Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

NSW Police in legal battle over software piracy (who investigates this?)

Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by minglis, Apr 25, 2012.

  1. Interesting development. This is not posted with the intention purely to bash the police, however, it seems to be another practical example of the problems with Police investigating themselves.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-24/nsw-police-in-legal-battle-with-software-giant/3970388 (There is a video from a 7:30 report at the top of this article. Worth watching).

  2. How embarrassing. The NSW Police position seems pretty weak. Who will be accountable if they keep fighting this with taxpayer money and then lose?

    And how can Micro Focus argue they do know the police uninstalled their program, if they were not allowed to actually check their computers?

    Interesting to see what happens.
  3. Just rotten.
  4. On balance, however, if the software was that valuable there should have been some copy protection on it to stop it being duplicated.

    The article doesn't say what the software is WORTH, either by license or by seat: I'd be interested to know.....
  5. That's just genius, not once but twice.

    Therein 'lies' the problem, being good at investigating means the popo are good at finding evidence. The flipside is they're good at hiding it.

    Well they're good at finding evidence sometimes, and yet they would have us believe they are the best at investigating you could ask for.

    The contract fellas, it's in the filing cabinet marked 'ignore', possibly filed under 'P' for please. Even I could find that.
    It should be entered into a computer database...

    ....oh wait
  6. To be fair, it wouldn't be the first time for a software company (or music for that matter) to cry poor and how hard done by they are. While is certainly SEEMS like the police are in the wrong here, that's opinion is based on this article only and not other evidence. This doesn't look good for them though:

  7. So it is the software vendors fault, that they should have expected the police to pirate their software?

    Volume Licensing is usual in implementations where significant numbers of seats are to be used. 6,500 different serial numbers would have been untenable.

    Anyway, I am sure we can expect a lot more revenue raising by the popo out on the roads to pay the legal bill.
  8. I didn't say it was the software vendor's fault, or even hint at it, so don't put those words in my mouth....

    But a much bigger company than this one is now pretecting it's flagship products by the use of activation checks, because they know people have been pirating their stuff.

    And who said anything about 6,500 serial numbers? You did, I didn't. It is very easy to ensure that a copied product can not be installed, and they could have done that.

    I bet the next version of THIS software is copy-protected!!
  9. Dont forget this is a software product introduced in 1998. The infrastructure required to enforce activation/serial checks is significant.

    And how do you ensure a copied product cannot be installed? A lot of software vendors will be exceedingly happy to find it is so easy fix this problem.
  10. You are implying the company did not do enough to ensure its product could not be illegally distributed. You are attributing some of the responsibility on the company.
  11. If I had 6,500 licenses out there for a software package, I'd be wanting to know who in my company 'accidentally' found out it had been habitually pirated for years. Obviously if they couldn't protect it, they should have been monitoring its use much more scrupulously

    but I realise it's much easier to use this thread for the usual Netrider whining about the Police, so, please, go ahead, I'll toddle over ot the Welcome Lounge and vet newcomers to see if they have the same attitude
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Again you make comments toward the company while ignoring the actions of the police. Then you accuse people of "whining about police" for simply questioning their actions.

    Maybe you should go over to your welcome lounge, Hornet. The rest of us will try to discuss issues related to police accountability.
  13. Thank you for proving my point, and for incidentally ignoring the wordin of the OP's post

    This is not posted with the intention purely to bash the police
  14. I write software for a living.I do not imbed copy protection schemes into my software, the contract with the client spells these details out explicitly, without resorting to managing serial numbers/activations/whatever.
    I work for a multinational company, and missing out on the revenue for (allegedly) 14,000 seats, would impact heavily on our team.
    In easier terms for you to understand, this isn't just 5km/h over the speed limit, this is more like approaching light speed in a school zone, snorting cocaine, watching kiddie pr0n whilst making kitten soup.
    But I guess that's ok, because it's the vendors fault for not embedding copy protection schemes. Then (allegedly) when they try to audit themselves (as you imply they should have), being told to go find a lawyer to make rich.
  15. What they should have done is put an add banner on their software. Probably for donuts. 20,000 clicks on that per day would be a nice little earner.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. My understanding is that it is an terminal emulation package to connect from a PC back to the Police mainframe database (COPS). Such a system would be a closed network as is right and proper when citizens private information is stored. A system like that would make an Internet based license checking system by the company impossible. Similarly other systems such as a floating license system require a more integrated network than the NSW police possess.

    In the end it is the responsibility of the software users to remain within their license terms and it appears on the initial facts that the NSW police have not done so. They should "cop" it sweet and negotiate a suitable licensing and damages package with the company. Fighting this in court is stupid and demeaning to the force and the NSW public.
  17. What point is that? Questioning the actions of police in this particular case amounts to police bashing?

    I will quote the OP in full, something you neglected to do:

    This is not posted with the intention purely to bash the police, however, it seems to be another practical example of the problems with Police investigating themselves.
  18. I like this thinking. The next time the popo aren't monitoring one of their Police cars guess what I'm doing?
    • Like Like x 1
  19. ...good point, I think the N.S.W. police should use this argument in their defense when they get to court.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. If they do I am so telling the popo next time they pull me over if you dont want me to speed why build a road that allows me to do so.