Please crack this software
-
of course i downloaded songs way back when. but just 'cos everyone was doing it, didn't make it right. and that was years ago. i learned, understood better and since stopped. now i buy legal and it actually feels goooood. :D so it's a not a holier-than-thou crusade against pirates: it's more like: what's the most responsible thing to do, as a professional in the game, having being approached? i like the angle of actually taking the time to educate and talk to the dude who asked me; explaining exactly what he's asking me to do, the implications and consequences. and then encouraging him to solve the problem legally. reporting might be a last resort if it's blatant and deliberate piracy... but i also can't let the fact that i used to be a pirate stop me from promoting law-abiding behaviour either. what if this dude gets bust through another channel (out of ignorance) and loses his business because i didn't challenge his views on piracy today 'cos i was scared of being labelled hypocritical? and it's the same with drugs and all sorts of other anti-social behaviour.that used to be me... but does that i mean i can't tell kids to stay away at the risk of appearing hypocritical? i'd rather encourage behaviour that avoids jail sentences and massive fines, even if i managed to get away with it in the past. it's just not a good road to follow, is all. i think if i was still pirating MP3's, DVD's, software whatever and having issues with this guy.. then yes. i'd be a buffoon :)
<>< :: have the courage to use your own reason
homegrown wrote:
now i buy legal and it actually feels goooood.
Except to your wallet lol
homegrown wrote:
i like the angle of actually taking the time to educate and talk to the dude who asked me;
Well good on you. It wont be easy to try and tell they guy who asked you. When you were downloading songs and that, and someone tried to tell you it was bad... would have you listened? Im not trying to say dont do it, infact I think that first you should talk to him, and if he doesnt listen, and if you have the evidence, you should get the software company in on it.
"There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth" ~ unknown
-
I was recently asked by a company to "crack" the licencing module for a popular laundry management system written in .net. Now, my first response was to decline and challenge the request to get permission from the owners of the software to do so (the request came bundled with some long fandangled justification and legitimate business reasons) Anyhow, the challenge worked and it was, in fact, a request to do something illegal. I declined. However... thinking on it some more, is simply declining enough? This company will probably just approach some other programmer and learn to disguise the request more carefully... Do i have an ethical/legal obligation/responsibility to report this matter to: a) the authorities b) the software owners c) other ? Somehow keeping quiet about it just feels weird (you know, evil reigns 'cos good men do nothing- that sort of thing). This is a first for me, so while i reason this one out, it'd be good to get a feel for what the programmer society reasons... I know, i'd feel pretty :mad: if someone started stealing my salary.
<>< :: have the courage to use your own reason
You know, I would have thought it weird, but I was propositioned to do the same thing with server operating system, and was asked by a lawyer. At first I laughed, thinking it was a test, or some sort of joke... but he really expected me to do it. I declined and said I could, but won't. He hasn't asked me for help since then. Better anyway, he tried to underpay me pretty bad.
-
I am not positive, but I think that using the original code to document functionality is a legitimate usage. Providing you then generated all new code to perform the same or similar functionality, you should not be in violation of the copyright. Having a firewall between the analysis and writing the new code (i.e. done by different people) would provide a more defensible legal position.
Member 4723455 wrote:
I am not positive, but I think that using the original code to document functionality is a legitimate usage. Providing you then generated all new code to perform the same or similar functionality, you should not be in violation of the copyright.
Reversing for any reason when a license precludes it breaks the license.
-
Hmm, well this has happen to me a many of time. Being asked to crack is not really illegal yet, but doing the act is. The only thing you can do is decline the request. But, doing so will probably get you fired.
KISS "Keep It Simple, Stupid"
-
homegrown wrote:
I know, i'd feel pretty if someone started stealing my salary.
Are you saying that you have NEVER downloaded a song? NEVER copied a MP3 off somebodies computer or CD? NEVER done anything that would make another company/person lose money? If so, I admire your stance, and you join a manority But if you have, isnt that a bit hypocritical?
"There are three sides to every story. Yours, mine and the truth" ~ unknown
Thunderbox666 wrote:
Are you saying that you have NEVER downloaded a song? NEVER copied a MP3 off somebodies computer or CD? NEVER done anything that would make another company/person lose money?
I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical if you've done these things in the past and then changed your stance on the issue and stopped. My friend and I used to share games between us in high school, but now I don't. I don't think that makes me hypocritical at all. My stance on the issue evolved over the years and now I have a different attitude about it.:rose: Flynn
_If we can't corrupt the youth of today,
the adults of tomorrow will be no fun...
_ -
Member 4723455 wrote:
I am not positive, but I think that using the original code to document functionality is a legitimate usage. Providing you then generated all new code to perform the same or similar functionality, you should not be in violation of the copyright.
Reversing for any reason when a license precludes it breaks the license.
It's not quite that open & closed. Just because it says something in a license does not make it enforceable in court. Copyright law has historically allowed reverse engineering (including making copies for that purpose) as a form of "fair use". This, in most cases, would prevent the license clauses you mention from being enforceable; just as unilateral warranty or product liability restrictions which exceed rights granted under the law are not enforceable. To your side of the debate, two states have drafted specific laws which would allow these contract clauses to stand in those state courts. Back to the other side, they would most likely be over turned if the case gets into a federal court. Back to your side, the entertainment industry has or is trying to get narrowly defined laws enacted which would limit the purpose to which reverse engineering of (copy protection only) software can be utilized. These changes maybe stepping stones for eventual restrictions on all software reverse engineering. This is a debate that will carry on for years - but from a practical standpoint, reverse engineering is a time honored and (generally) legally accepted practice whether we like it or not and in principle it is not likely to be over turned. The point at which one can get in trouble in a hurry is if you use ANY of the original code in your product. Thus the separate analysis and development firewalls to at least provide a legal defense. From a business stand point, if I go up against someone with more $, I will go out of business long before I can prove I am 100% legally correct. So being allowed to do something is not the same as being smart about doing it. But back to my original comment - the question was whether the client wanted to "steal" the application or create a new application that they could own and control. I wouldn't work for the first one, but would at least discuss the second case.
-
Talk to the villagers - there's going to be a lynching. I admire your stance - you did the right thing, and it's time to continue doing the right thing, contact the authorities and the responsible software company. Be up front with the company that challenged you to crack the software, and let them know the course of action you are going to follow. Maybe then they'll think twice about being a bunch of scum sucking, lowdown, bottom feeding thieves.
Deja View - the feeling that you've seen this post before.
I'll put my two cents in as there are a couple of issues going on here. Firstly, if you are asked to crack a program, is it legal. Every license agreement I've ever read says something about it being illegal to reverse engineer or decompile the code. Hence the act of cracking itself is illegal. Merely asking might or might not be but, as someone already pointed out, solicitation for a crime can be. Even worse is that if a crime is committed and you are aware of it you might be held accountable as well as an accomplice even if you don't actually do anything. While unlikely, it has happened before. You could argue that some companies make money by cracking programs to identify flaws and whatnot. You're on the fringes here. It is illegal to own many military weapons yet the military has them. It is illegal to have certain chemicals or mix explosive devices yet chemist can. See where I'm going with this. The act of cracking software is illegal, period, unless you are a (legal) business where your function is somehow related to cracking software. Now, what to do. Firstly brush up your resume and start finding a new job. A company that willfully will crack software to keep itself afloat is not a company I'd want to work for. What other "actions" will they take to save themselves. If you're in the business then you should really take software piracy seriously. It's money that people are taking away from our business. Why should we help them? Secondly you may or may not notify the software police (the FBI, in the US, is also responsible for piracy). Personally I'd probably hold off unless the company actually does crack the software and use it illegally for a reasonable length of time. The burden of proof is on you so you don't want to blow the whistle too early. Keep in mind that once you take such steps you can't go back. Although it isn't right, snitches keep their title for life so it'll be hard to explain at job interviews why you left the company and forget about recommendations. If the problem is simply that a license has expired then companies generally have support options with the manufacturer. By contacting the manufacturer I'm sure your company could get a temporary license or something to allow you to keep running until the PO is issued. It is also likely to be faster than cracking the code. If your company's server goes down then it is bad business for the manufacturer too. They don't want to lose your revenue so they'll likely help you out any way they can. Justi
-
You know, I would have thought it weird, but I was propositioned to do the same thing with server operating system, and was asked by a lawyer. At first I laughed, thinking it was a test, or some sort of joke... but he really expected me to do it. I declined and said I could, but won't. He hasn't asked me for help since then. Better anyway, he tried to underpay me pretty bad.
-
Its the intent that matters. If the authorities can prove the companies intent was illegal then they are stuffed. I suspect if you go to the cops then it will be an open and shut case.
-
It's not quite that open & closed. Just because it says something in a license does not make it enforceable in court. Copyright law has historically allowed reverse engineering (including making copies for that purpose) as a form of "fair use". This, in most cases, would prevent the license clauses you mention from being enforceable; just as unilateral warranty or product liability restrictions which exceed rights granted under the law are not enforceable. To your side of the debate, two states have drafted specific laws which would allow these contract clauses to stand in those state courts. Back to the other side, they would most likely be over turned if the case gets into a federal court. Back to your side, the entertainment industry has or is trying to get narrowly defined laws enacted which would limit the purpose to which reverse engineering of (copy protection only) software can be utilized. These changes maybe stepping stones for eventual restrictions on all software reverse engineering. This is a debate that will carry on for years - but from a practical standpoint, reverse engineering is a time honored and (generally) legally accepted practice whether we like it or not and in principle it is not likely to be over turned. The point at which one can get in trouble in a hurry is if you use ANY of the original code in your product. Thus the separate analysis and development firewalls to at least provide a legal defense. From a business stand point, if I go up against someone with more $, I will go out of business long before I can prove I am 100% legally correct. So being allowed to do something is not the same as being smart about doing it. But back to my original comment - the question was whether the client wanted to "steal" the application or create a new application that they could own and control. I wouldn't work for the first one, but would at least discuss the second case.
Member 4723455 wrote:
Copyright law has historically allowed reverse engineering (including making copies for that purpose) as a form of "fair use". This, in most cases, would prevent the license clauses you mention from being enforceable; just as unilateral warranty or product liability restrictions which exceed rights granted under the law are not enforceable. ... Back to the other side, they would most likely be over turned if the case gets into a federal court.
That is a legal opinion that would only come about after a judgement at the federal level. Do you have a citation to support that opinion? Perhaps by professor at a law university or perhaps a firm that specializes in creating license text? Because there is certainly a lot of companies including large ones that preclude it and if it so obvious that it would be overturned then one would expect that they would be attempting to get a federal law passed to protect it.
-
Member 4723455 wrote:
Copyright law has historically allowed reverse engineering (including making copies for that purpose) as a form of "fair use". This, in most cases, would prevent the license clauses you mention from being enforceable; just as unilateral warranty or product liability restrictions which exceed rights granted under the law are not enforceable. ... Back to the other side, they would most likely be over turned if the case gets into a federal court.
That is a legal opinion that would only come about after a judgement at the federal level. Do you have a citation to support that opinion? Perhaps by professor at a law university or perhaps a firm that specializes in creating license text? Because there is certainly a lot of companies including large ones that preclude it and if it so obvious that it would be overturned then one would expect that they would be attempting to get a federal law passed to protect it.
I am not an attorney, but have had occasion to research this with the help of a top intellectual property attorney. Please do not take anything said here as the final word – if you are thinking about doing reverse engineering get a legal opinion & more importantly make a business decision that it is worth the potential hassle. In answer to your question, here are a few examples to get you started – the comments below are brief (and of course only the portions that support our position!) A full reading of the rulings should be made to understand the context and full meaning; Atari Games v. Nintendo (Federal Circuit) -- found that intermediate copying of object code of a copyrighted computer program when necessary to disassemble the program to view its expression was a fair use under Section 107 of the copyright laws. When the nature of a work requires intermediate copying to understand the ideas and processes in a copyrighted work, that nature supports a fair use for intermediate copying. Thus, reverse engineering object code to discern the unprotectable ideas in a computer program is a fair use ….. the court commented on ... the constitutional objective of promoting "the Progress of Science" and concluding that necessary intermediate copies for object code reverse engineering are exempted from protection by fair use.... Sega v. Accolade (Ninth Circuit) -- Accolade disassembled entire programs written by Sega. .... The fact that an entire work was copied does not, however, preclude a finding of fair use. In fact, where the ultimate (as opposed to direct) use is as limited as it was here, the factor is of very little weight.” Even though reverse engineering to discover infringement often requires copying the entire program ..... Sony v. Connected (Ninth Circuit) -- the court considered the reverse engineering work engaged in during the creation of the product a "transformative" use of the initial copyrighted work, making it permissible according to copyright law. The court also held that multiple copying was not a factor in determining fair use copying. Similar court cases can be found which permit the reverse engineering of IC chip circuits. A no-reverse engineering clause in a license is not as clear (as if the above was!). To quote the summary we were provided; ..... courts are generally prohibited from enforcing “unconscionable” contract provisions. If a provision of a unilateral contract (such as a software license), which had not been previously negotiated and agreed to by both parti