Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Software Theft a Problem For Actual Thieves, Too

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the i'm-sure-it's-ubisoft's-fault-somehow dept.

Crime 152

Velcroman1 writes "Pity the criminal mastermind. After all, he's a victim too, reports FoxNews.com. Despite the sophisticated DRM baked into the ZeuS bot to protect it from theft, that's exactly what has happened. 'ZeuS is actually being pirated, so you can get all the versions for free,' said Roel Schouwenberg, senior anti-virus researcher with security software firm Kaspersky Labs. 'They introduced a hardware-based activation process similar to Windows activation, to make sure only one purchased copy of the ZeuS kit — the kit that produces malware — can run on one computer,' said Sergei Shevchenko, senior malware analyst for security software company PC Tools."

cancel ×

152 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

You know this sound? (4, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775346)

Its the worlds smallest violin, playing just for you.

Re:You know this sound? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33775946)

Stop reading this. You are stealing my intellectual property (by duplicating it at least twice, without permission, in both eyes).

©2010 Anonymous Coward

Not for sale! If you can read this, you are breaking the law!

Up next ... (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776144)

ZeuS Genuine Advantage

If You Can Produce ... (4, Insightful)

foobsr (693224) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775358)

... you can copy.

As simple as that.

CC.

Re:If You Can Produce ... (-1, Troll)

TheMidget (512188) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775718)

If You Can Produce ... you can copy.

Indeed, these thieves do not even have a sense of wrongdoing!

Crime runs rampant. Let's call in the feds [goo.gl] !

Re:If You Can Produce ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33776266)

Warning: Parent link is goatse

Re:If You Can Produce ... (1)

leromarinvit (1462031) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776344)

CC.

In this case, I'd prefer BCC.

Yeah, right (2, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775364)

a) Sharing duplicates is not theft of the original
b) There are no canons on ships involved.

Re:Yeah, right (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775376)

s/canon/cannon/

Re:Yeah, right (2, Funny)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775562)

Indeed; with piracy, canon demands cannon.

No, he probably means canons (1)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775764)

If you're a pirate, having a few senior executives of the local cathedral on board (whether as hostages or supporters) probably helps more than a few cannon, which wouldn't stand a chance against a missile cruiser.

Re:Yeah, right (5, Funny)

jamesh (87723) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775388)

a) Sharing duplicates is not theft of the original
b) There are no canons on ships involved.

I know you're just trying to be funny but have you ever actually been to Eastern Europe??? Software theft over there is exactly that - guys with eye patches, wooden legs, and parrots on their shoulders cruising around in great big ships with canons on them. And when they duplicate your software, they do take the original too.

Re:Yeah, right (2, Interesting)

Jurily (900488) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775418)

but have you ever actually been to Eastern Europe?

You mean the countries where tax evasion is a national sport, the people don't even realize they should pay for software, and when you tell them, they know you're joking?

I personally have not seen *anyone* who paid for any version of Windows unless their company got hit with an extensive tax audit. I'm from Hungary.

Re:Yeah, right (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33775458)

I don't know which Hungary do you came from, because all of the companies I worked for had legal Windows. In fact, I personally have several licenses.

Re:Yeah, right (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33775514)

but have you ever actually been to Eastern Europe?

You mean the countries where tax evasion is a national sport, the people don't even realize they should pay for software, and when you tell them, they know you're joking?

I personally have not seen *anyone* who paid for any version of Windows unless their company got hit with an extensive tax audit. I'm from Hungary.

I'm from Hungary too and I pay for Windows every time I buy a pre-built PC. (Which is the majority of purchases.)

I also implicitly pay for Windows every time I pay taxes (and I do, not the least because there's a significant VAT on all consumption) because the government site-licenses Windows for all educational institutions and all government computers - for a lot of money. Windows license fees are slowly but surely becoming part of the tax system in more and more parts of the world.

Private persons indeed generally don't buy Windows here (as copying software without reselling it for financial gain is not against the law in Hungary), and Microsoft is part of that too: the BSA reassures hungarian citizens every year that they will not audit private persons (they cannot by law). Most of the businesses where I worked did buy Windows.

The revenue numbers of Microsoft Hungary seem to support this.

Furthermore, because Microsoft turns a blind eye to piracy here they have encroached Windows to a large degree - giving other software like Linux little chance to spread. The well-known "Microsoft is better off if people pirate Windows instead of using Linux" concept.

Later on, once the country has a higher GDP and the legal environment has been manipulated more in Microsoft's favor they will tighten the finger-screw a bit more, and start auditing private persons as well.

Until then all Microsoft needs is a continued monopoly of Windows: that alone is hugely profitable to them already and they have all the time of the world to extract more profits from it.

And that is why Microsoft is worried sh*t-less about Android. Android is a completely Windows-less ecosystem that is spreading like wildfire along a very unexpected vector: mobile phones and phone carriers - which for decades used to be the most backwards technology sector of all. Android is spreading like mad in Hungary too. Usability and growth of Android puts anything that Redmond has produced in the last 30 years in shade. It's also a self-sustaining model without a licensing fee - so it's turning Microsoft's business model upside down.

So far the best "competitive" idea Microsoft has come up with is "sue the heck out of Android, directly or by proxy". As parasitic as ever ...

Re:Yeah, right (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775750)

[quote]because Microsoft turns a blind eye to piracy here they have encroached Windows to a large degree - giving other software like Linux little chance to spread[/quote]

The same here in Sri Lanka - except that they largely turn a blind eye to piracy by corporations as well.

The crackdown is no doubt planned for the future, but Linux has managed to become enough of a threat to keep it at bay. The " if Windows is too expensive, we will switch to Linux" tactic, expect it works well enough to get Windows for free.

The software companies that have started turning the screws here are IBM (for Lotus Notes) and Adobe (professional users of Photoshop etc.).

Re:Yeah, right (4, Funny)

zoom-ping (905112) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775604)

You mean the countries where tax evasion is a national sport

You do realize that the USA [motherjones.com] isn't part of Eastern Europe?

Re:Yeah, right (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775822)

At least not yet.

Re:Yeah, right (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776124)

>I personally have not seen *anyone* who paid for any version of Windows unless their company got hit with an extensive tax audit. I'm from Hungary.

Funny, I'm from Hungary, too. I work for the BSA.

See you Monday.

Re:Yeah, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33776412)

Go kill yourself.

Re:Yeah, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33776190)

Hungary is in Central Europe.

Re:Yeah, right (1)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776252)

I personally have not seen *anyone* who paid for any version of Windows

I haven't pirated (pardon me "backed up onto another computer") a copy of Windows in 15 years, so I'm a little fuzzy on how it's done these days.

Presumably you need a reg key from somewhere, then you need to deal with all that Windows Genuine Advantage business every time a user runs Windows Update? Or do you run an old version without patches? Sorry to be obtuse, I'm just curious how it's done these days... Seems like a bit of a hassle...?

Re:Yeah, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33776332)

you add an entry to your hosts file and forget about it (updates and all work fine)

Re:Yeah, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33776102)

cruising around in great big ships with canons on them

I didn't know they took canons [wikimedia.org] .

Re:Yeah, right (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776260)

The canon spelling of that word is "cannon".

Re:Yeah, right (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776956)

The canon spelling of that word is "cannon"

Did you mean "canonical"?

Re:Yeah, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33776348)

When they were saying "Yarrggh!" I thought it was just a language barrier. Now I know better. Thanks.

Re:Yeah, right (1)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776642)

And when they duplicate your software, they do take the original too.

S'okay. I have an offsite backup.

Re:Yeah, right (2, Insightful)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775454)

more to the point. for some reason, society keeps paying teachers to copy books into kids' brains, but lawmakers keep saying it's bad to copy stuff.
it's somehow interesting.
it's also scary that this story is presented as if infringing copyrights is the same as writing malware.

Re:Yeah, right (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33775480)

Stop being so fucking retarded. Your whining is like a convicted murder complaining that he's actually a "surprise end-of-life facilitator."

Copyright infringement, theft of intellectual property, theft of service, piracy - and even theft - are all similar names for something that is still a criminal activity.

And you, as a perpetrator, are hardly in a position to complain about the popular name for your illegal activities.

Re:Yeah, right (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33775532)

Copyright infringement, theft of intellectual property, theft of service, piracy - and even theft - are all similar names for something that is still a criminal activity.

Not quite. They are all similar types of criminal activity. They are not the same activity.

Unless you're trying to say that taking a picture of something is the same as taking the thing itself, in which case I'll be over to your place later to take pictures of all your stuff.

Re:Yeah, right (1)

kdemetter (965669) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775828)

Actually , You could get in serious trouble by taking pictures of me , or my stuff , without my consent.

Re:Yeah, right (1)

kc8apf (89233) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776706)

Not if we are in the USA, the photos are taken from a public place (the street), and they are only for personal use.

Re:Yeah, right (1)

bcat24 (914105) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776812)

It depends. If you're a public place in the USA, I'm generally free to photograph you walking, talking on your cell phone, etc. Whereas if I walked up to you, grabbed your cell phone, and ran away with it, that's generally frowned upon by the law. :)

Re:Yeah, right (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775898)

Stop reading this! You are stealing from me by duplicating my intellectual property... at least twice (upside-down, in both eyes)!

©2010 catmistake
This is not for sale. If you are reading this, you are breaking the law.

Re:Yeah, right (0, Redundant)

catmistake (814204) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775922)

Stop reading this! You are stealing my intellectual property by duplicating it without permission (at least twice, in both eyes).

©2010 catmistake

This is not for sale. If you are reading this, you are breaking the law.

Re:Yeah, right (2, Insightful)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775584)

I recently read a good counter argument to yours: throwing a cream pie in your face may be illegal, but it doesn't mean I raped you.

And even if special interest groups succeed in getting people to call cream pieing (see what I did there?) someone "rape", it still won't actually be rape.

Finally, copying software without authorisation is often not criminal.

Re:Yeah, right (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33776638)

I suggest you google 'cream pie' with safe search off, and then tell me it isn't at least some sort of sexual assault!

Re:Yeah, right (3, Insightful)

the_womble (580291) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775754)

These are not "popular" names. The only reason anyone uses the term "theft" for copyright infringement is because they are spinning to try and manipulate people into associating something that most people think deeply wrong(theft) with something most people think is fine (copying stuff).

Re:Yeah, right (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33775504)

Copyright infringement has been coined Piracy for hundreds of years. Get over yoursell already.

Re:Yeah, right (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33775628)

Corruption, lies and greed have been around even longer than that. That does not mean that we shouldn't fight it whenever we see it.
There is one correct description for the crime, the other descriptions that are used are used for propaganda reasons. I don't like when people tell me lies to make me think in a specific way and when they call copyright infringement for piracy or theft that is exactly what they do.

Re:Yeah, right (1)

Robert Zenz (1680268) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775546)

Agreed. This is similar to the german term "Raubkopie" which literally means "robbed copy". So, I always imagine that someone is holding a gun to someones head "You copy this CD/DVD!" and after that also takes the original with him.

Re:Canon (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775576)

The Vatican called. They want your unauthorized copy of the Canon back.

Re:Yeah, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33775596)

b) There are no canons on ships involved.

Canon makes copy machines [google.com] . Wait, wha? Now my head hurts.

Re:Yeah, right (1, Offtopic)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775924)

If you're distributing free copies of software, you're depriving the author of the revenue he would have received if he had been able to sell those copies. This is why we have copyright laws: so that people who generate content can be fairly compensated for their efforts.

Re:Yeah, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33776588)

How is that relevant to the discussion, which was about semantics and terminology?

Re:Yeah, right (1)

Urkki (668283) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776004)

a) Sharing duplicates is not theft of the original
b) There are no canons on ships involved.

Sharing duplicates is theft of intellectual property... as long as you accept the basic concept of intellectual property in current international law, anyway.

Re:Yeah, right (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776478)

> Sharing duplicates is theft of intellectual property.

No it isn't. Copyright is a bundle of exclusive rights protected by statute, consisting essentially of the right to sue anyone who makes unauthorized copies of the subject work (with some notable exceptions). In order to "steal" a copyright one would have somehow deprive the owner of possession of that right. Making unauthorized copies does not deprive the owner of the copyright of possession of anything[1]. Doing so is a tort. It can be a crime. It is not theft.

Infringing copyright is illegal. It also may often be wrong. Many things are illegal and/or wrong. That does not make them theft.

[1] Unauthorized copying does not "steal" any putative revenue because the copyright owner never had possession of or title to it.

Malware developer == thief ? (2, Interesting)

alexhs (877055) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776272)

Next month or so we will get a headline of "Thief thief Thief thief thief thief Thief thief" [wikipedia.org] , and none of these words will be about actual theft of tangible property.

[Actual thieves] compare [developing malware kits] to Kalashnikov gun manufacturing ('we make the weapon, it’s not up to us how it’s used')

And therefore gun manufacturers are also actual serial killers.

Re:Yeah, right (3, Informative)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776496)

c) In the 1600 they referred to copying books and plays without permission as piracy, and back then there still were pirates cruising the waters. In 1703 Daniel Defoe said of his book that, if he had written it for the money, he would be greatly concerned at the actions of PIRATES and PARAGRAPHMEN (they loved capslock for emphasis back then, too), but since he didn't, they were welcome to their pennies.

Re:Yeah, right (2, Informative)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776608)

There are no canons on ships involved.

So? Seriously, the term piracy in the sense of unauthorised copy predates copyright! Some words have more than one meaning.

Re:Yeah, right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33776742)

Hi, I'm from the 17th century and I don't appreciate you criticizing our word for copyright infringement.

This is a common business shortfall (3, Funny)

shione (666388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775372)

Know your market!!!

Re:This is a common business shortfall (2, Insightful)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775440)

Nothing astonishes people so much as common sense and plain dealing.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

Necessary Simpsons quote (5, Funny)

zrbyte (1666979) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775382)

In the words of the famous Nelson Muntz: "HAHA!"

Re:Necessary Simpsons quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33775436)

Yes but, does the crack also remove the crack detection code. The code that figures out it's pirated and mails evidence of your malware producing activities to the FBI.

Stating the obvious (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776054)

I do not understand why people present it as big news. Criminals attack other criminals much more often than one might think. Actually, it's a basis of existence of organized crime which parasitises on prostitution, illegal gambling and street drug trade. Violent gangs attack each other more often than civilians (granted, civilians prefer to do what they are told by gangs without proceeding to violent confrontation stage).

It's only natural that criminal software is pirated more often than "normal" software.

The basis for this is obvious: the results of the efforts of criminals are less protected by law, because criminals won't appeal to authorities.

Re:Stating the obvious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33776426)

>

The basis for this is obvious: the results of the efforts of criminals are less protected by law, because criminals won't appeal to authorities.

Definitely wrong. Oh, wait. You are talking about non-lawyer criminals. I think you need to be more specific next time.

Its a Fox News article (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33775396)

Its fiction with a patriotic twist.

FUD (1)

chronoss2010 (1825454) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775400)

i never have a problem with pirated software haha you do not understand how bots work do you A) person makes them B) uses htem C) someone gets a copy and alters and improves D) go back to A) evolution

Time to switch to a web-based version (4, Interesting)

drolli (522659) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775412)

Just provide it as a service and pay per use, then the software does not need to be transferred. On the other hand - i am not sure the other criminals would trust the website. After all if they promise the are 100%malware-free, its exactly not what they want. If the promise is not given, the i would assume they have backdoor in the backdoor.

I think a special Version of Anti-Virus software is needed.....

backdoor in the backdoor (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33775420)

Yo dawg

Re:Time to switch to a web-based version (1)

klingens (147173) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775486)

If they don't trust the website to create the custom bot for them, why would they trust the binary which does that they downloaded from same said website. As a malware distributor you either trust your supplier or you don't, no matter how the software reaches you.
If you don't trust your supplier you can't use the software, no matter how it is supplied to you.

Re:Time to switch to a web-based version (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776134)

See, what's needed is Virus as a Service (VaaS). You don't a binary. You just specify your parameters, goals, etc. on a web form, and VaaS servers (bots) set to work.

Oh, it also incorporates the OpenStack cloud system.

Simple solution (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33775424)

Join the BSA.

Surprised? (5, Insightful)

jojoba_oil (1071932) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775434)

I'm not surprised at all. This tool is for people who have no regard for others' computer hardware, so why should they care about computer software either?

Re:Surprised? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33775550)

But but ... all those Hollywood movies told me there's honour among thieves!

Re:Surprised? (3, Funny)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775574)

Yeah, but it's not theft, it's copyright infringement! There's no honour there...

Re:Surprised? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33776110)

Yeah, but it's not theft, it's copyright infringement!

In common parlance it is theft. Even a century ago, if an industrial spy took a copy of some paper blueprints, it was called stealing not infringing. The parallels between stealing blueprints and stealing software are, to my mind, quite strong.

Re:Surprised? (1)

kc8apf (89233) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776780)

Except that a century ago, stealing blueprints actually deprived the owner of something tangible. It was actually theft.

Re:Surprised? (1)

pointfiftyae (993509) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776336)

Whoops, moderated you "overrated" instead of "funny". Replying to cancel mod. Sorry!

Re:Surprised? (1)

Urkki (668283) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775984)

But but ... all those Hollywood movies told me there's honour among thieves!

But there is. Thieves don't let fellow thieves use non-pirated software! That would be just... unethical!

Honor among thieves (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33775526)

I guess this goes to show that there is none after all.

Google's new URL shortener (-1, Troll)

TheMidget (512188) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775530)

Google's new URL shortener REeK [goo.gl] s

Re:Google's new URL shortener (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776242)

So - Midget - are you the receiver?

Confusing Headline (3, Insightful)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775544)

So I read the headline, then I read the text snippet. Now I'm confused. What about those actual thieves mentioned in the headline? Who are they? The developers of ZeuS? Or the ones "pirating" the bot? Who is stealing what here? Have infected computers illegally changed hands?

Re:Confusing Headline (3, Interesting)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775658)

Yes, the headline doesn't really match the story. They're talking about two groups of people:

1. Actual thieves, such as the ones who used ZeuS to steal money from various bank accounts in the US and other countries and launder that money back to Eastern Europe (and were recently arrested in a worldwide roundup). Some (maybe most or all) of these people, clearly lacking moral scruples, are also pirating the ZeuS software.

2. The authors of ZeuS, who would like to get paid for their work. (It's unclear whether these folks also use ZeuS themselves to steal money or engage in other nefarious activities, or if they're just software developers.)

So (the obvious problem with the term "software theft" aside), the headline should read, "Software Theft a Problem with Actual Thieves, Too".

Re:Confusing Headline (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776164)

The thieves are the ones selling software to steal your credit card numbers, passwords, et cetera

Oh! I know! (5, Funny)

selven (1556643) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775556)

Malware authors should switch to a crowd funding or donation model!

Re:Oh! I know! (5, Funny)

SigmundFloyd (994648) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775606)

Maybe they could perform live cracking sessions and sell t-shirts.

Re:Oh! I know! (2, Insightful)

dangitman (862676) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775896)

Yeah, but you know that people are just going to distribute bootleg tapes of the live cracking sessions anyway.

Re:Oh! I know! (1)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776122)

Please, I did not go through the trouble of registering on slashdot only so you can poke fun at us. I have enough t-shirts with the names of inane classic rock bands on them.

Interesting attitude (2, Insightful)

SigmundFloyd (994648) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775568)

When it's about software, it's theft. When it's about music or movies, it's sharing, or - at most - infringement.

Good job at building your credibility, Slashdot.

Re:Interesting attitude (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775788)

When it's about software, it's theft. When it's about music or movies, it's sharing, or - at most - infringement.

Well, I see the copyright shills are out moderating today. Theft requires that someone be deprived of something. If copyright violation were theft, it would fall under theft in the code. It does not; we have a whole separate body of law to prevent the copying of intellectual properties specifically because it is not theft. The parent comment is not the troll, the submission's title is, and Soulskill should be embarrassed to have promoted it to the front page. It does, indeed, cost Slashdot credibility among geeks, the people who make this site worth visiting (for the discussions.)

Re:Interesting attitude (1, Funny)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776302)

"Theft requires that someone be deprived of something"

They are being deprived of something. Obviously, they're being deprived of profit (not just any money, but the pirates own money) that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money (which is potential profit). Understand, now?

Re:Interesting attitude (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776380)

They are being deprived of something. Obviously, they're being deprived of profit (not just any money, but the pirates own money) that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money (which is potential profit). Understand, now?

I understand the bullshit lengths that copyright trolls will go to in order to attempt to appear to have an argument. When you have to start talking about alternate realities to explain your position, you're full of shit. It has been shown time and again that piracy does not equal lost sales; indeed, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that those who download purchase more media than those who do not. Until you can somehow show that piracy results in lost sales, which has never successfully been done, perhaps you should shut your cakehole — because the cake is a lie. And so is your bullshit about piracy being equal to theft. Lawyers understand, judges understand, lawmakers understand, you don't understand. One of these things is not like the others.

Re:Interesting attitude (2, Informative)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776420)

"And so is your bullshit about piracy being equal to theft."

It's not "bullshit" at all! We all know that you support the theft of profit that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money (this is evidenced by the fact that you didn't run out and buy every available product in existence, which, if you did, the artists and businesses would have had more money).

Isn't this the BEST way to fight this? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33775582)

Isn't this the BEST way to fight this? Rather than try to track down and close the ones making money from malware by putting them in jail (expensive on the public purse), instead take the money out of making malware.

And if it still doesn't kill all malware, then this would also prove the lie about how copyright is necessary or things won't be made any more.

GPL (4, Funny)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775684)

If the author of Zeus published it under the GPL, then this would never have happened!

More extreme measures? (3, Interesting)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775744)

Since we're talking about software that is already outside the law, it's reasonable to assume that the punishments or retribution that the illegal software makers can build in to "protect" their code could also be outside the bounds of acceptability. So while "legal" DRM measures can't do much beyond saying "you're being naughty, please stop" the illegal copies of illegal software could give themselves licence to wreak havoc on the machine that's attempting to run them. Just how far they'd be prepared to go (causing the hardware to catch fire? is that practical?) could be an interesting development for the uninvolved onlooker to track.

Re:More extreme measures? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776288)

"So while "legal" DRM measures can't do much beyond saying "you're being naughty, please stop""

I'd say it's more like... "you can't take that course of action with your own software because, from the very start, we've wrongly suspected you of taking actions that we don't approve of!"

Re:More extreme measures? (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776434)

So while "legal" DRM measures can't do much beyond saying "you're being naughty, please stop" the illegal copies of illegal software could give themselves licence to wreak havoc on the machine that's attempting to run them.

True. But after a few incidents, people would just start running their pirated copies in a virtual or disposable machine. The paranoid ones would do that from the start.

Another article about "stealing ideas" (2, Insightful)

janwedekind (778872) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775756)

Today's modern criminal needs protection, just as a legitimate franchise like ... Without such protection, all the crook's best ideas would simply be stolen, the entire business would be replicated as a cheaper alternative, and the original business would be destroyed.

Am I hearing Rupert Murdoch's voice here?

Well, to be precise... (2, Interesting)

kikito (971480) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775760)

The Zeus devs are not 'thieves' because they made Zeus.

It's a different type of crime.

It's like saying that a company that builds a popular and illegal anti-person mines has had its mine blueprints stolen.

A more proper title would have been "DRM doesn't work, even for Cibercriminals".

Re:Well, to be precise... (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776284)

No, I think the term that you're looking for is "cybercriminal."

faux news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33775800)

lots of articles with faux news as a source here...

No pity for the Million Micro$oft Virus/Bots/etc (0, Troll)

linuxiac (1831824) | more than 3 years ago | (#33775832)

No pity for the Million Micro$oft Virus/Bots/etc. because smart people run one of the 452 stable, safe, secure, virus free GNU/Linux distros, or one of the 36 *BSDs! My tolerance for any businesses that run very vulnerable Micro$oft, thus risking customers, is now zero. If forced to deal with them, do cash only, with the 3% discount for cash! Get Linux or BSD! http://linuxmint.com/ [linuxmint.com] http://distrowatch.com/ [distrowatch.com] http://www.bsd.org/ [bsd.org] http://linux.org/ [linux.org]

Techdirt should enjoy this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33775918)

I just submitted this to Techdirt, I hope they have fun tearing this story apart. You know they're scraping the bottom of the barrel when they use Malware to justify IP Law.

From the title (1)

digitalderbs (718388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776182)

I thought this would be an article on Microsoft and Apple.

Theft? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33776278)

Huh. I thought that theft implies that someone was deprived of something. In this example, no one is (well, except for profit that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money, of course).

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>