Anti-piracy Vigilantes Tracking P2P Users 864
brevard writes "From SecurityFocus comes news that a pair of coders with a deep hatred of software pirates have gone public with a months-old experiment to trick file sharers into running custom spyware they wrote that scolds users and phones home to a server. They circulated the program disguised as sought-after downloads like Unreal Tournament 2004 and Microsoft source code, and they have a website that updates in real time whever someone executes it. They've logged IP addresses for over 12,000 'pirates' since January. The EFF says the vigilantes may be committing a crime."
Trojans (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it's a crime! (Score:2, Insightful)
To me this seems basic... (Score:5, Insightful)
But realy pirates don't use p2p apps for warez.
That's kiddie crap.
More like they are tracking 14 year old's with a cable modem.
try IRC, now if they could track that, it'd probably blow their minds.
Yes, but watch out for hypocrisy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I'm aware that there's a difference between pirates and spammers. But keep in mind that the RIAA probably sees P2P users the same way that we see spammers. Annoying, a growing threat, and obsessed with large penises.
Re:Sharing Trojans (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sharing Trojans (Score:3, Insightful)
you would also think a 2mb file size would tip people off that its not UT2k4 or Win2k Source Code
Re:Software is just INFORMATION (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Trojans (Score:3, Insightful)
I have been contacted many times by customers of mine complaining their website has been hacked, when in fact it's just their own computer that was hacked by supposedly legitimate US companies to alter the behaviour of IE!
Re:which crime? (Score:3, Insightful)
An assumption rears it's ugly head again (Score:1, Insightful)
Vigilante: Good or Bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Vigilantes are, by definition, committing crimes.
A vigilante [ncwc.edu] is a private citizen who acts outside the law, taking the law into their own hands.
Some people (e.g. the vigilantes themselves) see this as a Good Thing -- enforcing Justice, where Justice would otherwise go unenforced.
Others (such as myself) see vigilantism as the roots of rebellion and chaos -- acting as a private government, in defiance of duly constituted authority.
Not that I have a hell of a lot of respect for duly constituted authority. Most of the cops I've met have been decent people, however, there's a long, sad history of cops acting as vigilantes, outside the law. Not to mention police states, governments run by mobsters, etc. etc.
-kgj
The real problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Immunity from these... (Score:3, Insightful)
Care to define how it's illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's another question... (Score:5, Insightful)
What if my software, downloaded with no warranty from Gnutella, displayed the weather conditions in Kenya?
I'd have their IP, and I could even safely retrieve the ID with legitimate pretenses.
However, since my software rebukes the downloader for downloading a file that appeared to be a crack, it is a Trojan and a danger to the peoples of the free world.
Just a thought.
Re:Trojans (Score:3, Insightful)
This is soooo stupid on their part.
Re:Vigilante (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course it's a crime! (Score:3, Insightful)
yeah, it's intent to supply, no controlled susbtances required.
Re:Here's another question... (Score:2, Insightful)
Whether or not it is misconceived as a crack for the latest warez, or a weather program that will tell me what the conditions are in Alaska, doesn't matter. It's the fact that you are taking this data without my permission and posting it in a public place where I may not want it advertised.
Re:Trojans (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Vigilante (Score:2, Insightful)
you are only catching really stupid kiddies that scream "ohhh shiny!" and click...
maybe next time you guys should first off research your prank more before deploying it as it only fools the morons into downloading.
Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
My favorite comeback line: "Maybe we should outlaw knives because someone might do something illegal with them!" -- completely off-target. Right now, the situation with P2P isn't that a minority of people are using P2P networks to trade copyrighted materials, but that a minority of people are using P2P networks for trading non-copyrighted materials. Until P2P fans actively pursue and discourage the use of P2P for illegitimate uses, P2P will continue to have a bad rap and be pursued by copyright holders.
Re:Just wait. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Vigilante (Score:5, Insightful)
And some of us consider phoning home fairly malicious.
Illegally distributed software (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, that's not my personal view (I don't believe in locking people up for small-scale copyright infringment) but it is the view of some, such as the content creators whose property is being infringed on.
I just find it ironic that just changing the subject line of your message from "Trojans" to "Illegally distributed software" gives us a whole new look at this issue: after all, most of the people engaging in P2P distribution of copyrighted material live in countries where it's illegal and probably punishable by a jail sentence.
The majority of people here seem to be engaging in double think: messaging people who engage in P2P copyright infringement that what they're doing is wrong and publishing their IP addresses is a Bad Thing, yet tracking down the online behaviour of spammers and then publishing their real world addresses (without any consideration for what might happen as a consequence) is a Good Thing.
Can someone please explain to me how one is so wrong yet the other is so right? (Preferably without resorting to the kind of language that you wouldn't use in front of your mother?)
Re:Trojans (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless these guys have created fake files that match the size of the real thing (UT2004 is ~4Gb) and present it in the form of a CD image, surely the only people who would be fooled by this would be people who think a little 100k program could be a full game.
This is hardly going to get very far with the BitTorrent or EMule scene is it? A pointless exercise that does nothing but put a back door into people's computers.
Re:Vigilante (Score:5, Insightful)
We had the IP when they downloaded the software.
It's one thing to have someone's IP address. It's another thing altogether to post it as public information. Just because someone else may be in violation of copyright doesn't give you the right to violate their privacy.
And you're making the assumption, which isn't necessarily valid, that your victims intend to violate copyright in the first place. If I lose my CD-Key to a game but still own the media, why should I not be allowed to use an alternate key? Surely ownership of the physical media is proof that I have license to operate the software in question.
Re:Vigilante (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Of course it's a crime! (Score:3, Insightful)
While you may be legally correct, that's pretty stupid. If I know it's not pot, I'm not intending to sell pot. I'm intending to fuck this guy over. If some kid asked me for alcohol & I gave him orange juice, telling him it's a screwdriver, can I be arrested for "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor?" Of course not, but since MJ is "evil," it is given completely different rules. Stupid.
Re:From the looks of their page (Score:5, Insightful)
I own a 100% legal copy of Cakewalk home studio 2002
my install CD is broken so I have a choice of buying another copy or making my LEGAL copy work.
so I download off Kazaa the iso file of the CD burn a new one and voila...
now the frothing at the mouth Software people here would want me hanged for stealing money out of their mouths by not buying a new copy of their software every 30 seconds but who cares... I am doing NOTHING illegal and simply circumventing a disdain for customer service fr omthe company that makes the software.. I'm still using MY legal serial number and codes... I STILL have the legal license (AKA the box and other paper drivel that says so.)
Re:Vigilante (Score:1, Insightful)
What about those IP addresses that were coming from the people who downloaded your illegal trogan from morons that weren't you.
Next.
Bah. (Score:4, Insightful)
Was that an intentional part of the design? Or did you guys just overlook the ALT-F4 shortcut when you designed the program?
Re:which crime? Probably Entrapment (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Vigilante (Score:3, Insightful)
Not too long ago, Soviet Russia embarked on a long hard social experiment, called communism...:)
See, the problem with social experiments is, you have to get the buy-in from society. Can I go to the local girl's school and start looking under people's skirts and claim I'm just doing a social experiment...I'd be arrested in an instant.
Here's what you are really doing -
Malone: You said you wanted to get Capone. Do you really wanna get him? You see what I'm saying is, what are you prepared to do?
Eliot Ness: Anything and everything in my power.
Malone: You wanna know how you do it? Here's how, they pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send on of his to the morgue! That's the Chicago way, and that's how you get Capone! Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that?
You are using the same means software pirates use to get back at them, Mr. Malone. Now, unless you are Sean Connery in The Untouchables, that ain't legal.
Re:Vigilante (Score:1, Insightful)
Kinda like some 'curious' virus writers?
Re:And the third important point... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you tell them of that fact before they click?
It appears you don't. There is no other escape button on the popup window. No other mechanism, other than alt-F4, to dismiss your box.
You give the user little opportunity to not have it phone home.
Social Experiment? (Score:5, Insightful)
If this was in fact a "social experiment," I have a few questions:
If this was a genuine social experiment, these questions have already been answered, somewhere. Otherwise, I think we can chalk this up as a prank designed to embarass people.
Re:which crime? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Mislabeled" is not the same as "intentionally falsely labeled".
Re:Trojans (Score:3, Insightful)
They already have the 4gb downloaded already...
Re:Just wait. (Score:3, Insightful)
Me thinks he's in over his head.
Re:Yes, but watch out for hypocrisy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you feel angry? When you're trying to steal someone else's copyrighted product via a P2P network, do you have some expectation that you have a right to receive the application that you searched for?
What exactly is your beef with this?
Re:Vigilante (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Illegally distributed software (Score:5, Insightful)
It's quite simple, with P2P sharing networks person A is passively letting their computer open so that any person B that comes and asks can grab a file if they like what they see.
A spammer, on the other hand, will make everything possible to get past the locks I put in my computer to try and give me a file I didn't ask for in the first place.
Re:Vigilante (Score:1, Insightful)
So, your assumption that you have not done something malicious is self serving. If I post the personal information of the doctors from Planned Parenthood on a website frequented by right wing religious wackos, I can claim innocence, and intent would be difficult to prove in law, but a reasonable person would generally agree that the intent is clear.
Therefore there are two key points. First, you use social conventions and the assumptions of you victims to gain entry to their property. You do not, in fact, knock at the front door, state you true intent, and gain there express written approval. You do in fact use deceit and, admittedly, the users greed, to gain entry. Second, you do collect data without authorization, and, apparently, pass judgment on those you trick. In a way it is no different from the religious wackos taking pictures of cars at a porno shop and then sending letters passing judgment on the owners. Which, of course, is one of the key points of vigilantism. The passing of judgment without due process. Even the red handed person may not be the murderer. We generally like to bring that person to court to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he or she is in fact guilty.
When I first read the story it sounded a bit of hoot, and I thought the writers were a some rather clever people, probably misguided and improperly educated, who wanted to raise awareness of an issue. Though you probably broke laws, it was a level of activism that, though I would disagree with the cause, was merely a nuisance. However, now it seems like you guys are just delusional with visions of grandeur. I am very afraid. You are hiding behind objectivity, and there is little more dangerous than a person that feels they have leave to ignore the moral compass. As such I am posting anonymously.
I urge you to read some real books. Learn about philosophy and ethics and the damage caused by those that valued beliefs and personal posesions more than the physical and social realities of the world.
Re:Vigilante (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh really? Your statements on website [blogzine.net] would seem to disagree with that
"At the start of this year, we (Justin and Clif, Clif and Justin) decided to start a new project. We declared war on illegal file sharing and pirates. The goal was to waste their time and bandwidth while tracking them and how the file moves around.
Other 'interesting statements:
3. We dissagree with the notion that this is a "Trojan".
Our program is aboslutely dormant unless specifically and purposefully executed by the downloader.
Exactly the same as the Beagle and other email trojan variants.
We aren't reporting these people to anyone in the law enforment field, even though we should be.
Yes you are. By posting it online, in real time.
We could go on...
Re:Illegally distributed software (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether or not the end-user is doing something legally / morally wrong by downloading what they believe to be material under copyright to which they have no permission to use is a completely independent discussion.
Re:Illegally distributed software (Score:3, Insightful)
A solution: the people make the laws, and I suggest we reduce copyright length to something half reasonable so we can trade files and then 'illegally distributing software and music' becomes 'distributing software and music' and then the people are happy.
Rule of law (Score:4, Insightful)
Vigilantilism is wrong. Period. Rule of law is characterized by a state monopoly on justice. If you don't like rule of law, there are plenty of countries where it doesn't apply.
Or, in a language your mother would use: Two wrongs don't make one right.
Re:Illegally distributed software (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting question. If you clearly label it as something no one should touch (even if the label is false), but leave it where it can be taken, are you distributing it.
Imagine someone who packaged up some illegal-to-distribute physical substance in boxes labeled `private, personal and mine, do not touch', then left them around. Can they be done for distributing the substance if someone comes along and steals it?
Re:And the third important point... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems a defined, deliberate action would be if they clicked a button saying "Click here to send your IP to our database"
You really didn't think this, or any of your arguements for it through, did you?
Trojans of trojans (Score:4, Insightful)
Spyware and malware and P2P programs and instant messaging programs may not be malicious in and of themselves but they're all coded by half-hacks who aren't very interested in security. Do they properly check their buffer overflows, input validation, or ensure perfect alignment with a proper handshake protocol?
I think not...
Let's say that the law would tolerate the vigilante retrieval of stolen property. At what point is the vigilante liable for leaving the backdoor open?
Let's say that malware and spyware and spammers really are nothing more than advertising methods used to boost the economy (which can be argued as "good"). At what point are the authors of those progams liable for the malicious attacker or stalker who relies on them to identify easy targets?
Let's say that posting signs for your candidate on someone else's front lawn would be legal. Are you liable if a serial killer decides to pick his targets based upon lawn signs?
Implications are more than just one step removed from the source.
Re:Vigilante (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Illegally distributed software (Score:3, Insightful)
Your analogy is flawed; there are legitimate non-infringing uses of keygen programs and no-cd patches. It is also legal to distribute these tools.
Re:Vigilante (Score:2, Insightful)
Your computer is broadcasting an IP address!
Re:Trojans (Score:3, Insightful)
1. time to begin with, they chose to make the download
2. Who really trusts downloaded illegal content anyway? Sue them for false advertising
3. The disk space was already planned out for using the illegal download, this "Trojan" probably saved them tons of space (since UT2004 is 6 CDs)
4. The bandwidth was already wasted in trying to get retail products for "free", it's the downloader's waste to begin with
5. time the downloader could of spent working for a paycheck to purchase the desired product...again, nothing wasted but the resources someone was using to distribute and use illegal products.
I don't stand up for it installing spyware, but if it just pops up a message with a black pirate flag and says you have been logged...the only thing that is harmed is the privacy of a criminal.
If they start using this information for blackmail...that is illegal!
Re:Trojans (Score:3, Insightful)
The US only pays attention to international law when it serves its own interests.
(and, yes, I am an American.)
How ironic... (Score:4, Insightful)
What they have is a list of people that downloaded something that most likely isn't a copyrighted work written by them (and admittedly made available freely online by themselves).
Not only that, they're infringing on the trademarks of the software they purport to be in order to run this little experiment, and a case could also be made that they're doing damage to the name of that software by associating it with their invasive software without consent from the actual publisher of the original work.
I'm all for protecting a product with the laws that are in place, but the laws shouldn't be taken into people's own hands with invasive and untested software.
Re:Trojans (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know where you live, but in most places I know this is definitely NOT a crime.
I can write a text game that's 100 lines of code and charge $10,000 for a license if I want. If you don't think it's worth it, code it yourself or buy it from someone else. Just because it cost me $10 to make it and I'm selling it for $10,000 does not give anyone the right to steal it from me.
Re:Illegally distributed software (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Do you believe in private health care too? (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with the argument comes from games. There is really no serious use for games, and no business use either. Personally, I will pirate games but either delete them or buy them if I find that I've continued to play it. However, there is no reason that this should be so for anyone else. Back in the old days, if you were under working age, getting a game involved hours of parent-begging to buy NES carts. Now it involves piracy, and I don't really have a good answer for that. I don't think that kids appreciate having an actual boxed copy of their game, or the complexities of IP ethics. They just want it, and they want it now, consequences and fairness be damned.
However, related to the topic at hand. These people are reporting me as a pirate for using cracks. I think that anyone who has ever purchased a game, and hunted around for the install CD so they could play the game that they already installed on their HD would prefer to not have to do that. So, even if I have purchased a game legitimately, I'll generally run the cracked version.
Re:Trojans (Score:3, Insightful)
My website must be responsible for unauthorized modification of data on a computer.
Get real.
Re:Trojans (Score:5, Insightful)
This also goes for all those viruses and trojans that delete everything on your HDD. Just think of all the space they're saving you!
Sure they lied about what they were, which means they are effectively committing theft of serivces, but they are using less than 1800MB so it's suddenly legal!
You obviously have no concept of computer crime laws. I don't understand how your comment made it to +5.
All the arguments you make are silly.
1. time to begin with, they chose to make the download
So!!?? If you say "this box is full of money" so I take it, and it turns out to be a bomb, you're somehow not responsible since I willingly took it after you lied to me about what it is? That's stupid (and not how the law works).
2. Who really trusts downloaded illegal content anyway? Sue them for false advertising
Ok. A) This isn't even a complete thought.
B) Cracks aren't necessarily illegal.
3. The disk space was already planned out for using the illegal download, this "Trojan" probably saved them tons of space (since UT2004 is 6 CDs)
Stupid reasoning. Covered above.
4. The bandwidth was already wasted in trying to get retail products for "free", it's the downloader's waste to begin with
The theft of services occurs when the program is run. Any system resouces used by the program as essentailly "stolen."
5. time the downloader could of spent working for a paycheck to purchase the desired product...again, nothing wasted but the resources someone was using to distribute and use illegal products.
So it's ok to commit computer crime if you don't agree with the way someone is utilizing their time?
You: "Yes, your honor, I stole his car, but only after I found out he had a stolen bag of Cheetos in the trunk.."
Judge: "Case dismissed!"
The people who ran these cracks - already owned? (Score:1, Insightful)
These people really need to be taken offline as they probably consitute the biggest threat to the Internet with regards to click happy crazies who believe that installing trojans, virus et al... is something they were born into this world to do.
I think this is a VERY interesting social experiement. Sure it may be illegal, but still - its very interesting.
Considering legality though, did you know when you installed MS Oulook, that if I sent you an email that you read in HTML format, I could log your IP address? Does that mean MS have written some software that they know can be used to 'phone home' that they are doing something illegal?
Discuss...
Re:Trojans (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Here's another question... (Score:3, Insightful)
There isn't much point looking at the moral points when you've acted illegally and unethically. Social 'experiments' are generally required to have full disclosure, and you haven't even got a control experiment, which makes your back pedalling just look desparate.
The worst aspect of this is that your malware is now out in the wild. You can't recall it, you can't kill it, and now you've identified yourself.
Well done. You are a Vx'er for life. Doesn't matter what your intentions are, and I wouldn't bank on the MPAA/RIAA offering you a job because what you did was trivial and foolish.
Next time you have a bright idea *Think* about what you're doing. If there's any grey areas, or interpretation that can be done, don't do it.
History is littered with people who thought it wouldn't matter...
Re:Trojans (Score:5, Insightful)
People WILL pay retail for the stuff they like and respect. They shouldn't have to prove they're not crooks.
So if I download a cracked version of a game I legally own that purports to let me play without the CD, I'm being treated like a crook, and someone's logging my activity. Screw them!
It's still illegal (misleading, and spyware to boot).
Who's done the crime ? (Score:3, Insightful)
So far as I can see though they haven't actually broken the law themselves. They have downloaded a file with a particular name, this file is not illegal to download or use on your computers so I don't see any crime being commited there.
On the other hands the program writers are almost certainly breaking the law by running spyware etc on your computer without your permission.
I'm not saying I agree with stealing stuff of P2P because I don't but I am saying that in the case the downloader has done nothing wrong.
Hah, this is funny. (Score:5, Insightful)
1. No data is collected by our software that isn't already collected when our software is downloaded. The only personally identifiable information that we have would be the executer's IP address. However this information is freely available at time of download and is completly public information.
Uhm, wait, but collecting IP addys is data. And you also collect what file they were trying to download, and where/who they got it from? I'd say building a track list of a 'social' network of where a file goes and by how/whom is plenty of data.
I'm sorry,but thats a load. Get a better legal advisor, next!
3. We dissagree with the notion that this is a "Trojan".
A trojan horse gains access to a system through deviant methods. Not through user initiated downloads on a P2P network. Secondly, a trojan horse by definition has a payload or attempts to give the author access by working from the inside. Our program is aboslutely dormant unless specifically and purposefully executed by the downloader. And the program is riddled with cues to what the contents might be. For instance, the company name is "C.R.A.P. Citizens Raging Against Pirates". Not what you'd expect from a "legitimate" crack or keygen.
Okay, lets see, its not a trojan, yet its a trojan. It's not a trojan because it comes from a p2p network, and not
Okay, great idea, really, very funny! But WTF are these guys going to do with all this when, say, MS steps in with a great big legal order of doom saying 'we want to know everybody who thought they were downloading the windows source code'? Are these people even thinking that far ahead?
And I love the broad thinking that anybody downloading a keygen is a pirate, What, these guys never lost a Cd key before? Yesh. Get a grip kids.
Points for some very crative programing, but they lost points for not finding something better to do and not thinking ahead a few more feet of them.
Re:Trojans (Score:2, Insightful)
Only you know it's not a Rolex... but later find out it's not even a watch. It's an incendiary device designed to hack your wrist off to prevent you from violating the copyright of the Rolex logo in the future.
That's the vision I get when I hear about these antics. Heck, in many countries, the actions of P2P users are perfectly legitimate (or at the very least, in a legal grey-area). However, the actions of these vigilantes are flat-out illegal. And it's not like they're going to expose themselves in order to issue an apology if their malicious attacks mistakenly target an innocent computer user.
Re:Trojans (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course it is always assumed that EVERYBODY knows that getting certain software from P2P is illegal. What is not reasonable to expect someone to know is that the program that they are downloading is not a freeware demo or some code that was released by the company. Just because the name of a file is "Unreal Tournament 2004 Full.exe" does not imply "Totally Illegal for you to download from me - Unreal Tournament 2004 Full.exe".
Is the burden of legitimacy placed on me, the downloader, or on the person who is uploading and distributing the copyrighted work? If the burden is on me, then I am at risk every single time I visit any website because anybody may be serving copyrighted images that they don't own the rights to. I don't think there is much legal recourse for those that downloaded, unless they were told in advance that the said file was being illegally distributed and they knowlingly contributed to the act of copyright infringment. But the fact is it is much much harder to prove willing intent to break the law than an ignorance of the facts about the copyright status of the file in question.
Re:which crime? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is untrue, and is seems to me like it's a loaded statement. Otherwise, Elliott Spitzer has just been blowing smoke for the past few years. It also means that the FTC and SEC have no power. People are in jail right now for their part in the illegal actions of their company. While certain folks have gotten away with certain shenanigans in the past, this is simply untrue today. Haven't you been keeping up with the news? It's been creported on pretty widely ever since the Enron bankrupcy. Elliott Spitzer has been all over it since before then (since the fall of the dot-com's) for shady practices in the investment banking industry.
Yeah, this is indicative of the "I'm powerless against the megacorporation" mentality. Fortunately, individuals still have certain protections in the US. Illegal is still illegal -- no matter who you are...regardless of how powerless you may feel.
Re:Get what you deserve (Score:5, Insightful)
Woah, way to go Mr. Assumptions. Why exactly can't I just rip out the CD protection code off the program I paid for? It's far more convenient for me to just install the whole thing in my 120 Gb hard drive, stash the box with the CDs safely and be on my merry way. I don't have to throw a tantrum, call the software company 100 times and make a revolution to change the system so that programs come without CD protection. I can simply spend 5 minutes downloading a tool and getting rid of it. Or I can put the keygen with the game in the hard drive so that I don't even have to worry where the manual or the box will end up.
What you're presenting here is a fallacy known as the False Dichotomy. The world is not "either you get the crack to pirate the program or you return it if you don't like the CD protection". After I paid for that software I'll modify it as I see fit to make it more convenient for me to use it, be it cracking the CD protection, installing 100 zillion mods or even cheating the crap out of it so that I can headshot the bots every time I want to. And I'll be damned if I let anyone tell me what I can or cannot do in my computer with the software I paid for.
Re:Trojans (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, the sheer arrogance of this comment is mind-boggling. So, because you don't think game X is worth $100, but someone else does, means that they're "ignorant?" Wow, I must have missed the email where you were appointed arbiter of the value of all things.
Secondly, the company that creates the game, owns the game. They don't HAVE to sell it to you, they don't HAVE to sell it at all. They're free to stick it in a vault somewhere and let it rot (which might explain Duke Nukem...). By the same token, you don't HAVE to buy the game. They offer the game for $X. You're COMPLETELY free to walk away, buy another game, turn on the TV, go outside, read a book, whatever. The transaction is completely voluntary for both parties. It sounds like you're saying that the authors of the game should be FORCED to sell it for less (after all, they're "criminals," and we force people to stop engaging in criminal behavior). By the same token, shouldn't we then FORCE you to buy the game? It'd be only fair. So, it seems like we have a deal - game publishers can only charge $30 per game (rather than $100), but you MUST buy everything they publish. Somehow, I don't see you signing up.
Re:Vigilante (Score:1, Insightful)
No, sir. You had AN IP Address. If that address is that of a proxy, you just accused N number of innocent people of executing a file they did NOT.
Speaking as one who does security auditing for a living and is quite familiar with the legalities involved here, were I you, I'd be anticipating a knock on my door from some guys wearing black suits and sporting no sense of humor. Good Samaritan laws do not apply to copyright or electronic device use laws.
Re:Vigilante (Score:2, Insightful)
Slashdot Comments (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Trojans (Score:3, Insightful)
He was so successful that almost everyone else now uses his techniques. Why? Because you'll sell more cars at $10,000 than you will at $350,000 (or in the case of the Model T, less than $300 as opposed to several thousand the competition was charging).
P2P filesharing scum (Score:1, Insightful)
to give up hope, there's always something,
however small, that helps restore my faith
in humanity.
I remember a few years ago there was a sting
operation that nabbed a bunch of fugitives
by running a bogus sweepstakes. The
criminals were lead to believe they'd won
superbowl tickets and when they showed up to
claim their prize, they were arrested. Some
of these idiots were so dumb and brazen that
they were still asking for their tickets as
they were being carted away.
That's how I think of the criminals who are
complaining about this prank -- only they're
not being carted off to jail, where they
belong, but just being gently reminded that
there's a difference between right and wrong.
I wonder. Who out there would be nasty
enough to give the P2P criminals what they
really deserve? Hey, having your hard drive
wiped is better than doing time.
Do you mind YOUR address being posted, Cliff? (Score:1, Insightful)