On 17/01/2013 8:29 AM, scott wrote:
.
>>
>> Is a clue to it not being free.
>
> No, I think it's a clue that if you like the downloadable CS2 below you
> should consider buying the latest version... Otherwise why wouldn't they
> put the price and a link to buy the software that's actually on the page?
>

Okay, if that is how you read it.

>>> 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.
>>
>> I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination that would be
>> considered fixing.
>
> Exactly - they had the opportunity to at least shut off the machine or
> simply not re-fill it yet they deliberately took different action to
> further promote people taking free cans.
>

You do remember that this is something that you thought up?
It did not happen it would not happen. CCE have procedures in place to 
stop it happening.


>>> Is it legally and morally correct to then take a can without
>>> paying?
>>
>> No it is not.
>
> In the UK at least theft has not been committed unless you know your are
> stealing. A court would have to decide whether someone taking a can from
> the machine that had been modified by the manufacturer thought they were
> stealing or they thought the manufacturer intended to give away the cans
> for free. Given the actions taken by the manufacturer they would have a
> very difficult case to convince a court people were knowingly stealing
> from them.
>

Do you remember the scene in Father Ted where Ted explains the 
difference between dreams and reality, to Father Dougal?


>>> 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?
>>
>> Not likely, at all.
>
> Agreed, because they would know it was unlikely they would be successful
> in court due to their earlier actions to "modify" the machine.
>

Go on! Tell me again why you think that a company whose sole reason to 
be, is to distribute Coca Cola products for profit, would give away free 
product without stating that it was free as part of a marketing campaign.

I think that you are using a very bad analogy.


>> Similarly if an ATM gives out more money than you ask for:
>>
>> http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/atms-wrong-money-165239004.html
>
> The key point is whether a person taking the extra money/goods/software
> thinks they are stealing it or not. In the case of the ATM it's obvious
> you are taking more than you ask for (especially if you join a queue
> specifically to do that), so it's theft (under UK law at least).

I might mention at this point that there is no such thing as UK law. 
There are the laws of England and Wales also the Laws of Scotland and 
the Laws of NI. Just a point.

> With the machine modified by Coke itself to remove pricing information and
> give out free cans it's likely people genuinely think the cans are being
> given away for free, so it's not theft.
>

Well I will let you read the Wiki entry and you can make up your own mind.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft#United_Kingdom

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message