Slashdot Mirror
App Auto-Tweets False Piracy Accusations
An anonymous reader writes "Certain iPhone and iPad applications from a Japanese company have broken software piracy detection mechanisms that are sending out tweets on the user's own Twitter account, saying, 'How about we all stop using pirated iOS apps? I promise to stop. I really will. #softwarepirateconfession.' The trouble is, it's sending these out on accounts of users who actually paid up to $50 or more for the software and who are legally using it. The app is asking for access to users' Twitter accounts, but does not give the reason why it is asking, so the author of the article concluded (rightly) that things were being done deliberately. Would you want your legally purchased software to send out messages to all of your contacts on Twitter or on other social networks saying that you were a software pirate? Would you excuse the writers of the software if it was just an error in their piracy detection measures?"
no
Generally if I have an app asking for Twitter/Facebook credentials and it appears completely unrelated to the app I just remove it and move on.
This is character assassination.
You know that old joke about crying "FIRE" in a crowded theater? The bottom line is that you must be damn sure the place is really catching fire before doing that.
The software owner should be legally charged.
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
Regardless of whether piracy is right or wrong, people will always do it. It's an economic problem. Many people will stop if the price is low enough; for others, "free" in both senses is the only price low enough. This is reality, and it will never change. Creators and their associated industries need to get over it. There will never be a way to stop everyone, there will never be a way to catch everyone.
That said, it may also be good economics to implement DRM in some cases; you have to weigh the benefits against the costs. (This does not appear to be one of those instances; this company is fucked.)
...Of whether or not the user has pirated the software, this kind of name-and-shame digital vigilantism on the part of the software author is just playing with fire. Especially (but not only) when it's shoddily coded and hitting false positives.
I can imagine them sitting around their dev table brainstorming "Ok guys, what's the best possible way we can open the company up to libel and defamation lawsuits? Hey, I know... Let's even give people who use and rely on Twitter as a business tool an opportunity to claim commercial losses against us as a result of an automated piracy accusation going out to their X-million followers!"
Sometimes things just aren't thought through very well...
and everyone that knows me knows I pirate software, music, movies, whatever. In fact, I'm the go to guy.
See, I tell people I pirate software, so no, the app wouldn't bother me.
But it goes to show, the only people that buy dvd/bluray's are the ones who get hit with DRM and warnings about copyright, because I sure as fuck don't get those when I download pirated versions.
You buy goods because you like the abuse. I pirate the goods because I don't like to be abused.
Be seeing you...
http://notanumber.net/archives/54/underhanded-c-the-leaky-redaction
Evil code can look completely simple and benign. You would never catch this kind of shit reviewing an app's source code. At some point, you just have to trust the developer.
When I'm in a country where I have severely limited vocabulary in the local language, a good dictionary application is one of those can't-live-without things that I actually do depend on for getting by. I haven't seen how good this application is/isn't, but I'd pay more than $50 for a great dictionary app. Also, a mobile version is more valuable than a desktop version. I know from experience what it's like pulling a notebook computer out of a bag when I get stuck trying to read a sign or communicate with a stranger. I'll give you a hint: it's not as practical as pulling a phone out of your pocket.
As I see it, the only defence for the app's author would be to prove that the user did illegally copy software.
It wouldn't be even nearly enough. For example, an ISV cannot set fire to your house upon detection of unauthorized use. There is a specific limit to what software developers may do when they have a good reason to suspect piracy. Have a look at Microsoft's solution - MS had enough lawyers thrown at the problem, so what MS did is basically the maximum of what is legal and safe.
In this case the software developer committed several crimes. And those crimes do not even PREVENT the piracy! What would prevent it? Simple: just don't run the software! Or run it in demo mode. Good solutions are numerous.
One good advice that got overlooked here is this: always maintain good communication. Talk to the user. Let the user always know what is happening. Let the user make his decisions. In this case the software bypassed the communication phase and decided to become not only the detective, but also the judge, the jury and the executioner. Note that only a judge can order a convicted offender to publicly humiliate themselves. This rarely happens, but such sentencing does occur now and then - usually as an offer that can be refused (if you like the inside of a prison more, for example.) This software took upon itself the right that rare a human is entrusted with.