piracy and oss

Scott Wood treii28@yahoo.com
Fri, 20 Jul 2001 09:21:21 -0700 (PDT)


--- Ben Pfaff <pfaffben@msu.edu> wrote:
> "Marcel Kunath" <kunathma@pilot.msu.edu> writes:
> 
> > Not trying to start a flame war but I been thinking about
> > piracy lately
> 
> First of all let's get our terms correct.  The word "piracy" is
> propaganda intended to liken sharing copyrighted materials
> against the wishes of its owners, a relatively harmless thing to
> do, to killing, raping, looting, pillaging on the high seas.

For the most part I must agree with this assessment.  Of course, levels of
abuse correspond with levels of profit loss and thus severity of the 'crime',
but I find it amazing - for example with the recording industry - how quickly
they pounced on napster now that they had a centralized point to target.  By
today's logic, 3M and TDK might be out of business - after the recording
industry went after them for facilitating 'copying and distributing of
copyrighted materials'.  Or better yet, the print industry suing Xerox.

> I don't understand this argument at all.  Free software (I prefer
> this term to "open source") can often be obtained at no cost at
> all, not even the trouble of going out and finding a crack for
> it.  How does this make it seem more expensive than proprietary
> software?

I disagree to some extent here.  Nothing is free.  I pay $40 a month to keep
connected to the internet.  I pay also for my system upkeep, storage and
storage media, etc.  Equally notable, the lack of any implied or expressed
warrantees or service agreements on open source is a 'cost' as well - no direct
line of accountability to performance per specification or for 'fitness of
purpose'. (to quote the consumer law term related to implied warrantees on all
but 'as is' goods and services.  i.e. I have many time gotten exchanges and
even won small claims bouts in court when non-tech-type sales guys 'claim'
their latest widget is going to solve one of my problems)  Conversely, most if
not all open source software is by it's nature 'as is' - use at your own risk.

> > Shouldn't the open source community therefore actually work on
> > eliminating pirates of our competitors' products and everytime
> > we see a pirate report them to the corporations so that they
> > get fined or forced to pay the license and the economic picture
> > put into balance again?
> 
> I don't see any point in stooging for the BSA.  They have a lot
> of money, let them go out and hunt down copyright violators.
> It's not *our* problem.
>
> > I wonder if I be so heartless and rat out a friend who got tens
> > of unlicensed programs on his/her PC.
> 
> Okay, suppose you do "rat out" this friend.  What's going to
> happen?  Do you expect the FBI to come in and grab his PC to find
> out?  Do you expect the BSA to do this?  Do you expect them to
> send him a nasty letter?

Last I heard (which was over four years ago now) the 'cost effectiveness
"basement"' on pursuing hacking for the FBI Infragard computer crimes division
was $5000 in damages.  That was up from $2000 the year before.  If I had to
guess, it is probably approaching $10000 if it hasn't already.  In other words,
when you catch that script kiddie wiping out your self-maintained website,
don't even bother calling the FBI.  (Just do about $4999 worth of damage back
to him if you really wanna get back at them)
I doubt very seriously that they would bother with someone that has a couple
hundred dollars worth of 'verifiable' copyright violations on their home PC. 
There is a messy process to following up on these - read some of the stuff by
Richard Stoll where he follows the pursuit of some hackers, or the forward to
Internet Security Secrets for another good source if you want the 'real world'
facts about pursuing cyber-crime.
The world - the net - computers - et all are now so wide spread, that the basic
'warez hound' in y'alls neighborhood is nary a splash in the bucket.  Usually
the biggest problems facing the software companies re: loss of revenue involve
(domestic) corporate installations in excess of licensed copies or more
profoundly, foreign countries that don't honor international copyright
protection.

Truth is, if you serve a warrant, you have to pick a particular place.  Many
people don't register their software and many more make either back-up or
working copies of their purchased software.  (putting the masters away on a
shelf and using the working copy for installs)  Even if they don't, FBI goes to
facility #1 with a warrant - finds copy of ACME Office, sans license.  Joe
Smith on premisis says it is his working copy, goes to facility #2 after
questioning, borrows friend Jim's (who he copied it from in the first place)
license to answer to charges and buys Jim a new copy of the software for the
troubles (and for Jim's Receipt which says he bought it prior to the warrant).

lame example, but you get the idea... simply stated, you are allowed to make
personal working copies of whatever you buy, and it is not necessarily required
that the licenses be 'attached' to your computer or else my laptop case would
be getting heavier all the time.

> > It just makes me angry that basically every unlicensed software
> > usage is hurting open source software.
> 
> I really doubt this.  Most people who use proprietary software
> are doing it for some reason other than the price.  Generally
> it's because that's what everyone else is doing, or because it's
> what they understand, or whatever.  I think that in many cases
> they're more willing to pay than to learn.

All of the above and often because they want that tech support 800 number.

Scott

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/