Slashdot Mirror
Operation Fastlink Cracks Down on Warez
An anonymous reader writes "Beginning yesterday morning, law enforcement from 10 countries and the United States conducted over 120 searches worldwide to dismantle some of the most well-known and prolific online piracy organizations.
Among the groups targeted by Operation Fastlink are well-known organizations such as Fairlight, Kalisto, Echelon, Class and Project X, all of which specialized in pirating computer games, and music release groups such as APC. The enforcement action announced today is expected to dismantle many of these international warez syndicates and significantly impact the illicit operations of others."
The only "impact" will be "we have to start using VPNs, boys!"
I love how Ashcroft and his Copyright Enforcement Militia makes these pirates sound like the Mafia by using terms like "syndicate. Think about it: almost all "nfo" files have pleas for FTP sites for 0-day distribution. If these "sydicates" have to beg for machines and bandwidth in an "nfo" file, how omnipotent can they really be?
The feds are just taking care of their corporate masters, that's all.
Trolling is a art,
One will pop up for every one they push down.
We don't have the right to distributed pirated works online. How does this story fit in this category?
Ah yes, because we all know... it's the right of these individuals to freely trade copyrighted software so that they can be 3L33T 0-D4Y H4X0RZ.
Right...
That's where I used to get the majority of my cracks (when I used cracks.)
About raiding an Arizona school?
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Okay, so now Class is an international mafia-like crime "syndicate." That's really great. I'm glad my tax dollars are being spent to track these people down when the real crime organizations are out there killing people. This is just another example of the government giving in to the whims of organizations like the RIAA and the MPAA.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
GO VEGAN!! www.peta.com
You mean I can no longer spend 5 days downloading a poorly cracked game that I can't play online? That's a real shame.
I always save my last mod point to mod up a good troll. You people are too serious.
We don't have the right to distributed pirated works online. How does this story fit in this category?
You must be new here.
We wouldnt have international, sprawling companies cracking down on anyone who so much as looks at their code if people weren't so obsessed with money. Before you point this out to me, of course I'm being hypocritical here. I need money, but I dont exactly lust after it. If these massive companies had no need for money they wouldnt need copyrights so everyone would have the software and be free. Course, most communistic solutions to this problem collapsed pretty much totally, so that's not the answer. But noone genuinely likes these big companies do they? So what is the answer?
HAH! I just wasted a second of your life making you read this, but I wasted a minute of mine thinking it up. DAMN.
its nice that you make the government out to be the bad guys here, but I'm a game developer and I'd really like to stay in business thank you. With piracy so rampant, game developers NEVER see royalties and its harder and harder to scrape togeother enough cash to make a good game nowadays. Its up to you. Buy games and support the govenment in actions like this and have a healthy game biz, or pirate away and watch all the best developers go under.
I've never heard of any of these "well known" groups.
I guess this must mean that we've already solved all those pesky problems with rape, murder, assault and those other violent crimes, not to mention terrorism and the ongoing drug war, so now we can move onto things like busting 1337 W4R3Z D00DZ.
Wow, whether it is people selling pipes that might be used to smoke marijuana, or kiddiez running "FTP my w4r3z!!!!" sites, Ashcroft won't back down from a hard fight.
Ashcroft doesn't dance, smoke or drink. I think he has too much time on his hands.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
Calling someone with a four digit Slashdot ID new.
How is this a YRO story? None of us have the right to rip and crack a commercial game release. The only right here, is that of the developers to do something about it, which apparently... they just did.
Class releases have been around for years, I'm amazed it took this long for them to get shut down (at least, temporarily).
i can't believe they could use the phrase 'international warez syndicates' with a straight face.
As soon as you bop one in the head, two more pop up.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
It could take HOURS for new groups to deal with the hole created by the loss of these groups. The humanity.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
Somehow I dont think this effort is going to do much to stop software piracy.
Well, since The Humble Guys are still alive and well, and were big even back when I was wee lad, I don't see any big impacts. The chiense stores in china town, still sell cheap re-printed DVD's, and I can still buy bootlegged smokes down at the local diner, I don't see how this is going to effect anything.
Come to think of it, isn't Razor 1911, and a few other "big players" still in the game? I guess they are "un-touchables"... Piracy might be seriously diminished one day, but it won't happen until the NWO anyways..
Mod +5 Drunk
They sure do use a lot of words. illegal is redundant. Intellectual property is wrong because I think they are going after copyrights and not also patents. Piracy is cute and coloquial, but it doesn't refer to sea-faring attacks, then the DoJ shouldn't use it. This would be much better:
And the third-to-the-last paragraph is great, too:
If these programs are not for sale, then how do they arrive at the $ figure? You can't use the retail value of the final package; no one would pay that much for an unwarrantied, probably time-limited beta. In fact, very rarely do even legitimate users pay for a beta version.
I also like the word "seized" used with "pirated works" because it makes it seem like it's physical property. It's just another attempt to make infringement equal to theft. I expect better from my DoJ.
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
I just love the spin they put on this...
these international warez syndicates
Yes... 14 year old uber-geeks cracking games and software in mom's basement... yes, that something deserving the title "synicate".
Nice to see the government(s) spending money going after such terrifying villians instead of your friendly neighbourhood rapists, child molestors and murderers, eh?
Sad... and the media is playing into it...
CD key for WAREZ monkeys
http://www.narvakitchens.com/quake3cdkey.jpg
... as if this might fall into the same category as trying to "rid the world of spam". Does anyone think it's going to make any difference?
The Erogenous Zone
Whatever you say, this is "big" .nl boys though they were safe from the law, but looks like the US has done a bit of leaning..
Seriously "big"
Every single major "elite" warez site in the netherlands is gone.
FairLighT are gone, for those of you who don't know FairLighT ( FLT ) they're one of the two main game releasing warez groups. People within the scene are scared, this is a bad day for warez.
Also, this is the US Governments doing, up untill today the
I mean, this people are part of the Axis of Evil, right?
Yes, go do the bidding of your corporate pimps and protect their profit margins. When you get the chance, how bout keepin an eye open for Osama?
Where am I supposed to get my games and Operating systems from NOW? Am I supposed to go out and by them like a normal person? But, I am better than them.
For pointing out that there's a huge overseas mp3 server illegally serving 12.8 gigs of mp3's in Iraq that Ashcroft should take down immediately - probably run by Evil Doers!
You have to wonder if the civilian contractors they're using to hunt these people down have community mp3 servers at work. If so, what do they listen to? Wagner?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the software-industry/IFPI/RIAA - and in fact EVERY entity making a living of pure digitalised works - is fighting a lost cause. And I think they know it.
First off all, I have difficulties with their acclaimed 'stealing' of music/software/movie. As far as I know, stealing implies that the one that has been stolen has been derived of something. When you take a copy, you do not take the original away, thus they have not 'lost' anything. They might claim that they loose money when ppl d/l music, but even that is far from certain. Not only is it not shown statistically to have had that effect (they didn't even show a correlation thusfar - see former aussie music-news - let alone a causality). Ofcourse they *claim* they are suffering, and that it's all due to online d/l, but it's far from being a scientific valid causility. And frankly, even if it were true, it is partly their own fault, and partly because their sort of business (as it is today) has simply become obsolete.
Furthermore, in an individual case, they would have to show they actually lost revenue. Which is far from said, because I sure know some guys who d/l music, but would NEVER have bought that music if they were unable to d/l it. So, how did the RIAA/IFPI loose revenue, exactly? And if they didn't lose anything, how can the term 'stealing' apply?
It would still be copyright-infringement, ofcourse, but that's another matter. I think maybe it's time we went beyond our current system of copyrights and walk into the era of cyberspace. With the industrial revolution, patents and copyrights knew a high flight, maybe it's time to let it leave and try something new? Maybe something in the lines of this: fairshare [sourceforge.net].
And don't worry, contrary to what the RIAA claims, musicians will not starve to death, and music-making will not stop. We had music long before we had copyrights, and we will have music long after copyrights have vanished from the scene.
And lastly, it's something that *can not* be stopped. P2P progs and their development act as organisms that follow the darwinian rules of survival. When Napster was 'killed' by the RIAA, immediately others (like kazaa) took over, being more resistent to attacks from the RIAA&co. Whenever kazaa will be shut down, others again will take over. When endusers are targeted, systems that protect the user will become dominant (like FreeNet).
It really is a lost cause. But then again, they are not truelly battling for the survival of musicians (as I said; they will survive, just as they used to do), it's for their OWN survival they are fighting. There is no way in hell they are going to keep the giant profits that they have been gathering for the last decades.
But ultimately, they will have to do what P2P systems are already doing: adapt to the new circumstances (and forget about the former levels of profit), or whither and die.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I hear often enough that the majority of spam comes from a very small group of individuals. Come on, feds, get your act in gear and illegalize spam so you can go after these big-league criminals.
Ashcroft please spend our nation's resources on something more important.
The BBS(Cyberspace BBS) I frequented here in the Grand Rapids area has always been (and still is) very careful about only allowing shareware and freeware software into the file libraries people can download from.
The original owner's wife's ex-husband called the FBI and told them Cyber had pirated software and child pornography available for download. So the FBI raided. AFAIK, they didn't damage anything, and left once it was demonstrated that the file libraries were clean.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Some of you techno-toads need to get your head out of the web and realize that technology isnt the solution to EVERYTHING.. Not only does john law have the capability of breaking a lot of VPN's, but he doesnt really need to.
these guys storm offices and houses, they pull you from your keyboard before you can lock it out, they have "agents" work the chat networks and so on, becoming "friends" and insiders of these "syndicates".
Its very difficult to carry on this type of illegal activity through a structured or organized manner against the deep deep deep resources of both the sowftare industry and the goverment. The only way to battle them is for hugely distributed and un-localized distribution....
basicly P2P... now P2P with strong encryption and trace-blocking, along with various other privacy protections distributed across enough users is a much more difficult thing to kill. These pirate groups are asking for trouble by making themselves targets.
--Idiots, Every single one of YOU, A flaming mass of conglomerated morons, hey wait a second, isnt that how RAID works?
But the plain fact is that they have never and probably will never be that effective. Look at warez (of all kinds) distribution now as compared to '92 --> it's exploded in size & scope. So in reality these serve not to actually protect anybody's intellectual property rights, but to scare the bejeezus out of anyone who might be thinking of taking a leadership role in one of these groups. Also they look really good in the media to scare high school and college students from even downloading warez in the first place... But overall, just an ineffective media sideshow.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I've gotta agree with all the people pointing out that this should not be in YRO, and I'm glad to see that this community has a decent percentage of people who agree this is the right response from the FBI. For the rest of you, what's it going to take to make you people happy?
Step 1: They tried busting people like Ed Felten for talking about piracy tools. This was genuinely evil, and we bitched, saying "they should only go after the pirates, not people talking about tools that might be used for piracy."
Step 2: They started busting the pirates themselves. They handled it in a fairly Snidely Whiplash sort of way, but it is definitely within the bounds of the spirit of the law. And you all bitched, saying, "these are just home users, the real problem is the piracy rings."
Step 3: The crack a bunch of piracy rings. This is totally in line with the spirit and proper use of copyright. If some company were doing something similar with GPL software, we'd go after them and we would win. Please try to retain what remains of your credibility - don't bitch when organized, premeditative law breakers get their comeuppance.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
cause it sure would help speed linux adoption. The way I see it the more people are on linux the more companies will release drivers so we can actually use all the latest stuff (and some old stuff).
Thank god they created that echelon project so we could all be safe from those terrorists that are attacking the mpaa and riaa.
lol.
Wait a minute, Operation Fastlink isn't a P2P program?
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Make sure you Feds bust those guys! All that software and for free? Thats not possible. And I hear they even give you the source code for the applications!!
You know, a lot of people here seem to be saying what you said, and to a degree, that's true.
However, if the government keeps sending these groups to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison, that's going to stop or at least trickle off at some point. We're not exactly talking about the Mafia here. If a continual crackdown occurs to the point where if you put pirated software out for distribution you have a high likelyhood of being passed around a cell block to earn cigarettes for someone much bigger than you are, it's going to seem like a much less attractive activity to most sane people.
Right now that's probably not happening, but if there was a real threat of law enforcement getting involved... shit, most geeks are afraid of girls. You don't think they're going to be even more afraid of lonely, burly men?
> 10 countries and the United States
I thought the United States counted as a country too.
Please remember these groups were already using end-to-end user encryption for communications, and servers were probably heavily encrypted too (so was traffic).
Neither (insert your favorite waste-based crypt chat tool) nor ipsec/vpn are part of the problem, in fact you could find several crypto/networks systems experts within these groups.
FLT & Class were being known for hude cd resells networks established, that's how the FBI managed to find and incrimate few members, they didn't sn|fF th4 n3tw0rk or whatever honeypot you may think about.
That operation is simply following the 2001 ones, and don't forget the recent german busts. And again, yro isn't an appropriate section.
How much do you want to bet, some of these searches are going to be conducted under the guise of the Patriot Act. You know, the section that allows for searches without notifying the people they are being searched. How hard will it be to link the pirated software getting into the hands of the Evil Terrorists. Or maybe since the games being pirated have "terrorists" in it, Fuhrer Ashcroft has determined this to be a threat to homeland security AHHHHHHHHHHH I hate this administration more and more each day
I suspect the bump was because the earlier post was sent as "Anonymous Coward", giving it an initial score of 0 rather than 1, making it easier for a lazy moderator to see. After that, another lazy moderator didn't care which was timestamped first, and downmodded the other. Not fair, really, but most people with mod points don't bother with the part of the guidelines that says "browse at -1".
And, according what looks to be an Arizona TV station, the two stories are linked.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
You see, for years now the software, music, and movie industry have implicitly asserted that each copy of an item pirated was a lost sale.
...and once it's clear that the dearth of available pirated software has no positive impact whatsoever on software sales, we can tell these groups to get well and truly stuffed.
With this major bust, the supply of new pirated software titles should drop precipitously.
Once and for all, we can watch the sales figures and determine whether or not there's any relation between piracy and sales.
.@.
Listen
I know most of the Slashdotters know alot, and it is the Slashdot way to talk and talk convinced you know it all.
But you don't know this.
This is not some kids and their FTPs
This is a huge network of people, with different skills and access to different things. Stealing/Borrowing brand new games and movies from stores they work, cracking and ripping them with real skills then uploading them to 100mbit - 1gbit++ sites with 2tb+ hard drives.
These people are not the idiots you like to beleive they are. They are skilled in *nix, circumventing copy protection and a whole bunch of other stuff. They work jobs, and do this for fun.
And please, do not suggest 'WASTE' or 'p2p', where do you think the files on these networks come from? The people getting busted now are the ONLY ones supplying pirated materials to the internet, if it was not for them no-one would have these games,movies,etc.
You are not above them.
They are not children.
And no, i am not one of them. But i've have known these people.
Well, Suprnova.org is still up, so they couldn't have been that sucessful in dismantling the distribution of pirated material.
10 year old geek (probably YOU):
Mom, can I have $120,000 so I can
learn autocad and 3d studio and
visual basic and oracle and....?
Mom: No that's too expensive dear
How long before we can afford it?
Mom: after we win the lottery maybe.
Firefox &
You:
A.) Participate in piracy, so this pisses you off.
B.) Have a beef against Ashcroft, so it just ruffles your panties to see him cracking down on illegal software piracy.
There is absolutely, 100% nothing wrong with the government cracking down on this. Slashdot wants to pretend it's some sort of miniscule, "gray area" problem, but it's millions of users all trading warez and making it harder to sell software.
Why the hell do you think PC sales are so low, and so game companies are turning to consoles? Don't give me the "games were better in the olden days" spin, because we've got everything from Far Cry to Invisible War to SimCity 4 to Rollercoaster Tycoon 2 to...you get the picture.
"Copyright Enforcement Militia"...this is such propaganda bullshit that I can't believe--no wait, I CAN believe it got modded up. A post bitching about the emotive use of the word "syndicate" yet emotively using "militia." Nice!
Let's all pirate the fuck out of Doom 3, shall we? I'm sure John Carmack won't mind. Will he?
Don't forget the part about placing value judgements on people based upon how much, or little, they made for themselves. It might look wide and free, like the sea, but there is a very fixed path to follow; freedom isn't real if all options but one have negative consequences attached.
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Okay, I'm seeing a lot of people railing (once again) against the government for enforcing the law. If this operation was targeted at the people downloading the pirated software and music, I'd be joining in - that's a huge waste.
But the government action is against those that are producing the cracked software and providing the music for download. These aren't your typical kids playing at sharing music. These are people who know exactly what they are doing, and, while they have a myriad of reasons for doing so (some even mildly admirable), they ARE breaking the law.
So I'm reading this, well, garbage that people are posting about honor among pirates. Well, whatever. I'm sure that's true for some segment of that population. But who gives a damn? Who are these people really benefiting? Is this REALLY a valid way to protest the pricing structures and horrible crap that these companies are producing? And even if it is, these people, again, are aware the the consequences of this type of protest, and I feel no need to get worked up about it.
I guess my point is - I'm GLAD that my government actually attempts to enforce the law. I wish they did a better job, which includes knowing how and when to enforce the law. At least this time they got it right, for once. 'Course, that's assuming that the press release is even reasonably accurate.
It's time to end the perverted concept of Corporate rights. They are allowed to incorporate to serve the public, for a specific purpose. If they fail in that obligation, they should die.
Corporations should NEVER have the right to "free speech". Never, EVER. That right is reserved for Citizens.
--Mike--
This message does not necessarily reflect the views of ACME, Inc.
ACME - American Corporation that Manufactures Everything
When will people learn that attacking pirates just makes you look stupid? I'll admit to having downloaded games and such, but you know what? The ones I liked and played, I BOUGHT.
The CD's I listened to after downloading? If I liked 'em, I BOUGHT THEM! (Yeah! I use iTunes Music Store! I buy CD's at Best Buy!)
The "scene" (aka "International Syndicate") just puts stuff out there for you to check out. Yeah, not everyone is ethical, and maybe software authors / companies do lose money, but they also make money as well, by people who would never have bought the CD/Game/Movie, but who found it online, and liked it enough to go purchase it.
Smart companies have figured out ways to make this more likely. When Call of Duty came out, you couldn't play the cracked version online, so if you wanted to (and who didn't?!) you went and bought the game. Same with Raven Shield, and many other games.
#1 - They're enforcing the laws of our country. The FBI is just the police that operate at the Federal (National) level. It is not the FBI's job to deal with foreign matters.
#2 - The responsbility for tracking down Bin Laden lays with the NSA (It coordinates, directs, and performs highly specialized activities to protect U.S. information systems and produce foreign intelligence information.) and the CIA (Providing accurate, comprehensive, and timely foreign intelligence on national security topics.). The Department of Defense (the military) are the ones who carry out the work to actually find him.
Gabriel Ricard
Well, expect to see a lot more of this kind of silliness. It's an election year, and groups like the RIAA want their money's worth from the sitting president before they dump a bunch more money into his reelection coffers.
It's not all that surprising they're painting the warz sites and music swapping sites as run by syndicates in press releases. What are they going to say? "Um, uh ... We stopped people trading game software we don't want out kids using, and songs we don't want them listening to, so can you please forget about all that other stuff we said we were going to do but can't seem to get a handle on? Please?"
Ashcroft is an ass. Terrorism wasn't a priority before 9/11 and it still isn't important enough to preclude this errand-boy stuff?
Look - even after 9/11 the FBI ran an investigation into prositution in New Orleans. Guess what! They found some!
You: Get the FBI defending your interests re: computer crime if
1) you are a big campaign contributer
there is no 2)
The alleged $50,000 provable damage rule is only the point where they have the authority to decide to investigate. Mostly they decide not to. Chasing warez d00dz for copywrite violation is a staggering misallocation of resources that may get people killed.
On the other hand, stringing up a packeting kidiot by his thumbs might actually make the net an easier place to for the rest of us to do our thing .
I personally *love* to blow shit up. And I have 200 gallons of diesel and several tons of nitrate fertiliser, because I run a farm.
Actually, information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
First you start trading warez on-line, then the next thing you know you're hooking up with other FPS gamers to play your pirated booty at pirate frag parties where you drink alcahol and the next thing you know you're smoking pot and taking halucangenics and turning on tracer effects in the games... So now your trading stolen software, trading in illegal drugs... then your girlfriend dumps you (if you even had one) and the only date you can get is the prostitute down the street that takes pirated windows software as payment...
It's a slippery slope...
Seriously though, the only way to stop software piracy is drop the price to $19.99 for everything.
You know why I use those cracks ? To crack my own game, that i legally bought for 40+$. Why do I do that ? Because I usually play more than 1 game at a time, and I have only one CD. You know what happen ? Every freaking game is asking to see its own CD in the drive. Result : early break down because you opnen and close so much the CD door. Personally I think those guy were sparing me the money, that game developper/distrubutor make me lose on hardware early retirement. I guess I will have to search for those crack a bit more "deeper" now. But I will certainly not give up on the possibility of not having to play CD-Toaster wioth what i legally bought.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
How about
(0) The use of the term "piracy" the the alleged entertainment industry to descibe the free distribution the items they sell is spurious bullshit.
Anything can be made a crime if you pay some group to pass a law to make it one [see also: marijuana laws];
Grow up you punk-ass media whore.
"Stamp out crime; change the Law."
"The Internet is made of cats."
I always liked how on the NFO's that groups released, a lot of them made the statement "If you like this product and have a use for it, BUY IT, and support the developers."(paraphrased)
I mean it obviously doesn't absolve them from wrongdoing, but it's a nice gesture considering that they're obviously not required to put it there.
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
The big record companies and our own legislature have pirated our rights to free speech. I'll concede that it's worth compromising free speech by granting exclusive copy rights to writers/performers so that there will be an incentive for people to create. But those rights should only be short term. The founding fathers stated something like 14 years with a one-time 14 year extension. Things happen *much* faster now, so those terms should be shorter, not longer.
When they stop infringing my rights, I'll start caring about theirs.
Piracy is theft. Period. They deserve everything that is happening to them.
Just because you want something, doesn't mean you have the right to steal it.
Does anybody in BSA et.al actually think that
1) bust all warez-d00ds
2) people will suddenly run-in shop doors to pay for things they previously only warez'd
3) profit !!
?
Who can be that naive ?
If people can't get their hands on SQL-server anymore, they'll use something else - maybe even Postgresql or Mysql.
And anybody can download Oracle for free.
I think, everybody should pay for his software (or her software), in accordance with the license-agreement.
If you cannot pay, look for something else.
If you don't like the EULA (media-player), look for something else.
If you think, the software is "not worth" the money it costs (like MS-Office), then don't buy it, buy something that offers better value, like perhaps Staroffice7.
Rainer
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
I am a busy pirate type guy. Luckily I'm in Canada and can't have my IP released to cop-types. I will not pay for overpriced music cd's ever. I will not pay $60-$90 for a videogame. I do buy used software and music on occasion. I often buy new dvd's even although I can pirate them as well(and I do). I have not been impressed enough to go after a new online game since I bought my 'Generations Pack"(HL1, CS, OpFor). All my gaming mates switched to BF:1942. I actually bought and returned it because the netcode blew(I don't know if they fixed that yet). I will buy HL2 the day it comes out because I know it will rock. MS *DID* benefit greatly from it's early OS's being pirated across the planet. If you tell me they didn't I will simply call you a ninny. I will buy a quality new game that is released (or reduced)at a reasonable price. I think that if all the games, record, sw companies went out of business there would be a period of sadness followed by the open sourcers improving upon works already released. I think that these would be on average as good as their professionally developed counterparts. Hell, if software companies dissappeared (not likely and I hope they don't) your computer would last longer since you wouldn't need a new graphic card every 6 mos. to play open sourced mods. Anyway my point is that I love developers but hate publishing houses that rape customers wallets. You need to earn my money. Hey, after this "crackdown" Suprnova.org is still working fine.
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Denis Diderot
Why do people always assume that an organization is only running on one track? Because they go after pirates, suddenly that means 100% of the entire organization's resources are spent going after those pirates, and the hunting of "higher priority criminals" has suddenly ceased?
Do you honestly believe that's how it works? Every single time some ignorant moron says something like this, I shake my head. "They should be devoting their resources to [INSERT RANDOM HIGHER PRIORITY THING HERE]." Uh, who said they don't? Because one small faction of their organization also happened to be doing something else? When Slashdot changes the way your comments are listed, does that mean 100% of the Slashdot crew was devoted to working on it? When a virtual memory scheme is worked on for the Linux kernel, does that mean 100% of all kernel development was devoted to that?
Give me a break. It's a faulty argument and you know it. This was probably the computer division composed of agents who specialize in computer crimes. God, you people amaze me sometimes.
-> pictures of the bust in the Netherlands.
Privacy is terrorism.
...that then can earn by welcoming piracy into their countries: do you seriously think that the new government of (say) Afghanistan gives one flying fuck about the profits of American companies?
The same might go for recently "deceased" projects like PlayFair.
Are there any decent hosting services available in Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, (insert any other country without decent copyright laws)?
Anyone have information?
Support a Europe-related section on Slashdot!
Too bad I don't have mod points...and even if I did, the max score is 5. *sigh* Such intelligence is inspiring.
Jason Lotito
When it comes to infiltrating and dismantling warez networks, they are amazingly good. So good, in fact, that they can infiltrate any target of their chosing whithin 6-12 months.
,by necessity, one that is open to new media suppliers, site owners, rippers, crackers, couriers, hardware and cash donors, etc.
And there is nothing that can be done to stop them. This being slashdot, a lot of talk about secure networks and encryption is going on. All of these measures are next to useless.
The Warez Scene is not an insulated and self contained entity. It is
It is *TRIVIAL* for the fbi to impersonate one or more of those again and again or even have deep undercovers that remain in the scene for years (spanning several busts).
The only new thing about this bust is the extensive cooperation of other governments in this operation. I have to admit that I did not imagine the FBI would bother but apparently, the pressure of BIG CORP International is now enough to warrant a cooperation and coordinated operations between countries that is usually reserved to drug and weapon traffickers.
Sad...
Those risks include negligent action on the part of the corporation. Negligent action that often occurs soley because of the pressure to provide a greater return on investment.
Therefore, the investors ARE shielded from wrongdoing by the corporate mechanism that was ultimately acting to fulfill their demands.
Building a better ribosome since 1997
Since we're reappropriating terms with long-standing meaning and context, why not warp the biggest and baddest one of them all, and just call it "content murder".
Theft requires the loss of a physical object (implies a degree of uniqueness and singularity for that object) from its owner, and piracy is essentially armed robbery on the high seas. Both involve physically depriving someone of physical things. Software (and music) is not physical. The media they are on is physical.
Next thing you know, Microsoft will start calling the adoption and existance of open source software "theft" (i.e., installing OpenOffice), because it deprives them otherwise of a sale of Microsoft Office, they'll start trying to harrass and make difficult those who use open-source versions of software products that they make (OpenOffice, Dia, Linux) in many ways (such as only allowing "licensees" to develop converters for their file formats, and any OSS app that can read a Word document must be violating IP restrictions SOMEwhere).
I feel sorry for the artists, but they've been taken for a ride by the radio-music industry for a long time. They just sound like prostitutes defending their pimps most of the time anymore to me.
The only thing being lost immediately is a potential sale (yet, oddly enough, there is not a complete relationship between the copying and loss of sale. There are probably more than a few Delphi developers, for example, who cannot shell out $3000 for Delphi8 Architect, yet they can get the evaluation CD from Borland and find a keygen for it. It may be just enough for them to use it to develop a project or two that they can sell, and then buy the full version. It is hard to learn and develop a program in something like Delphi in only 30 days...)
The funny thing is, that at least in Microsoft's case, they turned a blind eye to it for so long in order to grow their marketshare and develop MS Office addiction that only now are they trying to clamp down on essentially casual copying, because they cannot go after those who do it on an industrial scale (Ukraine, Russia, SE Asia, etc).
Oh well.
Interesting that they only had 12.8 gigs... they must be new
Even in the years between the first gulf war and the second, many soldiers in the field had enormous communal stashes of MP3s.
Saudi Arabia, for example, was notorious for confiscating anything/everything coming through customs that looked remotely suspicious, or violated islamic law in any way. This included fitness magazines (showing skin between the neck and ankles == BAD), CDs or DVDs with racy covers, any/all pornography, bibles or non-muslim religious tracts... you name it. This customs search even covered US troops rotating into country to participate in Operation Southern Watch (enforcing the Iraqi no-fly zones and defending the KSA's hide).
And yet... the people they had inspecting bags at the customs tables had clearly never seen an external hard drive, and they never searched laptops... so digital music/movies made it in no problem, and were immediately shared among the deployed soldiers and airmen. Yes, it's illegal, but it was great for morale... and somehow I can't see the MPAA/RIAA getting upset. After all, It's not like you can just run out and buy all their music/movies in the middle of a fundamentalist islamic nation (and soldiers might even buy better copies when they returned home, particularly if it was something they liked and/or had never heard before).
Besides, gathering evidence would be impossible... Saudi Arabia doesn't even issue tourist visas to non-muslims. How do you possibly track all the little LANs soldiers set up? How do you get the military to let you monitor their base network (hint: NOT going to happen). It would also be absolute political suicide to go after soldiers. Can you imagine the magnitude of the public relations backlash if the RIAA/MPAA prosecuted? Squeezing fines out of a bunch of homesick grunts just trying to survive and have a taste of home makes Ebeneezer Scrooge look like a philanthropist.
That'd be be like prosecuting grandmothers and children (Oh... hmm. Nevermind)
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Among the groups targeted by Operation Fastlink are well-known organizations such as Fairlight, Kalisto, Echelon, Class and Project X, all of which specialized in pirating computer games, and music release groups such as APC.
Place your bets, everybody. I know which one I'd bet my money on. WTF was the DOJ thinking?
It's a very dark ride.
With AlQueda, the War in Iraq, drugs, what a stupid waste of law enforcement effort going after stupid crap like this and that.
The only reason this is getting any attention at all is places like the RIAA, MPAA, DirecTV, and other big businesses tossing mountains of money in the appropriate Senator and Representative's direction.
While I'm mostly in agreement with your points, I'd like to try and hone your argument a bit more.
Number 3: Piracy is driven by overpriced CD's
The RIAA lost a judgement because they colluded to artificially inflate the price of CD's. At one point, CD's were extremely cheap. I remember buying CD's for an average price of 10.49 or 9.99 Canadian, about 6 bucks US at the time. That price in Canada has now climbed up to an average of 18.00 (almost DOUBLE).
Guess what: I buy the same number of CD's now in a year as I used to buy in a month Becuase
1. I'm buying DVD's (over 150 now)
2. I'm buying diapers for my baby (not in my 20's anymore)
3. I've replaced all my vinyl and cassettes.
4. The number of artists creating music that I enjoy has decreased significantly.
I am the RIAA's worst nightmare, because I prove that they distort the facts to suit their purpose. I don't download MP3's but my CD buying habits have decreased by 80% annually. They lose probably 1000 a year because of me...
There are thousands more like me. I just think it's a bit ridiculous that the governments of the world have swallowed the content industries argument so wholly. We are going to lose control of our open systems and hardware becausse of what is basically a lie, that mp3 sharing is the downfall of the record industry.
I see I've gotten offtopic here, so I'll get back into it. As I mentioned before, I think you're pretty much bang on in your post. I just think number 3 might be stricken out of it to make it that much more effective.
Okay, that's an amusing list of arguments, many of which are actually made by some of the kids online. I get the feeling that your intention is to suggest that these are the only arguments for widespread distribution (a straw man argument), but *shrug*, maybe I'm just misinterpreting. However, one of the arguments you're mocking isn't quite as obviously wrong as you suggest.
I've never heard of a parking infringement, but I suppose. I do hear "illegally parked" or "parking violation" (which was what my last parking ticket read). Those are perfectly reasonable terms, after all, one is illegally parked and one has violated parking laws. I'm perfectly fine with copyright violation or illegal copying. Both are accurate descriptions of the crime. Copyright infringment is arguably more accurate (since you're infringing on exclusivity granted to someone else), but violation or illegal is certainly nice and accurate.
Piracy, on the other hand, isn't terribly accurate. Piracy's has multiple definitions and those different definitions are governed by different laws and punishments. Many people (myself included) feel that we need to reconsider our intellectual property laws, that perhaps they've become unbalanced and no longer serve the common good. It's important to have accurate language in such a discussion; colorful terms and phrases like piracy cloud the issue. Those people and businesses interested in maximizing the power of copyright deliberately chose words like piracy and theft because they know they have emotion impact, it's easier to get people to agree with ideas like "theft is wrong" without having them consider the details of what they are agreeing too. If they used words and phrases like illegal copying they know that some people will step back and ask, "why is the illegal? What is the real harm?" This sort of misdirection is unnecessary. I certainly believe that copyright law is a good thing. I would be against abolishing copyright law or eliminating enforcement. However I arrived at those conclusions through reason and the facts, not through emotional arguments and colorful phrases. Shoplifting a CD is a very different action from downloading an illegal copy online, trying to confuse the two is a false analogy. If copyright really is right why not defend it without descending into logical fallacies?
Search 2010 Gen Con events
What happens when everybody suddenly has Internet2 and can download your game in 30 seconds after installing a quick app (eMule 2.3 or something)?
.RAR file for people to just leech from my hard work. Music sales are going down, PC sales are going down (hence the flocking to consoles), and eventually movie sales will be going down though the only thing really keeping them alive is the fact that you can't have a home viewing system as good as big theater's.
You think you're still going to be selling 5M+ then?
Everybody around here purposely ignores the inevitable conclusion of a file-sharing network designed to trade massive files, but with no enforcement of what is traded--nobody making money on anything that can be copied.
I'm a musician. Sorry, but I don't want my stuff going around in a damn
This attitude of "piracy is okay" sickens me. Just because you claim to have sold a lot of games still doesn't give piraters the right to pretend the copyright of a product magically transferred over to them.
But, it's not surprising that mentality pervades this place considering that recent Slashdot poll showing that the majority of Slashdotters are either college students or unemployed......
(3) I believe that piracy is driven by "overpriced CDs" even though CDs have dropped in price over the years.
They have? That's news to me. When I got my first CD player in 1985, the average price of a new CD in a record store was $12. In 2004, the average price of a new CD in a record store is $18. Now, granted there are bargain-basement $5.99 CDs these days, as well as sale-priced new releases at the $12 or $13 price point, but as a whole, CDs aren't cheaper today than they were nearly 20 years ago.
Does that excuse "piracy," or "theft" or whatever you want to call it? No, it doesn't, but let's ratchet down the level of nonsense in the rhetoric used here. "Stealing" isn't the right word for making an unauthorized copy of something. The original still exists and can be sold to someone, and "piracy" is a loaded word with completely inappropriate connotations. How about we just call it "unauthorized copying" or "copyright dilution"?
I've always had a problem with software and entertainment industry estimates of losses due to unauthorized copying. First, they assume that every copy illegally-made represents a lost sale, which is nonsense. If a 15-year-old kid has 8,000 songs on his hard drive, there's no chance in hell that he would have bought those 8,000 songs if he hadn't had access to them for free. He might have spent anywhere from a few hundred to a couple of thousand bucks on music, but there's no chance he'd have bought 600 CDs worth of music at $15-$18 a crack ($9,000-$11,000).
And here's another thing: Twenty years ago, my friends and I taped songs off of FM radio and played them in our walkmans. Or we'd dupe our LPs onto tape and trade copies with each other. I easily had access to ten times as much music as I could afford to buy, but in spite of record industry whining, I bought *more* music because of that practice, not less.
One study stated that that kids and adults alike who used the original Napster were more likely to buy music than people who didn't. Numerous studies have shown that there's zero correlation between "piracy" and the decline of sales for the music industry. Is it any surprise to people that the last year of sales increases for the music industry was the last year that the original Napster was in operation?
This is not an apologia for listening to music without paying for any of it. It's simply a realistic look at what's really going on. The record industry has its head up its ass and always has. Suing and prosecuting your customers is bad for business.
Software "piracy" is different, but not *that* different. Much of the software industry used to accept that "piracy" was just another form of marketing. Microsoft has always given lip service to stamping out "piracy," but until they had established a monopoly, they did virtually nothing to prevent it before the fact because they knew it was easier to convert a "pirate" into a paying customer than it was to get a skeptic to buy from you in the first place. Most people these days will automatically use MS products, so now Microsoft puts copy-protection technology in its products to force people to pay up-front.
Is making an unauthorized copy of music or software theft? According to the law, it is. However, there needs to be a middle ground between the "information wants to be free" left and the Ashcroft search-and-seizure right.
Most people would gladly reward artists and programmers for their work. That's how shareware works, and it made Phil Katz a substantial amount of money before his death. So how about we find new ways to reward creators of content, instead of finding new ways to criminalize what people have done for decades?
Don't misunderstand me. There are true criminals out there who are selling counterfeit or other illegally-copied versions of products (such as music and sof
Billg has been complaining about piracy since the very beginning, yet he still somehow ended up being the richest man in the world.
Since we're reappropriating terms with long-standing meaning and context, why not warp the biggest and baddest one of them all, and just call it "content murder".
"Intellectual Genocide"
P2P IS THE ARTIST HOLOCAUST!
You have some good points, but some things should be clarified..
3.) Most CD's are quite overpriced and the public now realizes this. Allow me to plug Mangatune.com Reasonable price, actually supports the musicians. (:
4.) Copyright duration is way to long and it is having a dramatic effect upon society
5.) Legitimately free music/whatever as advertising is nevertheless a valid business model to gain popularity.
6.) Artists are, in fact, getting ripped off due to the perceived need to cut a record deal to "get known." They would be much better off thinking like entrepeneurs.
7.) "Giving stuff away on the Internet" is not a business model, but it can be part of one if done correctly. Look at Homestar Runner as example: free cartoons that got so popular that the authors now make a living selling plush dolls, t-shirts, and bumper stickers. It would never have succeeded as a pay-for-content site because it has to compete with Cartoon Network, the Simpsons, and the like..
8.) Not everyone is looking for a free ride. The fact that people are more than willing to pay for concert tickets but many now hesistate to buy CDs says more about the market than morals. People are simply putting far less value in recorded music.
9.) In a purely capitalist, laisez faire economic system, there is no such thing as copyright. It's not an assumption or requirement. That's not to say that it's always bad, but rather that there are plenty of natural ways to make money that do not involve artificial government institutions. Open Source has already succeeded in this field; independent music/film is still on its way.
10.) For the majority of human history, it was a right. Copyright is a modern experiment. It may or may not last long term. My guess is that a fairer balance will be struck.
11.) What signifies greed is the motivation, not that they are exercising their legal rights. Numerous studies have shown that P2P and other bootlegging has a minimal effect on profits, while significantly expanding the spread of content. It is more likely that the 'cracking down' is more out of fear that they are losing control of the traditional distribution channels.
One of the unfortunate things that has happened to the OSS movement is that a lot of the loudmouth advocates for it don't understand what it's really about.
Absolutely. In my definition, Open Source is about meeting software needs in the most efficient way possible. That does not always mean a free ride. Open Source is about turning an artificial "manufacturing" market into a labor market, the latter of which allows full, unrestricted motion of the "invisible hand of the market." Capitalism works best with many buyers, many sellers, and minimal cost of entry. That is what Open Source enables.
They view it primarily as a means to get free stuff, and then they turn their eyes from the free stuff to the non-free stuff and think to themselves "maybe I'm entitled to get that one for free too"
While I agree that many mistakenly see OSS as "free lunch," I don't see your secondary point in any true OSS advocates.
Anything can be made a crime if you pay some group to pass a law to make it one [see also: marijuana laws];
After all, some evil corporation paid the government to make it illegal to distribute someone's works so that they don't get paid for their efforts. Right.
After all, nobody but an evil corporation would think people should be paid for their work. Let's pirate the fuck out of everything instead so there's no incentive anymore to make a living.
Are you, by chance, a college student? Just curious...
When I got my first CD player in 1985, the average price of a new CD in a record store was $12. In 2004, the average price of a new CD in a record store is $18. Now, granted there are bargain-basement $5.99 CDs these days, as well as sale-priced new releases at the $12 or $13 price point, but as a whole, CDs aren't cheaper today than they were nearly 20 years ago.
From 1985 to 2004 we've seen the consumer price index rise about 70%. That would make your $12 1985 CD cost about $20.40 today. So even if the average price was $18 as you say, they are cheaper than they were in 1985. In reality, NPD MusicWatch says the average price of CDs in 2003 was $13.42, down 2% from 2002.
Although most of the piracy apologists follow your reasoning, you fail to concede that there is a middle-ground. The internet has opened new ways to make business. However, for the last ten years, the music industry establishment has done nothing but try and keep the old business model. Why?
I'd wager that current publishers think they hold the middle-man spot because they have a strong grip on product exposition. The internet makes product exposition a lot easier, and has the potential to downgrade the middle-man value, therefore causing the whole industry to 'deflate'. This deflation is overall good, for public and artists, but is obviously bad for the editors.
In the end, give or take a couple of years, alternative music selling models will break through the barriers. Then, middle-men (editors) will have to excel in the role they are really needed for: weeding out bad artists, so people don't have to listen to every band out there. Then, only then, we'll again see great bands. Bands that really innovate the way music is created. The last ones, for me, were Nirvana, the pilar of the grunge movement. From then on, no really great global movement came out from the music scene. (The boy-band, girl-band movement fails on the grounds of musical quality).
I finish the comment with a glimmer of hope: Magnatune. Magnatune is clearly a small shop. However, it's a small shop, almost a one-man stunt, with a really innovative business model. And you know what? It's currently profitable.
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
All that actually appears to have happened is that a bunch of people got busted for doing something illegal, and they happened to be doing it with computers. That does not make it relevant to my online rights, unless someone thinks we are supposed to have the right to do things online that are illegal offline.
As someone else beautifully pointed out with regards to Slashdot:
Obviously, the only thing that would make warez sites and online piracy organizations morally objectionable and properly subject to sanction would be if they distributed, sold or bartered binaries for derivative works of GPLed software in violation of the GPL.
You may not be a troll but you're definitely delusional.
Ripping apart all the freebie-seekers from the podium of OSS self-righteousness still doesn't validate the blatant lopsidedness and anti-competitive behavior of the reigning software giants.
I agree, there are lots of lazy snobs out there that feel that everything should be given to them on a silver platter without requiring any effort on their part. However, it is still a moral fact that the current laws and regulations favor people who already have enormous bank accounts, squash any newcomers with better ideas (or force them to be absorbed), and continue to feed wealth to companies who pattern themselves using the bully tactics of _real_ syndicates like Microsoft.
There is no way that you can possibly argue that the current laws foster progressive competition, positive diversification or a "share the wealth" attitude. It's all a pyramid scheme.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
I can remember when the term "pirate" was worn with a badge of honor by Commodore 64 warez-trading punks who thought they were part of some outlaw underground. Blame them for the phrase, not the copyright police.
The RIAA and other industries can sue away - in fact, I think we are regularly informed that they are doing so. Sure, they face obstacles - copyright infringment must be proven and some people may actually want to protect their privacy and may even have other substantive arguments to make. Nothing guarantees the RIAA or any other industry a clear win in a civil case - they might even lose some cases. That's the way it works - that's how it was designed to work.
Meanwhile, the fact that our and many other governments are using up taxpaper money to fight for the interests of the RIAA and a few other industries is seen by me as a waste of resources.
If you had this "infringement" problem, the FBI would just laugh and laugh at you - you'd have to investigate it yourself and sue for infringment - just like any other penniless schmuck. Lucky for them, the likes of the RIAA can just buy these subsidies via the legislature. For very little money the RIAA gets access to extravagant pork - the money you worked hard to pay in taxes.
Someone wondered why the topic is categorized under "Your Rights Online." It's categorized that way because it's your money, dingbats, that supports this nonsense. It's your money that subsidizes the law enforcement overkill over concerns peculiar to but a very few industries.
You know, murders do actually go unsolved while the cops dick around with bullshit like making the RIAA happy. I'd rather have more real law and order and leave the RIAA to its own legal remedies.
"They have? That's news to me. When I got my first CD player in 1985, the average price of a new CD in a record store was $12. In 2004, the average price of a new CD in a record store is $18. Now, granted there are bargain-basement $5.99 CDs these days, as well as sale-priced new releases at the $12 or $13 price point, but as a whole, CDs aren't cheaper today than they were nearly 20 years ago."
Per NPD MusicWatch, the average price of a new release has dropped to $13.42. That's the mathematical average, which means that some retail for more, and some for less, and geographical differences will apply. If the average price of a CD in your area really is $18, consider shopping on Amazon, or using an online service like iTunes, where an entire album can be had for $12 or so.
I also got my first CD player in 1985, and I remember CDs being $18 or so, but I probably lived in a more expensive part of town than you, figuratively speaking. Let's use your $12 number to save time. $12 in 1985 dollars is about $20 in 2004 dollars; if prices hadn't gone down, we'd be paying $20 per CD today.
As you know, when you spend money on a CD, some of it goes to the artist, some of it goes into a record company's bank account (if they're profitable), but most of it goes to somebody's salary, whether they work at the CD pressing plant, or they're behind the counter at the record store, or they're one of the many people in between. As the cost of living has risen in the past 19 years, so have salaries, and the cost of physical goods have risen accordingly. If what you really meant is that CD prices haven't dropped enough, remember that it could be worse -- look at what's happened to the price of automobiles during the same time.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Maybe where you live but copyright infringement is not a crime in my country (yet), it's a civil matter. Therefore "illegal" is not accurate, it's flat out wrong and it serves the purpose of making people fear sharing with their neighbour because they think they could go to jail. The correct term is "unlawful". For example, slander can be unlawful but it cannot be illegal. You can be sued for slander but you can't go to jail (how obsurd would that be?) Copyright infringement is the same.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Allright.
Fairlight has been around since C=64 days.
The earliest Class release I can recall is Quake (it even had it's own installer with chip-tunes built in).
Is UCF dead too? how about RiSCiSO?
The crap thing really is going to be that all good the no-cd cracks/patches will be gone.
I still buy games from the store. And to be honest, I always install the game, then go searching for a patch/cracktool so I can put my originals back in the box, and on the shelf.
I paid for Windows XP Professional, but got a keygen anyway so i'd still have my original box/key packed away safely. Call me wierd.
If you lose your Everquest registration key, is EA going to give you a replacement so you can install? hell no, you've got to go buy a new copy, or download a keygen...
I actively search the $10 and under bins at Best Buy/Brandsmart for games that I wanted to play but just felt they cost to much. Case in Point --> Enter the Matrix.
I bought ETM the day it came out. (The same day Reloaded came out in the Theatres). It cost me $50. 2 weeks later it was down to $39.99. 2 *MONTHS* later and it's a fucking $20 game!
The software piracy is driven by Price/Perfomance ratio of available titles. Most software today is expensive and bloated. It is so expensive that it looks like it's going to dwarf the hardware prices in a couple of years. This is nuts. Consider how much functionality does an average Joe uses in Word application. Also consider the price of a software package you use every day ( let's not talk about OSS alternatives)
a) OS
b) Productivity suite.
c) Good image and video editing tools ( if you own a digital (video) camera
d) Entertainment applications ( games etc.)
Most good software is unavailable for try-out session. God knows how much money I spent on video games during the last 14 years that were worthless . Now when hardware prices go down worldwide. It is time to start selling cheap software as well where cheap means affordable not only for US/European wages.
On the other hand, media piracy is driven not only by price, but also in availability. Kill Bill vol 2. will take a couple of months!!!!! to reach global audience. When first US DVDs would come out, the movie will, probably, just debut in cinemas across Russia for example. Looks like publishers and distributors are shooting themselfs in the foot this way. The other thing is the STUPID DVD region coding. I wish it would just go away and disappear. But it will not. This also applies to so many different restrictions that publishers place on music and video media. It's they, who feed the piracy fire with oil. The piracy is a direct result of not listening to consumers. If media companies would started selling individual mp3 tracks in 1998 for a few cents a pop instead of FUD and legal threats, most likely, you would never hear of Napster and such.
Sell people what they want for the price that they can pay, and they WILL buy it. And the whole "piracy" thing would just go away...
Why the hell do you think PC sales are so low, and so game companies are turning to consoles? Don't give me the "games were better in the olden days" spin, because we've got everything from Far Cry to Invisible War to SimCity 4 to Rollercoaster Tycoon 2 to...you get the picture.
I could go on and on about why PC sales are low, and I'll tell you what.. Piracy is the least of those problems. Let me just sum it up in a few quick points.
1) Many more consoles out there than there are computers THAT PEOPLE PLAY GAMES ON. Hence, a FAR bigger market. Again, this is a no-brainer.
2) Hardware compatibility problems are nill when it comes to developing a game for a console. You got *ONE* system to program the game on. I dont need to elaborate on this. Further, the worst support calls a company will get is 'My CD is scratched.'.
3) You can pirate the SHIT out of Xbox games. Put a mod-chip in, replace the HD with a fat 120G one, and start downloading your games, pal. You can even download save games (for the truly lazy amongst us). And after all this, guess what? They are still whipping the ass of the PC games vendor.
[ed. And by the way, I am a PC gamer.. I prefer the PC over the console anyway, but I'm also not an idiot, and very well aware of the market penetration that consoles have.]
There is absolutely, 100% nothing wrong with the government cracking down on this.
Thats right.. lets spend millions in dollars and hundreds of FBI man-hours to arrest some 15 year olds pirating Halo. Sounds like money well spent to me. And before you go off and say (like another poster did), "I hope a cop laughs at you for getting mugged, since its not as bad as being murdererd or rape." That is so retarted. You are comparing bodidly freaking harm to pirating a video game.
Finally, I must say that the financial loss to pirating can be completely argued. Its been said a hundred times by people who have pirated software that they wouldnt have spent the money on it ANYWAY.
But see, to find the *actual* financial loss would take research, and why would companies even bother with the actual figure even if they had it? Its in their best interest to throw up a big BILLION DOLLAR figure to get people like you to freak out, and the government to go into action with "our" money.
++Om
Ashcroft sets the priorities for the FBI.
If you are unaware of the state of enforcement of computer crimes against networks, you are ignorant. Here's an exercise left to the reader: run a network or even just a website. Antagonize a skript kiddie clan. Watch as they obliterate your net presence with bandwidth attacks. Contact the FBI. Watch them do nothing. Contrast with 1) being a big campaign contributer - watch them allocate resources to stupid, trivial shit.
The FBI can't investigate everything. It is investigating prostitution in New Orleans, peace groups, and warez doodz. And with what is left, it allocates to organized crime and terrorism. Yeah, they do more than one thing at a time, but they shouldn't spend any time on economically insignificant copywrite violations against politically connected corporations until they have done a much better job against the serious shit.
Sorry your attempt to burst the bubble was so lame. Try again?
I'm not especially anti-Bush. It's just that anyone with a grip on reality looks that way.
66% of all corperations do not pay taxes here in America according to Lou Dobbs.
If these multi national, multi million dollar corperations arent expected to pay up... why should those individuals making pennies be locked up for essentially doing the same thing?
They avoid paying taxes, yet use our tax dollars to lock up those who do not pay for their overpriced software.
If everyone at the table cared about the quality of life... the right things would be done.
Just look how insane all of this has become. The sentences for downloading mp3's are insane! How about software? movies? etc. We're talking about 0k-40k a year individuals here. People who simply can not afford the prices.
software/etc piracy "syndicates" that actually profit off warez/movies/watever were generally over seas. But now here in America... That same extreme level of wide acceptence of piracy has become the norm. The only cause i can see is that AMERICA has finally become apart of the 3rd world community in that our working class can not afford the products being sold.
Boston tea party folks... This stuff is NOTHING NEW to civilization. The RESULT is piracy, the problem comes from the top, not the bottom.
At the local shopping mall over here.. for a good 10 or more years they have been selling BOOTLEG Imported HK/ASIAN cinema on DVD and VHS. They sell out of a LEGIT rented booth at a MAJOR MALL.
At first the films had cheap ass vhs cases with photocopied covers. Now they have progressed to legitimate looking dvd's shrinkwrapped etc. They still look "off" but they're getting convincing.
These guys have operated for years and no one cares. I mean right in a MALL!!! They rent their store space!!! They're in a mall were sam goodie, radioshack,jc penny, sears, EB, kaybee, mcdonalds etc all are... BUT NO ONE seems to care about the copyright holders of those asian films.... that or no one has ratted these guys out yet.
America is starting to look like the china shops in china town, or the stores in china the country.
Why?
I can only assume that people are finding it harder and harder to make a living that maintains the standard of yesterday. We're quickly becoming a like the rest of the world that CANT AFFORD OUR AMERICAN PRODUCTS
Because the Bush Administration was installed and has a primary support base among religiously conservative and poorly-educated types. These people do not generally read Slashdot. As a result, a disproportionate number of people on Slashdot don't like Bush much.
There are a lot of people that worry that the country is going to the dogs, that immorality is running rampant, and that some good old-style religious family values will keep things together.
Once the Baby Boomers start dying off from old age, I'm guessing and hoping that things will be different.
May we never see th
I also got my first CD player in 1985, and I remember CDs being $18 or so, but I probably lived in a more expensive part of town than you, figuratively speaking. Let's use your $12 number to save time. $12 in 1985 dollars is about $20 in 2004 dollars; if prices hadn't gone down, we'd be paying $20 per CD today.
I understand the concept of inflation. But please remember the CD player that I got in 1985 sold for $260. It held one CD at a time, wasn't portable, didn't have a remote control and didn't have anti-skip shock protection. Today, CD players with those specs cost $20. Why? Improvements in manufacturing, reduction in the cost to produce CD players and the biggest reason: economies of scale.
For some of the same reasons, the CDs themselves also cost less to produce today than they did in 1985. The difference between 1985 and 2004 retail pricing of CDs is other record industry costs. In 1985, Michael Jackson, Mariah Carey, et. al. weren't getting huge guaranteed contracts for albums that don't sell. Record companies today are paying Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera big bucks up front for records that are supposed to earn enough money to pay for all the marketing costs that get poured into marginal acts like Creed.
The problem is that record companies only know how to sell you what you bought last time, so innovation has been completely eliminated. They force-fed us more clones of Britney Spears until people stopped buying those CDs. In their rush to find the next Avril Lavigne, they completely missed out on the concept of finding quality artists recording quality music, so Norah Jones sneaked her way to selling 18 million CDs with virtually no promotion by her record company.
CDs cost more today because record companies changed their business models. Instead of finding and developing lots of inexpensive new artists and allowing the market to decide what's a hit, record companies today insist on pushing the same crap they sold us last year until we stop buying it, and they spend a fortune in promotions to try to reverse the inevitable declines. When we stop buying stuff we're tired of, the industry blames "piracy" for their decline in sales. But the real reason we stopped buying music is because they stopped publishing music we wanted to buy. How else do you explain the success of Norah Jones and the soundtrack for O Brother Where Art Thou?
Its nice to see that copyright is starting to get enforced.
You may be surprised that I find the idea of copyright in the digital age outrageous.
My prediction though, is that as soon as copyright is actually enforced, society will shun it and abolish it.
The only reason Copyright is enjoying some public acceptance these days is because people don't believe it applies to them in practice. In fact, most of the copyright-defenders in Slashdot probably copy many of their software/music illegally with all sorts of self-justifying excuses - not seeing that everyone does this, because copyright is simply wrong.
Refutation follows.
The above idea is presented as if it's prima facie absurd, without bothering to explain why it might be absurd, Since no justifications or reasons are supplied, we must set this argument aside. Next.
"What's good for the goose...," etc., etc. People who indulge in histrionics ("piracy", indeed) to make their point should expect to receive the same in return. It's certainly not the fairest way to conduct a meaningful, enlightening debate. But I don't see intellectual property adherents abandoning their rhetoric any time soon, so we're kinda stuck here. Next.
Inaccurate. Retail price of CDs has remained almost flat for the last twenty or so years (unless you're talking in Constant Dollars, in which case the price has fallen). However, manufacturing costs over the same time period have fallen precipitously (today, less than USD$1.00 per CD, silkscreened, in a jewel case with liner). Traditionally, this means a corresponding reduction in consumer pricing. This hasn't happened in the music space. No justification for this has been presented. Did everything else suddenly get more expensive?
Since the music labels refuse to afford consumers the cost benefits of advancing technology, the consumers have opted to take matters into their own hands. See Smith, Adam; and Hand, Invisible.
The first problem with this is that it is a tautology, and therefore invalid. The copying would be legal had copyright terms not been extended, and extended again, and extended yet again.
The second problem is that no one is claiming that long copyright terms are "driving" unsanctioned copying. It has long been self-evident that the copying is being driven by a marketplace demand that has yet to be met by the record labels. People wanted their music in a compact, easily-moved, unencumbered form that lent itself well to external data processing and manipulation (e.g. build a "jukebox" on your own laptop). Since the labels didn't move first on this, the marketplace did. Now the labels find themselves fighting the First Mover's Advantage. If they wanted to define the marketplace, they should have moved earlier.
The statements are juxtaposed to suggest they are related. This is a false association. Music downloads can be "free advertising" and still be worth paying for (in higher-resolution format), or drive the sales of something else.
Also, consider the converse: Suppose I downloaded and saved every Web banner ad I saw, then made them available on a P2P server for people to download for anthropological study, or just to laugh at. Ads are most definitely provided for free, and are meant to be viewed by the widest audience possible. Yet I would still be smacked down for copyright infringement. So the idea of copyright existing primarily to protect a revenue stream doesn't hol
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
You make some excellent points and you are absolutely correct that CD players and CDs are marketed in radically different fashions. Specifically, CD players are now commodities. The marketing spend for CDs is perhaps at its highest point ever.
Naturally the record companies say that piracy is 100% to blame for the decline in sales over the past few years. Slashdotters will quickly point out that it's everything but piracy; they also have some good points but I think many of us are "ignoring the elephant" a little too much. Both extreme viewpoints are self-serving; it allows the record companies to proceed with suing pirates with little remorse, and it allows Slashdotters to "share" all the music they can get their hands on without losing any sleep.
In the middle are the various research and analyst firms who specialize in analyzing markets. Several firms which I trust state that piracy is absolutely, definitely, part of the problem, but not the entire problem. The economy and competition from other sources of entertainment (such as the rise of the DVD market) are often cited by analysts as other principle factors.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
"Now, I will admit that at the same time a sizable (but, I wouldn't say "most") percentage of pirated works are recent releases. There's people pirating just about anything under the sun, software wise, since the 80s."
r Cell2: Pandora Tomorrow [to...
l Bill Volume 2 SVCD TS-TCR CD3. ..i ch{German...i sted - Der erste Versuch by bit-t...
really?
Let's look at the current most download bittorrents shall we? (Source search.suprnova.org)
Games:
Hitman Contracts - Xbox USA Full DVD...
Knights of the Temple DEViANCE
HITMAN CONTRACS USA DVD(www.bCGp.net...
BREED-DEViANCE
Battlefield Vietnam 3CDs NeW TrAcKeR
UNREAL TOURNAMENT 2004 DVD-DEViANCE
Splinter Cell pandora tomorrow (4CDs...
BREED-DEViANCE_[bt-gm]_[EFnet]
Splinte
Fallout Tactics
GTA - Vice City
Oooh, yeah, look at all those ancient games there... all out of copyright there.
What about movies then?
Kill Bill Vol 2 DivX [New TrackeR]
Kill Bill Volume 2 SVCD TS-TCR CD1
Kill Bill Volume 2 SVCD TS-TCR CD2
Partyalarm-Finger.weg.von.meiner.Toc...
Kil
KiLL BiLL VoLuMe 2 TS TCR JB87
The Punisher(telesync)SWS
Kill Bill Vol 2 PROPER SVCD TELESYNC...
Kill.Bill.Volume.1.UNCUT.2003.DVDRip
Big.Fish.DVDR-DzN
Das.Urteil-Jeder.ist.käufl
Big.Fish.2003.DVDRip.XviD-DCN (AC3 a...
Scary.Movie.3.2003.DVDrip.XViD-ALLiA...
Tw
The Punisher VCD-Cam
The Passion Of The Christ [NeW TrAcK...
Oooh, man, That Kill Bill Vol 2 must be out of copyright surely?
Come on, you can't be serious in doubting that the majority of copied works are BRAND NEW. That's why people copy them, they want to see the LATEST things without paying for them.
I'm all for the old, 'lost games' and such being able to be downloaded... I mean, really, the companies have got their money from them by now surely... but that's such a small portion of what is downloaded, I don't think that it bothers the companies much.(A bit yes, as they wouldn't shut down ROM sites if it didn't)
Indeed we should, because that's what it is - an infringment. Or do you refer to parking infringments as "parking theft" ?
I don't believe in the record companies emotively abusing the word "theft," but I do believe in emotively abusing words like "information," "sharing," and "Copyright Enforcement Militia."
"Copyright Enforcement Cartel" would probably be a better term.
I believe that piracy is driven by "overpriced CDs" even though CDs have dropped in price over the years.
How much they've dropped is irrelevant. CDs are clearly overpriced, even if you ignore the price-fixing.
I believe that piracy is driven by overly long copyright duration, even though most pirated works are recent releases.
Grossly over-extended copyright terms are really a separate issue, but even in themselves provide sufficient justification for copyright infringment, in the interests of preserving culturally significant materials (and regardless of the quality of Britney's material, it *is* culturally significant).
I believe that illegitimately downloading music is giving the author "free advertising". I don't buy any of the music I download, of course--but lots of other people probably do.
Except there's pretty strong evidence that all these people "pirating" *do* buy CDs.
I believe that selling CDs is not a business model, but giving away things for free on the internet is.
Selling CDs *is* a business model, it's just that selling CDs at obscene profit margins is a business model with a fairly short future.
I believe in capitalism but only support music business models which involve giving away the fruits of ones labor for free.
Who doesn't support the business model of on-line selling ? Who doesn't support the business model of live concerts ?
I believe that copying someone elses music, and redistributing it to my 1,000,000 "best friends" on the internet is sharing. Music is made for sharing. It's my right.
Well, music that isn't shared is fairly meaningless (it may as well not exist, really).
I believe that record companies cracking down on piracy is "greed", but a mob demanding free entertainment is not.
"Reasonably priced" != "free".
I believe that it's not really "piracy" unless you charge money for it, because, receiving money is wrong, but taking a free ride is fine.
Profiting from someone else's work is morally and ethically wrong. Listening to music without paying for it is, at worst, morally and ethically neutral.
I believe that disallowing copying and redistributing music over Napster is the same as humming my favourite song in public. Because when I hum my favourite song in public, everyone likes it so much that they run home, get out their tape recorders and once they've got a recording of it, they aren't interested in hearing the original any more.
I challenge you to explain how having the aural equivalent of a photographic memory is any different to listening to "pirated" music.
I believe that when illegal behaviour destroys a business, it's "free enterprise at work".
The law is not always right.
What I find amusing is that the pirates seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between creative activity and brainless copying.
What brings you to that conclusion ?
Since a lot of the people here are GPL/OSS advocates: the "OSS way" applied to this domain is to learn how to play an instrument. Or how to sing or whatever. Then get together with a bunch of other people who can also play music, and make some noise.
No, it isn't. Consumers of GPL and/or OS software do not have an obligation to produce more or make an
This is a sad day, marking a grim landmark on the recent hell-bent March Towards Fascism, where Tax Dodging Media Corporations are protected by the police we keep employed, and only rich people are allowed to use software and communication tools. Everyone else should be sent to work houses and punished for being poor.
So a tip of the hat to you guys; You will be both missed and remembered fondly. The days of the digital Pirate are slipping away. .
"If You Like This Program, We Encourage You To GO OUT AND BUY IT!
Hm.
-FL
I'm over 40, so I'm completely lost anyway.
One thing I cannot fathom is the branding phenomenon. My son, 13, had a couple of hundred dollars to spend recently and he decided to spend it on a pair of sneakers that cost $150!
Which is the worst part:
A) They probably won't fit him in 6 months
B) He can't wear them outdoors, because they are "indoor" shoes
C) Kids are now scammed into buying expensive crap due to peer pressure or perceived "coolness"
Coolhunters are evil.
2. ..(not in my 20's anymore) ...
4. The number of artists creating music that I enjoy has decreased significantly.
These two may be causally linked.
I think when a person is in school or other situations where they're surrounded by similar people there's more pressure to be tapped into cool music, or any kind of music, but once you're in real life around a huge diversity of people all with different tastes in pretty much everything, the pressure just dissolves.
There's plenty of great new music out there, but I think I myself will never buy a music album (I tried out a couple music clubs years back, but came out of it with way too much crap). Music recordings are nice, but not really worth money to me. Other than the twenty minute commute I don't really have places and time to consume it. I'm not going to sit around in my spare time listening to music, it just doesn't engage enough senses. I'd rather be watching a movie or playing video games or reading or working on creative projects of my own and not be distracted by music (if it's good, it's distracting, if it's bad, why the hell listen to it, and why do anything for fun that needs distracting from). That's just me though...
(2) See point 1.
(3) Price is only brought forth as an argument by people who did not think things through. The fundamenal cause is the fact that the whole process of "manufacturing" and "distribution" and "ownership" of information is a lie. Information is not an object that can have an "owner" and thus is not subject to a simplistic world-view concocted by one Adam Smith, otherwise known as capitalism.
(4) The whole idea of copyright is sheer lunacy to begin with. Discussing its length is like arguing over the type of brush you would use to paint the Moon green next Tuesday while standing on your porch. The fact that it is accepted as a de-facto "wisdom" is truly sad and depressing.
(5) Yes. And no, the author has no "right" to be selling "his" music. The only "right" he has is to perform the music he (or others) composed. If he can manage to get people to come hear it and they agree to pay at the gate, there is his source of income. If he is not good enough for that, he should get a day job. I will never get tired of saying that "art" is defined as a willingess to express ones thoughts and feelings in a way that others find it inspiring and moving. The very expression is its own justification and reward. It is not a "job", never you mind "industry". Art can be sponsored if it is particularly good and thus freeing the artist to pursue her creative urges. But it is not a business.
(6) Many "artists" (I use the term loosely since you seem to include all sorts of talentless commercial-jingle hacks in this) were mislead into believing that "art" is a career. That one can make a killing on it. Unfortunately its a lie designed by people who were in the business of marketing and distribution of their works. For a time it worked and was technically feasible. Not any more. Digital age has finally exposed the fundamental fallacy of "art as business" ideology.
(7) Neither one is a "business" model. Although one can make money around services based on free things, it is up to that person's business talents and other external conditions. Free stuff on the net is called Information. Information, due to its properties, is fundamentally not capable of being "owned" by anyone.
(8) Live performance and other equivalent labour can be monetarilly rewarded by the attending audience. Having the performance recorded once and then getting paid million times by having someone elses (fully paid for) equipment perform in your place, based on information embedded in a piece of plastic, is a form of fraud. Never you mind claiming that said piece of plastic is yours to control even though the sucker paid for it.
(9) You can easilly control access to live performances and thus ensure payment. You can sell t-shirts and all sorts of other stuff leveraging your name recognition. You can use your name recognition for advertising purposes. Thats capitalism. "selling" information that cannot be "sold" is a just con-artistry.
(10) You better believe it. Dissemination of information is not only my right, it is one of the most fundamental and un-alienable rights that trump most other gibberish that passes for "rights" and "laws" these days. Information = thought. And if you think that I will give up my ability to freely exchange thoughts and ideas so that a bunch if greed monkeys can get rich, you got another thing coming. While I understand that "capitalist" mentality is that "making profit" takes precedence over everything else in the universe, luckilly most of us do not subscribe to this lunacy.
(11) Noone can demand free enterntaiment. The consequence of information being not a "thing" that can be "owned" is that enterntaiment over digital media in exchange for payment is not viable. That is the logical downside of sticking to one's principles. Fortunately, the need for
That's MagnaTune.com. It is good.
This is not a troll, but the truth
Actually its mostly braindead rubbish.
(1) I don't personally believe in copying CDs illegally-- but I think we should avoid using unkind words like "piracy" to describe those that do -- instead, we should describe it as an "infringement", much like a parking infringement.
Its not that its "unkind", its that its semantically wrong, and only someone with a bad education (or immoral intent) would use it to twist the meaning, possibly with the intent to deceive. Piracy is robbery on the high seas, and that is not some 17th century nonsense with Johnny Depp, this is a fact - happening TODAY not only can things be really stolen, but sailors can loose their lives (and have). These widows probably don't take kindly to the term piracy being used for something as irrelevant as downloading of music from the internet. Especially since a study from Harward business school proves that it doesn't really harm sales.
Downloading music from the internet is (if you don't have a license) copyright INFRINGEMENT, it is not stealing. Stealing requires (by law) that someone is deprived of something physical. If someone downloads a track with Madonna, some of her dollars doesn't suddenly go missing - nor do they return if said mp3 is deleted. That is why it is infringement, not theft. If you take someones car they have lost the car and can't use it. Nothing needs be lost by the download of a song (still currently illegal though)
(2) I don't believe in the record companies emotively abusing the word "theft,"...
Well I do. They clearly do that to try and manipulate the politicians and people who are not burdened with intelligence.
(3) I believe that piracy is driven by "overpriced CDs" even though CDs have dropped in price over the years.
Piracy is robbery on the seas, downloading music is called copyright infringement.
They are vastly overpriced, presumably to finance a basically corrupt and immoral business model, and that may motivate some. Though the was majority of people use download like they use the radio, they listen to something which is good enough to pass the time but which really isn't good enough to buy (though as the study shows if something of quality comes along people do go out and buy it)
(4) I believe that piracy is driven by overly long copyright duration, even though most pirated works are recent releases.
Piracy is robbery on the seas, downloading music is called copyright infringement. The copyright duration is of course vastly too long , not only should it only last for a few years, but it shouldn't be transferable and certainly not last beyond someones lifetime, however it is very doubtful this has any influence on the copyright infringement as whole, though some few may do it for political reasons, which is silly since it has no demonstrable effect.
(5) I believe that illegitimately downloading music is giving the author "free advertising".
Well, that's what intelligent people believe, especially after the study from Business Hardward School proved has no effect.
I don't buy any of the music I download, of course --but lots of other people probably do.
I don't download music. However studies show that others do, infact they are making millions from it.
And now I've already spent and hour writing this, time I'll never get back, and i doubt you'll wish to enlighten yourself, especially considering the nonsense in most of the rest of the post, i shall end it here then.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I do think that you have a point about the ridiculous length of copyright's term. However, these arguments are totally inconsequential to the topic at hand. Regardless of the length of copyright, be it 190 years or 15 years, people simply aren't pirating material this old. What is that term that the warez people use again? Damn I can't think of it. Oh yeah, it's "0-day." The entire "prestige" of groups in the warez scene is based upon their ability to be the first group to release something. A shorter term of copyright would do nothing to change these people's status as pirates.
-Matt
Duke '05
Huh? In what way? What are you talking about?
I'll concede that it's worth compromising free speech...
Personally, I'm not sure anything is worth compromising free speech. I can understand the laws in Germany that prohibit Nazi paraphenelia or propaganda, but even in that case my mind kinda hits a wall. The cultural need for such regulation seems apparent enough, but it can't be done without cramping something vital. I think freedom of speech as a civic principal has a special relation to the other tenents of democracy. It is as Samuel Johnson (IIRC) said of courage: it's the one virtue that facilitates all the others.
I'm not grasping an unabiguous logic here. In what way does noting that Bob Dylan wrote "Just Like a Woman" infringe upon the free speech of everyone who isn't Bob Dylan? What does any of that have to do with putting mp3s on a p2p network? Surely you aren't claiming that you're politically oppressed by David Geffen and the like are you?
But those rights should only be short term. The founding fathers stated something like 14 years with a one-time 14 year extension.
That sounds alright. But why is this a topic of discussion? Are the mp3s on Gnutella a product of civil disobediance?
Things happen *much* faster now, so those terms should be shorter, not longer.
How do we measure our current "speed" relative to that of the 18th Century so as to come up with a theoretically proper expiration date on copyrights?
When they stop infringing my rights, I'll start caring about theirs.
What rights of yours are "they" infringing? If you sincerely believe yourself to be engaged in a struggle for "rights" then how will "not caring" about their rights ever advance your cause? If they do let up on the downward pressure they are apparently exerting on your life will you respond in kind? If so, what rights of theirs will you begin to care about?
This debate has been hashed and rehashed on /. for years now without any forward movement towards a fresh, positive resolution. That may be because there isn't one to be found. With that in mind I would like to suggest that asking the author of a work for permission to trade something on a p2p network seems like a fair guiding principal. It reflects (or at least harmonizes with) the dictates of respect that most of us express and rely upon in our daily lives.
Really, do you think sniffing traffic and breaking into "warez" machines played an integral role in these busts? I doubt it.
The real problem (or the real solution depending on your point of view) is that warez groups are nothing without an audience. They are also nothing without new crackers, suppliers, distribution sites, hangers-on...
Its a problem with a social solution primarily and a technological solution secondarily. As what good is a VPN network of warez creation and distribution if you can still have one weak link, one infiltration, one "Donnie Brasco" to blow your whole house of cards down.
Encryption and authentication and access control are terrific for protecting your assets, only when you have a strong legal system to take over when there is a breach of authority/conduct.
And while I certainly would not put people who pirate software in the same criminal class as those who manufacture and distribute drugs, run prostitution rings, or fraudulently manage mutual funds... what they are doing is against the law in most of the world -- and they are organized.
http://windows.scares.us
...PBS stations all over the country have formed a viable business model on the assumption that the majority of viewers would be free-riders.
...If music isn't meant to be heard and shared -- to form a common cultural bond and experience
I noticed that you are approaching a point of view that I hold for some time now, alas without articulating it. Note that all of these answers and many, many, more solutions to the current legal and mental contortions introduced by the "Software Industry", sattelite TV broadcasts, etc. can be provided with a simple all-encompassing approach: information is not an object that can be "owned" and thus is not subject to the Capitalist model.
Information simply does not possess required physical attributes to be property. And as such it cannot be sold or bought. In this case the laws of Nature clash with laws of Capitalism. Unfortunately Adam Smith's model is unbending and unyelding as many rigid and simplistic philosophical systems developed in 19th century, with insufficient foresight. As some were short on understanding of the human nature (Marx), some others seem to fall apart when confronted with laws of physics.
Treating information as if it could be commercial property leads to all sorts of amusing perversions of law and to comical technologies, all designed to hide the very lie at their core. Only when our society finally understands this fundamental problem and abandons these misguided attempts will we be rid of this nonsense and associated political efforts to control the uncontrollable.
I might be dating myself here but I remember the days in the mid- to late '80s of dial-up BBSes (bulletin board systems). Since there was no Internet at the time the BBS was the place for people to build communities online. Some large ones had racks of modems and phone lines coming in. But many were small boards with maybe four lines at the most.
As you might expect there were dating boards, just plain social boards, and of course porn boards. But the most exclusive ones were the pirate BBSes--also known as "elite" boards. You had to know a current member or the sysop to get access. And then you had to contribute by uploading software that you might have access to.
In these early days it seemed like many software developers used elite BBSes as free beta test groups. Those who downloaded the software (often taking hours even on the superfast Telebits and USRs) would test it and post any bugs, feature-requests, etc. There was even a super-elite board that I heard about based in Alaska where only the big name developers were allowed.
It was from that experience years ago where I think that some software piracy can/should be acceptable. What high school student can afford the $650 for Photoshop? But a pirated copy can train this student for work in the future, and the company that s/he will work for will provide a legitimate copy. Businesses is where most developers (with the exception of games obviously) make their money.
It's been part of the law for ages. Take patent infringment for example. That is theft of an idea.
Theft doesn't require something physical.
No. You cannot. Simply redefining word "theft" to account for one's greedy attempt at profiting from something that is fundamentally not subject to the capitalist model does not make it real theft. Theft can only occur if a physical object is taken from you and as a result you are no longer in possesion of it. Thats it. No fudging, no but-ifs, no "alternate, modern interpretations".
Patents, copyrights and associated contortions and perversions of law are there because the "Intellectual Property" con-artists are adept at twisting the obvious so that the politicians and dumbfounded public go along with the scam. At society's expense naturally.
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Taken from The Letters of Thomas Jefferson: 1743-1826 NO PATENTS ON IDEAS
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
What rights of yours are "they" infringing?
Every time the government grants a copy right or patent to someone, it denies everyone else their right to do the same thing. Within reason, I believe that this is an appropriate compromise of our freedoms as AMERICANS. I don't mean to sound arrogant about what I consider my rights as an American to be; I'm simply restating the values that were drilled into my head as a part of a Federally regulated public school curriculum. Freedom to do *anything* is the default. It's where one persons's freedom conflicts with another person's that the law is supposed to set limits.
If you sincerely believe yourself to be engaged in a struggle for "rights" then how will "not caring" about their rights ever advance your cause?
While I generally believe in the tenet that two wrongs don't make a right, I feel that a contract has been breeched. They haven't played by the rules, they've bought new ones and I don't accept them. Most people I've talked to about this agree that copy right terms, silly patents, and the ability of big business to use the government against the consumer have gotten way out of hand. Democracy? Free enterprise? Oligopoly is more like it.
If they do let up on the downward pressure they are apparently exerting on your life will you respond in kind?
My attitude would be much different. FWIW my opinions used to be very capitalistic. I used to have tremendous respect for big companies and the people who created and ran them. It's only recently that I've found myself on the other side of the fence, and I'm quite sure that the fence has moved more than I have.
Every one of your refutations is fundamentally asinine. Demonstration follows.
Irrelevant. This is a rather brilliant quip of sarcasm which you seem unwilling to comprehend. You see, it is quite common for people to construct meaningless arguments about semantics (which, you yourself are guilty of in your post), in order to further an opinion that they cannot enforce with actual logical argument (I'm not discussing whether such a position is defensible, just that the person utilizing the tactic lacks the ability for cogent debate). What term you use to describe the subject is irrelevant in the discussion of the relative morality of the subject matter, so long as what is meant by the term is understood. Quibbling over the term is merely rhetoric, meant to manipulate the audience to feel sympathy for the author.
The figures of this have been discussed elsewhere. I will not repeat them, as the truth of this statement is irrelevant. The cost of discretionary goods does not justify their unlawful appropriation. You cannot make a moral argument that consists merely of:
1. CDs cost more than I am willing to pay for them
2. ???
------------
Conclusion: I am morally justified in ignoring the law and making copies of music that I do not have the legal rights to copy.
A moral argument must, at a minimum, contain: a factual premise, a moral premise, and a conclusion that falls naturally and logically from the premises. There is no moral premise in the argument that CDs cost too much, therefore I am entitled to use whatever means that I please to obtain the music. Now, the only moral premise I can see that would fit this is: I am morally obliged to use whatever means I wish to obtain things that I do not require for survival (or something along that line). I find it hard to believe that anyone would find this moral premise acceptable, therefore they disguise their moral justifications with a baseless, question begging
One of the things about this that really irks me is the fact there are so many unsolved violent crimes in the world yet these governments spend so much time and resources on these "white collar" crimes. For example, about 530 am one morning at a store I was working at a man came in with pantyhose on his head and robbed the store at gunpoint. It took 40 minutes for any police to show up. They took a statement from me and two customers that were in the store. They also grabbed the tape of the robbery. That's the last I ever heard about this. I mean where was an enforcement of the law there? What kind of manpower did they devote into making my city a better place to live and getting that guy off the streets? Then a few months ago i was sitting at a red light had a sunburn and reached down to fix the sandles I was wearing. There was a slight grade to the road and my manual car rolled back and bumped the lady in a suv behind me. Of course, she calls the cops.... guess what there were 5 police cruisers there within 5 minutes. They inspected her bumper and couldn't even find a scratch. Doesn't that seem strange that I could get robbed at gunpoint and it takes 40 minutes for a cop to show up. Then I bump some lady's bumper and 5 cops can show up in a minimal amount of time? Gotta love the society we live in these days.... /end rant
The solution to the copyright laws and the intellectual property cartels is simple: Vote. Not just in the major elections, but all the time.
That dick that wants to be your county judge just might springboard his career off your apathy and be the next circuit court justice siding with whoever pays him off.
Fucking care people. Kick people out who take payola. VOTE VOTE VOTE
Anonymity costs bandwidth. So you have to be patient. Not *that* big problem, especially with growing broadband availability.
Poisoning attacks should have a technical solution.
Regarding lawsuit, I want to see the EFF/Amnesty Intl./other organizations all in arms after the goons bust somebody who runs a Freenet node aimed solely for injecting "banned" information for Chinese dissidents.
Strange, so you're calling an addiction 'freedom'?
;-)
Mind you, I'm from the NL, so I'm used to a pretty liberal (as in free, not as in left-wing) view to drugs, but then again, we divide drugs into 2 categories:
1. Soft drugs, which are not or marginally harmful and not or marginally addiction inducing.
2. Hard drugs, which are harmful and make you addicted fast.
So I don't mind per se about selling 'soft drugs', but I do mind selling any drugs to children and I do care about selling hard drugs. Because you can ask yourself if children are ready to consiously decide whether they want to use drugs and when you use hard drugs, then you lose all your freedom. The only thing that matters then is getting your next shot.
Then again, a lot of people learn to live with their hard drugs addiction. We call them 'smokers'