Software Deletes Files to Defend Against Piracy 544
teamhasnoi writes "Back in 2004, we discussed a program that deleted your home directory on entry of a pirated serial number. Now, a new developer is using the same method to protect his software, aptly named Display Eater. In the developers's own words, 'There exist several illegal cd-keys that you can use to unlock the demo program. If Display Eater detects that you are using these, it will erase something. I don't know if this is going to become Display Eater policy. If this level of piracy continues, development will stop.'"
Aren't there laws against this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Scale of response (Score:2, Insightful)
The Pirates will still succeed (Score:2, Insightful)
To me, it seems that this protection scheme will only scare away the casual pirate and not the hardcore ones.
Vigilantism (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Aren't there laws against this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no rabid anti-copyrightist and I can understand the guy's frustration and desire to do something about piracy. However, his actions strike me as both ethically and legally dubious. Whether it's it's morally acceptable to damage someone's computer even if they pirate your software is one thing. Legality is another kettle of fish. There are issues as to whether he made the program's behaviour clear in the EULA, and even if he had whether this would make his actions acceptable.
Even if it were, this guy had better hope that his protection scheme doesn't go wrong and delete stuff when someone types in a key incorrectly (or types it in correctly and the program messes up anyway). We all know the BS some software goes through when it decides that what are supposedly legal keys are actually illegal; does anyone want to take that risk? What is his legal exposure if someone inadvertantly buys a copy with pirated keys from a dubious source?
Their responsibility? IANAL, but I wouldn't want to risk that line in a court of law.
He says that
Re:Aren't there laws against this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think so. At the time the software "decides" to delete the user's files, it also "knows" that it is a pirated version, and that the serial number is invalid (that triggered the deletion). Hence, it also "knows" that it shouldn't allow itself to be unlocked from the demo version.
I think this is a very dangerous step: what if there was a bug that caused the software to delete your files without a pirated serial being entered?
Besides, if the author sells activation keys, he knows who bought which one, and thus whom to sue when one of those keys gets posted on warez sites. Unless he doesn't use online activation with arbitrary keys, but instead has an algorithm in his program that determines the validity of the key. That's just asking to be cracked.
Also, piracy tends to be a powerful weapon against your competition: you might not make money from the lost sale, but (1) your competitors won't either (2) the pirates gain familiarity with your software, and are more likely to choose it when placed in a situation where they can't use pirated software, or recommend it to friends, and your competitors don't gain this advantage. See also: Microsoft Windows/Office, Adobe Photoshop.
What a spoiled brat. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a fully functional program WITHOUT registering, yet many people take the suggestion to register, and it pays for continued development.
If you're going to get your panties in a knot over some people using your software, you probably should be writing some software more innovative than a screen caputure utility. The world is already filled with those.
Well, that sure backfired (Score:5, Insightful)
Talk about a moronic idea -- if piracy was already a problem, the result of this will be much greater than the problems piracy ever created. And ironically enough, this will make pirating the product a safer proposition. Do you want to use a legal version, which has this file deleting "feature" that might one day go wrong and nuke something? O do you get the pirated version with the file deleting code removed from it?
This is a more extreme version of what happens with other sorts of copy prevention. There are games out there that run faster and more stable with the CD check disabled.
No, it isn't like that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Aren't there laws against this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I recall a day where I bought myself a copy of Quake III Arena, and the key the game came with was already in use and identified as a pirate key - thanks to keygens.
Makes me wonder how bulletproof this is.
Re:Aren't there laws against this? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see how this would ever be prosecuted.
How would you prove that the deletion was malicious? He has carefully said the software will delete "something." Without knowing what, it is hard to prove anything. Stuff goes wrong with user's computers all the time. At one company I worked for we had a user blame a hard drive crash on our software. So a file gets deleted: prove it had anything to do with his software.
The complaint would start with, "I tried to run an illegal copy of this software..." That'll be creditable.
What if the software simply deletes itself? That would be the easiest and safest thing to do. Annoying to the would-be copyright violator, safe for the author.
Re:convinced me (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Aren't there laws against this? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a very interesting point. I'd never thought of that before.
This developer should be ashamed of himself. Two wrongs don't make a right has been said. This is akin to taking a shotgun to someone stealing an apple. Absolutely reprehensible behaviour, and I hope he suffers dearly for this Russian Roulette style of copy protection.
And let's not forget... Typos... The developer may think "Oh yes, well the odds of someone typing a key wrong that happens to match the ones that trigger deletion is incredibly small..." To which I point to the 6/49 style lottery. Chances of winning, 16 million to one. People still win it though. Regularly.
Re:Do you suppose it really does delete things? (Score:5, Insightful)
But since you like them so much, I'll point that it's in fact illegal in many places to booby trap your property. So if you have any great ideas, like turrets that automatically shoot at intruders, or connecting AC to the window frame, you will find that if a thief gets hit with any of that they can sue you -- and win.
In your case, there's a crime being committed: trespassing, and breaking and entering. But that in fact gives you no right whatsoever to make a mechanism that pours boiling pitch on the intruder. Your right to shoot trespassers in most place applies only to *self defense* if you personally are present. In some places you're not allowed to kill the intruder if they're not threatening you personally, and I'm pretty sure no place allows attacking an intruder by any sort of automatic means.
In this case, there's a crime being committed: copyright infringement. But that also doesn't give the author the right to take revenge by deleting files.
Re:Aren't there laws against this? (Score:2, Insightful)
The old saw that "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear" just doesn't cut any ice.
Yes actually it is. (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple as that.
Power Trip, Much? (Score:3, Insightful)
The sheer audacity of this guy's attitude over this problem is downright sickening. He's like one of those whiny little brats who'll only play a game until he starts losing, then trashes the game so no one else can cintinue playing.
If you're going to develop software, then you have to accept piracy as one of the negatives. (Though, personally, if a piece of software I wrote was being pirated, I'd be flattered knowing people wanted it bad enough to invest their time into doing so.) It's not like this guy never saw this coming (given he already keyed the software ahead of time), so why screw you're paying users over by threatening to cease development over it when it backfires? Besides, these "pirates" likely wouldn't bother using the software at all had the keying stuff been made unbreakable to begin with.
In the meanwhile, what happened to all this "trusted computing" junk that's supposed to "protect" us from stuff like this? Why aren't we sand-boxing all applications so that they only have basic read/write privileges, rather than having free reign over the system itself? Shouldn't we start looking into creating a centralized install/registration system where the OS itself handles the entire installation and approval/denial of software keys based on data the developers provide in the installation archive? That way, it is the OS itself that decides how to handle a pirated software key, rather than allowing individual developers to act as judge, jury and executioner without recourse. The developer in this article is exactly why we need such a system in place.
Re:convinced me (Score:4, Insightful)
Why would I care? The value of the program lies in what it does for me- if I thought it was worth $50 (or whatever), I'd buy it. If I didn't, I wouldn't buy it.
I'm not paying $50 so "nobody else can use this program for free". I'm paying $50 for whatever the software's functionality is.
You're speaking of schadenfreude at its worst.
Explosive Software (Score:2, Insightful)
Destructive action is an extreme case of fight against piracy and it may even be acceptable, but only if the destructive action damages the installation of the program in question and its data, not the home directory or your hard drives.
The keys that the developer refers are probably valid keys (they unlock the software) that were put in the blacklist because they were used illegally (e.g., someone spread his key around). Programming errors may happen (e.g., an error that triggers destructive action even for a legal installation) and those can be costly. Even if that is a an illegal user you could "convert" his to paying for your software if it stopped working, but not after you trashed his hard drive.
Imagine a car stereo that would blow up the whole car if tampered with. Would you buy such a stereo? What if it goes off by mistake?
Re:EULA? (Score:3, Insightful)
Here a several other possible scenarios. suppose an employee of the store, where the software had originally been purchased, had already secretly opened and installed the the software. He then had posted the key on the Internet several weeks before someone else purchased the software. A few stores even have their own shrink wrap machines that they use on returned hardware, so he might have shrink wrapped the software again before putting it back on the shelf.
Here is another alternative. Suppose some woman had purchased the software. Her ex-boyfriend or one of her children's friends might have secretly borrowed the installation CD and installed it on another computer and posted her key on the Internet. Then, after upgrading to a new computer she might have later reinstalled the software. She then looses her small business accounting records and the novel she had been writing for the last 6 months. The ex-boyfriend who was the actual pirate would lose nothing.
The software could also have been received as a Christmas gift. The gift giver might have already opened the software, installed it and shared the key. Perhaps the gift might have even come from a vengeful ex-spouse who knew what would happen to their computer.
These are also possible problems with trying to act as judge and jury and delivering mindless automated punishment to the supposed software pirates,
Re:Aren't there laws against this? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Aren't there laws against this? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is not new, and a highly illegal act on the developer part, akin to putting a bomb under the hood of a car to keep someone from messing with the engine.
Trust (Score:2, Insightful)
However such method will be cracked,and patched versions will be available.
Thats reminds me of case of Sony DRMed CDs,which turned out to be a bad idea for Sony.
Re:Hope he likes prison (Score:2, Insightful)
2. Misplaced my glasses and mis-read the real key off the product package.
Lack of revenue != Loss of property; (Score:4, Insightful)
Simple as that.
You know what's a lot like theft, though? Having all data in your home folder taken away from you, permanently.
If you're looking for something tangible to liken to willfull disregard of copyright for personal use, try "sneaking in a movie theatre". THAT's the same: You're enjoying someone's hard work without giving them anything, but you aren't taking anything away from them.
If you catch people sneaking in your theatre, you can kick them out, you can hand them over to the proper authorities to be dealt with according to the law, but you cannot empty their pockets and trash their contents.
No matter how entitled you feel to your entry fee, you can't dish out vigilante justice.
Re:Power Trip, Much? (Score:2, Insightful)
You might not be so flattered if you realized it meant you could no longer pay your rent or feed your family.
Re:Aren't there laws against this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, so if he's a MAJOR criminal, what does that make, to pick a name at random, Jeffrey Dahmer? I have no real sympathy for a pirate like that Australian one. He took a risk, got caught. But I DO have a major problem with your assertion that he's a MAJOR CRIMINAL. He's facing longer in jail than most rapists, or people responsible for manslaughter. If he'd broken into the office of the companies he copied software from, he'd be facing less time in jail.
So please, go ahead and explain how a womans body, or a human life, is worth less than some software.
I look forward to your justification of the term MAJOR CRIMINAL.
Re:Aren't there laws against this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when do software pirates hack into developers' systems and delete their stuff? Even in the rare cases like the famous HL2 hack at Valve, code was copied out not deleted.
Small, scheming children hoard everything for themselves, they don't share everything freely with the world. (Whether the things shared are "stolen" is a separate matter.) Developers like this one, with callous, selfish antipiracy measures are the only ones resembling children here.
I see you don't either, since your comparison is baseless and driven only by your obviously deep-seated visceral hate of pirates.
I make my living as a developer and I am not tempted to implement this measure in my software one iota. The fact that you do (and project your feelings onto others) is telling about how irrational and hateful you are in this matter.
Re:Aren't there laws against this? (Score:5, Insightful)
That is the only sane reason for any kind of copy protection. It must be done so as to make getting a free version more trouble than getting the legal paid version. You must put your paying customers on a pedestal above the pirates. If you treat them like criminals you may find them becoming more like them everyday.
I know several groups of software crackers and I understand the mentality behind them. They crack software because it's a challenge and there is some pride to be had. The last thing you want to do is piss them off or give them any room to think they are "doing the right thing". Yes piracy stings as a software developer but as long as you are making money it shouldn't sting enough for you to scorn your customers.
But go ahead make the customers into criminals and the pirates into heroes. Then when you have zero user base you'll finally realize where you went wrong.
Re:Aren't there laws against this? (Score:3, Insightful)
There are those whose means far exceed their demand for software and media, they would rather drop a couple hundred dollars on something than fuck around with serial sites in the first place. These people don't see any problem with copyright because it doesn't cause them any. There aren't very many of these people, but they do make all the laws.
There are those who cannot afford all the software and media they would like and would rather break the laws than do without just because of the law.
Finally, there are those who cannot afford all the software and media they would like, but are afraid of getting caught, so they don't copy and do without.
Copyright enforcement regimes don't manufacture wealth. They actually prevent its creation by forcing others to do without needlessly.
Illegal in the UK (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that the aggrieved party may have been committing a crime by using the software without authorisation does not alter anything. Two wrongs do not make a right. Deleting files from a user's home directory goes above and beyond reasonable force and is a criminal offence punishable by five years' imprisonment and/or a fine.
Re:Aren't there laws against this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Competitive sports are a special class where generally all but intentional torts are waived. What you're missing here is that for there to be a tort, first there must be a duty to the aggrieved party (i.e., in general, I have a duty to not hit you). When you voluntarily step into the boxing ring for a match, there is no longer the duty not to hit your opponent. The nature of the sport is to hit him. In this case, society has expressed a policy in favor of allowing certain competitive sports, even where it conflicts with the policy of people not hitting each other.
In contrast, if you have an otherwise valid contract that says, "I am allowed to hit Bill Gates, and said Gates waives any recourse against me," and Bill himself signs the contract, and maybe you pay him a billion dollars for the privilege, you are still not privileged to hit Bill Gates at your whim. The contract is void as a matter of public policy because we have a strong public policy against people hitting each other, and there is no overriding policy that defeats it in this case. This is true of any intentional tort. If you can find a judge willing to hold that the policy of paying software vendors overrides our policy of not intentionally torting each other, I'm sure the BSA would like to speak to him.
And before anyone brings it up, yes, it's true that some morons in Congress once tossed around a law that said that the RIAA could destroy your computer if you downloaded music. They can get away with this because the statute, once passed, would trump the common law. So if you are rich enough to pay for a law, then you can have EULAs that allow you to destroy the user's home folder if he uses an invalid key. I doubt that this moron is.Re:Aren't there laws against this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Aren't there laws against this? (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, it's ridiculous to think that EULAs are valid in the first place.
Second, and more importantly, disclaiming an accidental act is one thing, but disclaiming a malicious, intentional one is quite another. It would be quite a fucked up world if something like that were ruled legal, no matter what the circumstances!
Malware (Score:3, Insightful)
Now he claims that this was only a 'scare campaign' and the program doesn't actually delete anything. What ever might be the truth, I still wouldn't trust this person.
I wouldn't dare to install anything from this guy, since there would be no way to know what kind of tantrum he was having when he was coding and what nasty suprises might come bundled with his software. Hiring this person would also be pretty risky. If he don't get high enough salary, he will plant a bomb in your companys software.
I doubt that this guy can blame piracy for the lack of money he gets from his software. I think that if you actually write good enough application you will also get paid. And if nobody buys your program, I think you should first look into mirror and at your product. Is it good enough, how many people would actually need this kind of program?
Or are there zillions of pirated copies of Display Eater around and this guy would be a millionaire if it wasn't for those nasty pirates?
Well, after this publicity, there won't be any kind of Display Eaters around. Hopefully. And perhaps this developer should be introduced with the law, just to make sure that he won't be coding any more malware in the future. We have enough of that allready.
Even if Microsoft and RIAA can get away with 'scare campaigns', you might not.
I will remember this name, Reza and keep far away from your 'products'.