Pirate Apple App Store Innovates With ‘Reverse BitTorrent’ | Hacker News Reader

Pirate Apple App Store Innovates With ‘Reverse BitTorrent’

torrentfreak.com

32 pointsUncle_Sam22 comments

> They do what they do because they believe that Apple’s App Store is unfair to consumers since it has no trial service or refund policy.

BS. They do this because they don't want to bother with paying a couple of bucks for an app. Plenty of apps are cracked, which actually offer a free version for testing. It's even factually wrong. Refund is possible…

Refund is not exactly easy though. There is the initial challenge that puts off a lot of users from even attempting to. A google style model(using a time limit from purchase to deletion) would be much fairer.

Though it does seem obvious to me that these people are just after a way not to pay for software. This tool will just increase the pirated crap.

Yeah, it is horsepuckey. Large groups of people have learned that there is no social censure for stealing certain types of goods. Stealing is strictly superior to buying for them. They'll steal it if it is possible. I have both trials and a very generous refund policy, and my downloadable app gets stolen frequently. (And my web app gets stolen never, which should be a preview of coming attractions for people who are going to wake up one day and wonder why nothing functions without an Internet connection.)

Piracy is not theft. Theft requires that one is deprived of some tangible benefit. Downloads cannot be strictly correlated to lost sales, because many download to sample, or download things they wouldn't spend money on anyway.

This doesn't mean you have to agree with filesharing, or think it's a good thing, or participate in it, but calling it "theft" is scaremongering.

Does that mean if I steal a yacht that it's not theft because I wouldn't have bought one anyway? Your logic seems flawed to me.

A better analogy would be drawing up plans from his yacht and using them to build another yacht for yourself. This is illegal, but it would be silly to claim that it is "stealing" from the yacht manufacturer.

It's stealing because you're depriving someone of that yacht. It's not a lost sale because you wouldn't have bought one.

It’s not really important whether it’s ‘theft’ or not, that’s just not relevant to the question whether it is morally acceptable or not.

>> Piracy is not theft.

No, some piracy is not theft. And some is.

You realize this semantic argument is old, tired, and does nothing to actually make people who pirate software look any better.

A 'semantic argument' is a core dump where I come from. Which is synonymous with 'pay-cuts'.

Piracy is also something completely different. It involves boats, killing, abducting and extorting people and gasp stealing stuff. So, go STFU with your apologetic nitpicking…

Piracy isn't theft in the sense of a depriving any one person of goods they would otherwise use.

Piracy is theft in the sense that it deprives a producer of the income or potential income that they would otherwise make from someone buying a good.

Piracy is like breaking into a warehouse full of unsold toys slated to be destroyed. It's against the law but it's hard to see it impacting a particular person negatively (not that it won't if no one buys toys the following Christmas).

It's conflict between those who believe digital or intellectual property opens up a whole different domain of "property" and those who believe the old rules should apply without change.

I would suggest those arguing for intellectual property not try to equate digital piracy with something like breaking into your neighbor's house and stealing their jewelry. It's a poor analogy. The argument that producers need and deserve to be paid probably carries more weight.

Piracy is theft in the sense that it deprives a producer of the income or potential income that they would otherwise make from someone buying a good.

So do successful competitors, boycotts, Internet FUD, and a whole slew of other things, in fairness.

It occurs to me that property (of any sort) is a metaphysical concept.

Frugality also fits the definition of "theft in the sense that it deprives a producer of the income or potential income that they would otherwise make from someone buying a good." If I were less austere, you could make a ton more money off me.

Also, property is not itself all that metaphysical, at least not if we accept the idea that things actually exist as we perceive them (which seems like the opposite of metaphysics). Some of the trappings we attach to it might be, but property is pretty fundamental to the idea of self. On a very basic level, my property is something I have.

While you have a point, it's mostly irrelevant to this discussion. We could argue about the legal punishment for property theft versus copyright infringement too but that's not relevant either.

No. The people who use cracked software probably do it because they won't or can't pay for it. But the people doing the cracking mostly do it for the simple reason that they can.

That's completely true, but having your app pirated by a ton of people (and engaging the pirates!) can really help drive actual sales, mostly due to exposure.

I hear this argument a lot, and wonder, is there any actual evidence out there to back it up/

It's interesting you mention that. I pointed that out today, and a new rule was implemented, saying that if a cracked application has a built in (fully featured) timed trial when it detects that it is a pirated version, then that check should remain intact and un-patched, otherwise the crack or request for the crack will be removed. Not perfect, but at least a step in the right direction (they didn't have an argument when it was brought up, because their reasoning is that people want a fair chance to try apps before paying, which this compromise allows).

I'd link to the thread on their forums about this new rule, but I'm assuming that most people in here are iOS developers who seem to be against this, so you probably don't have an account on their website and can't view the post.

I suspect doing this would run afoul of the Mac App Store guidelines. There is a bunch of language about trials, demos, licence keys, etc.

So... nice of them to say that, but I think it amounts to just lip service.

Similarly, why is Angry Birds available as a cracked download? There is a free version you can try out and decide if you like it. I call bullshit on the "try before you buy" axiom.

I agree that the whole "try before you buy" thing seems like bullshit, but let me confirm. The "new rule" I posted about above is referring to a case in which the application is a paid application that is cracked, but the application detects the crack and instead of limiting its functions or ceasing to work, it self-instills a "timed trial". Definitely would be annoying for developers to implement, but it will also make you kind of "untouchable" to the pirate/cracker community, since you as a developer are satisfying the "try before you buy" rule that they like to say they follow.

Angry Birds is different. Their "rule" and way of thinking applies to fully featured trials. Angry Birds offers not a timed trial, but I believe it instead only allows you to play the first level before paying. Not saying I fully agree with this technicality, but that is the way that the crackers are seeing it.

Hope this clears some things up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com