Software Theft a Problem For Actual Thieves, Too

Velcroman1 writes "Pity the criminal mastermind. After all, he's a victim too, reports FoxNews.com. Despite the sophisticated DRM baked into the ZeuS bot to protect it from theft, that's exactly what has happened. 'ZeuS is actually being pirated, so you can get all the versions for free,' said Roel Schouwenberg, senior anti-virus researcher with security software firm Kaspersky Labs. 'They introduced a hardware-based activation process similar to Windows activation, to make sure only one purchased copy of the ZeuS kit — the kit that produces malware — can run on one computer,' said Sergei Shevchenko, senior malware analyst for security software company PC Tools."

Comments

You know this sound?

[MichaelSmith]

Its the worlds smallest violin, playing just for you.

Re:You know this sound?

[Truekaiser]

i know your trying to be funny, but thats what some people in the riaa and mpaa want to happen. it's just that the technology is not there yet.

If You Can Produce ...

[foobsr]

... you can copy.

As simple as that.

CC.

Yeah, right

[CarpetShark]

a) Sharing duplicates is not theft of the original
b) There are no canons on ships involved.

Re:Yeah, right

[jamesh]

a) Sharing duplicates is not theft of the original
b) There are no canons on ships involved.

I know you're just trying to be funny but have you ever actually been to Eastern Europe??? Software theft over there is exactly that - guys with eye patches, wooden legs, and parrots on their shoulders cruising around in great big ships with canons on them. And when they duplicate your software, they do take the original too.

Re:Yeah, right

[Jurily]

but have you ever actually been to Eastern Europe?

You mean the countries where tax evasion is a national sport, the people don't even realize they should pay for software, and when you tell them, they know you're joking?

I personally have not seen *anyone* who paid for any version of Windows unless their company got hit with an extensive tax audit. I'm from Hungary.

Re:Yeah, right

[chichilalescu]

more to the point. for some reason, society keeps paying teachers to copy books into kids' brains, but lawmakers keep saying it's bad to copy stuff.
it's somehow interesting.
it's also scary that this story is presented as if infringing copyrights is the same as writing malware.

Re:Yeah, right

[Anonymous Coward]

but have you ever actually been to Eastern Europe?

You mean the countries where tax evasion is a national sport, the people don't even realize they should pay for software, and when you tell them, they know you're joking?

I personally have not seen *anyone* who paid for any version of Windows unless their company got hit with an extensive tax audit. I'm from Hungary.

I'm from Hungary too and I pay for Windows every time I buy a pre-built PC. (Which is the majority of purchases.)

I also implicitly pay for Windows every time I pay taxes (and I do, not the least because there's a significant VAT on all consumption) because the government site-licenses Windows for all educational institutions and all government computers - for a lot of money. Windows license fees are slowly but surely becoming part of the tax system in more and more parts of the world.

Private persons indeed generally don't buy Windows here (as copying software without reselling it for financial gain is not against the law in Hungary), and Microsoft is part of that too: the BSA reassures hungarian citizens every year that they will not audit private persons (they cannot by law). Most of the businesses where I worked did buy Windows.

The revenue numbers of Microsoft Hungary seem to support this.

Furthermore, because Microsoft turns a blind eye to piracy here they have encroached Windows to a large degree - giving other software like Linux little chance to spread. The well-known "Microsoft is better off if people pirate Windows instead of using Linux" concept.

Later on, once the country has a higher GDP and the legal environment has been manipulated more in Microsoft's favor they will tighten the finger-screw a bit more, and start auditing private persons as well.

Until then all Microsoft needs is a continued monopoly of Windows: that alone is hugely profitable to them already and they have all the time of the world to extract more profits from it.

And that is why Microsoft is worried sh*t-less about Android. Android is a completely Windows-less ecosystem that is spreading like wildfire along a very unexpected vector: mobile phones and phone carriers - which for decades used to be the most backwards technology sector of all. Android is spreading like mad in Hungary too. Usability and growth of Android puts anything that Redmond has produced in the last 30 years in shade. It's also a self-sustaining model without a licensing fee - so it's turning Microsoft's business model upside down.

So far the best "competitive" idea Microsoft has come up with is "sue the heck out of Android, directly or by proxy". As parasitic as ever ...

Re:Yeah, right

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright infringement, theft of intellectual property, theft of service, piracy - and even theft - are all similar names for something that is still a criminal activity.

Not quite. They are all similar types of criminal activity. They are not the same activity.

Unless you're trying to say that taking a picture of something is the same as taking the thing itself, in which case I'll be over to your place later to take pictures of all your stuff.

Re:Yeah, right

[FuckingNickName]

Indeed; with piracy, canon demands cannon.

Re:Yeah, right

[FuckingNickName]

I recently read a good counter argument to yours: throwing a cream pie in your face may be illegal, but it doesn't mean I raped you.

And even if special interest groups succeed in getting people to call cream pieing (see what I did there?) someone "rape", it still won't actually be rape.

Finally, copying software without authorisation is often not criminal.

Re:Yeah, right

[zoom-ping]

You mean the countries where tax evasion is a national sport

You do realize that the USA isn't part of Eastern Europe?

Re:Yeah, right

[the_womble]

These are not "popular" names. The only reason anyone uses the term "theft" for copyright infringement is because they are spinning to try and manipulate people into associating something that most people think deeply wrong(theft) with something most people think is fine (copying stuff).

Re:Yeah, right

[canajin56]

c) In the 1600 they referred to copying books and plays without permission as piracy, and back then there still were pirates cruising the waters. In 1703 Daniel Defoe said of his book that, if he had written it for the money, he would be greatly concerned at the actions of PIRATES and PARAGRAPHMEN (they loved capslock for emphasis back then, too), but since he didn't, they were welcome to their pennies.

Re:Yeah, right

[91degrees]

There are no canons on ships involved.

So? Seriously, the term piracy in the sense of unauthorised copy predates copyright! Some words have more than one meaning.

Re:Yeah, right

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest you google 'cream pie' with safe search off, and then tell me it isn't at least some sort of sexual assault!

Re:Yeah, right

[jvin248]

Great points! Especially for taxpayers paying for Windows Licenses! I'd add that several foreign governments are waking up and exclaiming "Hey, do we REALLY want just ONE corporation from the US to run the operating system of our WHOLE GOVERNMENT? We like those US guys and all, but isn't that a bit DANGEROUS?" And so they start putting in their own operating system built on a Linux Open Source code base they can and do go through line by line to ensure no funny code hides in there. And, by the way, that OS is FREE? .

Re:Yeah, right

[cdrguru]

Android on a phone is useless without paying the relatively huge licensing fee to Google for the Google applications and access to the Google application store.

So there is a large license fee being paid for every copy of Android. Sure, you can go without the apps and the store but then it isn't really Android, now is it?

This is a common business shortfall

[shione]

Know your market!!!

Re:This is a common business shortfall

[Sulphur]

Nothing astonishes people so much as common sense and plain dealing.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Necessary Simpsons quote

[zrbyte]

In the words of the famous Nelson Muntz: "HAHA!"

Time to switch to a web-based version

[drolli]

Just provide it as a service and pay per use, then the software does not need to be transferred. On the other hand - i am not sure the other criminals would trust the website. After all if they promise the are 100%malware-free, its exactly not what they want. If the promise is not given, the i would assume they have backdoor in the backdoor.

I think a special Version of Anti-Virus software is needed.....

Surprised?

[jojoba_oil]

I'm not surprised at all. This tool is for people who have no regard for others' computer hardware, so why should they care about computer software either?

Re:Surprised?

[Nursie]

Yeah, but it's not theft, it's copyright infringement! There's no honour there...

Re:Surprised?

[Paradise Pete]

if an industrial spy took a copy of some paper blueprints, it was called stealing not infringing.

If you can't see the flaw in your example then it's no wonder that copyright law is as screwed up as it is. Stealing a secret is very different from copyright infringement.

Confusing Headline

[zAPPzAPP]

So I read the headline, then I read the text snippet. Now I'm confused. What about those actual thieves mentioned in the headline? Who are they? The developers of ZeuS? Or the ones "pirating" the bot? Who is stealing what here? Have infected computers illegally changed hands?

Re:Confusing Headline

[Dachannien]

Yes, the headline doesn't really match the story. They're talking about two groups of people:

1. Actual thieves, such as the ones who used ZeuS to steal money from various bank accounts in the US and other countries and launder that money back to Eastern Europe (and were recently arrested in a worldwide roundup). Some (maybe most or all) of these people, clearly lacking moral scruples, are also pirating the ZeuS software.

2. The authors of ZeuS, who would like to get paid for their work. (It's unclear whether these folks also use ZeuS themselves to steal money or engage in other nefarious activities, or if they're just software developers.)

So (the obvious problem with the term "software theft" aside), the headline should read, "Software Theft a Problem with Actual Thieves, Too".

Oh! I know!

[selven]

Malware authors should switch to a crowd funding or donation model!

Re:Oh! I know!

[SigmundFloyd]

Maybe they could perform live cracking sessions and sell t-shirts.

Re:Oh! I know!

[dangitman]

Yeah, but you know that people are just going to distribute bootleg tapes of the live cracking sessions anyway.

Interesting attitude

[SigmundFloyd]

When it's about software, it's theft. When it's about music or movies, it's sharing, or - at most - infringement.

Good job at building your credibility, Slashdot.

Re:Interesting attitude

[drinkypoo]

When it's about software, it's theft. When it's about music or movies, it's sharing, or - at most - infringement.

Well, I see the copyright shills are out moderating today. Theft requires that someone be deprived of something. If copyright violation were theft, it would fall under theft in the code. It does not; we have a whole separate body of law to prevent the copying of intellectual properties specifically because it is not theft. The parent comment is not the troll, the submission's title is, and Soulskill should be embarrassed to have promoted it to the front page. It does, indeed, cost Slashdot credibility among geeks, the people who make this site worth visiting (for the discussions.)

Re:Interesting attitude

[drinkypoo]

They are being deprived of something. Obviously, they're being deprived of profit (not just any money, but the pirates own money) that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money (which is potential profit). Understand, now?

I understand the bullshit lengths that copyright trolls will go to in order to attempt to appear to have an argument. When you have to start talking about alternate realities to explain your position, you're full of shit. It has been shown time and again that piracy does not equal lost sales; indeed, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that those who download purchase more media than those who do not. Until you can somehow show that piracy results in lost sales, which has never successfully been done, perhaps you should shut your cakehole — because the cake is a lie. And so is your bullshit about piracy being equal to theft. Lawyers understand, judges understand, lawmakers understand, you don't understand. One of these things is not like the others.

Re:Interesting attitude

[cheekyjohnson]

"And so is your bullshit about piracy being equal to theft."

It's not "bullshit" at all! We all know that you support the theft of profit that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money (this is evidenced by the fact that you didn't run out and buy every available product in existence, which, if you did, the artists and businesses would have had more money).

Re:Interesting attitude

[cdrguru]

Look, the whole point of piracy is to destroy the revenue model that is media today. And encourage a revenue-free model for everything else as well.

We all know we want to live in the Star Trek world where there is no more money. This is the avenue that some folks have chosen to get there. So go out and destroy some revenue today!

Re:Interesting attitude

[cheekyjohnson]

Apparently, some people are also stupid enough to believe that profit (and by profit, I of course mean money that the pirate owns and has not given to the artist/business yet) that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money can actually be stolen.

Isn't this the BEST way to fight this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this the BEST way to fight this? Rather than try to track down and close the ones making money from malware by putting them in jail (expensive on the public purse), instead take the money out of making malware.

And if it still doesn't kill all malware, then this would also prove the lie about how copyright is necessary or things won't be made any more.

GPL

[flyingfsck]

If the author of Zeus published it under the GPL, then this would never have happened!

More extreme measures?

[petes_PoV]

Since we're talking about software that is already outside the law, it's reasonable to assume that the punishments or retribution that the illegal software makers can build in to "protect" their code could also be outside the bounds of acceptability. So while "legal" DRM measures can't do much beyond saying "you're being naughty, please stop" the illegal copies of illegal software could give themselves licence to wreak havoc on the machine that's attempting to run them. Just how far they'd be prepared to go (causing the hardware to catch fire? is that practical?) could be an interesting development for the uninvolved onlooker to track.

Another article about "stealing ideas"

[janwedekind]

Today's modern criminal needs protection, just as a legitimate franchise like ... Without such protection, all the crook's best ideas would simply be stolen, the entire business would be replicated as a cheaper alternative, and the original business would be destroyed.

Am I hearing Rupert Murdoch's voice here?

Well, to be precise...

[kikito]

The Zeus devs are not 'thieves' because they made Zeus.

It's a different type of crime.

It's like saying that a company that builds a popular and illegal anti-person mines has had its mine blueprints stolen.

A more proper title would have been "DRM doesn't work, even for Cibercriminals".

Malware developer == thief ?

[alexhs]

Next month or so we will get a headline of "Thief thief Thief thief thief thief Thief thief", and none of these words will be about actual theft of tangible property.

[Actual thieves] compare [developing malware kits] to Kalashnikov gun manufacturing ('we make the weapon, it’s not up to us how it’s used')

And therefore gun manufacturers are also actual serial killers.

Re:Theft?

[John Hasler]

No they haven't. They have the right to sue anyone they catch making infringing copies. That is what copyright is. There is no property which they possessed before the infringement that they do not still possess afterward, therefor there cannot have been any theft.