Fed Raids Software Pirates in 27 Cities 1172
akiaki007 was among many who wrote in to say: "Check out this article on the New York Times (free reg, blah blah) site. The Feds have raided 27 cities in 21 states. Raid sites include MIT, UCLA, Purdue, Duke, UofO. Their main target was the group DrinkOrDie. 'This is a new frontier for crime,' Kenneth W. Dam, deputy secretary of the Treasury, said at a news briefing. 'The costs are enormous to both industry and consumers.' I better hide my burned Linux CD's. They might think it's some weird hacking tool."
You would think... (Score:2, Insightful)
ok.... (Score:5, Insightful)
THE Warez Group? (Score:3, Insightful)
My Favorite Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Right... Because people pirate software, American companies are going to loose out to foreign companies, since software produced overseas is much harder to pirate. Oh yeah, and all those countries have more clout that the US government does when it comes to getting foreign governments to cooperate with enforcements efforts. Yep, American Leadership in Software Development is definatley at stake. Uh-huh. Yep.
Re:Good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
When people find out I don't pay for my software, they assume I am a pirate. OSS != free loader.
It's about free speech, its always been about free speech. I love free beer too, but I won't steal it.
Win95 (Score:3, Insightful)
So, someone alters the banner that says "Beta Build 451", makes lots of copies, and says in triumph "Look At Me! I Have Win95 Early!"
Lots of thieves get caught because their egos get too big, they get sloppy thinking they can't be caught.
Bob-
Note the campus raid component. (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that these raids occured on a number of campuses.
Microsoft and law enforcement love to talk about the millions and billions lost to piracy.
When they bust down some students door and find things like Maya, 3DSMax, and Windows Datacenter Server they go, whoops, we're out $250,000.
But there is a fatel flaw in this argument. These are NOT lost sales. Students simply do not have the money to go out and buy a ton of high priced server software, though they may enjoy playing with it.
And the low priced stuff a campus almost always as a Campus Select Open agreement for.
The guy in China paying $5 for 200 programs worth $2 million? Same thing.
This needs to be repeated. These numbers are often bogus. Things like drugs have real street value, so that's more acceptable when they value drug busts, and they actually track street prices carefully. Microsoft numbers hype is a distortion of the system.
This reminds me of the $1 billion Microsoft offered to settle their private court cases. $800 million of it in their software. I doubt the marginal cost of supplying that software was $800 million (estimates are it would be around 20 or so) and they get a dream come true, take out apple their last competitor and drive their software into the education system to hook the next round of users.
Re:Oh? So then they finished the terrorist problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, just because you don't like a law doesn't mean you won't face the consequences if you break it. That's what civil disobedience is all about, taking absurd responsibility for an unjust law. What these idiots were doing was breaking the law hoping to never face the consequences.
Re:Oh? So then they finished the terrorist problem (Score:5, Insightful)
We are. Violating the DMCA is now an act of terrorism.
A good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
A complete set of PC hardware goes for $250-$300 now... Windows XP + Office XP is $900. So you can have a new workstation for $300 running Linux, or, now that you can't pirate Microsoft's crap, the exact same machine, for $1200.
This will be a TREND (Score:4, Insightful)
I've said before on Slashdot and in other venues that the Intellectual Property system in the United States is cracking. With the advent of distributed internet Piracy of the type Napster made popular, it is completely inevitable that the system mutate to account for the fact that the primary source of IP theft is no longer commercial bandits, but rather the users themselves.
What this ultimately means is more of what you've seen. You'll see Federal agents descending on ordinary users, people who are just "innocently" making copies of software and music and sharing it with their friends. This activity has been illegal forever, but for the most part readily overlooked by the glaring eye of justice, largely because justice had bigger fish to fry.
But that's changing. The distributed and widely connected nature of the internet is enabling ordinary users to become first class pirates, with the push of a button distributing many thousands of illegal copies to any and all takers. This is turning those users into IP public enemy number one.
There is simply no alternative. The law is going to CRUSH the violators, with a variety of test cases being used to set harsh examples.
From past reactions here on Slashdot, I know that the Slashdot community is not ready to hear this message. Please don't forget, I'm only a messenger. The outcome I'm seeing is easily forseeable. Consider it yourselves: will the government sit idly by and allow the intellectual property system in the U.S. to go titsup.com? Hell, no. It's not going to happen.
That being the case, what's going to happen:
Examples will be made.
C//
The 'enemy' mindset.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Give me a break (Score:5, Insightful)
An article is posted with the word 'Fed' in it and the Slashdot crowd is screaming the imminent doom and destruction of life as we know it.
They broke the law. People who break the law are punished. We're not talking about people's rights being violated, we're talking about groups who know that what they do is illegal and are getting caught.
If real life existed the way the /. crowd thinks it should be, we'd live in total anarchy.
your kidding me! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Warez. (Score:5, Insightful)
What is really sad is most of the software that is pirated is never worth the time it took to download it.
Re:Thats not the point. (Score:0, Insightful)
I love how Slashdotters feel that the GPL is sacred and holy, yet have absolutely no fucking problem with stealing closed source software, pirating music, or violating DVD licenses. But I think that the hypocrisy of Malda and the /. luser crew is fairly well-known.
-- The_Messenger
Re:Good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
...and usually sell it to companies as well; they buy stuff when they need it. And hardly ever use illegal software (at least here in .nl that's my impression). Home-users on the contrary usually buy software when they buy a new computer (Windows, Office etc.) or when they finally have enough money (youth that buys games). Therefore I think the majority of the software that is pirated would not have been sold anyway and therefore the losses are no way near as large as projected; home-users use the software if they can get it illegaly but wouldn't buy it if they couldn't get it illegaly. And the type of home-user that really needs software is usually also the type that buys it. Except maybe for those that pirate Windows and Office, but I couldn't care less about Microsoft products and I think they're about the only exception to this.
At least, that's my impression...but who am I to speak about this when I only use free software?:P
Re:REDIRECT: Good thing (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about CEOs getting millions of dollars a month because they happen to be at the top of the ladder. It's about the programmers themselves getting money for doing what they do during the day. For them it's a job, and your paying for what they create is how they get their food every damned day. This comment was in anticipation of the BS to come. And I've got the moderation on me to prove it.
Great, now when... (Score:4, Insightful)
They're spending all their time going after easy petty thieves which requires almost zero investigative work and zero effort. Then they beat their chests and toot their horns like it's some major accomplishment.
My guess is that the feds will spend 10x as much time, effort, and money prosecuting these teens than they would ever spend prosecuting murderers, rapists, or armed robbers.
And I predict they will get stiffer sentences than violent criminals too...
Wouldnt this time, money, effort, and manpower be better put to use chasing terrorists? Sheesh.
They need to come back to Reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Second rant, On par with most of the Slashdot posts, why the hell is the FBI worrying about this in the first place? Lets see last I remember we are all suppose to still be on a "high alert" state for possible terrorist attacks. Somehow though, the FBI has the time, manpower, and money to go hunt these so-called criminals. Yet still, we have absolutely NO LEADS ON WHO WAS DISTRIBUTING ANTHRAX? Seriously, whats the count, 5 or 6 people have died from anthrax in the mail thus far, and the FBI doesn't have a single clue? It's been almost 3 months! Someone needs to straighten out their priorities.
Wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
Who says programmers must work for closed source companies like Microsoft? Programmers will always have jobs.
Government needs them, schools need them, people will always need programmers, and if software no longer sells people will make money via services.
Redhat has programmers and they all are making money. Dont forget Suse, and soon Mandrakesoft.
You dont have to sell the code, to make money, although selling the code sure makes it easier to make ALOT of money.
Those are business men not programmers (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, a programmer can make money without selling code.
ISPs learned they could make money without charging by the hour or charging you for email, for FTP, for newsgruops, for every little site you go to, for every little thing you do.
ISPs figured it out. You can charge people for the service of accessing the internet itself.
Software can work the SAME way. Software distributors would be a site like say www.download.com, and they can charge $10 a month to everyone who needs software to access the site.
And guess what, I think everyone here would pay $10 a month if they had to pay that to access all the newest software. I would do it.
Of course people will distribute on their own, but having a fast connection to reliable sites like that would make it easier.
You see selling services makes money. It works for the internet and it can work for software.
Re:ok.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What some people won't do (Score:4, Insightful)
Give me a break; this is complete and utter overreaction. The government should kick in doors and confiscate computers over violating COPYRIGHT law? Law enforcement agencies should coordinate raids on an INTERNATIONAL scale? Personally, I don't like to use pirated software, something which my friends consider odd. Yes, it is wrong, but despite what the corporate flacks say, it's not the same as stealing.
And what of the demand? (Score:5, Insightful)
The piracy 'scene' doesn't actually have all that much to do with the software; it's about friendship, competition, coding, learning to write perl or set up a firewall, and it's about a sense of community. And it's a community that isn't going to go away, irrespective of the number of busts or the citing of (oftentimes ludicrous) figures as to its costs.
I've found that many people who rail against software piracy will quite happily copy music from their friends, or tape videos from the tv and lend them out. I've also found that virtually everyone I've ever met is happy to ask for a copy of a piece of software when it suits their purposes. I've *also* found that most people involved in software piracy tend to buy a great number of computer games, and do genuinely subscribe to the scene's central tenet that if one enjoys the software, one should buy it.
What do busts like this achieve? They're a publicity stunt to demonstrate that *something*, anything, is being done. They're an example of pandering to big business, of ignoring what the public actually wants and believes. They're a triumph of bad accounting and spin over real-life facts as to software sales. And, ultimately, they don't change anything: the pirates will continue to pirate, and the end users will continue to download the stuff. And a few kids will find their lives becoming very difficult.
What we need is a little less hypocrisy. We need more people to admit that they copy games, that they lend cds to friends - and, hell, we need to question whether it's *really* the piracy that leads to the high prices, or whether in fact that's just traditional market forces at work. And pay attention: programmers are themselves very often pirates, at least in my experience. Perhaps I'm an evil man and live in an evil world. Or perhaps everybody's doing it, and a war on the supply is as fruitless as all of our other wars that fail to address the root of the problem.
Damn Linux people (Score:4, Insightful)
Mr. Kruger is right : why isn't somebody doing something about these "kernel.org" and "gnu.org" people who make all that evil free software available to everybody ?
Re:Thats not the point. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is insane. By your logic, the amount of money entering an industry does not affect the salary of the people working in it. Therefore programmers make as much as artists, garbage collectors, ditch diggers, etc? No, of course not. Programmers can make tons of money for not so much work simply because the product they produce is worth a lot of money. End of story.
Now, what you're saying is true, in the sense that once you've worked on a project, the amount of sales of that product in the future won't affect the amount of money you make now. But this is a horrendously simplistic viewpoint. When you work for a company, they're not paying you out of the money they will get selling the product you're working on. They don't have it yet. They're paying you the money they've made on previous products. And yes, me pirating M$ software today will affect the job prospect of M$ programmers in the near future.
Sorry, kid, it's the way the world works.
Re:Thats not the point. (Score:1, Insightful)
Of course, despite our best efforts, reason eventually wins out, and we realize that if the demand for cars goes down (or more importantly the number of cars *purchased* decreases), the number of people employed in a given industry goes down as well, costing jobs.
Finally, it's an issue of ethics. If you don't feel that a piece of software is worth its price, treat it as you would any other commodity for which you feel too much is being asked - don't buy it.
A couple quick things... (Score:4, Insightful)
2) With regards to "losses", I HATE it when software companies claim a LOSS from piracy. How can it be a LOSS if they never had that money to begin with???
Re:Federal piracy and entrapment (Score:4, Insightful)
However, the fact that they became a distribution point makes them software pirates as well. It's not like buying drugs off of a dealer, where the drugs end up confiscated by the state. All of those 12,000 copyrighted programs were pirated BY the government, and they should be liable for all 100,000 individual incidents of which they most likely have detailed server logs.
This went on for two-years!! How many small but promising software companies went under because the FBI was distributing their software illegally?
This has to be one of the most outrageously blatant examples of the need for STRICTER control over our government's law-enforcement powers. Not only, did they take part in illegal activities, they made it more damaging to those that the law was intended to protect.
Aren't all of you programmers out there happy to find out that your tax dollars have been spent for the last two years PROMOTING software piracy?
Re:Oh? So then they finished the terrorist problem (Score:2, Insightful)
What is the FBI so afraid of?
Someone using Photoshop and Kai's power tools to distort the presidents face?
Oh the horror...oh, wait, maybe it'll improve President Mush^H^H^H^HBush...
Re:Great, now when... (Score:1, Insightful)
Well, since murder, rape and armed robbery are not federal crimes, my guess is that you're probably right.
Re:Not here (Score:1, Insightful)
Using free software doesn't make you a computing god, nor does it make everyone else computer illiterate. Get a life you fucking nerd.
Funny comments from companies, 10 yrs ago.. (Score:5, Insightful)
10 years later.. Major games, 30-50$... While the complexity and everything surrounding a game got more complex, the price tag is still the same.
Same goes with a lot of high-end software.
On another note,
There are 3 takes , 2 extreme, 1 middle.
Middle: extended kind of piracy (like trialware) or sometime students have to learn somehow, and school arent' always the best avenues, students can't afford Max, autocad, and blablabla, and when they find a job, the employer needs to buy a seat of that software that the student knows, so basically, in the end, the money gets pumped in the system. That theory is good IF the employer is legit and honnest. In that case, Govs needs to target companies (which are the one MAKING money out of the software) but not in a super-intrusive-will-take-3-days-to-go-thru-all-t
The other problem is sometimes cashflow (especially for startups) doesn't allow to blast the required "200,000$" in a single payment (run a software budget analisis for 10-15 employees, a server based on M$ and the basic tools required to do the job depending on what kind of company it is, and it runs up quite fast) Some people are honnest and try to catch up with the licenses (I knew 2 startups that weren't legal from the beginning and catched up over a year or 2 and became totally legit afterwards, ok of course I know also a lot of small companies that are producing off pirated software and that disgust me,
but there's ONE point that I saw that made me think: the argument for one was to ban all the M$ products and buy 1 license of every software they were using, not 5 like required for every seat, the argument was "if we buy everything needed, we go bankrupt, I'd rather not be fully legal and have a job than being legal and broke (and no, these weren't companies that had 50 employees and making gazillion cash) , besides (they added), you cut on the salary of the employees to give some extra $ to uncle Gates's pockets, which doesn't create anymore quality jobs than I do."
While I have mixed feeling about that, the conclusion we can get from this is: if there could be a leasing option or renting option and the system would be more flexible, maybe there would be less piracy and people would tend to be more legit.
The 2 other points of view are "*everything* should be free" which shows how immature and short-sighted some people can be, and "everyone stealing software should get shot, there's 0.00 reason for copying a software, even if it's to try, to get a snapshot, to do backup copies, whatever, there's NO reasons"... heh.. no need to comment on that.
Re:You would think... (Score:2, Insightful)
However, all of those things are illegal. None of them kill 5,000 people, but laws still must be enforced.
[1] BTW, an augmented fourth is the ugliest sound in music (IMO).
Re:Oh? So then they finished the terrorist problem (Score:3, Insightful)
New World Order (Score:5, Insightful)
For each dissident or somehow threatening group, perform the following steps:
1. Turn the name of the group into a perjorative term. ("X")
2. Hold numerous press conferences on the dangers "X" poses to society or to the economy.
3. Create new laws to target some core activity of "X" that seems likely to be of no interest to non-X citizens.
4. More press conferences on the widespread problem of violators of the laws created in step 3, and proposing harsh new penalties for such violators.
5. Massive crackdown on violators of laws created in 3. For small and unimportant groups, all members may simply be thrown in an oubliette, or even executed. For larger groups, the threat of arrest may be used to compel individuals in whatever way is deemed necessary.
That's it. This model works quite smoothly, as demonstrated by Stalin (too many groups to count), Hitler (Jews are the best known victims, but many others as well), McCarthy ("Communists"), and the Inquisition ("Heretics", "infidels", and others).
Meet the New World Order. Same as the Old World Order.
This is right. DMCA is wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)
You may or may not agree with copyright law, but as long as it exists and must be enforced, I greatly prefer enforcement that targets the actual offenders. If copyright is not abandoned (which is highly unlikely), then we will have to either accept individual enforcement or laws like the DMCA.
Re:A good thing? (Score:2, Insightful)
Piracy as a Tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
It wasn't too long ago that Microsoft was pushing for it's products to get translated into Chinese and distributed to the country. It wasn't too hard to see the prospects of the software getting pirated; for every ten copies of software used in China, there is one sale. Actually, Steve Ballmer said: "If you're going to get pirated, you want them to priate your stuff, not your competitiors' stuff. In developing countries, it is important to have a high share of the piracy software."
Guess what China is? That's right. A developing country. And once it hits "Free World" status, here comes the profits for Microsoft in a country that is already used to and dependent on it's software. Up until that point, Microsoft isn't really losing anything. Programmers for Microsoft aren't losing their jobs because of this, since the demand is still there, even if the supply is being sought out for free.
Of course, this doesn't mean I'm supporting piracy, merely presenting an opinion.
Another thing: I see you guys specifically referning Microsoft in alot of your comments, another idea on them... if your major software competition offers their products for free... isn't it a good idea to be able to reach the "customers" who are only going to get their Operating Systems for free anyway? That way, you trap 'em in either one of these ways...
Further down the road, you increase piracy prevention so much that it's damn difficult to pirate your software. Microsoft-Using-Pirates now find themselves in a tough situation, either adapt to software you haven't used before, or actually buy the software.
Or, how about the fact that Microsoft makes so many things besides the OS. Most people are bound to pay for some of their products... and that's where they'll make their profit.
the "Warez" group??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, I'm a student at a major university. Can I join "Warez?" How do I sign up? Is there a membership fee? Why didn't someone tell me they'd organized it into an actual group?
And correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the proper conjugation "Members of Warez include corporate execs blah blah blah?" Mr Stout there obviously doesn't know shit about computers, the least he could do is use correct English. (I admit my English may not be perfect but then I'm not wrting for the Times...)
Re:MIT is a haven for piracy (Score:1, Insightful)
Frankly, I think your whining is ridiculous. You're looking at a market segment (college educated people, in MIT's case engineers) that are *most* likely to have stable, high incomes and a few years later, after graduation, most likely to have the money to make it worthwhile to pay for music, movies, and software. Why waste hours hunting for some movie when your time is valued at much more than that movie each hour?
Yeah, they were breaking the law, but frankly, I'd consider people talking on their cell phones while driving or speeding more immoral (you actually have people getting *killed* because of this). Apparently most people don't seem to think twice about either of these things, so I don't think they should complain about piracy.
ISPs here (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I may be naive and all, but doesn't that pretty clearly imply "buy our service and pirate the shit out of the entertainment industry"? Makes me wonder when the government will go after these guys.
Re:in some cases Piracy no longer unethical? (Score:1, Insightful)
technically illegal, in some cases, I dont really see software piracy (or music either for that matter) as unethical any longer, even though it might be (technically) illegal.
Though for small/honest software companies, buying software to support the creators, is important.. but in other cases, it is not so clear..
Some cases in point:
Microsoft: is an outright illegal monopoly, that basically got away with it, by giving money and greasing the wheels of the right players in the US govt. There is nothing legal about the way they do business, and it surprises me still, that foreign govts havent yet legalized the copying of their software since the monopoly is itself, illegal. Though maybe they forgot to think of that when they drew up the WTO regulations.. So I find it a real strech to think of copying M$ software as even being remotely unethical (in fact, it would be worse to give them the money, that they can then spend on lobbyists and politicians to flout our monopoly laws even further!)
RIAA/Record labels: pretty much every musician you talk to (famous or not) says the same thing.. Record contracts are designed to rob artists, who do not get compensated for their work. In fact, most artists say they want their work copied, because that way they get famous, and then can do concerts, which is the only way most artists *can* make money in the record business.
There is no protection for artists as similar RIAA record company lobbyist money was also used to buy and grease the wheels of politicians to take away artists rights over time, trample copyright principles...yada...yada.. forming, yet another cartel/monopoly.
Do unto them as they do unto you seems fair enough to me... I am not even sure why there is a debate about the ethics of software/music copying anymore, as the companies themselves sure arent showing any example of what ethical behavior even remotely looks like..
History (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of Hitler's victims were never accussed of violating any law. Stalin comes a bit closer, although 'counter-revolution' was already illegal before he took power. He just extended it into witch hunts. McCarthy's smear tatics damaged the careers and lives of many people before he was brought down. But again, he passed no new laws. The Communist activities that he targeted were treason and espionage. He didn't 'attain total control' because most American Communists were not in fact guilty of this. Oh, and the Inquisition's main target was "Secret Jews." But other than that, I guess that actually does follow the model, with lists of "Jewish" practices like bathing widely distributed.
Your attempt to extend the analogy to software theft is equally sketchy. The sites that were raided had activities that were illegal long before the DMCA--this is just good old fashioned theft. And I don't really see the 'harsh new penalties either'.
Re:Federal piracy and entrapment (Score:4, Insightful)
"T3 LINE DIRECT DOWNLOADS NO RATIOs 0-DAYz RIPS ISOS" and a link to t50.com ?
Re:COPYING IS NOT STEALING (Score:3, Insightful)
Your problem with language doesn't inform the question -- the word means what it means. A quick glance at three dictionaries, including OED and Webster's Third New International, disclosed many definitions of "steal" that did not require tangible theft. Indeed, some specific examples entail takings of intangibles.
That said, not all stealing is criminal, perhaps not even wrongful. I might steal a kiss and be naughty, but not necessarily commit a crime. Moreover, even conduct contrary to the law -- even some bearing criminal penalties -- need not be wrong per se. The law distinguishes between crimes that are malum prohibitum (wrong because prohibited) and malum in se (wrong in themselves).
Copyright infringement is often stealing, sometimes criminal, and certainly at most malum prohibitum.
But so what? Trying to control language is a terrible way to inform a debate. The words mean what they mean, but when used ambiguously, with loaded words like "stealing," that in some cases can be salutary conduct, slightly naughty conduct, or a serious crime isn't great debating technique. Just as poor, however, is pretending that the words don't mean what they mean.
Re:Warez. (Score:1, Insightful)
First time I saw anyone point this out was with the Mitnick trial. The prosecutors wrote letters to all the different companies that Mitnick had acquired source from and asked them what it cost them to develope the software. Sun said, "Well, we spent 8 billion on Solaris." The prosecutors then told the court that Mitnick caused 8 billion in damages to Sun.
Somehow, Sun didn't feel the need to report these losses to their shareholders. Either the executives at Sun were completely remiss in their obligations to their shareholders or the prosecutors knowingly mislead the court. Of course, it's not as bad as what's happened to Skylarov, but it was still horrible.
Microsoft wants you to copy their software (Score:2, Insightful)
Man (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I think you're dead wrong. What you and many others seem to forget is that the US is still a republic. Now I realise that could change and we could become a dictatorship, but I find that highly unlikely. At any rate, so long as we are still a republic, that means the people are ultimately in control. It may not seem like it at times, but it is the truth. Generally big companies, special intrest groups, etc get what they want because they are the ones that whine to the politicians. However, when a large percentage of the population decides they want something, they get it. Right now J. R. Public doesn't really care about the IP battles going on, none of it has effected them. However, if the authorities start locking up everyone that tapes a copy of Survivor, you will hear a mass outcry. Voters will tell the politicians "change the law, or we give your job to someone that will".
Again, something like this doesn't happen much, most of the time there aren't enough people that care on one issue, but it DOES happen. And I bet you if the FBI starts locking up normal people over things they've been doing for years, people will speak up, and with a loud voice.
Re:What some people won't do (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it is illegally duplicated. This may or may not represent a lost sale. For all you know, it may actually increase sales if the "thief" tries the program, likes it, and pays for the next version. Copyright violation is illegal, and wrong in most cases, but it is not morally equivalent to theft.
Re:Note the campus raid component. (Score:5, Insightful)
I probably buy $1,000 worth of PC games every year at the very least. And every time it pisses me off to the point that I write the company in question asking them why the hell they are including copy protection on their CDs. Why can't I make a copy of a game that I bought for $50? Why are these companies charging me for a product that I am restricted to use with their original media? How about if I actually value the products that they pushed out the door? Perhaps I want to play the game (which requires the CD in the reader) off a backed up cheapo CD-R rather than the $50 original. Perhaps I don't want a jumbo scratch on my original? But these companies do not care. Why?
The reason is very simple. The multi billion dollar software industry aimed at corporate computing aren't losing much money. The reason being, which has been properly mentioned, is that most people copying this software can't afford to buy it in the first place. Get over it. If they wanted to see some revenue from the public, they should drive "non-commercial" licensing much harder.
But the gaming industry is different. They cater to entertainment needs of people in most ages and they have a very small margin. Activision can't charge $100 or $1,000 for a game however cool it may be. People will not buy it. But the $50 median is pretty much the breaking point. Hence they need to sell vast numbers of the game in order to make money on it. Add to that, that games are probably much more complex in terms of development than shoddy word processors are.
Because these people cater to the public, they also want to restrict or make it harder, for the public to serialize copies of their products. Understandable. Id Software seems to have reached a smart deal. Instead of including a bunch of weird copy protection schemes that significantly hinder me from fair use, they use a key string which is validated on a server somewhere. That's it. No checking of what hardware it runs on and tying it to some specific configuration. Just make sure that the key is valid. And it works. Why is it that it is such a hard thing for other game vendors to understand this concept?
Now what if piracy would stop all together? Would these companies stop being idiotic? Probably not, because it is somewhat of a second life line.
I accidentally broke the CD with Half-Life on it. I called Sierra and asked for a new one, but they said that I had to pick up a new copy in the store. I asked why. They said that it was just as expensive for me to have them ship me a new copy, but that would add shipping charges as well. This is where I told them that I needed replacement media, NOT another "license" to play the game. The reply I got was "We're sorry, sir. But we don't replace CDs just because customers can't take proper care of the product they bought." Chicken and egg answer. In the end, the consumer (love that word which implies parasite rather than citizen) gets screwed.
So some bright guy will now ask the question, why do I continue to buy games if I hate the companies that publish them so much? To tell the truth, I am not sure. But I suspect that I am a sucker for a good gaming experience, just like any other dude down the street.
Thank god! (Score:2, Insightful)
There was once a time, that not only did I pirate software.. but I was also a trader, back when a 28.8 modem was cool. I have turned around and no longer pirate any software, and I feel much better for it. It really is nuts to even consider pirating software, why would I? Everything I need is available in a free (gpl or bsd) version; Why would I ever have to pirate? Especially when it is wrong.
Feed the starving developers or better yet, use free software; You know it is better anyway.
Those are ISPs, not Cash Cows (Score:2, Insightful)
Okay, all you who have had to change providers due to your existing one going belly up, raise your hand.
Now all you who were with @HOME, raise your hand.
Now, all you... oh wait, there's no one left.
Let's not be using ISP's as a model for business plans, eh?
Re:Note the campus raid component. (Score:3, Insightful)
You should have picked up on that one.
They said the CD is the product you bought. They didn't say you purchased the license. This means the data on the CD is free. This could mean you can give it to others without breaking the law.
Next time this happens, point this little fact out to them. If they say that you actually bought a license to the data instead of a CD, then tell them you don't want the data shipped on a CD. They can email it to you at no cost.
Now its their chicken and egg.
Re:Piracy as a Tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
The EXACT SAME concept should be applied to college students. The university I went to, Acadia University in Canada, gives every student an IBM Thinkpad. It's loaded with all sorts of less-than-ideal software. Many kids there would warez their laptops out with the latest versions of windows, office, photoshop, etc etc. They'd never buy the software, but gee whiz as they come out of school and get jobs, they know the software to use - the expensive stuff, NOT shareware/freeware stuff. If you have an emerging workforce that prefers to use expensive software, then that means that when those students enter the workforce, they will PREFER the expensive software with which they have experience, thus encouraging sales of said software.
In simple terms, if a fine arts major pirates photoshop in school, they'll insist on using photoshop when they enter the field. If they can't warez their photoshop, they'll learn a freeware/shareware photo program, and/or learn to master the least expensive version available (no plugins, etc).
If a software company wants to have the world addicted to their software by the time they get to the workforce, and they know they're not losing any sales by allowing college piracy to continue, then why not ENCOURAGE (tacitly, of course) college piracy? Busting them only turns them off the very programs you hope they'll be addicted to.
While in university, I spent my summers selling computer software - and I sold *TONS* of software, games, OS's, and applications, based on my warez experience. When a customer asked me "why should I upgrade to (winME/Win2k/Office2000/etc)?" or "what can Photoshop do for me?" I could tell them from firsthand experience. Anyone in the computer reselling business will tell you that the software companies themselves, for the most part, do dick all to help the salesmammals get real at-home hands-on experience with software. Would you trust buying a car from a car salesperson who'd never driven a single model made by that car company?
Anyhoo, busting college kids for warezing is like shooting fish in a barrel, but it does nobody any good. Busting a college kid often involves his or her being suspended/expelled/missing school time. That's one less college-educated kid in the country.
Enough ranting for now.
Dollars lost, but what about gain? (Score:4, Insightful)
But what these software giants DON'T say is how much business they gained from having people obtain their software illegally. Imagine this 17 year old kid who started with Windows 2000 when it started hitting the warez scene. What if he wouldn't have been able to do this? How much less exposure - and addiction - to this product would he sustain as a result? Probably lots. Much of the corporate usage of products such as the various productivity suites and tools is due to the exposure people get to a certain piece of software.
Did you ever meet some guy/girl who maintains that Lotus WordPro or Corel WordPerfect is superior, or simply that that's what they use? Sure you have, even though they aren't that vast in numbers. These people are most likely honest customers from the very start. They bought a computer and got the software bundled, or they bought the software in the store. And they kept with it because that's what they know. But again, they are few. Now look at all the attention Microsoft has on their Office suite. Is there a coincidence that this particular piece of software seems to be far more trafficked than competitive products?
Also pay attention to the fact that when a Microsoft OS is in beta stages, these builds seem to fly around on the Internet like crazy. Even "secret" or "leaked" builds do. And people collect and probably install them and use them. Because they want to be the first kid on their block with Windows XL or whatever the next version will be called. Microsoft seems to do nothing about the spread of this software. However, once it is released and stores charge for the software, it's another ballgame.
I would put more credibility in the reports if they were accredited an estimate on how much sales increased just because of piracy. Of course I am just speculating, but to me it makes sense.
Ironic (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet Microsoft has been found guilty in two courts for anti-competitive behavior, and stealing billions from it's consumers and competitors, and putting several of their competitors out of business; and they have never had a single computer seized and will only get a slap on the wrist as opposed to this "hard time" that Mr. Bond talks about.
Bust 'em, who cares... (Score:2, Insightful)
We sound like the marijuana [norml.org] activists. Yes, the arguments [norml.org] make perfect sense, but no one other than us is interested.
Unlike the norml groups we have a wonderful, free alternative.
So fuck 'em, use linux.
Re:Man (Score:2, Insightful)
You seem to forget something. This is America. No voter will vote for anyone who isn't a Republican or a Democrat, because that's throwing away your vote. And both the Republicans and the Democrats are so far in the pockets of the "entertainment" industry that the chances of their repealing any of these laws are about nil.
Re:Whatever... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not a hypocirite; I'm just trying to dissociate the act of illegal copying with 'Piracy' and the brutality that entails. The only reason the word is associated with illegal copying is the persistent use by people like the BSA. These people have a vested interest in portraying their enemies in the worst possible light, hence the term.
I'm not sure what you're arguing - illegal copying already has a word for it, so why try to change that? - but objecting to the word is most certainly not hair-splitting. There's a world of difference between copying photoshop and accosting a ship for its cargo, then killing the crew. Use a different term, like copyright infringement
Re:Any company that actualy died due to piracy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Who you're hurting are the guys trying to write reasonably priced, moderately featured software that will sell for $50-$200, instead of the $500+ price of the Microsoft/Adobe/BigName software.
In a non-warez world, people look at the very expensive apps and think, no way! Then they see the moderately-priced alternatives and think, yeah, this will meet my needs.
In a warez world, people look at the very expensive apps and think, no way! Then they see the moderately-priced alternatives and think, maybe. Then they see the $free, full-featured warez apps, and choose that.
The little guys are hurt.
The industry _makes_ money on software piracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Consider two scenarios:
Scenario 1: Adobe releases Photoshop. No one ever makes an illegal copy of it. So kids who want to goof around with pix they got on the Internet don't use it; they use a shareware Paint Shop-type app instead. If the bug bites him, he'll probably spend a lot of time on that piece of software, getting better and better with it. A small percentage of these kids might get their parents to spring for a copy of the real thing for Christmas or something, but don't count on it.
Meanwhile, Mr. Graphic Design Company CEO needs a tool to use in his design shop. Does he go with Photoshop? Maybe -- it has a lot of options. Big problem, though -- he'll have to train people to use it. Of course, there are some real hotshots out there with Paint Shop experience. Hmmm...maybe I only use Paint Shop, and outsource to a specialty company when I need Photoshop work. In fact, maybe I don't _need_ Photoshop; these guys are getting a lot of the same effects using the more primitive shareware tools.
Scenario 2: Adobe releases Photoshop. Individuals, mostly people who can't afford personal copies (students, kids at home, pros or amateurs at home) pirate it. They develop proficiency in it. Companies (who can be easily audited) more or less always buy licensed copies -- and they do buy it, because their employee base is all fluent in Photoshop!
Thanks, software piracy!
phil
Re:Man (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd like to think so, but the authorities lock up everyone they catch who has some pot in their possession, potentially half the population at one time or another of their lives, and I haven't heard a mass outcry yet. The brutal truth is there's about 10 to 20% of the electorate who wants the government to oppress those they feel are freaks and corruptors of what they feel is "Americanism", whether it be hippies, atheists, druggies, hackers, or whatever. When some of the voters protest a cruel law being overenforced, they are offset by the ones who would gladly see a strongman government elected to crush everyone's liberties but those of "right thinking people".
The key is of course, the great apathetic middle. And as long as they can enjoy their current right under the law to tape a copy of Survivor, you won't hear a peep out of them.
Great - they've won yesterday's war (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way, if the feds let all the pirate groups copy their releases and the pirate groups distributed them to all others, how many warez owners are there who've just gotten a little extra from their government this year? Isn't this a lot like if the government grew pot, sold it to 50 people, let the 50 people sell it to all their friends and then got around to busting the 50? Ohh, they got 50 drug dealers! Wow! Meanwhile, a couple of thousand hippies are stumbling around high on government pot.
Makes you wonder how they're fighting the war on terror, doesn't it?
Re:Warez. (Score:3, Insightful)
That argument barely flies for MP3s, but if you think that even 1% of warez users are on the "try before you buy" program you're nuts.
It's like breaking into car lots and test-driving cars in the middle of the night because you want to get a feel for the car before you make the purchase. I don't think the cops are going to buy that one.
There's nothing more pathetic than watching Napster and warez users try to rationalize their habit. Just admit it, you don't want to pay the exorbitant prices for this stuff.
meanwhile in a parallel universe... (Score:1, Insightful)
some choice quotes:
> One of Benedict's hobbies was trading computer
> games with, he says, friends and casual
> acquaintances contacted through
> bulletin board systems and even word of mouth.
and
> "After I got into the house, I thought it had to
> do with the computer games," Benedict says. "I
> thought they were going to seize my illegal
> copyrighted computer games."
Uh, folks, just in case you're confused, America is no longer the bastian of freedom that is used to be. Stopped being that way, probably, some time around the 1920s, but I'm sure American Indians would disagree with me on that...
I can't wait until the next generation of postal inspectors/FBI washouts discover gnutella... How many
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,49026
A choice quote:
> This is not a sport," Commerce undersecretary
> Phil Bond said. "This is a serious crime. These
> people should do some hard time."
My model is that of America as the new China... where freedoms have been given up for the periodic showcase bust... where lives and careers are ruined for political convience and where priorities have been completely lost by those responsible for making sure life is livable.
As survalence (in the name of "The War Against Terrorism") escalates the frequency of these types of "busts" will increase... Mark My Words!
All is not lost, however. The age of encrypted hard drives, 802.11b access points (for plausable deniability and perponderance of the evidence) and solid-state USB keychain disks holding encryption keys (remember, they have a right to search your house, not your person... as long as you stay off the property during the search) is upon us! I would also encourage cross connection of subscription service, registering your phone number under a different name from that which is on your lease/morgage and building community networks that provide the cover of plausable denabiltiy.
The really cool thing about this emerging situation is that it is *very* easy to take advantage of. Find out who was busted in your area, research who the primary investigators were, establish anonymous (use a different pay phone each time and turn off your cell before you go) rapor that leads to seemingly useful information and then bust your boss for failing to give you that raise (by having a snuff flick mailed to his house using his credit card)... hell, if you're creative you could creat an entire neighborhood of pedofiles.
not an accident this happened after sept 11? (Score:3, Insightful)
It should be assumed that any new powers granted to the police will eventually be used for whatever the hell the state wants to use them for. In the US, this means continued dominance of the two major political parties.
Warez are just a secondary issue in all this. Personally, I've used them since I've gotten tired of being dicked around by software companies. For example, I bought a macromedia suite of software as a student. When I installed it I got the message that it was for 'educational use only' and could not be used for commercial projects despite the fact that I had paid somthing like $200 for it (can't remember the exact figure). I tried to return it, as the EULA said that I should do and the store refused. I tried contancting Macromedia and they gave me the run around. " fax the information to us." "Our fax is broken" etc.
Microsoft did the same for Frontpage (yeah, my fault for buying the *$%&). They refused to remotly enable the software and wanted personal information before they'd let me use it.
Somehow I doubt the FBI is going to raid Macromedia, and the government seems to be calling off it's 'raid' on Microsoft.
The legitimacy of the law comes from the fact that it's applied equally to all people. Without that, it's just a bunch of men in blue with riot gear.