Talk:Warez scene

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 2008[edit]

The intro to this article just plain sucks.

"Members of this scene are often unaware that the expression "the scene" is also used by members of other social groups to describe their community(who cares about this statement?), for example in the arts or music or literature(should be "for example, in the arts, music or literature) . This use of the expression "the scene" has been in continual use in English for a long time before software even existed("...long before software existed" might work, but again, what is the point of this statement?) . Members of a social group know what "the scene"(the Scene or The Scene, but quotations aren't useful). refers to, and most members of the software community use it to refer to all the software-related communities listed above. In the rest of this article "the scene" means the software scene(no shit.)."

I really think this needs to be rewritten. Not only does it go off into pointless directions, but it sounds like it's written by a kid. I don't want to rewrite it because I'm not familiar enough with the material, but I would hope someone well informed could do better.


I just had an idea... why don't we incorporate into this article a list of various sets of scene rules? For example, we could have different headings, SVCD, VCD, Software, 0-day etc and give some of the rules, where rule is defined as something that must be followed to avoid nuking. For example...


This whole article (including this talk section) is so full of misinformation that it is hard to know where to begin. Maybe the only real way to learn is to be a part of the scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.134.34.208 (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


SVCD Scene Rules

- Movies must be in BIN/CUE format
- BIN/CUEs should be packed in 15MB RARs
- Valid resolutions are 480x480 NTSC or 480x576 PAL
- Bitrate must be minimum 2250.

and so on...


68.239.174.81 22:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you know the rules then surely add them and any other information you think to be useful. This article is a stub after all and could use more descriptive information to help people better understand the topic. --Kamasutra 20:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is purposely cyclical[edit]

In the same way users constantly tried to cover up OiNK.cd's existence on wikipedia, we see it here. Misinformation, as another user put it, is prevalent and is sickening. Also, one of the most popular interests is the scene in music and pre-releases. This article skirts around every mention. I know people love the scene, and everything it provides, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this IS supposed to be informative. I suggest a dialogue about this article. I realize, in the same way acquaintances of mine dealt with AfD's fot shot down and hit the news stands, I would be fighting an uphill battle in editing this page heavily without conversation first. Please discuss and offer opinions.

66.71.40.153 (talk) 21:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but there are other scenes as well...?[edit]

The Scene as described here is narrowly defined, right? I'd see other scenes that would name themselves like this, the gay scene, the art and scupltures scene, whatever, and whatnot. Am I misunderstanding the stuff to be described here? Or would a {{disambiguation}} tag do? :confused: --Vintagesound 11:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, this should be a disambiguation page. Almost every scene (local music scenes, clubbing scene, graffiti scene, etc) calls itself "The Scene", and it is typical for wikipedia to be skewed towards computer-related subjects. 86.80.147.155 21:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with this, but in the minds of the users of the phrase The Scene, the meaning is quite particular and distinct. It's unfortunate that over time, this term came to be used to name the world of organized piracy and distribution, as it is annoyingly difficult to use and understand correctly, such as the commenter above points out. The frequent capitilization of the name is an attempt by users of the word to indicate that they dont merely mean "our scene" in the "art scene / music scene / etc" sense, but instead that it is a specific name that has arisen. Think of it as naming a new religion "church/the church/The Church" or "religion/the religion/The Religion." This has the infuriating effect of making the use of the phrase annoyingly unclear (which I suspect people in the scene are quite happy with). Dxco 18:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no other scene. The music scene, the graffiti scene, the sculptures scene, etc, are all generalizations of the kinds of lifes people live or generalizations about a hobby/job. THE Scene, is what this article is about.
No, I agree with the people who mention disambiguation. Wikipedia is a global effort, and 'The Scene' even in capitals evokes all kinds of things for different people. It can be general shorthand for many kinds of scenes, and having no disambiguation page is taking wikipedia further away from the public. The slant on this site makes sense; of course people who are deep into computing subcultures are also the ones most likely to be contributing to a digital encyclopedia, but you should keep in mind Wikipedia's philosophy and aims. Most who benefit from this resource either have no clue about or aren't much interested in The Scene of this article. It is apparently worthy of a page, and the phenomenon has a name that isn't going anywhere, but do you really think the term isn't "particular and distinct" for other reasons in most people's minds? R.Tempest 07:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term requires both definition and disambiguation. The term should be defined as an idiom rather than a proper noun. "The Scene" in a musical context is usually used to describe a specific genre, like "the jazz scene" or "the punk scene", and refers to the social and professional community that supports the musical genre. For example, the punk scene is made up of people, record companies, parties, nightclubs, magazines, photographers, artists, and musicians. The software trading scene (or bootlegging as some called it) is made up of people, file servers, search engines, sharing software, and other things organized in a various ways. Both scenes refer to themselves as "The Scene"; people will say things like, "she's really working hard to make the scene," or "I'm spending a lot of time maintaining my reputation in the scene." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.192.47 (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your examples support not having a disambiguation page. In what scene is the girl on the make? The porn scene? The tennis scene? That comment has no meaning without context. If I ask someone, "How is the scene around here?" will they think I am talking about the punk rock scene? The swinger scene? A person searching for information on a particular scene, say, the French film scene, will not search for "the scene" on Wikipedia. Many people want to know what the scene is and search for it by that name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.134.34.208 (talk) 10:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ANTIP2P[edit]

If they ban anyone who leaks a release why does every single tvshow/film/album/software, that anyone cares about, make it to regular P2P networks? Surely all leakers would have been banned by now? Maybe someone can clear this up. --84.67.30.155 15:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, the idiot who wrote this wikipedia article does not know shit. Everything is leaked. It ends up on torrent sites. FxP boards. DC++. It spreads like wild fire. --216.59.246.148 20:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I think a more important question is: is there an insistence on internal releases only or is leaking to the outside world punished somehow? NeoThe1 05:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is supposed to be punished but no one seems to care these days, most top torrent sites are usually on the same box as a topsite which is why you get pre to torrent times of less than 10.94.168.194.94 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Philosophy of the Scene[edit]

Can someone write a little about the philosophy of the scene? For example, what is the point of piracy if it is not (in theory) supposed to get out to the public? Private use by members of the scene? Could someone please clarify this sort of thing and/or drop me a note on my talk page, please? NeoThe1 05:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point of scene is competition. You can get something done, before anyone else does it. Wether it's releasing new software, movie, cd or just racing releases by others from server to server more often and faster than anyone else.
Point of scene is respect. You gain it, when you release something first that works and follows defined guidelines, or you are simply faster than anyone else and win every race you take part in.
Point of scene is support. Offer what you have to those whom you know to share what they have in return. If everyone else is really caring and sharing to everyone else, why is there famine in world? Why aren't everyone feeling safe at home? World is a bad place, you just have to grab what you can, and keep it hidden. Don't leave it out in the open to be stolen.
Point of scene is getting stuff early. You're not sharing your data or wasting your time for nothing. The credit system gives you access to something that no-one else has yet access to. Scene is worldwide, and companies lack the capability to release material globally. Scene can release material globally to its members.
Point of scene is security. You can safely transfer data from place a to place b without fear of damage to material while transport or material mystically vanishing from the load. You can also increase security by imposing friend of a friend rule. If you know and trust everyone involved, there are no unknown security risks, but it's still better to hide from where you are connecting from/to.
Point of scene is paranoia. You always fear the worst that could happen, and have accepted that it can someday happen. This means you are prepared to face any consequences or just to avoid them by covering some/all of your tracks.
Some disagree about the use of word pirate. I'd suggest replacing it with term "unauthorized librarian", since most of the material would be available eventually from any public library.
These private ones just have them available much sooner than the ones down the street.
That's just how I see it. I hope that's any help.
S33k3r 22:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, S33k3r. Of course, it's nothing earth-shattering, but it still was very interesting to me. I particularly liked "unauthorized librarian"; I really like this idea of freedom of cultural information.
Here's one more question, if you are up to it: Who sets the rules for Scene releases? Some sort of shadowy figures at the very top? Is it different for every group, or is there some sort of super-policy that is understood by all? NeoThe1 05:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The scene rule process is roughly described at Standard_(warez), but it's pretty vague, basically rules are defined by council.
First councils were formed during BBS era, and members were sysops and group leaders.
0day standard dates back to that era and is still used today affecting the form in which 0day is being distributed.
The groups often follow evolution of audio and videocodecs closely. Good place of reference would be hydrogenaudio forums.
These people aren't involved in scene, but they often compare new versions of codecs against other codecs and older revisions of same codec.


Councils today are formed usually by members from different involved groups. If they come across something revolutionary(things like mp3 or vbr encoding) members from different groups, which release that type of material are asked to join in the draft process.
This council (maybe 10-20 people) then creates a draft for a new standard. This draft is then reviewed by other members of the groups and any suggestions are considered and possibly parts are added or removed from the draft.
Once the draft appears to be in order, groups sign it, and release it as new standard. From that day(roughly 2 weeks transition period), all new material should be released under the new standard.
Sometimes these standards are disputed and someone writes rebuttal against them, listing reasons why the new standard is bad/invalid/incomplete. This often means reverting back to the previous standard.
Compatibility is often an issue when choosing new standards. The resulting file should work in as many system as possible, including standalone devices such as xvid capable dvd players.
S33k3r 12:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the motive?[edit]

Why do these bright kids risk 5-15 years in prison? Do they make money or something? They risk their lives just so they can see a movie a few months before everyone else? (Narkstraws 07:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

a) No, they don't make money off it.
b) It's the prestige of the endeavour, plus it's the fact they're sticking it to the man, would would like to sell them a bunch of shitty content at a set rate.
c) Media piracy assures that media producers are held accountable to continuing to make high-quality content: when the quality drops, they should go out of business immediately. Warezing assures this goal.NeoThe1 07:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On point 'b', why is prestige worth risking prison time? I could think the talent displayed by 'scene' people would be prestigious no matter how it is employed. I think more information on this would be useful, as it is so unique and risky. Are there any decent books about the 'scene' that go into its culture? On point 'c', I have to say this seems like pure speculation. I would like to see evidence that warez activity has influenced content production. Thanks for the information though, very interesting. (Narkstraws 18:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
What prison time? Most nations don't see copyright infringment such important issue that it should warrant penalty of imprisonment.
Worst getting caught scenario would be millions of dollars in fines. And unpaid fines expire if you are unable to pay them, or you can file personal bankrupt.
Throwing people in prison doesn't solve anything. Hell, if I was in prison, I'd live better off than I do right now and jails arent like the ones described in OZ etc. Atleast not here.
One pro-warez argument which isn't listed on the warez article is unemployment.
If you have person with skill levels of an engineer sitting idle for extended periods of time, they need something to do during their spare time.
Some code open source projects, some do warez.
Unemployment isn't probably listed because it's not definite reason. You can be in The Scene and still be employed like any other person.
Perhaps good example why piracy exists is a movie called Tarnation. Total manufacturing costs for this movie were $218 dollars. Yet licensing took the budget over $400 000.
Shortly put, media companies are just too damn greedy when comparing quality of material they produce to the price.
For those who don't want to pirate stuff, theres luckily internet.
It's full of material licensed under creative commons which you can download and listen/watch/burn for free.
S33k3r 21:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"These bright kids" see no motivation in gaining money. The Scene, despite all that is written here, is no american invention of digital organized crime, it is a global community of creative programmers who are really good at what they do. They can outsmart the game and protection makers any time, so they do. Who cares if it's illegal when you are the moral victor? That is the motivation driving all the segments of The Scene and that is what made it what it evolved to be. --89.212.75.6 21:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They're simply sharing value with their friends! It starts in the same way as you might invite friends around to watch a new DVD, and grows when you want to see DVDs from other people's collections too. No one sets out to rip-off media companies... 153.111.226.201 02:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morals is certainly not the reason its done. The scene is all about the race and showing off skills, and sharing with the rest of the sceners and nothing else. Some generalizing isnt a good idea, a lot of people in the scene do make money out of it.

(Many years ago, when I young and pirating software, it was because the warez were expensive, I had little money, and lots of software sucked. Today, as an adult, I download and share some TV shows, because I do not own a TV.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.192.47 (talk) 06:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete info[edit]

Here is an external link with a lot of info about the scene.. maybe it can be added to external links: http://www.aboutthescene.com/

Correction Contrary to popular belief The Scene does distribute to p2p networks should be "Contrary to popular belief The Scene does NOT distribute to p2p networks" --65.12.196.204 22:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Mixing apples and oranges[edit]

1. What's up with the whole warez stuff? -- The scene is not all that much about warez as this article makes it to be. While modern groups do form by wanabes who distribute warez, the original Scene had nothing to do with it. Saying The Scene was all about warez is like saying dynamite is all about terrorists... e.g. It's Simply Modern Misuse. ... as is evident from the unclear relationship between the evolution of the demoscene from the Scene and all these anti-warez arrests taking place.

2. EFNET = The Scene?! What the... -- The Scene if anything is not limited to any one network nor does the majority of it belong to a specific network. Yes, EFNet is a technical network where you do have a fair chance of meeting a member of The Scene (asif there was an explicit defenition of such a person), the community is made of People and is not bound to any particular Internet protocol, much less IRC ... as is obvious from the unclear transition between BBSes around the world and a relatively young Internet IRC network like EFNet.

3. Distribution -- If we're talking about crack&keygen-makers, let the one most important thing be perfectly clear: They DO NOT distribute what they make. Period. If you ever see a group out there working on distributing the stuff, know that they're wannabees who rip other people's work and distribute it online as their own. The respect for authorship of software/artwork of individual groups has always been a core element of the rules in all aspects and varieties of The Scene.

4. Demoscene & Abandonware -- Obvious inconsistency. Demoscene is about creating compact digital artpieces, abandonware is about distributing old software, would somebody please explain to me in who's wild fantasy could these two things branch off the same thing? The entire text under that subsection isn't even making sense: What exactly are "cracked executables" supposed to be.

I recall that the demo scene really took off after the Amiga's "bouncing ball" demo. Until that time, moving many bytes around on the screen caused a lot of flickering, and the Amiga demo didn't flicker. People were inspired. (It wasn't the first demo, though. There was a cool multicolor Atari logo demo.) What really made the demos take off were the improved graphics capabilities of the Amiga and Atari ST computers - before them, video games really pushed the limits of the hardware, but by the late 80s, the systems were powerful enough that fewer and fewer games required the programmers to really squeeze performance. Demos emerged because programmers focusing on performance, could produce artwork that surpassed video games' multimedia. Additionally, demos usually involved collaboration between programmers, musicians, and artists.66.245.192.47 (talk) 06:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Credits & megabytes -- The whole point of making software or art in The Scene is in making it as small and compact as possible (this is why most of the cracks and keygens out there use runtime compression)... it's an artform of it's own to make a compact piece of software. Why in the world would therefore credits (being tokens of credit) be counted in megabytes? Razor 1911 wouldn't earn half a credit in all of history, by this logic! Also: Topsite networks aren't torrent nets, hence no accounts to store credits in.

Obviously whoever wrote this stuff didn't have half a clue about what he or she was writing about. This article desperately requires a rewrite and I intend to do one ASAP. Place your objections here. --DustWolf 16:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There all done. Please somebody correct my spelling. --DustWolf 19:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this article that it has no references at all. If it had at least some, then we could regard this article as something other than one person's opinion or conception. Mstuomel 12:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One problem: How exactly does one cite references in the describtion of a community that makes a point on not providing them? --89.212.75.6 17:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Various well known news sites have atleast mentioned the demoscene and the warez scene. There's been TV documentaries, magazine articles etc. Finding them from the Internet is unlikely. What you can find in English and on the net are for example Slashdot news and press releases and documents released by the agencies that have done busts related to warez scene in the past. There's been statements taken from busted people that might contain something referenceable, finding these might prove challenging though as it was many years ago I saw these. Place to start digging: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Copyright_enforcement —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.93.183 (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should I specifically mention there is no explict connection between warez and the Scene community? Anyway, I'll look for something sometime I guess. --89.212.75.6 17:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No rules?[edit]

"The scene has no central leadership, location, ruleset, or other conventional distinguishing marks of existence" Uh, I see a whole lot of rules in the piracy scene. The demand of releases in BIN/CUE format rather than ISO, splitting releases into 15 or 50 MB Rar archives, .nfo content descriptors, and a number of other clearly set rules of release and habit that failure to obey will result in ostracizing by the rest of the scene and the release marked as "nuked" on most websites and sources of releases. Saying the software scene lacks rulesets or distinguishing marks isn't really correct, wouldn't you say? 71.175.122.95 (talk) 08:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is more to the scene than piracy... as you might have noticed if you ever read the article. While your favorite warez site may have admins, The Scene, the abstract notion that it is, does not. --194.249.198.32 (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The rules are not very abstract at all -- see Standard (warez). If you want to say that there are no rules for membership, that is different than saying there are "no rules". Besides, while the Scene itself might not have rules for membership, most of the groups in the Scene do. But that's also a different matter. Ham Pastrami (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was move. Vassyana (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing that this article be moved back to its original name for two reasons. First, the current disambiguation tag is incorrect, as The Scene is not specific to software. Second, the move was predicated on the idea that "The Scene" should be used as disambiguation -- however, no disambiguation page was ever created, as no other subject using that name is of encyclopedic interest. Since the move, it has become a pointless redirect. Ham Pastrami (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the current disambiguation seems inaccurate. But it's not at all clear to me from the current intro what this article is supposed to be about, or from the sources cited whether it's encyclopedic at all. I see it's been speedy-deleted once as The Scene. Maybe this time AfD would be more appropriate. Andrewa (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Worst Wikipedia article ever[edit]

This is quite possibly the least informative, least encyclopedic, most self-contradictory, and least contextually-comprehensible article I have ever seen that was not soon deleted. It also seems to whitewash the illegal activities of the scene, and does not explain the motivation of the people involved or the possible repercussions.

I am left with more questions at every sentence. Are there any publicly known figures or organizations that are involved in the scene? How is the scene "well-organized and cautious" without any leadership, organization, or structure? In fact, if it has no leadership, organization, structure, or ruleset, why does it belong under the title "The Scene" as though it were a single monolith? How about examples of these early BBS systems? Poser self-identification? Script kiddies? Morally disputable methods? I am none the wiser! And then it embarks upon stating guidelines, terminology, and rules of distributing and downloading, even though such things have been stated not to exist. No help is available from the sources. They are equally vague.

Many related articles on this topic, especially Demoscene, are also very difficult to read and understand. However, this one is the worst, which is problematic because it's the most general one—the one that should be the logical starting point of understanding the topic.

This article is in need of a complete rewrite or it deserves deletion. It should remove misinformation and original research, find new sources, achieve consistency and an encyclopedic tone, and use inside slang only when necessary and adequately described. I'd love to help, but I am unfamiliar with the topic. Chaparral2J (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaparra, I came in because I had similar problems -- even the first paragraph seems to be concerned more with splitting hairs about different scenes (in order to be PC, it seems) than with explaining what the scene actually IS. However, I have to say that your last sentence seems disingenuous -- you definitely seem familiar with the topic to at least some extent, so why not start ripping out content and filling in what you do know? (Maybe something about poser self-identification?) 24.199.65.167 (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might seem that way but it's as confusing to you as to me. When I want to download something online I find the torrent on Mininova, download it, use it, and seed it. It's something that my older brother had to teach me verbatim. I don't pretend to know where the downloads originate I never contemplated that there might be a huge unified network of information sharers. In fact, my first exposure to "the scene" was a few days ago when Final Gear mentioned nebulously that "The Scene" (with a link to the Wikipedia article on it) was delayed in getting the new Top Gear episode rip (for which I was eagerly waiting) online. I really don't understand the terminology here at all, particularly "poser self-identification", and I apologize for complaining when I can't help. Chaparral2J (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article has some real problems, perhaps enough for an AfD. "The Scene" is a neologism, per WP:NEO. Most of the references don't use the term at all. The article is sort of a catchall for about five different things and groups who barely talk to each other. Insofar as the term is actually used (see this Wired article [1]), it's about Topsite (warez) sites for seeding P2P piracy. The Topsite (warez) article already covers much of that material, and it's covered better there than it is here.
Maybe this should be a disambiguation page, with links to Artscene, Demo scene, and Topsite (warez), and maybe BBS and Nightclub. There's not enough commonality here for an article, and there's far too much original research. --John Nagle (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs are not for creating dab pages. If you really think this should be turned into a dab page, you can be WP:BOLD and do it yourself. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in for a dab page too, but don't have time right now to do it myself --Enric Naval (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
dab page already exists at scene. Give this page a more specific name and redirect 'the scene' to there. --neon white talk 22:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back to the comments at the Scene's subculture AfD, I think that we should move this page to The Scene (warez), as the demoscene already has an article. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Topsite (warez), which has, I think, what you're looking for. I removed the information here that duplicated info in that article, and add a "See main article" link. Maybe we should keep trimming this article down, moving the non-common info elsewhere, until it's a disambig page. --John Nagle (talk) 16:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Topsite only talks about technical aspects of how warez is shared. It says nothing about social aspects and history of warez culture. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
see my reply on the section below, I'll just move it to Warez scene --Enric Naval (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Split off warez scene[edit]

Currently, the Warez section of the Scene article contains essentially nothing but a link to Topsite (warez), which should be an article on servers containing pirated content.

In the introductory paragraph of Topsite (warez) page, there is a link to a description of what the Warez Scene is... (just a link to The Scene). I was intending to flesh out the Warez Scene page, but there's no place for it. So I'm proposing that the Warez Scene is split off. 67.165.213.199 (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, doh, I'll just move the danged thing to Warez (scene), as Warez scene already exists as a redirect, nuke out the artscene and demoscene parts, and create a redirect on The Scene, as spoken on the above section. Anonymous editor, check out this old version of the Warez scene article to see if you can recover some material, please. People interested on working on the "scene kids" thing should go improve the text at 2000s_in_fashion#Scene (see first my comment at Talk:2000s_in_fashion#Removal_of_text) --Enric Naval (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem in explaining the scene properly is there's essentially 2 parts of it, both with different meanings, hence the current confusion right now. The old school scene did not emphasize much on warez and distribution of it; the current scene which most people refer to with the general intent of warez and fast distribution these days started around the early 90s, and the old school scene which did not really emphasize mass-distribution due to the current lack of technology and more on art and self creations, is barely known in current times. I know some articles that split between 2 time periods. Is it possible here? 165.230.89.157 (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's possible. I encourage you to simply write it yourself, this is what wikis are for, after all :) . Just add a sub-section to the History section called "post-90s" or something and explain the changes there at length. Then go to the lead and add a short paragraph making a short summary of the changes. I'll take a look when it's done to fix stuff and try to find sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was moved Aervanath (talk) 07:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warez (scene) → Warez scene — Warez scene seems like a more reasonable name. The current "Warez (scene)" would indicated that this article is about Warez, in the context of scene. Rather, this article is about the warez scene. — Apoc2400 (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support. Problematical article in many ways, but this solves a few of the minor ones, so it's a start anyway. Andrewa (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (disclaimer: I am the one who moved it originally from The Scene to this name[2]) Good move, I applied the wrong naming convention when picking the name. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Utter Bollocks[edit]

I can't believe this piece of rubbish is actually being linked to from reputable entries such as Matroska. For pete's sake, good editors are wasting their time trying to fix this shit; will someone please bury it once and for all? I'd love to enumerate each hideously-written, inane, childish, embarassing, half-baked blunder but a) many have already done so and b) I'm losing the will to live just thinking about it. Blitterbug (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of malware???[edit]

Seriously? No article on piracy/cracks/keygens can be considered balanced or informative if it doesn't properly cite "warez" as a principal source of cyber-infections. Furthermore, no article on this "scene" is complete without examining the motivations for spreading such infections. 72.91.31.23 (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The warez scene doesn't spread malware with its releases. If so, those releases would be nuked. Trojans and other malware you are referring to can be added later by third parties much further down the piracy chain, but it has nothing to do with the scene itself. Note: keygens and cracks can be detected as being malicious by virus scanners. This is because often the same packing techniques are used as those for viruses. The same issues can be observed with demos from the demoscene. --Ondertitel (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reference for the above: https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-release-group-has-been-spying-on-downloaders-for-9-months-131111/ A proper discussion can be found in the Warez article. Ondertitel (talk) 14:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is something of the myopic fantasy here.[edit]

Never had a talk page entry deleted before, but this may be the first.

Until then ...

First, someone should do a scan for certain basic errors. I don't know what a 1971s, but I'm sure that the BBS system did not start before the breakup of AT&T by the courts which allowed for the direct electrical connection of modems. As late as 1978, you still needed those cups to put the handset in.

However, this story does start in the early 1970s with phone phreaks, not the BBS.

I think the idea that there is one contiguous group from way back then to 13 individuals listed in the latest document is highly suspect.

That they somehow own something entirely due to dubious heritage seems counter to their subculture theme in any event.

Shouldn't there be some mention of Steve Wozniak, Captain Crunch, Tom0 & Tom1? How about "the machine 213-833-3339"?

I was cracking Apple II games as early as 1981 and I'd never heard of "The Scene". I worked for Epyx in 1988 when it employed the true pioneers of both programming and cracking of software. Still nobody knew about the Scene. Participated in BBSing as late as 1994 and still never heard of "The Scene".

Somebody's been doing some powerful rewriting of history here, for ego and self aggrandizement it would seem. Some small group has claimed overall dominance when they seem to have been a niche organization at best.

pcG

Now lets see how long they allow such criticism ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by PcGnome (talk • contribs) 22:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dude its called the scene in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.187.150.225 (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if only it were so. There is this inbred group who claim almost royal status and claim to be an unbroken group for decades and claim to be the rightful heirs to the name as well as current decision making authority over their perceived realm.

PcGnome (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the truth myself, but where does it say they called themselves "the scene" in the 80s? It's a general term.
I completely agree. This article is really terrible and the writing style is transparently self-serving. Definitely one of the worst non-stub articles I have ever seen. I agree with the user above that uses of The Scene is a highly suspect neologism and should be reconsidered by WP:NEO. If anything, this whole article should be merged into Warez, particularly under Warez#Distribution of warez, or as a separate subsection Warez#subculture. Ozhu (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Les us not make Wikipedia a children's enciclopaedia.[edit]

Hi: I'm a new user and firstly I'd like to congratulate all of you for your splendid work. The reason why I am writing: The objection about the article being too technical seems to me dubious. I totally disagree, and not in regard to this article but to any article of a technical-scientific matter. My statement: the public may not be considered foolish, uneducated or uninformed, except in the article subject and up to a certain measure. There is a whole cross reference system in Wikipedia. Of course, there must be articles basic enough to give the reader the language necessary to understand articles with more sophiscated contents. And a criterium to establish categories. Example: easier category: Electromagnetism: this article, assuming it exists, is so general it must use not too technical a language. Links within the article can increase the level of technicality in the associated articles. This is my opinion, which simply put is: let us not make Wikipedia a children's enciclopaedia. Stf92 (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article is stupid[edit]

"The Warez scene, mostly referred to as The Scene (often capitalized),[1] is an underground community of people that specialize in the distribution of copyrighted material, including television shows and series, movies, music, music videos, games (all platforms), applications (all platforms), ebooks, and pornography."

The problem is that the warez scene is more than just the scene. The warez scene also includes both private and public p2p sites that are not part of the scene, for instance. As an example to illustrate why this sentence is simply stupid: The Pirate Bay is part of the warez scene, but not the scene.

The second problem is that both people inside and outside of the scene never use the phrase "the warez scene" to describe the scene.

So my suggestion is to simply name this article "the scene", and drop the phrase all together.

Problem one: can you give a citation? I can't. When 'warez scene' is used, it is always meant to be just the scene. Your illustrative sentence is wrong. In the same context, 'warez scene' is equivalent with 'the scene', but the scene can also mean the demo or art scene. Then there are also all the other non computer related scenes.
Problem two: you're wrong. Books, published academic papers and ex-sceners themselves contradict you:
Your suggestion is not possible because that article already exists as a disambiguation page. --Ondertitel (talk) 14:06, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Since we won't be able to put everything in the further reading section until it's used, I'll keep a list here. --Ondertitel (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The Scene is meant to be hidden from the public, only being shared with those within the community"[edit]

Seriously? Go to any Usenet indexer or torrent tracker. Releases, releases,... thousands millions of them. Nearly everything is here. You may fail to get the pirated contents only if it's too old and not very popular (You will still find the releases, but there are no seeders, dead links, incomplete archives etc). Yes, downloading warez isn't such easy as just clicking and watching/playing and you may be fined and many people prefers to pay some moneys to feel yourself in safety and convenience. But technically you may still get, I think, 99% of media/games/soft without paying a cent and without being a member of the Scene :). And it's good :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.116.48.105 (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Web series that depicted The Scene, and the online conversations between members.[edit]

At some point during the existence of The Scene, there was a 'web series' named Behind The Scene that consisted of video of text chats between Scene members. It was almost certainly made by actual scene members, as it depicted usernames that were very similar to those of members - names that didn't become public until after an FBI sting operation and the arrest of several Scene members (and the series included the username of the FBI mole too). It also showed the conversations and processes for the leak of several films, including The Hulk (2003) and Troy (2004) in its early episodes.

Unfortunately, I cannot find that series online, or any mention of it, as the relevant Google keywords are flooded with later results. But if anyone can find reference to it, it would be great to include in the article, as it is almost a realtime documentary about The Scene. Otherwise, the only surviving reference to it might be this discussion post. There is a short video from 2002 about the demoscene named "Demographics: Behind The Scene", which is very different and unrelated, it just happens to have a similar name. Chris45215 (talk) 17:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Warez_scene&oldid=1213922699"