Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iWork '09 Torrent Carrying OS X Trojan
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nice post. I couldn't really believe there were people out there that copyright infringement isn't _really_ illegal. What the point of copyright law if it isn't? These must be the same idiots who also think you do not have to pay taxes...
But would you agree that the copyright owner does suffer lost income if a customer was waiting in line to buy their product, and someone offered a pirated copy to them for free instead. The were just about to pay for it, but took it for free because it saved them money, not because they didn't think it was worth it.
You are suggesting that somehow the justice system is supposed to discern intent of the person before deciding whether or not they are doing something illegal. A nice assertion, (it even works for things like deciding between murder and homocide) but not one that works well for determining whether or not taking a copy of something would be OK for you, but not someone else.
I do agree that if you offer people a free copy of something that most will take it over a paid version, and that this costs the creator money. No argument here. But the post I was replying to was trying to say that people who would never buy the product are still costing the company money by "stealing" it. Which isn't true.
I don't agree with piracy, but I don't think it's the evil that many make it out to be. Mainly those who argue that every pirated copy of an app means a lost sale, or lost income. This simply isn't true, and people who claim this are inflating the problem. The great thing about Apple is that they realise this, which is why they don't inconvenience software buyers in order to make it more difficult for the pirates. And they'd rather you buy a Mac and pirate iWork than buy a windows machine anyway, it's still better for their bottom line that they get some money rather than none out of you.
Lots of people seem to be saying because someone wouldn't pay the asking price for content right now, they'd never buy it. What someone will pay is largely dependent on how much money they have. I know instant gratification is king, but hasn't anyone heard of- maybe you'd better sit down for this one- 'saving up for something'? Radical idea, I know...
horse-hockey
I think that this is a dishonest, fallacious argument.
Imagine that piracy were impossible - that every bit of software, music and video had a foolproof key or activation technique.
Would the criminals who are now downloading stuff simply sit and stare at their empty computers and MP3 players?
Not likely. If someone couldn't steal CS4 off a torrent, she'd quite possibly buy Photoshop (or Photoshop Elements). Perhaps if her needs were light, she'd download a freeware package like GIMP.
The argument that "it's OK to steal this because I wouldn't have paid for it" is a self-serving, unethical rationalization.
I think that this is a dishonest, fallacious argument.
Imagine that piracy were impossible - that every bit of software, music and video had a foolproof key or activation technique.
Would the criminals who are now downloading stuff simply sit and stare at their empty computers and MP3 players?
Not likely. If someone couldn't steal CS4 off a torrent, she'd quite possibly buy Photoshop (or Photoshop Elements). Perhaps if her needs were light, she'd download a freeware package like GIMP.
The argument that "it's OK to steal this because I wouldn't have paid for it" is a self-serving, unethical rationalization.
Lots of this debate seems to be about whether file-sharing is breaking the law. It is breaking the law, but is it a good law? Copyright law is notoriously subservient to wealthy copyright-holders- every time Mickey Mouse is in danger of going out of copyright the copyright gets extended, for example. Moreover, IP law is pretty inconsistent, IMO. Why on earth should scientists get only 20 years to exploit their patented inventions for profit, but the grandchildren of artists can get a tidy sum in royalties each year? It's not like recording music or writing a novel costs more than inventing and testing a product (which often requires the talents of dozens and dozens of people.) Can anyone explain why scientists get shafted compared to artists?
The only explanation I can think of is that in Western culture there's a weird split between science and art whereby science=Enlightenment=public, and art=Romanticism=private, but justification for that dichotomy is extremely weak, I think. And why should people in non-Western countries accept this?
Surely either the life of patents should be extended massively- in which case , say hello to skyrocketing healthcare taxes/premiums and technology prices- or copyright should be limited to 20 years. I favour the latter, since once an artwork is a generation old it becomes part of our heritage, part of the ways parents can explain to their children what the world was like when they were young, for example. As heritage, it should be made available as cheaply as possible. Being British, the Beatles are an important marker of recent national cultural identity, and people would think me very weird if I said I had never heard a Beatles song. Why should I have to pay massively more than necessary to be a fully-functioning member of my society?
The only explanation I can think of is that in Western culture there's a weird split between science and art whereby science=Enlightenment=public, and art=Romanticism=private, but justification for that dichotomy is extremely weak, I think. And why should people in non-Western countries accept this?
Surely either the life of patents should be extended massively- in which case , say hello to skyrocketing healthcare taxes/premiums and technology prices- or copyright should be limited to 20 years. I favour the latter, since once an artwork is a generation old it becomes part of our heritage, part of the ways parents can explain to their children what the world was like when they were young, for example. As heritage, it should be made available as cheaply as possible. Being British, the Beatles are an important marker of recent national cultural identity, and people would think me very weird if I said I had never heard a Beatles song. Why should I have to pay massively more than necessary to be a fully-functioning member of my society?
You can play your little word games. but what these people did by distributing a software that they did not have the right to distribute to was still illegal.
If the source is found I hope Apple takes appropriate legal action. As for the folks that downloaded the file, they are lucky that it may not have done serious damage to their computers. If it did, that's what they get for being cheap and lazy (Apple even gave out a free trial so the "try it before you buy it" excuse doesn't wash this time). Hope they were backing up their files.
Bad example. Why? Because Disney, knowing their copyright protections were going to run out, had Mickey etc changed to trademark symbols, which are probably basically forever so long as the 'owner' enforces the protection.
Coincidentally, Steve Jobs has the largest share of Disney of anyone, so when you pirate Disney property, you are STEALING food off of Steve Jobs' table.
Must be why he's so thin, then.
Yes, I know the triviality of this and that he's not actually having food stolen from him. It's a good analogy that actually applies in very many other circumstances.
Surely that would not stop people showing Steamboat Willie et al? If you want another example, there's the 'Cliff Richard Law' doing the lobbying rounds in Europe. It seems Cliff doesn't want his early hits to fall out of copyright, even though he admits singing them bores the nipples off him after half a century, and is lending his name to record companies' campaign.
What do you think of my general argument, though?
An additional argument concerns classical music- pretty much every top-class orchestra is heavily subsidised by their government, which does this because it believes that classical and operatic music are somehow of public benefit and need to be made artificially cheap so that they can reach as wide an audience as possible. Why, then, should their old recordings be made needlessly expensive?
i am sure this has been said already, however if you simply download the trial version of iwork and enter the right serial you wont have this problem...
not that i advocate that, but if you arent willing to go through apple in some respect, expect this sort of thing.
not that i advocate that, but if you arent willing to go through apple in some respect, expect this sort of thing.
The real question...
I personally think the real question should be:
How many different malwares are really in the wild for Mac OS X?
How many of these malwares are distributed by other ways than torrents? (say embedded in mp4-streams, jpegs and so on)
When is it time, to start worrying about security suites for Mac OS X?
And, most important:
WTF is really so stupid to leave important personal data like credit card info on his/her HDD?
I personally think the real question should be:
How many different malwares are really in the wild for Mac OS X?
How many of these malwares are distributed by other ways than torrents? (say embedded in mp4-streams, jpegs and so on)
When is it time, to start worrying about security suites for Mac OS X?
And, most important:
WTF is really so stupid to leave important personal data like credit card info on his/her HDD?
I personally think the real question should be:
How many different malwares are really in the wild for Mac OS X?
How many of these malwares are distributed by other ways than torrents? (say embedded in mp4-streams, jpegs and so on)
When is it time, to start worrying about security suites for Mac OS X?
And, most important:
WTF is really so stupid to leave important personal data like credit card info on his/her HDD?
That is just like say what are banks doing providing online services.
I think we have learned two things:
1) Don't pirate software, music, etc..
or
2) Know how to
It's not considered a crime unless they catch you
1) Don't pirate software, music, etc..
or
2) Know how to
It's not considered a crime unless they catch you
If you cannot afford to pay such a price for a professional software suite then you do not need it anyway. Software designed for professionals is worth the investment.
Just as a full mechanics toolkit pays for itself.
Saving up I totally agree. How we choose to obtain things is a also a reflection of character.
It's not considered a crime unless they catch you
By that logic, neither is rape. I don't see how that makes it right.
Piracy ( aka Copyright infringement) is not stealing. Anyone who argues otherwise fails to understand law and cannot therefore comprehend the issues raised by copyright infringement.
Is it still illegal? ofcourse. To what extent it is a serious crime is debatable.
Does it cause a loss of income to some entity? in some cases yes definitely, in other cases the opposite.
On balance does it do more harm than good? probably.
What those against Piracy fail to realize is that Piracy is a fact of life, whether you like it or not. Whilst theft of property is nearly always a bad thing, piracy can often be a good thing for the copyright holder.
Apple realize this why do you think they removed serial number installation on iWork?
Living in a world without piracy would be terrible, absolutely terrible.
Is it still illegal? ofcourse. To what extent it is a serious crime is debatable.
Does it cause a loss of income to some entity? in some cases yes definitely, in other cases the opposite.
On balance does it do more harm than good? probably.
What those against Piracy fail to realize is that Piracy is a fact of life, whether you like it or not. Whilst theft of property is nearly always a bad thing, piracy can often be a good thing for the copyright holder.
Apple realize this why do you think they removed serial number installation on iWork?
Living in a world without piracy would be terrible, absolutely terrible.
Stealing is stealing,
In the English language, taking something without permission is called "stealing".
You can "steal" words, ideas and other intangibles.
Just because the barristers uses a different word in the courtroom when dealing with the theft of intellectual property - doesn't make it not theft.
I will continue to use the word "steal" - because that's what is happening. These people used the torrent to steal from Apple, and compromised their systems as a result. Do you really expect the criminals who place software on the torrents to be gracious?
And, if Apple had wanted everyone to download Iworks without payment - they would have placed an unlocked copy on their servers. They would have made it freeware, and removed it from the Apple Store.
In the English language, taking something without permission is called "stealing".
You can "steal" words, ideas and other intangibles.
Just because the barristers uses a different word in the courtroom when dealing with the theft of intellectual property - doesn't make it not theft.
I will continue to use the word "steal" - because that's what is happening. These people used the torrent to steal from Apple, and compromised their systems as a result. Do you really expect the criminals who place software on the torrents to be gracious?
And, if Apple had wanted everyone to download Iworks without payment - they would have placed an unlocked copy on their servers. They would have made it freeware, and removed it from the Apple Store.
Well erm, it kind of does make it not theft. Sure the word 'theft' or 'stealing' may be a convenient shorthand to sum up how you feel about the issue but if you are going to have a rational debate about the very real implications of piracy you must use accurate terms...
You do know how Microsoft came to dominate the operating system market ... right?
I can use plain English terms. "Steal" means to take something that you don't have the rights to.
The "legal" terms aren't the same as the "accurate" terms.
This whole thread is about acquiring software by illicit means. Using a plain English term does not preclude rational debate.
Because I'm a software architect at a software company. If our products are stolen, our salaries are affected.
Note that Apple is a hardware company. For Apple, stolen software may lead to additional hardware sales. The salaries of the software engineers are not directly tied to software sales.
They hid Windows in illegal downloads, so that when you stole VisiCalc you got Windows as a Trojan?
When i scrolled to the bottom of a page on this thread there was an ad that said:
"Free iWork 2009 torrent"
I know it appeared because of the advanced advertising or whatever, but I stilll found it funny
"Free iWork 2009 torrent"
I know it appeared because of the advanced advertising or whatever, but I stilll found it funny
Great, but this is about a trojan on iWork 09, and not a discussion about piracy. How it became such is basically an explanation of what is wrong with this forum, so I won't delve into that too much.
No, it's about a trojan on pirated versions of iWork '09. So, a discussion of piracy is in order.
lol why are Mac users so against downloading? I download because I couldn't possibly afford what they put out these days, I'm a designer, but a student still, and I couldn't possibly afford Adobe Creative Suite. I guess Mac users are against it cuz they have the money to buy it. But for me I got a Macbook free, and sold it to get an iMac, also had to save up a bit of money.. and I still can't the top of the line of course, I can only get the entry.. I do buy music occasionally, because I can afford it, even games these days are like $69.99!! I would buy it if was for $20, I do understand the prices go down later on, but I can't wait that long =/..
Anyway to me Its ok to download if you don't have the money.
Anyway to me Its ok to download if you don't have the money.
]
as you say, there was a legal way to try iwork without illegal games. not to mention that few folks that get a fully working copy of a software just try it and then buy it. why should they, they have it already.
The answer to the problem is for more copies to provide trials for limited times/functions/something.
lets see what you say when you are the one not making money off of something.
as for DRM, they wouldn't need it if folks weren't so happy to upload and share with the whole world.
Well i can't speak for anyone else but my family, if there is no family license and the program is that crazy expensive, we get one copy and the computer is shared as needed. problem solved