Springer Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Journal of Business Ethics

What Motivates Software Crackers?
Author(s): Sigi Goode and Sam Cruise

Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 65, No. 2 (May, 2006), pp. 173-201
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25123780
Accessed: 14-01-2016 12:39 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 14.139.237.35 on Thu, 14 Jan 2016 12:39:46 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(2006) 65: 173-201

Journal of Business Ethics
DOI
10.1007A10551-005-4709-9
Motivates
What
Software
industry.
lose revenue
when
companies
piracy. Much
on software
only
been
why,
skill
and
first
legal
of
goes
interviews
with
the
of
this
neutralisation,
directly
motivates
to
removing
copy
motivation
initial
the
actions
also
KEY
WORDS:
social
is a senior
Sigi Goode
finds
chal
as
software
Desire
Systems
and a director
University,
Australian
National
Centre
Information
for
at the
of the
Research
Systems
(NCISR). His PhD
thesis dealt with constructvalidity in IS
a motivational
reserarch. Dr.
has published
piracy,
personal
motivation,
as a digital
to pro
is expensive
good,
to duplicate
and distribute
illegal
Maude,
of copyrighted
software
(Maude and
The
indicates
literature
that firms
1984).
copies
resources
substantial
unauthorised
prevent
Schildkraut
1989;
et
Lee
2001;
Moore
developing
duplication
(Rosenberg,
2000; Wallach,
Gasper,
and Chen,
2002; Lee
2002;
and
al.,
Technology
Management,
and installation
Information
Systems,
Information
Information
interests
Sam
Technology
include
and
open
Cruise
system
source
adoption,
mobile
of Computer
Management,
the Australian
others. His
commerce,
research
software
software.
has a First
theAustralian
Systems from
and
among
Systems,
of Information
piracy
Systems
and Management
of journals,
Class
Honours
National
degree
University.
in Information
Sam
has also
worked as a project officer

for an IT and health researchproject
and recentlycompleteda Graduate Diploma inEducationfrom
the University
at
medicine
software
use.
of Western
Griffith
piracy
Australia.
University.
and policy,
Sam's
education
Sam
is currently
research
and
interests
information
studying
include
systems
with
of software
skill
sufficient
the head
Huntsman,
a
Formaster,
tection,
remained
for more
Firing,
company
stated
to
methods
Information
Journal
study
neutralisation
including Information & Management, Journal of Global
in a variety
factor
The
cracking.
2003).
the efforts of software publishers,
Despite
the devices used to prevent unauthorised
Goode
their
inexpensive
and Sanders 2000). Because
of the ease of
is
it
in
the
software
inter
duplication,
producers'
as possible
ests to make
to obtain
it as difficult
further
the
Information
Canberra
Journal
Mr.
in
lecturer
National
was
rewarding,
continue
(Gopal
cognitive
of crackers.
Australian
to
Introduction
spend
Dr.
software
justification,
Software,
duce but
The
online
and
from
was
software
activities.
study
protection
for
and
explore
The
findings.
the
study
conducts
to
crackers
eight
status was
not
social
Higher
a
of
by-product
perceived
raises areas for future
research.
actions.
but
to be
crackers
do
justification
in an anonymous
then
found
for
unnecessary
ex
This
their
while
participation,
instead
activity
the
what
survey's
strongest
in
to
aims
to remove,
employment.
this framework
applies
crackers.
The
study
of
validate
time
are
has
protection
research
social
considered
end-users
copy
This
and
and
the
for
Cruise
focuses
literature
However,
is so difficult
protection
their
to determine
survey
the
'cracker'.
a framework
crackers
lenge
lucrative
develops
motivation
research
published
by end-users.
once
software
by
invest
more
study
the
if copy
crackers
of
of
piracy
removed
plore
in the
publishing
software
rather
than
pirated
are
is used.
Policy
developers
into restricting
and money
software
time
to copy
able
and
software
purchased
to invest
legally
forced
authors
Springer 2006
Sam
Crackers?
Software
Software piracy is a serious problem
ABSTPJVCT.
software
that
have been
and
of
time.
software
dedicated
"no
In
most
copying
circumvented
1984,
development
to
protection
of
software
system
Laind
for
pro
has
uncracked
programmers
by enterprising
than a few months"
(Tyler, 1984). Martel
the founder of Noumenon
(a software pub
stated "nobody
has a total solution. We're
lisher),
just trying to defeat the casual copier" (Tyler, 1984).
to bypass
Wallach
(2001) argues, "those determined
have always found ways to do so copy-protection
and
always
will".
174 Sigi Goode

The
role of the "cracker"

software
illegal
copied
illegally
in the distribution
of
is pivotal,
since software cannot be
or used while
is in
copy protection
copy
place. Removing
as
time-consuming,
is difficult
protection
the
has
cracker
to
and
circumvent,
the benefits of seeing the program

usually without
source code, the devices developed
by paid software
authors. This activity requires specialised
technical
more
to
which
be
could
skills,
put
arguably
legiti
mate
use elsewhere.
evidence
from
Additionally,
suggests that crackers
popular media
their work
(Piazza, 2002).
software copyright
legislation
are not paid for

Crackers
also violate
and software
(Cambanis, 2002; Lee, 2002).

This study ismotivated
by two factors.
PC application
revenues
business
software
licenses
First, the
accounted
industry
of US$21.6
billion
Association
Industry
for worldwide
the
in 1999
(Software & Information

a 19% increase from 1998.
losses due
to software
in
worldwide
the
2000),
In 1999, the estimated
billion
piracy were US$12.2
business
software
sector
alone,
an
the previous
year. The use of
from
the previous
software
increased
34%
pirated
8c
Information
year (Software
Industry Association
substantial funds are at stake.
2000). Clearly,
from
11% increase
software
Further,
means
complex
authors
of protecting
must
devise
their software
more
includ
litigation processes
(Hiduja, 2003) and
enforcement
(Kini et al., 2000).
policy
copyright
suffer losses as fewer units of software are
Managers
must
sold and policy
spend resources
developers
use
to
the
and
of
stop
trying
supply
pirated software
ing expensive
(Gopal
and Sanders,
2000; Moores
et al.,
and Sanders,
1998; Limayem
1997; Gopal
area
et
in
Most
studies
the
Rahim
1999;
al, 1999).
for conve
have used student samples, ostensibly
nience
and access
initiate the
literature
intriguing
authors
and Glass
This
such as Hinduja
(2003), Sims et al. (1996)
and Wood
(1996), among others.
discussion
two main
suggests
research
ques
and difficult
tions. The
time-consuming
apparently
tasks performed
by the cracker raise the question
what
of
a cracker.
motivates
1. What factors motivate software crackers to remove

copy protection from commercial software?
neutralise
study also aims to explore how

the social controls
that would
inhibit
deviant
This
Matza,
individuals
otherwise
patterns
(Sykes and
neutralisation
study includes
as part of a general theory of motiva
motivational
This
1957).
(justification)
tion (Minor, 1981).
2. What factors do software crackers use to justify
removing the copy protection from commercial software?
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. The
next
section
discusses
This
is followed
which
comprises
piracy literature.
theoretical
framework,
the software
the
by
research
literature
on motivation
factors to proxy for both

producing
The
aspects.
paper then details the re
and justification,
personality
search method,
the survey instrument and
including
interview
The paper then dis
method.
cognitive
cusses the results and analysis, including quantitative
and qualitative
analysis of the survey results, and the
of
these
results using interviews. Finally,
exploration
and areas for further
conclusions,
implications
are
research
Software
covered.
cracking
and
software
piracy
and Dhaliwal,
2004).
research into why
there has been much
Second,
end-users use pirated software (Davis, 1989; Eining
and Christensen,
1991;
1991; Shim and Taylor,
et
et
Givon
al., 1994; Simpson
al., 1994;
Logsdon
et al., 1995; Sims et al., 1996; Gopal
and Sanders,
However,
understand
and Sam Cruise
purposes
(Kwong et al., 2003).
little attempt to
there has been seemingly
of the individuals who
the motivations
spread of this software. The dearth of
in this area makes
for a particularly
study, and this paper answers the call of
Software
is defined
as "the unauthorized
copying
of computer software, which constitutes copyright infringe
ment, for either commercial or personal use" (Software &
and
Information
2000). Wold
Industry Association
the
Shriver (1989) were among the first to document
piracy
rise of piracy, which

increased as computers
more widespread.
the
Figure 1 describes
piracy
became
software
process.
Figure 1 illustrates the pivotal role that crackers

software. First,
of pirated
play in the distribution
the group with
suppliers provide
software
from
may
originate
reviewers
or
retailers.
Crackers,
who
software,
authoring
have
which
firms,
the most
role, strip the programs of

technologically
complex
their copy protection
the control techniques used
What Motivates
175
Software Crackers?
1. Software
supplier
2. Supplier
protected
cracker.
Steps 1 4
the
by
piracy
group.
the copy
to the
passes
software
removes
3. Cracker
take place
is obtained
of a software
copy
protection
within the
group.
4. Cracked
is tested,
software
over
and distributed
packaged
the group's
network.
private
5. Group
software
moves
cracked
to public
"release"
networks
End-users
1. The
Figure
pirated
to prevent
unauthorised
(Maude and
duplication
ensure
Testers
then
that
the software
Maude,
1984).
on
test
works
installations
properly by conducting
different
into
Packers
computers.
small files and distribute
Finally,
use
Pre-releasers
to move
divide
them
File
the programs
to release sites.
Transfer
Protocol
to the group's
this point, external
the files
(FTP) programs
'release site' (Lee, 2002). From
courier groups take over and move
the files through
a systematic distribution
into
chain, and eventually
Usenet
newsgroups,
(Lee, 2002)
peer-to-peer
and pirate
software
software
retailers
networks
(Moores
and
Dhillon,
2000).
Published
research has generally focused on end
user piracy. Recent
studies have found that gender
and age affect piracy behaviour,
with
females and
less likely to use pirated software
individuals
and O'Brien,
1991; Simpson et al, 1994;
(Solomon
Gopal and Sanders, 1997). The literature profiles the
older
typical
edgeable,
computer
as young,
skilled, knowl
for their position,
elitist, and
criminal
overqualified
software
distribution
process.
use did not harm

that their computer
believing
or
not
who
could
afford
did not deserve to
anyone
be harmed
1984).
(Highland,
a
studies have found relationships between
code of ethics or behaviour,
such as at a place
Several
formal
of business,
and an individual's
software
and Henry,
(Pierce
decision
to pirate
and
Gopal
1996;
and Abdul-Gader,
1997; Al-Jabri
Sanders,
Some have speculated about similar unwritten
1997).
codes
of behaviour within
other subcultures,
such as street
and Costello
gangs (Winchester
1995) and prison
et
communities
other
al., 1994). However,
(Winfree
as
or
such
informal
codes,
codes, appear
personal
less influential (Pierce and Henry,
1996).
et
no
al.
found
differ
Limayem
(1999)
significant
ence in attitude
towards software piracy between
significantly
those who
attended
an ethics
course
and those who
did not.
such as inadequate
time to
events,
or
not
to
software
where
obtain
acquire
knowing
the software legitimately,
and personal gain factors
Situational
176 Sigi Goode

an individual's decision
to copy
et al., 1994). This may be due to
of anonymity
and
the feeling
affect
significantly
software (Simpson
"deindividuation",
distance
from
the
adverse
effects
of
the
ac
person's
(Loch and Conger,

1996).
Software
crackers may
feel as though
they are
others
consistent
free
software,
by providing
aiding
with Glass and Wood
from
(1996) and evidence
tions
et al. (1996) of altruism in helping strangers

over the Internet. There
is evidence
in the popular
earn no money
media
that group members
from
Constant
instead
2002; Mackenzie
(Cambanis
2002)
as
a
social
the
which
experience
activity
describing
was motivated
prestige,
by a sense of competition,
and the entertainment
value of distributing
pirated
piracy
goods
and Sam Cruise

this
'actualization'
(Maslow,
1943)
addressing
describe
the need
for achievement
(McClelland,
and growth
one's
with developing
the
Hence,
(Alderfer, 1969).
potential
challenge of
a
itself
be
factor.
cracking may
significant motivating
There may also be intrinsic motivation
(Barbuto
and Scholl,
the activity
itself is the
1998) where
1961)
incentive
behaviour
associated
motivated
(Deci,
1975).
Intrinsically
is of two kinds. First, an individual may seek
to behave inways which allow them to feel competent

and self-determining
(Deci, 1975). The second kind
con
of intrinsically motivated
behaviour
involves
an individual conquers the
challenges. When
that
feel
encounter,
challenges
they
they will
is
that
the
achievement
There
evidence
(Deci, 1975).
quering
greater the difficulty of the challenge,

to succeed in the challenge
motivation
(Lee, 2002).
the greater
the
(Locke, 1968).
from
the chal
gained
undertaking
knowledge
to
itself
be
and
hence
motivating
lenge may
rewarding
an individual. Maslow
that
there
(1943) postulated
The
framework
Theoretical
into two
study divides its theoretical framework
arms. The study draws first on theories of motivation
and social
and, second, on theories of justification
This
neutralisation.
as
Motives
are
minants
of all behaviour
regarded
the
basic
which
causes
and
deter
is not
haphazard,
into two
and is divided
trivial, or purely habitual,
The
first
broad categories
type of
1992).
(Ford,
in which
involves behaviour
behaviour
motivated
feels forced, perhaps against their will,
to act in certain ways
(for instance, to seek food).
in which
the
The other type describes behaviour
is clearly conscious
of a definite goal to
individual
the individual
which
are persistently
and forcefully
This
includes
consequences
1969).
they
(Vernon,
individual would
study considers
Motivation
directed
(Ford, 1992). This

the second type of motivation.
can be externally
the
based when
of personal values (Bar

aim to gain group
Individuals may
nard,
1938).
and, subse
1966)
(Katz and Kahn,
acceptance
to
status
Barbuto
and
1961;
(Etzioni,
gain
quently,
sets
internal
In
the
individual
addition,
Scholl, 1998).
individual
standards
to
get the facts, to satisfy curiosity".

anecdotal
evidence
has suggested
Finally, while
that crackers are not paid for their activities
(Lee,
there is no conclusive
2002),
proof that this is the
Instrumental
rewards
such
as
salary
or
bonuses
that
individuals when
may motivate
they perceive
will
benefits
lead to tangible
their behaviour
(Barnard, 1938; Katz and Kahn, 1966). This is similar
to the need for power (McClelland,
1961), a need for
safety (Maslow, 1943) or the later stages of existence
needs
(Alderfer, 1969). Instrumental

as a possible
therefore be excluded
reward
cannot
of
component
motivation.
cracking
Factors of motivation
that the
like to achieve
to be aware of reality,
to know,
"a basic desire
case.
of motivation
Theories
was
study
the
2 describes
Figure
factors
extracted
of
software
from
application
the literature
of motivation
review
to the
crackers.
seeks affirmation
of values
'ideal' self (Barbuto
that become
and Scholl,
the basis
1998). Other
for
the
studies
Theories
of justification
it is
behaviour
exhibits
signs of deviance,
neutra
to
the
individual
how
understand
necessary
When
lised the social controls

or inhibit deviant
otherwise
check
(Sykes and Matza,
1957).
that would
patterns
What Motivates
Software Crackers? 177
Factor_Description_
to be highly
of the piracy environment
the social participation
rewarding (Lee 2002). Individuals may have a need to interact socially (Maslow
and Mael
1943) or be part of a group (Katz and Kahn 1966, Turner 1984, Ashforth
Crackers may find
for Social
Desire
Participation
1989).
then the challenge
is extremely difficult,
itself may be a
copy protection
factor for crackers (Locke 1968, Deci
1975), consistent with
significant motivating
theories (Lee 2002).
the related psychological
If removing
for Personal
Desire
Challenge
Desire
between groups (Lee 2002)

The competition
groups to seek status (Etzioni 1961, Barbuto
factor.
be a motivating
Status
for Social
Reward
Tangible
Demand
their behaviour
(Barnard 1938, Katz and Kahn

will act solely as a control in the
Software
(Simpson
Figure
are not paid (Lee 2002).
that that crackers
software for illegal

may increase the likelihood of people providing
1996). There is further support for the provision of
copying (Glass and Wood
to strangers for no tangible reward (Constant et al. 1996).
assistance
Financial
for Free
Need
lead to
Individuals
may feel motivated when they perceive

such as pay or bonuses
tangible outcomes
that this factor of motivation
It is anticipated
will
inside
that this may
Altruism
for Free
Software
Personal
of individuals
1998) suggests
extrinsic
1966).
light of evidence
Public
and the behaviour

and Scholl
2.
Factors
constraints
can be a motivating
factor for end-users
and Wood
1996).
to pirate software
et al. 1994, Glass
context
in the
of motivation
of
software
piracy.
Factor_Description_
The Denial
for their actions, then the restraining effect on

If subjects deny responsibility
behaviour can be reduced. This denial of responsibility
helps them renounce
as victims of their
for
their
instead
themselves
deviance,
perceiving
culpability
of
Responsibility
environment
The Denial
of Injury
The Denial
of the
Condemnation
and Matza
It is possible
for the deviant actions and
that, despite accepting responsibility
Victim resulting injury, the subject may justify the action as retribution upon or in the
absence of a deserving victim (Sykes and Matza
1957).
attempt to transfer attention from their own deviant acts to those
are
disapprove of their actions. The subject may claim that the condemners
thus blaming their actions on law-makers or other officials
hypocrites,
(Sykes and
Matza
1957)
The
of the
subject may
who
to Higher
subject justifies and legitimises

are being loyal to an "unconventional
relevance
1957).
(Sykes and Matza
Figure
3.
Factors
of justification
The
(Sykes andMatza,
techniques of neutralisation
the justifi
1957) are a popular means of exploring
cation of deviant behaviour,
been
having
applied in
as varied
as adolescent
their deviant
The
Loyalties
fields
1957).
Subjects may deny that any injury or harm arises from their actions. This allows
to feel that their deviance may be undertaken without direct harm to others
offenders
1957).
(Sykes and Matza
Condemners
The Appeal
(Sykes
drug use
(Peretti-Watel,
in the
behaviour
social bond", which
context
of
software
the behaviour
by claiming that they

bears greater personal
piracy.
pageant mothers
and deer poaching
2003),
(Heltsley and Calhoun,
and
Further,
Dodder,
(Eliason
2000).
past research
are
has found that the techniques
of neutralisation
2003),
of beauty
178
Sigi Goode
in white
valuable
collar crime
(De
particularly
et al., 1994;
Strutton
1988; Hollinger,
1991;
Young,
1995; Gauthier,
2001). Lim (2002) exam
Dabney,
played in cyberloa
use
where
their
Internet
fing,
employees
company's
access for personal purposes during work hours.
ined the role that neutralization
and Sam Cruise

research
and Grover,
1978; Malhotra
1998).
of
the
is that a range
method
survey
advantage
in situ with
little time
of variables can be examined
(Dubin,
The
and Grover,
1998).
(Dubin, 1978; Malhotra
the survey method
However,
only portrays the
state of affairs at a single point in time, provides
little
to
into
causal
and
is
open
insight
relationships,
and researcher
bias
1992).
(Galliers,
respondent
et al. (1997) argue that these drawbacks can be
Dalton
when
the research is of a sensitive nature.
magnified
Factors of justification
(1957) identify the factors
Sykes and Matza
tification and neutralisation
shown in Figure
of jus
3.
The
and
immediacy
was
method
thought
disadvantages.
survey should
Because
what
is likely
significant
find
participants.
'sensitive
examines
which
there
or
controversial
and Stanley
Sieber
1993).
the adverse effects of "po
(Lee,
also observe
or
consequences
ticipants
some
to
that it may be difficult
case
this
is
the
for
much
Indeed,
issues
(1988:49)
tential
to be
risk-averse,
concern
research'
personal
and
anonymous
specialised,
the
implications...for
the
by
research".
areas
promising
of
par
ethics
this
Accordingly,
to
data
proach
gathering
the
this,
"the
are
(Dalton et al., 1997:1049).

the same time, validity is important to research
in areas such as ethics and social behaviour. Many
to be one of the
social scientists consider validity
uses
study
items. The
interviews
to
by
greater
of findings
the triangulation
et al., 1998).
ap
study takes a two-stage
and analysis. The
survey
questionnaire
attitudinal
findings,
research
Despite
business
tive findings, but also

(consistent with Deacon
of
in the research or for the class of individuals
represented
be
interview
the target population
was
more
complemented
by a substantive
to
in
order
explore the findings
approach
in detail. A key methodological
goal of this study is
not simply the qualitative
confirmation
of quantita
method
Research
effectiveness
of the survey
to outweigh
these potential
As a result, itwas acknowledged
that a
exploring
and
the
examine
uses
second
triangulate
first phase
to
phase
cognitive
to the
add validity
outcomes
in
survey
depth.
'sensitive'"
At
most
increasing
in a
participants
certain
that
the
research
1982),
few observations
the number
the
study,
is
are
of observations
can
be more
"measuring
what
researcher
actually
is
it
it purports to measure"
1975).
(London,
Amid
the research methods
available to the social
science
Myers,
researcher,
1999),
as
such
experiments
and action
case
studies
The method
and Veiga,
and Veiga,
has proven
It has
I: Questionnaire
electronic
online
research
survey
survey
was
deemed
the
most
approach for the first phase. While

tar
be carefully and appropriately
to produce good results (Cheyne and
must
respondents
geted in order
also exhibit
lower
individuals may
Ritter,
2001),
social desirability when
they respond to online sur
to paper-based
surveys (Sproull and
veys compared
and Ritter,
1999; Cheyne
Kiesler,
1991; Joinson,
2001; Lim,
2002).
and
(Mason, 1989), surveys

research (Lau, 1997) the
shown to be an effective
(Davis, 1989),
has been
survey method
means
data electronically.
of gathering
attention
substantial
literature
received
1999; Simsek
2001; Simsek
(Klein
An
suitable
research
however
Anastasi,
important when
(London,
science
social
1975;
especially
available. By
or
of
aspects
important
Phase
also
(Joinson,
and Ritter,
2000; Cheyne
et al., 2002).
2001; Nosek
in
useful
the early stages of
Population definition and sample selection

As the actual size of the cracker population
could not
the
be found in the published
literature,
survey phase
of this study used a sample of the population
(Adams
and
Schvaneveldt,
as means
proposed
included
scanning
for email addresses,
were
methods
1991). Three
of soliciting participants.
These
pirate group contact documents
soliciting
participation
in online
What Motivates
real-time
online
chat forums
pre-testing
on
ticipants
in
participation
boards.
message
Method
and soliciting
online
suggested
that soliciting
was
boards
message
the
choice.
This
to be
respondents
2001). Also,
this
and Ritter,
targeted
(Cheyne
type of participant
is
recruiting
useful when
the researcher
requires
particularly
control over who hears about the study and how the
study is described
(Nosek
et al., 2002).
sound
otherwise
surveys
Issues
research.
and number and type of

to survey validity. Survey
structure was important as data had to be gathered
from a variety of individuals with unknown
demo
graphics.
the eleven factors of

survey first examined
motivation
and justification
using a series of Likert
Where
questions.
questions
possible,
in the literature
instruments
adopted from existing
that had already undergone
testing (such as Solomon
and O'Brien,
the exploratory nat
1991). However,
ure of this research meant
that existing questions for
some factors could not be found, and new questions
new questions were
These
had to be developed.
to extensive
subjected
factors of motivation
one
or more
used
in
the
was mapped
instrument.
seven
respondent
The
questions
pre-testing.
and justification
Likert
scale
point
attitudes (Likert, 1932).
also
survey
a series
contained
to
Questions
to
determine
of
the
were
Demographic
the conclusion
anonymous
be ethically
information
was
also
collected
at
of the survey. The survey had to be

as the identity of an individual could not
in circumstances
solicited
where
they
two
known
crackers,
Problems
with
final
addressed.
survey instrument was

this pilot test.
the
personally
and
grammar
version
of the
created based on the results of
Survey administration
Before
administering
a list of potential
the survey,
and
questions
answers
appropriate
was
so that each respondent would

receive the
produced
same information
about the study (Dillman,
1978).
the aims of
regarding
of the researcher
identity
and Clark, 2004).
(consistent with Kotulic
In order to limit problems
such as subjects for
to
the
others
survey
(Simsek and Veiga,
warding
this
included
research
information
and
the
and multiple
from a single individual

solicited
participants were
responses
(Smith and Leigh,

1997),
by way of an advertisement
at five known
cracking
re
and
(Simsek
2001). Participants
Veiga,
an
were
to
email address and
then issued a
sponded
forums
was
which
web-based
to explain their answers to the Likert

opportunity
scale questions. Again, questions were adapted from
the literature, where
such as Sykes and
possible,
Matza
(1957).
on
tested
researchers.
structure
in
the usability and fluidity of

1978; Grover et al., 1994). The
(Dillman,
was
survey,
open-ended
in past studies
significant
subculture
deviance
(Highland,
so as
questions were optional
to examine
an attachment
to explore the factors of moti

questions,
designed
vation and justification
in greater depth. The open
ended questions would
the respondent
the
give
and
employment,
the most
online
researchers
2001)
Each of the eleven
of
1984). Demographic
to allay fears about data misuse
and hopefully
crease response rates (Kotulic and Clark, 2004).
is deemed
Pre-testing
important as it allows
These
were
area
is still active in the

the respondent
environment.
This
data has
demographic
respondent
The
data
activity. Demographic
to age, education
in relation
or not
involving
to
such as length, appearance

questions are fundamental
scale
current
the survey
Survey development
Straub (1989) argues that poorly-constructed
compromise
only
reached,
piracy
been deemed
survey
can
collected
whether
most
179
to criminal
admit
may
were
level
par
technique has been used previ

and
2001; Lim, 2002) and is
Ritter,
ously (Cheyne
a suitable means of soliciting participants.
considered
This
allowed
technique
appropriate
potential
viable
Software Crackers?
The
survey.
by using
the email.
Phase 2: Cognitive
The
a text
document,
as
to a
web-based
the one-off
accessible
within
as
or by a hyperlink
accessible
to the email,
survey
password
was
only
contained
interviews
aimed, if
phase of the research method
to
additional
the
into
possible,
gain
insight
findings
from the previous
of
stage. To do this, a method
was
used.
The
interview
cognitive
interviewing
method
second
allows
for
the
qualitative
exploration
of
180 Sigi Goode

important points on a personal
in terms of research
ibility
and Sam Cruise
level and gives flex
(Creswell,
approach
(1997) used a similar approach to
the adolescent
of piracy and
understanding
explore
view,
beliefs.
ownership
Each interview
the general program of

(1986)
by Waldron
followed
cognitive
interviewing
and Scott et al. (1991).
and presented
gathered
in terms
First, summary data were

to the participants.
The
information
to
directed
open-ended
the finding
and
further
the
then
of the question
understanding
interviewee's
question
of
was
interviewee
sought.
confirm
and its meaning.

The
to both
the
reactions
were
then
recorded
for
to obtain
prior
participants
and
option.
direct
might
others
24
survey
more
five
than
unanswered
the demographic
statistics. Four of the
to
declined
respondents
provide
demographic
I
demographics
Category
Demographic
questions.
I shows
information.
TABLE
participant
1: Questionnaire
contained
Table
to participate
Survey
analysis
to the posts in the

total of 28 people
replied
an
to
forums
in participat
interest
express
cracking
to the
in
the
From
26
these,
survey.
responses
ing
were
two
were
received.
Of these,
survey
judged to
be overtly hostile or incomplete,
leaving 24 usable
were
if they
responses. Surveys
judged
incomplete
their
participants for this stage, calls

interviewee
participants were posted
It was hoped
that some
cracking forums.
two
Results
interview
using Private Mes

All participants
pre
The
for additional
on
the online
Phase
analysis.
In order
ferred
interview
forums.
outlined
actual question was read to the interviewee.

If the
so desired, the question was repeated for
interviewee
clarity. Each finding was then related to the inter
viewee
the choice
given
an online
Chat) or a text-based
saging on discussion
Friedman
1998).
to the study. Potential participants

a telephone
between
inter
interview using IRC (Internet Relay
and lend credence

were
Frequency
16-20
Age1"
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
45-50
Area
of
Unemployed
employment
Student
Hospitality
Information
Technology
Media
Agriculture
Serf-Employed
Currently at High School (Years 7-12)
Completed High School
Attending University
(Bachelor Degree)
Completed University
Graduate Degree
(Masters or Higher National
**
Level
'
"
Two
The
of
education
respondents
Higher
answered
National
in terms
Diploma,
of
These
bandings.
in the USA,
available
responses
is a two
are omitted
year
graduate
from
Diploma)
the
degree
table.
above
with
degree.
prerequisite
Bachelor
What Motivates
Past studies of deviant
electronic
subcultures
sug
in these subcultures are young,

gest that participants
and
skilled,
1984). The
knowledgeable
(Highland,
most
this:
of
the
support
demographics
respondents
are 25 and under and have at least some degree of
Seven had not attended University.
in these
element
surprising
tertiary education.
one
Tentatively,
in areas of employ
is the variation
demographics
ment. Bearing
the size of the respondent
group in
in the IT
mind, only six of the 24 respondents work
a
to
IT
much
industry
industry, contrary
higher
rate predicted
in other studies (Barber,
employment
in
of the respondents worked
2001).
or
a
as
as
as
one
fields
varied
cook, with
agriculture
turn
in
and
respondent
being
self-employed
The
remainder
five
employing
of motivation
Analysis
As observed
and justification
in other
studies of sensitive
in finding
difficulty
size
sample
other people.
assumptions
due
perhaps
can
be
about
to
tests
nonparametric
respondents
small.
In
circumstances
of
the
be made,
pected
binomial
median.
standard
deviation
II gives
Table
and
two-tailed
et
al.,
the median,
p-values
the .05 level for the factors of motivation
at
(Labovitz,
results suggest that the Demand for Free Soft

ware and the Desire for Social Participation of
cracking
group,
=
Sig.
copy
remove
to
the
however
rewarding,
factors.
factors of motivation.
have
are
they
not
motivating
the Desire for Personal Challenge factor

=
the results strongly
7,
suggest
(Median
.000 for both indicators) that crackers enjoy
and
be more
that
is particularly
which
the
important
act
of
to
cracking
the
cracker
difficult
software
than
of justification
the analysis of
This
suggests that crackers may

of justifying
their activity.
ways
to the Denial
piracy
of Responsibility,
With
regard
countermeasures
have
little
or
no
on
influence
to crack software. The findings for

of Injury factor were unclear, with crackers
cracker's decision
the Denial
having varying views on the adverse effects of soft

ware cracking (Mean = 4.33, Sig. = .503). Based on
the results for the Condemnation
of the Condemners
some limited
it
that
show
crackers
factor,
appears
=
4.92,
sympathy for the software industry (Mean
=
some
also
however
believe
the
.031),
Sig.
industry
to have
does not deserve
their product
copied.
IB: Qualitative
analysis
were
analysed using open
is
the
coding. Open
coding
analytic process through
are identified
which
and their properties
concepts
are discovered
and dimensions
in the data. This
a
process involves creating
dictionary of key concepts
to
appears
questions
Open-ended
from
the central
concepts
that
this dictionary,
stand for phenomena
(Strauss and Corbin,

category's
along
in the responses
ideas mentioned
From
crackers.
with
1998). The
a count
phenomena
of
group
categories
the
are pre
occurrences
responses.
by
or
categories
are created
a
of
For
each
factor below,
textual passages are included
example
to clarify scope and meaning. A participant's response
include entries in more
than one category
if
may
are
evident in their response.
multiple
phenomena
releasing
software
The
evidence
suggests that
publicly.
crackers believe people should pay for software they
use (Mean = 5.67, Sig. = .000) and that crackers do
not limit themselves
to cracking software that they
=
=
need
2.21,
(Mean
.001). The
personally
Sig.
Desire for Social Status did not appear to be a moti
vating factor in this analysis,
crackers would
unclear:
appeared to be
crack software
individual
sented,
For
protection
3.17,
(Mean
ambiguous
.075). Finally, Tangible Reward

as amotivating
factor to
insignificant
=
=
1.67, Sig.
(Mean
.000).
Quantitative
analysis of the factors
shown in Table III was less clear than
Sig.
the
1970).
The
are
was
software
cracking
Phase
1987). The sign test was used to test that the median
different
from the ex
response was
significantly
mean,
for
observations,
(Anderson
appropriate
the
=
6.63,
necessary
(Mean
the value of being recognised
if
anonymously
=
.000), however,
Sig.
where
cannot
the population
the number
are
topics,
that
means
181
Software Crackers?
though the results were

continue
their work
Desire for social participation

Table IV contains the open-ended
questions and co
on
ded responses for the discussion
the desire for social
the context of software cracking.
participation within
Most
crackers' relationships with
other crackers
extended beyond
software piracy. Only a quarter of
all survey respondents
in real
their group
had
even met
life. Only
five
members
of
respondents
.263
.000*
.000*
.000*.000*
.000*
.000*
.075
.000*.001*
1.000
1.840
Even
if
I would
1.736
1.239
6.46
4.58 6.33 6.17
Factors
motivation
II
TABLE
I of
would
pay
for
1.523
1.414
1.404
Std.Dev
Mean
Median
Sig.
Exact
0.924
1.5602.289
2.17
5.67 2.21 3.75
1.404
2.239
6.63 3.17 1.67
1.5
7
4.00
2.5 1
software
when
Ia
fully
functional,
cracked
download
I
would
still
crack
software
could copy in protection
software
is a group
factor
to behindmy
if
the
is force
Tangible
reward
(monetary my
isor decision
the driving
done
ifnot software is
in important
environment.
enjoyable
the
otherwise)
more
was
an
I
it
The
social
highly
the
of
cracking
rewarding.
aspects
are
scene
I would
crack
software
had
do it
anonymously.
ifto
I was not
able
to
release
The
forQuestion
free
Cracking
a demand
piece even
of
software
crack
software
Indicator
Getting
recognition
for
software
even
People
should
for
that
they
software
pay
use.
I onlycracksoftware
Ithat
need
just for
itthe
involves.
challenge to
particularly
difficult
Public
for
participation
Desire
challenge
social for
personal
personally.cracking
remove.
decision
to
software.
crack
continue
cracking.
version
Desire
is
software
free
for
free.
for
Personal
for
free
need
software
level.
demand
Desire
for
status
social
Significant
reward
Factor
Tangible
the
.05
at
important.
What Motivates
with
that their communication
reported
members
was
to software
limited
is strong support for the proposition

status (in
indeed
enjoy higher
in
Internet
the
piracy environment,
differing degrees)
seven out of nine of the respondents who
stated they
While
other group
that
piracy.
Demand for free Software

Table V contains the coded
ended
questions
context
the
This
not
responses to the open

on the demand for free software in
of
software
anecdotal
a problem
mercial
ware,
in which
of
software
Factor
Indicator
of
to crack
decision
the
disapproval
or no
influence
actions
of
me
the
of
the
Condemners
I hope
appeal to
higher loyalties
The
'who
deserve
People
that
to
The
at the
.05
the
benefits
the
software
public
pro
Exact Sie
.003*
6.5
5.46
2.146
.004*
1
3
5
2.46
.041*
4.33
2.146
1.789
1.810
to
4.79
1.841
.064
complain
3.25
1.894
.052
is not
4.92
2.020
.031*
of hypocrites
3.29
1.756
.210
of
2.5
2.92
1.863
.078
3.54
2.226
1.000
4.54
1.817
.238
cracker,
4.00
1.865
.815
to
is a bunch
justify
piracy.
at
3.38
.035*
.503
large.
for
costs
software
constitute
cracker
actions,
the
software.
cracking
software
actions.
community
to pay
have
of my
has
agencies
to crack
software.
crackers.
industry
by my
industry
should
People
software
as a software
actions
service
of
everything
they get.
a
cannot
afford
piece
access
to it.
have
not
should
to
the
software
My
Significant
actions
affected
adversely
The
does
industry
that
copy
1.837
industry.
not deserve
its product
illegally
copied.
software
has no right
industry
Condemnation
the
5.62
significant,
software
software
the
remove
to
6.5
into
have
about
this
Std.Dev
of
The
The
for
in the responses
Mean
decision
as a result
has
on
effect
crackers
Median
software
of
victim
continue
on my
The denial
the
to
them
suggests that higher status is a

factor.
and not amotivational
III
enforcement
forced
hurt
software
Cracking
law
on my
others
is really
adverse
for
software.
of
No-one
for
Question
of the commercial
disapproval
or no
has
little
influence
industry
The
needed
justification
The
The denial
of injury
to state
to the
responses
the
for
desire
questions
personal
open-ended
in the context of software cracking.
challenge
The challenge of cracking is clearly a significant
motivation
Factors
little
not
software. This
con
crackers
about
TABLE
The
were
Desire for personal challenge

contains
the coded
Table VII
cracking.
The denial
of responsibility
was
they
question.

on the desire for social status in the
questions
context
because
the scope of the question
soft
Desire for social status

Table VI contains the coded
ended
status
cracking
the
the
of
better
of cracking
by-product
there is a polarity
Again
the cost of the software.
should determine
treated
that
software. However,
for
the argument that the situation
port
and the quality
software is purchased,
do
tinued on beyond
suggests that crackers do

to pay for com
having
there is significant sup
with
have
were
cracking.
evidence
there
crackers
software.
as a software
to
the
software
developers.
level.
184 Sigi Goode

tection
from
commercial
that may
sponses
sonal challenge
software.
undermine
The
motivating
as a motivational
in
experience
of per
stated that,
factor
initially a
as
diminished
Tangible benefits
Table IX contains
However,
ended
in the minority.
questions
context
the
of
There
Personal
need for free software

contains
the coded
VIII
Table
to
responses
the personal need
questions on
open-ended
software in the context of software
for free
by which
Stimulus:Do
the existence
you find
Competitive
Not
part
challenge
a group
incompetence
of
groups
social
always
makes
"Competition
care
"I don't
to
try
crackers
"When
from
less
experienced
hard,
or
not
"The
develop
restrict
they
always
fun
outside
people
over
the
"Sure,
interaction
to
limited
to
piracy
"No,
Interaction
internet
communication
limited
communication
to
I met
more
fast
not
and
the
check
software
to
able
being
then
the
other
become
groups
reversing,
information"
share
more
to make
members,
speak
"I
actually
cracking
software"
cracking
have
become
capacity?
close
extremely
scene
that
friends
to
years"
name]
"I
of
through
you
"Only
realm
had
for
things"
astonishing
team
have
"I don't
best'"
nature"
ofthat
things
release
in
interest
from
you
'scene'
drinking
the
cracks"
group
a serious
to release
the
3 days
together"
"I know
many
Constant
and
of nonworking
in the
"[group
are
of'we
feeling
more
stats"
and be
the top of all the
key gens
exist outside
other members
with
If so, in what
of software piracy?
relationship
of the group
to
to
about
talk
software
13
"It's
with
limited
protections."
only
people
impossible
in the cracking
I've met
"I have
with
friendships
people
developed
piracy
me
Discussion
code
individuals"
their
groups
you
and
your
Close-friendship
social
for me"
their work"
you
extend
Real-life
fun
Gives
faster
get
on
Discussion
the
away
and win.
title
release
release
to crack software?
together"
groups
the
and
drag
"It's
Does
operate.
reason
compelling
takes
push
other
away
stay
of
you
about
"...promotes
make
"...can
work
to get releases
fun to race a big
cracking
"It's
Stimulus:
Indeed,
participation
release groups
should
groups
"Cracking
quality
Outgrow
between
of competition
"I
Promotes
cracking.
Example
"Just
6
for
software
IV
TABLE
Desire
the coded responses to the open

on the effect of tangible benefits
in
a significant proportion
of
to the concept of
respondents were
openly hostile
from
people making money
cracking, perhaps pro
viding evidence for the existence of a personal credo
cracking.
responses to this question contain a great deal
of variation
that cannot be explained
by demo
Counter-Productive
are dis
They
is strong support for the conclusion

that
to
do not influence
the decision
benefits
tangible
crack software.
the
The
Code Freq
affiliation.
section.
was
increased.
programming
of this type were
responses
graphies or group/scene
cussed in the following
re
only
the inclusion
the difficulty
of cracking
its effects were
factor,
although
and Sam Cruise
beer,
even
know
security
to [them]
etc"
some
of
on
have
only
in rare cases do
own
my
and
reasons
some
their
have
you
ire or phone
contact
with
real world
really
LAN's
cracking
from
people
vodka
can meet
we
group,
real
met
and we
names,
to be
every
other
amazing
we met
where
people
each
a few
with
other
times
interests"
equal
and
spent
together...
it that way"
keep
discrete"
very
day"
crackers
relationships
and
mean
reversers
face
the
though
to face meetings"
internet"
What Motivates

of the denial of
discussion
ended
for
questions
in the context
responsibility
These
into
tered
that
to pirate
actions. Only
their
this
en
have
members
Internet
the
of
ticularly
on the denial
questions
of
software
software
cracking.
par
sons for considering

the size of a software company.
While
eight responses indicate awish to avoid harm to
The denial of injury

contains the coded
text
of
indicate a lack of concern

of the responses
it comes to
about the size of a software company when
rea
use
half
its
different
software.
The
other
pirating
Half
group.
Table XI
ended
environment,
piracy
some other technique of neutralisation

is likely
there are clearly respondents
context
concerned
the DrinkOrDie
recognise
Table XII
was
threat of punishment
the recent arrests of
the
respondents
to
able
The denial of the victim

contains the coded responses to the open
on the denial of the victim
in the
ended questions
half of the respondents

stating the threat of
was
the
ineffectual
and
other half stating
punishment
a
it had
significant effect. It isworth noting that most
the reasons why
effective
are
being
who
their actions have some negative
acknowledge
on
the software industry, while there are others
effects
who even believe their actions are beneficial.
two
almost
considered
to
of results in the responses
used. However,
respondents
that could
indicated
there was a group of people
in software cracking.
influence
their participation
A polarity in the responses is evident here, with
of
question.
victims,
full
software with
Most
the damage caused to the software companies by their

actions. Since they are not denying
injury to their
cracking.
crackers
the decision
over
control
of software
indicate
responses
is a polarisation
There
The denial of responsibility

contains the coded
Table X

of injury in the con
smaller
software
the
companies,
re
four
remaining
that the respondents

did not crack
sponses
software from larger companies for fear of retribution.
indicate
cracking.
TABLE V
Demand
Code Freq
Stimulus:
Software
Should
all software
not
be
Please
"No.
free
"No.
"Of
Software
10
companies
over-charge
"The
professional
course
not,
"Some
Only
be
should
denied
not
access
software
we
below
mean
the
software,
be
free
at
the
person
should
software
"I believe
"I often
should
too much
year"
commercial
software
that
age
ever
has
to wait
10 years
be
available
support
I will
like
$5000,
have
an
with
especially
overpriced"
of dollars
100's
expect
them
buy
for
it"
I use
all because
before
a year
of
source
open
he
so
say 3D
lets
to pay
the money
to all, more
equivalent
books,
and
a lot,
software,
25 will
on
them
can
start
for
practise
in developing
or more's
is the
wages"
answer
Studio
Max...NO
a license,
such
on
where
countries
to
this
should
that
3D modelling?"
issue,
for
the
cost
of
all digital
software)"
who
the
use
a donation-based
approach
even
if I don't
use
their
effort"
share
often
not...very
why
use and
it"
appraise
properly
"Sure,
products,
is acceptable"
price
to authors
to
their
is ridiculously
crap
FlashFXP
donation-based
(music,
for
like to use and think is reasonably price"
Iwould
expensive
is the
donate
just
absolute
and
the
and
look
ONE
medium
software
way
or
produce
mIRC
basis
regular
"When
some
All
that much
the purchase
of software"
supported
through
to ask for money
in exchange
of his job"
wouldn't
be able to support
themselves"
companies
be
right
development
programmers
"Software
Donation-based
the
"I support software which

a
Poor
has
companies...charge
6 months
every
"I use WinRar,
software
worthy
must
developers
big
answer.
your
explain
Software
upgrade
"I do think
pay for
software
free
Example
be free?
20
need
for
or
trial versions
are
so restricted
it's
impossible
to
186 Sigi Goode

A
believe
that their ac
respondents
bad corporate practices in software
same number
that the
believe
total of five
tions can remedy

The
companies.
of
pricing
has
software
led to the proliferation

Six respondents
believe
pirated software today.

the actions of the software
and the popularity
other
and Sam Cruise
industry
software
of pirated
no
have
There
by
condemnation
of the condemners
to
the coded
contains
responses
about
the
condemnation
questions
open-ended
the condemners
in the context
of software
an
in
sponse
The
of
the
is incorrect while
another
6 believe
the industry reaction is futile and will have no effect

on piracy. While
there are responses supporting
the
actions of the industry, the examples quoted by the
indicate a support of the industry re
respondents
that
effect
factors.
Table XIII
the condemnation
of
in the responses to this question.

Seven
that the commercial
believe
software
respondents
industry reaction
of
is explained
is evidence
condemners
area
removed
Internet
from
software
piracy.
the
Six
of
enforcement
cracking.
accept
the
agency
efforts
to
these
responses
respondents
Further,
racy.
of
inevitability
address
law
software
indicate
an
popular
amongst
pi
acceptance
TABLE VI
Desire
Code
for
status
social
Freq
Do
Stimulus:
your
more
Afforded
actions
Example
as a cracker
afford
"I have
respect
fellow
my
are
Crackers
on the Internet?
so in what
higher status
If
capacity?
a somewhat
a
as I am real
status
in
sense,
"high"
you
elite
"The
crackers"
you
"Sometimes
when
in and
kicks
mentality
groupie
as a
demi-god"
come
ppl
the
in to my
that DON'T
people
on
channels
IRC,
know
you
talk
to me
they
treat
like
I am 'god all mighty'"

a
status on the net,
know
you have
you.
high
people
some
a
a motivator"
is
for
it's not
"There
crack but
respect
"It's
rather
fun to go onto
IRC
and have
you with
message
people
use
as a motivation"
I don't
it
BIGGEST
FAN!'
but
really
a motivator"
it's not
is some
for a crack but
"There
respect
"Yes.
Status
Name
Access
is unnecessary
is recognised
to restricted goods
Educator
status
experience
"My
name
Admire
When
"People
"I can
in
reverse
the
recognition"
in the scene
recognize
some
which
get
scene
engineering
me
but
for
are,
not
me
give
come
don't
people
others,
does
you."
'I'M YOUR
the
at my
falling
of
power
feet"
accessible"
things
to
and so on"
tutorials,
tools, warez
non-public
someone
status
I
I
is
who
has less knowledge
"The
when
get
only
'higher'
help
or reverse
about
cracking
engineering"
a lot
to learn more
"If you
have
then people
look up to you
knowledge
"You
get
access
things
for
themselves"
Stimulus: Should otherpeople be grateful to you for providing cracked software?Why / why not?
to make
11
"I don't
other
crack
Gratitude does not matter
people
happy"
"The
last
thing
it for fun
"I do
"I
Gratitude
is desired
crack
software
"Yes
they
them
these
course
"Of
on
I care
and
for
about
fun mostly,
should...One
great
they
while
own
for my
services?
should,
minute
The
many
I'm
cracking
pleasure"
not for
and
they
is the
general
public"
people"
have
what
they wanted.
And
who
crackers"
'leechers'
don't
care
about
the
time we
protection"
"I guess they should be grateful if I crack something
they request"
spend
gave
What Motivates
as crackers,
the law. Five
they are breaking
with
have
taken
issue
the recent
respondents
With
that,
crackdown
on
release
most
example
groups
often
across
was
quoted
the world.
the
the
and
of software
that most
suggest
attitudes
com
of
the morality
regarding
the
their
appropriate.
Phase 2: Cognitive
The appeal to higher loyalties
contains
the coded
Table XIV
questions
open-ended
context
in
the
loyalties
interviews
In the interests of confirming

the findings from the
first phase of the study, the researchers conducted
to
the
responses
the appeal to higher
of software cracking.
additional
about
pants
interviews.
cognitive
for
these
Gathering
cognitive
Just as the original participants were

in the survey, so too were
ticipating
that cracking software is justified

spond,
if the software product
is too expensive.
Three
a
smaller
believed
that cracking
software
from
careful
even
pants
interview
six indicated
more
some
In
exercise.
of
wary
partici
was
interviews
to this question
indicated
that
Non-respondents
was
not
their
and
first
consequently
English
language
the verbose wording
of
they could not understand
did re
the question.
From the participants who
not
wary
these partici
real-time
longer
cases
it
easy.
of par
took
of
weeks
assurance
and
using private
trust-building
to agree to
in order for the participant
messaging
even a brief interview. As one participant
reasoned,
"if I was you and I wanted me to be comfortable
is not justifiable
three
and, surprisingly,
are not jus
to end-users
that the benefits
in any way.
company
believed
tified
piracy,
have
crackers
Eight
respondents
challenged
terms of
in
of
software
companies
morality
and
business
strategies.
pricing
members.
of the DrinkOrDie
Tellingly,
prosecution
some respondents
indicated that the actions of
while
were justified, none deemed
law enforcement
their
actions
responses
plex or confused
software piracy.
The
arrest
to the morality
respect
to admit to something
and then stay put
enough
I did it, I'd use IRC". However,
while
interview
TABLE VII
Desire
Code
for
challenge
personal
Freq
Example
Stimulus: Do youfind the difficulty of cracking software a compelling reason to continue the activity due to the challenge involved?
not
"I know
who
of no cracker
does
the challenge"
Challenge is critical 19
enjoy
"If
there
was
as
Experience
to
desiring
challenge
"However,
I became
"I don't
The harder the challenge
New
protections
are
the better
the most
fun
protections
are futile
I began
a more
like
"When
"The
harder
and
the more
to
the
simple
"Cracking
difficult
'look,
then
it would
spend
several
become
as
just
not
hard
really
software
the more
challenge
boring
[from
you
a super
less
cracking]
that
feel
patient
like
and
crack.
less
as
anymore"
are in heaven"
you
one
gratification
hard
gets when
finished
it becomes"
is no
software
difficulty
it's pointless
'rush'
experienced
programmer"
too much...I'm
not
fun"
is the
ultimate
and
protections
elegant"
it would
that
us
software
is something
were
no new
the
the
on
weeks
struggle
addictive
"Cracking
"It's
to get
crack
you
protection
"If there
Copy
challenge
playing
"In the early days
I could
Now
I try to avoid
those"
Leads
less
no
tic-tac-toe"
new
trying
keeps
to protect
going,
[your
fun
get
it's
especially
rather
the
software]'"
fact
when
boring"
that we
the
can
say,
and Sam Cruise
Sigi Goode
TABLE VIII
Personal
Code Freq
How
Stimulus:
do you pay for
often
if software isworthy
Buy
pay
Rarely
software
own
your
software?
isn't much
ever.
"Hardly
never
"Never,
"Not
Buy
"[I
all
I'm
software
"I buy
free
when
software
"I do
can
crack
for"
paying
it then good
for me"
and
so,
as I am
a student,
conscience"
a poor
from
software"
I have
whenever
to do
the money
pay forWindows
so"
and Visual Studio"
software"
"If I use something

Use
it and
to do
reason
professional
to ease my
software]
all
is worth
that
frequently
I. If I need
it"
"If I could afford it, Iwould
financially viable
Buy
paid
no
I have
for
should
why
for
often.
pay
I use
software
And
little money
very
when
software
"If there's something I truly think is great then I buy it"

"I pay only for software I find worthy"
"I've
software
free
Example
"There
for
for
need
to
tend
I buy it"
look
for
free
a lot"
software
possible
participants appeared to be interested in the research:

"This is by far one of the most exciting emails I've
as a cracker,
got
what
someone
that
participants were
as
information
demographic
participants.
information,
asked
for
same
the
the
where
Have
you
ever received
any kind
software? If so, what?

No tangible benefits
to those who
tangible
of tangible
19
7
rewards
Access
tangible
"No,
and if offered,
"No.
I've
rewards
tangible
to other
pirated
never
in my
to crack
material
been
for
example"
one.
of
this
offered
been
"[I
circle
-
off warez
have
Iwouldn't
received
etc)
as a result
of removing
I don't
offered]
gifts
friends
is an
think
a real
money,
[person] even offered me
"Yes,
I have
"Warez
someone
from
thing
as money
and
accounts,
the
and
view,
free
for my
would
idea
of people
is not
do
so"
services"
access"
and
making
permitted"
equipment"
free mail
$1500 for a patch"
pay me
cracker
they should be jailed"
rejects
in our
shell
"One
had
absolutely
evil
such
copy protection
accept it"
And
are lamers and parasites. Furthermore
"Such people
"I have
access
internet
(money, free
benefit
"Everyone
rewards
IX
benefit
Example
money
Received
these
support for the proposi

tion that the social aspects of the cracking scene are
there was very strong support for
highly rewarding,
original
shows
this demographics
they were provided.
Table XV
Code Freq
Offered
of each aspect
are pre
and
Desire for social participation

there was moderate
Tangible
receive
discussion
While
survey
TABLE
Hostile
involved
and justification,
I think and mean".
Interview
Stimulus:
interview
sented below.
care
to
bothers
really
Each
of motivation
free webspace
What Motivates
in software
ipate
in
that,
the
absence
of
all
The
cracking.
responses
generally
than 10 people
the effect of the cracking group
group". However,
to be quite significant:
one interviewee
appeared
suggest
almost
2 added
Interviewee
noted,
wife
"my
wouldn't
just
are
there
Clearly
tional
to this,
confirmation
in real life, and I don't

outside my group. In fact, less
I do for the
probably know what
tell others
tell people
6.33, Sig.
.000) respondents would
(Mean
continue
this survey finding,
cracking. Supporting
Interviewee
3 noted,
"We don't brag or make
ourselves known as crackers to people outside of the
groups."
189
"I don't
arguing,
to partic
environment,
group
is not
the proposition
that social participation
motivation
factor for individuals
defining
Software Crackers?
understand".
more
other,
motiva
powerful,
so willing
to
respondents
without
the
rewards
offered
cracking
by a
continue
are
if the
factors
TABLE X
Denial
Code
Freq
Stimulus:
Does
in what
the disapproval
capacity?
of others
influence
Example
to which
the degree
at all 18
Not
of responsibility
I participate
"No.
care what
received
Never
others
think
disapproval
of
software
matter
authors
of other group
Opinions
Does
Stimulus:
the threat
has
no
of punishment
effect
from
anyone"
one
disapproves
affect your
some
the
"I'm
but
does
not
concerns
has
reverse
effect
if the
to be
busted
I was
and
lose
DoD
for
in
a lot of
thinking
when
"Maybe
at all. And
should
why
it?"
responsibilities.
got
5 minutes
tried
will
are hard
to quit
"If
threat
bother
cracking.
tell him not
to,
me
stimulates
dangerous
"Forbidden
or
times
It's
all other
of
the
the more
very
but
the
it's just
when
feeling
benefits
being
little
kid
he
does
much...I
the
caught,
is the
not
you
scene
not many
syndrome,
some
people
of mine,
hobby
possible.
break
has
to offer"
would
the more
you
it."
love
doing
forbidden."
apple
and
free time I have"
friends,
and
protection
no
there was
scared
it's a true
but
to break"
numerous
lose many
all got
sometimes,
life, I do it in ANY
habits
cannot
I really
college,
anymore"
retirement.
I guess
it's not worth
everything"
we
busted
a new
"It
of,
is careful."
involved
me
affect
leader
If so, how?
an
example
software?
more
with
cash"
effort."
it to be"
everybody
doesn't
ago wen
"Yes,
"I
and
with
supported
it's their
and made
caught
older
been
You
threat
be
-
think
I could have afforded to have been busted a
t'smy
influence
threat
years
"Old
Punishment
it"
they
often
getting
"Yes
threat
other"
should
cracking
get
it's not
While
cracking
yourself
disapproval
of
what
to continue
decision
few
Punishment
about
the
any
developers
care
"No,
10
influences
significantly
received
"Software
"No
of punishment
or
way
"I've
but
Threat
change
done
for
not get released

crack] may
in the group
want
I'm in doesn't
11
and
disapproval
for
"[A
matter
Punishment
one
never
"I
members
care
"I don't
"No
Opinions
If so, whose
cracking?
Whatsoever"
"None,
not
in cracking
will
disapproval
should
be
things
myself...No
that. Some
Do
in software
you participate
sweetest."
things
considered
it,
quit':
and Sam Cruise
Sigi Goode
TABLE XI
Code Freq
Do
Stimulus:
think
you
Example
that software
companies
11
Piracy hurts companies

not
does
software
harm
about
effect
course
"No.
People
"No.
Those
"Software
benefits
companies
interviewee
One
cannot
who
who
crack
benefit
piece
of
from
software
on
reflected
role that inter-group

competition
plays in
to
the motivation
crack software may also be limited
to those who value being the first to release a piece
to". The
pirated
One
interviewee
gave
context
to
is one
this, arguing that, "there is somebody who
if
behind
and
whole
you
you stop, your
step
night's
is pointless because second place doesn't exist
work
in
the
scene".
but maybe
single
say
suggests
anonymously
minor
role
in
the motivation
to
crack
their actions
plays only
software.
recognition
unnecessary,
there
was
believed
that receiving
of respondents who
was
important. On reviewing
recognition
extremely
"I can
the results, one interviewee
candidly wrote,
see why you found this. Very few want to be known
a
personally,
they don't mind being known by
can
are
also useful [because] you
[nickname]. Nicks
walk away from them, and set up alibis if the heat is
but
of pseudonymous
importance
in
2's comment,
Interviewee
apparent
anyway"
release
huge
is widely
pirated"
faster
are
you
after
up
their
their
at
prestige was
"The better/
software
base
the
cracking,
that
better
can
got cracked"
occur
The
can
you
groups
access
to sites on
very best groups get

tens of terabytes of information
links
with
[gigabit]
in a respected group in
back
years. Being
dating
a
lot
of
respect amongst others in
stantly gets you
join.
in the scene". Discussing
volved
this
group
one
hierarchy,
training
for
ground
the
of
piece
software
"it's
noted,
generation".
Desire for personal challenge

Almost
all survey respondents
a
of
the importance
interviewee
next
is
that
signalled
to
the
crack,
the
more
the
Almost
all respondents
experience.
=
the
.000) stated that releasing
(Mean 6.17, Sig.
software was secondary to the challenge of cracking
in the cognitive
itself. This finding was supported
For
Interviewee
instance,
noted,
is
step ahead of the [software] developers
"being
I'm
than
them!".
better
good for my ego. Basically,
6 argued that, "We are just like you.
Interviewee
You say you're doing this research just to find things
out
about
motivates
results,
us, look
an
to know what
If you want
in the mirror". On reviewing
the
the world.
interviewee
"there
wrote,
is
never
to spend early in the

of people willing
their
time
of
hours
proving a point".
morning
some
For
this desire had persisted
interviewees,
shortage
for
some
time.
For
instance,
one
respondent
noted
rush I got
the huge mental
and that "my
from cracking my first program"
parents actually supported me from the beginning
that "I still remember
The
who
one
cluster
on
authors
in customer
increase
interviews.
The
for cracking software

issue of receiving
recognition
to
the respondents
(Standard
appeared
polarise
the majority
While
Deviation=2.239,
Mean=3.17).
considered
software
case."
it at all"
buy
the
sales went
their
the
enjoyable
to perform
that recognition
not
will
for
paid
of payment"
[software
piracy]"
not
in their
exist
does
software
have
harder
Desire for social status

The willingness
of crackers
capacity?
of
problem
their
wouldn't
firms
surely
to support this, arguing, "I could

experience
meet
but I
the ones that live near me,
up with
choose not to meet
them as I have no real interest
software.
because
piracy
afford
never,
his own
of
lose millions
the
in what
If so,
is good and worthy
independently..."
when
environment.
They
so rich
that
medium-sized
"Some
"Some
social
do.
companies
software
Piracy
they
are
"Companies
companies
Conflicted
actions?
of your
"They only suffer if their product

"Of
Piracy
as a result
suffer
What Motivates
Software Crackers?
TABLE XII
Code
Freq
Does
Stimulus:
of
Size
of
affect
of
affects
to pirate
software
decision
Size
the size
a company
a company
does
to pirate
decision
software
company
12
not
12
software
Example
decision
to crack
"Yes.
We
all
to release
good
well
known
"No,
not
at all,
affect your
the
"Never,
with
size
"The
not
crack
'small'
software
"It
from
company
not
Will
a
'big'
crack
software
from
has
company
absolutely
a factor,
is not
company
me
trouble
when
release
you
on"
to do
nothing
their
product
expensive
apps
solely
small
software
we
made
companies
don't
touch
them
usually
working
a different
kettle
they're
Microsoft,
big
etc"
on
shoestring
budget.
offish..."
MYOB...We
Adobe,
from
any money"
students
poor
by
are
well,
very
cracking
I am costing
think
to crack
multinationals,
leave
the
big fish to the big fish"

and
What
you
answer.
your
explain
titles. When
status!"
get more
I can get my
hands
whatever
as I don't
The
"Yes,
company
Stimulus:
the
not
not
"I would
No
I crack
Please
known
I crack"
of
companies,
"I try not
The
well
morals"
does
"Yes.
their software?
software
software
whatever
or business
Will
like
role do
the actions
role
god
crack
go
knows
from
something
what
they would
Adobe,
in the popularity
of the software
industry play
of pirated
"I don't
think
the actions
of the software
of pirated
popularity
at a certain
see
"I don't
of
course
the
software"
pirated
do
the
[in
nowadays?
in the
any role
industry
play
free
stuff, and if their morals
Internet
except
environment]
piracy
software"
a role.
got
If someone
it will
unreleased
something
power,
software
like
People
use
they
anything
developing
haven't
"They
software.
they will
level,
and
got money
they
do"
get
their
gets
released.
on
hands
a matter
It's just
time
of
and motivation"
Remedy
bad
company
a company
not
to offer
decides
free
to crack
their application"
if they protected
their
software
"Maybe
"If
practices
that
updates
a strong
provides
incentive
have
Windows
cheaper"
"How
they
corrupt
they wouldn't
been
for
their
is ridiculous"
that's why
products,
if it was
scale
large
a CD
for
$1500
paying
too much
in this
pirated
people
stuff"
of
reason
is the main
software
so many
why
use
people
software"
pirated
"Should
industry
have
someone
justify
demand
prices
"High
would
can
"Companies
use cracked
Morally
then
problem"
"I doubt
effects
Over-pricing
a bit more
corrupt
morally
it then
industry
a game
becomes
and
should
they
to crush
attempt
players
expect
fight.
the
The
scene,
more
fight
the more
Self-destructed
by advertising piracy
"The
such
I will
crack
software
a
you
out
issue
public
Prior
and Kazza.
that
could
those
and music
to
obtain
industry
of file
have
sharing
the Napster
music
software"
players'
hurt
clients
controversy,
and
software
for
themselves
by making
like
the
few
people
free
using
programs"
former
Napster
realized
these
they
are
192 Sigi Goode

and I would
to have
like to consider myself

cracker".
and Sam Cruise
devel
week.
into an ethical
oped
Personal need for free software

was
in
the
survey
strong
support
=
=
for
the
2.21,
(Mean
.001)
Sig.
proposition
to software
that crackers do not limit themselves
need.
An
wrote,
they personally
of the targets I examine
aren't pieces of
that I even have any practical use for".
software
comments
from
other
Echoing
participants,
interviewee
wrote,
I release
"Nope,
that some
costing
apply a different
software to crack and to
crackers
to purchase
in its purchase,
if they have the money
the software, or if they are one of the three who
this conten
purchase all their software. Supporting
interviewee
"Most
another
three programs
to choosing
may
personally using cracked software. Respondents
be reluctant to use cracked software if they see merit
There
that
I bought
Last week
each".
$40-80
It is possible
set of reasoning
tion, one interviewee

noted,
to
their
just
study
protections
[I have] stacks of games on my

a different
before but all with
point.
any
also noted
thing I can get". The same interviewee
that he paid for software frequently:
"Every single
"I actually buy games

to an almost obsessive
played
shelf never
protection
version".
TABLE XIII
The
Code
condemnation
Stimulus:
wrong
is your
What
opinion
of the reaction
1
"Their
want
priorities
and
to
The CSI reaction
is pointless
is wrong.
by
don't
is never
are
"They
Commercial
software
"Big
issue
"Do
is appropriate
"I
support
What
of
Actions
law
is your
opinion
enforcement
of the reaction
6
"They
(LEA) are justified
agencies
and
overreacted
are
of the LEA
think
"Their
"I
Actions
their
P2P-users
won't
lead
issue
the
ignore
seen
of
penalties
think
"Banning
would
law enforcement
are
doing
"If
as
Alliance]
is insignificant
signalled
that
on
down
crack
they mainly
towards
agencies
illegal
software
piracy?
actions"
completely
got
they
the
to
disproportionate
law
the
will
cause
only
enforcement
going
a decline
into
4
they
did
on
their
side"
crimes"
in computer
other
areas,
should
They
child
but
security"
I guess
actually
spend
there
[sic]
resources
on
"I'm
always
not
understand
serious
crimes
they'd
employ
like
rape,
us
instead
abuse."
understood
why
we
crack
then
perhaps
of putting us in jail"
people
as
that."
and
they
wrong,
anything
reverse-engineering
to see law
say
murder
they do
are
like
"Ridiculous.
Two
almost
it's overkill"
"I would
misguided
LEA response
anywhere"
cracking,
anything."
Software
crackers
job,
better"
"They have a job to do"

"Don't
have
fight
willing
software
issue of the file-sharing

clients
public
into
will
it,
it, the more
get
people
to
in the morning
hours
early
spend
software"
pirated
of the
response
do
people
it hurts profits"
[Business
use
that
software piracy?
so that more
point"
rarely
the BSA
companies
Stimulus:
I've
react?
they
you
Targetting
stupid.
seem
to completely
if they do not believe
industry (CSI) ignore

reaction
proving
companies
lower
prices
their
a
by making
of people
shortage
plain
towards
industry
make
to protect
how
more
it. The
get
a
time
their
learn
a mistake
made
there
software
should
They
copy"
legal
should
have
"They
of
of the commercial
response
reaction
"They
LEA
condemners
Example
"Developers
the
the
Freq
CSI have the
CSI
of
surprised
there
this
question.
isn't more
of
response"
What Motivates

of cases. They should be more grateful to the person
that puts the release into the public domain
(news
2 noted,
"I don't par
Interviewee
groups, p2p)".
Public demand for free software

was little evidence
in the survey of altruistic
There
concerns
in
the
is evidence
there
individuals
of
should
(Mean=5.67,
of
motivation
pay
Further,
among crackers that

software that they use,
for
Interviewee
Sig.=.000).
on the curious
mented
crackers.
a belief
between
crackers
concerned
with
That
crackers
what
users
end
I'm more
want,
the competition
side".
believe
that others should
software
relationship
public: "I don't care
software-consuming
an
user
I
is grateful to me, because
whether
end
don't mean for them to be using the software in 99%
and
about
pay for
while
the
crackers
themselves
use,
they
is
facilitate
the use of pirated
software by others,
a
of
attitude of crackers
paradox. The
something
towards paying for software is clearly more complex
com
also
care
ticularly
the
TABLE XIV
The
Code
appeal to higher
loyalties
Freq
Example
Stimulus: Do the benefits to end-usersjustify the costs to software developers? If so, in what way?
some
it costs,
"Some
software
deserves
the amount
Justified if software is too
expensive
over
plain
priced"
"Software
leave
Not
justified with
small
Benefits
companies
are not
justified
Is software
piracy
morally
attitude
Ambivalent
should
software
un-cracked"
themselves
"The
smaller
13
of
because
all
software
to get
employment"
it becomes"
less justifiable
"It
depends
companies
"The
wrong
wrong,
for
issues
morally
a reason
and
big companies
and piracy
only
of piracy
for
how
I have
set of
justifiable
sided
story"
on
it depends
really,
on how
define
you
not
"Well
morally
to
cracked
the
costing
it
price
Please
"I
successfully,
"I think
it's a two
are
the
a chance
has
so that we
prices,
it has"
features
your answer.
explain
with
the moral
struggle
have
at east
Photoshop
the
to find
Software
countries
the
company,
in their
reasonable
them
giving
as Adobe
such
"Software
wrong?
with,
the
be
third world
from
people
train
does,
Stimulus:
developers
their
"Some
is just
software
rules
think
you
software
tried,
not
entirely
to follow"
about
it"
piracy"
the existing
laws
flourishes
because
against
of the
[piracy]
are
unnecessary
morally
high
prices
software"
a
use
is morally
for which
you
wrong,
product
continually
a
is
is
which
full
of
and poor
however,
product
providing
bugs
to the
a money
without
back
yet provided
programming
guarantee"
public
a lot of afford
to create
I think yes, ppl make
and then
"Well,
software,
smart arses like us crack
it ;D"
"To
keep
so
Piracy
is morally
wrong
"Its
Piracy is not morally wrong
Only
if it harms small firms
basically
think
copyright
"No. What
when
"I
and
can
we
understand
if for profit
it is seen
we
who
people
as
copy
do with
his months
seeing
I'd never
release
Only
from
stealing
"I don't
morally
a cassette
the
budding
of work
work
hard"
no more
wrong,
tape
or
be
software
should
developer,
working
on
away
given
than breaching
a program
off
record
up
for
the
the TV"
to us"
a
long
net...in
time
on
a program
circumstances
these
the
program."
"If you're
of monetary
any kind
making
are a company
"If you
and use a software
or
tangible
product
profit
to make
off
it,
money,
then
yes"
then
yes"
Sigi Goode
and Sam Cruise
TABLE XV
Cognitive
Interview
Case
Gender
interview
31
18
34
30
Level of Education
(no details)
Self-employed
23
Medical Doctor
Retail/Student
36 Software Architect
Not given
B(Law), B(Comp. Sei.)

Graduate Bachelor of Medicine
Not
Not
the end of the interview,

thought. At
2 noted,
"I would
Interviewee
like to see 99% of
If I had my way,
software.
end users without
pirated
than first
scene
releases would
the
be for those contributing
only
scene".
Tangible
was
There
Sig.=.000)
to crack
comment
regarding
"cracking
programs
morally
the
for
right. Selling
passes pirate CDROMs
criminal offence".
tangible
fun and
benefit
finding:
the
is
challenge
in a organised group that
is not only immoral but a
them
PhD
all hate
the idea of them making money

in this way".
Another
"Our group takes pride in per
explained,
fect releases ... this is a big thing in the scene ... but
by the time [the software] get to these pirate stores
and full of trojans. Why would
they are incomplete
2 noted,
similar lines, Interviewee
cracking". Along
in an ISP, he
"I had a friend in a group working
I
could get me free small Cisco
routers, although
never took him up on the offer. Other
than that, and
the
occasional
expensive
than site
bit
for
[via Paypal.com]
other
afford, nothing
access. That's
all I ever wanted".
software
(FTP)
of
cash
I couldn't
the most
[received]
and
knowledge".
important things: friendship
in that the
interview
The
stage proved valuable
Another
argued,
"I've
only
researchers were
able to probe the apparent duality

the insignificant
effect of a tangible reward,
to
the significant
dollar amounts
attributed
between
and
software piracy globally. One interviewee

explained,
or Hong
"walk
any street in Singapore
through
and
Kong and you'll find stores full of CDs of Razor
Myth
want
to be
"it's
just
releases from the internet
and newsgroups.
We
with
associated
it can
that
be
copied
that?". Another
so
easily
... and
interviewee
they're just satisfying demand". Another
of
software
cracked
versions
noted,
[is
"selling
but I believe
that ... the software publishers
wrong]
as possible,
are simply trying to charge as much
at what
the software
is actually
looking
to someone".
while
This
that
suggests
the spread of pi
crackers are integral to facilitating
without
worth
rated
3 noted,
"I've got a [power supply
PJ\M
and a hard drive. But
2
sticks
of
unit], cpu,
that was a gift from the group, we don't get paid for
Interviewee
given
B (Commerce)
B(Arts)
wrote,
support
(Mean=1.67,
insignificant
factor
for tangible reward as amotivating
software. One
interviewee
made
this
Sei.)
B(Comp.
Not
given
given
we
reward
A-Levels
Services
Financial
26
44
demographics
Employment
Age
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
to
participant
software,
the distribution
conducted
copy protection,
through removing
of this software outside the group is
by other
parties.
Tlte denial of responsibility

demonstrated
survey evidence
of
commercial
software
the
proval
The
that the disap

industry and law
had little influence on the

respectively
to
decision
crack software. There was strong support
for the argument
that crackers accept full responsi
enforcement
bility for their actions and the disapproval of others.

is
In the case of crackers, the denial of responsibility
not used as a technique
One
of neutralisation.
interviewee
respect to their own
spoke of this with
group's actions: "[Our group] has a note in
that says something
like, 'if you want us to
cracking
the NFO
stop
many
your
cracking
have
please
authors don't know
bother
contact
us'.
How
us in the last 2?3 years? 2-3

cracks exist or they
to look at them".
contacted
The
people?
just don't
software
What Motivates
interviews
the
However,
was
industry disapproval
this issue, Interviewee
pretty
morals,
high
some
in
agreements
also
that
showed
not
On
ignored altogether.
1 noted,
"I personally have
but if you read the licence
software
they
state
that
can't
you
do this or you can't do that with the software. They

are clearly trying to both have the cake and eat it. If I
to do what
pay $1500 for software it should be mine
I want
with.
For
a car manufacturer
example,
not
to repaint the expensive

made
interviewees
Other
tell you
can't
car you just

similar com
bought".
ments. This suggests that crackers are aware that they
are responsible
for their actions (and hence do not
at the same time they
however,
deny responsibility),
basis for this
feel as though
there is a justifiable

survey results for the denial of the victim ap
the software
peared to indicate that some thought
The
industry did not deserve to have its products illegally

shed further light on this finding.
copied. Interviews

some respondents
their
as
actions
software
industry,
actions
are
about
the
some
or
harmless,
existence
to accept
appeared
cause
cracker
individuals
believed
at
were,
of
least,
adverse
that
to
harm
the
their
conflicted
effects.
The
gave greater
insight into this finding.
not
"I have
harmed
One
interviewee
noted,
I
has died from my actions,
and nobody
anybody
never
to
real
down
believe
has
harmed
piracy
earns 32
so what
if some company
earth people,
interviews
rather
million
than 54 million?".
the
some respondents did utilise the denial

of injury to justify their actions. These
respondents
the fact that
used the denial of injury to neutralise
their
actions
run
counter
to
law.
For
instance,
on
one
interviewee
the survey findings,
discussing
me
that you
"It also bothers
noted,
immensely
could go to jail for cracking for longer than people
of
that is a perversion
go to jail for rape. To me
1 noted,
Interviewee
"If I was
justice."
Similarly,
to kill someone while DUI,
I would
probably get
sent to prison for a year or so and get a $5,000 fine.
If I copy/crack
software I could go to jail for five
a
and
is human
fine
of $10 million. Why
years
get
as 'cheaper'
life regarded
than software? Mainly
because
our
the
software
[sic]
lobby's
industry
a
to
and
has
so".
An
lot
of
do
money
politicians
a
"to
bust
them
AND
them
other wrote
that,
give
fine
geous".
comparable
to manslaughter
is just
outra
software
source/free
open
...
comment
not
a more
becomes
attrac
some
However,
as crackers
their
get
software was
I struggle with
this issue".
that their ac
individuals believe
tive alternative.
tions
software would
if commercial
it then
because
pirated,
The
community.
source
is that open
argument
more
support and users
are
actions
justified,
may
suffer
of
regardless
cause.
as
a result
harm
any
whether
On
software
of
cracking
1 argued, "No, they don't. Bill
activity,
is
Gates is still the richest man in the world". There
evidence
of the denial of the victim as a neutralisa
might
Interviewee
be
technique. This suggests that crackers may

of recognising
targets they believe
capable
tion
Further
inappropriate.
is
needed.
technique
research
are
the use of this
into
of the condemners
in how
this factor suggest a divide
While
the
the
software
regard
industry.
Condemnation
The
results of
crackers
of crackers
majority
However,
one
"the
that
is a comment
that lingers with me and troubles me,
about how pirated software might negatively
impact
companies
While
wrote
interviewee
One
that
activity.
195
Software Crackers?
software
as a result
industry
cluster
do not wish
their
feel quite differently.

felt that law enforcement
on
instance,
interviewee
to
cracker
interactions
the
reviewing
noted,
release.
"this will
try
They
with
is a
Some
agen
crackers.
one
results,
survey
only
the
there
actions,
of crackers who
respondents
clearly
cies over-react
in their
For
of
on
any harm
the
challenge
to make
stronger
pro
but forget to make

their software near bug
wants.
is
which
And that iswhat
what
the
client
free,
a
very protected box of bugs".
they will pay for. Not
were
also critical of Microsoft's
Respondents
tections
and
product
wrote,
Microsoft.
"All
practice.
For
software
example,
I keep
one
respondent
I pay for, except

to be highway
rob
I feel their product

in
sale of software
respect of their continued
bery
that is buggy and a great security risk for the general
the size of the software publishing
public". Again,
a
firm might play
role in this effect. One interviewee
wrote
that "the big boys
like Microsoft
and Adobe
196
Sigi Goode
targets no matter what

they do".
"Microsoft
is a special case, well
that sells horrible
software to mil
one
people".
Additionally,
respondent
will
always be
Another
noted,
hated company
lions
of
"I'm not
noted,
they
got
to hunt
me
any titles from Microsoft,
touching
resources
the
to put
on
pressure
any
agency
that software,
others
also felt that people
using
to pay for software.
should have
Some
crackers
appeared to use the appeal to higher loyalties, in this
case serving the community
software,
by supplying
as a means of
their behaviour.
justifying
the conflicting
results of this factor
However,
indicate that the majority
of crackers might
justify
on
the
situation and may have
piracy depending
for doing so. For
quite intricate methods
developed
consider
when
this
interviewee's
comment,
asked whether
all software
but that doesn't mean
I have
should be free:
to pay $2000 for
either. Not only could I not afford it, but
Photoshop
even if I couldn't
I would
just use the [free, open
"No,
source] Gimp instead, but since I have access to both

for free, Photoshop
is by far the better choice".
The cognitive
interviews
useful addi
provided
tional insight into this neutralisation
technique, with
some interviewees
that
crackers
could be of
arguing
use to the software industry because of their tech
nical
skills. One
they
to
save
use
should
our
or
another
and
and
if
increase
companies
their
profit,
respect
to the
study's
research
as follows
I. What factors motivate software crackers to remove the

from the survey stage suggest that the
Findings
is a significant
difficulty of removing copy protection
motivating
interview
factor.
stage
care
I don't
solve.
it". The
about
the
that the pres

reward was not a
analysis
or possibility
of a tangible
factor. Evidence
from
motivating
Evidence
further
that not only
suggested
dents
not
payment
the
the interview
ismonetary
factor,
motivating
reviled
that's
program
also showed
idea
of
stage
or
compensation
but
some
receiving
respon
for
payment
software.
cracking
factors do software crackers use to justify

the
removing
were
Factors
of justification
less clear. Most
2. What
some
denied
respondents
was
There
activity.
victim
for their
responsibility
evidence
of denying
the
as
tech
neutralization
injury
some
and denial
of
niques: in particular, some crackers felt little sympa

of more
software
thy for the vendors
expensive
to
the condem
products. With
regard
condemning
some
ned,
enforcement
of law
appeared to disapprove
others found
agency behaviour, while
their behaviour
and understandable.
acceptable
most
to
of
the
did not wish
However,
respondents
crackers
cause harm
to the original
software authors them
if the author was from a small
(particularly
selves
to the appeal to higher loyalties,

that crackers might
justify their
on the circumstances.
firm). With
regard
there was evidence
activities
depending
research
Implications for
This
paper
search
in
makes
the
areas
a number
of
ethics
of
and
contributions
information
to
re
systems.
a number of factors of
First, this research compiles
motivation
and justification
to be
that are found
remove
in
actions
the
of
those
that
copy
important
suggestions".
conclusions
with
were
to
like
around
"In the end we
wrote,
money
and
findings,
questions,
way
some
Discussion
The
interviewee
one
win
always
want
dominant
the
factor,
motivating
overshadowing
or desire for social status.
need for social participation
One
interviewee wrote,
is exactly
"[the difficulty]
all little puzzles. Riddles
I
my motivation.
They're
ence
down".
The appeal to higher loyalties

The survey finding for this factor was unclear. While
some respondents
believed
to
that being unable
afford a piece of software should not be a barrier to
example,
and Sam Cruise
from
suggests
the
that
cognitive
this is the
from commercial
software. Second,
this
protection
study is among the first to explore the originators of
pirated software rather than the users and distributors
of pirated software.
in terms of research method
this study
Third,
makes
several contributions.
The solicitation of par
from
chosen
forums on the inter
ticipants
carefully
net was
directly
generally
relevant
successful
and yielded
to the research
respondents
study's
topic. The
What Motivates
method
a survey
of
administering
of open-ended
combination
scale questions was highly
richness
of
and reliability
internet. The
the effectiveness
highlighted
over
the
and Likert
questions
a
successful and yielded
not have been
that would
information
Subsequent
using a single collection method.
the
inter
interviews
confirmatory
using
cognitive
view method
in validating
also proved
invaluable
possible
earlier findings
the
research,
exploratory
to the study. For
and lending weight
tiple data collection
of
effectiveness
methods
was
using
mul
confirmed.

quite
to the plight of
those
from
particularly
software
sympathetic
opers,
For
companies.
one
instance,
of
the
small
interviewee
devel
software
wrote,
authors
shareware
against
opinions
can
cracking influences me, and I try to read what I
or
a
cracker
their views".
about
Approaching
cracking group to request that they cease cracking
results. Further,
their software may yield positive
some respondents
the
felt that they were
doing
"only
software
a positive
firms
and
removal,
increasing
service by assisting
user
the
base.
This
in bug
is con
sistent with
the arguments of Conner

and Rumelt
where
software
the
enable
(1991),
pirates
spread of
et al.
software and thus increase its user base. Givon
Implications for practitioners
"pirates play an important role in

potential users into users of the software,
(1995: 30) write,

are a number
There
and
of contributions
for
software
Software
systems
practitioners.
should understand
that regardless of the
of amethod
of copy protection,
there is
information
developers
converting
of whom
many
legally purchase
the software".
complexity
evidence
that crackers will
still try and break the

for
the
copy protection,
simply
challenge it involves.
Interview discussion
revealed that crackers are dri
ven
of surmounting
the copy
challenge
This
difficult
that
suggests
increasingly
protection.
a
can
as
act
to
motivator
copy protection
significant
by
the
crackers.
software
Interviewee
evidence
supported
this: "The harder they make

it to crack, the harder
we will work to crack it. Look atMicrosoft's
attempt
to activate its new OS online - held us back a bit but
we
in
If the challenge
the end".
is
important to crackers, the finding may not apply to
other members
of the piracy process whose
role is
not as challenging,
such as couriers and suppliers
(consistent with Lee, 2002).
If the development
is
of copy protection methods
a costly process,
could
reconsider
the
developers
feasibility and viability of this activity. In this regard,
got
there
to argue that software firms

tempting
should make their software easier to copy and reduce
the difficulty
of the challenge.
To
this end, one
interviewee wrote
iswhat drives me,
"the difficulty
it would
be
if all of it were
easy,
I don't
think
I would
still be
doing this stuff today". Similarly, one interviewee

hinted, "I never try to crack a program simpler than
the last one, this would
be a loss of time". Another
"if I see the protection
is really, really easy, I
wrote,
don't
With
should
publish
the crack".
regard
understand
to
Implications for policy makers

in terms of policy developers,
if the goal of
is to curb software piracy then
policy development
the following
contributions
should be considered.
Finally,
Crackers
understand what they do is illegal yet that is

not a restraining factor for their actions. One
inter
viewee wrote,
"I fear nothing of punishment.
Like
Galileo expanded his knowledge
the
church,
despite
I do the same. I live to know more. No
one can
force me
out
as
effective
it". The
of
deterrent
harshness
some
to
that many
managers
authorship,
of these crackers are
crackers.
is
Recent
arrests of people from the online piracy environment

have considerably
influenced how crackers perceive
their actions
curbing
understand
others
actions
of it
there is little evidence
although
actions.
should
Policy
developers
that crackers may
differentiate
from
their
in the online
piracy
environment
in that their
are motivated
of
mainly
by the challenge
an
this
outlet
alternate
for
desire
cracking. Providing
for personal challenge
is an area that should be ex
plored
by policy
developers.
Limitations
of important
study is subject to a number
limitations.
the
size
small
limited the
First,
sample
on
the data. Factor
analysis that could be performed
This
software
of penalties
198 Sigi Goode

would
have been particularly

in
useful
between
differences
different
response
examining
factor analysis it cannot
types. Without
respondent
are using one technique or if a
be seen if respondents
analysis
are using
minority
The
sample may
cracker
The
population.
ther,
group
desire
respondent
was
survey
for
the
beyond
Fur
2001).
and
secrecy
the
of
self-selective,
not be generalisable
(Simsek and Veiga,
and responses may

respondent
all techniques.
not be representative
at later times may

time period. Surveys conducted
an
in as dynamic
different
results,
give
especially
as the software market. The findings
environment
in geographical
be biased due to differences
as
from non-English
regions,
respondents
speaking
to
with
seemed
the
struggle
backgrounds
phrasing of
may
some
Further,
questions.
only
forums were
crackers
included
In the absence
who
read
the
in the sample.
studies on software
of published
the research factors were
cracking,
carefully chosen
from the literature on motivation,
end
justification,
user software piracy,
and computer
crime. The
measures
in the survey, while

and based on past measures
used
testing
may not be effective
A
based
factor proxies.
avenues for future
of
number
to pre
subject
when
possible,
exist
a
research
on
this study. This research suffered

of respondents.
small number
Repetition
respondents would make

study with more
more
with more complex
effective
analysis
from
the
of
the data
statistical
a case-study
analyses. Alternatively,
approach could
be employed using particular groups. This approach
would yield information on all types of online piracy
environment
not
This
just
the large groups that law
approach
are responsible
believe
for
enforcement
agencies
90% of the pirated software available on the Internet
(US
participants,
could focus on
crackers.
Customs
Service
2001).
Crackers
exhibit
decision-making
procedures with
regards
complex
to the morality
of software piracy, purchasing
soft
ware,
and
attitudes
towards
software
companies,
suggest the use of a personal code for decision

into the existence
of a personal
making. Research
Such research should
code in crackers, is needed.
this code can be
also consider the degree to which
which
by extraneous
influenced
software
company
such as laws and
factors,
disapproval.
References
G.
Adams,
R.
J. D.
and
Research
standing
Schvaneveldt:
2nd
Methods,
Under
1991,
Ed.,
Pub
Longman
Ushers.
Alderfer,
non-repu
diation, owing to the illicitness of software cracking,

them to omit significant infor
may have prompted
are only provided
mation.
data
for a single
Survey
relevant
and Sam Cruise
P.:
C.
Theory
Human
Organizational
Abdul-Gader:
'Software
1997,
right Infringements: An Exploratory

fects
of
Behavior
and
142-175.
4,
Performance
I. and A.
Al-Jabri,
Needs',
of a New
Test
'An Empirical
1969,
of Human
Individual
Peer
and
Copy
Study of the Ef
Beliefs',
Omega,
InternationalJournal ofManagement Science 25(3), 335.

Anastasi, A.:
1982, Psychological Testing 5(Macmillan
Publishers, New York).
D.
Anderson,
D.
R.,
J.
T.
and
Sweeney
A. Williams:
1987, Statisticsfor Business and Economics 3 (West Pub

lishing Co., New York, USA).
Ashforth, B. E. and F. Mael:
1989, 'Social Identity
and
Theory
the Organization',
The
What
Are
Their
Motivations?',
E.
J.
Sources
New
and
R.
Inventory:
Development
an
to Measure
C:
1998,
'Motivation
and
Integrative
Sentenced'
Validation
of
Taxonomy
of
on
and
the
of
the
Executive,
'Leader of Software Theft Ring
Boston
The
L.
Functions
The
1938,
Englewood Cliffs.
Cambanis, T.: 2002,
T.
&
Computer
Psychological Reports 82, 1011-1022.
Motivation,
Cheyne,
ences
and
Fraud
Scholl:
W.
Scales
Barnard,
Are They
14-17.
Security 2001(2),
Barbuto,
of Man
Academy
agement Review 14(1), 20?39.

Barber, R.: 2001, 'Hackers Profiled Who
17 August.
Globe.
F. E. Ritter:
2001,
Audi
'Targeting
Communications
Internet',
the ACM
of
44(4), 94-98.
K. R.
Conner,
An
and R.
ence 37(2),
Constant,
L.
of
Ties
Weak
7(2),
Creswell,
1991,
'Software
Management
Strategies',
Piracy:
Sci
125-39.
D.,
Kindness
P. Rumelt:
of Protection
Analysis
and
Sproull
The
Strangers:
for Technical
S.
Kiesler:
Usefulness
Advice',
'The
1996,
of
Electronic
Organization
Science
119-135.
J.: 1998, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design:

Choosing Among the Five Traditions (Sage Publications
Inc,
Thousand
Dabney,
D.:
Workplace:
Hospital
Oaks,
Theft
Nurses',
California,
'Neutralization
1995,
of
Supplies
Deviant
Behavior
USA).
and Deviance
and Medicines
16,
313-321.
in
the
by
What Motivates
D.
Dalton,
Case
(UCT)',
1058.
Data
for
D.:
'User
Young,
of Neutralization
A.
D.,
Science
'The
1049
L.:
Theoretical
Page:
Fenton:
D.
and
Study of the
1970,
Theoretical
of Multiple
'Strategies
Denzin
(ed.),
The
New
Introduction
to
Method
Sociological
and G.
L.
Sanders:
2000,
Can't
Get
Blood
From
Eining,
M.
and A.
Social Model
and Test
(McGraw
Deviant
(eds.),
&
(Boyd
Fraser,
S. L.
Eliason,
G.
Dejoie,
Ethical
Issues
in
Boston),
pp.
182-188.
Dodder:
2000,
and R.
Deer
Among
in R.
A.
Poachers',
Journal
of
Software
A.:
1961,
An
(Free
Organizations
M.
E.:
Comparative
Press,
B.:
Friedman,
Innovation:
Privacy,
(Sage
Publications,
Galliers,
wells,
1992,
Information',
Research
(Black
D.
Deviance
K.:
'Professional
2001,
and Neutralization
Medical
2003,
Lapses:
V.
M.,
Piracy:
Behavior
and M.
169-202.
and
Anonymity
Behavior
D. Myers:
and
Research
433-438.
31,
'A Set
1999,
of Principles
Field
Interpretive
Evaluating
Systems', MIS
G.
and J. G.
Clark:
K. K,
O.
Quarterly 23(1),
H. M.
Case
of
There
'Why
Research
Aren't
Studies',
Infor
597-607.
41(5),
J. S. Y.
Yau,
Lee,
L. Y. M.
Sin
'The Effects of Attitudinal

on
Factors
Demographic
CDs:
The
2004,
Security
and A. C. B. Tse: 2003,
467-490.
22(6),
'Extradition Sought
to
Intention
Chinese
Pirated
Buy
Consumers',
and
Journal
of
and
Diffusion',
of
Lost
E. M?ller:
for DrinkorDie
Sales
Journal
'Software
1995,
and
the
Impact
of Marketing
S.:
1970,
'The Assignment
American
Categories',
to Rank
of Numbers
Review
Sociological
35(3),
515-524.
F.:
Lau,
in
Mahajan
Estimation
Software
Desirability,
and Computers
Information
Order
in Veterinary
ZDNet.com.
Chief,
A.
Labovitz,
Occupational
Techniques
Deviant
Practice',
Gilbert, A.:
and Pro
Theft
12,
Business Ethics 47(3), 223-235.
Oxford).
Gauthier,
K.
in the Workplace:
1966, The Social Psychology of

(JohnWiley & Sons, New York).
Conducting
Kwong,
in
Computers
Systems
Information
5(1),
L. Kahn:
mation & Management
Human Behavior 13(3), 327-351.

D.:
Online
Technology
Behavior
Questionnaires
and R.
H.
Kotulic,
and Technological
of Property,
Understanding
Electronic
'Social
Studies in Information
of Complex
Judgments
Adolescents'
and
System
67-93.
Humans
'Social
Pageant
Among
of Property
Instruments
More
1997,
Patterns
'Neutralizing
Deviant
1999,
Organizations
Klein,
Park).
Newbury
A.:
Methods',
Glencoe).
1992, Motivating
by
Your Microcomputer
and
Analysis
Internet-Based
Psychology
Used
and Information
1991,
Deviance',
Joinson,
'Neutralization
Analysis
'Analyzing
81-100.
24(2),
Protecting
Ethics
O:
Empirical
for
A
1994,
Techniques
'Trends
2003,
R.
Hollinger,
140(4), 536-538.
Etzioni,
Com
York).
Pirates',
Katz, D.
Social
Software
Turnip',
49-61.
duction
Systems
Information
Impacts',
'Global
A
Durand:
Behavior
1984,
J.:
S.:
Hinduja,
and D.
Fowler
H.
(Wiley, New
'A Psycho
1991,
and
82-89.
D.
and
Neutralization
Highland,
of Software Piracy: The Development

aModel',
of
Paradice
L. Christensen:
Lee
C.
V.,
Grover,
Hill, New York), pp. 297-313.

Dillman, D. A.: 1978, Mail and Telephone Surveys: The
Total Design Method (JohnWiley and Sons, New York).
Dubin, R.: 1978, Theory Building (Free Press, New York).
M.
Issues
D.
Mother:
Triangulation',
in Sociology:
Act
Research
'International
1998,
of Key
You
Mothers',
N.:
Sanders:
of
29?48.
Methodological
Rigor
Survey Research From
&
1980-1989', Information Management 24(6), 305-318.
and T. C. Calhoun:
'The Good
2003,
Heltsley, M.
York).
in N.
L.
Analysis
and
Journal
of MIS
of Social
Press,
(Plenum
G.
and
Piracy',
13(4),
Systems
1189-1198.
'Preventive
1997,
Software
munications oftheACM43{9),
1(1), 47-63.
Intrinsic Motivation
1975,
Piracy:
'Collision
Journal
Information
Piracy:
R.
Gopal,
and Quali
International
Sanders:
For
Per
Theory
Equity
Information Systems Research 9(4), 380?397.
Techniques
of Quantitative
L.
G.
Deter
'Situational
1996,
An
Piracy:
Controls
Software
1998,
and Case
A Discussion
Research Methodology
Denzin,
Software
Management
R.
D.
Gopal,
982-1003.
Indignant
Triangulation
Unplanned
tative Research
Methods',
29-38.
R.
Gopal,
Computer
of Two
35(8),
and N.
Bryman
or Collusion?
Givon,
of
spective', Journal of Business Ethics 15(11),
Technique
of
A. Wood:
and W.
minants
in the Publications of Paedophile

Child Abuse & Neglect 12(4), 583-591.
Organizations',
Ford,
S.
R.
Glass,
Re
16(10),
Acceptance
Comparison
Management
M.:
1988,
E.
Count
of Business Ethics
1989,
Technology:
Deci,
1997,
Ethics
Deterrent
F.
Deacon,
in Business
the Unmatched
Journal
Models',
De
J. C. Wimbush:
and
Daily
'Sensitive'
'Collecting
search: A
Davis,
C. M.
R.,
on
59(1),
Information
Liebenau
on
'A Review
1997,
Information
Systems
Systems
andj.
the Use
and
Qualitative
and Qualitative
Degross.
London.
Lee D., Lee I., Ahn J., Kong Y.: 2002,

Protection
Using
Hidden
Agent'.
of Action
Research
Research'.
Research.
L. A.
31?68.
'The Illegal Copy

Eurasia-ICT
2002:
200 Sigi Goode

Information
The New
R.
Lee,
on
the Web,
York Times.
M.:
1993,
the
Street'
1.
Topics
(Sage,
B.
and T.
H.
Chen:
'A Public
2002,
Verifiable
R.:
'A Technique
1932,
the Measurement
for
of
Attitudes', Archives of Psychology 140(June), 5-53.

Lim, V. K. G: 2002, 'The ITWay of Loafing on the Job:
Cyberloafing,
Journal
M.,
Behavior
of
Proceedings
Information
Decision
W.:
and
1996,
H.
1999,
Conference
of Task
1037
41(8),
Thompson
Science
Social
1975,
'Jail for US
2002,
and
M.
K.
The
Australian
A. H:
and V.
Grover:
in POM:
'An Assessment
1998,
From
of
to The
Constructs
L.:
1989,
The
in
lenge',
Methods
'MIS
Information
M.
S.:
1988,
Pragmatic
Research
and D.
Software
Against
Re
Educational
'Hardware
Communications
Piracy',
1961, The Achieving
W.:
1981,
Reconceptualization
Protection
Consumers'
Piracy
2003,
'Steal
Rights,
This
Disk:
of
the ACM
Among
S.
J.
A.
and
the
Examination',
Digital
1996,
Sites',
Ethics:
'Computer
and
Formal
Codes',
A. Rahman:
N.
1999,
In Brunei
Students
Tertiary
Dar
(Australian Institute of
Swinburne
University
Australia).
'Software
and
Theft
and
A
Jour
Protection,
Millennium
2000,
J. Gasper:
Photographic
C,
Pro
Copy
'Copy-Protection
of Electronic
Journal
Paper',
E.
J.
and
Clayton
E.
Gibson:
P.
J.
G.
and
S. Taylor:
of Unauthorized
Systems
Faculty
in R.
Perceptions',
Paradice
(eds.),
Ethical
&
Boston),
Fraser,
J. E. and B.
Dimensions
ward
Ethics
R.,
H.
a Profile
13,
K.
of
Informa
Practicing
G.
Fowler
Manag
pp.
Systems
Information
189-199.
'Ethical
1988,
and
Sensitive
Socially
L.
C.
of Motivating
D.
and
in
43, 49-55.
Psychologist
P. M.,
D. Banerjee
and
Business
R.
Dejoie,
Issues
Stanley:
of
Copying:
vs
Members'
l(Addison
'A Comparative
1991,
Software
1991,
to Knowledge Acquisition
Publishers, New York).
Simpson,
(Van
Society
of Neutralization:
Copy
of Sociology
Warez
Targets
and M.
Seyal
1989,
for
American
nal ofResearch inCrime andDelinquency 18(2), 295?318.

P.:
A. H.
ers'
Sims,
'Techniques
and Empirical
Journal
Imaging 9(4), 556-563.
Sieber,
Princeton).
W.
the
and
Theory
Informal,
'Softlifting: A Model
27(9), 950-959.
D. O:
McClelland,
Nostrand,
1984,
of
Journal
34.
Henry:
Personal,
V.:
sional
Maude:
in
From Cannabis Use
British
Adolescents',
and J. W.
of
Rosenberg,
tion
Chal
Research
Experimental
School
Press, Boston),
pp.
Triangulate?',
'Neutralization
Ethics
Conference,
Computer
of Technology,
Melbourne,
Study
13-17.
17(2),
T.
'Why
2002,
Control
Internet',
Some Evidence
ussalam: An Empirical Study'
(Boyd
searcher
and
the
'Law Enforcement
M.,
Wesley
(ed.),
Business
(Harvard
Systems
I. Benbasat
Greenwald:
Practical Guide
3-20.
Mathison,
A.
Role
Shim,
Experiments:
G.
Design,
161-176.
2003,
2002,
M.
Scott,
Psychological Review 50, 370-396.

Perspective
P.:
Schildkraut,
407?425.
16(4),
of Operations
Management
'A Theory
of Human
1943,
Motivation',
Journal
R.
P.:
of Risk:
System
Research
Survey
Security,
on
Research
tection', Library Journal 114(2), 46-47.
16Quly), 26.
Malhotra,
and A.
Banaji
Ethics,
French
Rahim,
1994,
Structure
Pirate',
Piracy:
of the ACM
Journal of Business Ethics 15, 425-437.
Motiva
Reid:
Theory
M.R.
A.,
'Software
A.
and R.
'Software
2000,
Communications
54(1), 21-42.
Pierce,
and Human
Behavior
Kong',
SecurityManagement 46(3),
'Evaluating
Communications
Use',
Theory
Dhillon:
Psychological
Among
(New York Press, New York)
K.:
B.
Study'.
on
Ethical
Organizational
J. K.
I.:
Mackenzie,
Moore,
& Management
G.
'E-research:
157-189.
3,
Application
Minor,
in
Issues
Piracy
3(12), 88-92.
Nosek,
Denial
to Level of Moral
'Software Piracy: Is It Related
Business
Ethics
13, 849-857.
Judgement?', Journal of
Maude,
'A Reversed
2004,
Software
Hong
and
From
The
'Toward
Incentives',
J. M.,
Mason,
of
Information
T.
View
Piazza,
and Computer
1968,
Performance
Maslow,
J. Dhaliwal:
Analysis
'Factors
39(7), 74-83.
E. A.:
ory',
and
Singapore',
Peretti-Watel,
Longitudinal
International
S. Conger:
Making
Logsdon,
20th
675-694.
23,
Chin,
Piracy:
the
and
of theACM
London,
T.
Social Issues 58(1),
Justice',
Systems.
D.
K.
tion
M.,
Khalifa,
Software
Motivating
Locke,
and Organizational
Neutralizing
of Organizational
Limayem,
Loch,
T.
Moores,
Moores,
Copy Protection Technique for Still Images', Journal of

Systems and Software 62(3), 195-204.
Likert,
Review
1042.
London).
Lee, W.
Law
University
1437-1470.
Context
on Sensitive
Research
Doing
on
Spoils
11 July 2002:
Northwestern
Act',
Copyright
97(3),
'Pirates
2002,
J.:
Pro
Technology,
832-841.
ceedings.
Lee,
Communication
and
and Sam Cruise
Profes
Research',
1994,
Simpson:
Factors', Journal of
431-438.
Cheng
Student
and H.
Teegen:
Software
Piraters',
'To
1996,
Journal
Business Ethics 15(8), 839-849.

Simsek,
Z.
and J. F. Veiga:
An
Technique:
zational
Research
Methods
'The
2000,
and
Integration
3(1),
Electronic
Assessment',
93-115.
Survey
Organi
of
What Motivates
Z.
Simsek,
and J. F. Veiga:
Surveys',
Organizational
on
'A Primer
2001,
Internet
Organizational
US
ods 4(3), 218-235.

Smith, M. A. and B. Leigh: 1997, 'Virtual Subjects: Using
as an Alternative
Internet
the
Research
Source
Behavior
Environment',
Instruments
and Computers
&
Software
S. L.
J. A.
and
O'Brien:
on
Factors
Demographic
in R.
Piracy',
Toward
G.
Dejoie,
Fowler
(eds.), Ethical Issues in Information Systems

Fraser,
Boston),
L.
Sproull,
and
S. Kiesler:
D.
W.:
Connections:
Ways
of
L.
and
147-169.
E.
Pelton:
'How
1994,
253-z260.
Sykes,
and D.
A
tralization:
Matza:
1957,
of
Theory
of Neu
'Techniques
American
Delinquency',
Sociological Review 22(6), 664-670.

J. C:
Turner,
1984,
logical Group
Social
Dimension:
Identification
'Social
in H.
Formation',
European
Developments
chology (Cambridge University

Tyler,
M.:
tomer',
1984,
Datamation
'Software
30(5),
of
is
Technology
48-49.
and
-
Street
L. T.,
Winfree,
1994,
G.
'Drug
L.
N.
Costello:
1995,
and
Social-Organization
Street
Australian
&
D-Society
L. Mays,
Piracy
and
Tajfel
J. E. Crowley
Prisonization
and
History
Variations
Understanding
in MIS
in
Consumers May Justify Inappropriate Behavior
Market Settings: An Application on the Techniques of
Neutralization',
Journal of Business Research 30(3),
G. M.
the
Protection
'Copy
34(10),
ronment and Planning
(MIT Press,
Instruments
'Validating
S. J. Vitell
D.,
2001,
Relations
Gender
(Boyd &
New
Organization
Research', MIS Quarterly 13(2),

Strutton,
Paradice
IEEE
31-34.
Kids',
Envi
Space
13(3),
329-348.
1991,
1989,
on
'Living
(Cambridge
Cambridge).
Computer
H.
P. M.
Winchester,
168-181.
pp.
Working in the Networked

Cambridge).
Straub,
of
Software
D.
and
Effect
11, 2001.
for Knowledge',
'Interviewing
Communications
29(2),
Professional
S.:
Doomed',
Dec.
Release,
Motivation
1986,
on
D.
Wallach,
2000,
'The
1991,
Attitudes
V. R.:
Transactions
Association,
Industry
Press,
Dismantles
Internet Piracy
Sophisticated
Press
Human
1969,
Customs
'U.S.
2001,
Customs
D.:
University
Waldron,
Methods,
on Global Software Piracy 2000.
SIIA's Report
Solomon,
Research
US
M.
Vernon,
and
Subjects
Service,
of theWorld's Most
Networks',
496-505.
29,
Information
of
Customs
One
Meth
Research
Wold,
G. H,
Rolling
and R.
Meadows,
F. Shriver:
Bankers
Only
One
Per
1989,
Publishing
Computer
Crime,
Company.
Sigi Goode and Sam Cruise

and Information Management,
Faculty of Economics and Commerce,
Australian National University,
0200,
Canberra, ACT
Australia
E-mail:
Press, Cambridge).
-
Institutional
School of Business
Psycho
Psy
Inmate
J. Peat:
Toward
International Journal of Offender Therapy

Adaptations',
and Comparative Criminology 38(4), 281-296.
(ed.), The
in Social
in
and B.
-
Cus
49.
sigi.goode@anu.edu.au

Springer Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Journal of Business Ethics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Springer Is Collaborating With JSTOR To Digitize, Preserve and Extend Access To Journal of Business Ethics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What Motivates Software Crackers?

Author(s): Sigi Goode and Sam Cruise

(2006) 65: 173-201

(NCISR). His PhD

thesis dealt with constructvalidity in IS

worked as a project officer

including Information & Management, Journal of Global

Software piracy is a serious problem

174 Sigi Goode

role of the "cracker"

the benefits of seeing the program

are not paid for

(Cambanis, 2002; Lee, 2002).

(Software & Information

1. What factors motivate software crackers to remove

study also aims to explore how

factors to proxy for both

and Sam Cruise

rise of piracy, which

Figure 1 illustrates the pivotal role that crackers

role, strip the programs of

use did not harm

and those who

176 Sigi Goode

(Loch and Conger,

et al. (1996) of altruism in helping strangers

and Sam Cruise

to behave inways which allow them to feel competent

greater the difficulty of the challenge,

(Ford, 1992). This

of personal values (Bar

get the facts, to satisfy curiosity".

(Alderfer, 1969). Instrumental

"a basic desire

'ideal' self (Barbuto

lised the social controls

(Sykes and Matza,

Software Crackers? 177

Crackers may find

between groups (Lee 2002)

(Barnard 1938, Katz and Kahn

are not paid (Lee 2002).

that that crackers

software for illegal

may feel motivated when they perceive

that this may

and the behaviour

et al. 1994, Glass

for their actions, then the restraining effect on

subject justifies and legitimises

social bond", which

by claiming that they

and Sam Cruise

(Dalton et al., 1997:1049).

tive findings, but also

in the research or for the class of individuals

the target population

approach for the first phase. While

(Mason, 1989), surveys

Population definition and sample selection

and number and type of

the eleven factors of

of the survey. The survey had to be