Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
It's funny.  Laugh. Operating Systems Software Windows Microsoft

Warezed SoundForge Files In Windows Media Player 1001

Posted by timothy
from the let-the-bsa-sort-it-out dept.
An anonymous reader writes "German PC-Welt magazine reports that Microsoft used an illegal copy of SoundForge 4.5 (Google translation) for editing Wave files shipped with Windows Media Player. You can check that yourself by opening any file in the [Windows location] \Help\Tours\WindowsMediaPlayer\Audio\Wav\ folder in notepad or other editors of your choice and looking at the last line. There you will find a reference to SoundForge 4.5 and also a user called 'Deepz0ne' who happens to be one of the founders of an audio software cracking group called Radium."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Warezed SoundForge Files In Windows Media Player

Comments Filter:
  • by Justus (18814) on Friday November 12, 2004 @08:50PM (#10803950)
    Yeah, nice justification! They did something wrong so that means I can do it too!
  • by RiffRafff (234408) on Friday November 12, 2004 @08:51PM (#10803952) Homepage
    ...although, when you think about it, who knows what stolen code might be in Microsoft's software? What with it being "closed source" and all...
  • Re:A few angles... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mgv (198488) <Nospam@01@slash2dot.veltman@org> on Friday November 12, 2004 @08:51PM (#10803962) Homepage Journal
    Optimist's response: Maybe they were waiting for their activation code. Pessimist's response: They knowingly stole it. Realist's response: Even Microsoft has no use for MS Sound Editor.

    The question it rasises is how much other stuff is in windows that has IP violations? The answer is: Nobody knows. Probably not even MS know, and a nobody else is in a position to analyse it. By the time it gets found and publicised, its been in the operating system for a long time.

    Michael
  • by Anita Coney (648748) on Friday November 12, 2004 @08:54PM (#10803997) Homepage
    It's a big deal because Microsoft, along with the BSA, comes down quite hard on companies where even nominal amounts of illegally licensed software are used. Those companies will now have the same defense that Microsoft currently has: Sometimes mistakes happen.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 12, 2004 @08:56PM (#10804010)
    I dont think that's news, I remember someone telling me (who worked at M$) that they had anything and everything available, apps wise, with keygens and serial numbers included with a note "Please uninstall when you are done with it"

    The problem here is that M$ has that big wall infront, made of their corporate lawyers, so doing and audit on them would be next to impossible.

    Not to mention that this is not surprising, usually biggest proponents of something are biggest hypocrites of the same thing as well, in this case anti-piracy.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 12, 2004 @08:56PM (#10804015)
    Actually it is a good little story. Microsoft keeps going on about being solidly against piracy and 'actively' going after it (or so they like to make people think). But now it's obvious their own people aren't immune to piracy and they've made hypocrites of themselves. Pretty funny.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 12, 2004 @08:58PM (#10804038)
    Please stop celebrating.

    This is an easy one for Microsoft. They'll just say they used an outside contractor for the work in good faith, and had no knowledge of any wrongdoing.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 12, 2004 @08:59PM (#10804045)
    Um, yeah. Obviously, two wrongs make a right!
  • by SonicBurst (546373) on Friday November 12, 2004 @08:59PM (#10804048) Homepage
    Along those lines, I was thinking that maybe the sound editing was outsourced. We all know that their photography is stock stuff; witness all the MS ads picturing Apples. It is conceivable, though not necessarily true, that this work was done by an outside agency.
  • by rackhamh (217889) on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:02PM (#10804069)
    You assume that the illegal software was used at Microsoft.
  • by B'Trey (111263) on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:04PM (#10804093)
    And how many times has Microsoft's lapdog BSA audited [itworld.com] some one, found a piece of Microsoft warez that some employee had pirated and fined the hell out of the company for it? That's what makes this newsworthy.
  • Ummm.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:05PM (#10804098)
    Who needs the linked JPG? Just go to the directory in question: $WINDOWS\Help\Tours\WindowsMediaPlayer\Audio\Wav

    ...Maybe those who don't have/use Windows might need the Jpeg?
  • by Martin Blank (154261) on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:06PM (#10804111) Journal
    It may well have been one impatient user. There's at least one in every company I've ever been at. Usually we just chuckle at them behind their backs and do what we can to make sure proper licensing procedures are followed (including changing admin passwords where necessary and hoarding new software behind locked doors) when there's no one willing to fire the person. The company ends up paying for the software in most cases as it's supposed to, but if an audit were ever done, a few software keys wouldn't quite match up even though the counts would be roughly correct.
  • Re:winwarez.jpg (Score:2, Insightful)

    by scragz (654271) on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:08PM (#10804133) Homepage

    Who needs the linked JPG?

    Non-Windows users? I don't have that file laying around.

  • by TiggertheMad (556308) on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:11PM (#10804148) Homepage Journal
    ...Or some guy just liked using his cracked copy of SF, and brought it into work to use.

    Before you go running off all bitter and self-righeous, you might want to consider the difference between the coporate management and the average joe schmuck employee.

    This isn't MS being hypocrites, it is an employee breaking company policy and bringing in outside sofware.
  • by Anita Coney (648748) on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:11PM (#10804152) Homepage
    Microsoft and the BSA presumes violations before any proof is found, why should I presume any differently?

  • by mesach (191869) on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:18PM (#10804187)
    I have always replied to that saying with

    Lead by Example.
  • The real lesson (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zakezuke (229119) on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:23PM (#10804217)
    With all the BILLION$ of dollars M$ has they can't even pony up the money for Sound Forge?

    Have you tried getting management to buy the software required for a project? At times it's damn near impossible. You have a deadline and your request is moving at the speed of bureaucracy. Finally you say *fuck it* and get the damn software. This becomes a vicious circle when management asks, "Oh you didn't need us to buy this software before why do you need it now? Just do what you did before."

    I'm not saying this is good or bad, this is just the way it happens. Management holds no accountability because it's their job to be a dumb ass. Being a dumb ass isn't illegal and saves the company money. They didn't pirate the software, some peon did.

  • by MushMouth (5650) on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:23PM (#10804221) Homepage
    Have you ever heard of outsourcing?
  • by skraps (650379) on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:24PM (#10804223)
    Microsoft is huge. You people are acting like Microsoft is some singular, sentient being. It's just not the case. So some dude who worked at Microsoft used a cracked copy. I don't think you can blame that on the whole company.
  • by Xian97 (714198) on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:25PM (#10804235)
    I have seen several examples over the years where it was obvious that the developers used unlicensed tools. The one that I remember the most was a game called Settlers 2. One of the directories had a crack for Scitech Display Doctor that was left on the distribution cds.
  • by IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:26PM (#10804239) Journal
    Good point except for the fact tha MS is supposed to check. They are the ones that are being high and mighty on the subject. Remember that MS has leagues of lawyers both checking and enforcing IP and using any resources within their power to enforce. This is a big egg-on-face fiasco. I don't double check royalty-free stuff but I am not distibuting software in the same scale as MS nor have the same resources and rightuous indignation.
  • Re:A few angles... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kfg (145172) on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:37PM (#10804301)
    The question it rasises is how much other stuff is in windows that has IP violations?

    And the answer it provides is that the idea that closed soure software somehow becomes magically free of stolen or infringing code is fallacious.

    At best it provides the bliss of ignorance, but an ignorance difficult or impossible to correct.

    KFG
  • Re:The real lesson (Score:3, Insightful)

    by miscGeek (594829) on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:37PM (#10804303)
    Nope, that's when you keep all email to management requesting the required software and their response. When the deadline is missed you show it to them.

    Believe me it will only happen once or twice. You may catch some heat from it but it does work :)

  • What am I missing (Score:2, Insightful)

    by coolsva (786215) on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:38PM (#10804308)
    Not sure I understand the original story. From the translation, it seems that MS just created the sound files using some tool in the market (GNU or freeware or priced, it is irrelevent). Whats next, MS boot image JPG was created with IrfanView?
  • by abb3w (696381) on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:39PM (#10804314) Journal
    ...Or some guy just liked using his cracked copy of SF, and brought it into work to use.

    ...or took did some work at home, and brought the results in to work. He may not have brought in outside software, but only data manipulated by outside software.

  • by Timex (11710) <smithadmin AT gmail DOT com> on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:43PM (#10804340) Journal
    ...Or some guy just liked using his cracked copy of SF, and brought it into work to use.

    I don't know exactly how the law is worded (perhaps this is better talked about on GrokLaw [groklaw.net]), but if the pirate copy is on a Corporate computer, then Microsoft is still responsible. Most of the companies I have worked for have had rules about installing personal software on company-owned computers for this very reason.

    I think what will actually happen is this: MS will look into it, verify it, figure out who did it, and if he's not gone already, they'll can his butt. In the next release of the WinMediaPlayer, they'll have the files fixed, in one way or another.

    This isn't MS being hypocrites, it is an employee breaking company policy and bringing in outside sofware.

    Precisely. Scratch one employee at Microsoft. Look for the opening in their job postings soon.
  • by Kosi (589267) on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:44PM (#10804343)
    No, but they are responsible for the actions of their employees. And they should be held to be.

    Just imagine a small company where some guy runs a illegal copy of Windows XP. Sure they would be sued or threatened with it to pay the license fee plus something. Same procedure should be applied to MS.
  • Re:A few angles... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Luddite (808273) on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:50PM (#10804367)

    The question it rasises is how much other stuff is in windows that has IP violations?

    Any large corporation is going to have non-licensed software on their machines. You put thousands of folks in front of thousands of PCs and what do you know? They try to load software.

    The poor bastards responsible for keeping desktops secure and warez free in any large corp. have got an endless, PITA job. It doesn't mean the company is promoting piracy if a few infractions exist.

    I don't see how Microsoft is any different.
  • Re:A few angles... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kevlar (13509) on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:50PM (#10804370)
    Its funny how when its a Microsoft employee potentially violating Intellectual Property Right laws, its the end of hte fucking world. In any other scenario nobody would consider it wrong.

    By the way, they'll know preceisely who editted it with the warezed copy and he'll get his ass fired. Good job! You got a Microsoft employee fired! yeeeeehhh!!!
  • Re:Best Friend! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zurab (188064) on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:52PM (#10804381)
    Are you kidding? I want homeland security on the case ASAP [go.com]. I also want BSA to send threatening letters to all Microsoft departments and offices and force them to audit their licensed software and code copyrights - or else they'll break down the doors with the assistance of Secret Service [msn.com] and seize all their assets! You know, irresponsible IP thieves and pirates like these are the criminals that are forcing software industry to lose $50.7 trillion (or whatever number it is) per year.
  • by belmolis (702863) <billposer@alum.[ ].edu ['mit' in gap]> on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:54PM (#10804398) Homepage

    Not that your point about metadata isn't valid, but this isn't a typical metadata problem. The WAV format doesn't directly provide for strings indicating the program that created the audio. There is a "text" chunk in which you can put such information, but WAV files don't have to have such a chunk and they don't have any standard interpretation. Information about the file is usually placed before the audio data too. This stuff could be a text chunk placed at the end, but I suspect that it is actually included in the audio data chunk - a few odd sample values at the end will be undetectable to the ear. I can't tell for sure though without examining the WAV file, which I don't have since I don't have MS Windows. Maybe somebody could post a link to one of the files and we could find out.

  • Watermarking... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 12, 2004 @09:56PM (#10804410)
    Why aren't we up in arms that Sound Forge watermarks every WAV file that it edits?
  • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:03PM (#10804448)
    Yes, Microsoft is liable and will have to pay Sony (if their employee was the one responsible). However having an employee do something they shouldn't is VERY different from willful infringement.

    The problem is people seem to be blaming Microsoft as though they willfuly ripped off Sonic Foundry (now Sony) to save some money. Please, Sound Forge is like $250, it's nothing to them. More likely, whoever was responsible for it, maybe not even an MS employee (they may have contracted this out) just liked SF and used it instead of whatever app they had licensed.

    Still their responsibility to pay for it, but don't pretend it was them being evil. They don't monitor the every move of their employees.

    Interesting counter question: How many OSS Windows apps are compiled using a warezed version of Visual Studio?
  • Re:A few angles... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by nutrock69 (446385) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:04PM (#10804454)
    The truly funny part of all this is the karma points Microsoft just burned. Microsoft went after all those companies a couple of years ago with Windows licenses making damn sure every single one of them was properly licensed and frying them for just one single peon who loaded an unlicensed copy - their crusade to try to keep piracy from entering the workplace of their contracted partners - it turns out they're just as guilty. One peon was all it took to burn a multi-million dollar contract, and now one peon could cause an infringement against MS.
  • by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 (812236) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:05PM (#10804464) Journal
    Nope, they did something wrong means that they can't tell me not to do it.
  • by the_mad_poster (640772) * <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:15PM (#10804512) Homepage Journal

    Oh? Care to try and justify that position?

  • by 3770 (560838) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:15PM (#10804513) Homepage
    Isn't it entirely possible that they asked an external firm to put together a few sounds to be used? And then Microsoft bought the sound bites from them?
  • What difference? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Featureless (599963) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:20PM (#10804539) Journal
    There is no difference. Repeat after the BSA. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. Your joe schmuck employees == your corporate managment == your entire company.

    When it's Microsoft's precious "IP" in question, there are no excuses. This is not speculation, this is not opinion, this is a trail of tears weaving back and forth across the country with literally thousands and thousands of people and business, big and small, who lost a few of their holograms, that can vouch.

    When Microsoft has its pet army of jackbooted thugs (the BSA) "auditing" the daylights out of you (or your elementary school, or your police station, or your old folks home) they don't buy this excuse. It doesn't matter if you bought those 5 computers used and the seller didn't give you the stickers. It doesn't matter if some 2 week contractor who didn't even speak English warezed Office _and_ stole a box of white out, it's still your business' problem, guilty until proven innocent, "Civil and Criminal Penalties," $500,000 for each count, etc etc... You're still staring down the barrel of a devastating lawsuit or a "relicensing" on extremely favorable terms...

    So yes, duh, absoloutely PLEASE run off and for the record we are not nearly bitter or self-righteous enough.
  • BSA audits (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ender Ryan (79406) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:23PM (#10804549) Journal
    Ok. Next time your company gets audited by the BSA(another beast we can thank MS for), and they find one or two pirated copies of software, that employees installed without authorization, and use that as justification to charge you for the audit, to the tune of several millions of dollars, remember what you just said today.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:26PM (#10804560)
    Oh? Care to try and justify that position?

    Yeah, I will. It's called fucking hypocrisy.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:28PM (#10804568)
    I think Microsoft obviously needs to be shut down for a few weeks until they can produce authentic license certificates for ever single piece of software on every machine...

    What about it? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
  • SP3 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MarcoPon (689115) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:34PM (#10804593) Homepage
    Uhm... I expect those WAVs to be silently "updated" with the next ServicePack.

    Bye!

  • Re:The real lesson (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:35PM (#10804602)
    Being a dumb ass isn't illegal and saves the company money. They didn't pirate the software, some peon did.

    Management is responsible for making sure that business is not conducted in any illegal way.

    Turning a blind eye or being negligent of this responsibility IS illegal.

    Thats why they're called management. They are supposed to MANAGE the business and as such they are responsible for ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING their staff do.

  • by IBitOBear (410965) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:37PM (#10804614) Homepage Journal
    One wonders if the nororious (now) distribution of the material created with the stolen program, and the (arguable) profit which Microsoft made by its distribution of the output from the stolen work, could raise significant fincial liability...?

    That shoudl be the paultry $150,000 for copyright violation at least.

    SoundForge should, at least, be able to call a BSA audit on Microsoft...

    Oh, I just got a warm fuzzy at imagining Microsoft having to submit to a BSA audit. After all, if they think it's good for us, isn't it good for them?

    I wonder what the bounty would be, and how fast we can flood the BSA with "tips"? After-all, we *have* the evidence distributed ever-so-widely... 8-)

    What you want to bet that the BSA wouldn't do their jobs *this* *time*?
  • by SetupWeasel (54062) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:44PM (#10804638) Homepage
    You see it's like this: (this is purely fictional)

    Let's say the RIAA, led by Hilary Rosen, sued 13 year-old kids for thousands for copy infringement.

    Then later on, we found out that Ms. Rosen's son had hundreds of BetaMax copies of video rentals in her home.

    It is not outrageous, because her son infringed on copyrights. It is outrageous that Ms. Rosen holds some unknown kid to some higher standard than her own son. It would show that the copyright is not what she cared about, only suing 13 year-olds for thousands.
  • by brett42 (79648) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:45PM (#10804648)
    When someone 'downloads' a 'cracked' copy of a 'program', it often comes 'bundled' with a 'user name' and 'registry key' combination that 'unlocks' the 'program', like the annoying letters and numbers you need to get MS Office to work when you install it legally.

    It's very likely that SoundForge includes the 'user name' that was used to 'register' it with any files created with it, which is what the original post was complaining about. In this case, the 'warez monkey' at 'M$' probably used a 'key' created by 'DeepzOne', so SoundForge 'thinks' that 'DeepzOne' is the 'warez monkey's' 'user name'. It's unlikely that 'DeepzOne' actually modified the way SoundForge saves files. No one is alleging that the 'cracker' actually works for 'M$'. They just think it's ironic that 'M$' employees are 'warez monkeys'.

    Note that this is just stuff I 'heard' about 'cracked programs', and none of this is from 'first hand experience' with 'illegal activities'.
  • Re:A few angles... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:49PM (#10804673) Journal
    thy'd be distributing borland's runtime code.

    when you buy a compiler you also buy the rights to distribute the compiler's runtime code. if you buils an app with a warezed version of borland C compiler, every copy of it is a pirate copy of the runtime, doesn't matter wich license you use for the app
  • by Waffle Iron (339739) on Friday November 12, 2004 @10:59PM (#10804712)
    Between the .NET SDK, and the Visual C++ 7.1 Toolkit, and the PlatformSDK, you can download all the tools you need to build (including the optimizing C compiler) for free.

    Yep, you can do that. But then you'll spend so much trying find a usable set of runtime libraries in that mishmash, and then figuring out whether you're actually licensed to redistribute them, you'll end up wishing you hadn't. (Each of the SDKs is cleverly packaged with different incompatible and irregular subsets of the Windows runtime libraries, just to make it so hard to figure out that you'll run out and buy their non-free development tools out of frustration.)

    Plus, if you use any outside code at all, it will almost invariably assume that you have the MS IDE environment to build it. You're then faced with rewriting the build process for that code from scratch.

  • by the_mad_poster (640772) * <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Friday November 12, 2004 @11:02PM (#10804731) Homepage Journal

    Which, following your example, would mean that anybody who has firsthand experience with any negative behavior would be unjustified in sharing that experience with the intent of preventing it in other people because that would be "hypocrisy".

    Fascinating theory you have there.

    In addition, what you fail to realize is that Microsoft still has every right to tell you what you are and are not allowed to do with their software. This right is not magically forfeited because of any illicit behavior on their part. Though specific rights in specific circumstances may warrant legal removal of certain rights to certain things they own - such as the application in question in this example - there is certainly no sweeping removal that would justify your illicit behavior. That's why remedies exist for this sort of behavior - to punish people. Part of that punishment does not involve removing the rights they retain on their property.

  • by twitter (104583) on Friday November 12, 2004 @11:11PM (#10804782) Homepage Journal
    Ok. Next time your company gets audited by the BSA(another beast we can thank MS for), and they find one or two pirated copies of software, that employees installed without authorization, and use that as justification to charge you for the audit, to the tune of several millions of dollars, remember what you just said today.

    That's true, but we should remember what that "several millions of dollars" actually costs. It's easy for people who have not been raped like that to not really understand. It's not just that the company has to pay a lot of money. It's that the company becomes insolvent, even after they raid the pension plan. That means people lose their job and a large portion of their life savings. Many times people who lose their job go on to lose their house, get divorced and have all sorts of other bad things happen to them before they get on with their lives. Raping small companies, like the BSA does, does really bad things to real people. It's more than money, it's people's lives they screw with.

  • by Dashing Leech (688077) on Friday November 12, 2004 @11:28PM (#10804855)
    Fascinating theory you have there.

    I think you miss his point. Yes, pirating Windows is wrong and illegal, even if Microsoft uses pirated software. That's because "hypocricy" doesn't have legal standing. But it does have standing in the realm of public opinion. Nobody would particularly cry for MS if they claim that they're loosing money to piracy. (Not that anyone would cry for MS now, we just cry because of MS.) It's a credibility thing. There's a difference between doing something that's wrong and feeling bad about it.

    Personally, I hope it makes the "powers that be" realize that piracy by private corporations for profit is more harmful than piracy for personal use at home.

  • Re:The real lesson (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ZB Mowrey (756269) on Friday November 12, 2004 @11:34PM (#10804888) Homepage Journal
    Actually, no. That's what policy is for. See, the company says "Our employee handbook expressly prohibits what that peon did." The peon claims management turned a blind eye. Management claims the peon never brought it up. Peon gets fired for violating policy.*

    *=Not necessarily for the given reason. ;) ;)

  • Re:A few angles... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Highrollr (625006) on Friday November 12, 2004 @11:42PM (#10804919)
    How in the name of the Lord did a post consisting entirely of sheer speculation get modded informative?
  • Idiot (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 12, 2004 @11:57PM (#10804981)
    "All I did was piss people off by pointing out how stupid and inefficient they were "

    Yeah, can you believe some people get pissed off when you call them idiots?

    Don't they realize how *smart* you are?

    Sheesh. Cannot believe these people!.
  • Re:The real lesson (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DavidTC (10147) <slas45dxsvadiv...vadiv@@@neverbox...com> on Saturday November 13, 2004 @12:02AM (#10805005) Homepage
    The answer to that would be: No, I am not empowered to agree to contracts on behalf of the company, and thus I really don't feel empowered to agree to them and violate them at the same time!

    Why don't you pirate it, Mr. Manager Man?

    Don't put up with violating the law, or even violating company policy, to get around stupid-ass restrictions that are keeping you from doing your job. Stand firm and complain continually about the policy failure. If your company has a process to make suggestions or complain about policies, use it exactly how you're supposed to. When asked why you don't hit deadlines, pull out documentation of how this policy hindered you and you couldn't get it changed.

    We, the workers, need to stop putting up with this crap. Either they give us the tools to do our job (Or let us go get them.), or we're just going to stand there and point out they've hired us to do a job and not given us the tools. Don't go and get the tools in violation of company policy.

    A friend of mine got in a similiar sitution recently. It seems, he's on the IT staff of a company, and they'd adding computers. Well, for some completely idiotic reason, the electricians wire the network. So he put in a work order for eight drops in this room, and, three weeks later, when they came in, only two of the drops actually worked. So he's talking about what he's going to do, is is he going to get a hub and have reduced bandwidth to this important machines, or maybe stick some of them in another room until another work order goes this, or maybe, against the rules, take off the faceplates of the jacks and try to fix the wiring, or what, and I just stare at him.

    Then I say: The electricians didn't do their job. They probably don't know how to do it correctly, so it's not their fault, it's the fault of whoever put in such a stupid-ass rule, but still...the work order is not complete. Don't try to figure out a way around the rules. Go and tell them you're only able to do 1/4th your job, because only 1/4th of the work you need done (And was okayed to be done!) was actually done. If they want this to not happen again, they could actually let people who know how to wire a network cable run it, or at least put the ends on.

    Because figuring out ways around the rules is not your job. If the rules are not correct, yes, you need to point that out, and maybe even suggest new rules. If management does not listen to you, it is not your job to do your work in violation of said rules. If they make you sweep with a shovel instead of a broom, by God, sweep with a shovel. Don't sneak a broom out when they aren't looking.

    Of course, companies could actually start trusting workers again, and I'm sure some do. But if they did, you'd know, because you wouldn't have stupid procedures you need to work around in the first place!

  • Re:The real lesson (Score:5, Insightful)

    by G-funk (22712) <josh@gfunk007.com> on Saturday November 13, 2004 @12:20AM (#10805065) Homepage Journal
    "we already have it, why do we need to buy it?"

    To which the answer is simple. "It's your computer boss, you're responsible for what's on it."
  • by Snaller (147050) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @12:28AM (#10805090) Journal
    Yes, pirating Windows is wrong and illegal,

    Well its certainly illegal - wrong is debatable.

    That's because "hypocricy" doesn't have legal standing

    It doesn't have a spelling standing either ;)
  • by NanoGator (522640) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @12:30AM (#10805095) Homepage Journal
    "Yeah, I will. It's called fucking hypocrisy."

    Wouldn't a hypocrite be the best person to get advice from? I mean, I'd pay more attention to a smoker telling me not to smoke than a non-smoker.
  • Re:A few angles... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kfg (145172) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @12:32AM (#10805106)
    No one argues that.

    Actually, there has been quite a bit of rhetoric thrown about of late claiming that the vetting process of a commercial company prevents deliberately stolen code from being included in the base.

    They argue that if the closed source software has stolen code the vendor would be to blame, not the end user.

    Which arguement is also fallacious, since it is a matter of copyright, patent and trade secret law which makes no distinction between open and closed source code and is only concerned with rights. That is why open source code is distributed under license, just as is closed source code.

    A company may choose to indemnify its customers from legal consequences, but the validity of such indemnification is still left to the courts to decide, and, again, has nothing to do with whether the code is open or closed (as, indeed, the openess of the code has no bearing on whether it is written and/or distributed by commercial vendors or not).

    KFG
  • by flechette_indigo (738323) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @02:08AM (#10805435)
    I'll bite those points: 1) We aren't talking about somebody who just has "firsthand experience", we're talking about the grand inquisitor sticking his tongue up satan's ass. Quite a big difference you gotta admit. 2) Ya, it is forfieted. Being a moderately clever guy, If I really want to break a law I can do it without getting caught. So laws don't really matter. Respect is what matters. The only thing that might keep me from dissing Microsoft is my respect for them. Hypocrites don't get respect.
  • by Raffaello (230287) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @02:19AM (#10805470)
    "The law an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
    Mohandas Gandhi

    The implication is that everyone has committed some offense against some other person in his or her lifetime. If the only form of justice available were retribution, then the entire population of the world would be savaged. Imagine the torments you would have to undergo if every single wrong you have ever done in your life had to be repaid in kind.

    I believe another famous religious leader had something similar to say about the idea of justice as retribution:

    He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. John, 8:7.

    Justice as retribution is only ever advocated by hypocrites, because all of us have committed offenses against others.
  • by 1u3hr (530656) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @03:04AM (#10805581)
    . However having an employee do something they shouldn't is VERY different from willful infringement.

    Yes; but the BSA, which is dominated by Microsoft, has no sympathy for that argument when a company is "audited" and found to be in violation of its licenses, when it's quite plausible that he company merely is poor at record keeping and most likely has actually paid for the licences; or left unused copies of software installed on machines when swapping hardware around, and so on. They still get the whole cavity search, perp walk and massive fine (or compulsory purchase to avoid such) treatment.

  • by ivec (61549) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @03:06AM (#10805589) Homepage
    Ever considered that the development of this kind of material could have been outsourced?
    or that the sound effects may have been purchased from an external collection?

    I see no smoking gun here.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 13, 2004 @03:26AM (#10805633)
    That smoker would presumably be one who regrets smoking. Although he still smokes (quitting is very difficult, you know), he is not professing false beliefs, which is what hypocrisy means. In other words, the smoker in your example isn't a hypocrite.
  • by mikiN (75494) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @03:38AM (#10805659)
    Copyright infringement [reference.com] is not theft [reference.com].
    Copying software does not prevent the creator from having access to the source data, so technically, this cannot be theft. IANAL, but I strongly doubt that anyone of them would call copyright infringement 'theft'.
    --
    Campaigning for the right usage of these terms [google.nl] since well before 2001.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 13, 2004 @03:56AM (#10805709)
    Idiot. Your clever little command assumes you KNOW what you're looking for. Yeah, I'm sure the first thing you're going to do is grep a wav file for "deepz0ne" without first knowing wtf is going on. Come on.
  • by rzbx (236929) <slashdot&rzbx,org> on Saturday November 13, 2004 @04:09AM (#10805733) Homepage
    You still fail to see the real point, the one that causes people to hate companies like Microsoft and even politics. It isn't about one mistake, but the image the company/person puts out and what really goes on. It is about the agenda behind the person/company and the actions taken over time. Nothing wrong with second chance, but why give criminals enough room to make another more costly one. You can now argue to me the image of Microsoft you have, but that simply doesn't stick to the facts. Hypocrisy is a big problem. Not just because it happens, but because we tolerate it. Imagine any person you have trust in, now imagine that person now lying to you on a frequent basis. Would you then later trust this person with your life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The DEA doesn't tolerate personal drug use, but we tolerate criminal behavior in our corporations and government? Now I don't mean that all people do, but that this is what you do not see, and so you are one of the tolerating ones. You wouldn't care to defend the rights of another individual, but somehow have all the words to defend a corporation of which you really no little about.
    You then went on the attack, claiming all the beautiful rights that corporations throw around in the court room. Your the one failing to realize something. It is that people are rebelling based on moral reasons as much as they are on financial ones. It is no accident that Microsoft has such large sums of money. This is NOT success we should be proud of. It means the economy is inefficient, noncompetitive, and has the ability to create various problems such as social ones. You may not understand this, but some do. I could go on. Instead I will say one last thing, consider the possibility your wrong about what others have convinced you is right. Just because it is on paper, does not make it right. We should follow the law, but understand that we need to fight laws as often as the corporations do to create more innovative ones.
  • by Sven The Space Monke (669560) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @05:04AM (#10805839)
    It's all about dual ethical standards. Your company (if ever the BSA decides to send the jackboot lawyers) will be held up to an impossible standard - no warezed software, ANYWHERE, or your company will pay through the nose. Microsoft not only founded the BSA, but has been responsible for sending said jackboot lawyers after numerous companies. Basically, the reason the slashbots are going nuts over this is that it's just more proof that Microsoft can't live up to the standards they push on everyone else.

    The fact that it was likely "just one employee" wouldn't save your company from the BSA - Microsoft shouldn't be able to use that justification either.

  • Re:It is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Haeleth (414428) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @07:50AM (#10806131) Journal
    Does "thou shalt not steal" ring any bell :) ?

    Yes, but so does "of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession" (Lev. 25:45). Yup, you have a biblical right to enslave tourists' children. Or, in other words - not everything the Old Testament says is suitable as a handbook of modern morality.

    More to the point, blanket statements like "thou shalt not steal" are only meaningful if you define "steal". Let's not have the whole "is copyright infringement theft" flamewar again, please - just please acknowledge that even among people who do consider copyright infringement to be theft, most people would at least consider the possibility that purchasing one copy of Windows and installing it on two computers is not exactly in the same (im)moral league as bank robbery.
  • by GrahamBanes (817532) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @10:20AM (#10806465)
    http://www.microsoft.com/piracy [microsoft.com] - so, who's going to report them first? :P
  • Re:It is wrong (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Domo-Sun (585730) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @11:19AM (#10806665) Journal
    Does "thou shalt not steal" ring any bell :) ?

    Yes, it's a mythological doctrine, and an overly simplified generalization. So is it wrong to steal a gun from a criminal? Would it be wrong for Africa, or any Government to steal the formula of an AIDS vaccine from America if they were charging too much for it?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 13, 2004 @11:45AM (#10806778)
    Very poor analogy. A better one would be an environmental activist driving an SUV but telling you that SUVs are evil and you should not drive one.

    Would you listen to advice from this person?
  • by Spankophile (78098) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @12:14PM (#10806916) Homepage
    How many times does it have to be pointed out to you morons that BEING ILLEGAL DOESN'T MAKE IT WRONG!... it just won't sink in!
  • by cybrangl (621520) on Saturday November 13, 2004 @01:00PM (#10807182)
    Perhaps, but they didn't buy THAT license. MS will be one of the first to send the BSA your way if you end up with a pirate license because you can't find your own. Besides, this is smoke, and if there is smoke, there will be fire.
  • by clarkcox3 (194009) <slashdot@clarkcox.com> on Saturday November 13, 2004 @03:17PM (#10807954) Homepage
    How does that change anything? I have a valid license to a copy of Photoshop, but that's on my laptop at home. Should I feel justified in using a pirated version at work because it would allow me to "get my work done faster" than if I drove home to fetch my computer?

If you think the system is working, ask someone who's waiting for a prompt.

Working...