Software Theft a Problem For Actual Thieves, Too 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."
You know this sound? (Score:5, Funny)
Its the worlds smallest violin, playing just for you.
Up next ... (Score:2)
ZeuS Genuine Advantage
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
i know your trying to be funny, but thats what some people in the riaa and mpaa want to happen. it's just that the technology is not there yet.
Re: (Score:2)
When that day comes, can we counter-sue for harassment when a song gets stuck in our heads?
Are you referring to a possible counter-claim in a case of cryptomnesia [wikipedia.org] such as Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music? George Harrison was found liable for accidentally copying part of a song he had heard years ago into his own "My Sweet Lord".
"Publicly" defined (Score:2)
Hmm. I was thinking "Unsolicited performance" or some junk.
I got confused because where I live, copyright restriction on performance of a work applies only to transmissions to the public and to other performances done "publicly", that is, "at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered" (17 USC 101). So the first order of business for the record industry would be to reverse the case law that (IIRC) blaring a rap song from a car stereo isn't performin
If You Can Produce ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... you can copy.
As simple as that.
CC.
Yeah, right (Score:2, Insightful)
a) Sharing duplicates is not theft of the original
b) There are no canons on ships involved.
Re: (Score:2)
s/canon/cannon/
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Indeed; with piracy, canon demands cannon.
No, he probably means canons (Score:2)
Re:Yeah, right (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:1, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
[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 f
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Android on a phone is useless without paying the relatively huge licensing fee to Google for the Google applications and access to the Google application store.
So there is a large license fee being paid for every copy of Android. Sure, you can go without the apps and the store but then it isn't really Android, now is it?
No Market on Android pod touch (Score:2)
Android on a phone is useless without paying the relatively huge licensing fee to Google for the Google applications and access to the Google application store.
If that's true, then that's why the Android-based competitors to Apple's iPod touch, made by companies such as Archos, don't have Android Market and other Google applications: only the carriers can afford to subsidize the $300 premium for those. Can you cite a source for how much this fee actually amounts to per handset?
Re:Yeah, right (Score:4, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
>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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can pretty much install a single copy of Windows on as many computers as you want. After you try to activate it a certain number of times (3-5), you have to call Microsoft. They'll ask you how many computers you have installed it on, and if you tell them "one", they'll just read you your activation code, and you're done.
I'm sure there is some reasonable limit. If they see you've activated the same copy of Windows 50 times, they'll know something is up.
Not that I would know, of course. :)
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it the pirate versions actually involve *less* bullshit than a copy bought from Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The canon spelling of that word is "cannon".
Re: (Score:2)
The canon spelling of that word is "cannon"
Did you mean "canonical"?
Shuttleworth? (Score:2)
Did you mean "canonical"?
No, because the article isn't about Ubuntu.
Re: (Score:2)
And when they duplicate your software, they do take the original too.
S'okay. I have an offsite backup.
Re: (Score:2)
cruising around in great big ships with canons on them
I didn't know they took canons [wikimedia.org].
Well... now you do. Sometimes the Pope goes along for the ride too.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
The Vatican called. They want your unauthorized copy of the Canon back.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
> 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
Re: (Score:2)
Malware developer == thief ? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Thief thief thief thief, mushroom mushroom (Score:2)
Next month or so we will get a headline of "Thief thief Thief thief thief thief Thief thief"
Mushroom mushroom [badgerbadgerbadger.com]. How do you expect Thief the game [wikipedia.org] to fit into this?
Re:Yeah, right (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So? Seriously, the term piracy in the sense of unauthorised copy predates copyright! Some words have more than one meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course slashbots know that there is more than one meaning to piracy which is why they can pick the one least appropriate to the topic.
Re: (Score:2)
And it was always intended as hyperbole.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Actually , You could get in serious trouble by taking pictures of me , or my stuff , without my consent.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
It's only frowned upon if you get caught....
Re: (Score:2)
©2010 catmistake
This is not for sale. If you are reading this, you are breaking the law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Yeah, right (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
This is a common business shortfall (Score:4, Funny)
Know your market!!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing astonishes people so much as common sense and plain dealing.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
Necessary Simpsons quote (Score:5, Funny)
Stating the obvious (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
THAT's when the "ha ha" comes in.
Time to switch to a web-based version (Score:5, Interesting)
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.....
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:2)
I for my part would prefer to run it locally. after all, i would run it in a virtual machine without network connection and then also test it in a machine of my own *before* letting the virus to the wild. That prevents the seller of the webservice from plainly stealing your target customizations, using it for himself and giving you a crippled version. On the other hand, if the programmer has some reputation to loose then he cant pull that off to visibly.
But i must admit that i have no idea which methods the
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
But but ... all those Hollywood movies told me there's honour among thieves!
Re:Surprised? (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, but it's not theft, it's copyright infringement! There's no honour there...
Re: (Score:2)
Except that a century ago, stealing blueprints actually deprived the owner of something tangible. It was actually theft.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you can't see the flaw in your example then it's no wonder that copyright law is as screwed up as it is. Stealing a secret is very different from copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Confusing Headline (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Confusing Headline (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
The thieves are the ones selling software to steal your credit card numbers, passwords, et cetera
Oh! I know! (Score:5, Funny)
Malware authors should switch to a crowd funding or donation model!
Re:Oh! I know! (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe they could perform live cracking sessions and sell t-shirts.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but you know that people are just going to distribute bootleg tapes of the live cracking sessions anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2, Funny)
"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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
"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).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Look, the whole point of piracy is to destroy the revenue model that is media today. And encourage a revenue-free model for everything else as well.
We all know we want to live in the Star Trek world where there is no more money. This is the avenue that some folks have chosen to get there. So go out and destroy some revenue today!
Re: (Score:2)
It has been done: http://www.unc.edu/~cigar%25/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf [unc.edu]. The jist of it: The top artists actually gain sales from piracy, the bottom artists lose sales (~5000 downloads:1 lost sale), the net effect is essentially zero. Still, to the artists losing money I don't think they care much about the net effect.
I agree with your premise, and calling it
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently, some people are also stupid enough to believe that profit (and by profit, I of course mean money that the pirate owns and has not given to the artist/business yet) that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money can actually be stolen.
Isn't this the BEST way to fight this? (Score:2, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
More extreme measures? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of these nice little software products have actual IRL thugs backing them up.
So, by pirating their software you might get a in-person meeting with someone with a lot more in common with pirates of yor. And you might get a chance to reenact a bit of history yourself by walking the plank.
Or getting your legs broken.
Be happy that the BSA does not employ such tactics.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and so do some of the malware-creation kits.
Another article about "stealing ideas" (Score:3, Insightful)
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... (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
No, I think the term that you're looking for is "cybercriminal."
Re: (Score:2)
whi?
From the title (Score:2)
Theft? (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
They have been deprived of the right to control (re)production of their work, in other words their copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
How does that harm them, exactly (besides the "potential profit" idiocy)?
Re:Theft? (Score:4, Insightful)
No they haven't. They have the right to sue anyone they catch making infringing copies. That is what copyright is. There is no property which they possessed before the infringement that they do not still possess afterward, therefor there cannot have been any theft.