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."

57 of 519 comments (clear)

  1. The joke's on you... by amnesia_tc · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...I don't have any friends! I'm so lonely :(

    1. Re:The joke's on you... by morari · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
    2. Re:The joke's on you... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A wiser man than I remarked "The wonderful thing about smartphones is that you don't have to talk on them."

      As with any quip, it is a bit overbroad. As with any good quip, it still manages to come close to the heart of the matter.

    3. Re:The joke's on you... by morari · · Score: 2

      The doctor's office?

      --
      "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    4. Re:The joke's on you... by baegucb · · Score: 3, Funny

      Parrots are at Booty Bay. I think the eye patch and peg leg are rep rewards.

  2. Don't click link in summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't click the link in the summary - it posts a message to Slashdot telling everyone you tried to read the article :(

    1. Re:Don't click link in summary by ElderKorean · · Score: 2

      Don't click the link in the summary - it posts a message to Slashdot telling everyone you tried to read the article :(

      Are the editors looking for things to do next April Fool's day?

  3. ...hmm interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Although this is a novel and some what interesting approach to pirates, i think this approach itself depending on the implementation etc.. might effectively count as breaking the law, unless the user who install the pirated software agree to a Terms of Use Agreement that explicitly mentions such actions might be possible or as a consequence if software thinks its pirated.

    1. Re:...hmm interesting... by arun84h · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:...hmm interesting... by rolfwind · · Score: 2

      Considering that I don't have a text message plan (having to pay a ridiculous $0.05 a message to and fro), I'm pretty sure someone will be in hot shit over this, espcially if the guy has a ton of contacts. I would also be hesitant to put the legitimate app on my phone because of this.

    3. Re:...hmm interesting... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    4. Re:...hmm interesting... by bertoelcon · · Score: 2

      On the other hand, the company seems to have a good sense of humor. That's a pretty good reason to support them when many others take the serious approach.

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    5. Re:...hmm interesting... by Penguinisto · · Score: 2

      Some problems with that line of thought:

      • The Sony rootkit was a violation against legitimate customers. This thing only affects the folks who snitch applications
      • See first point, latter sentence. Kinda hard to feel any sympathy for someone dumb enough to download a pirated app from an iffy source
      • While poisoning the well does tend to cast a bad rep over legit free software, odds are nearly perfect that folks downloading it already know that they're doing something they really shouldn't.
      • Honestly? what these guys did was tame, and kind of funny.

      I was *very* active in the 3D/CG community a few years back, and even today, some of my commercial meshes are still being pirated about the place on occasion, in spite of having (unboned/unmapped) free versions, limited free 'preview' packages, and even a few "open source" packages, where folks could freely modify and redistribute the results. But ripping off the commercial goods? Leaves a bad taste in the mouth. I know of a lot of former colleagues who wanted to positively wreck some computers by dropping poisoned torrents into the pool - and those who wrote executable utilities could do it with perfect ease.

      As you may well know, these guys (in TFA) could have done a whole hell of a lot worse, and left no trace or evidence that it was them. Instead, they did something embarrassing and funny, and made a gentle reminder to all that maybe you should actually buy the paid version instead of ripping it off.

      The logic is simple enough - if enough people get burned, they'll stop ripping off and start buying. If the item has a free timed demo version, or a 'lite' version, then no one has an excuse to simply rip it off.

      As for the morality of it? Meh - it could backfire on them (or maybe not... after all, what are *you* going to do about it? Call the cops? Launch a lawsuit based on the premise that the app you violated copyright on must always be safe? Hire a hitman?) OTOH, They didn't damage anything, and honestly, it got them some PR. If you got bit by it (not you in particular, the generic "you"), then be grateful. After all, the thing didn't immediately broadcast-email every photo on the chip to your entire contact list, brick the phone, or start surfing particularly vicious pop-up happy pr0n sites on your behalf at random times...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    6. Re:...hmm interesting... by Requiem18th · · Score: 2

      This isn't really just about ethics. It's about user self determination vs user antagonism.

      Free freedom is essentially a declaration of self determination where will of the code is the will of the user. Proprietary software enables and in fact encourages an antagonistic relation ship with users, where the user is considered the enemy until they have been tracked and authenticated to the developers satisfaction (and whims). Why would anyone pay to get into such situation?

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
  4. Inflammatory headline by Chaonici · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Inflammatory headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Do it with terms that make me look like I'm not sidestepping the payment of someone, while still using the services that they [theoretically] worked hard to provide me."

      "It's no different than eating someone's food and then skipping on the bill, but I really don't want to feel bad about it, so please come up with some term that hides the reality of the situation from me."

    2. Re:Inflammatory headline by NiceGeek · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/freeloader
      "a person who is supported by or seeks support from another without making an adequate return"
      Please tell me how the use of that term was incorrect.

    3. Re:Inflammatory headline by kikito · · Score: 2

      I think people that download stuff from shady Internet sites and install them on their phones deserve other names. Here's a short list: stupid, ignorant, irresponsible and dumb.

    4. Re:Inflammatory headline by mr100percent · · Score: 4, Informative

      You remind me of the client from Clients from Hell:

      [I’m not a designer but the attorney hired by a designer. I’m informing the client over the phone that he’s being sued for not paying the amount specified.]

      Me: “Good afternoon, my name is [xxx], representing [designer] and [company]. We’re calling about payment that has not yet been received for a project which you agreed to pay for.”

      Client: “What?! Who’s suing me?! Who is this?”

      Me: “As I said, my name is [xxx], representing [designer] and [company]. You have X,XXX.XX that was supposed to be paid several months ago, as agreed upon by a contract with my clients.”

      Client: “Are you suing me for a website? You’re not making any damn sense!”

      Me: “You owe someone a fair deal of money and you’ve made it very clear that you have no intention of paying. I have several emails from your email address responding to my clients with messages such as “sayonara, suckers” and I am calling to see if you’d like to pay your fees now, or if we need to bring this into a courtroom, which I’m sure we’re all looking to avoid.”

      Client: “I don’t know who this is or what the hell you want from me but listen up: fooling someone to make you a website isn’t a crime!”

      Me: “You’re actually looking at some large fines and — should this be considered a felony — jail time.”

      Client: “You’re a damn lawyer, you should know websites aren’t real. A website isn’t a thing, you can’t steal it! [designer] can still look at it, it’s still kinda his!”

      [Within three days time, the designer received a check with the amount listed and an additional $20.00 “for your asshole lawyer boyfriend.” The designer had to resist framing the check for the novelty.]

    5. Re:Inflammatory headline by uglyduckling · · Score: 2

      But piracy clearly is "different than eating someone's food and then skipping on the bill". I'm not saying piracy is morally right, but there is a clear difference between taking someone's food (once you've eaten it, they're permanently deprived of it) and taking a digital copy of their software (once you copy it, they have as many copies of their software as they did before your action). Claiming that copying software is the same as stealing food is akin to a Native American belief that being photographed steals part of your soul. We do need a framework for ensuring that people and companies can make and sell software and be able to (within certain limitations) benefit financially from that, but dressing it up as stealing is nonsense.

    6. Re:Inflammatory headline by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2

      Horse shit.

      It's definitely not theft, but piracy is in fact legally prohibited - that is, "against the law" or "illegal". The legal instrument of copyright does in fact exist, and gives the holder the right to charge a price for it - whether the pirates believe it does or not.

      So by not paying the price asked and acquiring it through other means, they are in fact freeloading - if you define freeloading as "getting for free that for which payment is expected"

      So if you want to condone this action, you need to disagree with the premise of copyright (I don't, though it should be much shorter). Even if you disagree with the implementation of copyright, like I do (penalties for non-commercial infringement, length of time, etc), that is insufficient to condone this action.

      Nothing emotional about it. It is pretty unarguably freeloading, and if it makes you feel bad perhaps that's because you should - because it definitely isn't an ad-homenim, it's an accurate description of the behavior you're engaging in. 'You' being someone in general, of course.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    7. Re:Inflammatory headline by Hortensia+Patel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, come on. This is just silly.

      There are perfectly reasonable arguments to be made against the use of "theft" or "stealing" in this context, because acquiring a digital good without paying for it doesn't normally deprive anybody else of that good.

      But "freeloaders"? Granted, that term has various shades of meaning, but the dominant usage is equivalent to "free rider": someone who obtains a benefit without paying any of the costs involved in providing that benefit. Which describes pirates exactly. It's no more hyperbolic than describing sharks as "predators" or tapeworms as "parasites"; it's just saying what they do.

    8. Re:Inflammatory headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Bullshit. Software development takes at a minimum, time. Developers such as this one weight the opportunity cost of the time they invest in developing the software against the money they expect to make from its sale. People who pirate the software, instead of paying, only encourage the developers to underestimate the potential value of their work, and therefore, less development will occur.

      Has a cost been incurred? Absolutely. Just because it can't be measured as a physical good does not mean it was not a cost. The most valuable things in an economy are man-hours worked. And despite the software being a good that can be copied with no cost, it clearly has value, or it would not be pirated.

      Your notion of morality, applied to the economy as a whole, would have chilling effects; it is by definition an economic free-loader problem. A classical economic study. There is no ambiguity as to whether or not piracy is accurately described as freeloading. A user gets a benefit from the toils of another, at no cost. Zero ambiguity.

      Your notion of entitlement is as absurd as your psuedo-intellectual rambling and arrogant tone.

    9. Re:Inflammatory headline by Sique · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Trespassing to shorten your way is also taking something that has value to you (you save time), but it wasn't free for you to take. Shall we call "trespassing" now "stealing way"?
      Just because you find some similar aspects in two different things doesn't make them the same.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    10. Re:Inflammatory headline by neumayr · · Score: 2

      How's "theft" and "stealing" technically correct? They're using your service without your consent, which is against the law. But to claim they took something material from you really is stretching it.

      --
      Truth arises more readily from error than from confusion. -Francis Bacon
    11. Re:Inflammatory headline by Travelsonic · · Score: 2

      I think you're lumping different peopel together and attempting to paint a gross and/or false generalization here.

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    12. Re:Inflammatory headline by russotto · · Score: 2

      The Client from Hell is right; he didn't steal the website. He just committed breach of contract, and apparently by his own admission, fraud (by entering into the contract with no intention of actually paying).

    13. Re:Inflammatory headline by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because eating food and not paying for it is comparable to downloading software and not paying for it. Yeah.

      Yes, they are comparable. In both cases, someone has offered to provide a service to you. One is providing food, the other providing software. In both cases the party offering the service has spend money in order to provide that service.

      The restaurant paid rent on their building, they paid the kitchen staff. They paid the waiters. They paid for the ingredients that were used to make the meal.

      The software company paid rent on their building, they paid their employees. They paid for equipment to develop the software.

      In both cases you use the service without contributing to them making up those costs.

  5. Efficacy may be limited by JackSpratts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are those circles (like mine) where such messages lead to high compliments.

    1. Re:Efficacy may be limited by WitnessForTheOffense · · Score: 5, Funny

      Miss Scarlet: "I hardly think it will enhance your reputation at the U.N. Professor Plum, if it's revealed that you have been implicated not only in adultery with one of your patients, but in her death and the deaths of five other people."

      Professor Plum: "You don't know what kind of people they have at the U.N., I might go up in their estimation."

  6. Incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. The Trojan should have disabled the functionality by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    Constantly show a safe environment. The truck or train would take care of the rest. That would certainly teach them to rely on an app instead of staying vigilant themselves.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  8. Costs of texting by Felix+Da+Rat · · Score: 2

    If you figure that a lot of carriers charge around $0.10 / text, if someone has more than 21 friends in their phone, it'll cost more in messages charges than buying the app. Some vendors charge even more per text (which is a separate rant), so this could add up FAST.

    I don't have a problem with that - heck I hope the author could find a way to get paid by those messages. But I could see some litigious asshat with 700 'friends' in their phone getting pissed when they get a huge bill.

    If I was the author, I'd cap it at 21 friends - has all the effects of the shaming, but closely reflects the authors own stated value of the app.

    1. Re:Costs of texting by tgd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Costs of texting by jonbryce · · Score: 2

      That usually doesn't apply to texts sent to international numbers.

    3. Re:Costs of texting by gpmanrpi · · Score: 2

      Actually yes you are. Bomb making is an "ultra-hazardous" activity. In most jurisdictions you would have strict liability for all damages. IAaL and you can bank on that legal opinion for that hypothetical case. The fact that it was labeled Ham dinner probably makes it even worse for you, in that there would be less of an argument for contributory negligence from said thief to reduce your damages. This is why people that do dangerous things have expensive insurance and charge a lot to do said things.

  9. And this is actually quite innocent by trifish · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:And this is actually quite innocent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now, is that really true? No, that's exactly what the software distributors want you to think. All the statistics created about the effects of piracy are fabricated.

    2. Re:And this is actually quite innocent by DeadlyMind · · Score: 4, Interesting

      90% of the cracks or keygens she downloads will also install a Trojan

      I'd LOVE to see the source that supports this ridiculous claim.

    3. Re:And this is actually quite innocent by LordLimecat · · Score: 2

      Search for "* keygen", and click on the first google site. Download the EXE it offers you (OFFICE2010CRACKS.KEYGEN.EXE). Im sure its safe, go ahead, run it.

      No, its not "just what they want you to think", people looking for keygens are going to shady sites, and stop and ask yourself-- why WOULDNT a shady site admin have reason to give you bogus software? I mean, its not like they have any chance of making money off of you...

      Im sure the pro pirates on here will protest that if you know where to look, and exercise some common sense, you can spot the obviously scammy sites, but the VAST VAST majority of stuff on Limewire, Gnutella, torrent sites, and crack sites is virus laden. I hesitate to even download Windows ISOs (for which I have a valid license) from TPB, because I really cant know if the reason that ISO MD5 sum is "off" is because of a slipstreamed update, or because the uploader rerolled the ISO with a built in rootkit and disabled SFC protections.

    4. Re:And this is actually quite innocent by Eric(b0mb)Dennis · · Score: 2

      ive seen it, but yeah.. if you're smart it never happens...

      this bozo is probably talking about going to google, typing "XXX crack" and clicking the worse links possible... but those of us who saunter on over to gamecopyworld and the likes, really don't have to worry.

      --
      Excuse me, I don't mean to impose, but I am the ocean
    5. Re:And this is actually quite innocent by Fred+Ferrigno · · Score: 2

      I see where the confusion comes from. You're including trojans that merely claim to be pirated software as pirated software, as well as sites that claim to provide such software.

      That's one way of looking at the situation, and it's not wrong per se, but it is a little counter intuitive for some. It also has the effect that you'd have to consider anti-virus software to be a major malware distribution channel as well, since a lot of malware masquerades as such.

  10. Read the comments? by margeman2k3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not sure how many people read through the comments on the avast! page, but something definitely smells there.
    The CEO of the company that made this app sounds like a weird blend of troll and one of those king-of-nigeria scams.
    * He keeps ranting about how he's going to sue avast
    * He keeps shouting about how it's all a lie created by avast in order to slander his company
    * He repeatedly claims that his calls to avast were blocked, even though the CEO admitted that one of his colleagues spoke to the dev.
    * The only contact information for that company is found here, which you can only get to through the avast article.
    * avast lists a few other red flags from this company: "checked the registration of www.incorporateapps.com and see some red-flags: semi-anonymous, no email contact, possibly eastern-european but registered in Germany, and registered through Tucows"

    But yeah, something here just doesn't feel right.

  11. Re:The Trojan should have disabled the functionali by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2

    That might actually be illegal, for the same reason it's illegal to set beartraps in front of your door even if somebody does break in. Somebody breaking the law does not allow you to break the law in return.

    In any case, this is a much smarter business proposition. I think this is hilarious and IMHO the punishment fits the crime - you were too cheap to pay $2.10 for a piece of software you're using, so I'll make you look like a dick. But the developers would come off like assholes if somebody did get killed, somewhat defeating the purpose.

    I'm all for this sort of DRM - like the Batman game that put a jump most of the way through that a pirating user couldn't perform.

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  12. Uh oh by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Uh oh by schwnj · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is what I was thinking. Although I'm sympathize with the developer, this is the wrong way to go about dealing with privacy. Aside from the text costs associated with the "pirate" sending all of those text messages, it is likely the case that many of the recipients of those messages will also have to pay for receiving them. If the app permissions don't specify automatically sending text messages, then this developer could get into hot water.

    2. Re:Uh oh by kikito · · Score: 2

      When you install an app that is able to send SMSs, you have to click on a dialog that says "you allow this app to send SMSs". It does the same with a variety of stuff, from internet access to GPS use. So I wouldn't call it exactly "unsolicited".

  13. Your NEPHEW? by jamrock · · Score: 3, Funny

    Tell your nephew that 90% of the cracks or keygens she downloads

    Damn. Your family life must be.....interesting.

  14. In most contexts this would be illegal by Cthefuture · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:In most contexts this would be illegal by cbhacking · · Score: 2

      Mind you, I think that's a stupid law. The maximum damage allowed should perhaps be relative to the crime. For example, somebody pirating a texting app should pay for a bunch of texts, as opposed to somebody pirating a texting app that lets them see their surroundings instead broadcasting a beacon to someobdy who runs them over with a car. However, I think in principle the idea of prohibiting this kind of thing is wrong. Impose whatever penalty you want on somebody who harms an innocent through such a trap, of course. That alone will keep the more excessive responses at bay. I just don't understand why somebody willfully violating the law should receive equal protection under it, though. Again, that's not to say they should receive *no* protection, but if I want to dig 10' pit traps to deal wiith those pesky kids trespassing on my lawn, I think I should have that right so long as the limits of my lawn are clearly delineated, and the traps aren't likely to cause extreme harm.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  15. "actually a Trojan" by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

    Amusing, but in the end may be very self destructive. Given that it redirects the user to buy the real app, I think most of us have a strong belief who released this. Aside from the risk of lawsuits for such deceptive software, I would expect few android users to ever trust any software from this company ever again. Heck, I'm not even an Android user, but I'm going to learn the name of the company to be sure to never install any software from them, just in case they also code for a platform that I use. If they think that releasing trojans is acceptable behavior then I don't want their software on my systems.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:"actually a Trojan" by dreampod · · Score: 2

      While probably illegal (unless they have a solid User Agreement that people ignored saying it would do this) personally I find it no more morally dubious than the person who downloaded a version of the software that they knew was pirated. And as someone who actually pays for my software I MUCH prefer the mode of punishing the pirates with software that has a 'bonus' than punishing the legitimate users by including DRM.

  16. Re:Wait, what? by rumith · · Score: 2

    Since the app's precise purpose is texting, it naturally requests and receives these permissions during installation. Think of it as a third-party texting app, like Handcent SMS: it wouldn't be supercool to have to confirm every single SMS you try to send, would it?

  17. To quote an ancient Wikipedia saying by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.

  18. Re:Android Security Model by dreampod · · Score: 2

    Android is similar in restricting apps and requiring permissions for apps to access functions like SMS.

    However the app IS intended for texting and thus you will have a permissions request for SMS to use the app (even the legitimate version). This just sends out additional texts to your contacts in addition to the ones you want to send out.

  19. Let's think about that... by Mr2001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  20. Piracy isn't the embarrassing part by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2

    The really embarrassing part of all this is your contacts finding out that you actually need an app to help you not walk into lightpoles, in front of trains, etc because you can't stop texting for a single second.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning