"(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.
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 authentica) 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:
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 ." 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.
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."
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 , was distributed on the warez network days before it was released on theaters. Warez groups are even more impressed by this 'negative-day warez' than by 'zero-day warez'."
The following, added as an afterthought to the end of the present article, strikes me as bizarre:
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 really don't care what the recent changes to the laws are. I admit
Get Full Free Updates Download From Warez DDL By Rapidshare
... file you download need a password to extract the .RAR files ... - FIX Problem with some Drives Not showing correct ... This Site is Always Update Full For Free Downloads ...
Corrupt File Recovery Commercialware
Free Stuff Sites. Corrupt Services. Corrupt Software ... Recover Utility - dBase FoxPro database file repair fix ... Whirlpool Forums - Thread_ RAR file repair program..
Rar to Avi Free Download
Repair damaged rar archives. Recover corrupted RAR files. Fix RAR files ... Rar to Avi, Convert .rar to Avi, Rar File to Avi File Converter Mac Osx, Free Down Load Soft Ware Rar to Avi.
4shared - free file sharing and storage - share folder - My 4shared
Free file sharing : Search Feedback ... Convert- Rip Soft Ware Pack 2009.exe: 87,716 KB ... File_Fix_LequocthachBlog2009.rar: 2 KB: File
rar files.zip files Free Download - windows software
rar files.zip files Free Download - windows software at WareSeeker.com - This IFilter allows ... batch mode, multi-volume archives recovery and ability to fix rar files of.
Download file-splitter.exe Free
Short description: File Splitter is a free tool ... WinSock XP Fix 1.2 Fixes the winsock settings on your Windows XP: 76657 WinRAR 3.90
RAR Recovery Toolbox 1.1.7
Full automation of recovery process and several useful features, including batch mode, multi-volume archives recovery and ability to fix rar files of Free Download
How do I open .iso files? - Yahoo! Answers
Scan files with anti virus soft ware before proceeding. Win rar will not open an ISO FILE! ... Fix Iso Files Fix Free. Download Fix Iso Files Fix Tool. Download Now. Fast ...
Best free zip file downloads. Zip File Repair Tool to repair corrupt ...
StuffIt Expander 2010 is free and available for download. ... One can open a RAR file by drag 'n' drop, double click or shell ... file recovery, windows file recovery software, fix ...
NOD32 V3 32BIT FIX 1.2-TEMDONO.EXE, Prevx
NOD32 V3 32BIT FIX 1.2-TEMDONO.EXE, is determined * * ... that your PC might be infected why not try our Free Prevx ... Last seen: Mar 11 2008 (GMT) File Size: 380,612 bytes