Slashdot Mirror
Independent Developers Fight Piracy & Lose
An anonymous reader writes "The author of the Echelon decided to take his fight against software piracy to the next level and then threw in the towel. After someone began posting new serial numbers on a well known hacking site, the author took matters into his own hands. With version 1.0, entering a hacked serial number causes the software deleted the user's Home directory. Yes, you read it right, the software completely erases it (aka rm -rf ~). A variety of people have voiced some some strong opinions on this. While some argue that piracy is good for established companies, a few large companies are battling piracy and having limited success. Small, independent developers, however, are recognising this is a serious problem and are generally stumped by what to do about it."
- Delete Perl
- Stop Apache, Samba, & nfsd and remove their startup scripts.
- Delete X
- Delete ftp, grep, ssh, or other important programs.
The key is to piss off the user. Each of these things are replaceable, but a PITA.That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Imagine the developers face when he realizes that he forgot a ! in his if statement, while testing that piece of code.
Instead of deleting the files, they should encrypt the files.
:-)))))))
The decryption key will be provided when the product is registered.
-Mike
Deleting a user's home directory is a bad idea. It's not portable. How about those poor folks running Windows 9x. They don't have proper home directories. Even the ones in WinXP are half-baked. You'd have to build in a routine that'll erase the C:\ drive for those poor saps.
First, at least he didn't start emailing parts of the user's mailspool to address book entries!
I always thought it was kind of ironic when the small people back the groups like SPA / BSA. Those "industry" groups represent those who fund them, and AFAIK will do nothing for the little guy. They are funded by the big players.
There have been a few other similiar cases. I believe one of the popular Windows CD recording packages would burn garbage CDs if you entered the wrong serial number, or entered one of the popular serial numbers found on google.
Southeastern Virginia REPRESENT!
I too have been stung by rampant piracy, however I would never do what these authors did for fear of the potential legal and ethical problems it could cause to knowingly sabotage someone's system. In my case the software in question is Net Weasel, a small HTML editor that has had millions of downloads, has several thousand active users bugging me for support and zero registrations (that's right, not a single person willing to pony up any money). Yet people still email me claiming to have a legitimate copy and demanding that I fix bugs or release a new version. As it happens I do have an updated version I use myself and I'm working on a 2.0, but until I come up with a way to stop people from writing cracks its just not worth my time to release. I'm already compressing and encrypting the executable, there's a point when the copy protection gets to be a bigger project then the application itself.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
I'd love to read his license agreement.
If anyone lost any critical data due to this 'feature', there could be serious consequences. I'm not sure if rm -rf ~ on OSX makes the files unrecoverable, but the author ought to be liable to pay to recover the data.
In fact, simply writing the software may have been illegal.
If someone steals some CDs from you, you don't have the right to burn their house down.
And, as a matter of fact the software in question may have been violating the GPL. It was basically a front-end to FFMPEG, which is GPL'd, and it may have come bundled with it.
So basically the guy wrote an easy to use front end to some free software, and then trashed people's work when he stopped getting money from it.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Echelon - Redifining the Meaning of BOFH (or perhaps BDFH?)
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
I'm a professional software developer myself and while the software I work on isn't piracy prone, I'd never go this far.
Disable your own software, do bad encodes, draw goatse/tubgirl images on the encodings, but dont, DONT mess with files that doesn't belong to your program.
This is just plain immature, not to mention very wrong.
And yes, it seems like the author already removed it, but putting it there in the first place is bad.
I've read that adding timebombs to commercial binaries was potentially illegal. Wouldn't willful destruction of property (rm -rf ~) be even worse as victims would have an easier claim for damages?
I have some mixed feelings about piracy. I believe that, at the core, software piracy is morally reprehensible (sorry about using the term piracy for those of you that quibble about that, but it is the term used in the summary).
As a software developer, I feel that I ought to get paid for the work I do. I do work for a company that pays me to develop, so it's really their responsibility to make sure their software isn't pirated (if they want to protect their business).
Nevertheless, I feel that piracy can be benefically to any company, regardless of size. I think that it may even help smaller companies more than larger companies, because piracy may be the vehicle in which a particual software package becomes very popular. However, one has to realize that 100% of software can't be pirated, otherwise nobody would develop anything meaningful (excepting the free software movement, but that's something pretty special [and I do wholeheartedly support it, even with LOC when I can]--I am speaking in a manner of business). Like most things in economics, it probably requires the right critical mass (you need to have the right number/ratio of people buying your software to make you profitable, but you need to have a certian number/ratio of people pirating it to make it popular).
I never think that software should ever use measures that destroy your property (digital or otherwise) as a means to prevent piracy. I am glad that the author of the software mentioned above took out the folder deleting technique--I cannot believe he did that in the first place.
The one point this guy makes is that piracy does hurt the small niche programmer.
I have always been amazed that the large companies probably get a big benefit from releasing their software into world... people learn to use and depend on it... and eventually as the rep gets better, then sales improved.
However, I have no doubt that piracy has really hurt programmers like this guy. He reports a 30% decrease in sells. I can understand why he is so desperate.
Do two wrongs make a right?
If you know a kid is going to steal a coke, is it okay to put poision in that coke?
I don't know what is morally right or wrong, but I can understand why this guy is so worried.
AlexTheBeast
I was impressed. I was maybe 16, and I wasn't necessarily using keygens because I hated companies or wanted to be malignant, I just had no money. This was the first program that had been able to detect a keygen'd serial. So, I actually bought a license for bpftp... (it was cheap anyway).
Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but I had to hand it to 'em. It's a respect thing, I guess.
Or maybe it was just adolescent "logic" running through my head. Nowadays it seems kind of dumb. Oh well, thank god I don't use windows anymore.
If the author of the software had simply deleted the software itself, or disabled it in some way, this could be acceptable, but deleting a user's home directory goes WAAAAY over the line.
A good general guideline for ethical behavior in CS is theACM Code of ethics. This violates several points, including:
1.2 Avoid harm to others.
1.3 Be honest and trustworthy.
1.7 Respect the privacy of others.
(1.2 is the most applicable here, I think)
I'm a big supporter of free software, and am totally against software piracy. A contradiction? No SIR!
Free software depends on adherence by users to an agreement with the developers not to illegally use the software in a proprietary manner. If we expect people to abide by free software licenses, we have to abide by commercial software licenses too.
In my opinion, the only thing he did wrong was to not put a clause into his license that when the user clicks on it specifically authorizes the code to delete the home directory if it chooses to.
Stop stealing music, software, etc. while at the same time expecting free software to remain free. It's hypocrisy.
No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
I can guess how the majority of this discussion will go, so I just have one question. Why do people always try to apply the ideas of OSS to commercial software? It's like people get so used to being able to download anything they want for free that they for some reason take that set of principles and apply it to software they weren't given permission to download without paying for. That's completely the opposite of the free spirit of OSS, which is that someone is purposely giving away their effort of their own volition, and you can contribute back to it for the good of the community. Pirating doesn't contribute anything except lost sales for the people who make a living and feed their families. It's not free advertising, it's not try-before-you-buy (that's what demos are for), it is nothing more than people not wanting to pay for something. Same thing with MP3 piracy, movie piracy, etc.
No matter if they killed your dog first, if you kill theirs back in revenge you'll just as culpable as they are.
On the other hand, I can understand the difficult situation of small companies defending theirselves (we've also had to deal with similar situations lately).
I just don't accept this course of action. It just doesn't make him any different. Acting like this just proves his ignorance and inability to come up with a suitable defense (has not to be perfect, just enough to generate some reasonable income).
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
This may be a troll, but I'll bite. Just because something is in writing, doesn't mean it's legit or legal! I could put a clause in my EULA saying "If you read this, I can take all your money and all your children's money", but that doesn't make it legal or enforceable.
- Sometimes you're the pidgeon, sometimes you're the statue.
No, that is not true. A license cannot violate the laws of your country, and in the U.S. a license cannot take away any of your constitutional rights.
A provision in a license does not give someone superpowers over you. The only remedy legally available to software distributors/makers/developers that have users who are breaking the terms of the license is: termination of the license. There is no way to legally destroy files on a user's machine no matter what they have done to you.
-Jem
Spending time trying to convert them into customers is completely wasted. Stop them from using your program with a perfect protection scheme, and all they'll do is use a different program.
Do it in a rediculous manner like this joker, and all you're going to do is drive away your legitimate customers. I wouldn't pay for this thing in a million years. Who knows what crap this thing could pull in the future? All it takes is one bug, and suddenly it thinks legit users are pirates...
This stunt he pulled has caused far more loss of sales for him than any software piracy.
Offer the codes for free. This way you get out of the extortion issue.
However, in order to get the code, the person in question must prove their own identity... Opening themselves to criminal and civil charges.
I like that.
InThane
Okay, so the person didn't have permission to use the software. I can certainly understand the urge to do something like this.
However, consider the consequences. The publisher could get sued. Sure, he probably will (might?) win, but it costs money to defend. Oops, there goes more profit. The publisher loses goodwill (hard to define-but not all publicity is good publicity....). Oh, and maybe the publisher gets hacked/cracked by someone he has pissed off (people pirating software may not have the strongest morals/ethics/logic but some may be good at computers). Oops. There goes more profit.
In short, I see a lot of downside and little upside. And I sure as heck wouldn't want to use a product as a LEGITIMATE user if I knew it was designed to screw up my system (even if only for illegitimate users).
What ever happened to just not working when a bad S/N is entered? Not producing garbage output or destroying files, but just not working. If you're going to take the approach of pissing off the user, where's the justification in vandalizing the system to do it? Unless the programmer is trying to invite up-close-and-personal criticism.
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Totally illegal to set any sort of mechanical traps like that, BUT, there's a nifty loophole, it's called "rottweiler". Totally legal and effective in most cases.
Well, I just took a look at Net Weasel. It looks to me as if you've made a few fairly basic mistakes from the marketing perspective, so let me try and come up with some helpful comments as to why you're not getting the response you're looking for.
...if I've missed some compelling must-have functionality your program offers, then your web site needs drastic improvement.
1. Firstly, as far as I can tell your product is an HTML editor with no CSS support. Well, these days that's like trying to sell a graphics editor that doesn't do PNG, or an e-mail program that doesn't handle attachments. Even people who don't want to do their entire site design in CSS still want to be able to do the neat stuff you can only do with CSS.
2. Related to the above, HTML standards have changed a bit in the last 5 years, and you haven't kept up to date by the looks of things. Not valid XHTML, no DTD statement, and so on.
3. You've chosen a field where there is massive amounts of competition, and that's never a good way to make money. Everyone and his dog has made a simple text editor that handles HTML and makes it a bit easier. So, even if you had the best HTML editor in the world, I still wouldn't expect you to be raking in big bucks, because you'd be up against at least half a dozen big companies with big advertising dollars, shelf space in every Best Buy, and major mindshare.
4. Think about who your target market is. You're not going to stand a chance of cracking the pro web designer market with the product you have; pro web designers need CSS, template libraries, DTD validation, image slicing, applet and plugin integration, and so on. At the opposite end, you're not going to get the Joe Sixpack market either, because they'll see raw HTML and recoil in horror. So, you're going after what I'll call the "dabbler" market--people who've learned a bit of HTML for fun and want to build a small personal web site. That's a pretty small niche to be in.
5. You don't have enough differentiation from the free offerings for that niche, in my view. Every half-decent free text editor can edit HTML with syntax coloring, and usually validate it and generate IMG tags too. You clearly know what your differentiators are, which is good: they're the table editor, the form editor and the frameset editor, and maybe the font dialog if it supported CSS, which it doesn't. Trouble is, dabblers generally don't need forms or tabular data--they use tables for layout, which it doesn't look as if your table editor is suitable for. They sometimes use framesets, but most of them know by now that frames suck. So, what can your product do that makes it an essential $20 upgrade from vim or jEdit? Nothing as far as I can see, and...
6.
I don't honestly think that you can hope to make money in the market you're currently aiming at. To do so, you'd have to fix all the defects and shortcomings, and then come up with some "killer app" functionality to beat Mozilla Composer, jEdit and the rest.
So you'd have to get up to date with the standards, and support XHTML and CSS. Then you'd need to add all the other features the free text editors have that people just expect these days, like file browsers, folding, abbreviations/macros, regexp search and replace, autosave, bracket/tag matching, multiple cut/paste buffers, and spelling correction. And then, you'd need to add more compelling features, like a graphical color selector with tools to help users pick complementary colors, and something to search and replace across multiple pages.
That's a hell of a lot of work for a product which, realistically, people would still only pay $20 or $30 for. If I were you, I'd cut your losses and write software that does something nobody else has done yet, or nobody has done cheaply, or nobody else has done well.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Yeah, damn right. His program was aimed at taking DivX and MPG movies in commonly downloaded formats, and turning them into DVDs.
So, he wrote a program whose main audience was people who violate copyright, and was then surprised to find people pirating his software? Oh, cry me a river.
I feel the same way about people who write shareware "file sharing" applications, and then act all irate when we share the registration codes for those applications. If you don't want your work to be ripped off, it'd help if you didn't go out of your way to assist people in ripping off the work of others. I've registered fifteen pieces of shareware, but I'm sure as hell not registering "file sharing" software.
Plus, the "meat" of his software was apparently GPLed projects such as ffmpeg anyway...
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
My textbook "Exploiting Software" suggests that if you are able to overwrite the interrupt vector, you should do something malicious when a breakpoint is hit, like erase the disk. That should keep people from fucking with the internals of your program for a while. I see about 30 ways to get around this, but m0r0n h4c13r software cracker might not.
:)
Still kind of funny that a textbook suggests this
My other car is first.
What, excatly speaking, does open source movement have to do with piracy ? Open source is all about making the source code of the program available to the end user; it has nothing whatsoever to do with removing copy protection from closed-source programs.
Furthermore, all the various stupid copy protections do is make cracks sometimes an absolutely neccessary part in getting the program to run. For example, the (legally bought) game Morrowind kept crashing on my machine at startup because of copy protection check; applying the no-cd crack solved the problem completely. Copy protection does not slow pirates in any significant way, it simply annoys legal users.
And deleting the users home directory simply ensures that no one will buy your products out of fear of them deleting their directories because of typos when entering serials or programming errors.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Not about piracy, but about your program. I think the reason you aren't seeing registrations is because you've made a pretty much unmarketable product. Now I'm not going to go and extinsevly play with it, but it looks to me like a bit of a glorified text editor. Looks like you've added some things like syntax highlighting, a couple wizards for building tables n' such and, well, that's about it.
Ok, well that's nice. That is certianly more HTML related features than notepad, and even a bit more than my beloved UltraEdit. However, you still face the same problem: You have released a text editor. It has a couple nice features, but it's just a text editor in the end.
Well, that's the kind of thing that most people will take for free, but just aren't willing to pay for. I mean there are some nice features over a basic one, but I have a feeling if you made copying impossible, most people would just do without.
You aren't asking a lot, but then again, you don't give a lot. I mean your HTML wizards for tables and frames seem unique but, really, those aren't that useful. Your editor also lacks most of the advanced features that Ultraedit (slightly more expensive than you) or Textpad (slightly cheaper than you) have.
Finally, your stuff is out of date. Tables and frames are NOT the recommend way for doing layout anymore, layers are. If I was going to get an editor that could help me do something in HTML, layers would be my top choice.
So, what you need to do, if making money is your goal, is do something to make your editor more worth buying. Here are some directions you could take:
1) Go the text editor route. Flush it out with support for huge files, hex editing, regular expressions, alternate encoding, macron, etc. Make it a full featured text editor to comete with Ultraedit, but add something more, like your HTML wizards.
2) Go the wizards route, but have them for EVERYTHING. You list like 3 wizards (form, tables, frames). K, nice start, but you need to add a whole lot more. Layers, style sheets, DHTML, JavaScript, etc. Make it so that the wizards can more or less write anything for you.
3) Go the visual route. Try and make something like Fireworks, only probably less featured (And also less espensive). Something for those that want the pointy-clicky but can't afford a Macromedia product.
However where you are now, I'm not supprised that you aren't getting sales. Your product is nice, and maybe something I'd use for free, but I don't see that I'd want to pay for it, espically not instaead of Ultraedit or Textpad.
Not trying to justify the copying, just trying to explain it and give you some ideas.
Also, the whole OSS/GPL push doesn't help. People are becomming trained that little programs that are downloadable ought to be no cost. Software in a box costs money, not software on the web.
Also, don't feel like no one ever buys things like this. The University of Arizona has a site license for Textpad. People do buy text editors, but you need to find an angle that someone doesn't ahve, or do it better than someone is doing it now.