The conviction of four self-proclaimed Robin Hoods for conspiracy to defraud last week has raised some serious questions over just how much public resource should be diverted into helping software companies protect their wares when they don't use all the security technology currently designed for just this purpose.
The gang members, collectively known as DrinkorDie, who were arrested between December 2001 and January 2002, were sentenced at the Old Bailey last week for their part in a global software counterfeiting ring. Three of the four — Alex Bell, Mark Vent, and Andrew Eardley — worked or were previously employed as IT managers while the fourth — Steven Dowd — was unemployed. Sentences ranged from 18 months to two years, with Eardley's sentence suspended for two years.
The gang was charged with conspiracy to defraud after being arrested by the UK National Hi-Tech Crime Unit, which acted on information coming from US investigations including Operations Blossom and Buccaneer in 2001.
DrinkorDie formed part of a so-called "warez" group — from the plural of software — which operate by allegedly disseminating pirated copies of computer software, games, movies and music on the Internet. According to the US Justice Department, warez members distributed material to "select clientele" over secure servers, and those files eventually end up on an IRC network or a peer-to-peer file-sharing service.
The latest major US operation against warez groups, termed "Operation Fastlink", began last year and consisted of 120 searches in 27 US states and 10 other countries with US authorities estimating that the seized copyright material was worth $50m.
But despite the apparent success of such investigations some experts have questioned whether so much public sector time and money should be spent on what could be seen as essentially copyright infringement.
Peter Sommer, a security specialist called as an expert witness for the defence in the DrinkorDie case, claims the group should never have been prosecuted under charges of conspiracy. "The main concern that I have is the colossal expenditure of the UK investigating trial, which stems from the way the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decided to charge this. Because the CPS decided to go with conspiracy charges rather than charging individuals substantively under copyright or trademark law, it increased costs by several million pounds," he says.
Talkback
As a small software house, piracy is a major concern, and we deal with it using technology for copy protection.
While I am not a great believer in being able to apply legal enforcement of copyright, as it is usually very expensive, resulting in the legal profession gaining and all others seeing a loss. It is reassuring to note that should the need arise, the "law" can be used against individuals or organisations that deliberately set out to undermine the many years of hard work needed to produce good quality software. It is only such software that these pirates seek to copy as that is what brings (to them) the most income.
This matter should not be one of "our taxes used against copyright" but one of our rights to enfoce the law against theft of our business income, should that need be necessary, as in this case.
Hi
My name is Bill Barna and I have been developing software mainly games development since 1982. In my time as developer and producer for some of the biggest names in the industry, I have seen piracy and blatant theft on every level, warez is a word used to describe not only a group of thieves but a whole way of life for some of these people and they are all over the world. I have seen within days of a release, of a product, copies being sold on a market stall. I have used some of the anti-hacking and copy protection that is freely available to developers and I can tell you it is not worth the time and effort when it can be broken in minutes by organised pirates. The problem is that protection that is available to all of us is also available to the hackers, with this kind of information available to them how is going to stop them. Individually tailored protection for each product is the best way and this is still not secure, there’s always a way round. Protection software is not the only answer, arrest, prosecution and conviction is also needed. We need some high profile cases but we should also be sending a message to the smaller hacker and copiers that it is not ok to just do a quick copy for a friend or friends. As for the cost of prosecuting these people, it is a tiny amount compared to what it has cost us all over the past twenty plus years, if a software house closes down (and they have) and people are laid off then the cost is already past on to the public.
Perhaps legal aid should be means tested - seems to me the BSA with it's huge conglomerate members have more than enough money to fight their own battles, whereas some of the previous respondants clearly haven't. I totally object to a company like Microsoft using my tax money for, well, anything really. Actually I completely object to Microsoft, but that's another story.
It's clear that Microsoft in particular, and probably other companies as well, have benefitted massively from piracy. MS would never have gained the monopoly status they have now without it. If only those FAST adverts in the past had warned us about that!
Where the software is packaged up and sold on as the geniune item then legal aid should be available as this is pretty much fraud.
Where the software has been knowingly copied, from a simple copy for a friend to a serious operation then it should be up to the software companies to sue either of both parties for loss of earnings etc.
As a small business, if a customer doesn't pay me for work done I can't rely on the government suing them. I have to do it myself. I don't see why software companies think they should be treated any differently.