Talk:Warez/Archive 1

"(with a maximum speed of 56 kbit/s becoming possible in early 1999 with the advent of V.90). "
I believe this is incorrect. V.90 only combined two competing 56k standards. 56kbps existed, and was commonly available, before V.90. --Mister Tog (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Cable Modems and University systems were obviously common by 1997-1998. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilfredGuerin (talk • contribs) 23:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Motivations
Unlike the pirated DVD/CD manufacturers and street vendors, cracking groups claim they gain no monetary profit from their actions. The stated motivation of these groups varies. Warez groups are competitive amongst each other, and a fast warez release is viewed as a social accomplishment.

Other motivating factors given by cracking groups include :

a) They see the morality of copyright infringement as much more disputed than that of conventional property theft, and members of warez groups often view their actions as socially positive.

b) The alleged impossibility of copyright enforcement.

c) The perceived injustice of not sharing information with those who could not afford to obtain it otherwise (and thereby comparing themselves to Robin Hood).

d) They also claim that a warez release may actually increase the value of software through the network effect.

e) Finally, laws such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act may also contribute to the motivations of those involved in warez, as user rights are, according to their view, increasingly threatened in the United States, and rights holders attempt to lock out consumers.

People opposed to warez typically argue that the motivating factors given by cracking groups are not authentic

a) They claim the morality of copyright infringement is not disputed in the legal community, or in mainstream society.

b) They typically justify enforcing copyright for the same reasons that laws against picking car locks are enforced.

c) They argue that "could not afford" typically disregards the concept of saving money.

d) Though they might not disagree that there is a network effect, they argue that the value of this is neglible compared to the legitimizing of a minority enforcing its own views outside the normal democratic channels.

e) Warez opponents would argue that as long as cracking groups are participants in a democratic society it is not for them to violate laws at will. They would further argue that cracking and warez has no relation to civil disobedience, which is often considered legitimate.

?

- 80.202.111.88 22:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This article strikes me as pretty biased as it stands. The way in which it is biased is somewhat subtle, or at least somewhat difficult to explain, and it's a kind of bias I think Wikipedians need to be on the lookout for.

Warez groups are, not to put it nicely, criminal. Moreover, this is obvious to everyone except those who are morally or otherwise opposed to proprietary software, which would be 99% of the population that uses any software at all. When I say this, it appears to be with the intent of wanting to make you disrespect what script kiddies do; and while many people will recognize that script kiddies are literally criminals, they wouldn't want actually to say so. The present article, on the other hand, has the opposite approach: it simply reports that warez is "copyrighted software which is traded freely, in violation of the copyright license." What does it mean to trade copyrighted materials freely? Does it mean pretending that they're free, or treating them as if they were free? It means, for example, stealing the bookkeeping software that your mother paid $50 for, from a company that hires bunches of programmers who have families to support. Moreover, to represent the ordinary reaction to the notion of "warez" adequately, the article should, fairly early on, make it clear that pirated software is distributed by only a small minority of software users, and that many (probably most) people in at least most of the Western world would have moral objections to this. Perhaps some light could be shed on the moral views (or lack thereof) of the warez kiddies, too.

Instead, the article complains in the second paragraph that "the deliberate circumvention of software copyright protection" was outlawed in the U.S., as if copying copyrighted software was not illegal in the first place and as if that were not the issue that law-abiding and rights-respecting people would care about. By highlighting the fact this early on in the article, that warez tools are outlawed in the U.S., the article conveys the impression (to me, and I doubt I'm unique in this) that the authors of the article have some sympathy for those who use such tools to crack copyrighted software.

This becomes all the more clear in the next paragraph:


 * Also known as warez d00dz. Members of warez groups are generally male high-school or undergraduate students who go by aggressive handles, and may be referred to derogatorily as warez kiddies. (See script kiddies.)

Who calls them "warez d00dz" other than the "warez d00dz" themselves? The moniker should be attributed. And what is an "aggressive handle"? I would instead write: "Members of warez groups call themselves 'warez d00dz' (i.e., with '0' in place of 'o'), while their detractors refer to them to derogatorily as "warez kiddies." Members of warez groups are generally male high-school or undergraduate students who go by nicknames ("handles") such as [examples of "aggressive handles"]." For me, there's an immediate difference I hope you can see too: we do not espouse the terminology of people that we, as fully responsible adults, might consider to be silly adolescent hoodlums. I'd add the parenthetical remark, by the way, in order to distance the authors of the article from silly adolescent orthography.


 * 0-day warez is released the same day as the commercial release, and is a mark of accomplishment within the community.

Oh, isn't that nice--Wikipedia recognizes that warez groups constitute communities (I'd use the word "group," which is more neutral and less approving--but not disapproving, either). And Wikipedia officially cares that infringing copyright is "a mark of accomplishment" according to this "community." Isn't that nice. I would write instead: "Warez groups dub '0-day warez' any copyrighted materials illegally distributed by warez groups on the same day as the commercial release. Warez groups regard this as a mark of accomplishment."


 * Negative-day warez (that is, works released by warez groups before commercial release) are even more impressive but (as of 2001) becoming somewhat commonplace in the field of motion pictures.

Similar remarks and revisions would apply. "Even more impressive"! Oh, I'm so impressed!

Another funny thing about the above is the faux formalism involved: "becoming somewhat commonplace in the field of motion pictures." By describing warez kiddies' behavior in this formal sort of way (which is bad writing style in any case), the reader is distanced from the full meaning of what the warez kiddies do.

I might write instead: "Warez groups dub "negative-day warez" any works--software and software-encoded media--that are distributed illegally by warez groups before their commercial release. Increasingly as of 2001, software hacking techniques are applied to digitally-released films obtained before their release in theaters.  For example, in [date], [film name] was distributed on the [name] warez network [n] days before it was released on theaters.  Warez groups are even more impressed by this 'negative-day warez' [note the scare quotes--very important] than by 'zero-day warez'."

The following, added as an afterthought to the end of the present article, strikes me as bizarre:


 * Software piracy
 * Warez are considered "software piracy" by business and government officials.

How did the authors managed to convince themselves that the reader would be sympathetic to their views, so much so that they would buy the notion that only business and government officials are worth mention as regarding "warez" as "software piracy"? So, nobody else regards it that way either? And notice the scare quotes around "software piracy." And notice that this is at the end of the article. Oy.

Not only should the more common view of warez--which is not, fantasy notwithstanding, just the view of business and government officials--be fully represented, indeed it should have more "air time" than the hacker view, because it is indeed the more common view!

Moreover, I think there should be mention of the moral views associated with warez groups and with copyright holders and others opposed to them (including the ordinary decent people who see nothing wrong with actually spending money for software--i.e., most of us). That might seem uncool to script kiddies, but y'know, we are or should be trying to act like adults on Wikipedia. So I think some mention should be made of the fact that what warez groups do is, on the view of the vast but silent majority, morally wrong. (Of course, they love being called morally wrong, but no matter...)

Why didn't I just fix the article? Because this article as it stands illustrates very well a not-uncommon twist on the standard bias problem, and I'd like to let it sit up there as an example of how not to write an unbiased article. I'll fix it later, in light of any comments.

--Larry Sanger

I agree that the article is biased. But your characterization as "criminal" is not completely neutral either, in light of the fact that software has only been protected under copyright since 1980, and copying software without profit motive has only been a crime since 1997 in the US (and is not a crime in most other countries). In most countries (and in most cases in the US), copyright infringement is not a crime but an actionable civil matter between copyright holder and infringer.

See http://www.cybercrime.gov/ipmanual/03ipma.htm#III.A.

AxelBoldt

Why is it that when I state my opinions in talk pages, people sometimes accuse me of being biased? It's very strange. Talk page discussions needn't be unbiased. Articles are supposed to be unbiased. I can be as biased as I like on talk pages.


 * I don't know why people sometimes accuse you of being biased; I preemptively pointed out an imprecise use of the word "criminal" because you said you were planning to rewrite the article. AxelBoldt

I really don't care what the recent changes to the laws are. I admit I was using the word "criminal" too loosely to avoid confusion (or pedantic responses :-) ). If someone were to publish and sell copies of some profitable novel to the detriment of the profits of the legitimate publisher, I'd consider that stealing and hence criminal behavior, regardless of whether the applicable law was criminal law or not.  The fact that the issue would have to be settled in civil court rather than criminal court doesn't matter to me, or not to the point I was making anyway.  Stealing is stealing.  And if you disagree with this philosophical point, that's your prerogative.  (Obviously, I'm not a legal positivist.) --Larry Sanger


 * I'm going to disagree with you here. Stealing is stealing, and stealing is illegal and copyright infringement is illegal, but copyright infringement is not stealing.  You're not depriving the original copyright owner of his property when you pirate software.  You're (insert: possibly --67.68.10.3 14:58, 11 May 2004 (UTC))  depriving them of the opportunity to make money by duplicating the expression of their work and selling it at the price of their choosing.  Copyright expires, property rights don't.  The laws legislating both are entirely different.  Do you also consider patent infringement theft?  Whilst the original article, as you said, was biased, but I believe that you are drawing too broad an analogy between two seperate crimes.


 * In any case, the discussion of software piracy shouldn't be on this page anyway. It should be on a page entitled "software piracy", as "warez" consists of only a fraction of the pirated media out there.  In my view this article should be restricted to discussion the "warez" groups, their methods, and their justifications, with the more general issues dealt with elsewhere.  --Robert Merkel


 * But warez, as opposed to other pirated software, is distributed for free without profite motive, which raises interesting legal and moral issues. AxelBoldt

The example "If someone were to publish and sell copies of some profitable novel" does not seem to be relevant since the very definition of warez implies distribution for free. I think the distinction between criminal and civil court is important: it can mean the difference between 3 years in a federal penitentiary compared to mere monetary damages (which one can always get out of by declaring bankruptcy). AxelBoldt

To Larry Sanger - Morals have no place in an unbiased domain, as morals are simply the accepted bias of the majority.

Also, you may or may not know this(you don't seem to have first-hand experience in the warez community from the viewpoint of your entire proposed article revision above^^^), but warez teams and uploaders strongly and consistently encourage people to support the companies whose software or media they crack/upload by buying their products.

You mention you consider anything that is "[to] the detriment of the profits of the legitimate publisher" being illegal. Does that mean you consider negative appraisal by people or buyers suggesting their friends not to buy as illegal? After all, convincing someone to not buy a book they're about to is definitely to the detriment of the profits of the legitimate publisher.

HaploTR (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

--

I think the term pirate is misleading (do software pirates rape and pillage?) and pejorative when refering to copyright infrindgers. It is more accurate and neutral, in my opinion, to refer to them as copyright infrindgers since that is exactly what they are. The article can of course make mention of the fact that some people call them pirates, and also mention, as I have already put, that this word game is a thinly veiled attempt for business to cast the free flow of information conversation in their favor. --ShaunMacPherson 14:58, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

The term "warez d00dz" is probably a pejorative invented by Eric_S._Raymond for the jargon_file. It should probably be dropped, it's rather infantile.
 * Do you have any evidence to back up such a prepostorous claim, Mr. Anonymous? Didn't think so.  Radman1 01:54, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've been active in the scene for a few years, and I've never seen that(perhaps since 2004 it has simply aged out?). I agree it is rather infantile, and belonging to the largest separate warez community in the world(by membership base), I hope I can speak with some authority regarding the "majority" of the scene. After all warez aren't done by groups alone these days. Huge amounts of uploads are done by individuals.

HaploTR (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there a wikipediese term for this sort of bias reintroduction that Sanger above was attempting? (Of course, I haven't bothered to look up the version of the day when that comment was made, being as its signature wasn't accompanied by a timestamp...)

I mean, I'd expect something of the sort to have cropped up in the past. "These people are EVUL TERRUR-ISTS! This article should not condone their evil ways, but instead characterize them as CRIMINULS und ze HERETICS, because zat is what zey ARE. Wo ist Fritz?" and so forth. Sheesh. One would expect that a high old fart in the Wikipedia hierarchy would know better. 88.112.2.159 00:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I would like to propose here that warez and software piracy be merged, since warez are, loosely termed(by warez members), "illegally distributed content not for profit", whereas software piracy is pretty much the same thing. Warez include every aspect of media: e-books, music, movies, computer and console games, applications, operating systems, pictures, etc. I'm not sure what else software piracy could include that isn't covered under the warez umbrella. Perhaps the method of distribution(warez generally are http(direct link) accessible, where "software piracy" might be mostly torrents and p2p sharing)?

I'm not sure of how to go about an official "merge request" or something of that nature.

HaploTR (talk) 16:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

List of warez groups
Someone just removed the list of warez groups, posting no comment or explanation. I'm inclined to put them back in, as there hasn't been any discussion and the list links to other Wikipedia articles or interest.


 * I have restored the warez groups subsection which were censored by an anonymous user. If someone has a gripe they can bring it to the Talk page first.  -- Radman1

There was a sub-stub with a short list of warez groups. I have changed it to a redirect to this article. However, four groups are not in the main article. Please check whether there are really groups and add them. Thanks. --Edcolins 11:19, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Myth
 * CLASS
 * RELOADED
 * Hoodloom

The list has been reintroduced as List of warez groups and is no longer a sub-stub. Check it out. &mdash;RaD Man (talk) 07:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * There's dozens, even hundreds of warez groups and some are exclusive to movies other are exclusive to games and they wont always include a txt or nfo file and sometimes the file gets replaced by the person who distributed it. Listing a small fraction of the groups seems pointless and so does listing all of them. Black death 20:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Piracy?
suppose somone is doing it in a country with little or no software laws or in international waters nothing illegal about it when you're in those places Dudtz 8/18/05 5:32 PM EST

Warez helps Microsoft?
The claim that warez actually helps major software companies is unsourced and of dubious merit. Without credible evidence, it can serve no purpose other than to justify illegal activity, and should be removed. Beaker342 what about stuff that doesn't get sold anymore warez is the only way to get it meh

Criticism on Alkivar
Seeing this article undergoing a lot of changes suddenly (on about 14 September 2005), I'm very angry to see one guy named Alkivar distorting and controlling information which he likes to listen only in the "Warez" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warez) article. The following are what he did: (I may be wrong, so you'd better see "history" to witness his acts!)
 * 1) Arbitrarily delete others additions/contributions at will without reasons
 * 2) Arbitrarily destroy/remove links to terms at will without reasons
 * 3) Arbitrarily delete arguments which don't suit his tastes without reasons (too many situations! Eg: Movie Piracy)
 * 4) Rewrite others work. (What he did was to change the wording of some statements to his liking, or simply rewrote the whole paragraph with his own liking word, without adding any new contents! What's the point of doing all these?)
 * 5) Distort others work (Since he discarded parts of information once in a while, it distorted the meaning of the whole statement or claim)
 * 6) Create many unnecessary edits (What's the real purpose of making more than 40 edits in one day! Why not just group all changes and edit once?)
 * 7) Suddenly edit a page many times at a short while (What's the real purpose of editing more than 10 times within about 20 minutes?)
 * 8) Leaving rude comments (eg "this is not written for a 14yr old..")

I'm so sorry to say Alkivar does little to the article (although he had some contributions, his arbitrary manner and disrespect of others' work aren't tolerated. He'd better spend time to enrich the contents, rather than "cleaning" and "re-organising" the article! A Wiki's article is people's article, not your article! Anyway, I may be wrong in interpreting the philosophy of Wiki and it is in fact ok to delete others' contributions. -- Someone, 14 September 2005. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.78.78.229 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 14 September 2005  (UTC)
 * Things are quite busy here at the moment, but at Alkivar's request I have judiciously reviewed the article history and have overall found his edits to be beneficial to this article. Wikipedia has specific policies and guidelines in place regarding how to edit, and from what I can see he is working within that framework.  If you do not mind, please cite specific diffs for peer review if you disagree with one or more of this changes.  Best regards, Hall Monitor 20:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I also found Alkivar's edits to be a dramatic improvement. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

My reply to "Someone"
There is one rule at wikipedia which is placed above all others... Now let me address your comments one at a time:
 * If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.


 * 1,4,5) I have not arbitrarily deleted or distorted anything, I have rewritten this article to a consistant NPOV and to make the prose somewhat more consise, I have also attempted to fix the broken english which was added by a non native english speaker.
 * 2) Policy states there is such a thing as too many wikilinks. For example one paragraph had 9, I repeat NINE wikilinks to the word computer this is rediculously excessive. Any other links were changes so as to redirect them to the CORRECT ARTICLE this is known as disambiguation, something you should be appreciating not being upset about.
 * 3) I have not and will never "Arbitrarily delete arguments" you will note any and all arguments that were in other sections have been MOVED to the ARGUMENTS subsection, the data is STILL THERE!
 * 6,7) "Create many unncessary edits" well shucks I didnt know minor editing was a problem! oh wait thats a perfectly legitimate editing style! Look I can edit a little at a time or edit all at once... there is no "right way" to edit on wikipedia. As for editing many times in a short while, you'll notice most of these edits were to correct slight mistakes in the way my previous editing was displayed (margin goofs and image wrapping does not always show in a preview).
 * 8) "Leaving rude comments" if users would submit content in english the form that is acceptable for an encyclopedia, not headings written in "L33t" it wouldnt be an issue. Yes I was rude, I'm sorry, but please write in english.

As for "doing little" to the article? please go double check this articles history, I have basically written 60% of this article, and the entire Movie Piracy section was originated by me. Not to mention EVERY SINGLE IMAGE was added and CREATED by me.

As for "He'd better spend time to enrich the contents, rather than "cleaning" and "re-organising" the article!" are you freaking kidding me?!?!?! Some of the most important work done on this encyclopedia is to clean up and reorganize data so as to make it more readable.

Look dude I have no problem with you adding content to this article, but when most of your contribution is to add content from wikilinked articles into this one, and to add empty subheadings... I don't see this as beneficial, but merely as more data that needs to be trimmed and reorganized. ALKIVAR &trade; 19:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Bittorrent vs. other P2P
It is a common claim that BT introduced uploading while still downloading, but this functionality has been in P2P protocols for long. For example, Edonkey does share incomplete files still in progress and maybe even Kazaa supports this (not sure about that though). While Bittorrent has given a catchy name for the media to use and indeed does some things better than the predecessors, it shouldn't be thought being the only thing making high-volume sharing possible.

And, it should be noted that it is indeed the different communities that non-global network creates (i.e. you can't just search for files as it is with Edonkey etc.) that act as a catalyst, compared just to the technology aspect. If you want to plunge deeper into this Bittorrent subject that is.


 * BitTorrent came after the P2P wave and the creator admitted that it wasn't any original concept, the reason its grown so much is because: you need to donwload a file from the web to start the download rather than search within a program and because multiple users could comment on its quality/authenticity. Both are good forms of filesharing it's a shame P2P is dieing (besides for music). Black death 20:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

On Topic
Most of the recent edits to this article have strayed far, far, FAR from the topic - Warez.

This is not a page for BSA press releases. This is not the counterfeiting page or the copyright infringement page. The Pro/Con arguments are a great place for your biases, otherwise, lets have this article be informational only. Saying that the BSA started an antipiracy campaign in 1992 has little to do with warez since said campaign targeted counterfeitting. These activities are only mildly linked and don't justify multiple paragraphs of explanation.

Warez is the modification of software to remove copy prevention features and/or the distribution of commercial software and shareware/webware in an electronic format (remember, not all software is protected). It also includes media formats such as MP3, XVID, VCD, SVCD, etc.


 * Expanding on this, this portion early in the article is very strained. I started reading the article about warez, and within a few lines, this off-topic monstrosity was waiting for me: "All words have shades of meaning, some denotative, others connotative, some implying social acceptability, others pejorative. Whoever controls access to the discourse is able to pick the words with meanings that frame the reader's response. While the term 'piracy' is commonly used to describe a significant range of activities, most of which are unlawful, the relatively neutral meaning in this context is "...mak[ing] use of or reproduc[ing] the work of another without authorization" [1]. Some groups (including the Free Software Foundation) object to the use of this and "
 * ??!???!??! Da hell is this doing in an article about warez?! Dxco 22:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism on Alkivar - One More Chiming In!
Alkivar's revisions seem to be posting an agenda (piracy is bad, mkay!) rather than being useful or informative. Most of his revisions have little to do with warez, and pretain to counterfitting etc. Also, it seems through his numerous edits he is slowy trying to shift the focus of the page from information to campaigning against warez... and frankly I don't care if that's your agenda, just don't do it on a Wikipedia page that is heavily referenced by traditional and online media.

Information on this page should be informational imo, and recently it hasn't been.


 * LOL anti-warez me ... LOL thats the biggest joke ever ... for fucks sake i was in the scene for 15 years! go read ... United Cracking Force Apocalypse Production Crew. As for being anti-warez ... its called NPOV ... we need to include both sides not make the whole article \/\/4r3Z 1Z /<~R4|) l337 /\/\4/\/!!!!1   ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 04:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Alkivar - Whatever claims you make (and your attitude here is showing something about you), I could care less. This is a page that I have referenced in a research paper, and that has been quoted extensively in mainstream press, however your recent edits have drastically changed the page for the worse. You edits are FAR from NPOV, most of them have little relation to the scene. Street vendors may pick up some of their content from the net, but they are not "part of the warez scene." The previous image was far better suited. The page is now even heavier on the media aspect, which is only a recent development compared to the software side, and you lack a true history of warez, instead focusing on BSA campaigns etc. Both sides are presented in the Pro/Con section yet you have clearly and consistantly altered the introduction, changing it from an informational intro to a heavily slanted press-release that sounds like BSA spin-doctoring. For example: The term "warez" has NOTHING to do with "a contraction of warehouses", that sentence has been included IMO merely to make a connection between counterfeitting and the warez scene. This is a blantantly false statement - the term warez has always stood for "Software" with the traditional "leet speak" Z tossed in. Judging from you little attempt at humor based on my serious concerns, I guess you know what "leet" speak is, but those of us who use this page for research do not look upon your attitude favorably.

I'll be more than happy to contact a mod for you and take this issue to moderation if you so desire.

Contradiction in Info
I seriously wonder if people even read what they write. For example:

"The term generally refers to releases by organized groups, as opposed to peer-to-peer file sharing between friends or large groups of people with similar interest using a Darknet."

After virtually excluding P2P from the definition of warez by saying it refers to organized groups, the author(s) then add a section on Bit Torrent in the rise of piracy section. Now, the terms piracy and warez have become muddled due to certain people's edits, but considering the relatively short existence of BT, it seems extremely odd to include it in this section... but then, the history of warez section fails to mention to origins of warez (Copy parties, Mail Trading, C64/Amiga scene, links to demo scene, etc) so that's to be expected I suppose.

List of Biased Additions from Alkivar
- These will be brought before mods if the changes continue... these are blatantly false and/or biased statements: -   - - "warez" is not a contraction of warehouses. This definition is not found in any online reference. It is not accepted in the online community. In the excellent research into warez communities by Marquette Universities Eric Goldman, it is not mentioned once. I doubt Alkivar has even done his homework on this issue. -   - - Section mentioning the legality of backup copies in some nations was deleted/changed, only to say that some nations have "loopholes." Such laws, in some nations, i.e. Canada, are not loopholes, but intentional, written legislation. The Fair Dealings act is the perfect example. This is NOT the same as the loophole which allows P2P usage, and it is important to include both. -   - - The history of warez section has almost no relation to warez at this point. There needs to be a clear distinction between "warez" and traditional copyright infringement. This aspect is sorely lacking. Areas pretaining to "for-profit" piracy, which were present in past months, have been removed completely. -   - - The effect on open-source lacks almost any connection to warez. Open Source products are generally not distributed by warez groups unless created by said groups. A good reference for REAL DOCUMENTED cases in open source infringement, GPL-VIOLATIONS.ORG, was deleted by Alkivar for no apparent reason. Why delete a valid source? And then replace it with opinionated terms like "evil acts?" -   - - Edits to pro side - the term "steal" software is legally incorrect in most nations. The common, acceptable term is "infringe". Given the nature of this page, if someone isn't aware of this, they lack the basic ability to accurately comment on the topic. -   - Regardless of whether Alkivar is pro or con, his edits have only detracted from the quality of this page.

Note on Fake Edits by Alkivar
Would some mod PLEASE look into this user's trolling. The previous section - serious problems with his edits - were deleted by him as a "personal attack." This has become a joke - user Alkivar has turned this page into a disgrace. The page now features heavy bias, inaccurate facts, and he's willfully deleting valid comments and criticism from the discussion page to suppress opposing views.
 * Please sign what you write and edit to correct what you think is wrong with the article as it is.. Alkivar has mostly added positive reflect towards the article, which is more than some anonymous troll that destroys the current layout does.
 * S33k3r 00:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation - really?!
Is it seriously pronounced ? By whom? I, like everyone I've ever known who actually uses the word, have always pronounced it, just like "wares"... :/

&mdash; Haeleth Talk 14:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not add it, but both pronunciations are in common use, many of my friends use the "where-eS" *rolls eyes*  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 14:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * FOLDOC and Jargon File agree with me; I already edited the main page to remove the pronunciation given there, but based on your testimony I'm about to add the other pronunciation back in as an alternative. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 14:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Already did that as you were reverting... dont bother now :)  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 14:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You know I never heard any idiot pronounce it like Juárez until I moved south. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.241.144 (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Street pirate != Warez d00d
The accompanying photograph does not go with this article. Warez d00dz don't pirate for money, or work with physical copies.


 * Agreed Tatsh


 * And besides, the stuff street vendors sell is often _scene releases_ or _scene cracks_, so they just fuck it up and get profit from non-profit work.. like selling flowers you just collected in a public park. -- nlitement [talk]  11:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The street pirate picture is ridiculous. I've removed it. --Bri 06:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It' pronounced like this: Software-Softwares-Soft-Wares-Warez :D

English Computer Misuse Act
The section on the English Computer Misuse Act is completely, utterly wrong. This law protects computer users from unauthorized access to the data on their own computers, treating the owner of the computer as the owner of the data. Thus, it criminalizes attacks on other people's computers. It has nothing to do with protecting copyright-holders from unauthorized access performed by a user on his own computer. Therefore, the example of the music CD is right off-target. Indeed, the CMA probably affords protection in the opposite direction --- Sony's CD rootkit DRM could well be illegal under the CMA. Flagboy 15:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 3(1) A person is guilty of an offence if
 * a) he does any act which causes the unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer;
 * So, if data is loaded on to a compiter in read-only format, a crack modifies the content and constitutes the offence. What is the legal problem with that literal interpretation? David91 14:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with that interpretation is that under the CMA, the person with the power to "authorize" the modification of the contents of the computer is the owner of the computer. Clearly no-one's going to press charges against themselves for cracking their own computers! If the crack is installed on a computer without the knowledge or permission of the computer's owner, then an offence is committed under the CMA. Breaking technological protection measures is banned in the UK --- just not under the CMA. Flagboy 00:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You must realize, David91, that under your reading of the CMA it would be illegal to remove viruses from one's own computer. You're saying that an offence is committed if someone uses data in a way that the person who fixed the data did not authorize, even if you own the medium on which the data resides (i.e. modifying content on a read-only disk that you have bought). In the same way, removing a virus modifies data on a computer in a way that the person who put the data there (i.e. the virus writer) presumably did not authorize. I would be most surprised and concerned if the CMA were to be read that way. Flagboy 01:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Flagboy, I hope you will forgive me if I set out all the relevant parts of the CMA so that you can understand the issues. 3.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—
 * (a) he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and
 * (b) at the time when he does the act he has the requisite intent and the requisite knowledge.
 * (2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite intent is an intent to cause a modification of the contents of any computer and by so doing—
 * (a) to impair the operation of any computer;
 * (b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or
 * (c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data.
 * (3) The intent need not be directed at—
 * (a) any particular computer;
 * (b) any particular program or data or a program or data of any particular kind; or
 * (c) any particular modification or a modification of any particular kind.
 * (4) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above the requisite knowledge is knowledge that any modification he intends to cause is unauthorised.
 * (5) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether an unauthorised modification or any intended effect of it of a kind mentioned in subsection (2) above is, or is intended to be, permanent or merely temporary.

Let us work through the wording of the offence. There must be an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer". So, at first sight, anything stored on a computer is protected including a program package or a data file representing music, visual media, etc. But, to commit the offence, there must be intent and knowledge. For our purposes, see 3(2)(c) and 3(4) because the intention would be to impair the operation of "any program", i.e. to evade the operation of any encoded restriction on use, and the knowledge would be that the person who licensed the use of the program would not authorise this modification. To understand this conclusion, you have to apply s17: 17.—(1) The following provisions of this section apply for the interpretation of this Act.
 * (2) A person secures access to any program or data held in a computer if by causing a computer to perform any function he—
 * (a) alters or erases the program or data;
 * (b) copies or moves it to any storage medium other than that in which it is held or to a different location in the storage medium in which it is held;
 * (c) uses it; or
 * (d) has it output from the computer in which it is held (whether by having it displayed or in any other manner);

and references to access to a program or data (and to an intent to secure such access) shall be read accordingly.
 * (3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c) above a person uses a program if the function he causes the computer to perform—
 * (a) causes the program to be executed; or
 * (b) is itself a function of the program.
 * (4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(d) above—
 * (a) a program is output if the instructions of which it consists are output; and
 * (b) the form in which any such instructions or any other data is output (and in particular whether or not it represents a form in which, in the case of instructions, they are capable of being executed or, in the case of data, it is capable of being processed by a computer) is immaterial.
 * (5) Access of any kind by any person to any program or data held in a computer is unauthorised if—
 * (a) he is not himself entitled to control access of the kind in question to the program or data; and
 * (b) he does not have consent to access by him of the kind in question to the program or data from any person who is so entitled.
 * (6) References to any program or data held in a computer include references to any program or data held in any removable storage medium which is for the time being in the computer; and a computer is to be regarded as containing any program or data held in any such medium.
 * (7) A modification of the contents of any computer takes place if, by the operation of any function of the computer concerned or any other computer—
 * (a) any program or data held in the computer concerned is altered or erased; or
 * (b) any program or data is added to its contents;
 * and any act which contributes towards causing such a modification shall be regarded as causing it.
 * (8) Such a modification is unauthorised if—
 * (a) the person whose act causes it is not himself entitled to determine whether the modification should be made; and
 * (b) he does not have consent to the modification from any person who is so entitled.

Let us start with s17(6) because it does not matter where the program or data starts off. Then apply ss17(2)(a) and s17(7): because the crack has altered or added code to the program or data, and one of the possible results would be under s17(2)(b) that you have moved the material to a different location where either program or data might now be used without restriction (s17(2)(c) simply refers to use but that has to be read subject to s17(3) which refers to causing a program to execute, i.e. you cracked an access prohibition). If you made an unauthorised transfer to an MP3 player, see s17(2)(d). The test of lack of authority as contained in s17(5) is one of entitlement. You know all those long licence agreements that you do not read: well they are written by the people with the authority in law to control your access to what you purchased or acquired lawfully (if you got this far one the assumption that illegal acquisition might somehow put you in a privileged position, think again). And s17(8) confirms that you will be unauthorised if you are not the one in law who can determine whether the modification should be made and you know that the one who is so entitled would not consent. Hope that clears up any misunderstandings. Incidentally, I agree any music, games or video CD that writes code to your own PC's root which modifies the OS or any application without the owner's authority would commit the offence, but persuading the CPS to prosecute would be an uphill task. David91 06:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Conforming to a Higher Standard
I guess I understand why this page is locked but there are some sections, notably the section with the pro-warez arguments, that could seriously conform to much higher higher standards of English. I don't know if this has ever been suggested, but could there be people whose editing privileges were limited to fixing issues of poor grammar and unclear writing? I suspect that upwards of 95% of my edits on Wikipedia consist of fixing small issues such as these and I would be willing to agree to only make that kind of edits (as opposed to editing actual content). I suspect there may be others out there like me. Obviously this system would have to be based on trust so if someone was making lots of biased or content-based edits, they would lose their special editorship.

The point is these people would be allow to edit content-protected pages and then even when pages content was static the articles would be able to continue to progress towards a higher standard of English.

Oh, and also it would be pretty keen if someone could neaten up the English in that section and elsewhere in this article. - Mswer 19:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * State more specific problems next time and we'll get right to it :)  ALKIVAR &trade;[[Image:Radioactive.svg|18px|]] 05:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Change Topsite links to point towards Topsite_(warez) instead the disambiguation page.

S33k3r 21:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

changing piracy to infringement
Changing piracy to copyright infringement doesn't work, they're not entirely interchangable concepts. If 'piracy' isn't felt to be appropriate - and you should get consensus on this, I and others feel it is, and the article has been fine like this so far - the article needs more changing than a simple replacement of the words. User:Alkivar has said something similar to this on User:For great justice.'s talk page, too. As such, reverting again. --Fuzzie (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Piracy is not the right word, it is a very loaded POV term. One that is promoted by the media content industry with the purpose of equating copyright infringement with violent theft, and by some infringers, who like the romantic swashbuckling overtones. Others, like the FSF object to the term, because it does not describe the action. What is being talked about here is unauthorised distribution of copyright material. That is the correct term for it, piracy is loaded and POV. For great justice. 02:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not particularly arguing piracy is a neutral term, I'm just saying that "copyright infringement" isn't appropriate, in my opinion ('piracy' here and elsewhere refers to actions which don't necessarily fall under that, as Alkivar mentioned somewhat), and that I think you'll have a hard time finding a more appropriate word/phrase which you can just arbitarily replace the existing sections with. --Fuzzie (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You keep saying they're not the same thing. What's the difference? Can you define them? I'm not sure you're using the same definitions as the rest of the world. For great justice. 02:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * From Google's define feature for 'piracy' .. "The unauthorised duplication and/or use and distribution of a software program", "Unauthorized decryption and distribution of protected content in any medium, including audio, video, and text", "The copying, and/or distribution of software without the permission of the writer or publisher" are a few demonstrating definitions which aren't completely compatible with "copyright infringement".


 * I'm mostly concerned about the fact that "copyright infringement" implies that you're infringing copyright law, which might not be the case, depending on the country you're in and the laws you apply, and that cracking stuff is also often referred to as piracy. Alkivar only referred to the first issue there, but that means I'm at least not being completely crazy here. --Fuzzie (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Cracking without distribution is not refered to as piracy, otherwise, it seems that your definition of piracy is unauthorised distribution of copyright content? For great justice. 03:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Cracking software and then using it on multiple machines in violation of the license is generally considered piracy, as far as I can tell - which I wouldn't consider "distribution", since it's still in your possession, essentially - as mentioned in the "copying/duplication" bits of definitions above. And two of the definitions above (and others elsewhere) mention unauthorised uses (eg, decryption) as piracy, although I'd be more iffy about those and they wouldn't seem to be relevant to the definition here..


 * And, in addition, off the top of my head without checking this, wouldn't people using a 'pirated' copy of some software generally be considered pirates (and their actions piracy), despite the fact they've done no actual duplication (well, unless you consider use to be duplication into RAM)? Certainly the media content industry try and push that meaning. --Fuzzie (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So you'd say it was unauthorised copying or distribution? And you agree that pirating is a POV term. Let's go for that? For great justice. 03:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course "piracy" is a term that can be interpreted in different ways: many pirate figures are awarded heroic qualities for defying the system and bringing the masses goods and services without paying excise duty or other taxes, and those who suffer loss will always wish to ascribe a pejorative meaning. So we have had pirate radio stations, pirates smuggle cigarettes and alcohol (sometimes with the collusion of the tobacco companies), etc. But, for better or worse, no matter what the context, the term defines the debate as to the real degree of legitimacy to be attributed to the behaviour. If you wish to conflate breach of copyright, licence, and contractual term both as civil and criminal acts, and add in distribution by all media with or without a commercial aim, suggest another neutral term. I am sad to say that copyright infringement does not hack it (as they say). David91 04:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What about unauthorised copying and / or distribution? The fact that pirate is widely used doesn't make it any less POV - the term is used by some sides of the debate, not others, and the term itself is part of the polemic. It would be like putting the main article of Inheritance tax under death tax. The latter may deserve an article as a piece of polemic, but is essentially POV. For great justice. 04:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a bit inelegant but it does begin to avoid the pitfalls. A Robin Hood cracker might make the code available for breaching anti-copy subroutines or point to sites where unauthorised copies are available for download. There are also distribution systems where multiple download sources are accessed for constituent elements (none of which are of use on their own) and then reconstruct into the whole by reference to a meta-copy. The difficulty is that once you abandon the use of the convenient term, you open a Pandora's Box of other questions. I agree with you that convenience should not be a reason for using any particular term, but the more complex you make any phrase and then substitute it for "piracy" throughout the article (because obviously, if "piracy " is inappropriate in one place, it is inappropriate throughout) then the more the reader is going to be faced with redundant verbiage. David91 04:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I hear you. What about a section early on discussing the controversy of the word, and then looking at each usage, and seeing which ones could be replaced with something specific and pithy, and which ones should stay? For great justice. 05:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You took the words right out of my mouth. I was also going to suggest a short paragraph in the introductory section explaining the manipulation of the debate by the use of terms (not just "piracy") with a negative connotation. I am somewhat busy doing other things at present but, not that it actually means anything, you have my blessing to go right ahead and do it. David91 05:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool - I'll take a look when I get some time. For great justice. 05:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not getting back to this discussion - your idea sounds like a good improvement, I look forward to seeing some results (or perhaps if I find some time, helping out myself). --Fuzzie (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * David - I like your changes. ;) For great justice. 18:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Anyway, I have a rare talent for making something very simple sound really obscure. :) David91 02:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Administartor Curps Is vandalizing This Article

 * Keep readding the section "P2P release process" which reads like written by some 12 year old pirate wannabe.
 * Keep adding Pirate Bay picture even though it has nothing to do with the article.


 * I'm responsible for that section, but if you feel like it's written in bad manner, be bold and edit it to conform higher standards.
 * The source for the "p2p release process" follows roughly the path observed online for releasing of Need for Speed: Most Wanted - Black edition, which started to spread as a clonecd on several forums and torrent sites. From what I could tell, the source was apparently somewhere in Singapore. Or atleast, the torrent was posted first on forums based in singapore.


 * For the pirate bay picture, I have no idea where it came from. Though, pirate bay is somewhat related to warez article, since warez doesn't automatically mean scene anymore.
 * Kids with broadband tend to lean towards torrents, dc++ and other p2p, since those are much easier to use and more accessible to them than sites.
 * For peer-to-peer users, tpb is their holy place. A place where some individuals can stand against aggressive legislation thanks to loopholes in their legal system. It shows that Internet is truly international network, not some U.S. owned army research project anymore.


 * Keep adding in POV such as "release groups claim to look down on peer-to-peer networks and protest against users making their warez available on such networks. However, the most widespread way to release warez is to leak it through peer-to-peer file sharing networks"


 * Sounds like something I wrote aswell, atleast some parts of the first sentence. That entire section has been edited to contradict itself and should be edited to something more coherent. Lets dissect:
 * "release groups claim to look down on peer-to-peer networks" - This part isn't completely true.
 * Scene groups usually don't care about peer-to-peer networks, and in a perfect world, these two would never even meet.
 * "protest against users making their warez available on such networks" - True.
 * When people leak scene releases to p2p networks and get caught doing so, they usually end up mentioned on scene-notices, which then leads to scene-ban.
 * This means they won't be able to ever again gain access to topsites, atleast bigger ones, again in a perfect world...
 * "However, the most widespread way to release warez is to leak it through peer-to-peer file sharing networks" - Yes, public distribution leads to widest spread.
 * Though point of scene and groups never was/is to spread their releases to as many people as possible. The Scene not about public availability.
 * The point is to make the releases available to those people who offer their own time in supporting scene.
 * Wether this means releasing their own material or just couriering material released by others. (In theory, you could be big in scene just by releasing material you make yourself! There's no rule that defines you have to use stuff made by other people in order to release it.)
 * The last sentence refers to leak, which means reposting scene material on unauthorized channels. From scene point of view, leaks/leakers on sites are by far the largest security risk and should be purged on sight.
 * Following that logic, I'm a security risk for scene aswell by discussing this matter on public forums, and by donating information on several articles related to scene and sites.
 * (wanna guess twice why I'm using randomly selected pseudonym which cant be traced to me, and open proxies to post my entries here, instead writing with my own name and real ip address?)
 * (wanna guess twice why I'm using randomly selected pseudonym which cant be traced to me, and open proxies to post my entries here, instead writing with my own name and real ip address?)


 * Keep adding "Monopoly and cartel strategies" section even though it is a duplicate of "Criticism of copyright holders" argument.


 * I'll agree with that. The article is very long and has other duplicate sections. Complete rewrite would solve some of these problems, but who's bold enough to try such monstrous task? - S33k3r 16:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep inserting the POV that "copyright infringement is not morally wrong".
 * Morsensteiun 09:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And he has censorced the NPOV tag. Animistiez 09:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the return of the old anti-Alkivar troll, creating armies of sockpuppets, targeting Warez and related articles. He was active a few months ago and now has returned, same old story. A new twist is involvement in Wikitruth. Also vandalizing some math articles for no good reason. -- Curps 09:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL, no i'm not, but you are a good conspiracy theorist. I bet you also think Jews did WTC and Mexicans have taken over America. Diophatus 09:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to be implying that there's ever a good reason to vandalize. — May. 3, '06 [09:36] <[ freakofnurxture]|[ talk]>


 * Funny you mention "Jews did WTC", that's a standard GNAA catchphrase, and at least some of your sockpuppets do have a GNAA connection. -- Curps 09:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, i edited the GNAA article a few times, yep, that's pretty much as far as the connection goes. MajorPenny 10:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The whole anti-Alkivar campaign a few months back had a strongly suspected GNAA connection. It included the posting of Alkivar's personal information, which has been happening again today.  And one of your sockpuppets has a typical GNAA-style userpage. -- Curps 10:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Vandalizing the math articles (Topology and others) seems new, at least I don't recall that from last time. -- Curps 10:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

IP rant
NOTE TO ADMINS... REMOVE THE FUCKING LINK TO WAREZ IN EXTERNAL LINK  BY HAVING THE LINK YOU ARE CONDONING PIRACY...  WIREZ EXTERNAL LINK MUST BE REMOVED OR A LAWSUIT WILL BE FILED> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.182.12.242 (talk • contribs).
 * User has been given threat2 warning.--Drat (Talk) 05:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not condoning it's presenting examples of successful warez sites, would you rather the users search google for "warez" and end up getting a bunch of viruses? Black death 20:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Rise of the internet
There is a section which talks about how piracy is on the rise due to the increasing popularity of computers and improvements in networking (and some other things). It talks about how improvements in networking let us download things is minutes, which once would have taken days. This is a big thing for piracy, but a much bigger thing is the rise in internet usage in general. The increased popularity of the internet, not just the speed of the internet, is what is made piracy so easy for ordinary people. No longer do they need to have the right contacts or search information; because there is a place on the internet for everything. I think that if the popularity of computers is mentioned, and the speed of the internet is mentioned, then what I've just said should certainly be mentioned somewhere. Karadoc 07:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

US law
Could someone knowledgable about the exact legal status of pirating software in the US possibly write a section on that, similar to the British section already there? --66.130.37.253 16:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Formatting
I've fixed the ugly hack. 69.116.150.174 01:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

quote
"my neighbor downloaded 10 gigs of warez yesterday." Can someone point me to an ISP willing to provide me with that much bandwidth? please?--141.211.74.26 20:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you on dialup then? You can download 20gigs in one day using cable/dsl with 2Mbit downstream, which is quite common today(could be considered slow in some places).
 * That's 4 full length dvds already, how much more do you need in one day?
 * Your address suggests that you are using university connection, you should have more than enough bandwidth there.
 * S33k3r 12:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Prediction of increase in piracy
i predict, that there will be an increas in piracy due to the rising price of gas, who wants to waste there expensive gas driving to walmart to buy a game or program when they can download it for free on the internet, if only you could pay to download programs so that you dont have to leave home but you download a program legally, plus the rising cost of gas may increase shipping cost and the cost of programs at stores, heres my solution

guy go to website and pays $30 for a game

uses special bittorent like program to download from other downloaders, or a central server if there are no downloaders,

downloads all but a piece of the software ware from other people

last 10mb is the cd key and is diffrent for everyone

the good thing is the company would not have to package the game and would not have to ship it making it profitable, and the user wouldnt have to leave his house.

I deleted below

Effect of piracy on "free" and "open source" software
Piracy can also affect free and open source software. Since it is hard to monitor the distribution of software, malicious individuals and groups can take their software away with different illicit uses.

Some people simply take the free software away and claim it is their work. If it is open source software, it is even easier for them to remove any tracks which can identify the original author(s). They then add their own names and/or logos so as to pretend the work is their own.

Other people, in order to make a profit out of freeware, resell their products after stealing works from the original software authors. This affects popular downloads such as spyware tools and P2P-programs. An example is the Kuwaiti company OnlinePcFix, which offers a software named SpyFerret. This software's internal database was later revealed to have been stolen from the complete database of Spybot - Search & Destroy. To hide the fact that the company stole Spybot's database, they made use of weak encryption.

Modification and resale has occurred most with "open source" software, where the source code is freely available and modified. An example of this was CherryOS. Its authors took the source code from PearPC and sold it as their own creation. Although the group was later discovered to have copied source code, they still have not publicly acknowledged the theft. This act is against the principles of the GNU General Public License, under which PearPC was released.

None of this is related to WAREZ in any way. MAYBE its related to piracy, but definitely not WAREZ. If you tried to distribute open source or freeware or ANYTHING without a link to a retail product, it would be nuked as not acceptable for distribution because it isn't WAREZ. --BiFF 22:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

More info
Hi I've found a great website about the scene. It's more like a collection of all sort of info about the scene. http://www.aboutthescene.com/


 * Just exactly what new information is that page adding?
 * With quick lookaround, it's written 95% from wikipedia articles, and that 5% that's not here already is unsourced.
 * S33k3r 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Product piracy
I feel this section stands out in the article as being slightly clunky and unfocused. While it is useful to provide some backround information on the topic, to give context to the ensuing discussion, I believe this section spends too much time focused on product piracy, meandering from the topic at hand. This more general topic that Warez is a subset of could best be its own article, of which a salient portion could be used here.

I think perhaps that this section as well represents an understandble difficulty that writers and readers may encounter when discussing Warez: Warez is software piracy, and is piracy in general. However, not all piracy or software piracy is Warez. Warez represents a distinct sub-category to the topic, which is why we have a separate entry for it. A useful tactic to use when reviewing this article is to ask about each section, "does what I just read relate to Warez in particular, or instead to piracy or software piracy in general?" Those entries which are ultimately more concerned with the general topic of piracy or software piracy should be moved to their appropriate articles, leaving just those elements which focus on our particular topic.

To further stress this point, we should remember that there are many forms of software piracy (informal trading of applications among coworkers, bootleg cd's of software from the third world), and many forms of more general piracy (theft of copyrighted text, sharing of copyrighted music, misuse of patented technology or medicines). The form of piracy we are discussing here is one of many such categoires, and it is important that we focus on just it. This way, we can have a tight, focused article that clearly and succintly describes the issues and information for the interested reader. Again, Warez is not any of the above categories of piracy: it is a distinct type which arose from the early 1980's personal computer world, gained recognizable contemporary form during the BBS days of the 1980's and 90's, and became the organized protection-removal and distribution network we see today. Let's be wary of allowing too much of the parent topic to muddy our particular topic here. Dxco 05:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It sounded like out of context, since someone removed the history of warez headline. The point of that section is to line a path from early versions of copyright infringment to current day.
 * The entire section could(should?) be merged with User:IntrigueBlue/Piracy (information).
 * S33k3r 13:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Distribution Methods
The whole setion of "distribution methods" is very biased towards warez groups.

The "P2P" part about how a "normal kid" just rips a copy then posts it to a torrent etc, yes that does happen but the article talks like it's the only way warez gets onto p2p.(what the article is implying is published to p2p isn't even warez)

basicaly the whole section goes completely off-topic and describes how supposed fake warez is posted etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neosophist (talk • contribs) 20:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Agreed. Totally unencyclopedic. I recommend that someone with real first-hand knowledge and no serious POV bias completely revise that section. I suspect that most of the release groups these days are going straight to BitTorrent, but I can't be sure. Eugenitor 16:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

POV fixing
An enormous chunk of this article was written in an intensely POV fashion with a stark bias towards "the scene" and "topsites". I've removed all of the obvious BS, but someone with real first-hand experience and much more of a NPOV needs to go through and rewrite this. Eugenitor 17:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was written by someone with experience in warez but they just wanted to have more universal terminology?Black death 20:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Individual Sections for different types of warez
The ditribution of applications, movies, music and games should each have their own sections as they all have considerably different distribution methods.

Applications The majority of online warez is concetrated on them. They are usually distributed in RAR archives. They are most commonly uploaded to Rapidshare.com Theyre mostly found on DDL sites and warez forums.

Movies The majority of "street piracy" is concentrated on them, downloading movies and selling them is much easier than with applications or games. If they're sold theyre usually in the native DVD format or in VCD format. If theyre downloaded then theyre usually XviD encoded avi files and soemtimes tin bin/cue disc image files for VCD. Theyre mostly found on torrent sites and sometimes on DDL sites and warez forums.

Music It is the most common form of piracy as most people with internet conenctions do it. It is usually in 128 Kbps MP3 files. It is mostly found on P2P filesharing networks, the most popular programs are Limewire (Gnutella) and Ares (Ares Network).

Games Same as applications

Other Porn, eBooks, Scripts, Templates, etc. are mostly found on warez forums. Black death 21:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Organization
As a fresh pair of eyes reading this article, one thing that struck me was that the article seems badly disorganized. Symptoms of this include:

* Section 3 is named "Warez distribution". Section 5 is named "Distribution of Warez" * Section 2 (containing a single subsection) is titled "History of Warez", but doesn't actually contain any history of warez. * Section 2 does contain a summary of: the precursors to warez, and similar forms of piracy. Perhaps this content doesn't belong in the article, since it's covering different stuff... and perhaps just the relation should be noted and linked. Perhaps the section can be replaced or expanded with some analysis about how non-warez piracy affected warez. * The two subsections of section 3 contain a very nice narrative of the history of actual warez, but aren't in the history section. * The first paragraph of section 3 seems like it belongs in the similarly named section 5.

I wanted to make a note of these to see if anyone more familiar with this article wanted to jump in. If not, I'll add it to my todo list.

samrolken 07:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Distribution methods and what to do if things go wrong
This piece just gives a very specific situation, which i think comes, from a guy who once had a bad experience with warez and think this is the case for all torrent downloads. Which is imho bullshit and not necessary in this article. Possible (bad) consequences of downloading warez and the sometimes included viruses should be listed but not in this way. (First contribution, so I'm sorry if it's not what it should be) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.200.11.170 (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read the part referred to above, and cannot a) Make any sense of it. b) Understand how it relates to the article. I have removed it for these reasons. As an aside, the simple warez site was not working when I tried it. Aphswarrior (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Distribution
I dont know who wrote this article but it is not accurate. Warez is not ever intentionally distributed to Torrent sites or Rapidshare. That happens towards the end of the release cycle. Warez starts as a group getting a hold of a piece or software. The software is ripped (and i say software but movies and things too) and packaged then uploaded to an FTP site. It sits in a private folder on the site no one has access to (or can see) untill the group is ready to PRE it. A PRE is the process of making a release public on the site so it can be raced by couriers and essentially distributed to the (real) warez community. A Warez group has certain FTP sites (not all have this ability because not all have access to pre databases) that have been configured to add a PRE record (shows what time released, what section, release name, group who released it, etc) to a database upon PRE of a release from a site. The databases are distributed (there are hundreds) and there is no central database. All the databases are kept current by echoing from other databases who in turn echo from others etc etc. The quality of the pre database is sometimes judged on how old it is. Some databases reach back into the 80's. The front end to those databases are usually IRC PRE bots who's entire job is to display new PRE's (pre records) in a channel, or HTTP sites (ever wondered how vcdquality.com stayed current or isonews... stuff like that). I hope that makes sense its hard to explain... Anyway when the release is PRE'd it is moved from the groups private folder to the FTP sites public folder in the appropriate section. When this happens the prebot in that specific site channel announces a new pre has just occured on the site. This is so couriers are notified and can then race the new release to other sites. The whole goal is to get the release to your sites as fast as possible in return getting download credits on that site. Sites usually have time restrictions on releases (releases cant be uploaded after they are 5 minutes old according to the pre database etc) so courieres litterally race each other in uploading the latest warez to there sites. Okay now theres a little background on where warez is distributed. It gets to Torrent sites and Rapidshare and such because somewhere down the line of "official" distribution (warez is supposed to remain private within the "scene" which is what i just descibed) they get leaked out. Usually this is the result of IRC channels with XDCC bots in them. Those bots are hacked computers with IROFFER (or similar) and an FTP backdoor installed. The channel usually has a small dump (compared to the 10TB+ warez sites) where there channel couriers (who are probably scene couriers too or are friends with scene couriers etc) can get them new stuff to put on there bots. Also private bittorrent works the same way, they have some "inside" men to get them new releases too. All of this is HIGHLY frowned upon by the scene as cooperating with P2P is against the rules because warez is to remain private. Now, from the private bittorrent sites and IRC it is then trickled into public bittorrent sites by the users of those sites. From there I would assume it is public domain and thats how it ends up on Rapidshare and Gnutella and such. If someone could clean that up thats basically the warez process... Just thought I'd clear some things up... if any of this can be added to the article be my guest...

--former scener —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.32.174 (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Additional Terminology Useage
I'm pretty sure that having "Warez" in the name of a website is basic codename for "scam". I know it oughtn't be added to this article, but for people curious, I feel it should stay here. If anyone can find an exception to this rule, feel free to post it. --Gaeamil (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can find a reference that supports your claim, then go for it. Otherwise, WP:NOR. Ben (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the standard risk of engaging in semi-legal activities especially on the internet. The websites in plain sight are probably not genuine, but instead scams. Or in other words; Warez can not be googled (though piratebay is slowly changing that). This is no different from most other black markets. 85.235.250.110 (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Fake Bitorrents
someone should add to this section, about the fact that this could be regarded as entrapment and also, no actual crime has been commited so it would make prosecution impossible —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.90.75 (talk) 15:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

use of words
they should just use downloaded instead of leeched —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grue.z (talk • contribs) 00:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dontcopythatfloppy.jpg
The image Image:Dontcopythatfloppy.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --02:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

SPA propaganda
I certainly agree with other posters that the current article suffers from the preciosity of needless 'warez'-ey insider jargon, but on the other hand...

There seems to be a SPA-centric bias under the "Rise of software piracy" and "Movie piracy"; pungent phrasing like "high quality, commercially produced software", "thriving pirate communities", "entire networks of BBSes sprang up to traffic illegal software from one user to the next", "an international pirate network", almost sounds as if it could have been written by J. Edgar Hoover. Such advocacy begs the question of motives, arguing the typical '80s warez BBS was organized crime, a mafia-like den of thieves organized for selfish large scale profit.

The truth is far more fuzzy -- the typical warez BBS was a money losing venture, and typical users were not rich corporate criminals, but rather disenfranchised and too clever teenage geeks who couldn't afford software, who added to the mindshare of the big software corps with every product mastered. It seems possible those corporations gained more than they lost from these BBS's in that they educated experts, programmers and future consultants to use their proprietary software interfaces, and work around and publicize their bugs and features, later hiring many as valued talent, while losing little revenue from isolated teenagers without much money to spare.

The internecine warring among these geeks probably helped create a lot of viruses and the modern security/antivirus business, indirectly forcing commercial software engineering to improve as to be less susceptible and wide open, which has benefited virtually everyone. It's conceivable that without some social force like the hackers and crackers to counteract the prevailing corporate managerial intertia, irrational exuberance and corruption typical of large pyramid structured commercial software empires, that many more dangerous bugs would go unnoticed and swept under the rug, until the bugs would eventually manifest in various public catastrophes. Of course there's no way to measure how many billions, perhaps trillions of dollars that such unwanted conflict may have indirectly saved, though there might be basis for speculation by comparing the software industry to other powerful industries lacking such vigorous engineering balances.

Profit motivated organized infringement and bootlegging wasn't a practical possibility using '80s BBS tech. There was no way to accept illicit payment anonymously with a BBS or make big bucks bootlegging out of a North American suburban basement. Perhaps Asian software disk/disk counterfeiting rings might have made money, but is there any record or evidence of a North American warez baron made wealthy from trafficking in BBS warez? Never heard of it.

And so forth... the above reflections aren't original, but approximate some of the BBS thinking back in the day -- it sometimes was a thoughtful and self-aware culture. Anyway, emotive terms like 'piracy' are inappropriate unless quoted as citations of bias. I don't blame advocates for using one-sided language and two-valued logic, but their views should be framed as interpretive and interested views, not objective facts. --AC (talk) 08:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
23rd July 2008: User "WrzBoard 11" has added a link titled "The Laws Of Warez In UK & USA" under the "External Links" section. Please delete the spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.50.188 (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

15th July 2008: The user "Tsbay" has again re-added the link after it being removed by another user.

14th July 2008: User "Tsbay" has added a link titled "Official Warez Site" under the "External Links" section. Please delete the spam and ban the user.

References needed
Looking through the article and reading the talk page, I can see that there are a lot of people who have both a lot of knowledge about, as well as experience with warez, as well as having some passionate feelings about the subject.

Personally, I have no stake in any of the discussions one way or the other, but I am kind of amazed how far the article has gotten with hardly any references or citations to back up its sources. To me it reads like a laundry list of unsubstantiated claims and original research from beginning to end. I've added and  tags at the top.

I know that many of you have intimate knowledge of these things, and may find this to be almost a personal affront, because I can see that many of you really know what you are talking about.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, original research is out and you can't write about what you know without referencing some primary or secondary source. I know this was a hard pill for me to swallow when I first came across an article talking about an event some details of which I knew for a fact to be mistaken because I was there--but it wasn't enough that I knew the real story, absent something in print to point to, I couldn't simply just correct it on my say-so. For better or for worse, it's not good enough to write about what you know--you have to back it up with written proof cited from someplace else. (Under certain conditions, you could write an article about it yourself, get it published elsewhere, and then cite it.)

If you haven't been by lately, or ever, please review the Five Pillars of Wikipedia and note the emphasis on citing sources and on no original research right in the first two sentences.

So come on, guys--you all know this material way better than I do. Please pick up the gauntlet, hold off on adding too much new material for a little while, and start going through the article from top to bottom and adding the references it requires. I know there's a bit of grunt work behind it, tracking down all the references, but there's piles of material here that will have to go bye-bye if it isn't eventually supported by citations, and nobody wants to see that.

So, have at it! Maybe a little friendly competition, to see who can rack up the most (good) references. Mathglot (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The primary problem with citations is that this topic is by its very nature obscured and hidden from direct public view. It's like saying we cannot have an article on the mafia without having reliable source from mafioso scholars who have published books about their methods of shaking up people and strong-arming businessmen. Likewise you're not going to find warez scholars who have published reputable books about how to run a distro site on 0wned corporate servers.


 * Naturally of course people who want to document the ways and histories of the pirates are going to have a very hard time discussing anything openly.... because the pirates who want to keep this information suppressed can just keep pounding their no official source, delete! hammer.


 * I am preparing to make a screenshot of a typical EFnet warez channel to the Wikipedia Commons, to use as a cite for a big hunk of text I added... and a "free speech advocate" immediately deleted as "original research". Well, you can't really get any more solid than a direct screenshot of a warez IRC channel that exists and is operating right now. How's that for a solid reference? ;-) DMahalko (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * DMahalko, here is the first sentence from your edit:
 * Prior to the development of modern peer-to-peer sharing systems and home broadband service, the primary method of sharing warez involved hackers scanning the Internet for weakly secured computer systems with high-speed connections.
 * A screenshot of an IRC warez channel doesn't back that up. I could have slapped a fact tag on it, but the OR wasn't the only reason I removed it. The statement is wrong. Now, I can't prove it's wrong, but as you noted yourself, finding references to back up the claim isn't going to be easy either. If you can find those references though, then you're welcome to add it back in. Ben (talk) 12:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at this, a cite to back that up.
 * Google Books - Intrusion Detection with Snort - By Jack Koziol, Copyright 2003, page 72, published by SAMS Publishing, ISBN 157870281X, 9781578702817


 * Warez groups search the Internet for anonymous or easily hacked FTP servers to store warez or pirated software. They then give out the FTP login information to public IRC channels or other members, turning your FTP server into a hot spot for illegal software distribution. To obscure the location of the software from sysadmins, warez groups create strange-looking directories. Sometimes the Windows file system manager is unable to delete or display the obscured directories. Because of the size of the files and the large number of users accessing them, warez traders want to find the FTP servers with the most bandwidth. They test the connection speed with a 1MB file filled with random data. -- oops now I suppose you'll say this is too big of a block of text for a cite and so must be deleted. ;-) DMahalko (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this may not be such a hard article to cite after all.
 * Google Books search for "warez" -- 792 hits
 * DMahalko (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I think that's excellent, provided you modify your text. The word primary needs to go. You don't need to copy the paragraph either, cite book will help with this. Ben (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I did the above ref for you here (edit the page to get the code): Just need to place that at the end of the sentence you're trying to support (in this case, the first sentence). Cheers, Ben (talk) 13:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

warez sites
I think this article should have links to the most popular/better warez sites... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.113.32 (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's hard to link to secure FTP sites :) Rurik (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I too think a List of most popular warez sites or boards should be added. But guess, it may get termed as advting Warez sites.Becuase, people will be editing now and then to add their new sites to the list to get Traffic. Deviant

section "Rise of software piracy"
I think the tag should be added to this section because the bottom of this section sounds very unencyclopedic as well as opinionated, as there are no sources and is pure speculation.