Single Software Licence Shared 774,651 Times 446
nk497 writes "A single licence for Avast security software has been used by 774,651 people after it went viral on a file-sharing site. Avast noticed that a license for its paid-for security software, sold to a 14-user firm in Arizona, was being distributed online. Rather than shut down the piracy, the company decided to see how far the software would spread — it's since popped up in 200 countries, including the Vatican City. Now, the company is turning it into a marketing opportunity, with a pop-up encouraging users of the pirated copy to download a legal copy of the free or paid-for version. Avast isn't sure how many pirates have gone legal, but said some have made the switch."
They didn’t sue them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that’s a good start, I guess.
And now they got a free ad on Slashdot! (Score:5, Insightful)
Amazing how that works.
I think Microsoft might have them beat... (Score:5, Insightful)
FCKGW-RHQQ2...
uh...what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The pirating of legally-free software never ceases to amuse me...I know the licence is for a "paid" version of the program, but still, for personal users, the "free" version is more than sufficient. That being said, Avast's response to this has been PERFECT.
To me, all this says is.. (Score:3, Insightful)
At least 774,641 searched for the file (wanting to pirate it) and found this copy first. If this copy was not there, 774,641 would have searched for the file and found what was otherwise the second result for said software. What we can say is that 774,641 pirated the software, not that the uploaded caused it to be pirated 774,641 times.
I'm trying not to condonng the pirates or sympathizing with the software company. This is just (hopefully) an objective observation.
Re:Still not good (Score:4, Insightful)
paradox (Score:5, Insightful)
The paradox might be that pirate sites are trusted more by users than antivirus creators.
They are likely grateful... (Score:3, Insightful)
They are likely grateful that people are using their software rather than the superior (and free) Microsoft Security Essentials. (Yes, MS makes a piece of software that is superior in virtually every way to its competition. Hard to believe, but it's true.)
http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/ [microsoft.com]
Re:Measurement opportunity (Score:1, Insightful)
I am somewhat interested in how many people will actually pay for a license; this might be a good way to estimate how many people who download unauthorized software would have paid for the software in the first place.
You really can't make any assumptions with this case given the nature of the software. It's security software that has to be constantly updated so there is more of an incentive to keep a legit copy.
When Android games are 1 dollar and still pirated heavily it is hard to believe that those pirates would have paid for the data plan but not bought any games. Pirates should not be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to software that is affordable.
Re:To me, all this says is.. (Score:4, Insightful)
At least 774,641 searched for the file (wanting to pirate it) and found this copy first. If this copy was not there, 774,641 would have searched for the file and found what was otherwise the second result for said software. What we can say is that 774,641 pirated the software, not that the uploaded caused it to be pirated 774,641 times.
I'm trying not to condonng the pirates or sympathizing with the software company. This is just (hopefully) an objective observation.
You're still applying an interpretation. What it says is that 774,641 copies of the pirated key are in use (or something similar; depending how they gathered their stats, it might be that many IP addresses, which may or may not correlate to actual installed copies, or... whatever).
When you say that 774,641 people searched for the file and found it first, you're making an assumption that is no more valid than any other guess. My own assumption, to provide a contrary point of view, is that people actively went out actively looking to get their hands on the paid version without paying for it, as when I enter a variety of Avast-related search terms in Google, I get their website, not warez sites.
In any case, I like the way they handled it, though I would have supported cancelling that license as well (after discussions with the actual owner of the license).
Re:As a comparison (Score:4, Insightful)
You're missing a few zeroes on the end there.
Re:They didn’t sue them... (Score:4, Insightful)
But... but... nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition...
Re:Why pirate AV Software? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:paradox (Score:2, Insightful)
I recall an old game where the pirated version was clean but the official European version was the one that was virus infested.
The whole "pirated equals infected' is just lame scare tactics.
Re:They didn’t sue them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They didn’t sue them... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Vatican has very deep pockets and its argumentative strategies are generally a leap of faith.
The first part of that is true, but the second... I don't think it could be more wrong. Theologians are people whose life is debating and thinking about minute points of logic, finding ways to interpret texts to mean what they want them to mean and devising detailed logical arguments in support of their positions. They're more lawyerly than lawyers.
Your comment reminds me of Richard Feynman's attempt to logically confound Jewish seminary students. He failed, utterly.