LinuxQuestions.org
Did you know LQ has a Linux Hardware Compatibility List?
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 06-14-2007, 11:15 AM   #31
alred
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: singapore
Distribution: puppy and Ubuntu and ... erh ... redhat(sort of) :( ... + the venerable bsd and solaris ^_^
Posts: 658
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 31

or you can just passing your stuffs around your neighors and close friends ... but if you still got problems with that ... then i think you are living in a very bad place ...


//can try moving ...


.
 
Old 06-15-2007, 09:50 AM   #32
rob.rice
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Distribution: slack what ever
Posts: 784

Rep: Reputation: 99
IF the files can be found by surfing around or by editing a URL this is not illeagle
IF a crack of some kind is used to acess the files that is theft .
There are no laws restricting what someone can type into the address line of a web browser .
 
Old 06-16-2007, 12:07 AM   #33
alred
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: singapore
Distribution: puppy and Ubuntu and ... erh ... redhat(sort of) :( ... + the venerable bsd and solaris ^_^
Posts: 658
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 31
i think he should move ...


its not really whats actually happenning ... its just the human living habitat issue ... sounds to me things are very bad over there ...


.
 
Old 06-17-2007, 07:12 AM   #34
V!NCENT
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Distribution: Kubuntu 8.10 KDE4
Posts: 208

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiml8
Cracking is entering improperly where it is clear you aren't freely permitted.
So if I forbid you to go to a super secret webside I made about nuclear bombs (wich is clearly my copyright) then that is cracking because you were clearly forbidden to enter it? And if I'm wrong, what the heck was cracked?

Quote:
In the case given, the security on the website is defective.
There _was_ no security.

Quote:
It is entirely possible that the site owners don't know it, and it is equally possible that they went with the cheapest bidder for site development, and got someone clueless.
Poor them, but if they take you to court then the judge will tell them it's their fault for not taking time to secure their content and the case will surely be dismissed, like usual.

Quote:
It is theft of service. Period.
The service was not being used. He just entered the link.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob.rice
IF the files can be found by surfing around or by editing a URL this is not illeagle
If I lost my keys on the street and someone finds it and uses it to enter my house then it is. But I agree that it's not realy 'elite'.

Last edited by V!NCENT; 06-17-2007 at 07:17 AM.
 
Old 06-17-2007, 03:05 PM   #35
rob.rice
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2004
Distribution: slack what ever
Posts: 784

Rep: Reputation: 99
I'm pretty sure if you leave acess to a web page freely open there is by law an implyed permisstion .
I'm also pretty sure it's up to the copyright owner to do some minamul protuction of his copyright .
Is there any law that says you can't read a newspaper you find on say a park bench .
Unlike most anolages in this thread there is no loss of the files in question .
Frome my point of view the internet is seen as a library any thing you can freely read is ok to read how ever you read it .
Now if some one copys these files and distrubts them then even thou thay are freely accessable with out permisstion that is theft .

Last edited by rob.rice; 06-17-2007 at 03:07 PM.
 
Old 06-17-2007, 04:11 PM   #36
ErV
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: Russia
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 1,202
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by jiml8
Cracking is entering improperly where it is clear you aren't freely permitted.
Well, then, will be cracking a program/website illegal if you will after that send a e-mail to an author "hey, you've got a security hole there, at adress0xXXXXXXX/page 123.html. You can fix it it by doing following...". Will be that illegal?
I think that most people forget about motivation of cracker. If person want to steal a content from site, that's one thing. But if the person will just look at site's structure, learn it, find a possible problems, and let the site be, won't that be an another thing?
And what about situations when a program can't work (due to a bug) on your hardware but you can fix that by "cracking" or "patching" it? Will be that "illegal" then?
And how person is supposed to learn system/program security if he won't examine programs?
And isn't that possible that a site/program creator will hire someone to test their product for possibilities of cracking it?

P.S. I think that most people think about software/electronic content just in way they think about jewelery, but those are different thing. If you will have one gem, you can't make a copy of it for free, but any electronical content can be copied without a limit, and the process is not expensive. I think that makes software/electronic content something different and current laws doesn't take that difference in account...
 
Old 06-18-2007, 10:43 AM   #37
V!NCENT
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Distribution: Kubuntu 8.10 KDE4
Posts: 208

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErV
P.S. I think that most people think about software/electronic content just in way they think about jewelery, but those are different thing. If you will have one gem, you can't make a copy of it for free, but any electronical content can be copied without a limit, and the process is not expensive. I think that makes software/electronic content something different and current laws doesn't take that difference in account...
I second that. You simply can't secure something that is not physicly touchable. It's just that some companies invested in software and it turned out to be a failure. Instead of saying "you made a mistake, sorry, life's hard" we now all have to somehow be sorry for them, protect them by law to safe their business, and _pay_ for their mistakes. I've had enough of this nonsence. "OOoooooooh, you are bad because you downloaded a song of, let's say, robby williams without paying for it! Now the uber-rich people don't get a little richer". I've had enough of these crybaby's.
 
Old 06-18-2007, 11:06 AM   #38
alred
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: singapore
Distribution: puppy and Ubuntu and ... erh ... redhat(sort of) :( ... + the venerable bsd and solaris ^_^
Posts: 658
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 31
securing something that is not physicly touchable is an invention ...

like there was a time when there was totally nothing when suddenly something/or some people appeared and time started ticking from there on-wards with new(supposingly) words(and lots and lots of them) ... plus some papers(probably also a lot) with that same new words on them ...


//.2 cents ...

.
 
Old 06-18-2007, 09:10 PM   #39
sundialsvcs
Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 5,267

Rep: Reputation: 1086Reputation: 1086Reputation: 1086Reputation: 1086Reputation: 1086Reputation: 1086Reputation: 1086Reputation: 1086
Let me put it to you this way...

I make my living by publishing a computer program that I have spent more than the last ten years developing. I sell that program to thousands of people around the world, who are (I am very grateful to say...) very demanding, as I certainly am when I have spent nearly $200 for something and (simply) expect to get what I've paid for.

My customers pay their hard-earned money for "something which they 'damn well expect to receive,'" and for the past ten-plus years I have made it my business to "be 'damn well certain' that they do."

What's wrong with this picture? Absolutely nothing, as long as you pay. Like you, I do not work for free. If you do not understand that, grow up!

Stealing ... and let us, for once, "call a spade a spade" ... is not a 'victimless crime.'

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 06-18-2007 at 09:25 PM.
 
Old 06-18-2007, 10:48 PM   #40
ErV
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: Russia
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 1,202
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
Let me put it to you this way...

I make my living by publishing a computer program that I have spent more than the last ten years developing. I sell that program to thousands of people around the world, who are (I am very grateful to say...) very demanding, as I certainly am when I have spent nearly $200 for something and (simply) expect to get what I've paid for.

My customers pay their hard-earned money for "something which they 'damn well expect to receive,'" and for the past ten-plus years I have made it my business to "be 'damn well certain' that they do."

What's wrong with this picture? Absolutely nothing, as long as you pay. Like you, I do not work for free. If you do not understand that, grow up!

Stealing ... and let us, for once, "call a spade a spade" ... is not a 'victimless crime.'
I think that you are confusing cracking and piracy/warez. For me cracking and piracy are different things and they aren't tightly connected. I'll try to express my opinion.
1) If someone cracks a program (removes copy protection) and releases program to the public so everyone can download it (making this person's site more popular at the same time), this is piracy, and this is bad for the original developer, since he won't recieve money he expected.No doubt, this a bad thing to do.
2) If someone cracked a program - i.e. found a way to remove protection and released this crack this is not necessarily a piracy. That's something another. Person didn't copy program, he left a choice for recievers of "crack" or cracking algorythm - you can violate law or not. Crack can be used to learn it's algorithm (which isn't bad in some cases) or to steal programs (which is bad for original developer). This situation is in "gray area" with a tendency to be a "bad doing".
3) If someone bought a program and cracked it to provide better functionality on his machine, will this be a bad thing? It is not difficult to make a "NoCD" for a game on windows system, for example. If you bought a game and created a "NoCD", so your CD/DVD disk will live longer, will that be a bad thing? I don't think so... But if you will start releasing "NoCD"'ed games - that action will be a piracy. This situation is in "gray area" with a tendency to be a "normal doing".

So, piracy is stealing software, but not necessarily removing security from it or cracking it.
And cracking is examining program and changing/understanding it's logic, but not necessarily stealing program. It is not getting program for free. You can buy the program and crack it just to see how it works, right?

This problem is related to opensource/closed source problem. If program is an opensource(GPL'ed, for example) you can have trouble with earning money for it. But you won't have any trouble with modifying it on your system if it doesn't suit your needs. With commercial (closed-source) software situation is good when recieving payment, but it is ridiculous when program won't work on your system for some reason - even if you could fix that yourself you'll have to wait for a patch that possibly will solve your problem and will provide many others instead... It's like a buying a car without a rights to fix it yourself.

Last edited by ErV; 06-19-2007 at 12:59 AM.
 
Old 06-18-2007, 11:13 PM   #41
Crito
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Knoxville, TN
Distribution: Kubuntu 9.04
Posts: 1,168

Rep: Reputation: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by ErV
You can buy the program and crack it just to see how it works, right?
You hack the program to see how it works. You crack the program to duplicate it. If it's your own personal copy and you're cracking it for backup purposes the activity is completely legal too. See history of Central Point Software's Copy2PC program.
 
Old 06-19-2007, 03:09 AM   #42
V!NCENT
Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: The Netherlands
Distribution: Kubuntu 8.10 KDE4
Posts: 208

Rep: Reputation: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
Let me put it to you this way...

I make my living by publishing a computer program that I have spent more than the last ten years developing. I sell that program to thousands of people around the world, who are (I am very grateful to say...) very demanding, as I certainly am when I have spent nearly $200 for something and (simply) expect to get what I've paid for.

My customers pay their hard-earned money for "something which they 'damn well expect to receive,'" and for the past ten-plus years I have made it my business to "be 'damn well certain' that they do."

What's wrong with this picture? Absolutely nothing, as long as you pay. Like you, I do not work for free. If you do not understand that, grow up!

Stealing ... and let us, for once, "call a spade a spade" ... is not a 'victimless crime.'
Now _this_ is exactly what I am talking about. The most perfect example. "I am a developper who needs you to make sure I have an income and if you don't pay me for what I created then I am in trouble!". So if people make some copies of your software without paying for it they need to end up in jail just because you made 'infestments' (god I hate this word) in software. You knew all along that software is a risky business.

Well let me define the words stealing (criminal activity) and copying for you. Copying is just making a replicate of a something. Nothing wrong with this. Stealing is replicating it and then _selling_ it or using it in your own software you sell (like Microsoft does). Stealing on a commercial basis can and should be considdered illigal and bad because this way you are 'earning' somebody elses salary. With p2p/warez/newsgroups/torrents people don't make money and in allmost all cases lose some. This on one hand is only copying but I understand this is illigal because you basicly throw it on the street and running away. Instead of just giving this to a friend you are delebrately damaging the industry on a mass scale without any self interest.

Last edited by V!NCENT; 06-19-2007 at 03:11 AM.
 
Old 06-19-2007, 08:07 AM   #43
alred
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2005
Location: singapore
Distribution: puppy and Ubuntu and ... erh ... redhat(sort of) :( ... + the venerable bsd and solaris ^_^
Posts: 658
Blog Entries: 8

Rep: Reputation: 31
"Stealing" is a very meaningfull word ... i guess it complements our dream of living in a wonderfull world(where obstacles and scratches are leveled ... probably coupling with a redefination of justise too) where we make wonders like fireworks for example ...


.

Last edited by alred; 06-19-2007 at 08:13 AM.
 
Old 06-19-2007, 08:41 AM   #44
crashmeister
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Distribution: t2 - trying to anyway
Posts: 2,541

Rep: Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs
Let me put it to you this way...

I make my living by publishing a computer program that I have spent more than the last ten years developing. I sell that program to thousands of people around the world, who are (I am very grateful to say...) very demanding, as I certainly am when I have spent nearly $200 for something and (simply) expect to get what I've paid for.

My customers pay their hard-earned money for "something which they 'damn well expect to receive,'" and for the past ten-plus years I have made it my business to "be 'damn well certain' that they do."

What's wrong with this picture? Absolutely nothing, as long as you pay. Like you, I do not work for free. If you do not understand that, grow up!

Stealing ... and let us, for once, "call a spade a spade" ... is not a 'victimless crime.'
Actually the title of the thread is already wrong.Clicking on a link has nothing to do with 'cracking'.

Now you wouldn't put your software up like that - would you?

I understand your argument completely and it is of course 100% correct but I also understand that if there is a link that is clickable w/o any protection there is no stealing involved.

In some countries the websites are even responsible for the content of the links OUTSIDE their domain they link to let alone on their own domain.You got some responsibilities too if you think you are a website designer.

Now lets say this would link to pron vids instead of whatever and the guys are just morons big enough not to protect the link and the website is from an US company.

The responsible parties would find their asses in jail pretty quick.

I guess it comes down to the question:

If you click on a link and there is a message that says something to the effect:

You reached our paycontent and are expected to pay for it if you reached this area because our website is not properly designed please send your credit card by snail mail to:
dumbo.inc

moron blvd


you have been advised.

If stuff just starts to appear and download no judge in this world would see any wrongdoing.

Last edited by crashmeister; 06-19-2007 at 08:42 AM.
 
Old 06-19-2007, 12:02 PM   #45
Dark_Helmet
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,786

Rep: Reputation: 369Reputation: 369Reputation: 369Reputation: 369
@sundialsvcs
I understand the frustration. But the problem is, nothing you and I respond with will make any difference. The "let me get something for nothing because you screwed up" mentality seems ingrained in some members. It's a belief that somehow, a person is entitled to something of value unless the other person's actions are "adequate" according to some transient, internal, personal measurement of "adequate". I say transient because it tends to change. If that "something" is desirable, the bar is raised--greater security/verification is required. If that "something" supports the "cause du jour", the bar is lowered--only a message of "this is not free" is required.

With the exception of crashmeister's earlier response, my responses have been ignored. I don't know why that is. I'm not saying my responses are flawless. They are lengthy. They are relevant. They go against the get-something-for-nothing mentality. I get the impression they are generally dismissed out-of-hand because they are unpopular.

As it is now, I notice an attempt to change the focus of the discussion. The OP was talking about downloading content from a link on a website that indicated the content was intended for paying customers only. There's now an undercurrent to switch the discussion to talking about a link at a site without any indication the content is for paying customers. That is a completely different situation. In one instance, it is theft. In the other, the person has a legitimate argument that he/she was not put "on notice" that the content was restricted.

As hard as it may be for some to accept, posting a message that the owner wants to restrict access to content is sufficient to make acquiring that content without satisfying the restriction illegal. Period. End of story.

In an attempt to illustrate, imagine a landowner wishing to restrict access to his or her land. From my perspective, if the landowner posts a sign that says "no trespassing", you better not enter the property*. The argument presented by the get-something-for-nothing side is that the landowner must construct a fence to keep people out. Not only that, but the fence must be "adequate" (which I assume means it can't be in need of repair, can't be climbed, or exploited by any other common methods). Apparently, the landowner's wishes are irrelevant unless he/she devises an impenetrable form of defense for their property. Otherwise, they deserve to have people walk on or use their land because their security was not "adequate".

* - as a side note, the law does not even require a sign to hold someone liable for trespassing
 
  


Reply

Tags
cracking, security


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
squirrelmail "error in login page"" when content advisor is enabled simi_virgo Linux - Networking 4 08-21-2008 01:25 PM
podcast topic: "Closed source drivers illegal" pterandon LQ Suggestions & Feedback 1 09-12-2006 11:26 AM
ProFTPd- "Illegal PORT Command" JCdude2525 Linux - Networking 5 12-06-2004 05:42 AM
Various Problems After Kernel Recompile - Keyboard Screwed, "Illegal Instructions"... johnleemk Linux - General 0 02-04-2004 11:33 PM
Cracking the "wall" of SuSE. Need help please... shassouneh Linux - Distributions 12 05-05-2002 02:35 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:54 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration