First iOS, Now Mac OS X In-App Purchases Hacked 110
An anonymous reader writes "Last week Russian developer Alexey Borodin hacked Apple's In-App Purchase program for all devices running iOS 3.0 or later, allowing iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch users to circumvent the payment process and essentially steal in-app content. Apple [Friday] announced a temporary fix and that it would patch the holes with the release of iOS 6. While Cupertino was distracted, Borodin came in and pulled off the same scheme on the Mac."
Re:Overreacting (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the law doesn't evolve. Larceny has different moral implications than tresspass, and the law should reflect that.
Fuck 'em if they can't take being screwed back (Score:4, Insightful)
With a few rare exceptions, most games with in-app purchases are designed so that your progress in the game is directly proportional to how much you're willing to spend. In several games, no amount of patience or skill will allow you to progress. And in some games, progress itself is an illusion, with no obvious indication that your "missions" are being randomly generated and there is no way to ever "beat" the game.
It's extremely shady on Apple's part to allow developers to label apps that require in-app purchases as "free". The way I see it, this is karma.
I'm all for developers getting paid for their work. If they really want to nickel and dime you for every bell and whistle in the app or make you insert a coin each time you lose a life, that's their prerogative - but Apple needs to make it a lot clearer what you're downloading, since in-app-purchases mean "free" no longer means what it used to.
Re:Overreacting (Score:4, Insightful)
That's a different problem, and by no means an excuse to use the word steal in such a way. Two wrongs don't make a right.
It's wholly incorrect, inappropriate, illogical, an unethical to use the word steal with respect to copyright infringement. It will never be useful, nor constructive in any meaningful conversation regarding the Public Domain and how Intellectual Property can encourage further contributions towards it.
If you want to have a serious conversation regarding these matters, then we can have it when you are ready to sit down rationally and stop using manipulative tactics to steer the conversation.
Re:Overreacting (Score:5, Insightful)
The term 'Theft' does not apply to IP by any law code of any country in the world. So no, you are just wrong. Using the wrong word to define something serves only the purpose of propagating lies. You may do it from ignorance or malice but either way you are to be shunned for it.
No Quarter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Quit your whining, kid! Back in my day we kept pumping more quarters into the machine no matter how many times the game cheated us and we liked it!
Re:Overreacting (Score:3, Insightful)
Who said I was happy? I am decidedly unhappy about all of this.
You're doing it again too. Nobody stole anybody's else's work. Did not happen.
In fact, the only times that it may have happened is when the 1%'s (aka Rich Whitey) use their lawyers and fancy book learning to swindle poor artists out of their copyrights entirely. Or it could be Suge Knight hanging Vanilla Ice out of a hotel balcony if you believe the story.
What I am not okay with is the fact we are using intellectual property as an excuse to violate our fundamental freedoms and do more damage to society by trying to hammer an outmoded system of encouraging contributions towards the Public Domain.
That is the very idea in the first place I hope you realize. It is not to push forward the perverse, deeply offensive, and incredibly entitled idea that Man can own an idea or an expression.
We are supposed to using a system (and changing it if need be) that will encourage people to contribute towards the Public Domain. Simple as that.
I refuse to use the word theft, because intellectually, I know that it is wrong. Not only is it wrong, but it is mostly used out of ignorance, fear, often anger, and a manipulative push to destroy the Public Domain and allow effectively permanent ownership of ideas and expressions.
In the end I do want people to be rewarded for their contributions simply because it is the most effective way I know to encourage them to contribute.
So no, I'm not happy about it, I don't want to gloat and act immature about how easy it is to infringe upon copyrights, nor do I wish for people to be abused and not able to make a living.
I can however use my brain, and understand the difference between theft and copyright infringement, and why it is so important to never let the word theft go unchallenged because it poisons and manipulates the conversation that we really do need to be having.