> Let's try another example:
>
> Suppose a book shop has a pile of several books outside, with a sign
> saying "free books!" So I pick one up, and walk off with it.
>
> But now it turns out that the particular book I picked up was put there
> in error by the shop staff; it should actually have been full-price. So,
> hypothetically, I have committed a theft.
>
> Now watch the shop try to prosecute me for theft. That's not going to
> fly. You see, theft is one of these crimes which requires *intent*.

That was exactly my original point; the question is could you have 
reasonably been aware that you had to pay for this software, and hence 
were committing the crime. It is up to the judge to decide on that based 
on all the evidence presented. Given Adobe's actions (removing the need 
to log-in, putting the serial numbers next to the downloads) and their 
non-actions (not removing that page nor adding any comment about needing 
to have previously bought the software) Adobe would find it hard to 
claim they don't want people downloading it without paying.

Another analogy I thought up, imagine a coke vending machine gets a bug 
after a software update and then gives drinks for free. Obviously word 
will spread and people will empty the machine pretty quickly. Coke gets 
a call that the machine is out of order (because it's empty) and come 
out to fix it. But they "fix it" by taking off any reference to a price 
or having to insert coins and re-stock the machine with a huge number of 
cans. Is it legally and morally correct to then take a can without 
paying? What happens if a week later coke try to force everyone who took 
a free can to pay for it by taking to court the ones who refuse to pay? 
What will the judge say?

Post a reply to this message