Slashdot Mirror
Warezed SoundForge Files In Windows Media Player
An anonymous reader writes "German PC-Welt magazine reports that Microsoft used an illegal copy of SoundForge 4.5 (Google translation) for editing Wave files shipped with Windows Media Player. You can check that yourself by opening any file in the [Windows location] \Help\Tours\WindowsMediaPlayer\Audio\Wav\ folder in notepad or other editors of your choice and looking at the last line. There you will find a reference to SoundForge 4.5 and also a user called 'Deepz0ne' who happens to be one of the founders of an audio software cracking group called Radium."
Yeah, nice justification! They did something wrong so that means I can do it too!
Schlock Mercenary
...although, when you think about it, who knows what stolen code might be in Microsoft's software? What with it being "closed source" and all...
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
Optimist's response: Maybe they were waiting for their activation code. Pessimist's response: They knowingly stole it. Realist's response: Even Microsoft has no use for MS Sound Editor.
The question it rasises is how much other stuff is in windows that has IP violations? The answer is: Nobody knows. Probably not even MS know, and a nobody else is in a position to analyse it. By the time it gets found and publicised, its been in the operating system for a long time.
Michael
There is no cryptographic solution to the problem where the intended receiver and the attacker are the same entity.
It's a big deal because Microsoft, along with the BSA, comes down quite hard on companies where even nominal amounts of illegally licensed software are used. Those companies will now have the same defense that Microsoft currently has: Sometimes mistakes happen.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Along those lines, I was thinking that maybe the sound editing was outsourced. We all know that their photography is stock stuff; witness all the MS ads picturing Apples. It is conceivable, though not necessarily true, that this work was done by an outside agency.
Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
And how many times has Microsoft's lapdog BSA audited some one, found a piece of Microsoft warez that some employee had pirated and fined the hell out of the company for it? That's what makes this newsworthy.
"The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.
Who needs the linked JPG? Just go to the directory in question: $WINDOWS\Help\Tours\WindowsMediaPlayer\Audio\Wav
...Maybe those who don't have/use Windows might need the Jpeg?
It may well have been one impatient user. There's at least one in every company I've ever been at. Usually we just chuckle at them behind their backs and do what we can to make sure proper licensing procedures are followed (including changing admin passwords where necessary and hoarding new software behind locked doors) when there's no one willing to fire the person. The company ends up paying for the software in most cases as it's supposed to, but if an audit were ever done, a few software keys wouldn't quite match up even though the counts would be roughly correct.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
...Or some guy just liked using his cracked copy of SF, and brought it into work to use.
Before you go running off all bitter and self-righeous, you might want to consider the difference between the coporate management and the average joe schmuck employee.
This isn't MS being hypocrites, it is an employee breaking company policy and bringing in outside sofware.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Microsoft and the BSA presumes violations before any proof is found, why should I presume any differently?
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
With all the BILLION$ of dollars M$ has they can't even pony up the money for Sound Forge?
Have you tried getting management to buy the software required for a project? At times it's damn near impossible. You have a deadline and your request is moving at the speed of bureaucracy. Finally you say *fuck it* and get the damn software. This becomes a vicious circle when management asks, "Oh you didn't need us to buy this software before why do you need it now? Just do what you did before."
I'm not saying this is good or bad, this is just the way it happens. Management holds no accountability because it's their job to be a dumb ass. Being a dumb ass isn't illegal and saves the company money. They didn't pirate the software, some peon did.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Microsoft is huge. You people are acting like Microsoft is some singular, sentient being. It's just not the case. So some dude who worked at Microsoft used a cracked copy. I don't think you can blame that on the whole company.
Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
Good point except for the fact tha MS is supposed to check. They are the ones that are being high and mighty on the subject. Remember that MS has leagues of lawyers both checking and enforcing IP and using any resources within their power to enforce. This is a big egg-on-face fiasco. I don't double check royalty-free stuff but I am not distibuting software in the same scale as MS nor have the same resources and rightuous indignation.
Stay tuned for new sig...
The question it rasises is how much other stuff is in windows that has IP violations?
And the answer it provides is that the idea that closed soure software somehow becomes magically free of stolen or infringing code is fallacious.
At best it provides the bliss of ignorance, but an ignorance difficult or impossible to correct.
KFG
No, but they are responsible for the actions of their employees. And they should be held to be.
Just imagine a small company where some guy runs a illegal copy of Windows XP. Sure they would be sued or threatened with it to pay the license fee plus something. Same procedure should be applied to MS.
Are you kidding? I want homeland security on the case ASAP. I also want BSA to send threatening letters to all Microsoft departments and offices and force them to audit their licensed software and code copyrights - or else they'll break down the doors with the assistance of Secret Service and seize all their assets! You know, irresponsible IP thieves and pirates like these are the criminals that are forcing software industry to lose $50.7 trillion (or whatever number it is) per year.
Not that your point about metadata isn't valid, but this isn't a typical metadata problem. The WAV format doesn't directly provide for strings indicating the program that created the audio. There is a "text" chunk in which you can put such information, but WAV files don't have to have such a chunk and they don't have any standard interpretation. Information about the file is usually placed before the audio data too. This stuff could be a text chunk placed at the end, but I suspect that it is actually included in the audio data chunk - a few odd sample values at the end will be undetectable to the ear. I can't tell for sure though without examining the WAV file, which I don't have since I don't have MS Windows. Maybe somebody could post a link to one of the files and we could find out.
Yes, Microsoft is liable and will have to pay Sony (if their employee was the one responsible). However having an employee do something they shouldn't is VERY different from willful infringement.
The problem is people seem to be blaming Microsoft as though they willfuly ripped off Sonic Foundry (now Sony) to save some money. Please, Sound Forge is like $250, it's nothing to them. More likely, whoever was responsible for it, maybe not even an MS employee (they may have contracted this out) just liked SF and used it instead of whatever app they had licensed.
Still their responsibility to pay for it, but don't pretend it was them being evil. They don't monitor the every move of their employees.
Interesting counter question: How many OSS Windows apps are compiled using a warezed version of Visual Studio?
Nope, they did something wrong means that they can't tell me not to do it.
There is no difference. Repeat after the BSA. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. Your joe schmuck employees == your corporate managment == your entire company.
When it's Microsoft's precious "IP" in question, there are no excuses. This is not speculation, this is not opinion, this is a trail of tears weaving back and forth across the country with literally thousands and thousands of people and business, big and small, who lost a few of their holograms, that can vouch.
When Microsoft has its pet army of jackbooted thugs (the BSA) "auditing" the daylights out of you (or your elementary school, or your police station, or your old folks home) they don't buy this excuse. It doesn't matter if you bought those 5 computers used and the seller didn't give you the stickers. It doesn't matter if some 2 week contractor who didn't even speak English warezed Office _and_ stole a box of white out, it's still your business' problem, guilty until proven innocent, "Civil and Criminal Penalties," $500,000 for each count, etc etc... You're still staring down the barrel of a devastating lawsuit or a "relicensing" on extremely favorable terms...
So yes, duh, absoloutely PLEASE run off and for the record we are not nearly bitter or self-righteous enough.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
You see it's like this: (this is purely fictional)
Let's say the RIAA, led by Hilary Rosen, sued 13 year-old kids for thousands for copy infringement.
Then later on, we found out that Ms. Rosen's son had hundreds of BetaMax copies of video rentals in her home.
It is not outrageous, because her son infringed on copyrights. It is outrageous that Ms. Rosen holds some unknown kid to some higher standard than her own son. It would show that the copyright is not what she cared about, only suing 13 year-olds for thousands.
Yep, you can do that. But then you'll spend so much trying find a usable set of runtime libraries in that mishmash, and then figuring out whether you're actually licensed to redistribute them, you'll end up wishing you hadn't. (Each of the SDKs is cleverly packaged with different incompatible and irregular subsets of the Windows runtime libraries, just to make it so hard to figure out that you'll run out and buy their non-free development tools out of frustration.)
Plus, if you use any outside code at all, it will almost invariably assume that you have the MS IDE environment to build it. You're then faced with rewriting the build process for that code from scratch.
Which, following your example, would mean that anybody who has firsthand experience with any negative behavior would be unjustified in sharing that experience with the intent of preventing it in other people because that would be "hypocrisy".
Fascinating theory you have there.
In addition, what you fail to realize is that Microsoft still has every right to tell you what you are and are not allowed to do with their software. This right is not magically forfeited because of any illicit behavior on their part. Though specific rights in specific circumstances may warrant legal removal of certain rights to certain things they own - such as the application in question in this example - there is certainly no sweeping removal that would justify your illicit behavior. That's why remedies exist for this sort of behavior - to punish people. Part of that punishment does not involve removing the rights they retain on their property.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
I think you miss his point. Yes, pirating Windows is wrong and illegal, even if Microsoft uses pirated software. That's because "hypocricy" doesn't have legal standing. But it does have standing in the realm of public opinion. Nobody would particularly cry for MS if they claim that they're loosing money to piracy. (Not that anyone would cry for MS now, we just cry because of MS.) It's a credibility thing. There's a difference between doing something that's wrong and feeling bad about it.
Personally, I hope it makes the "powers that be" realize that piracy by private corporations for profit is more harmful than piracy for personal use at home.
Yes, pirating Windows is wrong and illegal,
;)
Well its certainly illegal - wrong is debatable.
That's because "hypocricy" doesn't have legal standing
It doesn't have a spelling standing either
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
"Yeah, I will. It's called fucking hypocrisy."
Wouldn't a hypocrite be the best person to get advice from? I mean, I'd pay more attention to a smoker telling me not to smoke than a non-smoker.
"Derp de derp."
No one argues that.
Actually, there has been quite a bit of rhetoric thrown about of late claiming that the vetting process of a commercial company prevents deliberately stolen code from being included in the base.
They argue that if the closed source software has stolen code the vendor would be to blame, not the end user.
Which arguement is also fallacious, since it is a matter of copyright, patent and trade secret law which makes no distinction between open and closed source code and is only concerned with rights. That is why open source code is distributed under license, just as is closed source code.
A company may choose to indemnify its customers from legal consequences, but the validity of such indemnification is still left to the courts to decide, and, again, has nothing to do with whether the code is open or closed (as, indeed, the openess of the code has no bearing on whether it is written and/or distributed by commercial vendors or not).
KFG
I'll bite those points: 1) We aren't talking about somebody who just has "firsthand experience", we're talking about the grand inquisitor sticking his tongue up satan's ass. Quite a big difference you gotta admit. 2) Ya, it is forfieted. Being a moderately clever guy, If I really want to break a law I can do it without getting caught. So laws don't really matter. Respect is what matters. The only thing that might keep me from dissing Microsoft is my respect for them. Hypocrites don't get respect.
"The law an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Mohandas Gandhi
The implication is that everyone has committed some offense against some other person in his or her lifetime. If the only form of justice available were retribution, then the entire population of the world would be savaged. Imagine the torments you would have to undergo if every single wrong you have ever done in your life had to be repaid in kind.
I believe another famous religious leader had something similar to say about the idea of justice as retribution:
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. John, 8:7.
Justice as retribution is only ever advocated by hypocrites, because all of us have committed offenses against others.
Yes; but the BSA, which is dominated by Microsoft, has no sympathy for that argument when a company is "audited" and found to be in violation of its licenses, when it's quite plausible that he company merely is poor at record keeping and most likely has actually paid for the licences; or left unused copies of software installed on machines when swapping hardware around, and so on. They still get the whole cavity search, perp walk and massive fine (or compulsory purchase to avoid such) treatment.
You still fail to see the real point, the one that causes people to hate companies like Microsoft and even politics. It isn't about one mistake, but the image the company/person puts out and what really goes on. It is about the agenda behind the person/company and the actions taken over time. Nothing wrong with second chance, but why give criminals enough room to make another more costly one. You can now argue to me the image of Microsoft you have, but that simply doesn't stick to the facts. Hypocrisy is a big problem. Not just because it happens, but because we tolerate it. Imagine any person you have trust in, now imagine that person now lying to you on a frequent basis. Would you then later trust this person with your life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The DEA doesn't tolerate personal drug use, but we tolerate criminal behavior in our corporations and government? Now I don't mean that all people do, but that this is what you do not see, and so you are one of the tolerating ones. You wouldn't care to defend the rights of another individual, but somehow have all the words to defend a corporation of which you really no little about.
You then went on the attack, claiming all the beautiful rights that corporations throw around in the court room. Your the one failing to realize something. It is that people are rebelling based on moral reasons as much as they are on financial ones. It is no accident that Microsoft has such large sums of money. This is NOT success we should be proud of. It means the economy is inefficient, noncompetitive, and has the ability to create various problems such as social ones. You may not understand this, but some do. I could go on. Instead I will say one last thing, consider the possibility your wrong about what others have convinced you is right. Just because it is on paper, does not make it right. We should follow the law, but understand that we need to fight laws as often as the corporations do to create more innovative ones.
Question everything.
Does "thou shalt not steal" ring any bell :) ?
Yes, but so does "of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession" (Lev. 25:45). Yup, you have a biblical right to enslave tourists' children. Or, in other words - not everything the Old Testament says is suitable as a handbook of modern morality.
More to the point, blanket statements like "thou shalt not steal" are only meaningful if you define "steal". Let's not have the whole "is copyright infringement theft" flamewar again, please - just please acknowledge that even among people who do consider copyright infringement to be theft, most people would at least consider the possibility that purchasing one copy of Windows and installing it on two computers is not exactly in the same (im)moral league as bank robbery.
How many times does it have to be pointed out to you morons that BEING ILLEGAL DOESN'T MAKE IT WRONG!... it just won't sink in!