Anton Tomov distributes a number of capable programs for the Windows Mobile platform including Pocket Hackmaster and Pocket Mechanic. It appears that Mr. Tomov recently distributed an update to the Pocket Mechanic program that includes some ‘malicious’ anti-piracy code. The program apparently detects if the executed program is a legally licensed one and if not it erases your entire Windows Mobile device by hard-resetting it. It has reportedly wiped out a removable storage card, too. Update: Anton Tomov disregarded this report in a private email as “nonsense” and as “a campaign led by a couple of people who are trying to hurt the perfect reputation of my name and the quality of the products I write“.
Use an illegal app copy and wipe your PDA device clean?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Someone could say that that’s what you get for not running a non-multi-user OS.
But that’s not really accurate, because PDAs are supposed to be “personal” devices, one-to-one. Besides, even with normal priviliges one could wipe out your home directory, so that idea won’t protect you much. Malicious code is what it is.
I believe that this guy must fight piracy through legal means only or by making his apps so good that more people buy them, and so the piracy/sale ratio evens out.
I, for one, won’t be installing that app on my PDA. Not even the demo, the whole story gets me scared.
I remember when System Mechaninc had such a code for the PC. What it did was basically reboot your PC if you used any pirated Serial number to register. But to erase data of Mobile PC . Well all I can say is best of Luck to them I am waiting for someone who brings a Lawsuit for damages because this feature. By the way who cares about PPC any way or PDA for that matter any way. I have a Sony NX80 lying in on my table gathering dust.
I hope someone sues his ass off. He’s within his rights to disable his application upon detection of an invalid license. He does NOT have the right to wipe out your entire PDA.
> I have a Sony NX80 lying in on my table gathering dust.
I would buy it from you for 50 bucks. Send me an email.
I find that rather amusing. Though legally questionable. Though I wonder what the software license states? Even then do pirates have legal protection from damages done by their pirating?
To bad he can’t whipe out every known recording of Full House.
For the love of God, let that series die from television
Destruction of someone elses property…. amounts to being the equivalent of theft here
HP wiped a HDD on a laptop sent for repair without my consent. Got enough compo off them to buy a Vaio….
This is not an uncommon practice, it used to be quite widespread as evidenced by this website and many others.
http://computercops.biz/article4591.html
jury
and
hangman.
So is it also illegal for Microsoft to delete and modify software automatically during updates etc? Even if it breaks your apps?
Sorry, but you agree to this sort of thing in the EULA for the software. If you don’t like the license provisions, don’t install it.
> would buy it from you for 50 bucks. Send me an email.
I’d rather trash it than sell it at 50 bucks. I paid $700 for it. No it is not for Sale.
And the EULA means little to nothing in most countries, as a contract is not valid unless signed or digitally signed. Ripping the bit of tape doesn’t count as signing for most people.
We’re not talking about breaking software, we’re talking about wiping out everything on your PDA. This is simply wrong no matter how you look at it.
Does it really say “Warning, this app will wipe out your device should you have an illegal license.”
“And the EULA means little to nothing in most countries, as a contract is not valid unless signed or digitally signed.”
[Not always]
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/ObjectID/EEF92280-11…
“All that is necessary for most contracts to be legally valid are the following two elements:
* All parties are in agreement (after an offer has been made by one party and accepted by the other).
* Something of value has been exchanged, such as cash, services, or goods (or a promise to exchange such an item) for something else of value.
“
Thats the US. The US isn’t “Most countries”….
Here EULA’s are not proven either way, but are on shaky ground and I’m sure could be brought over to being legally illegal (:-p) in court with a good lawyer.
I myself don’t pirate software and would never knowingly buy any software that does such a thing. Why? What if there was a bug in the logic that produced a ‘false positive’ and deleted all my data even though I was doing nothing wrong?
Truly, people who pirate apps are going to continue to do so no matter what you do as a developer. You might as well stop wasting your time on the stupid-ass anti-piracy measures and accept the fact that if people want to steal from you, they will do so.
The EULA can simply state the author takes no responsibility for damages etc., disclaims all liability,and that agreeing to the EULA allows the author unrestricted access to your computer.
In fact, those of you running Win 2K SP3 or later, Windows XP SP2 etc. have already agreed to provisions exactly like this.
You will have no recourse under current US law (and many other countries that have treaties with the US) if MS decides to remotely disable your computer and/or delete all the applications off it.
I have a PPC and thank you for the warning I will stay away from that software. PPC’s come in so many different versions, customizatons, hardwarem etc, that I bet some strange ppc hardware or os or vendor “hack” could trigger the illegal version detection and puf! Here goes your organizer. NO THANK YOU. Some people do use these for work.
You you cant steal software by making a copy.
If this is a legal anti-piracy tactic, what will stop let’s say M$ or any other software firm from releasing a virus that targets machines that contain illegal copies of it’s software?
Disabling a computer may be acceptable, but destroying data is too much.
I don’t see why they have to just accept it. I fully support developers trying to prevent piracy. Even if it’s truly inevitable you might as well see if you can have some fun with the people ripping you off..
I would disable my app if my app were pirated, and I *might* consider adding some self replicating text documents, reminders in the calendar that say “please dont pirate”, but other than that nothing else. I can understand the frustration of a develope who sees his/her work pirated (and losing money) but that is a bit harsh
He does NOT have the right to wipe out your entire PDA.
The issue is he doesn’t do it. The app does it in a situation where it shouldn’t be used in the first place. If he takes you and locks you in his room, he can’t complain if you break everything in it.
Though I find it morally objectionable, mainly because user data has no price.
I can’t wait until someone accidentally puts in the wrong code by accident, with license keys which are usually at least 8 characters long there is too much potential of a mistake happening for such a dangerous “feature”.
There is also the issue of the developer writing immoral code, sure pirating software is no better but this code has far more potential to inflict direct harm. I write software myself and if I were writing it commercially I wouldn’t want people pirating it, but I also wouldn’t dream of making it so dangerous.
As far as I’m concerned this software is malware since it was intentionally written do to direct harm to another person’s PDA, who the target is doesn’t matter when defining malware. (If anyone wants to argue this point they should use a dictionary definition and not their own.)
I’m hoping that Anton Tomov tried to make absolutely sure there were no bugs in that code; however, since it was written by someone I don’t know and I haven’t seen the source code for myself I wouldn’t trust a “feature” this dangerous.
You cant steal software by making a copy.
Of course you can.
If you can define something like “intellectual property”, which itself can be losslessly copied, by restricting free access to it for some six billion pople for roughly 100 years, in favor of one single author, than you should do it consequently and define unauthorized access and usage of this property stealing.
It is in the interest of the authors and the whole industry profiting from this “intelectual property” construction that this resembles real physical property as much as possible, because it seems to be the only way to beat the same respect for copy rights into the heads of the consumer sheep, as they have for their real property. It is a concept obviously difficult to grasp for the vast consumer majority, because almost nobody of them posseses intellectual property himself. This lacking respect has to be hammered into their heads by force, to make an income possible for the authors, where in normal circumstances there would be none possible, because of the nature of the sheep and the nature of this special new kind of property.
So decide for yourself. If it is property, handle it like every other property. In that case it also can be stolen, like every other property. “Three strikes and youre out” being applied to copyright breaches would most certainly teach the brainless consumer sheep to obey this new property concept they will most probbably never be able to take advantage of themselves.
This amounts to vigilantism. Would you like to live in a country where somebody could beat the daylights out of you because you hit his car? Very few of the people who I know would want to live in a world for that. It allows for no trial to determine guilt. Victims are poor at determining a balanced punishment. And so forth.
As several people pointed out. The author is within his right to disable the software. The author is not within his right to vandalise someone else’s property.
Is if this gets cracked then the first thing the crackers will do is rip out the formatting code.
Leaving anyone who has a non-ledgit version without the formatting code and the poor bastards who bought it in good faith have the potential for disaster on their hands.
This is not the way to win friends and influence customers. What happened to the customer is always right?
That is excellent and very useful application.
PocketPC is not a cheap item. He sells software for $15, everyone who bought PocketPC could afford it.
He offers 10 days full functionalty trial.
What else do people need? No excuses are possible.
For greedy few who used his software without compensating him for all work he put into it: you deserve the punishment.
You don’t pay Anton (or developer like him) for his work- you take food from him, his wife, his kids.
That software may be a single source of his income for all we know.
After that, when a man sees how his family suffers because of cavalier attitude to intellectual property from rich spoiled people- you blame him for vigilantism? Shame on you.
“This amounts to vigilantism. ”
Tell that to the pirates that justify their actions under the “Robin Hood” argument.
“As several people pointed out. The author is within his right to disable the software. The author is not within his right to vandalise someone else’s property.”
The word that’s missing is “respect”. Pirates don’t respect those they take from, and those who are “borrowed from” return the sentiment.
Fair? Well the decay of a society is seldom fair, nor pretty.
How ridiculous. The programmers of those anti-piracy stuff should be sued.
“This is not the way to win friends and influence customers. What happened to the customer is always right?”
A couple things.
1) The customers always right is one of those “feel good” things that marketing likes to come up with.
2) The true customer is caught in the cross-fire between the one’s trying to make a living, and those who only care about themselves. Sucks yes. But one should consider that as a good reason to go against the malcontents. Blasting the author for doing something that if we were in his/her shoes, we’de do the same. Simply means that we’ll have less authors willing to invest in such a hostile environment. And everyone, author, customers, and pirates all lose in that situation.
The OS shouldn’t allow code to do that.
The app is way out of line. Sure there are crooks but there are a lot of non-technical people who might pay some small shop to install an app. Do they know about eula’s and activation? Should they pay the ultimate price? I hope a good firm sues the pants off that maker.
Sure the odds of misentering a serial # are pretty high. But what are the odds of misentering it so that it’s an exact pirated key?
At the same time, if someone maliciously slammed into your car on purpose and other wise attempted to harm you, typically the courts will at the very least be leniant if not turn a blind eye if you take some form of retaliation.
It’s not like someone accidentally pirates software these days.
I second that. It’s not just deleting files, it’s triggering a hard reset. It seems like standard apps shouldn’t be able to casually pull this in the first place anyways.
Sure stealing software is wrong. But so is speeding. If you saw someone speeding would it be within your rights to destroy their car? No. There are societal controls to merit out punishment. The police punish those who speed and the law should punish those who pirate software.
For another example: suppose you steal a candybar from a store. Should the store have the right to destroy some property of yours? Of course not (and they cannot). Should they have the right to prevent you from shopping there again. Of course. The author of this software would be a much better person by choosing a less harsh action. Let the punishment fit the crime.
I don’t see why they have to just accept (piracy). I fully support developers trying to prevent piracy. Even if it’s truly inevitable you might as well see if you can have some fun with the people ripping you off..
So then you’re basically wasting your time ‘getting even’ with people you’ll never meet. But at the end of the day, they’re still ripping you off.
Don’t get me wrong – I don’t really care if people who pirate have their hard drives wiped. But if other developers start following his lead, it’s only a matter of time until my hard drive gets wiped when it shouldn’t be. And if that ever happens, the developer(s) of said software better be looking over their shoulder 24/7 from then on …
UK law (Computer Misuse Act, IIRC) makes it illegal to deliberately make things break on someone else’s computer using your software.
I vaguely recall a shareware author being prosecuted under the act for writing software that disabled itself after the trial period. Whilst I think that’s a bit ridiculous, I certainly wouldn’t expect the courts to look favourably on this case (not that I support piract either).
IANAL.
Whilst I abhor this sort of behaviour from a developer, I can see why he would be doing it. He may very well have a wife and kids to support. But still – this is not the way to do so.
The thing that really worries me is that big corporate software developers like Microsoft can do this sort of thing under the premises of a EULA and legally get away with it. It’s blatantly wrong, but once again another example of proof of how broken the US system is. Commonsense is sadly lacking, and responsiblity from software developers for their action is sadly lacking. Software is the only merchandise that lacks a warranty. This MUST be changed – if developers are so worried about the quality of their code causing problems, then it’s not ready to be released to the public imho. Sadly, most software falls in this category. You get charged an arm and a leg for substandard, buggy software without any legal recourse for it’s lack of quality. It simply does not make sense.
What is the reasoning for this? Most major software developers are either US owned, or largely based in the US. The US government needs this money from software sales going into its economy, and of course will take every step possible to keep the software developers happy and keep them operating within the US, thus keeping money going into the US economy. Thus you will see favourable laws in the US for these corporate software developers, and unfortunately most of the rest of the world follows the US blindly like sheep.
Dave
while piracy is bad, stuff like this is overstepping boundries. Programs should not be able to manipulate outside of their own boundaries. This type of tactic is why many fear the drm that is planned for Longhorn. It makes you question how much the developers can get away with.
You would certainly have recourse if you could prove they acted maliciously rather than negligently, which should be fairly easy in this case.
Really? and how would you prove malicious intent for a case like this?
How is illegally obtaining and running software construed as a malicious act on the part of the author? I think you would have a very hard time making such a case.
If the software, as legally obtained, deleted files etc., you *might* have grounds, although any such grounds would likely be voided by the ‘USE THIS SOFTWARE AT YOUR OWN RISK’ portion of the EULA.
But basically, i’d say you would be screwed either way. The only laws that might have teeth are consumer protection laws, and the EULA as a means to limit the authors liability to the bare minimum mandated under local law seems to be quite legitimate as far as the courts are concerned.
If you don’t like the idea of such broad EULAs, don’t install any software licensed under them. Demand strict liability provisions from your software vendors, and expect to pay extra to obtain them.
This issue also affects OSS/Free software, as they similarly limit liability to the bare minimum allowed by local law. they also include the ‘USE THIS SOFTWARE AT YOUR OWN RISK’ clauses.
The software industry simply hasn’t been subject to the government regulation that has resulted in minimum standards and domain-specific legislation governing quality and safety standards that other industries have.
So, whether you like it or not, whether it’s moral or immoral, whether it’s right or wrong, i would say the act of deleting arbitary code on a computer, as long as you have agreed to the license, or have acquired the software illegally – is probably quite legal.
Certainly Microsoft had no qualms about deleting modified dashboard executables from XBoxes and replacing them with different code when they were connected to XBox Live – with no license at all presented.
If this move had significant legal exposure for them, they probably wouldnt do it.
You obtained the software, either illegally or under a license that you agreed placed 100% of the risk on your shoulders, and you ran it, so you are the one who has to deal with the consequences.
I have no sympathy for whoever’s been caught out by this. I’d say that it’s immoral to wipe someone’s PDA, but damn, not even I believe that. If someone gets caught out by this because they pirated software, and didn’t keep backups of their data, well, sucked in. No sympathy.
Also little sympathy for the 1% or less of legitimate users who get caught out. Too bad. Backup more.
For another example: suppose you steal a candybar from a store. Should the store have the right to destroy some property of yours? Of course not (and they cannot). Should they have the right to prevent you from shopping there again. Of course. The author of this software would be a much better person by choosing a less harsh action. Let the punishment fit the crime.
.. i recall an incident a while back ago locally (here in the u.s.) where a robber was shot dead and the store owner was acquitted after being sued by the family of the robber.
i’m not going to try to debate it, explain it or rationalize it, but quite frankly, i have no problems with what anton’s doing.
A good punishment would be for the app to “steal” the owner information of the pirate, send an email to Tomov with this info, and then have his laywers contact the pirate and ask for unspecified damages. Of course, this privacy violation should be described in the EULA and the pirate would have to have clicked “I agree” before any emails go out.
But Tomov decided instead to go the “cheap” way and not hire any lawyers, but instead take justice in his own hands. Which is of course not right.
Put some thought into this, people: Anton Tomov, if guilty as charged, has done something stupid and possibly illegal (depending on jurisdiction).
A personal example:
I used a crack today when reinstalling Protel99, even though I have the original disc. Why? Because it’s way bloody easier to click the mouse twice than to enter a twenty-five digit serial number exactly as on the (now missing) CD cover. I lost the cover some time ago, but still have the right to use the software.
Anton Tomov’s mistake is in hurting his own users most: the pirated version will be pre-cracked and easier to install. The registered version will require the user to enter a serial number, and in my experience data entry is annoying at best on the Pocket PC. I had an rx3115 which I grew to loathe because of the unintelligent data entry systems available (Calligrapher sucks, they all do).
So in the end, only registered users will be burdened by the possible data loss issue, and they will continue to enter their serials tediously. The pirates will click once to crack, and be on their merry ways.
But Tomov decided instead to go the “cheap” way and not hire any lawyers, but instead take justice in his own hands. Which is of course not right.
If there was a cheap way to hire lawyers and use due legal process, I’m sure he would have done that. One of the problems is the legal system. It’s expensive and you don’t hear much of success when suing pirates.
What he has done is create a deterrent. Now, would-be pirates may think twice about pirating software… it may not be his software, but someone else’s which wipes their PDA next. It helps that sites like OSNews pick up the story.
In terms of creating a deterrent, wiping someone’s PDA is going to do better than (yet another) lawsuit which nobody reports. So it’s better in that regard. (No comment on whether it’s better overall, except to say, I still have no sympathy for anyone who gets caught. Backup more.)
“You don’t pay Anton (or developer like him) for his work- you take food from him, his wife, his kids.
That software may be a single source of his income for all we know.
After that, when a man sees how his family suffers because of cavalier attitude to intellectual property from rich spoiled people- you blame him for vigilantism? Shame on you.”
Man I’m going to weep now, what a sad story indeed.
Seriously, if he is smart enough to detect pirated version of his software, he could just as well disable the software itself hence preserving his source of income with no damage made. Therefore no sympaties to him, buddy. I for one would be happy to arrange a little “accident” with his program on a spare machine and sue the sh*t out of him.
>If there was a cheap way to hire lawyers and use due legal
>process, I’m sure he would have done that. One of the
>problems is the legal system. It’s expensive and you don’t
>hear much of success when suing pirates.
This is not the problem of the consumer. It’s his problem.
This little thing will be cracked by Chinese in no time. I even know how: when a pirated version is detected, the “modified” version of the program will arrange a DoS attack on the poor coder’s website 😉
This is not the problem of the consumer. It’s his problem.
Yes? Well, a wiped PDA is not his problem. It’s the problem of the consumer.
Also, a legal system which ensures justice only for the rich is the problem of all society, but you probably couldn’t care less about that.
I make unique car stereo systems, and nobody can make them but me. But holy cow, I just found out that you’re reverse engineering my stereo systems and you just built an exact copy of mine and put it in your car! But aha!! ha ha ha! Little do you KNOW, that there is a device in that stereo which you just copied, and when that device detects that the stereo is an ILLEGAL COPY, it blows the hell out of your car.
At best, at BEST, assuming for some reason attempted murder isn’t pursued, I’m guilty of malicious destruction of property. “But your honour! This is a campaign led by a couple of people who are trying to hurt the perfect reputation of my name and the quality of the products I write! I mean make. Your honour, see I HAD to destroy their property because they copied my thing!”
Like a lead balloon, it will :0)
I’ve made this point over and over. It bears repeating.
A PDA is not like your PC. Bad things will happen to it. Not only will bad things happen to it, it’s relatively easy to back up, since it’s not like you carry gigabytes of data on it.
Your PDA could get lost or stolen. An errant app can erase your entire memory space. An errant app might overwrite a few critical files. You might delete a few important records. You might run out of battery. You might shake it just a bit too hard, causing it to hard reset.
Or maybe, just maybe, you could warez a program and have it erase your device.
All of the above have happened to me (except the warezing). Seriously, guys. It’s not rocket science. Backups are essential. They’re also easy. Shell out a few bucks for a backup program, or do it by hand.
The last time I was on holiday, the Audible player on my Palm wiped the entire memory space. Left it with nothing. What did I do? Did I threaten to take Audible to court because their software wiped my Palm? No. I restored the important files from the 6 a.m. backup to SD, and got the other files when I got home to my PC.
Now if Anton Tomov was doing something nasty to people’s PDAs – hardware damage, perhaps – then I’d feel bad and shout him down. But what he’s doing is something trivial that all prudent PDA users should be able to recover from in ten minutes – assuming they were warezing his software in the first place.
Now imagine we are talking about an engineering piece of software that a student is using, because he’s a student and there’s no cheap version of the app he can buy, he gets a cracked one.
He needs to learn how to use that app if he wants to work in the job market.
He learns how to use the app, and he designs and calculate some kind of metalic structure for his uncle using the software.
The software which has detected its a pirate version, alters the results of the calculation generating invalid or wrong results without informing the user.
The structure collapses upon construction and his uncle and a co-worker dies on the accident.
Now imagine the same student needs some money to buy the piece of software so he decides to murder somebody and rob him. Not much sense in your logic. There is no excuse for stealing software, money, cars or whatever-you-cant-afford.
So what if someone bought the software in good faith from a reseller not knowing it was actually a pirated copy? Or they input the wrong key code? Are they given a chance to make amends before they lose their data?
Just like any honourable profession, software developers have a set of ethics which we must all live by. As much I dislike those that use pirated software, anyone who develops software to intentionally break other apps, destroys data or abuses the resources it has access to isn’t an honourable developer and is no different from a software pirate.
Let’s clarify some things:
An illegal copy of a piece of software is just that, a copy. Not a steal of any kind.
Selling a pirated copy of an app can be more or less considered an economical damage, but still not steal.
Nothing physical has been taken from you by force or without your knowledge.
Pirating software may be not legal and may be wrong, but it is not stealing.
We are talking here about an anti-theft device which kills or injures the robber.
You seems to valuate a piece of intelectual property much more than other piece of software just because one of the parts did something ilegal.
Let’s say I your brother takes from my unguarded crops a few pieces of corn to feed his family, and I in exchange burn his house down…
I’m not making the situation any better for any of us both.
You make an excellent point. All PDA users should back up regularly, and many do I’m sure. However, I have a problem with one thing you said:
The last time I was on holiday, the Audible player on my Palm wiped the entire memory space. Left it with nothing. What did I do? Did I threaten to take Audible to court because their software wiped my Palm? No. I restored the important files from the 6 a.m. backup to SD, and got the other files when I got home to my PC.
My problem with your logic is that the Audible software never intended to wipe your memory. It was obviously a bug, possibly even a previously unknown hardware bug innocently triggered by something in the software. Since the people who wrote Audible never intended to wipe your PDA, it’s not that big of a deal as long as you have a backup.
However, this programmer fully intended to wipe several PDAs, and any PDA with his software, legitimately gained or not, is taking a risk. The way I see it, and I work in law enforcement, this is willful destruction of someone’s intellectual property, and is more or less vigilante justice. The problem with vigilante justice is that there are always innocent victims. There’s simply no way around it; someone who did absolutely nothing wrong will suffer because of this.
Try this on for size:
We keep hearing about these so-called “smart guns” that are on the horizon. They can only be fired by the owner of the gun (determined by a fingerprint reader), and any attempt to fire by anyone not authorized will result in a “dead” gun. What if the gun manufacturers decided to take this a step further and physically “jam” the firing pin when an unauthorized user tries to fire the gun? What if when this firing pin jams, it causes a round to misfire and blows the guy’s hand off? Remote possibility, yes, but it could happen. “Well that’s fine”, you say, “he shouldn’t have stolen the gun and tried to fire it.” But what if this “thief” is the gun owner’s brother who decided to check out the gun and accidentally squeezed the trigger? Now we have an innocent party who has lost his hand because of a “security” feature.
Granted, that scenario will probably never happen, and it’s not really the best analogy, but still I think this programmer is playing with fire. He’s breaking the law as far as I’m concerned. As many here have said, there are far more benign ways to secure your software.
If things are as described in the article then I’m completely, 100% SURE that he would be considered guilty here (Portugal) and in other european countries (IAAL). He doesn’t have the right of infringe other’s person’s rights just because that person was trying to infringe on his. This is not a self defense act.
Where to start on the rational of stealing in this post.
Let’s clarify some things:
An illegal copy of a piece of software is just that, a copy. Not a steal of any kind.
If it is only a copy, and not stealing, then why is it an “illegal” copy.
Selling a pirated copy of an app can be more or less considered an economical damage, but still not steal.
Nothing physical has been taken from you by force or without your knowledge.
So, if I get into the computer system at your bank, move some 1’s and 0’s around so that your account is now at zero, since I have not ‘physically taken anything from you by force, I am not stealing. After all, it is only economical damage to you.
Pirating software may be not legal and may be wrong, but it is not stealing.
It is not legal or right, precisely because it is stealing. No amount of rationalization will change that simple fact.
We are talking here about an anti-theft device which kills or injures the robber.
Both of which are legal defences in the U.S.
You seems to valuate a piece of intelectual property much more than other piece of software just because one of the parts did something ilegal.
If I drive a truck to feed my family, that is property that is of value as well. Because software is not ‘physical’ does not mean that it is without value.
Let’s say I your brother takes from my unguarded crops a few pieces of corn to feed his family, and I in exchange burn his house down…
I agree with you that you don’t have right to burn down his house, but you do have the right to protect your property. According to the update posted by Eugenia, he has said that his software does not cause the problems being attributed to it.
I’m not making the situation any better for any of us both.
No, but by taking his software without paying him for it, you have made yourself better off and him worse off.
Taking someones property without their knowledge or consent is theft. It does not matter whether it is physical or intellectual property. You can justify it by any means you wish, but it does not change that fact.
It is appalling to see how many people have ignored Eugenia’s update to the story.
How easy it is to sit on the fence and criticise when in fact it looks like the whole thing was a malicious scam. You have *all* been guilty of judging without full possession of the facts of the case.
Well done!
I’m not talking about this particular thing but in general If you accept the EULA and if it states the fact that “this might happen if you use a pirated key/software” or something similar to this, I dont see anything wrong with it. Software may very well erase the data.
Thats another reason that you must read EULA all the time….
It is appalling to see how many people have ignored Eugenia’s update to the story.
How easy it is to sit on the fence and criticise when in fact it looks like the whole thing was a malicious scam. You have *all* been guilty of judging without full possession of the facts of the case.
Well done!
Perhaps he is telling the truth in that email, or perhaps not. Only time and trusting customers will tell.
Regardless, that doesn’t change the fact that most of the arguments for either side are valid. Take Anton’s name out of the story and put another one in, it’s the same issue. My stand is that such a thing is a crime and just plain wrong, no matter who is responsible. Others say a programmer would be justified in such retribution. Just because Anton appears to have been the victim of libel doesn’t mean someone else won’t try such a scheme in the future. And for anyone who does, these arguments will still apply.
The update says that Tomov claims this was a campaign against him. I simply don’t buy it! He is just trying to save his butt. For instance, read here for some more information on his response:
http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3232&page=2
I simply don’t buy it!
That’s your right. But even when Morgan say that you can change the author name with something else the problem is the same. However, I am pretty sure a lots of people here are really thinking about the author is guilty (Just read the statements saying that they will no longer get software from this guy).
It is up to a court to say if someone is guilty or not. At least this is the case in the country where he is leaving. Otherwise, it is diffamation. Note that the source of information do not provide source itself about the affirmation. A little bit too light for me.
Regards.
Sure. However, Anton is not very clear himself:
http://www.antontomov.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=22;t=668
>Anton, just to clearify this and to avoid any >misunderstanding: can you guarantee that there is no >malicious code in Pocket Mechanic that would under any >circumstances hard-reset my device without a warning?
Yes, I do confirm that there is no such code (and I am speaking of the latest version 1.51).
>Thank you I am going to write about this positive >development on our frontpage. Does this also apply to >version 1.50, which was the version under discussion?
–> No answer… He seems to play a game. Moreover, the problem is 100% reproducible with one particular serial key with version 1.50, but not with 1.51. So he may have removed the code. Why not making a clear statement : there has been no malicious code in my program, in every version. He defends himself very badly.
Having landmines in your backyard to stop thieves is all fun and games until the kid next door gets blown to bits. How’s that for taking justice into your own hands.
It doesn’t matter if you are one of the “enlightend” ones that understands interlectual propery or a “cheep”. Making illegal copies is copyright infringement not theft.
The Copyright Act of 1976 grants a number of exclusive rights to copyright owners, including:
* reproduction right — the right to make copies of a protected work
* distribution right — the right to sell or otherwise distribute copies to the public
* right to create adaptations (called derivative works) — the right to prepare new works based on the protected work, and
* performance and display rights — the rights to perform a protected work (such as a stageplay) or to display a work in public.
This bundle of rights allows a copyright owner to be flexible when deciding how to realize commercial gain from the underlying work; the owner may sell or license any of the rights.
Because, as previous posters have mentioned, it’s illegal to destroy a user’s data without their consent, even if they’re using your program illegally. An EULA probably has the legal teeth to get you out of this is you can plausibly claim it was a mistake on the part of your program – we coded it wrong, whoops, sorry! This is what the Microsoft EULA is all about. Also note that the bits of Microsoft’s EULA which allow it to arbitrarily mess with stuff only apply to *its own* code, which is still legally tricky but distinctly different from this case. Even Microsoft doesn’t claim the EULA right to wipe out *other people’s code* or your own documents.
If this does what it’s claimed to do – specifically perform a hard reset _only_ if a known pirated code is entered – you’d have a hell of a hard time arguing that was an accident, and your EULA wouldn’t protect you from it being an illegal act, no matter what it says the user ‘agreed’ to.
it’s illegal to destroy a user’s data without their consent, even if they’re using your program illegally.
I doubt if Anton is American or lives in America. Did you check laws of the country he is from, he currently lives in?
You may find that in his country there is no law against that type of activity (local lawmakers had no time to deal with such issues yet), or even if law exists- it has very lenient penalty (10 hours of community work, perhaps?).
Did you check laws of his country, or you just measure everyone by the American standard?
My problem with your logic is that the Audible software never intended to wipe your memory. It was obviously a bug, possibly even a previously unknown hardware bug innocently triggered by something in the software. Since the people who wrote Audible never intended to wipe your PDA, it’s not that big of a deal as long as you have a backup.
Yeah, I thought someone would make this point. I didn’t want to clutter up the original post (damn, it was long enough already), but here’s my response.
If you are a legit user and your serial caused the software to wipe your PDA, it is a bug, just like the Audible software. Of course the author didn’t intend to wipe your PDA. In this case, just like with Audible, I’d shrug, and hit the “Restore” button.
If you are a pirate user and your serial caused the software to wipe your PDA, you had it coming for you. Sucked in. In this case, I’d shrug, and hit the “Restore” button.
Why do you assume I’m American? I’m an Englishman living in Canada. The action is definitely illegal in the UK, and I’m fairly sure it is in Canada as well. Besides, where the author resides isn’t hugely important, as I’d be surprised if *none* of his users live in the U.S., and if you do something illegal under U.S. law to a U.S. citizen, you’re responsible for the action under U.S. law.
>Besides, where the author resides isn’t hugely important,
No, it is.
>if you do something illegal under U.S. law to a U.S. citizen, you’re responsible for the action under U.S. law.
Some narcotics may be illegal in USA but not in other country (suppose, in Canada:). In Canada someone could set up Web site to advocate, sell and promote marijuana.
To my knowledge Canada could legalize marijuana any time soon, so it is plausible assumption.
That Web site is accessible by US citizens, some of them might even try to buy the stuff, but I would not expect you could manage to shut down Web site hosted in Canada just because it violates US laws.
Opposite is true, too: it is illegal to broadcast satellite signal in Canada without the permission of the Canadian government. That makes all DirecTV dishes in Canada illegal (I am not joking!).
I would find it hard to believe that Canada could be able to shut down American DirecTV because it broadcasts to Canada for Canadian citizens in violation of Canadian laws.
hello Russian Guy.
your post is so pathetic.
i’d only quote this part:
“After that, when a man sees how his family suffers because of cavalier attitude to intellectual property from rich spoiled people- you blame him for vigilantism?”
not all pocketpc user are rich (and spoiled)!
there are many who got one used just for some bucks and has not much money.
i don’t want to support pirating with this, just pointing out how ridiculous your post is (painting an image not really believable).
and vigilantism is NOT acceptable at all! your thoughts don’t justify it either.