-
1. Re: SWF Decompilers & intellectual property
Ned Murphy Apr 2, 2009 12:07 PM (in response to terablade2001)The decompilers are not illegal. Pretty much anything you present publicly on the internet is susceptible to being pirated in its raw form. It would be nice if there was a built-in mechanism that would prevent this for Flash, but as it goes, there isn't. -
2. Re: SWF Decompilers & intellectual property
terablade2001 Apr 3, 2009 7:07 AM (in response to Ned Murphy)"Pretty much anything you present publicly on the internet is susceptible to being pirated in its raw form"
In the same kind of logic, every house in the planet is susceptible to being burglary in its natural form.. Thus it is not illegal to break into any house and steal anything we find in it...
Come on.. When I publish a locked file on the internet, I only publish that file AS IS.. Noone has the right to break it down.. If anyone want he can ask me to give him the orginial software/code that I used to make that file. "Pirate" as you call it IS ILLEGAL. And those softwares are actually tools for easy pirate of software.
And that is proved from the fact that as you say: "It would be nice if there was a built-in mechanism that would prevent this for Flash, but as it goes, there isn't". In other words they don't take any precaution to protect the owners of the intellectual rights!.. And most important.. Their software produces not only the code that was used to create an FLA file, but also all libraries that might have used with import commands. This means that those software not only permit anyone to take elements free from your FLA, but also permits anyone to take freely your libraries which affect other FLA files as well...
The fact that they don't even bother to add protection againt strangers declares that those softwares' are primarily made for possible hacking, and not for securing a developer from an un-possible loss of data. It's like a pick-lock mechanism, without any tracking serial which permit freely to enter to any other house easily with no signs of violations.. Which is totally illegal!...
Developers HAVE to ask from all Decompilers companies to ensure that their products won't be used for hacking against them. By adding at least a code-verification to ensure that the FLA you are trying to decompile is yours, and not decompile the import libraries, which even if you loose a FLA file, you will have them (the libraries) in other projects. Not to mention that most decompilers can't retrieve the actual FLA file as is!!!! - they retrieve only as is the libraries actionscript - thus they do exactly the opposite they claim to do! -
3. SWF Decompilers & intellectual property
Ned Murphy Apr 3, 2009 7:46 AM (in response to terablade2001)Well, if you're disagreeing with my answer, it's a waste of time. You asked the question and I answered it. Your argument isn't with anyone here, you'll just be chasing your own tail, so it's probably better to take it to court if it's that high on your priority list.
I don't like that this can be done any more than anyone (everyone) else--I do not own nor have I ever used a decompiler--but I do accept the bitter with the sweet of life. There are good people and bad people.
You can buy a gun and it's up to you to decide whether you'll use it to murder someone or feed your family--it's not the tool that is illegal, it is the use of it. I don't own one of those either. -
4. SWF Decompilers & intellectual property
terablade2001 Apr 3, 2009 8:25 AM (in response to Ned Murphy)"...You can buy a gun and it's up to you to decide whether you'll use it to murder someone or feed your family....."
...or create nuclear bombs.... but NO!.. nuclears are not permitted... even if they kill and feed families alike guns!...
..the difference between the two examples are obvious.. with the gun you can kill one-to-few people, thus who care??.. find the guilty alone!... but with nuclear that you can do massive kills all care and prevent other to have even with wars....
human's stupidity I'd say.. they only care for massive problems.. Because they don't bother and accept anything isolated (pirate, planet polution, guns, deaths) with the sweet of life (till it knocks them the door one day)...
Ok.. If you (plural) don't think this is an important issue where developers should press those companies to include intellectual property protection, then I doesn't matter - I can't do anything alone.....
It's a waste of time as you say...
Have a nice day :)...
-
5. Re: SWF Decompilers & intellectual property
James22s22 Aug 28, 2013 3:21 PM (in response to terablade2001)There is no such thing as encrypted computation; it doesn't exist, nor will it ever. Any file on any platform in existance that contains "instructions" for a computer to read are exposed. It doesn't matter whether it's plain old source code or CPU op-codes... instructions are instructions.
Although it's more difficult for a human to make sense of a huge list of op-codes than it is to make sense of source code, the instructions are still there, plain as day, and they have to be so the computer can read them and run them. Decompilers just take a list of op-codes (or ActionScript Byte Code in this instance) and perform some pattern recognition on them to make sense of them, turning them into source code. They are not illegal (no program can be illegal; that would be moronic), because they are performing a create/interpretive act. It's like if you wrote "3.14159265..." in a file, and the decompiler is like "Oh, that's just PI". So all it's doing is taking a bunch of op-codes that you published on the public internet and it's recognizing that a particular pattern is equivalent to an "if" statement or a method call, etc., and then it's formatting it to ActionScript syntax or whatever language it chooses.
Intellectual property is a joke, and by hiding information and processes, all you do is set humanity back a step, and inadvertently shoot yourself in the foot by not allowing other to use what you've created and improve upon it so there is every better stuff for you to use and improve upon. This pretty much sums it up:
"The problem with the analogy (of some girl having her exercise video distributed online for free) is that you are making false assumptions concerning morality.
The first false assumption is that because you spent a lot of time or money on something you have to right to profit from it. Ergo, if someone else takes any action that cuts into your profit margin, said action constitutes "theft".
Secondly, you are assuming that someone can "own" an idea. Imagine what a hindrance on progress it would have been if Sir Isaac Newton could have acquired a copyright for his ideas (Calculus, among others) and charged royalties for anyone wanting to utilize them.
To put these two false assumptions into perspective, imagine that child A wants to earn some summer cash and comes up with a business plan to do so. He decides to invest some of his money (as well as time) learning magic tricks with the intentions of putting on neighborhood magic shows shows and charging a modest admittance fee, thereby earning a profit. After buying several books on magic tricks he becomes proficient enough to begin putting on magic shows, even coming up with several of his own unique tricks. After the first show he begins to recoup his initial investment. However, child B cleverly figures out how to perform all of child A's tricks (even the ones child A came up with himself). child B loves illusions and decides to put on a nearly-identical magic show of his own. However, child B is not motivated by the prospect of earning money and allows free admittance to his shows. This action puts child A out of business before he was even able to recoup his initial investment (to say nothing of his the time he spent).
Child B is not in the wrong for taking action that eliminated child A's prospects of earning a profit as no one has the "right" to earn profits in the first place. If you have an idea that is economically viable you might earn a profit, but you never have the right to earn a profit. Furthermore, Child B did not "steal" child A's tricks because no one can own an idea. By not telling anyone you can possibly keep an idea to yourself, but never can you own it. Did Daniel Bernoulli own Bernoulli's Principal? Did David Hughs own the radio? Did Einstein own the theory of relativity? Would we owe royalties to their families for building an airplane, or using wireless communication or nuclear energy? Certainly not. Such a system would absolutely stifle progress. Civilization, as we know it, is possible because of building off of the ideas of others. As such, theft can only apply to tangible objects and not to concepts or profits. The problem with stealing is not that someone gains something, but rather that someone loses something."



