Corp. even provided free tech support (on their 800 number no less) whether you had a legit copy or not. The logic was that if you pirated one version and liked it, you'd be more likely to get impatient and just BUY the next version when it came available. WPCorp built a market leader on this philosophy. They only really started losing market dominance when they started requiring proof of ownership before they'd provide support (mind you, this was BEFORE Word really got into the picture).

Regardless of ethical issues, sometimes allowing or even encouraging a little judicious theft is good *business practice* -- as yet another form of that most effective of all marketing techniques, the free sample.

(Do I repeat myself? very well, I repeat myself. :)

Re:Crock of shit

[evilviper]

And the kid only bought Paint Shop and Panda because he didn't know about GIMP for Windows, and Grisoft AVG antivirus.

Want to know my opinion? I think it is incredibly unfair that companies have the right to put measures in place that prevent copying, but I have no right to get a replacement copy if the original breaks. So, to enforce my right to make a copy, or just for the convience of being able to copy it to my hard drive, I am expected to pay more for programs that can bypass the copy inhibiters, and now those are illegial as well.

Probably the biggest consumers of software cracks are those that have the software legally, and simly find the copy controls to be to inhibiting, and a hassle. Who is going to individually install programs on PCs, as the program requires? Nobody. Everyone gets the crack, then installs it on one system, which will be cloned.

So, while I think Warez is anything but okay, it is thriving because of unfair laws and bad practices on the part of the companies selling the software. I may not engage in Warez myself, but I certainly don't think badly of those that do.

Re:Crock of shit

[NeMon'ess]

If you look at Gimp's website, the creators admit it isn't as full featured as Adobe's. I don't know if it has all the features of JASC's paint program. If it doesn't and the kid needs those features, then yes the warez copy is possibly costing JASC a sale.

Re:Crock of shit

[evilviper]

I believe the number was 95%. Supposedly, that's haw much of Ps' functionality that Gimp has. Besides, the feature comparison doesn't matter... Photoshop has stayed on top because the majority of artists are accustomed to it. I'd be willing to bet that the 5% extra funtionality that photoshop has, is the 5% that is least used, and needed by the fewest people. That's how open source develops after all.

Re:Crock of shit

[evilviper]

Well than you anonymous coward, I'll be sure to take your word, over the word of everyone else I've ever heard chime in on the subject.

While I have not used photoshop extensively (why would I need to?) I deal with plenty of people that have & do... I have yet to have a single one say that GIMP is missing a feature... And these range from students, to pros (that now actually use GIMP instead of photoshop-so long as no-one else needs the file in Ps format)

Re:Crock of shit

[evilviper]

The AC part was not the point. Although, anyone may read through my old posts and know that I do indeed know what I'm talking about.

The fact that people in the know (including the Gimp developers) have stated quite clearly, that Gimp has most of the functionality of Ps, and my own experience backs it up.

But hey, since some anonymous person on /. said it, everyone else must be wrong...

Dude, that's gonna turn some heads

[therealmoose]

Blockquote the poster:

I am setting up a service there called the "Free Software Mirror Project"

I'm no lawyer, but a convicted warez dude setting up a "FREE SOFTWARE Mirror Project has to attract some attention....

Re:Dude, that's gonna turn some heads

[yerricde]

a convicted warez dude setting up a "FREE SOFTWARE Mirror Project has to attract some attention

Attention != negative attention. The more attention Tresco attracts to FSMP, the less the free software community will get burned if OSDN's service happens to go under.

sanskrit

[tps12]

Is a written language. Nobody speaks it.

Re:sanskrit

[The Cydonian]

[Sanskrit]...Is a written language. Nobody speaks it.

Not quite. Most Advaitists (as opposed to certain fundamentalist Hindus) start their day by reciting the Gayatri Mantra, which, you guessed it, is in Sanskrit. :-)

Sad

[Master Bait]

It is so sad that he's going to jail for duplicating data. I don't give a rat's ass about the position that it is 'stealing'. These people never sold their copies.

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.

Re:Sad

[EZmagz]

Amen, brother.

Honestly, people will flame you to all hell for saying that, being that the /. crowd developed a strong sense of ethics and morals over the last few years. But how many of them have a cracked version of Photoshop on their P9 1THz w/3000 gigs of ram? Or how many of them have a divx they "borrowed" off of giFT of a movie they never owned?

I liken the DOD bust to smoking weed: it's illegal, but there's much worse things in the world than marijuana. The amount of warez I use is analogous to smoking a joint...I don't do it often, and the chances of me getting caught are pretty slim-to-none because of my low-profile.

The DOD bust was analgous to moving MASSIVE amounts of drugs across America in a fleet of Semi trucks. Much higher profile, people tend to notice, and if you're driving that truck then God Bless.

Basically, if you play the game, be discrete. And if you get caught, there's nobody else to blame.

Re:Sad

[poot_rootbeer]

Since you seem to think that everyone should have an unfettered right to duplicate data, so long as they don't make profit off it, or deprive the original owner of the data, I think you'll be happy to hear that I have your credit card number and expiration date, and I've made up copies of your card and am handing them out for free to anyone who wants one.

Why are you so upset? INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREEEEEEE!!!

Re:Sad

[X]

Well, I certainly don't have a P9, and I don't have Photoshop of any kind, mostly because the GIMP does the job pretty well for me, and it won't run on my favourite OS.

I have to use Windows for work much of the time, and as a consequence I have no problem paying for a license of Windows to support that.

Really, there is no need to break the law, thanks to the hard efforts of free software developers. The problem is that it's *easy* to break the law.

Re:Sad

[MasterD]

Since you seem to think that everyone should have an unfettered right to duplicate data, so long as they don't make profit off it, or deprive the original owner of the data, I think you'll be happy to hear that I have your credit card number and expiration date, and I've made up copies of your card and am handing them out for free to anyone who wants one.

The duplication and distribution of the credit card number would not be the problem. If somebody used the number to buy something, then that is the problem. Then, they are stealing real goods.

About to spend 33 months in the pokey?

[Bonker]

That's just a little less than three years. Three years with little or no chance of hetero sex. If I had time that I got to spend outside of prison before going inside, you can sure as hell bet that I wouldn't be spending it reading slashdot.

Chris, no clue as to your romantic situation, but put the keyboard down and find yourself a woman to fuck before its too late.

Re:About to spend 33 months in the pokey?

[geekoid]

if he doesn't show up hung-over and well laid, he has made a serious mistake in priorities.

Re:About to spend 33 months in the pokey?

[Chewie]

Three years with no sex? That's cruel! That's inhumane! That's....what? Oh, wait... That's my life.

"I mean, look at you! You're the kind of guy who would beg for sex! And I should know, we can smell our own." --Brodie

Re:About to spend 33 months in the pokey?

[Tetsujin28]

Minimum security prisons are more like county jails than IMAX type facilities.

What, no sixty-foot-tall movie screen? Damn, that's harsh.

Silenced opinions

[srussell]

(Note: Chris does not advise you to follow in his footsteps.)

I don't believe that "warez" is an important enough issue to break the law over, I probably wouldn't morally approve of the activity if I thought about it enough, and I'm probably not clever enough (anymore) to crack software anyway.

However, one must wonder whether Chris' discouraging of people to follow in his footsteps is motivated by his inner feelings, or by the terms of his sentence / plea bargain / desire for early parole. The last, I can understand, for obvious reasons; the first two have always seemed just shy of legalized censorship.

Re:Silenced opinions

[mandolin]

However, one must wonder whether Chris' discouraging of people to follow in his footsteps is motivated by his inner feelings, or by the terms of his sentence / plea bargain / desire for early parole.

It's probably both. Why must motivations always be simple?

The P2P Question

[Rayonic]

That was a pretty good response to the question I asked, but I wish had emphasized the security aspect.

Mainly, I think there is an interesting legal difference between "leechers" on IRC/Usenet/etc. and "leechers" on P2P, in that the P2P users technically become distributors themselves. Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter?

Re:The P2P Question

[Rayonic]

They shutdown the program or move each file as the download completes...

Not with some P2P clients, that actually upload parts of the file while you're still downloading other parts.

Re:Show of remorse

[isorox]

Or (are you ready for this?) Maybe... just maybe.... he really does think illegally distributing software is theft (and wrong).

No. It's copyright infringment. It's illegal. It may even be wrong.

It is NOT theft. Theft is:

( Websters)1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny."

Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief.

Copying is not theft, its plain english.

Here's what's unfair

[pheared]

Both networks utilize the internet as a means to illegally distribute copyrighted works.

It is NOT a prerequisite of a P2P network to exchange illegally copyrighted works. I can have a P2P network that exchanges legal copies of files. I cannot have a warez network that distributed legal copies of files, unless you redefine what we know warez to mean.

Re:Here's what's unfair

[soft_guy]

If you're doing warez for the reasons he cites: - the fun of setting up the networks - the fun of talking to people about warez ... then you should setup warez sites to distribute free copies of: - Linux - GnuPG - the Gimp - DarwinOS etc. All the fun of running a warez site with none of that pesky risk of prison! Just think of it!

Re:Here's what's unfair

[Wraithlyn]

He never said it was a prerequisite... he just says the networks in questions do, in fact, "utilize the internet as a means to illegally distribute copyrighted works."

He's right. That's generally what they're being used for right now. Look around. End of story.

Re:Here's what's unfair

[Chester K]

It is NOT a prerequisite of a P2P network to exchange illegally copyrighted works. I can have a P2P network that exchanges legal copies of files. I cannot have a warez network that distributed legal copies of files, unless you redefine what we know warez to mean.

It is also NOT a prerequisite of a lawnmower to actually cut grass, but that doesn't make it any less of a tool designed for, especially well suited for, and pretty much exclusively used for cutting grass. Despite any post facto attempts to justify the utility of P2P as one that's legal, two glaring facts remain:

• Napster, which really kicked off the P2P bandwagon, was written by Shawn Fanning to make it easier to trade (illegal) MP3s among his friends. The other players in the P2P arena that came later were trying to ride on the success of Napster, whose popularity was due to the fact that it was amazingly efficient at doing what its creator had intended it to do. None of these P2P networks were designed for the purpose of sharing legal files, and you're not convincing anyone with silly handwaving by simply saying the opposite because of the other fact:
  
• No one can seem to name one piece of software whose authors say "just download a copy off Kazaa". Legal downloads have their own more reliable distribution venues. There has, as of yet, been no demonstration of significant non-infringing uses of the major P2P networks (meaning both a use that was not invented solely to provide a counterexample to the statement that P2P networks are primarily for sharing illegal material, and that there are not already sufficient and easier other methods of doing such file distribution).

Pirating Software is Wrong...

[SuperDuG]

Well boy that was a fun disclaimer. So let me get this straight. He's going to prison, where he gets to use a computer? HUH? Anyone else sensing the irony here? The main tool of his convicted crime and he has one to use at his leisure? What's next firing ranges?

Aside from that, warez is basically the underground of the net we know is there, but deny it's existance in the media. The underworld in the media's eyes are genuis hackers who mastermind complex systems and takeover websites. You rarely ever hear of the massive amount of child pornography, illegal software, or other things that make sleeping a little harder.

These people should use their talents for a greater good.

Re:Pirating Software is Wrong...

[Twister002]

It's interesting that he is allowed to use a computer while Kevin Mitnick is just now allowed to use one?

Re:Pirating Software is Wrong...

[RatBastard]

Why not use a computer? Doesn't mean he actually has a live net connection. His crime is distributing massive amounts of stiolen software, not using his workstation as a tool to break into anything.

And there is a huge amount of press about child porn on the net. It's not covered by /. and other tech nes pages, but the mainstream press is talking about it. And there have been several huge stings resulting in a sizable number of convictions in recent months.

Re:Pirating Software is Wrong...

[forkboy]

ou rarely ever hear of the massive amount of child pornography, illegal software, or other things that make sleeping a little harder.

I can see maybe kiddie porn causing you some distress, you may have kids and all, but why on Earth would software pirates make you lose sleep?

As far as Chris getting to use a computer on the inside, computers and monitored access of the internet are part of the prison system that your tax dollars are paying for for ALL prisoners. Why take it away from the one guy in there who pirated some software? Being in prison is punishment enough, don't you think? Besides, they're probably making him use Windows.

Re:Pirating Software is Wrong...

[Robin Hood]

Besides, they're probably making him use Windows.

Wouldn't that be cruel and unusual punishment?

Re:Pirating Software is Wrong...

[Cryptnotic]

You rarely ever hear of the massive amount of child pornography, illegal software, or other things that make sleeping a little harder.

Who loses sleep over illegal software? Even software companies don't really care. For aftermarktet software you can't get tech support or updates without a valid customer ID number, so no resources of the company are wasted. You basically can't buy a pre-built computer without Windows these days ($200 WalMart computers excepted). And every pre-built business computer comes with some version of Office. Almost every home computer comes with Works (which includes a full version of Word).

Even games have tackled the piracy problem with unique CDkey's required for online play. Console games have had hardware protection mechanisms built-in for a long time.

Of course, if you're the kind of person who doesn't need tech support or updates, then you're also the kind of person who uses Linux and free software whenever possible.

Ignore his "Piracy BAD!" spiel

[abe ferlman]

He has an obvious conflict of interest, namely that he will want to appear sincerely repentant when it comes time for parole hearings and what not. I think it's safe to assume that he doesn't really feel that way, and the only reason he's saying it is because he's being caged like a laboratory animal for sharing information.

Re:Show of remorse

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG, is it possible for the "sysadmin" of a warez group to have morals and values? I think it is.

If he had morals and values previous to this, he wouldn't have done it.

He's just repeating the values that the people putting him away want to hear.

A 10-year-old could sound more convincing than he does anyway

The saddest thing

[Cryogenes]

The saddest thing in my mind is that Chris apparently feels that he deserves his punishment.

He did not act from a desire of profit, or even of fame. He did not do anything with an intent to hurt someone. His entire warez career was based on the desire to be with his friends and help them out. In a sense he lived the life that the Gnu Manifesto envisages as the ideal state of affairs: a life in which everybody may modify and copy software for all of their friends.

Do you believe in death after life?

Re:The saddest thing

[wwest4]

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.

Re:The saddest thing

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

I didn't mean to realize that copying software had little to no effect on anyone's bottom line.

Re:The saddest thing

[IamTheRealMike]

In a sense he lived the life that the Gnu Manifesto envisages as the ideal state of affairs: a life in which everybody may modify and copy software for all of their friends.

And therein lies the problem with the GNU manifesto. It's a fundamental economic impossibility (at the moment), because we all exist within capitalism which forces us to restrict our creations in order to get back capital from it.

All software being free in both senses is just that - utopia. Maybe we can get there one day, but not in our lifetimes that's for sure. Until then, you either play by the rules that govern our society, or you don't, regardless of what your personal opinion of them is.

Re:The saddest thing

[AntiNorm]

If I speed because my wife is ill, because getting there 5 seconds sooner might make a difference, does not exempt me from the possible ticket for breaking the law.

#include <ianal.h>

Actually, in this case, you pretty much are exempt from getting the ticket. If you are speeding to the hospital because of a life or death situation and a police officer pulls you over, you can (in some states anyway) tell him that because a life or death situation exists, he MUST escort you to the hospital IMMEDIATELY. Ignoring a life or death situation constitutes dereliction of duty for a police officer. Not to mention that, if something happens, he can be held personally liable if evidence suggests that the time wasted giving you the ticket could have made a difference.

Re:The saddest thing

[afidel]

We DO measure crimes based on intent. What is the difference between 3rd degree homicide and 1st degree murder. Hint: It's intent. Your second example for instance would be negligent homicide not murder because the idiot did not intend to kill anyone let alone that specific girl.

Re:The saddest thing

[Billly Gates]

"He did not do anything with an intent to hurt someone. His entire warez career was based on the desire to be with his friends and help them out"

Bullshit. If I steal a candy bar from a store. I go to jail for the same time if not longer then this guy!

This guy probably stole hundreds of thousands of dollars from the big software makers and also stole thousands of dollars of bandwith from his employer. I know not everyone who pirates plans to buy the software but I am sure alot of asian bussinesses as well as individuals did. WindowsXP is the most cracked piece of warez on the net and yet almost anyone who pirates it, can afford it. I am sorry but to make things fair for blue collar workers who steal maybe less then a hundred because their employers pay rock bottum vs the white colar criminal who steals tens of thousands, we need justice. This guy need to go through the whole 33 months. Its really not that long guys and it sets an example.

He did hurt many companies and needs to pay for his time. After all, I pay for my software and its not fair that someone else gets to have it while I don't for being honest. He is not above the other guys who steal candy bars.

Warez is NOT theft!

[Robber Baron]

It is illegal copying and/or use. Theft implies that the owner was deprived of his property. Oh and please don't trot out the old saw that warez use "steals" revenue from software manufacturers! That would only be true if the warez user would have otherwise purchased a licenced copy had a warez version not been available. It is wrong for anyone to make assumptions about the purchasing habits of individuals...a tactic often used by the aggrieved parties to inflate their "losses". In order for say...installing a "warez" MS Office to be theft, the install would have to be accompanied by backing a large truck up to a loading bay in Redmond and...

That being said, I'm starting to introduce some of my clients to the concept of GPL software and they're liking the concept of not having to pay the "Microsoft tax". The hardest part is getting past "What's the catch?" when I tell them that an Open Office license has no cost attached to it.

Re:Warez is NOT theft!

[isorox]

The hardest part is getting past "What's the catch?" when I tell them that an Open Office license has no cost attached to it.

you can still resell it, as long as you include the code. Just tell them it costs 1 pint of beer for unlimited copies :)

Ugh

[kafka93]

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.

Re:Ugh

[kafka93]

It's a mistake to think that legality == morality. Slavery was legal. If a law is injust, then the law should be changed. Unless individuals complain about and act in the face of injustice, then that injustice will prevail.

As you say, "don't like the law? Work to change it." By discussing such things, and by decrying what I see as a bad law - or at least, a bad sentencing, I am doing my small part to change the law.

Whereas, I'm afraid, the repeated parroting of "break the law, pay the price" seems reactionary and unintelligent.

Re:Ugh

[Lothar 0]

The point is, if you don't like the law, that still doesn't entitle you to break it, and get away scot free.

Yep, Harriet Tubman should've been hanged from the gallows for running the Underground Railroad, as was the customary punishment. And if she complained, TOUGH! She knew what she was doing was illegal.

Now don't get me wrong - helping fugitive slaves and freely distributing software are two different things with two different inherent contexts. But your argument doesn't even have a contextual basis - it's a mindless repitition of state dogma.

The state and the corporations who back it aren't right or wrong. They just have more guns and propaganda than you do. ;-)

Re:Ugh

[kafka93]

Indeed. Furthermore, unless a penal system is to be purely draconian, there needs to be some kind of sense that the punishment fits the crime, which was the core of my original argument. I can well imagine that, were the fines for speeding on the interstates (to use another poster's example) ran to tens of thousands, or if people were jailed for life for running a red light, there would be outcry. And yet, for shifting a few bits around, someone is *going to jail* and very few people complain. So, it becomes evident that the state is not serving the public interests, but rather the interests of big business. And that doesn't seem like a good thing, to me. Nothing new, perhaps, but nonetheless not a good thing.

Re:Ugh

[kafka93]

If the Powers That Be were to pass a law making use of the word "the" illegal, would that justify their imprisoning you for contravening that law? If everyone were to continue using the word, and if every now and then someone were locked up for doing so, would their imprisonment be ethically justifiable?

I'm using an absurdist example, of course. But then, I consider imprisonment for this 'crime' to be similarly absurd. I don't think that piracy should be "legal", but I *do* think that the punishment needs to fit the crime. What part of this eludes you?

Re:Ugh

[west]

I find it incredibly difficult to believe that anyone genuinely thinks that someone should be *sent to jail* for this kind of thing

I don't know. Just ask the small software developer who sees a web page boasting about how "I stole this software and now you can download it for free" after receiving a phone call saying "Sorry, there are no orders this year as all the would-be purchasers downloaded it for free".

Now, whether I could carry out the sentence, I don't know. But boy, it's a bit of a salve to imagine it...

Re:Ugh

[Renraku]

I am not going to make excuses here. People pirate things because they want them, and software companies charge ridiculous amounts for the said software. $500 for Photoshop? It is a powerful tool, yes, but I don't feel that it is worth a week's pay for some people. Yes, you can get sent to prison for years, but usually only if it gets out of hand or you're a business of some kind. Point is, courts need to treat software as what it really it. If you steal a CD, you've stolen a CD with music on it. You didn't steal the medium and then steal the content. The content kind of has to follow the CD around. No MP3 or piece of software is worth three years in prison. It all comes down to who has the most money. The common people can't really speak loud enough. The corporations have private audience with our government, and all we can do is cast a shitty vote.

Re:Ugh

[DaytonCIM]

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.
Why is he a "sell-out" for taking responsibility for his actions? He freely admits that what he was doing, other than chatting with his friends, was illegal.

He states very clearly:
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.
In other words, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. And right now, software piracy is illegal. If you don't like it, then change the law. Go to school and get a law degree. Or simply vote.

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)
What makes you think for a moment that software piracy doesn't cost a company $$$? How do you come to the figures that a company can research and develop a software release, then create a marketing campaign, and then release it with some support, only to have 300 to 400 copies pirated. Or in the case of PhotoShop: tens of thousands of copies.

Piracy costs $$$. Don't kid yourself or me.

the punishment is ridiculously out of proportions with the crime. There are people who torture animals or beat their wives getting smaller sentences.
You're right. Go ask Kevin Mitnick how he feels about the justice system in this country. Again, if you have a problem, vote or get involved. The laws in this country are not going to change if we pirate more software. The laws will only change if we get involved and change them ourselves!

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.
If Adobe fails to meet their sales figures because people are simply downloading pirated copies of PhotoShop, then you take money out of my pocket in the form of salary, benefits, or stock.

If I come to your house and take your car, I'm not really hurting you, because you can still theoretically walk to work.

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?
Just because "everyone is doing" doesn't justify it. I can hear it even now: "if everyone was jumping off a cliff would you?"

Wrong is wrong. Illegal is illegal. If you believe a law to be unjust, then stand up and change it.

Re:Ugh

[bmajik]

why is torturing animals bad ?

why is it reasonable to make a law that says

"if you buy an animal from a store, you are not allowed to modify it"

but then if someone else makes a law saying

"if you buy a dvd player from the store you are not allowed to modify it" .. then people get all pissed off about it ?
THe usual argument here is "its mine, i can do whatever i want with it"

why does that not apply to animals ?

(note that i dont advocate torturing animals, beating wives, or stealing software)

on the other hand, if i got pissed off and kicked my dog, it seems ridiculous that i'd probably get a stiffer sentence than if i date-raped a girl (especially if i was in the same frat as the prosecuting lawyer was when he was a kid)

fwiw, i agree with you. going to jail over this seems silly when people that commit violent crimes are getting let out of jail to make room. but there should be _some_ penalty. one that makes it sufficiently unattractive that people stop doing it so flagrantly.

Re:Ugh

[Reziac]

In fact, making money on warez (or worse, defrauding people with a promise of selling them warez) is severely frowned upon. The warez community has been known to hound such types out of business (in one really bad case, even sicced the FBI on the guy).

As you point out, it's not fair to make an example of one person when most of the world is doing the same thing. It is especially unfair to hand down a sentence comparable to what's handed out for violent crimes.

But that's how the deterrent theory of law enforcement works -- everybody speeds, but only one guy gets a ticket. The alternative would be something like meters on our cars that automagically subtracted money from our bank accounts every time we went over the speed limit. (So saving your ass from a reckless driver by briefly speeding to get out of his way could cost you a week's paycheck.)

As someone once put it, "Justice is not within the purview of the law."

Morality Propaganda

[Srin Tuar]

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.

Re:Morality Propaganda

[Srin Tuar]

Ahem. I've no love for the despicable copyright barons, but I've no love for mindless circular arguments either. If you copy my software, you've devalued what I do for 60 hours a week.

What you do is work speculatively, expecting that people will pay for copies of what you do. If nobody wanted your software at all, then you couldnt complain, obviously, that by not buying your software they are devaluing what you do for 60hrs a week.

Similarly, if only a few people bought your software, but they were very effective in sharing it without making additional copies (perhaps by loaning the CD around, or whatever) you have simply miscalculated the market in your speculation, like a farmer who tills the desert, you cannot complain that noone will pay for your nonexistant crops.

If copy restriction goes out of favor, as it should, then you will have to find a new way to earn money (just as will I). Perhaps working on a contract basis, where you get paid up front, would be a good idea.

What you cannot support, morally, is that a transaction between two third parties, which involves niether you nor any physical materials that you own, can devalue any materials that you own. (They can make speculative decisions you have made less lucrative, but you are responsible for your own choices)

Also, 60 hrs work/week sux :)

Re:Morality Propaganda

[Srin Tuar]

Theft of service doesn't involve the removal of property from the victim's possession. The software I write is information, which belongs in a category of information that people don't mind paying for:

- Doctors' diagnoses and prescriptions
- Advice from a lawyer
- Blueprints from an architect
- Complete and correct 1040 forms from an accountant.

These people pay for service because the doc has to do specific work for their individual case, which is only of value to them. What they are NOT buying is the doc's textbooks, medical database, thesis, etc. (For example if a doc makes a diagnosis for your illness, that same diagnosis doesnt work for anyone else )

If this was applied to software, you would imagine that a customer would not buy your documentation, binaries, etc. Instead they would pay for: customization code specific for them, support for configuration, physical media copies, expertise, etc. (Work that is valuble to them specifically)

The problem is really that software is a service, and trying to artifically apply a scarcity model upon it (the physical goods model) is unnatural.

The truth is, most programmers cling to copy restriction legislation because they know theyll never become a billionare in a service economy.

As a programmer, I feel the same way too. As a user of software Im tired of paying monopoly rent. And I dont even use any commercial software, yet I still pay for it inevitably (when i buy a new PC, or when its integrated into scholastic fees, or when the gov't pays for it with my tax money)

Damn...

[Deltan]

I was expecting the raid to be somewhat cooler than that. Tell me, did you receive a cellular phone via FedEx before you got nailed? Or was the phone ringing on your desk per chance? You missed the way out if either of those things happened.

Re:Damn...

[isorox]

Tell me, did you receive a cellular phone via FedEx

He would have done, but morpheous forgot to take the "9AM guarenteed" option, and itdidnt get there until too late.

Whatever you think..

[h0tblack]

...about what he did, it's interesting to see that he's planning on using his skills to help distribution of free software with the "Free Software Mirror Project". The warez scene has undoubtedly got a huge skills base at it's core for organising large scale distribution structures like this. We're already starting to see individuals skills and general methodology (such as the evolution of p2p) being used for legitimate distribution of software. Hopefully this will be something that grows (I cannot see that it won't).
The recent example of hammering of websites and servers for the release of Mandrake 9, RedHat 8 and UT2003 show that these methods are needed (along with a myriad of other occasions). Methods for mirroring sites linked to by /. have also been mentioned in the past. However the techniques are developed and whomever develops them, the knowledge of how to get a stable and working environment where increased demand gives increased availability rather than the inverse has got to be worth exploiting.

Re:Whatever you think..

[Control Group]

[l1nUxd00d]: NOW UP FTP @ 127.0.0.1:2042 l:p r3d4at:r0x0rz! 0-DAY LINUX DISTROS! 10+ GB of SORTED OSS! 10:1 d/l ratio. LOOKING FOR COURIERS. PERMLEECH for hosting w/20+ GB space.

Open source definitely needs a warezesque distribution system.

net connection died?

[misterhaan]

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.

my cable modem connection dies daily! i can just see warez guys experiencing this and running to kill their circuit breakers and lock all the doors . . . never to go outside again!

Re:Bad Timing!

[Peyna]

Most people convicted of crimes eventually come to the realization that they were indeed wrong. Those that don't usually are the ones that end up back in jail over and over again.

Re:Show of remorse

[timeOday]

Probably, except what was that part about being gladly audited by the BSA? That's kooky-talk. Nobody in their right mind wants to be guilty until proven innocent.

stealing != copyright infringement

[swm]

it is absolutely wrong to steal software from a company. Whether it is ones or zeros or bags of money, it is stealing.

If it's bags of money, it's called stealing.
If it's ones and zeros, it's called copyright infringement.

They are different things.
That's why we have different words for them.

Re:stealing != copyright infringement

[mandolin]

If it's bags of money, it's called stealing. If it's ones and zeros, it's called copyright infringement.

They are different things. That's why we have different words for them.

Ahh, wordplay. This is the hacking/cracking argument all over again (or perhaps GNU/linux). Some people like to verbally distinguish on moral grounds between the two, and some are pedants; others prefer to use context to make a distinction. My guess is "stealing" will win out merely because it's easier to say.

Conversation between Nick and prosecutors?

[Anonymous Coward]

Them: Mr,Tresco, if you go on slashdot and tell them why software piracy is bad and that they should all be looking forward to DRM, then we will let you off with a low security prison near your home and a shorter sentence. If you tell the truth to them then you will get your original longer sentence.

Chris: erm. okay it's a deal.

Sure it is

[EricWright]

You are only thinking of the 1s and 0s of the situation. In reality, warez steals control from the copyright holder.

If I am a potential customer of BigSoftwareCo and I have two equal options of a) paying BigSoftwareCo $1000 for their products or b) downloading it for free from your warez site, which am I going to do? Maybe a), maybe b).

If I go with a), that's a moral failing on my part, sure... but the fact that you offer the product has stolen control of it from it's creators. They no longer have the ability to say who gets to use the product (those that cough up the $1000 to them) and those who don't.

That's theft, plain and simple.

*~*~*~*~*~*

Re:Sure it is

[back_pages]

Copyright violations are called "copyright violations" and not "theft" for a reason. Blurring the two is a scare tactic used by copyright holders to inflate the perceived moral injustice.

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.

Re:Sure it is

[akmed]

Actually, if you want to use trade terms, it's copyright infringement, and if you check out Black's Law Dictionary, you'll find that the first three words under the definition of copyright are "A property right". There is also a definition for "cybertheft" which deals with stealing people's property online (the examples they give are credit card numbers and intellectual property). Copyright "violation" isn't a violation in the same way that a traffic ticket is a violation. The law will slam you for copyright violations.

To give an example, if you went to McDonalds, bought a hamburger, studied it, then started making your own hamburgers that'd be fine. If however you started calling your hamburgers McDonalds hamburgers that wouldn't be fine. The same example could be made with any other product. If you want to study how MS Word works and then write your own MS Word like product that's all good. But you can't make it exactly the same and call it MS Word (in essence, copy it).

If you sign a noncompete agreement with an employer then leave the company after a few years, you can't turn around and steal their customers or use inside knowledge to benefit from it. So there are times when providing a product that competes with another one (your services in the aforementioned situation) is illegal.

One last note, using the term theft isn't a scare tactic, it's just a warning. The law doesn't use scare tactics because they don't work. The whole point of scare tactics are to keep someone from doing something they're actually allowed to do. You are not allowed to copy software and it is theft and you will be spending time in prison if caught just like a guy who steals cars. You may not agree with the price of software, but making 100 copies of MS Office is like stealing a Mercedes. If you don't agree with the price/license/whatever of the software, don't buy it. But then you'll say that you need it. At that point, if there really are unfair terms, you can bring suit to have them not enforced (yeah, lawsuits can get expensive, and just because corporations have lots of lawyers doesn't mean that injustice will prevail. if your argument is valid, you'll win or you'll sue your lawyer for malpractice if you lose). Also, though you may not believe it, the government really does look into these sorts of things and if there is injustice in the way a company acts, Uncle Sam'll bring down the hammer. To make a long story short, weasel words won't get you off the hook. This guy's going to prison for 33 months. You could be next if you're stealing property (be it cars or movies, the courts don't care).

(Note, I'm a law student, not a lawyer, and anyway none of the above should be construed as legal advice).

Re:Sure it is

[back_pages]

I didn't mean that the law uses scare tactics. People trying to protect copyright holders use scare tactics. A copyright infringement isn't such a horrible thing, afterall it's a modern convention used to support our fast paced and capital (as in ideas and investment) driven economy.

Theiving, on the other hand, is downright filthy. You can discourage people from doing something without taking them to court if it's dirty, like stealing.

The guy here isn't going to jail for 33 months for stealing. He's going to court for copyright infringement. The legal issues are one thing, but the concept of the act and ethics are entirely different. I don't deprive the owner of his product if I crack the software encryption and distribute it, but I do impede his ability to sell the product and make a product. That's a world away from stealing my neighbor's car. Stealing a car is what scum do. Copyright infringement? Well, that's not exactly good, but it isn't the same act as stealing, no matter what the dictionary says.

Re:Sure it is

[akmed]

Copyright infringement is a violation of someone else's rights. If I sit outside your door with a shotgun and tell you I'm going to shoot you if you leave, then while I'm not stealing from you, I am keeping you from going to work and making money (assuming you don't telecommute but then I could cut your phone and cable before sitting down in the lawn chair and we'd be to the same situation). You'd be pretty annoyed and would call the cops to have them take me away and make sure I don't come back to sit outside your door again. Lets flip it around. I write a piece of software, you decrypt it and give it away to everyone. You're effectively preventing me from going out into the world and making money. Except you don't even have the inconvenience of needing to sit outside my door. Copyright infringement is no different than imposing your will (e.g. don't believe in copyrights, think something costs too much) on others by force. Someone gets on a bus with a gun and demands to be taken somewhere. I'd call that terrorism. Someone else doesn't believe in copyright and rips off software and gives it away to such an extent that a company goes bankrupt and the owner, now penniless, starves to death or commits suicide. The ultimate end of copyright infringement is the elimination of programmers, actors, playwrights, musicians, and all other forms of people who entertain us. If you want history of copyrights, check out this site:

http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/std/reso ur ces/copyright/history.htm

If you want to debate the length of copyrights, sure. The current system is insane and I'm pulling for a good decision in Eldred v. Ashcroft. Without copyright law though, it'd just end up being contract law. And instead of having things eventually end up in the public domain, the contracts would be crafted in such a way that they never would. I'll take an assured release of material over contractually forbidden one anyday. Which leads into the DMCA, but that's a question for another day.

Re:Show of remorse

[PunchMonkey]

Or (are you ready for this?) Maybe... just maybe.... he really does think illegally distributing software is theft (and wrong).

No. It's copyright infringment. It's illegal. It may even be wrong.

It is NOT theft. Theft is:

Yeah, yeah. Now you're getting technical. I'm just reusing the phrase from the original argument "I don't believe you really think warez is theft".

Just because the dictionary defines a word as having a certain meaning, doesn't mean that every human being automatically knows that and uses that word as such. I'm sure you understood the intentions behind both my post and the parent post, no need to nitpick.

Re:Show of remorse

[Omnifarious]

Just because people have a different notion of what is moral from you doesn't mean they have no morals.

Re:Show of remorse

[modus]

Not true. See http://www.usdoj.gov/uspc/mission.htm.

The relevant bit is:

HOW PAROLE WORKS FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS

All eligible prisoners, except those serving a term of ten years or more, may apply to receive an initial parole hearing within 120 days of commitment and are provided with a parole release date based upon the appropriate parole release guidelines. This provides the prisoner with a tentative release date, providing the prisoner maintains a good institutional conduct record.

Now, certain conviction on certain crimes can limit your ability to get early parole or get time off for good behavior, but those tend to be drug/violence related crimes, not white collar.

It's about the bandwidth

[Gerry Gleason]

Do you really think he is so dumb that he would publicly announce this and not be carful about staying on the right side of the law? Don't you think "the authorities" will keep an eye on him?

The truth is that when a new distribution comes out, the bandwidth is quickly overwhelmed by everyone wanting to get the latest thing. What's wrong with trying to do this more effectively and efficiently?

The site doesn't say much about how this would work, but I guess if I actually knew anything about the technical aspects of how the illegal networks that he was busted for supporting function, it might be obvious. Doesn't seem like it would be too complex. You just have to have a couple of levels with good fan-out, and some way to find a mirror with capacity and spread the load so no site gets hammered.

What I keep thinking...

[chrysrobyn]

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.

Re:What I keep thinking...

[Xeger]

I agree with you completely. However, I'd like to point out that if 33 months of prison were imminent in your future, you too might feel obliged to discourage people from following in your footsteps.

Re:What I keep thinking...

[Josuah]

"What's right" is for the ethicists. Cost benefit analysis for the rest of us.

Um, excuse me? "What's right" is for every single human being to ponder and base their life decisions upon.

Sounds to me that you've decided that what's right for you is to ensure you have the greatest benefit for least cost, regardless of anyone else. You're basing your cost benefit analysis on what you think is right. Namely that you come first. Someone who thinks the government shouldn't tax, perhaps, or that you shouldn't have to pay social security for the 65+ population. That it's okay to steal the pie of the window sill if you won't get caught.

Either that, or you are taking the view that everyone's moral beliefs and ethical decisions are equally correct. In which case it's okay for the Christian anti-abortionists to kill abortion doctors, because their moral belief and ethics dictate that it is so. And it's okay to gas and burn all the Jews because the belief of a "superior race" means you are free to treat "inferior races" as you would a plague of locusts.

While I will agree that such views are valid, I will not agree that they are correct. I will live by my moral beliefs and I will make moral judgements of other people. This does not mean thinking a culture is uncivilized because they eat their dead out of respect. It does mean thinking a person is wrong because they think murder for fun is okay. To me, what's right also involves the benefits of others. And my monetary cost benefit analysis will be based on that. Along with my decisions involving things like the environment, or politics, the situation between the US and Iraq, etc.

easy:

[Bishop]

Theft.

Spoken Latin: dead at 3054

[tps12]

I just heard some sad news on talk radio - spoken Latin was found dead in a Catholic church this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure everyone in the linguistics community will miss him - even if you didn't enjoy learning all those tenses, there's no denying its contributions to modern language. Truly an Roman icon.

Re:Spoken Latin: dead at 3054

[Reziac]

Latina est langua mortua, in arena jacet.
Primo necavit Romanas, nunc nos interfacit!

(translation by yours truly)

Hypothetical: could he leave the country?

[emil]

Under his situation, where he is currently at liberty but will begin a prison sentence soon, how difficult would it be for him to put himself beyond the reach of the criminal justice system?

For myself, if I were on the jury, I would have used some of the powers described at FIJA to ensure that he received a maximum of 6 months in prison (assuming that I believed in his guilt and I agreed with the law, which I probably wouldn't).

However, assuming that members of the jury were duped or otherwise misled into this unreasonable sentence, how easy is it to leave and where should he go? Is Brazil the best destination (since they lack an extradition treaty)?

I would like to know this, for the day when these sentences are doled out for Kazaa users.

Re:Hypothetical: could he leave the country?

[Directrix1]

minimum security country club

Minimum security country club? More like federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison.

Re:Hypothetical: could he leave the country?

[Mikeytsi]

It's not a jury's position to rule on whether laws are good or bad.

You are wrong on that point. A jury has the right to recognize that a law was broken, but refuse to convict a person based on a belief that the law is unjust. Prosecutors and Judges try VERY HARD to hide this, but it is a part of the process.

Re:Hypothetical: could he leave the country?

[emil]

As a citizen, your duty is not to rewrite the law in the courtroom should you ever be called to serve on a jury. Nor is it your duty to encourage others to break laws you think are 'bad'.

So tell me, if congress makes jaywalking a federal offense punishable by 10 years in prison and a $100k fine, it's not the responsibility a jury to refuse to enforce it? You're patently wrong.

Re:Show of remorse

[thomas.galvin]

Yeah, no shit. In case anyone doubts this, check out this site for some statistics on rape sentencing. It's pretty sad.

What a wonderful way to ruin a Friday. Now I'm all angry.

It'd be real easy to go on an off-topic rant here, but I'll try and keep it /.-centric by commenting that these kinds of crimes, where people are actually harmed, physically and emotionally, should be so much higher on the legal system's to-do list than figuring out how to shut down Johnny MP3 ripper. How in the hell does the DMCA even make it to the floor for debate when we don't take care violent offenders?still don't care

Why is this a CRIME?

[waspleg]

And not a Civil action? He didn't hurt anyone, He didn't threaten anyone with a gun and rob a liqour store. He didn't make any money or gain anything at all financially for having done this? Why isn't this a civil suit for money instead of a PRISON term for COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT?? WTF?

this is the clip from the cybercrime.gov website: "As of July, 2002, 16 defendants have been convicted in the U.S. of felony criminal copyright offenses, including conspiracy to commit those offenses, and nine defendants have been sentenced to federal prison terms ranging in length from 30 to 46 months"

and i say again FELONY copyright offenses?? WTF?!?!?

You're seriously misinformed about many things.

[Gendou]

In Article I, Section 8, the authors explicitly gave Congress the power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". The Consitution does not invalidate copyright, it explicitly grants it.

I can play this game:

[T]he manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
~United States Constitution

So, is it illegal to buy alcohol in the United States? NO! Why? Because the text above (Ammendment 18) was later superceded by a later ammendment (Ammendment 21). In Constitutional law, when new ammendments conflict with old ammendments (or with the original Constitution document), the new ammendments supercede the old text!!! Look through an archive of the Constitution on the web, and you'll see that a good portion of the original document is crossed out in many copies, indicating that it has been superceded by later ammendments.

Congress would have been granted the ability to authorize Copyright had the First Ammendment never been added, but in my mind, the First Ammendment calls into doubt the Constitutionality of the "progress of science" clause. Remember, NEW Constitutional text supercedes OLD Constitutional text whenever there's a conflict.

Also, you say "The Consitution does not invalidate copyright, it explicitly grants it." Even if I'm wrong about the First Ammendment making copyright Unconstitutional, the Constitution never granted Copyright; rather, it granted Congress the ability to grant Copyright. Congress could revoke Copyright tomorrow and it would be 100% legal for them to do so. Congress has no obligation to grant Copyright, it just has the ability to grant Copyright, which I personally feel was overturned when the First Ammendment was added to the Constitution.

According to the original Constitution, Al Gore would be Vice President right now, because he got the second-highest number of electoral votes for President. Why isn't he? Because that part of the Constitution was superceded by an ammendment.

ALSO: how exactly does the government's current behavior with regard to copyright meet the "limited time" restriction, given that every 4 years or so, copyright is extended for another 5 years, meaning that copyrighted material just gets further and further away from the public domain as time goes on rather than closer and closer?

ALSO:

Which of the following is the latest Britney Spears album?

1. Science
2. Useful

From where I stand, I don't see it as either.

Re:You're seriously misinformed about many things.

[SirWhoopass]

In understand amendments. The issue is the intent of the authors regarding "freedom of speech". The first amendment was added very soon after the Constitution was originally ratified. It was almost part of the original document. In the writings of the time, I have never seen it mentioned that supporters of the first amendment were trying to ratify it in order to revoke the power to grant copyright.

I agree with you about copyright extensions.

Marketing is a science. :-)

Re:You're seriously misinformed about many things.

[jdavidb]

I love your thought process.

You need to learn how to spell "amendment." :)

Re:You're seriously misinformed about many things.

[Elwood P Dowd]

Oh, come on. There's plenty of reason to believe that the first amendment and article 1 section 8 clause 8 were both intended to be in effect at the same time. You've got to make the next leap, from Randian quote-artist (not that you're doing that here) to a framer-focused constitutionalist.

The folks that wrote and agreed to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8 were all still paying attention when the first amendment was accepted (which was before anyone started ratifying anything). The folks that wrote the first amendment were all still paying attention when the first copyright law was enacted. If we used the standard of "what they said, not what they meant", we'd be in a really sorry place right now. Thankfully, given the writings at the time, we can usually tell what they meant. The framers intended a copyright. I'd also point out that they probably only imagined their copyright would apply to printed books, but... that's up to congress. Really. It's easy to read the constitution that way. It's hard to read it the way you describe.

Your point about the limited times discussion is almost exactly right. In all other portions of the constitution, where the constitution describes a limit, that is interpretted to mean that there is a real ability that the congress does not have. Given the current system of continuous extension, there is no real ability that congress loses due to the "limited times" section of the clause. If the framers did not intend for there to be a loss of governmental ability, then why did they describe a limit?

Also, as a Randian capitalist, you should know exactly what Britney Spears (or her album) is useful for: You can sell it! If they didn't want 1.8.8 to apply to such frivolous works, then their first copyright law would have been criticized. It waren't.

You are, of course, totally correct that the constitution doesn't grant copyright. Congress could make a law tomorrow that no new works will have a copyright.

Duplicating data is REALLY EVIL!

[Stoutlimb]

I had a friend who went to jail for duplicating data. The problem was, he was using a color photocopier at his work to duplicate $20 bills. And all he did was use a photocopier!

Other than that, I agree with your post... Much of this should be civil only. I also think that Corporations have so much power to put individuals behind bars, yet no individual can put a corporation behind bars. However, legally, corps are people too. I don't get it.

Bork!

Theft or not?

[duck_prime]

It is NOT theft. Theft is:

(Websters [dictionary.com])1. (Law) The act of stealing; specifically, the felonious taking and removing of personal property, with an intent to deprive the rightful owner of the same; larceny."

Maybe Websters just has an outdated business model.

Here we go again

[Vox Humana]

No, you're violating a copyright. Stealing involves depleting a finite resource, copyright infringement involves violating a fixed-term government-granted monopoly on an idea or work. Stealing affects provable loss of a physical possession; copyright infringement dilutes the economic incentive set up by your government to promote the arts and sciences.

No, it is stealing (as well as copyright violation.)

Webster's NewWorld Dictionary, 2nd College Edition
steal: 1. to take or appropriate (another's property, ideas, etc.) without permission, dishonestly, or unlawfully, esp. in a secret or surreptitious manner.

Cambridge International Dictionary of English
steal [cambridge.org]: to take (something) without the permission or knowledge of the owner and keep it

• The boys were charged with stealing bikes from a house in Summerhill Rd. [T]
  
• The number of cars which are stolen every year has risen considerably. [T]
  
• She came home to find she'd had her TV and video stolen (=someone had stolen them). [T]
  
• When the book was published we found that the author had stolen several of our ideas. [T]
  
• The firm is now accusing a small band of its former employees of stealing trade secrets. [T]
  
• They were so hungry they had to steal in order to eat. [I]
  
• He has been convicted of stealing. [I]
  

From these definitions, it is clear that the word 'steal' may be applied to the appropriation of ideas, trade secrets, and other non-physical assets (like copyrighted digital music.)

Re:Here we go again

[spitzak]

Your second highlighted example of "trade secrets" is not applicable. It is a *secret*, which is certainly not true of a piece of music on a CD.

I also believe your first highlighted example implies the ideas were secret (ie not yet published in the first person's book) but it is closer.

However I agree with the majority of posters here that most people think of "stealing" as depriving somebody of something, and that all uses of "stealing" of music imply that the existence of the copy stole some potential future sales of it. However it is well established that depriving somebody of future sales is not theft, it is the normal functioning of a free market.

If copying was really theft in most people's minds, there would be no need for copyright law, as there are much stronger laws covering theft. But there is a very good reason why copyright law exists: copying is not theft.

Re:Here we go again

[spitzak]

I think the cost to Adobe is $25 in the case you specify. However I would certainly agree that I should be charged $500 or even more, as a punishment for doing something illegal. In the same way a copyright violator should also be charged more than the $0 cost, again as punishment. If punishment was only equal to cost then everybody would shoplift all items they wanted, even if caught 99% of the time.

I could cause exactly the same damage to Adobe by making a competing product that was better and cheaper and thus depriving them of a sale, but for some reason that is not considered stealing but is actually considered the entire basis for the free market system. Oddly enough the result for Adobe is identical, yet one of these is definately not "stealing". That is why there are copyright laws, if it was "stealing" there would be no need for those laws, because stealing is illegal under different laws.

You are an idiot.

[Gendou]

You have taken away the author's right to say who can have a copy of his work, and under what terms.

No such right exists.

Your logic:

I hereby demand that you give me $50. If you DON'T give me $50, then you are stealing from me, because you have taken away my right to decide who must give me $50, and under what terms.

That's your logic. But no such right exists.

Your logic:

I hereby demand that you punch yourself in the nose. If you DON'T punch yourself in the nose, then you are stealing from me, because you have taken away my right to dictate the interaction between your fist and your nose.

That's your logic. But no such right exists.

Your logic:

I am the author of a book you bought last week. I decide I don't want you to have the book after all, and I demand that you return it to me and pay me $500 for the inconvenience. You don't get back the money that you spent on the book, because I get to dictate the terms here, buddy! If you don't give back the book that you paid for (and pay me $500), then you are stealing from me by taking away my right to decide who can have a copy of my work, what they can do with it, and how long they can keep it.

That's your logic. But no such right exists. And you are an idiot.

Sigh.

[Gendou]

Uhhhh.... Rationalization anyone??? IT'S STILL AGAINST THE LAW!

Sigh. I know I shouldn't respond to trolls.

Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of the bus was against the law.

The American Colonies rebelling against the United Kingdom was against the law.

Helping slaves escape from their masters was against the law.

Owning alcohol in the United States was against the law.

Women voting was aginst the law.

ANYONE voting is against the law in non-democratic countries.

Owning a Bible is against the law in most of the world.

Criticizing the government is against the law in most of the world.

Smoking pot is against the law.

Self-defense is against the law in many places.

A woman appearing in public with her face uncovered is against the law in many places.

Unmarried sex is against the law in many places.

Homosexuality is against the law in many places, and used to be illegal almost everywhere.

WHO FUCKING CARES if it's against the law? A whole damn lot of things are against the law. Be more original when you troll.

Re:Sigh.

[Gendou]

Do you also think all physical products should be free (beer and speech)?

I believe that once you own something, you should be free to do with it whatever you want (other than bashing someone in the head with it, or something violent of that nature, of course). It's wrong to tell someone else what they can and can't do with their own property. If I buy a copy of that song, that song is my property, just like if I buy a copy of a car, that car is my property, and I should be free to give it away or sell it to whoever I want!!!

I'm getting pissed off at your Communist-In-Capitalist-Clothing game. If this were Kuro5hin, I would give you a "1" or "0". This being Slashdot, all I can do is mark you as a "Foe".

Learn more about what I believe at The Ayn Rand Institute and The Libertarian Party. Read them, educate yourself, become a better person. And don't troll Slashdot.

Re:If (you == !(lawyer){

[mav[LAG]]

It has monetary value. It is theft weather or not its 1's or 0's or an actually copy of the software. Copyright Infringment would be selling the game as your own.

You've beautifully highlighted just what a contradiction intellectual property really is. 1s and 0s can be perfectly copied at almost zero cost with no loss in quality and - most importantly - without depriving the owner of their original. So it therefore cannot be theft - since nothing was stolen. The monetary value that software authors impose is as a result of copyright - a tradeoff between the State and an author giving him a monopoly on his creation for a limited time.
The real problem is that scarcity in the digital world doesn't exist, but that the baggage of copyright treats it as if it does. Result: making copies of material - a very natural human instinct - runs slap into those who benefit from the old system. Authors charging money for copies of the same bits over and over again seems to me to be the unnatural thing here.
BTW, copyright violation applies to any violation of the copyright - not just appropriating someone else's work as your own.

Semantics: 'wrong' vs. 'illegal'

[Xeger]

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.

Re:Why is this a CRIME. BECAUSE people DO get HURT

[darkPHi3er]

without taking a position on the DOD case(one way or the other, i don't know the specifics of the case well enough)

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?

Historical perspective.

[Gendou]

"On a morality basis, Mr. Tresco isn't even a gnat on an elephant's ass. He is a common crook, plain and simple."
~You

"On a morality basis, Harriet Tubman isn't even a gnat on an elephant's ass. She's a common crook, plain and simple."
~Your great-great-great-great-grandfater.

History puts things in perspective. The future will put the present in perspective, and your great-great-great-great-grandchildren will gasp in disbelief when they study history, and they will wonder, "Did people back then REALLY support locking people in cages for sharing stories and songs with friends and family?" Their teacher will say, "Yes, it was against the law back then. But those were different times, before people valued freedom." They'll look at the 20th century the same way we look at the 19th.

Re:Historical perspective.

[isorox]

Their teacher will say, "Yes, it was against the law back then. But those were different times, before people valued freedom." They'll look at the 20th century the same way we look at the 19th.

Oh I hope so, I really do. I'm afraid that it's equally likely that the world will go the other way. the future will be less tollerant and free then afganistan under the taliban.

Re:Historical perspective.

[Gendou]

There are two possible ways the future can go: good or bad.

I prefer to be an optimist. The future might NOT turn out well, but I prefer to hope that it will, and at the same time to my best to make sure that it does.

The pessimist position is a very important one, too, because it can help us see how things might turn out if we DON'T fight the good fight.

I personally think that in the future, Intellectual Property will be a thing of the past, but if we don't work hard to make this happen, we could just as well go the other way.

RMS's The Right to Read is a WONDERFUL and chilling document that'll describe what the future will be life if the concept of Intellectual Property continues to grow out of control.

Read this, and don't let it happen!!!

Re:Historical perspective.

[Linux_ho]

Why is warez sharing different from me stealing your car, and giving it out to whoever wants it?

Well, for one thing, if you steal my car, it's a total loss for me. I can't sell that car to someone else, because it's gone and I don't have it anymore. If you're distributing illegal copies of my software, all I lose is potential sales. Honest people, who comprise most of my customers, will still buy the software from me.

Now, aside from all that, I don't think anyone in this entire discussion has said that distributing warez is OK, or moral, or denied that it is breaking the law. Everyone here agrees that it's wrong. He DID commit a crime. It WAS wrong of him to do so. He SHOULD be punished. What we have been trying to pound through your thick skull is that a two year sentence for distributing warez (which is LONGER than one you would get for stealing cars) is ridiculous. Just because a law is on the books doesn't make it right.

Somewhat misleading stats

[realgone]

Fine, fine -- I'll be the one to club the baby seal. Yes, I do doubt the claim and the statistics used to back it up. Here's why: The RAINN release cites this NCPA study as the source for those "expected sentence" stats. What the release omitted, however, was the NCPA's definition of "expected sentence," which reads as follows:

"The best overall measure of the potential cost to a criminal of committing crimes is 'expected punishment.' Roughly speaking, expected punishment is the number of days in prison a typical criminal can expect to serve per crime, as determined by the probabilities of being apprehended, prosecuted, convicted and going to prison, and the median months served for each crime.

Rape has long been considered an under-reported crime that's tough to prosecute (often ending up as a 'he-said, she-said' situation at trial). When all this gets averaged into the derived "expected sentence," you end up with a number that looks far skimpier than the actual sentences handed down to convicted rapists.

As for the unweighted numbers? Here's some data from a US DoJ report, which combines first- and second-degree rape:

The average sentence for criminals convicted of rape in the United States (and released in 1992) is 117 months. The average time served is 65 months, which equates to 56 percent of the actual sentence served.

Still leinent by many standards, but not nearly the disaster that the RAINN release makes it out to be.

slashdot ethics

[2MuchC0ffeeMan]

making DeCSS so piracy can run rampant (but has a legit excuse to run dvd's on linux) is fine

'stealing' something that wasn't going to be bought anyway = bad. how many people actually were going to buy doom as the disks went everywhere? how many LEGIT people bought doom so they could have their own copy. this also goes into (audio) cd sales... nobody translates the logic though.

score -1, truth troll.

Take the easy way out.

[EvilNight]

Stop using commercial software. Completely. I'm quite serious.

Back in the day when the 80s warez scene was going strong, we really didn't have that option. Enter Linux/GPL/OSS software. These days, I can do anything on OSS that I can do on commercial software. Why the hell would I pony up $500 for Photoshop when Gimp can do almost everything Photoshop can do? Why spend $300 on Windows when Linux is storming up behind it and will soon pass it in features, reliability, and usefulness? Use free databases, tell Oracle to stuff their $20,000 per processor license up their ass. I'm not paying any company enough money to buy a decent car for a bunch of ones and zeros. To me, that's blatant extortion.

So I'm taking myself out of the loop by learning to use all of the free stuff. Not just me, either... we've been offering open source solutions along with closed source solutions regularly to our customers, and since about 8 months ago they have been going 100% with the open source solutions because the price tag difference is stunning.

Sure, there might be a few applications that you simply cannot find oss solutions for. Those are few and far between now, and they are going to get a lot fewer and farther in the future. Itches to scratch, and all that.

Microsoft was right... OSS was very much like a cancer. It's a cancer of the software industry, and hopefully one day it will kill its host and provide all of us with a great deal more freedom than we have right now. If you think that sounds laughable, just remember that until about 5 years ago very, very few people had heard of Linux. These days it is a household word among anyone who uses a computer.

Re:Free Software

[Xeger]

Open source development is hindered by a lack of skilled developers, and a lack of development money. Keeping this in mind...

If warez suddenly became impossible, I agree that it might cause open souce funding to increase (though that does beg the question: who would this money be coming from?) But I don't see how the elimination of software piracy would increase the number of developers capable of (or willing to do) open source development.

Would it convert commercial Win32 developers? Of course not! Their concerns about piracy having been eliminated, they are going to work harder than ever before to crank out ever-more-expensive products.

Re:Exactly who has been subjected to a "BSA Raid"?

[swb]

My guess is that raids have actually happened and are evidence-gathering parties backed by a subpeona.

I'd guess that they happen two ways: Either as criminal investigations or civil investigations. I don't think most courts would conclude that running a few extra copies of an app counts as criminal piracy, it would instead count as a civil action.

In the case of a *criminal* action, I'd imagine law enforcement just shows up and starts kicking ass. You don't get a chance to even defend yourself up front.

In the case of a *civil* action, I'd guess that you'd have to be pretty dumb, uncooperative and naive, since the BSA would likely send lots of letters, maybe a summons and a judge may demand that a plaintiff go to extraordinary measures to ensure that the defendant in a civil suit is made aware of what's going on prior to the use of the court's law enforcement power to collect evidence for a civil lawsuit.

Only *after* you ignore a zillion registered letters from companies with long names and nice, embossed letterheads, ditch the process-servers and stop answering your phone would a "surprise" raid be likely to happen for civil cases.

I'd be interested if anyone else knows differently about civil raids. It'd be REALLY scary to find out that you can file a civil suit and get a judge to use police powers to do a surprise raid, especially over an issue like license compliance.

I can see where a civil plaintiff may convince a judge that the defendents past actions may lead them to destroy evidence, but Some Random Otherwise Law Abiding Business, Inc??

Your prices are wrong.

[Andy Dodd]

Photoshop is more like $700 or so, the academic version is $200-250 alone.

That's INSANELY expensive for a high school student, and pretty damn expensive for a college student.

I'd have to say that at least Microsoft is doing better than Adobe in this regard - Their academic discounts are MUCH better than Adobe's.

Adobe Premiere academic is $250 - The full version with a Firewire card is available for $300 from ADS Systems. (Look around on Best Buy's website, the kit is somewhere there. Try searching for 1394)

Re:Your prices are wrong.

[DragonMagic]

First off, the Academic Versions are made for COLLEGE students, not high school students.

Secondly, Adoble has an LE version for those who need it to do less, or just learning it, that's way cheaper.

Thirdly, there are other graphic suites out there. Try iGrafx, The Gimp, etc. Plenty to go around.

It's stupid to justify that piracy is necessary because one can't afford the TOP of the line, when there are free versions of nearly any type of software out there.

Microsoft piracy

[nebby]

Microsoft doesn't care about piracy by college students. We can DOWNLOAD any Microsoft software we want (CS majors at Cornell) from the network after we sign a form saying we're using it for non-commercial purposes. If we don't want to use a CDR, 9 times out of 10 a CS student can ask the MS rep on campus for a copy of whatever CD or whatever MS press book they want.

It's unfortunate that all software is not available in this manner -- if it were, I'd be much more prone to supporting the notion that all piracy is bad.

Mod This Up!

[DragonMagic]

Mod this one up. Sound reasoning that most everyone can understand!

Re:Mod This Up!

[Suppafly]

Sound reasoning that most everyone can understand!


Except its not, and it also doesn't address any of the initial points of the post that its replying to..

If you drive on a toll road, you are physically degrading it somewhat and your toll goes to pay for it.. if you copy software that you wouldn't have boughten anyway, you aren't costing the company anything..

Re:Mod This Up!

[jhoffoss]

You are using software for which you do not own rights to use. That is theft, call it what you will though. You received goods/services without paying.

IMO the "I would have never bought it" argument ONLY holds up in a situation where you're young and into graphics in a big way, and are going to make that your life's passion. Then you getting PS before you can afford it, and hone your graphics skills before you even graduate HS is an advantage to you (more employable) and your future employer (more productive, better quality work). And in that situation, your employer would then be paying to keep your PS at work up to date.

But even in this situation, you could have gone to your local college, found a student with a few extra minutes and had him buy you an educational copy for $99. You then pay both for the initial creation and the upkeep of the software.

If you don't like paying for it, fdisk and install Linux and forget about commercial software. Stealing is not an option if you hold any values at all in our legal system.

Re:Mod This Up!

[DragonMagic]

Yes, one thing that still boggles me on Slashdot, is how much people will be in an uproar when the MPAA or RIAA or whateverAA is trying to reduce what they feel are their rights, or actually are their rights, but when it comes to OTHERS rights when certain people want to get something from it (free music, free commercial software, etc.), they make excuses while doing so.

If the MPAA/RIAA/ETCAA are all evil for stomping on your rights, aren't people just as evil for stomping on software makers/musicians' rights to get these for free, even if they weren't going to buy them?

Just asking, not trolling.

Re:Mod This Up!

[cduffy]

If the MPAA/RIAA/ETCAA are all evil for stomping on your rights, aren't people just as evil for stomping on software makers/musicians' rights to get these for free, even if they weren't going to buy them?

It's a different scale. The MPAA harms *everyone* when they create a new, restrictive law. A pirace harms far fewer entities when they illegally copy a work to which they have no right. Yes, neither is right -- those who defend music piracy annoy me as much as anyone else (particularly when others assume that I'm trying to defend the pirates when I point out that copyright violation and theft are two different things). That said, given the choice between trying to stop Mary Joe from illegally copying a piece of music and stopping Senator Joe from legislating away everyone's rights... well, the latter is the case I care about.

Don't think that all those who distinguish between copyright violation and theft are "making excuses". Just because copyright violation and theft are two different things makes neither excusable.

Re:Mod This Up!

[jhoffoss]

I agree on each of your points.

As for movies/music, (I'm sure it's been said many times, but still a valid point) the MPAA/RIAA [more or less] totally control the movies you can see and the music you can hear. Yes, you can find indie films, but that's damn difficult if you're in a rural area (or at least not a metropolitan area), and the same goes for indie music. This is where things like divx/vcds and mp3s come in. Garage bands with a bit of equipment can throw together recordings and release album upon album [essentially] for free for the world to consume. (Yes, they had to buy the equipment, but chances are if they're geeky/into it enough, they bought the equipment anyway.) Indie film makers/enthusiasts can take a digital video camera and record/edit/produce a film and provide it for download.

This entire process circumvents Hollywood/big business altogether, allowing for much more bad movies/music, but also much more good/great/groundbreaking/mediocre/orgasmic products to be released, over a period of time. And the attacks on mp3 trafficking/file-sharing and vcd movies hurts this area much more than it hurts the commercial artist.

Granted, movie and music exchange of this type has yet to really become more popular, but I think if enough people can get with one site/program that does this (with LEGALLY released material, _ONLY_) it could become popular with a wider audience. It will never take over the big business, but if we can legally take away a chunk of business and give even part of that to the small indie artists, we'd be one step closer to saving the world. And who doesn't want to save the world?

Re:Show of remorse

[HyperbolicParabaloid]

Also not true. On the same page, in the paragraph before the one your quote is:


The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 abolished parole eligibility for federal offenders - except military offenders -- who commit offenses on or after November 1, 1987.


So there is no longer any parole in the federal system.

Parole hearing

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

Hopefully you'll present this list at your parole hearing. No doubt you'll look a lot better than most that show up there.

Re:Draw the line

[woobieman29]

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

While somewhat true, this *IS* organized crime.

[cybrthng]

Wrong or right, civil or criminal, this was an "Organized Crime Ring".

While its intents and purposes wasn't directly for the re-sale of pirated software, it was an organized crime ring transporting STOLEN GOODS.

This isn't someone copying a CD and violating the COPYRIGHTS of the software, this is basically "druge dealing" with the drug being the software.

This isn't corporations having more rights, this is corproations, small business and small developers protecting THEIR OWN RIGHTS!

Yeah Right...

[Coppit]

I can see it now...

Tresco typing: ... it is absolutely wrong to steal software from a company.

<gag><gag>

Tresco thinking: the crap I have to go through for early parole.

That depends.

[emil]

If I could believe that I was guilty, then perhaps.

If I believed that I was wrongly convicted, that I was the victim of a DMCA witch hunt or other unreasonable persecution of dubuious constitutional footing, then no, it would be time to leave, and never look back, save to pull all the assets I could out of the system.

There really should be a FAQ somewhere for people who need to leave in a hurry. I'm surprised that it isn't done more often.

You've already given permission

[dspeyer]

A lot of nearly-ubiquitous software packages have audit-terms in their EULAs. Here's term 2c from Flash Player's EULA:

You agree that Macromedia may audit your use of the Software for compliance with these terms at any time, upon reasonable notice.

Macromedia is one of the BSA's founders, IIRC, so the permission probably carries over (these things usually include the company's "agents"). Flash player is not the only common program to have such a term, but it's one of the few that may even find it's way onto a Debian system,

Just another reason to be paranoid, another reason to use exclusively free software, and another reason to avoid Flash.

you are totally nuts

[Edgewize]

You have taken away the author's right to say who can have a copy of his work, and under what terms.

No such right exists. Your logic: I hereby demand that you give me $50. If you DON'T give me $50, then you are stealing from me, because you have taken away my right to decide who must give me $50, and under what terms.

WTF? Are you dense? My logic:

"I have written this calendar software. I hereby demand that anyone who wishes to use this software pay me $50 for the right to use it. If you do not may me $50, you may not use my software."

I have no fucking clue where you are coming from with your angle on this.

More historical perspective.

[Gendou]

"The original post was a whining rant that Tresco shouldn't do time because he "did nothing wrong". My response was simply that he should do time because he did break the law. All this "high and mighty" is deflecting the real issue. warez is IN NO WAY, NOR WILL BE AT ANY TIME the moral equvalent of slavery or civil rights..."
~You

"The original documente was a whining rant that Harriet Tubman shouldn't do time because she 'did nothing wrong'. My response was simply that she should do time because she did break the law. All this 'high and mighty' is defelecting the real issue. Helping niggers escape from their rightful masters is IN NO WAY, NOR WILL BE AT ANY TIME the moral equivalent of the civil rights of decent, white-skinned people..."
~Your great-great-great-great grandfather.

History repeats itself...

Exactly... The arguement works both ways.

[ebyrob]

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.

No Parole in Fed Cases!!!!

[z-kungfu]

Sorry to dis anyone,but there is no parole in a federal conviction, there is a chance for 55 good days a year,or your looking at doing 85% of your sentance regardless. Bummer dude! looks like he'll be doing 28 months even if he's a good boy.

Communists don't understand logic.

[Gendou]

I know, I know, I'm feeding the trolls. I guess I'm bored enough to humor them for a while longer.

My television has scarcity. There is only one of it. The same with my car. Only one of it. The same with my computer (well, actually, four of them rather than one, but still a finite number). Also, they are mine and you can't have them unless I give them to you. If I gave you my television, I wouldn't have one.

However, if I have an infinite number of televisions, and I sell an infinite number of them to your friend, and he gives an infinite number to you, what's the problem? I still have an infinite number of televisions, your friend has an infinite number of televisions and he obtained them in a moral way (buying them from me), and you have an infinite number of telivisions and you obtained them in a moral manner (your friend, who obtained them in a moral manner, gave them to you). What's the problem?

If I give you a copy of a song I write, it becomes YOUR property (morally, if not legally), and it would be morally wrong and Communistic of me to try to FORCE you to use it or not use your own new property in a certain way.

You should expand your mind and learn to care about freedom. You should start by visiting the Libertarian Party and learning why government interference in the private lives of consenting adults is BAD. Next, you should take The World's Smallest Political Quiz, sponsored by the Libertarian Party. Chances are, you may already have many Libertarian views! The transition to Libertarianism might not be as hard as you think. I used to be just like you until I learned to care about freedom.

Next, to learn about real Capitalism, not fake enforced-by-government-mandate capitalism (also known as Socialism/Communism), you should visit The Ayn Rand Institute. She's is, in many ways, the father of modern pro-capitalist anti-government-regulation thought. You should read her books, too.

Do these things, and you'll see the world from a different perspective. A *free* perspective.

Actually... this response had me thinking

[ebyrob]

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!

Re:Show of remorse

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Yeah, I don't buy it eaither. If got almost 3 years for that, I'd be a bitter, raging maniac. This guy seems unusually well-composed for a person of his type in the position he is in."

He may very well be relieved. His description of where he's going doesn't sound that bad. He already knows he's going, he knows how long he'll be there, and he's already made plans to make the most of it.

I've never been in a situation like his before, but I think I can understand. I did something stupid as a kid and got grounded for a month. (That's a looong time when you're a kid.) Before the punishment was handed down, I was thinking "My dad's gonna kill me! He's gonna kill me!". Once my dad came down with the 1-month punishment, I was strangely relieved.

Yeah, it sucked. It was boring. But at least the worst was over and I could quietly get through my grounding. I can honestly say that the anticipation of what my dad was going to do far outweighed the feelings I felt during the grounding.

Okay, grounding's nothing like jail, but his description offers some glimmers that it won't be so bad while he's there. Heck, he might even make parole.

The only point I'm making is that maybe because it's all been determined now, there's no more anxiety about what's going to happen to him. He may be in a good mood over that. At least he can talk about what he's done now, and feel like he's in the clear. He's not doing anything now he can get caught for!

What a twisted fantasy world...

[ebyrob]

So I suppose the possibility that all DRM schemes will be breakable one way or another seems to escape your radar.

This world of yours would either be a heaven for hackers (becuase no one would believe they exist) or a hell for all "curious cats" out there, whether misguided or not...

Idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot, idiot.

[Gendou]

"I have written this calendar software. I hereby demand that anyone who wishes to use this software pay me $50 for the right to use it. If you do not may me $50, you may not use my software."

Fair enough. But once I pay you $50 for the software, it becomes my software, and I'm free to give it away to my friends and family if I choose to do so.

At that point, my copy of the software is MY property, NOT yours. You have NO RIGHT to tell me what I can do with MY PROPERTY. Taking away the rights of people to use their own property in the manner they choose is called Communism, and I think history has proven very well (1 billion people murdered in a 50-year period) that it doesn't work.

How can you OWN something that you've already SOLD or GIVEN AWAY to SOMEONE ELSE? If you SELL it, it isn't YOURS anymore, it belongs to WHOEVER YOU SOLD IT TO.

I'm talking morally, not legally. The law hasn't yet caught up with morality.

Learn truth; don't be idiodic.

Re: Stealing from People

[kafka93]

The question is whether your sales *would* be adversely affected by piracy.

And besides, my original point was centred upon the fact that people can do incredibly screwed up things - animal abuse, for example - and get away scott free. But copying a few files around can get someone incarcerated.

Ironically, pirates create an entire industry for developers of copy protection...

Talk about conceited

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy is facing 3 years in prison for copying software, and you fuckers have the gall to complain that his responses are "insincere"?

I have a pretty good feeling you'd also be pretty insincere if your ass was facing 3 years behind bars. I bet you'd kiss as much ass as you could, just like he is. Hypocrites, all of you.

Now I want to know how the warez scene works

[asscroft]

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.

Your wish is my command.

[Gendou]

I may have seemed harsh in my previous replies. I apologize. I just don't want to wind up as a slave in the future.

Read this. This is an honest plea. This is what the future will be like if the concept of Intellectual Property continues to grow without restraint.

For the past couple hundred years, Intellecual Property has grown stronger, and stronger, and stronger, and stronger, and the rights of the people who buy the intellectual property have grown weaker, and weaker, and weaker, and weaker. What if the trend never reverses?

What happens when it becomes illegal to buy a television that lets you change the channel? After all, changing the channel would deprive one network of advertising revenue, and that would be unethical, right?

Never happen? Don't be so sure. In many places, it's already illegal to buy or build a multi-region DVD player, and in just a few years it'll be illegal to own a computer that can run non-government-approved software.

Imagine 500 years from now if the trend continues. Our entire lives could be scheduled and controlled by Microsoft. Instead of being merely told what we can and can't do with the property we've purchased, we won't even have a choice in what we purchase. The party line will be "not buying this book deprives the author of payment for his hard work, so you MUST buy this book!" We'll be required to buy every work that is produced whether we want it or not, because not buying it steals money from the author, and if everybody is forced to buy it, there'll be no danger from the boogie-man of pirates.

If you're an Intellectual Property absolutist, then shouldn't making the decision not to buy a book be illegal, because it deprives the author of money he would have gotten if he'd bought the book?

I worry that in the future, we may never even see our paychecks our our money... rather, once we complete the education that the government selects for us, we'll go to work at the job they select for us, and we'll do what they tell us to do, and rather than being paid for working, we will be "allocated" a specific amount of food, clothing, consumer goods, and entertainment material based on a government/corporate allocation system. They'll TELL us that we're getting paid, but really, we're just laboring for them like slaves and they're throwing content and possessions at us to keep us from rebelling... we'll never even have a choice in what to buy.

After all, deciding to buy Product A instead of Product B, because you genuinely think Product A is a better product, deprives Company B of the revenue that went into the development of Product B!

This is where Intellectual Property leads.

See what the future could hold, and do whatever you can to avoid it!!! Please!

Re: Stealing from People

[crush]

Those organizers are costing me money.

OK, how about some facts. Can you tell me reasonably accurately how much money you've lost due to your software being pirated? How about how much money Microsoft has lost due to piracy? Is it similar to the amount of money lost by the recording industry due to piracy?

The biggest argument people seem to have for theft of software is that they're only hurting the companies. So why go to jail?

Seems to me that the biggest argument is that there aren't actually losses: the people that steal copies of software are people that don't have the money to purchase all that software in the first place anyway. They were never going to be able to afford the 1 Tb of programs, so how are the corporations losing money?

I want those responsible put in jail, just like vandals and other theft and crime.

Sounds like a waste of my tax dollars just so that you can get your revenge on. I don't see how I'm benefitted by locking up some sysadmin that could continue to do his non-violent crime which involves distributing stolen software to people too poor or stupid to buy their own. I'd rather that my tax dollars were spent on breaking up large software companies that monopolize large areas of my marketplace due to their aggressive exploitation of that patent-system and the court-system. I don't give a flying fuck about some dweebs pirating software. They've been pirating since forever and the industry is still here and making a huge amount of money. If you're looking for a subject for self-righteous outrage take a look at how most of the Worldcom, Enron, GlobalCrossing and other mega-cheats are going to get to continue rooking us and raiding our 401Ks while the media distracts us with bullshit about Iraq.

If I buy a bicycle, am I stealing from Ford?

[Gendou]

But it still costs money *up-front* to write the program, debug it, market it, improve it, etc. It also costs money up-front in the music and movie businesses too. How are providers supposed to recover those costs and make a profit?

By marketing and selling their product better, cheaper, or more conveniently than the competition can market and sell it.

Copyright is just an excuse to avoid competition. It's a government-granted monopoly.

Let the company that can sell the most copies of a novel be the company that makes a profit off of it. The company that produced the norel originally will have a strong edge because they'll be first out the gate, but if they drop the ball and market the novel poorly or too expensively, I should be free to buy the novel from a rival company.

Warez has the advantage of a low price, but a high level of inconvenience. Many people will stick with a more convenient, but also more expensive route of getting software. Let the various methods of getting the software compete with each other. Some people will want the affordability of warez. Some will want a more convenient way of getting the software, as well as manuals, support, and upgrade opportunities. They'll purchase the software. Let both groups of people live their lives. It's THEIR decision. The presence of group #1 doesn't mean the company can't make a profit from group #2.

*YOU* don't care, but I'll bet the car manufacturer cares, because that's one car less he could have sold to recover his costs (yes, yes, and make a profit too). Since it cost money to *develop* the product, and to *market* the product, and to *improve* the product, why shouldn't you have to *pay* for the product? Under your logic, once a single CD is sold, the product is then "represented in digital form", and the seller can do nothing to prevent unlimited copies from happening, thus never recovering his costs, or making a profit.

If I decide that I'd rather ride a bicycle than own a car, am I stealing from Ford or General Motors? After all, I'm *not* paying money for the product that they spent so much to develop. Should I be FORCED to own a car, just because car companies spend so much money designing them?

If you spend all your money developing a product that is so poor that nobody wants to purchase it, you get what you deserve. If you don't make a profit, it means that either your product sucked or you marketed it poorly.

Re:Show of remorse

[isorox]

Theres no way to proove that someone wouldnt buy it, however theres no way to proove someone would.

If I have a copy of lightwave 3D that I am not licensed to have, would I have bought this $5,000 product. BTW I'm a student with an annual income of arround a $5,000 loan.

No. Thats right. Lightwave inc. havent lost out.

I then buy a $40 book on how to use lightwave, the book publishers (and lightwave inc. via royalties), gain money.

Later (10 years) I have the skills to use lightwave, and therefore when I choose a 3d package for a company, I'll choose lightwave as I know it. Lightwave inc. gets money.

I will say that the makers of "cheapo lightwave", for only $100, may lose out. In my experience It's unlikely though.
At uni we couldnt install a dodgy copy of photoshop because they do audits and tell us off. Instead of buying paint shop pro, we installed the gimp. If you cant have the best, then why not have something for Free?

Lessons about strong people from Ayn Rand.

[Gendou]

Don't blame the competition for your inability to make a profit.

In Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged the weak, evil people blamed the competition when they couldn't make a profit. The strong, motivated people, when they found themselves not making a profit, blamed themselves and did their best to improve.

Um... royalties?

[jpellino]

"The copyright holder has lost nothing, only the copies own (the store) has lost anything. Copyright law is completely irrelevant, the thief will be charged with good old fashioned shoplifting."

The lost sale backs lost royalties back up the chain... unless artists receive royalties on stolen property?

I'm scared too.

[Gendou]

I hope for a utopia, but I fear for a world like RMS's The Right To Read. That document was written to warn us about how things could go. Let's try to avoid it.

No -- this is a real problem

[0x0d0a]

One of the most annoying misuses of terms with criminal meaning is "murder". If you're trying to build a negative slant around someone, it's never "A killed B". It has to be "A murdered B", because "murder" sounds so much more egregious. There "murderer will walk". Yet murder is a specific type of crime, distinct (and worse than) manslaughter or similar.

I don't understand what's so bad about calling copyright infringement "copyright infringement". It sounds less impressive, but that's about it.

It's in the license

[0x0d0a]

The problem is that when doing large site license agreements, one of the stipulations for, say, MS Office is that audits can be conducted.

Re:Why is this a CRIME. BECAUSE people DO get HURT

[ChaosDiscord]

(To make this perfectly clear: I'm against copyright infringement. I'm a software engineer by trade and have several products I've developed on store shelves. However, copyright infringment is not the horrible monster it's made out to be.)

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.

Perhaps we look at it different because we're capable of noticing the differences. If you break into a store and steal something you 1) damage the value of the property you broke into when you damange windows, locks, and other things, and 2) remove property so that the store no longer has a copy.

Copyright infringment is illegal and immoral, but it's not physical theft. if you break into my car and steal my CDs, I'll be pretty angry because I can no longer enjoy the CDs I paid for. The original copyright holder doesn't care because he already has my money. If you make a copy of my CDs, I'm out nothing and don't really care. The original copyright holder might have lost a sale, but you can never be sure. They are very different cases and deserve to be treated differently.

It's a ***FELONY*** because it's a combination of a variety of PROPERTY crimes, including THEFT, FRAUD and DISTRIBUTION of stolen property.

Interesting. I thought it was a felony because the law says, in summary, "redistributing copyright protected works is a felony." It doesn't say anything like, "redistributing copyright protected works is a form of theft, fraud, and distribution of stolen property and should prosecuted as such." There are plenty of felonies that have nothing to do with property (rape, murder, assault, negligence). Our politicians (not always the smartest beings on the planet) manage to identify the difference and legislate that they be treated differently, why can't you?

Most s/w companies are much smaller and are fighting for their survival on a daily basis.

Most software companies are doing contract work and don't really rely on copyright, but instead on contract law. "Yes, we'll write an accounting system for your bank and give you the source if you'll give us $X". Most software companies (and more programmers) wouldn't see noticable changes if illegal copying was stamped out.

And we all have to wonder what would have happened to our entire marketplace, if their had been less piracy.

It's an interesting question. On one hand, perhaps more sales would have resulted as people chose to purchase instead of illegally copying. On the other hand, many people who copy would not have purchased the product, so not all illegal copies represent lost sales. Also, some of those people using illegal copies went on to purchase legal copies, or to work for companies which purchased them legal copies.

What would have been the fate of WordPerfect Corp, Lotus, Novell, and many other dead products if there had been less piracy?

Erm, to take a wild guess, they still would have suffered at the hands of more successfully companies. Software exhibits the network effort (more users == more valuable to users), so there is a natural tendency for a single product to rise to the top. These companies didn't go out of business because of illegal copies, they went out of business because a competing product trounced them.

There have been many jobs lost, products destroyed and careers sidetracked in our industry by sales declines.

And yet dispite rampant illegal copying, the software industry has managed to grow every year. The sales declines tend to be by specific companies or specific sectors, suggesting changing market forces and competition. Nothing that illegal copying has anything to do with.

Copyright and morality

[einhverfr]

If we accept that copyright laws were originally intended to promote a common good, then obeying the original intent is a moral issue I think. I have had many arguments with people who lean too far the other way, I think, and have tended to argue that the issues the courts have generally used to define doctrines like "first sale" or "fair use" are inherently moral issues.

The point of original copyright law was to grant a small-scale monopoly on a given work for a short period of time so that these works would be disseminated and our culture would become richer. In this way of looking at things, DRM would result IMO, of a great incentive to steal from our culture. This theft would not be monetary but it would be robbing from every man, woman, and child nonetheless, and this theft is what the doctrine of fair use is designed to prevent, IMO.

If copyright is not morally sound, wouldn't plagerism at least be immoral? Plagerism is very clearly the theft of someone else's intellectual property (this is about as black and white as you can get).

OTOH, what if a book is out of print? Is it immoral for me to violate copyright law and copy a few copies for my friends? By the same token, piracy of Windows 3.11 hardly strikes me as immoral (unless you buy the argument that every x86 computer rightfully should be running the latest version of Windows). In both of these cases, we are dealing with copyright-protected works, where the copyright holder has decided to discontinue the product's availability, so 1) there is no monetary damage and 2) it is the only way that said works can be available.

So I don't think the matter is as black and white as either Chris nor the parent to this post would have you believe.

Re:Show of remorse

[Adam Wiggins]

Correct. You may also note that US Rep. Patsy Mink has introduced a bill to reinstate federal parole:

http://drcnet.org/wol/255.html#minkbill

To be precise

[Srin Tuar]

If copyright is not morally sound, wouldn't plagerism at least be immoral? Plagerism is very clearly the theft of someone else's intellectual property (this is about as black and white as you can get).

Plagiarism, done for the purpose of demonstrating that you have a capacity which you do not, is fraud. Done for diverting credit from the true author is dishonesty. "Copyright Infringement" isnt one of the seven deadly sins, last I checked.

Repeating an interesting phase and not explicitly giving credit is human nature. Almost every phrase you can contruct hasn been uttered by someone else before: giving credit to each original speaker is beyond tedious.

Different oppinion

[Peaker]

While common oppinion here is that copyright infringement is negative to society, I would like to present a different oppinion.

Firstly, I would like to point you to a well-written Slashdot comment about the current abuse of the original concept of Copyright. The points I would like to take from there are that Copyrights were intended to promote society, and the progress of Science and Useful Arts, but are now used for the sole means of creating profit for companies.

You must note that Copyrights, the exclusive rights to copy some data, is a big limitation on everyone's freedom to copy whatever they want. I'm not saying this means its necessarily a bad thing - because I agree its a necessary evil. Limiting people's freedom is acceptable in many aspects of life, and here too. Unfortunatly, the limit on our freedom remained through the years, but the original purpose of copyright - since it was originally drafted - was lost.

The original copyright concept was to give incentive to create, for the sole purpose of promoting science and useful arts. (Its true, its not meant to reward authors, its meant to promote science and useful arts - read about it in the constitution). This is why Copyright was created to last for limited times, which is not really limited anymore. This means that all copyrighted work is supposed to be out in the public domain within a reasonable amount of time - It is no longer this way. It also means that copyrights are only given to works that are published and distributed - for the inspiring of new works - for the progress of science and useful arts. Today's large copyright owners try to make people forget this purpose of copyright, and claim it is actually meant to protect them - That their creation is somehow their "Intellectual Property" and can be "Stolen". But the original framers of the constitution did not mean this, as Thomas Jefferson has said: There is no such thing as Intellectual Property.

If we take the software industry specifically, we must not forget that until the Copyright reforms of the 1970's, Binary Data was not copyright'able. Why? Because its creation does little to Promote Science and Useful Arts. See, you cannot both eat the cake (Get a Copyright) and have it full (Not promote science and useful arts). A copyright is not a god-given right, its given to the creator in exchange for his sharing of the created information, for the progress of science and useful arts for us all.

Since Copyright has devolved from a strong respected publishing incentive to an infamous tool for company profit, people have lost all moral obligation to it. There is no wonder people care not for the Copyrights of large corporations, as those copyrights place a limit on their freedom to "Help thy Neighbour", without contributing back to Science and Useful Arts.

This is why I will not obey the current draconian Copyright Laws, while I will support the GPL. Hypocracy? No: Copyrights have violated their mandate to Promote Science and Useful Arts. The GPL hasn't: It has inspired huge amounts of Free Software writers and possibly caused some of the greatest software code to be written and be out there for everyone to learn from.

Sorry this comment is a bit long, just my oppinion on the matter.

Re:Show of remorse

[Warin]

How would double jeopardy clauses come into this? I mean he has plead guilty to the actions as a member of the warez group. Dragging out later charges would be charging him twice for hte same offences. And if his lawyer didnt see that the plea and sentencing were blanket for his acts as a member of DoD, then he isnt as sharp as I am, and IANAL.

you might be happy too

[twitter]

No you would not. He's on his way to jail for doing what he did. He HAS to say things like this or he will be staying in jail a little longer. If his description of the raid as both the Matrix and War Games does not send chills down your spine, read it again and imagine the vans and interviews happening at your place of work.

It'll be a big help if *OSDN is dying

[yerricde]

it's interesting to see that he's planning on using his skills to help distribution of free software with the "Free Software Mirror Project".

That'll help if OSDN tanks and takes its mirror with it.

A crime that doesn't require intent

[yerricde]

There are *very* few crimes that don't require some intent.

Unfortunately, copyright infringement (although not in Tresco's case) is one of them. In the USA, a legal precedent exists that it's possible to unknowingly infringe a copyright on a musical work by creating an original melody that's "substantially similar" to an existing work under a subsisting copyright. Another precedent found "substantial similarity" in four notes. Even though a copyright case is most often a civil action, you still go to jail for not paying $150,000 statutory damages that you can't afford.

RE: I think you're missing something here....

[King_TJ]

No,

Any good "cost/benefit analysis" of this sort would include the potential "costs" to others, as well as benefits and costs to oneself directly.

Anything else would be foolhardy, as humans are truly "interdependent" creatures, NOT indepdendent.

In this particular scenario, I do feel that moral justifications can be made for copying the "copyrighted works". In my opinion (which I'm quite certain is shared by many others too), the current laws are unreasonable in their punishment of copyright infringements.

You're bringing up quite different situations when you start talking about the morality of killing an abortion doctor, or gasing Jews.

Software piracy, in most rational people's view, is much more akin to choosing to drive 75MPH in a 55MPH zone, or choosing not to report your earnings on a garage sale to skirt the taxes.

No lien in the world would work

[yerricde]

What they should really do is put a lien on his earnings for X years.

How long would a lien have to last in order to recover the actual damages, even if actual damages are estimated at 1 percent of the retail price of the pirated software?

Re: I think you're missing something here....

[King_TJ]

I'm smiling at your 747 analogy...

But actually, I'm not even so sure groups like DoD should be considered as commiting "larger crimes" simply because larger amounts of software pass through their hands.

Consider this:
Relatively few individuals have the technical know-how to remove copy protection mechanisms from software packages. If this wasn't so, the motivation wouldn't have existed to form "cracking groups" in the first place.

Is this so much a "criminal" action, or "providing a service to the public"? How often has copy protection gotten in your way? I can remember one, specific case, where a piece of video game software (Tony Hawk Pro Skater) wasn't even Windows 2000/XP compatible as purchased in the store. If you wanted it to run fine on 2000 or XP though, you could use the cracked version. The copy protection itself was apparently the only incompatible thing in the program!

I know many others who run pirate copies of software they bought legally, because it's more convenient to use the cracked version. (Look how often a program requires that you leave the original CD in the drive to run it. Many times, all the data is already loaded on your hard drive from the first installation. They simply want to check the CD to make sure you're the real owner. How annoying....)

cold shower

[epine]

The most telling statement was his reference to DoD as "organized crime". Before people start to wail about whether there was intent, benefit, the true nature of the victim (if any), the ass-in-the-fire repentence, or the hypocrisy of the system as a whole I'd like to point out two things: 1) the acts were illegal, 2) the acts were organized. Before you sit to compose ten giant paragraphs on the injustice of the situation, please clearly decide which of those two facts you are chosing to ignore.

If that's not enough of a cold shower, I recommend taking a long bath with Ronald Dworkin's "Law's Empire". Dworkin is a very good writer and he tackles all the difficult issues in an area of law known as jurisprudence.

The deep complexity in this matter is that the victim of this crime is the unborn child. Most software piracy consists of people with $30 budgets ripping off $300 or $3000 software packages to solve a $100 problem. The unborn child are the small companies that might exist--if software piracy didn't--that would sell $100 solutions as $30 software packages.

Just this morning I finally figured out why Slashdot sucks. I didn't have anything to say on this subject yesterday. It took me a day to organize my thoughts. Now I'm posting a day later and probably nobody even reads my post. The root problem with Slashdot is that it's the fast food outlet of discussion forums.

It really struck me looking at the responses to this item. Most of the people on Slashdot find sober second thoughts repugnant. It's true. 33 months is an awfully cold shower. We should interview him again when he gets out, after he's had such a long time to think about life. It'll be a whole new experience for the Slashdot crowd.

Re: voting with your dollar

[King_TJ]

There's nothing wrong with "voting with your dollar" (aka. only buying non copy-protected software), except we have no good mechanism in place to inform the buyer in advance whether or not copy protection exists on the software!

I can't remember a single game I ever purchased that said on the box "Warning: This CD is copy protected using XYZ protection." Once you open the box and discover such a thing, the product is deemed "non-returnable" since it was opened - and you're stuck. You just voted with your dollar for something you didn't even want!

The software situation is much more complex than the "Robin Hood" analogies people keep trying to use. For starters, Robin Hood was physically threatening people and taking their money away from them. Software piracy involves no direct assault or confrontation with another individual, nor does it even involve physically stripping someone of their possession of the original code and/or media it's placed on for sale.

Just as importantly though, Robin Hood was a pretty "cut and dried" case of attempting to make everyone more "financially equal". (A very questionable goal, at best.)

The software industry, by contrast, does a number of ethically questionable things, including making the buyer agree to shrinkwrap license agreements. (Oh wow, I'm not allowed to use product Y with this product X I just purchased? I had no idea of that until I read page 6 of this fine print *inside the box*!) Sometimes, they attempt to artifically inflate their sales via legal strong-arming people. (EG. Microsoft's lawyers threatening people who try to resell unopened/unused "OEM editions" of their operating systems on eBay.) Sometimes they even partake in "false advertising" when their product promises to perform functions that don't work properly (or sometimes, at all!). Often, the buyer is left with only a suggestion that "we'll address that in an update later this year".

In this rather hostile software purchasing environment, why is it so surprising that some folks are motivated to strip away the copy protection schemes and help distribute the resulting code? If that makes those doing it into "Robin Hoods", I daresay they should have far less of a guilty conscience than the original Robin Hood.

Re:Show of remorse

[isorox]

pedantic twat

How about "Mega-Expensive-Software 1.0".

Not stealing.

[TheLink]

It's not stealing.

Look if it really were stealing there wouldn't be a need for copyright law since there are plenty of laws for stealing and theft already.

Yes there are reasons for copyright laws. Different countries have different rules for their own reasons. If you break such laws you are depriving the copyright owner of a legally granted monopoly on copying and distribution. Where I live, it's not infringement if it's for private and domestic use.

I suggest you try not to say it's stealing when it is not. There are too many people brainwashed already - "stealing", "intellectual property", "piracy", "Digital Rights Management".

And then there's the part where people tell you to agree to X before you can use their stuff.

Perspective: No surprise people are often hurt when you don't do what they want you to do. But that doesn't mean you should always do what they want.

If there is greater harm in doing what they want opposed to not doing it (keeping in mind laws, rules, customs, society's expectations, setting a good example etc), then it's better not to do it.