PING: JonInMiddleGA (Software Piracy) response

[SirFozzie]

I came across this story on /. today, and considering our recent discussions, I'm really interested on what you think.. is this going to far?

The author of the Echelon decided to take his fight against software piracy to the next level and then threw in the towel. After someone began posting new serial numbers on a well known hacking site, the author took matters into his own hands. With version 1.0, entering a hacked serial number causes the software to delete the user's Home directory. Yes, you read it right, the software completely erases it (aka rm -rf ~). This means, it basically destroys the user's system..

Personally, I say yes, because it is WIDE open for lawsuits considering the following:

* The developer mis-enters a "pirated serial #" onto their blacklist
* The developer accidently reissues a serial number that was previously identified as pirated (due to the way his serial number calculation scheme works)
* The user accidently "fat fingers" a legitimate serial and enters a "blacklisted" one


But considering what you've said.. is the risk of one of these things happening low enough to not be a problem? And I think that even if it wasn't "accidentally" tripped, you still do not have the right to destroy someone's machine, do you?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I came across this story on /. today, and considering our recent discussions, I'm really interested on what you think.. is this going to far?

The author of the Echelon decided to take his fight against software piracy to the next level and then threw in the towel. After someone began posting new serial numbers on a well known hacking site, the author took matters into his own hands. With version 1.0, entering a hacked serial number causes the software to delete the user's Home directory. Yes, you read it right, the software completely erases it (aka rm -rf ~). This means, it basically destroys the user's system..

Personally, I say yes, because it is WIDE open for lawsuits considering the following:

* The developer mis-enters a "pirated serial #" onto their blacklist
* The developer accidently reissues a serial number that was previously identified as pirated (due to the way his serial number calculation scheme works)
* The user accidently "fat fingers" a legitimate serial and enters a "blacklisted" one


But considering what you've said.. is the risk of one of these things happening low enough to not be a problem? And I think that even if it wasn't "accidentally" tripped, you still do not have the right to destroy someone's machine, do you?


Okay, I gotta read it slowly to make sure I'm not missing something here, but ...

IF it's a known hacked serial number, that could no longer exist through legitimate means, then I've got no problem with frying the thief's harddrive. Or, frankly, with the computer frying the thief directly for that matter ;) I'd readily shoot some bastard sneaking into my house to steal something, this falls into the same category AFAIC.

BUT ... I don't know of any foolproof way to protect against a legit user fumbling-fingering the wrong serial number into the fill-in-the-box blank.
With that in mind, I don't like this plan.

Now ... if the developer arranges to "leak" a set of bad codes, ones that (for the sake of discussion) bear no resemblence to the real thing, and those "just happen" to get propigated across a hacker network ... well, I can't say I'd do much except LMAO about the fried hardware that results.

I guess the bottom line is that I don't have any real problem with his goal here, but I think his execution of the plan has too many potential holes to pass muster for me.

[SirFozzie]

BUT ... I don't know of any foolproof way to protect against a legit user fumbling-fingering the wrong serial number into the fill-in-the-box blank.
With that in mind, I don't like this plan.

Now ... if the developer arranges to "leak" a set of bad codes, ones that (for the sake of discussion) bear no resemblence to the real thing, and those "just happen" to get propigated across a hacker network ... well, I can't say I'd do much except LMAO about the fried hardware that results.

I guess the bottom line is that I don't have any real problem with his goal here, but I think his execution of the plan has too many potential holes to pass muster for me.

Interesting, you don't think there could be a problem with entrapment in the leak case?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Interesting, you don't think there could be a problem with entrapment in the leak case?

Again, just being theoretical here (i.e. not at all inclined to go look up a more certain answer) ... I thought "entrapment" was only applicable to a governmental entity?

If I read things right, we're talking about an individual/ private entity here.

[albionmoonlight]

I think that JinMGA is right about entrapment being only a police/governmental thing.

I don't, however, think that this plan will work, and I think that whoever uses it better prepare to get sued by someone.

The closest analogy of which I can think off the top of my head is the "spring gun" case (where you have a shotgun inside of your house/barn/etc. pointed at the door and ready to go off if a thief tries to break in.) You may or may not think that spring guns are a good idea--but the law (both criminal law and civil law (relating to suits for damages) frowns on them, and you can end up getting in a lot of trouble for using them.

This strikes me as the same thing. It will be frowned upon because it is basically taking the law into your own hands. We prefer that to be left to professionals.

Now, that world can be frustrating when the professionals are not doing their job and hacks to your software are posted hours after it is released. But that is the world in which we live.

As someone who finds it funny when a burgler gets some buckshot in the ass, but as someone who would hate to have my computer destroyed because I entered 7861321209834-782364872541 instead of 7861321209834-782364782541 when I get a new piece of software, I am open on how I feel about the practice, the law notwithstanding.

[Buddy Grant]

I need a working serial for Echelon's NodeBuilder 3 Development Tools - is this the right thread for this info? TIA.

[SirFozzie]

(wonders why there is smoke rising from Buddy Grant's computer)

[stevew]

At some points before, i have misplaced my code keys, and rather than buy a new copy of something, have used a key off of a hacked site. I know I am in the wrong, but I wouldnt consider that being malicious piracy on my part, and definately not worth having my hard drive erased over.

[ScottVib]

I came across this story on /. today, and considering our recent discussions, I'm really interested on what you think.. is this going to far?

The author of the Echelon decided to take his fight against software piracy to the next level and then threw in the towel. After someone began posting new serial numbers on a well known hacking site, the author took matters into his own hands. With version 1.0, entering a hacked serial number causes the software to delete the user's Home directory. Yes, you read it right, the software completely erases it (aka rm -rf ~). This means, it basically destroys the user's system..

Personally, I say yes, because it is WIDE open for lawsuits considering the following:

* The developer mis-enters a "pirated serial #" onto their blacklist
* The developer accidently reissues a serial number that was previously identified as pirated (due to the way his serial number calculation scheme works)
* The user accidently "fat fingers" a legitimate serial and enters a "blacklisted" one


But considering what you've said.. is the risk of one of these things happening low enough to not be a problem? And I think that even if it wasn't "accidentally" tripped, you still do not have the right to destroy someone's machine, do you?
Don't the usual blanket license agreements you have to agree too, to install the software, obsolve the developer/distributor of liability should your computer fail because of the program?

If they do, then the developer may be covered from the lawsuits.

[SirFozzie]

I'd think there is a difference, Scott.

[SirFozzie]

Dola: Look at the issues of Spyware/Adware that hide their clauses inside page after page of legalese, but are being labeled, (quite properly I may add) as gathering improper information (trojan/virus like)

[Chubby]

Don't the usual blanket license agreements you have to agree too, to install the software, obsolve the developer/distributor of liability should your computer fail because of the program?

If they do, then the developer may be covered from the lawsuits.

So you're saying that companies should be allowed to have total free reign over your computer? What would prevent someone like Id from putting tracking software on your computer and/or the ability to erase your harddrive if you ever hacked the game in the smallest part simply because they put in on page 57 of the EULA which no one reads.

[Blackadar]

Don't the usual blanket license agreements you have to agree too, to install the software, obsolve the developer/distributor of liability should your computer fail because of the program?

If they do, then the developer may be covered from the lawsuits.

No. There is a major legal difference between unintended consequences and intentional harm.

That's why companies still carry liability insurance for any risky activity. For example, you may sign a waiver while whitewater rafting saying if you get hurt it's not their responsibilit, but if they put you in a leaky boat with no oars, you still have a firm legal position if some harm came to you.

[Draft Dodger]

Don't the usual blanket license agreements you have to agree too, to install the software, obsolve the developer/distributor of liability should your computer fail because of the program?

If they do, then the developer may be covered from the lawsuits.

1) I would say technically yes, but there is an increasing amount of chatter that those license agreements may not hold up in court quite as well as people think they might.

2) What if one of the pirates wants to sue him? Do the license agreements apply to them? Granted, I don't like software piracy, but I think someone using a hacked serial number getting their directory wiped out might have grounds for a pretty decent lawsuit (if they are willing to face the reprecussions for admitting to piracy). And god forbid this guy screws up and deletes the directory of a VALID user (remember how easy it was to "break" FOF4 by mistake?). This is a really, really, really bad idea.

What likely will happen is that the backlash against the dev will cause him to cave very quickly - this reminds me a lot of what Intuit did last year with TurboTax. People are STILL gunshy about that product.

[Draft Dodger]

guess I should have read a little more first - looks like the backlash DID cause the dev to take that part of the code out...and then he closed down the product for good.

[SoxWin]

Dola: Look at the issues of Spyware/Adware that hide their clauses inside page after page of legalese, but are being labeled, (quite properly I may add) as gathering improper information (trojan/virus like)


Sorry for the tangent. What exactly is AdAware doing to my system?

[Draft Dodger]

Sorry for the tangent. What exactly is AdAware doing to my system?

lol - when I saw you were the last poster, I had to ask myself "what in the hell is Sox doing in THIS thread?".

to answer your question, Foz was referring to adware (lowercase), not Ad-Aware (uppercase). Ad-Aware is TT and is a fine program to use to remove SOC adware.

[GrantDawg]

Don't the usual blanket license agreements you have to agree too, to install the software, obsolve the developer/distributor of liability should your computer fail because of the program?

If they do, then the developer may be covered from the lawsuits.
Not if the programmer puts in a maliciuos code. Legalese of such a document would not protect you such a case. If someone put a small line in the LA that said the programmer would get your house if you use his product, do you think the courts would give him your house?

[GrantDawg]

The closest analogy of which I can think off the top of my head is the "spring gun" case (where you have a shotgun inside of your house/barn/etc. pointed at the door and ready to go off if a thief tries to break in.) You may or may not think that spring guns are a good idea--but the law (both criminal law and civil law (relating to suits for damages) frowns on them, and you can end up getting in a lot of trouble for using them.

This reminds me of a great story I must tell. I probably have done this before, but it is just so good...

When I was in preaching school in Memphis, we were in the bad part of town (re: anywhere in the city limits). We constantly had vehicles broken into and stolen. Everyone’s house or apartment got robbed at some point when you lived there. Murders happened all around us, and it gun fire was the common lullaby to put you to sleep.

Anyway, one particular house had three single guys living in it. They were right on the corner of the main street right off campus, and were the constant targets of car stereo theft and vandalism (as matter of fact, the focus of this little story had someone shoot 6 bullets in the side of his truck).<O:p</O:p

One of these guys, who we will label as DS, decided that he was fed up with the hooligans and was going to take a stand. So, he rigged up the diver seat of his truck with a knife that was hidden in the cushions. If anyone sat down, the person would have a big surprise. He set the whole thing up, and went to bed giggling to himself about his ingenuity. <O:p</O:p

The next morning was a Saturday, and there was not much going on. DS decided he was hungry, and would go and pick up breakfast for him and one of his roommates. So of course he strolls out to the truck, opened the door and…..gets it in the end.<O:p</O:p

<O:p</O:p
He was the “butt” of our jokes for the rest of the year. J<O:p</O:p

[Draft Dodger]

is there a non-smiley translation for that post?

[SoxWin]

lol - when I saw you were the last poster, I had to ask myself "what in the hell is Sox doing in THIS thread?".

Asking the important questions like "tower or laptop" maybe?

to answer your question, Foz was referring to adware (lowercase), not Ad-Aware (uppercase). Ad-Aware is TT and is a fine program to use to remove SOC adware.

Can't belive I missed that. Time for a nap.

[GrantDawg]

is there a non-smiley translation for that post?
I think I fixed it. I hate that you can't just cut and paste from a Word doc.

[Draft Dodger]

I think I fixed it. I hate that you can't just cut and paste from a Word doc.

much better. for a minute there, I thought you were trying to become the gayest poster at th FOFC...

[Draft Dodger]

and that is a great story, btw.

[GrantDawg]

much better. for a minute there, I thought you were trying to become the gayest poster at th FOFC...
Actually just trying to make it readable which then made it unreadable. My day in a nutshell.