There's ongoing discussion on the Italian discussion list about www.warez.at. The site shows a BSA banner, but it's a big gif file (no text). It's old news, I know, and the domain is now property of BSA:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/22336.html
The gif says "this site has been closed at the request of BSA. Advertizing, selling or distributing unlicensed software on the internet is illegal".
Here's the file: http://www.bsa-europe.co.uk/BSA_CLOSED.gif
Looking at the html, you can find this:
<HTML> <HEAD> <META http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<META name="description" content="The Business Software Alliance, the global anti-software theft trading body, enforces intellectual property rights by fighting piracy committed over the Internet and by traditional means.">
<META name="keywords" value="warez, appz, progs, progz, cracks, crackz, gamez, linkz, links, downloadz, serialz, crackz, phreaking, hacking, passwds, passwdz, ddl, files, filez, utilz, ftpz, reqz, upz, ftps, downloads, games, freewarez, hackz, hacks, crackz, software, illegal, mp3, cd, piracy, pirating, Pir8, bbs, sitez, h/p/c/a/v, rawl, rawlish, 0 daywarez, James Milber, David Milber">
<META name="copyright" value="Copyright (c) 2001 by Business Software Alliance"> <TITLE>Business Software Alliance</TITLE> </HEAD>
To me this looks really at the borderline of legal behaviour. The BSA is playing the policeman, trying to convince people that it is a public service that acts to protect the law. Moreover, it advertizes itself with keywords that have nothing to do with the site itself, to attract more people and show them that they (BSA) are the authority in the field of copyright protection.
This behaviour is against the "advertisment self-discipline rules" that we use in Italy. Probably it is also against some real law, but I know too little to be sure or to know where to look. For example, you are not allowed to wear a uniform unless you are a soldier a policeman or other officially recognized entity. This is exactly in the same line.
I strongly suspect that the site is against the law in Austria as well. Is there some Austrian willing to invest some time on the issue? It would be great if we manage to show how the BSA is misbehaving.
thanks for your attention /alessandro
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 11:33:23AM +0200, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
To me this looks really at the borderline of legal behaviour. The BSA is playing the policeman, trying to convince people that it is a public service that acts to protect the law. Moreover, it advertizes
Not only policemen. I recall reading somewhere that recently they've also managed to convince an ISP not to process the registration for a warez.fi domain because it would be.. hm.. not good practice or something like that they said.
I find it particularily nasty.
Hi!
To me this looks really at the borderline of legal behaviour. The BSA is playing the policeman, trying to convince people that it is a public service that acts to protect the law.
Yes, you are right.
Moreover, it advertizes itself with keywords that have nothing to do with the site itself, to attract more people and show them that they (BSA) are the authority in the field of copyright protection.
:-)))))
Great thing, you have found there. I´ll have to think about it, what we can do with that.
I strongly suspect that the site is against the law in Austria as well. Is there some Austrian willing to invest some time on the issue?
I am generally willing to invest time in the BSA. But in that particular case, I guess I am the wrong one. (No sufficient legal background)
It would be great if we manage to show how the BSA is misbehaving.
Why? What do you have against the BSA? They just want the same thing, we want: They want to diminish software piracy. It´s just the small problem that they do it on the wrong end of the problem. They are only trying to get some publicity against the actual pirates of piratable software. (By the way, they gave an 'official' statement, that everything they do is only for publicity. If some action wouldn´t give them publicity, they won´t do it / forbid it) We are working to remove the root of the problem: The existance of piratable software. The whole software piracy problem will be away (and that´s what the BSA says they want), if the possibility of pirateable software is gone (and that´s what we should teach the BSA). Just look at their statements. The software industry looses millions of dollars and euros from piracy. If we solve the root of the problem, all those losses will be gone.
Just imagine about press releases stating that the BSA favors free software to get rid of the software piracy problem ..
I´m not quite sure what it would help us to show the BSA that they are misbehaving. The BSA is a group of Marketing freaks, who have to job to do publicity against software piracy.
I guess that they can´t react properly on a attack on the base you are suggesting.
Altough I agree that it is against basic principles to do what the BSA did, and that it is a basic principle to do something against it, I think it doesn´t help anyone, if we attack them because of it.
What kind of publicity do you expect from that attack?
But keep working on the BSA issue. They are a funny doll to play with.
Many greetings,
Hello.
I don't agree with you about the BSA. Let me explain why their actions damage the Free Software movement.
Mostly the problem is just in their "playing the public service". It's not strange that the behaviour is against the law (or it should be, see my other post).
The main problem nowadays is that most people do not even know Free Software exists, they feel it normal and unavoidable that proprietary licenses are so strict. People had understtod the "poor programmer" tale, the "necessity of copyright protection", the "copying music for personal use is damaging the poor singer" and all other "intellectual-property lies".
Wasn't it in this list that someone suggested to write a "raise consciousness howto"? There is no consciousness of user's *rights* to use copyrighted material, and the BSA (and Disney, and Holliwood, and Warner, and ...) tries to *lower* people consciousness about the issue.
So why is the site bad? Because it reinforces in the audience (and I expect them to have quite a good audience, given the amount of "meta" tags they use) the idea that "copying is evil". And the idea that the BSA is protecting the law, so it is good for society, for the economy and for the poor author.
What we need is raise consciousness, and that's why we should stop such disinforming campaign. And if we succeed we should try to make the newspapers know that they are misbehaving.
So, while we are not for making illegal copies of proprietary software (not piracy, please), we are definitely against misrepresenting a commercial entity with a definite interest in the market for a good-will organization that helps the state in fighting crime.
I´m not quite sure what it would help us to show the BSA that they are misbehaving. The BSA is a group of Marketing freaks, who have to job to do publicity against software piracy.
Please add "in order to sell more proprietary software". They don't want "piracy" to go away by making all software free. You were joking, definitely :)
/alessandro
Hi there (I've been reading this discussion list for a few months but this is my first intervention)
If I understand well, this BSA action is bad because it does publicity for the "wrong end of the piracy problem".
I agree with you when you say that it is harmfull to free software.
But I think that taking action for this against the BSA is a *negative* way to solve the problem. The risk is that it could let people think that we are "on the pirates' side".
In my opinion the *positive* way to answer is to make publicity for the "good end of the piracy problem". They say "Do not copy our software because it is forbidden to do so". We should say "Copy our software (and not proprietary software) because it is permitted (encouraged?) to do so".
In other words I think we should spend more time promoting the FSF's way than flaming the BSA's way.
I have recently heard about someone on a warez discussion list who asked for "a pirate copy of this Linux that everyone is talking about". I don't know if it really happened but if it is tha case I feel a bit ashamed, being a free software supporter, that some people are so far to know the essence of our movement that they are likely to react as if it was proprietary software.
But there is one thing I wonder about www.warez.at. Well, the BSA got the site to close. But how did they get to have their logo on it?
One more thing: they had the site to close and they had their logo to replace previous page. The guys who are likely to visit this site are those who wanted to get pirated software the BSA's say them that they are taking actions to fight them. It sounds not very friendly and I am not sure that it is a good way to convince people to buy proprietary software. The point is: how to get these guy interested in free software? I am afraid that they are more interested in getting "free as beer" software than getting "really free" software (but ins'nt our work to raise their consiousness? :) We could have greater benefits by letting BSA taking this kind of "negative communication" in the same time we are making "positive communication" to promote free software.
Comments welcome.
Guillaume PONCE http://www.guillaumeponce.org/
Hello. Welcome aboard.
But I think that taking action for this against the BSA is a *negative* way to solve the problem. The risk is that it could let people think that we are "on the pirates' side".
No. I'm not for copyright violation. But I'm unhappy when a company presents itself as a public force that can shut down sites.
But there is one thing I wonder about www.warez.at. Well, the BSA got the site to close. But how did they get to have their logo on it?
"because they are the good that fought the evil" they say. "because they bought the domain from the previous owner to make that very page that shows that the BSA is authorized to close sites" is the truth.
The probably offered the previous owner to retire their legal action in exchange for the domain. I don't know.
A *real* shut-down site has a page that states who shut it down (the police, or financial police, or the military police) and why (which law has been applied, when, and which court applied it).
This is not real. But it fakes as real.
The guys who are likely to visit this site are those who wanted to get pirated software
So the BSA gets their IP address and the page whence the connection came from. I definitely must disable the "Referer" header :)
The point is: how to get these guy interested in free software? I am afraid that they are more interested in getting "free as beer" software than getting "really free"
Yes, it's true. But I'm not interested in those guys, I'm more interested in showing that companies that associated in the bsa "dot org" thing are acting against the law by trying to look like the law.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 04:07:33PM +0200, Guillaume PONCE wrote:
Hi there (I've been reading this discussion list for a few months but this is my first intervention)
If I understand well, this BSA action is bad because it does publicity for the "wrong end of the piracy problem".
I agree with you when you say that it is harmfull to free software.
But I think that taking action for this against the BSA is a *negative* way to solve the problem. The risk is that it could let people think that we are "on the pirates' side".
But we are on the same side.
Underground software distributors give people more freedom in short-term. Without them, all monopolists, like Microsoft and RIAA would have many times money, would be able to set many times higher prices and would be able to buy more politicians to ban all free software and competition in general.
Just because what these people do is illegal under current broken law doesn't mean that it's wrong or that we should oppose it. Their work is also very important for success of freedom.
But we are on the same side.
Underground software distributors give people more freedom in short-term. Without them, all monopolists, like Microsoft and RIAA would have many times money, would be able to set many times higher prices and would be able to buy more politicians to ban all free software and competition in general.
Just because what these people do is illegal under current broken law doesn't mean that it's wrong or that we should oppose it. Their work is also very important for success of freedom.
I don't agree with that.
They do not "give freedom" in any way. They just take it and, eventually, encourage people to do the same.
In my opinion piracy is not so harmfull to proprietary software. Monopolists wouldn't make very much more money because many of the "pirated software consumer" wouldn't buy it if they could not have it "free as beer".
If you cannot buy beer you can: - Steal it (that is what piracy is). - Drink water (if it's still free ;)
Worst, piracy may be a good vector to popularize proprietary software even among those who cannot afford it (but may be able in the future).
When I was student I couldn't afford M$ Word (that was before I came to the free software movement). But I had an illegal copy of it so I could use it to write internship reports. Many student were like me. Now we are working for companies that buy software to enable us to work. If the boss of one of these ex-students comes and asks "what do you need to write reports?" many of them will answer "Well, I know M$ Word, I used it when I was a student".
With no piracy, current students could investigate other solutions and learn about the existence of free software and even use and promote it in their future employer componies.
Piracy corrupts the proprietary way to distribute software but may also contribute to maintain it. Free software movement, as I feel it, is trying to find a safe new way to distribute software, I find it far more interesting. It's far more safe to try to make better law than letting law going nasty and find ways to bypass it.
If I could compare with politic I'd say that: - Piracy is a kind of terrorism. - Free software is a revolution.
Guillaume PONCE http://www.guillaumeponce.org/
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 05:41:29PM +0200, Guillaume PONCE wrote:
But we are on the same side.
Underground software distributors give people more freedom in short-term. Without them, all monopolists, like Microsoft and RIAA would have many times money, would be able to set many times higher prices and would be able to buy more politicians to ban all free software and competition in general.
Just because what these people do is illegal under current broken law doesn't mean that it's wrong or that we should oppose it. Their work is also very important for success of freedom.
I don't agree with that.
They do not "give freedom" in any way. They just take it and, eventually, encourage people to do the same.
In my opinion piracy is not so harmfull to proprietary software. Monopolists wouldn't make very much more money because many of the "pirated software consumer" wouldn't buy it if they could not have it "free as beer".
If you cannot buy beer you can:
- Steal it (that is what piracy is).
"Piracy" has nothing to do with stealing. Copyright is just evil law that nobody should obey.
- Drink water (if it's still free ;)
Worst, piracy may be a good vector to popularize proprietary software even among those who cannot afford it (but may be able in the future).
When I was student I couldn't afford M$ Word (that was before I came to the free software movement). But I had an illegal copy of it so I could use it to write internship reports. Many student were like me. Now we are working for companies that buy software to enable us to work. If the boss of one of these ex-students comes and asks "what do you need to write reports?" many of them will answer "Well, I know M$ Word, I used it when I was a student".
With no piracy, current students could investigate other solutions and learn about the existence of free software and even use and promote it in their future employer componies.
Piracy corrupts the proprietary way to distribute software but may also contribute to maintain it. Free software movement, as I feel it, is trying to find a safe new way to distribute software, I find it far more interesting. It's far more safe to try to make better law than letting law going nasty and find ways to bypass it.
If I could compare with politic I'd say that:
- Piracy is a kind of terrorism.
- Free software is a revolution.
I can't agree with you. You can't really overthrow evil system by only legal action, because the system can modify law to set rules of play that will protect it. And it's not just possibility, but actual fact. Look what is happening. There's DCMA, software patents, SSSCA, Echelon, extending duration of copyrights and patents, allowing genes to be patented and many more. If free software would ever endanger existence of proprietary software, you can be sure that all proprietary software have enought money to buy laws that would delegalize or at least limit free software. And they can also use fake software patents, change "standards" or sue everyone to do so, just as they are doing now.
And I'm completely sure that if only legal means were used, we would still have communism here.
Philipp =?iso-8859-1?q?G=FChring?= wrote:
Why? What do you have against the BSA? They just want the same thing, we want: They want to diminish software piracy. ItŽs just the small problem that they do it on the wrong end of the problem. They are only trying to get some publicity against the actual pirates of piratable software.
Good term! :-)
(By the way, they gave an 'official' statement, that everything they do is only for publicity. If some action wouldnŽt give them publicity, they wonŽt do it / forbid it) We are working to remove the root of the problem: The existance of piratable software. The whole software piracy problem will be away (and thatŽs what the BSA says they want), if the possibility of pirateable software is gone (and thatŽs what we should teach the BSA). Just look at their statements. The software industry looses millions of dollars and euros from piracy. If we solve the root of the problem, all those losses will be gone.
And the BSA will be gone as well, so don't expect much help from them ...
Frank
Philipp Gühring p.guehring@futureware.at writes:
Why? What do you have against the BSA? They just want the same thing, we want: They want to diminish software piracy.
I'm not sure about that. In the past, the big companies tolerated a certain amount of copying, in order to help spreading their software among home users etc. This way, many users have already used the new version at home before it is introduced at their workplace (which reduces training costs), and companies are forced to upgrade to remain compatible with their own employees. Companies usually can't afford to copy software illegally, although there once was a Microsoft campaign which said that you should do it from a financial perspective. (In the example presented, the fictional company had only to pay an amount of fines which roughly equaled the salary of the developers for a single day.)