Slashdot Mirror
Pirated Android App Shames Freeloaders
MojoKid writes "A pirated version of an Android app is actually a Trojan that shames someone who installs it by sending an SMS message to all his/her contacts telling them of his/her piracy. The original app is called Walk and Text, and costs $2.10 in the Android Market. The app uses the camera on the back of a smartphone to show a user a visual of his upcoming surroundings, which will supposedly prevent the user from running into the street or across a set of train tracks. The pirated version is available from unofficial Android app markets, and once installed redirects the pirate to the legitimate app in the Android Market, while also sending the SMS message to the phone's entire contact list."
Calling pirates "freeloaders" is an unnecessary ad hominem designed to turn everyone else against them without applying critical thought to the issue at hand. It's the same as calling it "theft" or "stealing". The terminology may technically apply, but in the circles in which piracy is usually discussed (such as Slashdot), saying these things quickly makes you look like a troll.
I'm disappointed in the submitter and the editor for allowing the term "freeloader" in the headline. If you wish to oppose piracy, that's your call, but do it without the use of hyperbole and emotional arguments.
There are those circles (like mine) where such messages lead to high compliments.
The app uses the camera on the back of a smartphone to show a user a visual of his upcoming surroundings
Wow! You know what else does that? Eyes.
Anyone who pays $2.10 for this should be shamed, not the pirates.
People need to realize that pirated software really is a major malware distribution channel today, and has been for several years.
Tell your nephew that 90% of the cracks or keygens she downloads will also install a Trojan sending her passwords and credit card numbers back to the botnet masters.
And this is not a "genuine advantage" marketing fluff -- it is hard reality.
Sending unsolicited, paid SMS to the whole contact list of a person with a specially crafted trojan seems to be a more serious offence than the one-time copyright infringement of not paying for a $ 2.10 app, which actually not even qualifies as petty theft (because infringement is not theft).
Basically, the developer has created a malware/trojan version of this app and for this he might (and, in my opinion, also should) get into serious legal trouble. In other words, what a jerk...especially, if you take into account what kind of a stupid application he sells.
Who is this "they" that you speak of?
The pirated app appears to be created and released by the same company who makes the legitimate app. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it was a good thing to do.
You can't set traps for people even if the only way they would be harmed by it would be because they themselves are doing something illegal.
This does "harm" the person running the illegitimate app because it may cost them money to send all those messages plus any potential fallout from people thinking they are a software pirate.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
In the US, the receivers of the message are also going to pay ten cents. So the author is punishing them, as well.
I hope someone decides to sue the author of the app for it, too. If I break into your house and steal something, you can't break into the houses of all my friends. The law doesn't work that way.
I already tell all of my friends I'm a pirate. They know and come to me for software all the time. :P
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Who is this "they" that you speak of?
The pirated app appears to be created and released by the same company who makes the legitimate app. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it was a good thing to do.
Correct. And so far as I'm concerned, they just proved that they are no more deserving of my trust (or my money!) than is the author of any trojan. I understand that they're concerned about copyright infringement, but that doesn't excuse unethical behavior. No more than Sony's CD rootkit was justifiable.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
If I catch a burglar in my house, I will shoot to kill. I'd much rather pay a crime scene cleanup crew to get some dirtbag's blood off of my floor than to have him sue me later for only wounding him. Our courts are fscked, and sadly frontier justice seems to be the only justice left most of the time.
Women are like electronics: you don't know how damaged they are until you try to turn them on.
"Citation needed."
Seriously, I work in computer support professionally and while I've seen pirated software as an infection vector, it is in the minority. By far the biggest malware distribution channel these days I see is scareware. There are popups that act like AV scanners and get people to install fake anti-malware software.
So, let's see some number please.
It may not deprive the source from selling another copy, but not paying for your copy is stealing.
For the sake of argument, let's accept that definition and see where it leads us.
Well, why is stealing a bad thing in the first place? Is it because you get something for free? Surely not, because we all get things for free all the time. I can turn on the radio and listen to free music, then change stations when a commercial comes on. I can look at public murals that were funded by taxpayers who died before I was born. I can enjoy the benefits of those and countless other things without giving a dime to the people who created them.
I get upset when something is stolen from me, but is that because the thief has gotten something for free? No. If someone could "steal" a copy of my car, leaving the original car unharmed in my driveway, that wouldn't bother me at all. In fact, if the technology to do that existed, I believe it'd be a great leap forward for mankind.
We can also compare stealing to vandalism. If someone destroys my car, he doesn't gain anything for free, he only deprives me of the use of that property. Is destroying my car therefore not as bad as stealing it? It sure doesn't feel that way. In fact, stealing it seems marginally better, since it preserves overall utility (and there's a chance I'll get the car back).
So, I have to conclude that what makes stealing wrong is that the rightful owner is deprived of the stolen property. The benefit gained by the thief is only relevant to the extent that it comes at the owner's expense.
Now, what have we done by declaring that getting a free copy of something is "stealing"? We've created two categories of stealing: the old-fashioned kind where the owner is deprived of the stolen property, and the shiny new kind where he isn't. The first kind is wrong, since it maintains the quality that made stealing wrong in the first place. The second kind, however, is not - it's a benign, almost metaphorical type of "stealing", kind of like stealing second base. All we've accomplished with this new definition is to devalue the word.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.