Sorry to see the PSS theft thread locked

[macwino 14]

It has been almost 90 days since my last post and I was due to make a post so I could keep my account active. I was intrigued by the PSS theft thread and have been thinking about it all morning from both the practical and legal perspectives and was looking forward to making a meaningful contribution to this important issue. I will respect the locking of the thread, and won't provide any of my substantive thoughts. But I would like to say that the issue of how a developer should approach piracy is a very important issue and this PSS situation, whatever the truth about its details may be, set a wonderful stage for a discussion of appropriate remedies. I hope that the discussion can continue in some other context, as I believe it is an important issue for all of us who treasure the add-ons commercial developers have made available to us and don't want to see them jeopardized.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

I thought the thread could have served useful.I felt their "outing" of the person was wrong, if only because it's so easy to spoof another's identity. I think it's an example where emotion jumps in before you really think of the consequences. In our case, the risk is that the person named is just another victim of someone else's scheme, and they then gain the legal ammunition to shut the entire site down, since the post appeared here.I have mixed feelings--as I mentioned in another thread I became a crime victim for the first time in my life only recently. You want to strike out at anyone even remotely linked to the event. But better to prove in a court of law first. It's frustrating to go through due process. I hope for PSS their court case against the pirate is already a done deal, and that this "outing" was just the final step. -John

[Guest Ken_Salter]

The reason for the lock was that it seemed to me that posts were already heading toward the inevitable.Now, talking about this "in general" without mentioning specific companies is perfectly fine.It just seems that personalities and personal "grudges" always leak in to these discussions, and the whole thing will devolve.

[JimmiG 244]

I'm sorry if I missed something but I thought we already had laws for dealing with piracy etc. At least we do in my country. BTW those laws do not give a publisher permission to post the details of the software pirate on the Internet. If a publisher does that they are also breaking the law. I would not give my personal details to such a company.So I hardly see the need to discuss it...

[Guest IanP]

I can see both sides of this argument. From a "law" point of view, then a supplier has no real right to post personal details. From a "justice" point of view, it is extremely unlikely that the courts will do a single thing. It simply isn't serious enough, in each individual case, for their attention. Then you have to look at the probability that a single court case costs would probably put most suppliers out of business.Naming, I have no problem with whatsoever. It's amazing how many times the same names come up on illegal sites. Posting private information could be very dodgy indeed, depanding on whose jurisdiction covers it... And therein lies the problem. The supplier is in, say, Canada. The transgressor is in, say, South Africa. The server is in, say, Russia or Tuvalu. Whose jurisdiction is it?No offence intended to any South Africans (or Canadians, Russians or Tuvaluans) reading this, by the way... I was just trying to pick countries on different continents!Ian P.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Good post Ian...My only concern is that names are so freely available on the web these days, that anyone can steal someone else's identity and use it as their own to pirate software. Publishing a name of a computer pirate is quite different than publishing the name of a recent DWI conviction. It's much harder to prove the name is the same as the person behind the piracy. Anyone could set up an Internet account using my name, set up a residence, etc... with the greatest of ease.God forbid (I work in the IT field) that I go to interview someday, and some potential employer says "Sorry--our 'bot grabbed your name from xxxxsoft's site, and they say you pirated their software. We don't hire thieves". The burden of proof should be greater than some site saying they have the proof--otherwise the pirates win two ways. They steal from honest vendors, and they foul up the lives of honest innocents.-John

[Guest IanP]

There are instances, however, where the originator of the software - be it hacked or just a freely distributed private copy - can be quite clearly traced. They bought the product, using a credit card number, an address, usually a security number and a name that matches the card. The burden of proof there lies with the credit card company. If they accept that the person making the purchase is legally the person doing so, then how can the supplier being paid by that company prove any better?Under the vast majority of instances, this is good enough to identify someone. The response of many people who get caught by credit card number is usually "It wasn't me. It must have been stolen." What most of these people forget or don't realise that their IP address is recorded at the time of transaction and, even if it is a dynamic IP, they can usually be traced back without difficulty unless the trace is left until the logs get overwritten.The other usual defence is "I must have got a worm/hacker on my computer". The most times I have seen this one recently is in causing computer crime cases that *are* brought to court to collapse... This can be another reason for the copyright holder in such a case to not bother bringing it to court. Whether traces of a worm are or are not present is sometimes immaterial. A lawyer says they could have been, a computer expert quite truthfully replies that yes, they could have been, and reasonable doubt exists that has been publicised as getting people off the hook. This has happened in a couple of cases very recently in the UK.So while, yes, you can be falsely accused, most people just think they can get away with it and sometimes they get caught. Didn't Lago go through a period of cracking down on leaked codes a while ago? That was handled behind the scenes for the most part, which I think is the best way to do it, but where enough proof exists, I can also see a place for 'naming and shaming'. It points out to would-be 'casual' sharers that they can and will be traced, so they think twice about doing it in the first place. From the point of view of a supplier, that has a greater return in preventing loss of revenue than a court case probably would.Ian P.(Edited to correct typo)

[W2DR 1,860]

I think what's bothering me the most is that PSS says they "absolutely" know the identity of the poster. Yet they offer no proof of that assertion. I won't argue that they know the identity of the individual to whom the aircraft was sold as that's an easy thing to do. But, my understanding is that the file in question was posted to a.b.g. less than 48 hours ago. It is highly doubtful that PSS, or anyone else, could trace that source. Of course, if that is not the location of the posting, and PSS has other information, then it may be possible for them to identify a posting IP and match it back to the original purchaser. Whatever the case, I feel that PSS has done a great harm in not disclosing the particulars along with the allegation. It is simply not acceptable for any developer to publicly proclaim an individual guilty of piracy without also providing a high degree of support for such a potentially damaging accusation.Doug

[John_Cillis 2,406]

Don't worry Ian--I edit to correct typos all the time... :) That's why I edit nearly every dang ptst I write... I meant pkst. I meant post.-John

[Guest Dakota]

what really bothers me is that there are members of our wonderful flightsim community that steal other peoples hard work. It is good to see these lowlifes dealt with, just wish they would could be dealt with in a court of law or banned from all flightsim communities and future purchases of any flightsim software, though I know that is not feasible. We have a great community here and I know most contribute and are more then happy to pay for the software and support the development of this great hobby. It is too bad there are a few dirty rotten apples that spoil some of it.

[Guest Agamemnon]

Hello" There are instances, however, where the originator of the software - be it hacked or just a freely distributed private copy - can be quite clearly traced. They bought the product, using a credit card number, an address, usually a security number and a name that matches the card. The burden of proof there lies with the credit card company. If they accept that the person making the purchase is legally the person doing so, then how can the supplier being paid by that company prove any better?"Do you really think so???There are hackers out there could make you look so guilty about anything that it would bring tears to your eyes.What it boils down to is what they find on your hard drive when the search warrant is served.All I can say to every simmer here is watch your back and maintain the security on your pc because it`s gonna get worse before it get better.Think about the implications

[flyerboy 114]

I see the thread has now been removed.

[Guest Agamemnon]

Well that`s good to hearI have to say though that the targeted individual has been to this point been wrongly defamed and if he needs help to defend himself I have screen captures of all relevent threads if he should need them in his possible litigation.It bothers me how some in our community are so ready to condemn one of our own based on unsubstantied threads perpetuated by payware co`s.Troy

[Guest IanP]

>>This was posted at the same time the thread was moved - apologies if it appears twice - Ian P.<

[Guest IanP]

The software was licensed to an individual.**THAT SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL'S LICENSE** was uploaded to a warez server.That is substantial evidence in and of itself. If the person feels they are wrongly accused, they have the right to defend themselves.However, it is still their license that was involved in the breach of copyright. PSS have not said that "a copy of the Concorde has been uploaded, we'll blame Mister X", they have clearly stated that the specific code belonging to Mister X has been uploaded. This is an individual code, assigned to an individual, and it has been uploaded in breach of otheir copyright.If I get caught speeding by a traffic camera, I get the fine through the post. It is then up to me to prove that I was not driving my vehicle at the time it went through the camera in excess of the speed limit. They know it was my car, because they have the registration number. The same applies to this piece of software. They have the specific license key assigned to that individual.Ian P.Edit: I understand it was not a Warez site, but a Peer-to-Peer site that the software was uploaded to.