this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023

212 points (71.3% liked)

Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54609 readers

479 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

💰 Please help cover server costs.


Ko-fi	Liberapay

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

sunbrothersco@lemmy.dbzer0.com

dataprolet@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com

RandomLegend@lemmy.dbzer0.com

212

Remember guys, this is why we don't pay for the apps. (i.imgur.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by kratoz29@lemm.ee to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

78 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This is the app called Franco Kernel Manager, one of the best kernel managers that are out there... Even when it was outdated (which I think that's the cause it got booted from the PlayStore?).

I used it to check the process of my phone and monitor the active and idle drain mostly, I paid for it a long time ago, but now it just fails to check the licence and it doesn't let me use it fully... I think there must be a cracked APK over there...

EDIT:

Fortunately the app is back in the store and hopefully that update version comes soon enough!

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 507 points 1 year ago (13 children)

There are lots of reasons to pirate stuff, but this argument in particular boils down to "We should steal stuff now because maybe some day in the future I won't be able to use the paid version after they go out of business." And that is shitty.

You bought it, so go crack it now that the license check is broken and nobody will care. That's GOOD piracy. Support the creators, pirate when you can't or it's unreasonable to pay (more).

Don't just pirate to mitigate theoretical future inconvenience. Do it to circumvent actual inconvenience, or to get things you couldn't otherwise afford, or to say "fuck you" to big, shitty companies.

But pirating from a small-time dev just in case there are maybe license problems far in the future is not The Way

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 55 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Couldn't agree more on it being a bad justification for piracy

Though if you bought it and the license check stops working later I'm not even sure I'd call patching it to work without the check piracy, it's simply fixing something you own

Yeah you're going to use the same tools but to me I don't see it as piracy but simply a right to repair thing

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah, exactly. It's the same reason I have little hesitance pirating a game I already have when the platform I have it on doesn't support mods (looking at you, Xbox game pass)

[–] wolfshadowheart@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

In this regard it's about the ability to pirate, which always comes down to the classic "it's a service issue."

The need for pirating this software wouldn't exist if the license check wasn't broken, but since it is, it's now the only way to access it regardless of your ownership or not.

[–] Klear@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

Back in the day I would often "pirate" games I owned on a CD because ot was faster than finding said CD.

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago

Or when I lived in a place with shit internet and I had games that needed an online handshake to play, I basically pirated every game that needed that check because I wouldn't be able to play otherwise

And they usually ran better too, funny that

[–] pelletbucket@lemm.ee 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

okay but if that's your purpose then there's no problem with purchasing and pirating at the same time.

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 64 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Absolutely. I do that regularly. Purchase to support the creators, pirate to meet some specific use case.

[–] pelletbucket@lemm.ee 15 points 1 year ago (3 children)

like I've had more than one super good YouTube video essay go missing, getting permanently pulled because of some copyright issue with a background shot or something, so I'll actually add really good YouTube videos to my Plex library just in case as well

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Totally. Though, that case can be a tiny bit tricky. Like, people should be allowed to remove stuff from the Internet that they've created if they want, but it should also be okay to archive content that may be abandoned or lost. Hard to create rules that differentiate the two effectively for enforcement

[–] pelletbucket@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

the specific ones I'm talking about, they were removed by YouTube and not at the creators behest. like one of them is about the three stooges and whoever owns The Three stooges material complained about some copyrighted material in the background horse shit

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure I'm just thinking about how you'd write a law or policy that accommodated both reasonable scenarios

[–] pelletbucket@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

well it's a really interesting concept. there's really no other form of media where you could put something out there and then recall it somehow. like if you wrote a book that you didn't like, there's absolutely no legal way you could prevent people from reading it, etc. sort of ties into the Barbra Streisand effect

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What's interesting with the comparison to books is that you can stop it from being published. You can't force people to give up the copy they already bought, but they can't make more copies and distribute it.

Hard to draw that distinction in the digital world

And if you want a better comparison, though of YouTube like a drive-in theater. You're not allowed to make a copy of the film with your camcorder and go distribute it.

[–] pelletbucket@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

it's almost more of a philosophical question than a legal one. sure, maybe they can prevent you from recording the drive-in movie and showing it to other people, but would they have the moral authority to say that you couldn't repeat the storyline to someone else?

let's say someone produces some documentary that ends up containing some hideously embarrassing error. something that could really ruin some third party's life. you pull the documentary from theaters, you pull it from streaming services, anybody who owns a copy owns it illegally. but, anybody who's seen it, or heard it described, could sit down in front of an audience and act out the entire thing piece by piece, attributing the entire thing to the original producer's name.

it ties into a line of thinking I had the other day when reading my credit card number to somebody over the phone. me talking to another person, giving them digit by digit, it was like two computers talking but we were people. if we had been computers, using a speaker and a microphone to communicate numbers in that way, we would have laughed at it and called it stone age technology, but that still how humans communicate with each other.

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

This gets into a weird debate about the difference between reproducing a thing and describing a thing. With sufficiently accurate description you can create a reproduction.

And when you take that into the realm of computing, where we've functionally automated the process of describing things with extreme accuracy it gets really blurry. But we can all agree that "take what you want, give nothing back" is not a good way to run a society, least of all an economy :D

So we're left with the task of crafting internally consistent legislation that attempts to allow certain types of reproductions, but not others.

The thing is, this is the type of debate just should be happening at the administrative level, in Congress, etc. But instead, special interest groups and lobbyists are doing the legislating on this stuff.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] NightAuthor@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think if more people took that path, pirate only when you actually have a problem, much less content would be cracked and piratable.

Imagine OP and someone who is capable of cracking a software both bought and used this app, then 3 years later the app stops working. OP goes to look for a crack, but one doesn’t exist because the person who would have made it happened to stop using it before they had a need to crack it. So now OP is just boned.

So I say, always pirate everything and do so asap. And then obviously, if you want things to keep being produced, you should probably support the creators.

[–] neatchee@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"I'm going to steal stuff because if I don't then people who NEED to steal it won't be able to" is some serious mental gymnastics.

Your argument only works for creating cracks, not consuming them. Absolutely create cracks even when they aren't needed. But that's not the same as using the crack even when you don't need to, just because you can

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] kratoz29@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I agree with you completely, indeed I just posted this as in a meme manner.

I love FKM and I paid for it even when it was clear the app wasn't going to be updated that much, I usually don't feel any kind of remorse while pirating, but now this is justified and that is good too.

Regardless this is a good reminder that this can happen anytime with any app or service, being a good or a bad one, having nice or asshole devs/teams behind, and for that piracy will always be a handy solution, I just wish that abandoned apps could somehow being open sourced automatically, but that is a dream.

[–] bastion@feddit.nl 6 points 1 year ago

Solid.

load more comments (8 replies)

[–] const_void@lemmy.ml 104 points 1 year ago (7 children)

OOPSIE WOOPSIE!! Uwu We made a fucky wucky!! A wittle fucko boingo! The code monkeys at our headquarters are working VEWY HAWD to fix this!

[–] abobla@lemm.ee 40 points 1 year ago

uwu kill me

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] AceSLS@ani.social 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (9 children)

You can crack most apps using Lucky Patcher

Make sure you get it from the official website though

[–] mtdyson_01@lemmynsfw.com 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Looks like the luckypatcher.com and .info are both terribly spammy. Even with pureapk the download ended up being something called bluejay. Of course the play store chimed in and said installing it would be a horrible idea. I assume I just picked 3 fake sites to download from

[–] Rustmilian@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Luckypatchers.com is the real one.
Also you should avoid pureapk, it has malware.
I recommend sticking to apkmirror if the application is available there.

[–] shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ublock Origin kicks up repeated warnings for this.

[–] Rustmilian@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Show screenshot.
Not even virustotal finds anything wrong with the domain.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] kratoz29@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Is that true? Most of the time I tried it didn't work.

It has only worked for me with an old game called Nimble Quest so far 😂

[–] AceSLS@ani.social 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Try different things in the selection dialogue before patching.

If you have root you could install Modded Google Play in Lucky Patcher to automatically succeed License checks

Mods also exist to crack apps, Mobilism is a good site but be careful what you download from whom

[–] kratoz29@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Thanks, I'll check that out :)

Nice to see this app still strong.

[–] Rustmilian@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's works, but it's much more effective on a rooted device.

[–] kratoz29@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

My device is rooted :/

[–] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago

TIL, I'm going to have to check this out later for sure

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] Pulptastic@midwest.social 21 points 1 year ago

Franco was a nut. He did put out some nice android kernel mods though.

[–] Blizzard@lemmy.zip 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"There's an oopsie!"??? This fucking guy deserves to get his apps pirated.

[–] kratoz29@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is an outdated app at beast, I think he wouldn't care, I hope it resurged though.

[–] sqgl@beehaw.org 6 points 1 year ago

There are a lot of processes which Android doesn't let you run anymore, eg how much CPU each app is using.

[–] kokesh@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's back on the store.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] yum13241@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

IMO if an app is pulled from Google Play their license verification should just return true.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments