Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Android Piracy Sites Seized By US Government

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the it's-not-like-anyone-buys-them-anyway dept.

Android 184

Dupple writes with news that the DOJ took a few Android app piracy sites offline. From the release: "Seizure orders have been executed against three website domain names engaged in the illegal distribution of copies of copyrighted Android cell phone apps, Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Department of Justice's Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Sally Quillian Yates of the Northern District of Georgia and Special Agent in Charge Brian D. Lamkin of the FBI's Atlanta Field Office announced today. The department said that this is the first time website domains involving cell phone app marketplaces have been seized. The seizures are the result of a comprehensive enforcement action taken to prevent the infringement of copyrighted mobile device apps. The operation was coordinated with international law enforcement, including Dutch and French law enforcement officials."

cancel ×

184 comments

But... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41080157)

But there isn't an Android piracy problem! The fandroids said so!!! This is all just Apple FUD!!

No, I'm not an iShiny faggot, either.

Re:But... (4, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 2 years ago | (#41081003)

But there isn't an Android piracy problem!

It depends on how one defines "piracy problem," like e.g. at what point does piracy become a problem and when it isn't a problem, and who is it a problem to anyways? Is it a problem if there's over 1% piracy rate? If so then iOS, Android, BB, Windows, OSX, Linux, BeOS, DOS and so on would have a "piracy problem." Or is it a problem only when popular things are being pirated? Atleast I don't see law enforcement ever going after pirates for spreading some niche product that only appeals to a small base, even if the piracy rates in that base were over 90%. Is piracy a problem to the users, is it a problem to developers who are actually still making nice profit even with 40% piracy rates, or is it a problem to publishers who cry foul even about a single pirated copy even if they're raking in cash like madmen, all just because they want every single last penny in their pockets? I don't see users complaining about piracy, and I see plenty of developers who simply ignore piracy as long as they're generating profit, I only see these money-hungry entities complaining.

Even if we just focus on the fact that there's piracy on Android-platform we have to look at its surroundings: Android is very similar to e.g. Windows in terms of end-user-oriented openness, allowing one to install and remove software freely. Only Android, however, is getting flak for piracy at the moment, piracy on PCs is being ignored. Why? Well, because people like OP like to jump on whatever happens to be the new trend, because developers these days are trained to believe that any amount of piracy whatsoever is a problem, and because, well, most Android-apps are crappy, shallow pieces of sh*t and cost mere pennies -- the general populace won't see the apps worth much if even the developers themselves don't, therefore said populace won't see it as a loss for the developer if they just pirate the things instead. Combine said arbitrary worthlessness with an open platform and it's no wonder piracy exists.

All that said the developers and publishers themselves are to blame for their problems: make your apps worth not pirating, and either develop only for walled-garden platforms or accept piracy as a fact of life and ignore it as long as you're still generating profits.

The fandroids said so!!! This is all just Apple FUD!!

No, I'm not an iShiny faggot, either.

To be honest, your sexual orientation is not relevant here nor does it reflect on your intellect in any way or form. The use of terms like "fandroids," "iShiny," and "faggot" along with multiple exclamation marks and the lack of any kind of argument whatsoever does, however. I do realize your comment was an attempt at trolling Slashdot-users and you were hoping for some enraged comments which is why I so much enjoy responding to these kinds of attempts with calm, coherent comments -- think of it as reverse trolling, if you will.

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081027)

But there isn't an Android piracy problem! The fandroids said so!!! This is all just Apple FUD!!

No, I'm not an iShiny faggot, either.

That's because it wasn't a problem until the DOJ stuck their nose into someone else's business...

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081337)

It's not piracy, it's just open.

Re:But... (2)

poetmatt (793785) | about 2 years ago | (#41081419)

the only reason people pirate on android is because we have shitty developers like the guy who decries piracy as the reason for him making a shitty app.

see how this circle works?

make apps that aren't openly hostile to your customers and/or basically stupid, and guess what? people are more than happy to pay for them, especially if they are well made.

Re:But... (1)

Orga (1720130) | about 2 years ago | (#41081989)

Or perhaps when a company like Sony comes and forces google to remove an app from their store because it will compete with a future product they're planning on launching.

Android: the pirate kiddies phone of choice! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41080175)

oh no! easy piracy is the main selling point of android phones considering everything else about them sucks! without piracy how will they compete?

WHAT !! THE F.B.I. SIEZED GOOGLE !!?? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41080201)

It's about time !!

Trolls (4, Insightful)

noh8rz7 (2706405) | about 2 years ago | (#41080241)

Wow, judging by the above comments, the apple trolls/shills are out in full force! Will the real tim cook please stand up?

Re:Trolls (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41080343)

Hey look a butthurt fandroid whose only comeback isn't to dispute the facts but to label everyone as shills.

Re:Trolls (0)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#41080637)

Just because the pot is the one calling the kettle black doesn't automatically mean the kettle isn't actually black.

In fact, the pot's own color could well make it an expert on knowing a black kettle when it sees one.

Re:Trolls (1, Troll)

Uberbah (647458) | about 2 years ago | (#41081125)

Wow, should be easy to name some examples then, since there's only 52 comments in this story (so far). Where, exactly, are these shill/troll comments.....

but how do i buy apps in Uganda? (4, Insightful)

alen (225700) | about 2 years ago | (#41080265)

but most of the good apps and games aren't available in the uganda google play store

Re:but how do i buy apps in Uganda? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41080417)

That is the idea. They don't want Ugandans to use their precious apps. They don't want Ugandan money. Much like Harmony Gold, selling things to all who would buy it is not their goal. Making people pay them excessive amounts of money to do nothing is what they want.

Re:but how do i buy apps in Uganda? (1, Funny)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41080479)

Have you tried contacting employers in countries other than Uganda to see if they'd sponsor your work visa?

Re:but how do i buy apps in Uganda? (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | about 2 years ago | (#41081269)

What makes you think he wants to live somewhere other than Uganda?

Re:but how do i buy apps in Uganda? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41081499)

Because living elsewhere ensures access to apps. No place in this system of things is a perfect place to live; one has to pick the least bad.

Our Dutch and French Masters (1, Funny)

jbeaupre (752124) | about 2 years ago | (#41080283)

When will we throw off the tyranny of Europe and their wild view of copyright? I for one am tired of having to jump every time some Dutch or French bureaucrat decides our copyright enforcement is too lax.

Re:Our Dutch and French Masters (1)

jbeaupre (752124) | about 2 years ago | (#41081461)

Seems satire is harder to recognize than I thought.

Re:Our Dutch and French Masters (2)

uniquename72 (1169497) | about 2 years ago | (#41081825)

That was satire? Don't quit your day job.

Re:Our Dutch and French Masters (2)

jbeaupre (752124) | about 2 years ago | (#41082101)

Yes. I'll have to rethink my dreams of supporting an extravagant lifestyle by posting on Slashdot.

In the Meantime (1)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about 2 years ago | (#41080295)

15 new sites popup, android torrent programs get a boost, and alternate piracy sites get a lot more publicity for free.

Good one guys, thank you for making your country's government live up to the phrase "land of the free."

Re:In the Meantime (1, Informative)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | about 2 years ago | (#41080353)

"Land of the Free" does not include allowing you to be "free" to break the law.

Re:In the Meantime (2)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about 2 years ago | (#41080405)

"In most cases, the servers storing the apps sold by these alternative online markets were being hosted in other countries, and our international law enforcement partners assisted in obtaining or seizing evidence stored on these servers."

Besides, it shouldn't be law. In my opinion the law is immoral.

Re:In the Meantime (1, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41080677)

It's immoral to allow some to determine the distribution of their work for a limited time?

You're an idiot, but what ever helps you sleep at night when you continue to rip people off,.

Re:In the Meantime (3, Informative)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 2 years ago | (#41081495)

It's immoral to allow some to determine the distribution of their work for a limited time?

No, it is not immoral.

However, the current definition of "limited time" is immoral, thereby negating the intent of the US Constitution.

Re:In the Meantime (4, Insightful)

alexgieg (948359) | about 2 years ago | (#41081647)

It's immoral to allow some to determine the distribution of their work for a limited time?

Yes, it is. You don't do it by yourself, you know? You go to nanny State and papa Government and beg them to please, pretty please, violate the property rights of every single other human being on Earth for your own benefit, so that my computer isn't mine anymore, it's the government's, which now merely allows me to use it in the ways they deem right and legit. That's quite immoral, yes.

Which isn't to mean authors shouldn't be rewarded. But they should be rewards in whatever way the free market develops, not by way of employing the full force of the hugest apparatus of violence ever assembled in the History of mankind.

Re:In the Meantime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41080431)

Yes. Now where are my black slaves?

Re:In the Meantime (2, Interesting)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#41080581)

Or even think about anything that is copyrighted!

Once you read your copy... you MUST erase it from your mind immediately. And your copy has only been licensed for one reading.

Re:In the Meantime (1)

flirno (945854) | about 2 years ago | (#41080799)

Yes it does. It just does not allow you to be free of consequences of your actions.

Re:In the Meantime (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#41081247)

Its refreshing to not see Slashdot trying to justify breaking laws and demonizing the enforcement of them. Anarchy is not good, guys.

Re:In the Meantime (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41082295)

Oh but it does, what it does not allow is you to break the law and expect for there not to be consequences for your actions...

And slightly off-topic here, but, is there a way to download apps that are 'un-supported' for your device to find out if they work, and then report them as functional to the Play store, you know like the play store itself, since I had to work around it not being installed on my device by downloading the APK?

Re:In the Meantime (5, Insightful)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about 2 years ago | (#41080365)

Does this not make you scared: "In most cases, the servers storing the apps sold by these alternative online markets were being hosted in other countries, and our international law enforcement partners assisted in obtaining or seizing evidence stored on these servers."
I really hate the extent to which the US is exerting its thought crime laws in other sovereign nations. I guess not so sovereign any more.

Re:In the Meantime (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41080473)

Does this not make you scared: "In most cases, the servers storing the apps sold by these alternative online markets were being hosted in other countries, and our international law enforcement partners assisted in obtaining or seizing evidence stored on these servers."
I really hate the extent to which the US is exerting its thought crime laws in other sovereign nations. I guess not so sovereign any more.

Hmmm ... labelling copyright violations as "thought crime laws" is what makes me more scared. Come on, people -- we're talking about apps that cost the same as a cup of coffee (if not less). If you've ever written software, you'd know how much work it is; why do people get so upset at having to occasionally pay to support an independent developer?

(disclaimer -- personally, I release all my software as free and open source, but I also believe that it's completely fair and reasonable if people want to charge for what they write.)

Re:In the Meantime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081429)

I would love to see the reaction of smaller nations if that was the attitude of us web sites like google and facebook when it comes to assisting cement in said nations.

Re:In the Meantime (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#41080659)

They're still sovereign.

It's just that they have chosen to yield.

Re:In the Meantime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081919)

If they continue that trend, they will not be sovereign for very long.

Re:In the Meantime (1)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41080691)

It's an agreement between countries. The US didn't bomb the place. Those nation can choose not to participate.

Re:In the Meantime (1)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about 2 years ago | (#41082345)

Right.... A big guy with a huge ass gun, and a gang of pals with insane looks in their eyes come by and tell you to bend over. "It's an agreement between parties. The scary guys didn't shoot you. You could choose not to participate."
Fully consensual I'm sure.

What a moron (3, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | about 2 years ago | (#41080709)

I really hate the extent to which the US is exerting its thought crime laws in other sovereign nations. I guess not so sovereign any more.

Thought crime? Have you even read 1984? A thought crime is a "crime" in which the mere desiring something contrary to the law is itself a punishable criminal act. No proposed copyright law has come even close to being a "thought crime." You do genuine civilian libertarians absolutely no good with this extremist hyperbole and only make the rest of us copyright minimalists look like idiots.

Heck, while I'm at it, I have news for you. We have these modern law enforcement mechanisms called "extraditions" and "international partnerships." This means that if people from your country screw over the US Government in the US, you help us stop them. Believe it or not, the US Government has actually done this in reverse on behalf of foreign countries such as when it puts Americans in prison for going to places like Uganda and Thailand to rape children or when it arrests Americans who raise funds for guerrilla groups abroad.

Re:What a moron (3)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41081095)

One can imagine that people who make these statements are purposefully trying to get those who want copyright reform to be marginalized by saying exteremely stupid things.

Re:What a moron (1)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about 2 years ago | (#41081591)

Here we go: child rape === copyright ?????? WHAT?
And though I used a term that originated in the book 1984, I was using it in a broader sense, somewhat whimsical sense. I meant it meaning that it is a crime that actually hurts no-one. Unlike your child rape cases.
Copyright is broken, and businesses and artists that don't realize that are bound to fail. Sorry, welcome to the interconnected, wild-west capitalist society that is developing. It cannot be shut down, and those that try will fail in their attempts.

Re:What a moron (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081897)

Here we go: child rape === copyright ?????? WHAT?

Actually... you're right. Your government care MUCH more about copyright than they do about child rape so, not equal at all.

Re:In the Meantime (3, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | about 2 years ago | (#41080757)

Does this not make you scared

Yes, your shrill, deliberate mis-use of the term "thought crime" and purposeful embrace of the practice of ripping off thousands of man-hours of work in order to save the cost of a cup of coffee - that is scary. Because it shows just how entrenched the entitlement-minded leech culture is.

Stop Global Whining.

Re:In the Meantime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41082567)

Stop Global Whining

O.o

Have any bumper sticker for sale? I'll take a dozen.

Re:In the Meantime (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41081065)

The only thing I'm scared of is idiots like you making it so no one listens to anyone who speaks up about copyright reforms. Trying to claim that not being allowed to violate copyright law is a thought crime is one of the dumbest this I've ever heard. You make it so that the people who aren't shrill become easy to marginalize.

Re:In the Meantime (1)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about 2 years ago | (#41082099)

See above for my clarification on the "thought crime" statement. It is a crime that harms no-one, and really should not be enforced outside of your own closed minded borders.
Now to be honest, I think you are trivializing how easy it would be to actually stop infringement. You think that marginalizing people or even the practice would in any way even put a dent in the rate of copying? See the UK for an answer.
There is nothing I, or anyone could say that would make it stop. Just not possible. In my opinion all discussions on it are moot. The only thing left is how/if we go after people in other countries for doing something that is impossible to stop.

Re:In the Meantime (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#41082177)

I'm talking about idiots like you making it extremely easy for the MPAA/RIAA to marginalize people who want copyright reform. They can just point out retarded statements like your own to basically get the lawmakers to ignore the entire debate from the other side. You don't help anyone by being a shrill asshat.

Re:In the Meantime (1)

canadiannomad (1745008) | about 2 years ago | (#41082225)

I'm not the one going around calling people names neener :P

Re:In the Meantime (1, Insightful)

kaizendojo (956951) | about 2 years ago | (#41080773)

So do nothing? The thing you fail to address is that pirated apps are one of the prime vectors for security hacks and viruses, espceially in the mobile sector.

Criminal law (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#41080341)

Think about it, the copyright and patent law make something that is supposed to be just a way to protect a business model into a criminal offence.

Really? You think this is what government should be doing?

Re:Criminal law (1)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | about 2 years ago | (#41080433)

Think about it, the copyright and patent law make something that is supposed to be just a way to protect a business model into a criminal offence.

Really? You think this is what government should be doing?

Sure. It's a criminal offense to walk into a bank/store/shop and steal products/money. The only difference is that it's electronic media.

Shoplifting != prohibited copying (0)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41080509)

When you walk into a store and shoplift a product, the store no longer has the product to sell to someone else. This is not true of prohibited copying.

Re:Shoplifting != prohibited copying (0)

geekoid (135745) | about 2 years ago | (#41080731)

Wow, you are genius! That's a nice response..if your 15.

You still violated the law; which existed to give people a limited time to control the distribution of their product. A person created something, and then other people are making money from that in some form. They are infringing on the rights of the person producing the music.

Re:Shoplifting != prohibited copying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41080897)

As defined by current law, yes. However, that does not mean the law best represents what is best for society.

Re:Shoplifting != prohibited copying (0)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41081043)

You still violated the law

Prior to the Thirteenth Amendment, smuggling slaves violated the law.

which existed to give people a limited time to control the distribution of their product

There is no practical difference between a limited time as defined by the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft and an unlimited time.

A person created something, and then other people are making money from that in some form.

Not all aspects of a work are copyrightable.

They are infringing on the rights of the person producing the music.

So if I write a song, what should I do to avoid accidentally infringing the copyright in an existing song?

Re:Shoplifting != prohibited copying (1)

Uberbah (647458) | about 2 years ago | (#41081567)

Wow, you are genius! That's a nice response..if your 15.

Your projection is noted.

You still violated the law

Pickpocketing is against the law - does that mean it's the same thing as rape because they both involve inappropriate touching? Or, maybe, we can make use of this "language" thingy and have different words for substantially different things....

Re:Shoplifting != prohibited copying (1)

dimeglio (456244) | about 2 years ago | (#41080795)

That's one way to look at it. Here's another: when you copy and distribute software without authorization (which allegedly those sites did), you basically substitute the legitimate distribution channel (which pays the author) by another which doesn't pay the author. This can result in substantial losses for the author. Alternatively, when you shoplift, only the retailer is the only one losing and typically he has insurance to cover such loses. Hard to say which is worse...

Is selling a used copy stealing? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41081113)

Here's another: when you copy and distribute software without authorization (which allegedly those sites did), you basically substitute the legitimate distribution channel (which pays the author) by another which doesn't pay the author.

For one thing, when I buy a lawfully made copy of a work distributed on a physical medium, use it, and then sell it used to someone else, that distribution channel doesn't pay the author either, but the law doesn't prohibit it. For another, what's "the legitimate distribution channel" for copies of the film Song of the South, the television series Spartakus and the Sun Beyond the Sea, or the video game Earthbound?

Alternatively, when you shoplift, only the retailer is the only one losing and typically he has insurance to cover such loses.

Watch for broken window fallacies here. If there were no shoplifting, insurance would be cheaper.

Re:Shoplifting != prohibited copying (1)

Shagg (99693) | about 2 years ago | (#41082369)

You mean potential losses, or maybe no loss at all, or maybe even a gain... nobody really knows for sure. However, let's just call it "substantial losses" since that fits with your agenda better.

Re:Shoplifting != prohibited copying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081563)

Yea, and if you rape someone while they were sleeping and clean up after words its not rape right? after all they didn't even know and their life wasn't disrupted

Re:Shoplifting != prohibited copying (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#41081705)

It's still rape, as one inevitably doesn't "clean up afterwards". There's still the chance for transmission of sperm and disease. My point is that shoplifting is not copyright infringement, and copyright infringement is not shoplifting. The law defines them separately because they exist for separate reasons.

Re:Criminal law (2, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#41080541)

1. Copyright infringement is not theft. It's a crime under the law, but it is not defined as theft, otherwise it wouldn't be a separate thing, called copyright infringement.

2. Why is it a criminal offence to steal? Why is the government involved in judging people criminally for theft? Why shouldn't it be a completely private matter between the 2 private sides? OK, when it is stolen from government or when government is doing the stealing, then it would make sense, but government being involved in theft cases? It's a private matter, it should be left up to the private security and civil courts to deal with. Do you really want a thief being locked up in government prison rather than being forced to just return the goods and/or repay the damages (plus a large fine, maybe a 3 times value of the stolen goods?) What does it matter to you if a thief is in jail - you are still out of property, and now you are going to pay taxes to keep him in jail.

Re:Criminal law (1)

dimeglio (456244) | about 2 years ago | (#41080829)

I think the government's responsibility is to enforce laws. Whether someone is actually guilty of breaking a law is determined in court by a judge and/or jury which is independent from the government.

Re:Criminal law (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#41080871)

I think the government's responsibility is to enforce laws.

- right, I said that government shouldn't be involved in this, what I mean obviously is that there shouldn't be government laws on things like copyright or actually theft if it doesn't concern the government itself.

Re:Criminal law (1)

dimeglio (456244) | about 2 years ago | (#41080919)

Given that the government represents the people, it does in fact concern the government itself. Unless you're into having private police forces, you're stuck with this.

Re:Criminal law (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#41081047)

Given that the government represents the people

- can you point out the specific people that the government represents by handing out copyright and patent protections? Because it's not the majority of the people, it's not the consumers for example. Consumers would be served best with the most choices, not with limited choices provided by the artificial monopolies created by these laws.

So who are these people? Seems to me you are implying that the government is there to represent the people like RIAA, MPAA, various businesses. Are businesses the only people that should be represented by the government?

Isn't that exactly what I always object to - have government stealing the freedoms from the individuals so that these freedoms can be then sold to the highest bidders? Wouldn't the government represent the people better if it did not in fact create monopolies with laws like this?

As to theft, again, who is represented? Are the people that are being stolen from really represented in court really when the thieves are placed into jail to be the ward of the public? Why are the thieves not just forced to return the stolen goods and / or work to repay the damages and interest, why are the victims forced to care for them with public financing instead?

Again, who is truly represented here?

Re:Criminal law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081521)

- can you point out the specific people that the government represents by handing out copyright and patent protections?

Business owners (of copyrighted material), obviously

Consumers don't really matter. It's the business owners who matter. Business owners produce new products and services. Consumers just... consume. They don't produce.

Especially US consumers, who aren't producing enough that the US has to import more than they export.

That said, there are still people in government who represent consumers - the people who support the printing of more money, increasing the debt, and keep on subsidizing the American consumer, holding the world hostage to accept your American dollars with its giant military industrial complex.

Re:Criminal law (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 2 years ago | (#41081711)

Just because the patent system is broken does not mean the concept of patents is wrong. Same with copyrights. One could easily argue that without some sort of IP protection, consumers wouldn't have more choice, but less. Theoretically, patents and copyrights protect the small guy from having their IP being stolen by the big corporations you list. Without patents and copyrights, I could create something and somebody else, with more money come along and just undersell me until I couldn't afford it any more. Again, the concept is valid, it's just that the current system is flawed.

The real solution, is to fix the system, not get rid of IP protection.

Re:Criminal law (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 2 years ago | (#41081769)

I think the government's responsibility is to enforce laws.

- right, I said that government shouldn't be involved in this, what I mean obviously is that there shouldn't be government laws on things like copyright or actually theft if it doesn't concern the government itself.

So, if you pitch a screen play, I as the producer should be able to say no, and then take your idea and do my own screen play based on your work without you being compensated?

Or if you come up with a new device and show it to me, I should be able to take your device make a million of them and sell them to everyone and you get no benefit from it?

Isn't that how it was prior to the creation of patent and copyright laws?

Re:Criminal law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081883)

Isn't that how it was prior to the creation of patent and copyright laws?

Nope, before copyright laws...

-I didn't come pitching a screenplay to you. YOU came to me (or advertise) and say "I'll pay somebody X to write me a screenplay". I won't deliver you that screenplay until I know I'll receive money ("you got the stuff?" "yea, you got the money?" "let me see the stuff" "let me see the money" etc.)

-I placed locks on my device to deter/prevent you from copying it easily. I might keep certain techniques used in production of my device a trade secret, the same way KFC still locks up their original recipe.

Re:Criminal law (1)

nschubach (922175) | about 2 years ago | (#41080939)

So were these websites/owners given a fair trial in court?

Re:Criminal law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081249)

Why is the government involved in judging people criminally for theft?

So business owners, the job creators, don't have to spend money on their own private prisons and courts.

Do you really want a thief being locked up in government prison rather than being forced to just return the goods and/or repay the damages (plus a large fine, maybe a 3 times value of the stolen goods?)

If the thief could actually produce enough value to pay you back 3 times the value of the stolen goods (in a reasonable time), why would he be a thief in the first place? He could have just worked and traded with you.

No, the thief obviously could not be productive as a free person. So the practical solution is to make him become productive as an enslaved person: take away the thief's rights and freedom, force him to do work he otherwise wouldn't do at the threat of violence.

Jailing people is not just good on a practical level, but emotional. It just feels good. As a certain movie said, what is good in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

What does it matter to you if a thief is in jail - you are still out of property, and now you are going to pay taxes to keep him in jail.

Only for now. See, jailing people is the first step. The next is to implement what you want [slashdot.org] , making it so "you" the business owner pays less/no tax, and making the poor who don't own businesses pay the tax to fund those prisons (they did benefit more from society after all)

You need to think long term. Today you're paying for those jails. But someday, you won't - the poor will, and they'll need jobs to pay for those things, and would be willing to work for you for dirt cheap. Those who don't like it? Well you can throw them into the jails which you won't be paying for! It's triple win!

Re:Criminal law (5, Insightful)

Missing.Matter (1845576) | about 2 years ago | (#41080511)

Copyright infringement is a civil matter.

Re:Criminal law (1)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#41080675)

Unless done commercially, then the FBI gets involved.

Haven't you seen those warnings that play on movies?

Re:Criminal law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41080725)

The downloaded torrents don't seem to have those warnings.

Re:Criminal law (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#41080913)

Oh yeah, why is the FBI involved in these cases then? What happened to Kim Dot Com, a civil hearing or was he struck with the heavy boot of FBI and other police agencies?

Re:Criminal law (1)

Uberbah (647458) | about 2 years ago | (#41081413)

Oh yeah, why is the FBI involved in these cases then?

Because they are a tool for capitalism, that's why. Ooo, lookie, another nickle and dime copyright infringer taken down while a single banker has yet to be investigated* or prosecuted.

*SEC "investigations" which result in a fine that take a small bite out of illegal profits don't count. [youtube.com]

Re:Criminal law (2)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#41081505)

Because they are a tool for capitalism, that's why.

- what does capitalism have to do with it? This is merging of the government power with corporate interests, it's done in a way that benefits the politicians as well as some corporate interests.

OTOH it hurts other corporate interests (it hurts competition) and it hurts the consumer.

This is not about capitalism, this is simply corruption. Corruption is government stealing individual liberties from people and selling them to SOME people with money.

How to circumvent? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41080351)

Why don't these sites just advertise their IP address instead buying and losing domain names?

Nice little propaganda piece on copyright coming from the DOJ there. Glad to see their priorities are in order.

Re:How to circumvent? (1)

heypete (60671) | about 2 years ago | (#41080565)

IP addresses are less portable. One can easily point a domain name at a new IP address, but this is not as easily possible with just an IP address. They're also quite a bit less memorable.

Re:How to circumvent? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41080785)

Would this [dmoz.org] help?

The one good thing that comes from this is the pressure to get a decent mesh network up and running. Here's hoping for a swift solution.

Priorities (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41080381)

I'm so glad DOJ cares about copy right infringement while not giving two $h1ts about thousands of Mexican lives that were lost while DOJ instructed ATF to let guns walk south.

Apple (1, Insightful)

slashmydots (2189826) | about 2 years ago | (#41080451)

Too bad everyone's not using 1 thoroughly monopolozed...I mean centralized Apple store. Then instead of virus infested counterfeit apps, they'd only have to deal with Apple secret police kidnapping apps randomly out of the store for no reason, insane overpricing/insane profit margins, psychotic Apple geniuses (see story a couple down from this one :-P ) and human rights violations.

Re:Apple (1)

mcwop (31034) | about 2 years ago | (#41080495)

In Soviet Russia iTunes plays you!

Re:Apple (1)

DickBreath (207180) | about 2 years ago | (#41080877)

Everywhere else, Apple plays you!

Re:Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081611)

99 cents is insane overpricing?

IN SOVIET RUSSIA (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41080531)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say thank you for being a friend.

Thank god for the pirates... (1)

evilviper (135110) | about 2 years ago | (#41080647)

I'm glad there's a thriving Android piracy scene out there. I don't have any problem shelling out money for Android apps, yet I've looked for pirated APKs on a few occasions.

Why would I do this??? After all, they're only $1-5usd, and the overwhelming majority of the apps are free anyhow, so a few paid apps is no big expense (contrast this with IOS, where you've gotta pay for EVERYTHING). Well, there's a few different scenarios at work.

One is device compatibility... I bought Sonic CD just days after it came out, and I was anxiously awaiting Sonic4. I heard people talking about it, but every time I'd go looking for it, there was no such app in the app store. After a few months, I was using the web interface to the app store for some reason, and found it... but it wouldn't allow me to purchase it. A quick search of the web for the apk, and it installed and ran on my device just fine. Once Sega gets their heads out of their asses, I'll buy the legit version, but thanks to pirates, I'm not a second-class citizen, stuck behind the wrong door in the walled-garden.

Compatibility is another. When the sixaxis compatibility checker was spitting out ambiguous messages that weren't in the documentation, I did my own "checking" with the full app to see if buying it would be throwing money down a hole. Thanks pirates!

And finally, there's always the case of a company that screws you over... Number 1 app on my phone is an RSS reader. Eliminates 90% of my "mobile" web browsing, with the painful interface that subjects me to (Slashdot is no exception). I decided to support RSS Demon and bought a copy, hoping that the annoying bugs would be fixed in just a few more releases...

But within a month, they had rearranged their product offerings on the store, and now what I bought doesn't even exist, so I don't get the many, many upgrades that have come along since. And worse, I couldn't reinstall even the version I bought if my life depended on it, since it's no longer in the store, anywhere. e-mails to the developer have gone unanswered. I'll be dammed if I'm going to send them more money to just up and screw me over once again. Since I've already paid in, I don't feel even slightly hesitant to resort to piracy of the product I already bought. Thanks again, pirates!

It'll be a shame if efforts to combat piracy are successful, and cut off semi-legitimate users like myself. Or worse, if it gets pushed underground a bit further, and every APK is packaged with some nasty virus out to steal all your data. AirPush and it's kin are bad enough, as-is, that everyone using Android is going to need Spyware remover and antivirus soon.

Re:Thank god for the pirates... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41080789)

(contrast this with IOS, where you've gotta pay for EVERYTHING).

You're wrong little troll, just wrong

Re:Thank god for the pirates... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081663)

So your argument is that the android platform is crap and stuff doesn't work on it. And that google lets shitty apps get out all the time to the point that you cannot trust anything?

Missing information (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41080893)

The article is missing important information like the IP number of the servers or other what pirate sites have not been seized yet.

This kind of information is very important for me to judge the danger of piracy!

As an ex-Android developer... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41080945)

who was put out of business by piracy, good!

Over 250,000 illegal installations...less than 1000 sales.

Re:As an ex-Android developer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081059)

who was put out of business by piracy, good!

Over 250,000 illegal installations...less than 1000 sales.

oh no whatever shall we do without another angry birds clone

link your app you pussy so we can mock how crappy a developer you are

Re:As an ex-Android developer... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41081089)

The real problem is that your product wasn't worth paying the amount you were asking.

Re:As an ex-Android developer... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41081753)

I am not the poster... but most games are 99 cents. You can't charge less. So if the game wasn't worth 99 cents then why was it worth downloading for 250k people? I mean come on, in the 80s it was 25 cents to play a game for a few minutes in an arcade. The problem is people want things for free. Its the mentality of expecting a free meal, a free education, a free roof over their head. People are willing to pay money for their phone and their plan, but not 99 cents for a game.

You can't count copies as expected sales (1)

bussdriver (620565) | about 2 years ago | (#41081115)

$1 app - why even risk a virus or jailbreak or download hassle

$10 app not valued at $10 - it still might not be worth the effort; but those greedy app developers can motivate somebody to put in more than $10 of their time just out of spite.

If you are going out of business anyway you may as well lower the price before you go under. Stop blaming everybody else except yourself. You don't set your value it doesn't matter what you think your work is worth; the consumers decide that and maybe there is no middle ground and you go out of business, that is life.

Google need to get gift cards worldwide (0)

Teknikal69 (1769274) | about 2 years ago | (#41081117)

I know they just started gift cards in the USA but they really needed them everywhere else more, I think the main reason for Android piracy is it's to hard to buy things on Play I know I won't be able to purchase anything there until the gift cards get to the UK.

I know Americans are usually pretty shocked not everyone uses a credit card but I've honestly never needed or wanted one and can still buy credit for iTunes, Skype, PSN, Amazon, eBay and dozens of others with no hassle.

Interesting... (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 2 years ago | (#41081545)

Of course they don't mention what apps were being illegally copied. In addition, they don't mention who requested the take down. Is this a case of true piracy, where people were circumventing paying for software? Or, is this a case where people were downloading free apps, but not through the google app store? If the latter, exactly what copyright was being infringed?

Re:Interesting... (1)

Shagg (99693) | about 2 years ago | (#41082477)

Of course they don't mention what apps were being illegally copied. In addition, they don't mention who requested the take down.

My guess would be that if these were apps written by independent developers or small shops, the FBI wouldn't care.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...