Slashdot Mirror
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."
Its the worlds smallest violin, playing just for you.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
... you can copy.
As simple as that.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
Know your market!!!
In the words of the famous Nelson Muntz: "HAHA!"
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.
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.....
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?
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 ...
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.
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?
Malware authors should switch to a crowd funding or donation model!
You mean the countries where tax evasion is a national sport
You do realize that the USA isn't part of Eastern Europe?
If the author of Zeus published it under the GPL, then this would never have happened!
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
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.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
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).
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.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
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.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.