• Your favorite

    Apple

    ,

    iPhone

    ,

    iPad

    ,

    iOS

    ,
    Jailbreak
    , and
    Cydia
    site.
  • Apple Issuing Take Down Notices to Major Piracy Sources

    Apple is finally attacking their money-making barricades.

    Piracy is a large problem in the computer world and one company that's really feeling the pain from it is Apple. As we know Apple takes a thirty percent cut from all App Store sales. This means it makes sense that Apple would want to kill off any iOS piracy firms. One of the large firms can be accessed from iDevices through a Cydia source with their own application. This is one reason why Apple doesn't want us jailbreaking our iDevices. We don't condone piracy and it isn't allowed here. Apple doesn't want it around either.

    Cracked iOS applications cost Apple a ton of money. Millions are downloaded each day out of ignorance that people are really hurting the companies. Millions more are downloaded each day on purpose because people want stuff for free and simply don't care that what they're doing is wrong. The after effect of all of these applications not being sold is Apple and the hard-working developers included losing out on billions of dollars.

    Apple has issued 'take down' warnings to one of these firms in attempt to destroy the firm. This firm is taking measures into their own hands to try and avoid being shut down by moving their servers to countries around the world where copyright isn't applicable. A cowardly move by the firm involved - they are attempting to keep the servers up and running completely against Apple's demands and against United States copyright laws. The firm said this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Piracy Firm
    Over the last several months, Apple has been scraping [piracy firm name withdrawn] for links and sending huge takedown notices for a ton of content. We’ve been working to keep [piracy firm name withdrawn] up-to-date, but the only (effective) way to prevent automated takedowns was to add a CAPTCHA to outbound links. In addition, we finished moving our servers to several different countries earlier this week. This has raised our costs far beyond what we can afford with declining donations, meaning that we will have to place an advertisement on that CAPTCHA page.
    With Apple supporting the SOPA bill by proxy early in the beginning of its introduction and later backing away from it, we can now see why Apple is so stifling about piracy. Apple backed out of the SOPA bill only because of the seemingly questionable powers that it gives the government and businesses. Aside from that, the idea of being able to shut down piracy firms sounded good to them. We will likely see more bills similar to SOPA in the future that try to keep piracy from existing.

    We expect that with Apple attacking one of the largest cracked iOS application firms, we will see much more coming up. Like all companies, they are out to make money and anything that stands in their way is a threat that needs to be terminated. Companies have fought piracy for ages - will Apple be able to put tighter control on it? Only time will tell.

    Do you think Apple will be successful in breaking most iOS piracy in half? Share in the comments.

    Sources: 9to5Mac
    This article was originally published in forum thread: Apple Issuing Take Down Notices to Major Piracy Sources started by Anthony Bouchard View original post
    Comments 204 Comments
    1. zrevai's Avatar
      zrevai -
      Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Bouchard View Post
      For price problems there are free alternatives. Try Waze for navigation. Problem solved.

      App developers are allowed to offer free trials. They're called Lite versions. They've been around since the dawn of the app store (Angry Birds, etc.).
      Yes they are allowed but perhaps it should be required to publish a Lite version of every App. That would negate the "Try before you buy" mentality except they will still claim you should get to try the "Full Version" and not a limited Lite version before buying. Though if you play any of the Lite versions of say Angry Birds and can't tell if you like it enough to shell out $.99 for one of them your either a blatant pirate or a complete moron or both!!!

      Quote Originally Posted by baskie View Post
      Are dev's allowed to make lite versions that stop working after a given time period?
      Unfortunately the answer is No, Apple doesn't allow Apps that expire at all. But just because it can't be time limited doesn't mean you can't remove most functionality from your Lite version. As I used Angry Birds as my previous example their Lite versions have a very small number of levels compared to the Full versions, so there is no reason Apple couldn't require Devs to submit a Full version and a very basic/limited content Lite version.

      Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Bouchard View Post
      Think about it.

      Angry Birds lite only has one page of levels. Angry Birds has tons of pages of levels.

      Timed trials or limited trials. It really doesn't make a difference they're both trials. You're trying to blindside me.
      Angry Birds really is the best "Free Trial" App in the AppStore!!!

      Quote Originally Posted by sziklassy View Post
      I wholeheartedly disagree. How hard would it be to allow an hour to refund an app? Answer: it wouldn't. A lot of trials on apps in the app store are incredibly limited because they have to be. Short of requiring a log-in, there is often no way to give all of the functionality of an app and then still give incentive to actually go out and buy it. I am sure MANY a developer would be perfectly happy to allow a trial time for the software. If you enjoy the software, just keep it after the trial period. If not, drop it for a full refund.
      Apple could use the same "Trial" restrictions it uses to Rent videos, it's built into their FairPlay DRM. But using it on Apps just wouldn't make sense. The crackers bypass the existing FairPlay DRM on Apps by grabbing the Decrypted App out of memory, so even if Apple added Rentals to Apps that would be stripped out by grabbing the unencrypted App from Memory at Run-Time. There is no good way to date to prevent Piracy of AppStore Apps. The best thing a Developer can do currently is to split up their App and only load the current code segment at Run-Time and to load the next level pack only when needed, this won't stop Piracy but will make it much harder if the Full App is never loaded into Ram because assembling the different parts into a working App would take more time and couldn't be done easily with the current Cracking Tools. There is some good info over at The iPhone Wiki Copy Protection Overview - The iPhone Wiki
    1. Mrdabbas's Avatar
      Mrdabbas -
      Quote Originally Posted by mr117 View Post
      I'm not shunning anyone. I'm just pointing out that no matter how you rationalize it, stealing is stealing.
      But some think it isn't actually stealing.. They feel it's sharing.. It's like this occupy movements.. They want to steal (aka tax) from the rich so that the people with less wealth can enjoy life..? The occupy movement is stupid and so is downloading cracked applications,

      Rich people are rich for a reason.. They either worked for it or it was inherited to them.. Who are we to take that from them?

      Same situation here.. Apple is the richest company on this planet.. Doesn't mean it gives us a right to take what we have not earned..

      Cracked apps were originally created for developers/hackers.. That's understandable.. In some way.. For for the general public to enjoy?.. Controversial.. But morally wrong

      Then again.. Many don't care about morale .. Common human nature.. It won't change.. Sorry but that's just the way it is
    1. enectrixx's Avatar
      enectrixx -
      Quote Originally Posted by mr117 View Post
      Taking something that isn't yours is theft. Period. You can twist and turn (well, it's not a physical object) but if it belongs to someone and it's for sale and you get it without paying for it through an "alternative" manner, you have stolen it. The owner OWNS the rights to it, object or idea. If the object ends up in your hands or if you end up with the "idea" (coded app) on your phone without paying for it, it's theft.

      I own a patent on an idea, you take the idea and don't pay me for it, you stole my idea. Theft without object. And I think stating that digital copy theft is fine because digital copies aren't "physical" is ludicrous. The "copy" ends up on your device being used by you. It exists enough for you to use it.
      Theft: the act of taking something that belongs to someone else and keeping it - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

      But in this case you're not taking anything - you're copying it. The original cracked software which ends up on the piracy site has even been paid for by the cracker! Let me explain it this way: if you buy a bicycle from me and then proceed to make hundreds or thousands of exact replicas of this bicycle and give them away, what exactly has been stolen? When downloading and/or publishing cracked apps you commit copyright infringement, brake licensing agreements and terms of service with the developers and Apple and according to some commit a morally questionable action but you certainly don't steal anything.
    1. mr117's Avatar
      mr117 -
      If you take something from someone, object or intellectual idea, you are stealing. Why is this so hard to understand? It is EXACTLY stealing to take that which you did not pay for. Now, if you want to say that you are receiving stolen goods, ok, I can go along with that, but there is no way to twist this to a place where, if you get an app that you did not pay for it, it is NOT stealing. Copyright, at the least, determines that. And if the app is on your phone and you did not pay for it, you have either stolen it or received it from someone who did. As to your bicycle example, if the bicycle design is copyrighted (and most are), then copying that bicycle and manufacturing it as if it is yours is copyright infringement, and any monies you received for the sale of said bicycles would, under the law, be ill-gotten gains. You in effect stole the idea of that bicycle and will be held accountable for doing so. Unless you are China, and don't go along with the copyright laws of the world.

      As to the poster above who brought in Occupy Wall Street, I don't follow the reasoning as it pertains to this discussion. Income tax is legal in this country (look it up), even if some political troglodytes feel that it is not. No one is stealing from the rich when it is suggested that the tax rate be raised to Clinton, or Reagan, or Nixon or Eisenhower levels again. The rest of the argument is piffle, as who are we to take from the rich can also be turned to who are we to take from the poor? Read your history, especially regarding the Three Estates of France just before the French Revolution, to see where that takes you.

      Let's keep this discussion on track, and not veer off into politics.
    1. Zokunei's Avatar
      Zokunei -
      Quote Originally Posted by enectrixx View Post
      Theft: the act of taking something that belongs to someone else and keeping it - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

      But in this case you're not taking anything - you're copying it. The original cracked software which ends up on the piracy site has even been paid for by the cracker! Let me explain it this way: if you buy a bicycle from me and then proceed to make hundreds or thousands of exact replicas of this bicycle and give them away, what exactly has been stolen? When downloading and/or publishing cracked apps you commit copyright infringement, brake licensing agreements and terms of service with the developers and Apple and according to some commit a morally questionable action but you certainly don't steal anything.
      You are still taking a copy, which is property of the developer as the developer only sells one copy to the cracker. The cracker's distribution exceeds the amount of ownership given by the vendor. Note: the definition does not say, "take away."

      You failed to mention that, in this case, the bike seller specifically tells the copier that he cannot copy the bike as a term of ownership. The bikes are in effect stolen.

      Actually -- to be more simple -- you are taking something that belongs to someone else. The only thing you're not doing is taking it away. Those copies aren't legitimate property of the copier because it violates his agreed terms of ownership.
    1. mr117's Avatar
      mr117 -
      What? Stealing is stealing. Copyright infringement is stealing. It is stealing an idea. Taking an idea is the same as taking an object. The app ends up on your phone and you didn't pay for it. You either stole it or received stolen property (stealing). And an app is not simply an "idea." It is computer code (which is physically on your phone), and it belongs to someone else unless you paid for it.

      The bicycle analogy is spurious, because copyright infringement IS stealing. You pay fines, and you can go to jail for it. Stealing. Unless you are China and ignore the world's copyrights.

      As to the comment about Occupy Wall Street- why bring politics into this? Besides the fact that your point is so off the mark as to be ludicrous. No one is suggesting that anyone steal from the rich. The suggestion is that the tax code be rolled back to where it during Clinton, or Reagan, or Nixon, or Eisenhower. Taxes are legal in this country (you can look it up) no matter what some political troglodytes say. Do I like taxes? No. Are they necessary? Yes. So they be fair? Who can argue that? If you like history, read about the tax situation amongst the Three Estates in France. See what that accomplished and what it lead to.

      Let's stay on point here, and not drag politics into a discussion of morality (a place where politics certainly has no place).

      You guys crack me up.
    1. Anthony Bouchard's Avatar
      Anthony Bouchard -
      Quote Originally Posted by mr117 View Post
      What? Stealing is stealing. Copyright infringement is stealing.
      ^ This pretty much sums up the idea that runs across my mind.

      If you feel like you should take matters into your own hands to steal content before buying it, then you're simply in the wrong. You don't walk into a grocery store and start drinking all of their milk and eating all of their bread before you buy it. It just doesn't happen. It doesn't belong to you until you purchase it first.
    1. enectrixx's Avatar
      enectrixx -
      Quote Originally Posted by mr117 View Post
      If you take something from someone, object or intellectual idea, you are stealing. Why is this so hard to understand? It is EXACTLY stealing to take that which you did not pay for. Now, if you want to say that you are receiving stolen goods, ok, I can go along with that, but there is no way to twist this to a place where, if you get an app that you did not pay for it, it is NOT stealing. Copyright, at the least, determines that. And if the app is on your phone and you did not pay for it, you have either stolen it or received it from someone who did. As to your bicycle example, if the bicycle design is copyrighted (and most are), then copying that bicycle and manufacturing it as if it is yours is copyright infringement, and any monies you received for the sale of said bicycles would, under the law, be ill-gotten gains. You in effect stole the idea of that bicycle and will be held accountable for doing so. Unless you are China, and don't go along with the copyright laws of the world.

      As to the poster above who brought in Occupy Wall Street, I don't follow the reasoning as it pertains to this discussion. Income tax is legal in this country (look it up), even if some political troglodytes feel that it is not. No one is stealing from the rich when it is suggested that the tax rate be raised to Clinton, or Reagan, or Nixon or Eisenhower levels again. The rest of the argument is piffle, as who are we to take from the rich can also be turned to who are we to take from the poor? Read your history, especially regarding the Three Estates of France just before the French Revolution, to see where that takes you.

      Let's keep this discussion on track, and not veer off into politics.
      So tell me this then, if copyright infringement is theft then why are there special laws for copyright infringement? If it were theft, we wouldn't need special laws for it because it would already be covered in the laws against theft. I haven't heard of a single country that doesn't have a specific copyright law and instead covers it under theft. Legally speaking, copyright infringement is NOT theft.
    1. Mrdabbas's Avatar
      Mrdabbas -
      Quote Originally Posted by mr117 View Post
      If you take something from someone, object or intellectual idea, you are stealing. Why is this so hard to understand? It is EXACTLY stealing to take that which you did not pay for. Now, if you want to say that you are receiving stolen goods, ok, I can go along with that, but there is no way to twist this to a place where, if you get an app that you did not pay for it, it is NOT stealing. Copyright, at the least, determines that. And if the app is on your phone and you did not pay for it, you have either stolen it or received it from someone who did. As to your bicycle example, if the bicycle design is copyrighted (and most are), then copying that bicycle and manufacturing it as if it is yours is copyright infringement, and any monies you received for the sale of said bicycles would, under the law, be ill-gotten gains. You in effect stole the idea of that bicycle and will be held accountable for doing so. Unless you are China, and don't go along with the copyright laws of the world.

      As to the poster above who brought in Occupy Wall Street, I don't follow the reasoning as it pertains to this discussion. Income tax is legal in this country (look it up), even if some political troglodytes feel that it is not. No one is stealing from the rich when it is suggested that the tax rate be raised to Clinton, or Reagan, or Nixon or Eisenhower levels again. The rest of the argument is piffle, as who are we to take from the rich can also be turned to who are we to take from the poor? Read your history, especially regarding the Three Estates of France just before the French Revolution, to see where that takes you.

      Let's keep this discussion on track, and not veer off into politics.
      Raising taxes on the rich and keeping it the same on the poor sounds exceptionally "equal".. As the constitution suggests..why should we tax "Clinton or Reagan" more than other citizens? They built up their stature, doesn't mean they should be punished (taxed) for it. I don't understand your reasoning now.. I used the occupy movement as a reference to downloading cracked apps, sorry it wasn't very clear to you.. Smh
    1. mr117's Avatar
      mr117 -
      Stealing is stealing. Object or idea/intellectual property. There's no way around that. An app is computer code, it exists, it's real, it's on YOUR phone and you didn't pay for it, you stole it. Or, if you want to quibble, you have received stolen property. If you steal my bicycle design, you have stolen my idea, which I have copyrighted. Copyright infringement is copyright theft. It has nothing to do with licensing agreement or terms of service- those apply only to the original purchaser. But you, who now have the stolen "good," you took it from a thief. Under the law you are guilty as well. No getting around it. (:

      As to the poster who brought up the Occupy Wall Street argument, you have gone outside the boundaries of this particular argument, which is about theft and the morality of theft. You are talking about politics, which, by its very nature, is exclusive of morals.

      Though, to respond to your point, no one is suggesting "stealing from the rich." Rolling a tax base back to Clinton era levels, or Reagan or GW Bush or Nixon or even Eisenhower era levels, is just that. There are some really clear graphs that show the rise in wealth for the rich under those tax bases as compared to anyone else. And to suggest that Nixon or Reagan stole from the rich is ludicrous, isn't it?

      As to taxes in general, they are legal in this country (you could look it up). No one likes them but everyone likes the services they get from them.

      But let's stay off of politics, and just keep on track with theft.
    1. DukeNukem's Avatar
      DukeNukem -
      Most of you people are such hypocrites. You all want Siri "ported" to earlier iPhones right? Why? So you don't have to go out and buy a 4S!
    1. Mrdabbas's Avatar
      Mrdabbas -
      Quote Originally Posted by mr117 View Post
      Stealing is stealing. Object or idea/intellectual property. There's no way around that. An app is computer code, it exists, it's real, it's on YOUR phone and you didn't pay for it, you stole it. Or, if you want to quibble, you have received stolen property. If you steal my bicycle design, you have stolen my idea, which I have copyrighted. Copyright infringement is copyright theft. It has nothing to do with licensing agreement or terms of service- those apply only to the original purchaser. But you, who now have the stolen "good," you took it from a thief. Under the law you are guilty as well. No getting around it. (:

      As to the poster who brought up the Occupy Wall Street argument, you have gone outside the boundaries of this particular argument, which is about theft and the morality of theft. You are talking about politics, which, by its very nature, is exclusive of morals.

      Though, to respond to your point, no one is suggesting "stealing from the rich." Rolling a tax base back to Clinton era levels, or Reagan or GW Bush or Nixon or even Eisenhower era levels, is just that. There are some really clear graphs that show the rise in wealth for the rich under those tax bases as compared to anyone else. And to suggest that Nixon or Reagan stole from the rich is ludicrous, isn't it?

      As to taxes in general, they are legal in this country (you could look it up). No one likes them but everyone likes the services they get from them.

      But let's stay off of politics, and just keep on track with theft.
      There is no argument here. We know theft is wrong.. But look at it this way.. We all know Copyright infringement is illegal.. But Not necessary stealing..this thread is merely discussing something we all know.. We know cracked applications are illegal.. People are not dumb to the point where they can't tell the apps they usually pay for are free in a jailbroken phone, they know it's wrong. I don't understand the point of this thread. People who have wrong intentions will carry them out regardless of what SOME people with morale think of the matter.. Cracked apps are so easily and neatly supplied that it gives the person a "legal sense" of the whole cracked app issue.. This thread is pointless.. Its too vague .. Clarity please?.. I'd rather talk about politics
    1. Zokunei's Avatar
      Zokunei -
      Quote Originally Posted by Mrdabbas View Post
      There is no argument here. We know theft is wrong.. But look at it this way.. We all know Copyright infringement is illegal.. But Not necessary stealing..this thread is merely discussing something we all know.. We know cracked applications are illegal.. People are not dumb to the point where they can't tell the apps they usually pay for are free in a jailbroken phone, they know it's wrong. I don't understand the point of this thread. People who have wrong intentions will carry them out regardless of what SOME people with morale think of the matter.. Cracked apps are so easily and neatly supplied that it gives the person a "legal sense" of the whole cracked app issue.. This thread is pointless.. Its too vague .. Clarity please?.. I'd rather talk about politics
      I'm arguing that it's wrong in here because I used to be a pirate myself until I was convinced that it is wrong.

      In fact, I used to believe in the arguments some are holding in this thread for piracy.
    1. Mrdabbas's Avatar
      Mrdabbas -
      Quote Originally Posted by Zokunei View Post
      I'm arguing that it's wrong in here because I used to be a pirate myself until I was convinced that it is wrong.

      In fact, I used to believe in the arguments some are holding in this thread for piracy.
      Sarcasm? Can't tell.. Who wouldn't know being a pirate is wrong?
    1. keenpois0n's Avatar
      keenpois0n -
      I wonder how many people have received infractions or had their comments deleted in this thread..
    1. jasvncnt10's Avatar
      jasvncnt10 -
      This debate can go on forever. I don't think reading a few posts on the topic will really change anyone one way or the other. My iphone had cracked apps...for sure...I can give you a reason why but it wont matter. I'm sure everyone here has done something "illegal" or "morally" wrong. No one here has ever copied a friend's CD or DVD? Yeah......everyone is perfect.
    1. MetallicaFan1991's Avatar
      MetallicaFan1991 -
      Wow, you can't compare a physical item such as a car, jewellery, a CD etc to something downloaded of the internet, who cares if its stealing as at the end of the day, there's no harm been done, all it is, is "sharing", you're downloading a copy not stealing the original item and I stick by to my point, there's no harm done if the person never had no intention of buying it in the first place and why not take the opportunity to get it for "free" if you get the chance. There's no money lost for the developer or the person who created such item.
      Stealing a car and bringing it back in 24 hours is different to downloading a copy of something on the internet.
    1. jasvncnt10's Avatar
      jasvncnt10 -
      Quote Originally Posted by MetallicaFan1991 View Post
      Wow, you can't compare a physical item such as a car, jewellery, a CD etc to something downloaded of the internet, who cares if its stealing as at the end of the day, there's no harm been done, all it is, is "sharing", you're downloading a copy not stealing the original item and I stick by to my point, there's no harm done if the person never had no intention of buying it in the first place and why not take the opportunity to get it for "free" if you get the chance. There's no money lost for the developer or the person who created such item.
      Stealing a car and bringing it back in 24 hours is different to downloading a copy of something on the internet.
      Ummmm...what?
    1. imnothardcore's Avatar
      imnothardcore -
      As my income has increased Ive tried to stop bootlegging and stealing everything from games, apps, and music. Im pretty much fully there now, but as a broke student it was difficult for me to consider that. sucks, but thats what I did. I fully support paying for stuff you use though, because you have to give someone incentive to create a good game or app. If there isnt money in it, it wont be the main focus of people since they will have to have a job to pay bills and program in their spare time.

      Anyway to everyone talking about bootlegging to hurt Apple I cant believe how blinded you are by your hatred. Not only are you hurting the Developer that gets the larger percentage youre also (Im pretty sure there was a post about the cost of Apples server farms to provide this). It costs money to host apps that everyone can reach 24/7. I think when the profitability was looked at the percentage they take away from it over costs is MUCH MUCH lower than most other businesses. How much money in storage, servers, and bandwidth do you think it costs to reliably provide these services?
    1. Zokunei's Avatar
      Zokunei -
      Quote Originally Posted by Mrdabbas View Post
      Sarcasm? Can't tell.. Who wouldn't know being a pirate is wrong?
      I know many people that care about right and wrong and think nothing of piracy.

      Quote Originally Posted by MetallicaFan1991 View Post
      Wow, you can't compare a physical item such as a car, jewellery, a CD etc to something downloaded of the internet, who cares if its stealing as at the end of the day, there's no harm been done, all it is, is "sharing", you're downloading a copy not stealing the original item and I stick by to my point, there's no harm done if the person never had no intention of buying it in the first place and why not take the opportunity to get it for "free" if you get the chance. There's no money lost for the developer or the person who created such item.
      Stealing a car and bringing it back in 24 hours is different to downloading a copy of something on the internet.
      You don't understand the principle that it is wrong to take something you didn't earn.