http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7-57562515-263/adobe-releases-creative-suite-2-for-free/

Wow, wait, WTF?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adriankingsleyhughes/2013/01/07/download-adobe-cs2-applications-for-free/

Oh, I see...

Post a reply to this message

Here's another story about it...

http://www.itworld.com/consumerization-it/334669/free-adobe-creative-suite-cs2-maybe-maybe-not

Out of curiosity, I followed some links there, and found that all the apps are
still available (as I write this)--and at Adobe's own site!

http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/index.html

It seems that Adobe had a technical glitch--resulting in the software being made
available for free(!), whether that was intended or not.  Then they did an
about-face and 'clarified' that--but all the software is *still* available(!!),
and without the need for any pre-existing licenses or what-have-you. So who am I
to turn down such a fabulous offer?

This situation reminds me of the old board game MONOPOLY: "Adobe makes error in
your favor, collect free software"  ;-)

I expect some heads to roll at Adobe, over this.

Post a reply to this message

On 14/01/2013 06:12 AM, Kenneth wrote:

> It seems that Adobe had a technical glitch--resulting in the software being made
> available for free(!), whether that was intended or not.  Then they did an
> about-face and 'clarified' that--but all the software is *still* available(!!),
> and without the need for any pre-existing licenses or what-have-you. So who am I
> to turn down such a fabulous offer?

This *does* seem a pretty special screw-up. I mean, how many seconds 
would it take for Adobe to just take down the page while they sort 
themselves out? The fact that they have not done so makes it clear (to 
me) that nobody really cares about 8-year old software.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>
> I mean, how many seconds
> would it take for Adobe to just take down the page while they sort
> themselves out? The fact that they have not done so makes it clear (to
> me) that nobody really cares about 8-year old software.

Apparently not (to the benefit of us all.) Yet there's plenty of life still left
in those old bones.  ;-) I expect their download page to quietly disappear in a
puff of pixie dust, at any moment--so I'm picking and choosing some nice
goodies.

Post a reply to this message

BTW, *THANKS* for posting about this. I wasn't even aware of it.

My only problem so far is my rather slow internet connection! Some of these apps
are 350MB and more. But I'm a patient guy...

Post a reply to this message

Kenneth <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> It seems that Adobe had a technical glitch--resulting in the software being made
> available for free(!), whether that was intended or not.  Then they did an
> about-face and 'clarified' that--but all the software is *still* available(!!),
> and without the need for any pre-existing licenses or what-have-you. So who am I
> to turn down such a fabulous offer?

"Can be downloaded and installed" does not mean "legal".

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Mon 14/01/13 16:14, Warp wrote:
> Kenneth <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> It seems that Adobe had a technical glitch--resulting in the software being made
>> available for free(!), whether that was intended or not.  Then they did an
>> about-face and 'clarified' that--but all the software is *still* available(!!),
>> and without the need for any pre-existing licenses or what-have-you. So who am I
>> to turn down such a fabulous offer?
>
> "Can be downloaded and installed" does not mean "legal".

Adobe will find it very hard to convince a judge/jury that someone 
downloading that software from their own site should have known they 
needed to already own or buy a license. Unless it states something 
obvious when you install it (not just in amongst a million lines of EULA).

It's common practise for software companies to release old versions of 
their software for free after a certain amount of time, why would 
someone visiting that page think otherwise? The judge would argue that 
it would have taken only a few moments to add something like "You must 
own a license before downloading" to that page, yet they didn't/haven't.

Post a reply to this message

>> "Can be downloaded and installed" does not mean "legal".
>
> Adobe will find it very hard to convince a judge/jury that someone
> downloading that software from their own site should have known they
> needed to already own or buy a license. Unless it states something
> obvious when you install it (not just in amongst a million lines of EULA).
>
> It's common practise for software companies to release old versions of
> their software for free after a certain amount of time, why would
> someone visiting that page think otherwise? The judge would argue that
> it would have taken only a few moments to add something like "You must
> own a license before downloading" to that page, yet they didn't/haven't.

Indeed. It would take mere seconds to add a large disclaimer to the top 
of the page saying under what conditions it is legal to use this 
software. And yet, they have made no attempt to do so - even though 
several of their employees are apparently aware of the misinformation 
storming the Internet...

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>
> "Can be downloaded and installed" does not mean "legal".
>

I agree that there might be an ethical question involved here. If the offerings
were pirated software, I would not have considered downloading any of it. (I'm
not into software pirating.) But the facts mitigate against this: Adobe itself
is offering them; there are no *obvious* legal caveats on that page against
doing so (which would have been ever-so-easy to implement, as others have
mentioned); and the download page is still active!  In essence, Adobe is saying,
"Here, take our software, it's free, regardless of what we say otherwise."
Whether or not that was originally intended is really a question for Adobe's
lawyers--and I assume the company has a few ;-) For an old and wise company like
Adobe to make available software downloads that *anyone* can access (and
*without* a pre-paid license), and then say (elsewhere!) that "This software is
only for people who have already paid money to us and who have a previous
license, so don't download it otherwise" is not only a bone-headed mistake but
the height of naivete as well.

Although I personally can't claim to have innocently 'stumbled' onto their
download page, I imagine that others have (or were perhaps simply told by a
friend that Adobe was offering 'free software' with no other explanation.) In
such a case, there is nothing on that page to indicate that the apps are *not*
freely available to everyone.

Perhaps (and I could be stretching the meaning of that word) Adobe has a hidden
agenda for doing this: To 'whet the appetite' of people who don't yet own many
of these applications but who might find them useful enough to buy the latest
and greatest versions. (I'm a good example; many of these apps are new to me,
and I'd like to try them out.) If so, it might actually make good business
sense, IMO.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > "Can be downloaded and installed" does not mean "legal".

> Adobe will find it very hard to convince a judge/jury that someone 
> downloading that software from their own site should have known they 
> needed to already own or buy a license. Unless it states something 
> obvious when you install it (not just in amongst a million lines of EULA).

They don't have to convince any judge or jury because the law says so.
It doesn't matter *how* you get the software, if you don't have a legal
license, you can't legally use it.

> It's common practise for software companies to release old versions of 
> their software for free after a certain amount of time, why would 
> someone visiting that page think otherwise?

It doesn't matter what they think. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Kenneth <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I agree that there might be an ethical question involved here. If the offerings
> were pirated software, I would not have considered downloading any of it. (I'm
> not into software pirating.) But the facts mitigate against this: Adobe itself
> is offering them; there are no *obvious* legal caveats on that page against
> doing so (which would have been ever-so-easy to implement, as others have
> mentioned); and the download page is still active!  In essence, Adobe is saying,
> "Here, take our software, it's free, regardless of what we say otherwise."

Maybe you should get more acquainted with copyright law then. Unless a
copyright-based license explicitly says that you can use the copyrighted
product, the default is that you can't. It doesn't matter how you get it.

An explicit notification saying "you need to buy a license to use this
product" would be nice, but it's not *necessary*. Not according to copyright
law. Copyright is automatic and doesn't require any explicit notification,
and the *default* is that copyrighted work can *not* be used without
explicit permission.

Anything else is just an excuse to ignore copyright law.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>
> It doesn't matter what they think. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
>

I'm glad you're not a Judge :-P  (Or 'my Lord' as they would say in the UK.)

Seriously though, there's another way of looking at this mess, from Adobe's
standpoint. Let's say *I* am the President of Adobe. My first thought upon being
made aware of this situation would be to say, "OMG, FIX IT!!!" (But that hasn't
happened.) So my next thought would probably be, "Well, we made some kind of
mistake, so we're just going to have to live with it now." (Hard to believe,
though, since a fix could be so easily implemented.)

WHY Adobe hasn't taken down that page (or re-worded it) is anyone's guess. There
are only three scenarios I can think of:
1) Everyone at Adobe is 'asleep at the wheel.' Doubtful, of course.
2) They don't care.
3) They have some reason for keeping the page *as-is*, regardless of the
software being freely available.

In any case, the end result is the same: Free software! With no (ethical)
strings attached.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/14/2013 4:37 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>>
>> It doesn't matter what they think. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
>>
>
> I'm glad you're not a Judge :-P  (Or 'my Lord' as they would say in the UK.)
>
> Seriously though, there's another way of looking at this mess, from Adobe's
> standpoint. Let's say *I* am the President of Adobe. My first thought upon being
> made aware of this situation would be to say, "OMG, FIX IT!!!" (But that hasn't
> happened.) So my next thought would probably be, "Well, we made some kind of
> mistake, so we're just going to have to live with it now." (Hard to believe,
> though, since a fix could be so easily implemented.)
>
> WHY Adobe hasn't taken down that page (or re-worded it) is anyone's guess. There
> are only three scenarios I can think of:
> 1) Everyone at Adobe is 'asleep at the wheel.' Doubtful, of course.
> 2) They don't care.
> 3) They have some reason for keeping the page *as-is*, regardless of the
> software being freely available.
>
> In any case, the end result is the same: Free software! With no (ethical)
> strings attached.
>

Adobe's "official" stance on their software (I got this direct from one 
of their reps a while back) is that it is better to have a paying 
customer, than sue someone over stolen software. This means that either 
they don't care about these older versions, at all, or, the worst they 
might do to you is insist you pay for it. However.. They have released 
some out of date versions, on occasion, via things like 3D mags, etc. 
So, this page may in fact be live "as" part of one of those promotions 
too, which would make a certain amount of possible sense.

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:

>
> Maybe you should get more acquainted with copyright law then....[clip]
>
> An explicit notification saying "you need to buy a license to use this
> product" would be nice, but it's not *necessary*. Not according to copyright
> law. Copyright is automatic and doesn't require any explicit notification,
> and the *default* is that copyrighted work can *not* be used without
> explicit permission.
>
> Anything else is just an excuse to ignore copyright law.
>

Then why is their download page still active, that anyone can access?? That's
the part that doesn't make sense re: copyright law. There's no logical *reason*
for Adobe to do this if they are at the same time trying to protect their
intellectual property. The page serves no other purpose than to download their
software.

It's OK to have strong opinions, but clinging doggedly to a rigid ideology--in
the face of contrary facts-- seems to be just an argument for argument's sake.

Post a reply to this message

On 14/01/2013 11:59 PM, Warp wrote:
> They don't have to convince any judge or jury because the law says so.
> It doesn't matter *how* you get the software, if you don't have a legal
> license, you can't legally use it.

> It doesn't matter what they think. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I am not a lawyer, however... I've seen plenty of systems which have 
written all over them "this is a secure system for use by authorised 
employees of [company X] only". Apparently this is legally required so 
that if somebody hacks in, they can't say "oh, I didn't know it was 
restricted".

So yes, apparently ignorance /is/ a valid defence. At least under UK 
law; I imagine this varies wildly by country.

(Next fun question: What law does the Internet operate under?)

Post a reply to this message

> They don't have to convince any judge or jury because the law says so.
> It doesn't matter *how* you get the software, if you don't have a legal
> license, you can't legally use it.

The point is that the user thinks they do have the required license. If 
any user wants to fight Adobe regarding this it will end up in court.

> It doesn't matter what they think. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

They're not ignorant of the law (I don't think anyone would claim they 
didn't know about laws regarding software), they're ignorant of what 
license the software is released under. As it's not made clear, there is 
no option to buy a license and it's old software distributed in a manner 
that is usually used for software with a free license, then it seems 
like you'd have a reasonable case in court to claim you were ignorant 
regarding the license. It's up to the judge to then decide whether the 
efforts required to check the license (maybe reading the EULA would 
suffice, IDK) are reasonable to expect the user to have done. But IIRC 
judges have previously ruled against companies hiding things deep in the 
EULA, so I wouldn't assume Adobe would win.

Post a reply to this message

> I am not a lawyer, however... I've seen plenty of systems which have
> written all over them "this is a secure system for use by authorised
> employees of [company X] only". Apparently this is legally required so
> that if somebody hacks in, they can't say "oh, I didn't know it was
> restricted".
>
> So yes, apparently ignorance /is/ a valid defence. At least under UK
> law; I imagine this varies wildly by country.

In fact you could well sue Adobe for deceptive selling or some such if 
they do want you to pay for it. Similar to companies that give you stuff 
misleading you to think it is free, then you get a series of hefty bills 
- that's illegal.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-01-15 03:45, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 14/01/2013 11:59 PM, Warp wrote:
>> They don't have to convince any judge or jury because the law says so.
>> It doesn't matter *how* you get the software, if you don't have a legal
>> license, you can't legally use it.
>
>> It doesn't matter what they think. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
>
> I am not a lawyer, however... I've seen plenty of systems which have
> written all over them "this is a secure system for use by authorised
> employees of [company X] only". Apparently this is legally required so
> that if somebody hacks in, they can't say "oh, I didn't know it was
> restricted".
>

No, it's not.  It's a fairy tale told to scare Pointy-haired-bosses. 
Even if your doormat says "Welcome", people who break into your house 
are still commiting a crime.

Likewise, leaving the door unlocked (or leaving the FTP site open) does 
not give people permission to steal your furniture (your 8 year old 
software).

Adobe has officially said that people were not allowed to download this, 
it was only offered as a service to legal owners of CS2 because their 
authentication server was no longer online.

This is exactly like my car dealer who offers free coffee and pastries 
while I get my car serviced.  It doesn't mean that all the neighborhood 
hobos are allowed to come in and eat for free.

[Cool Story Bro]
A long, long time ago, I was able to install a complete, working X 
Windows package for OS/2 Warp simply by downloading a cumulative patch 
for it.  It was only missing rsh.exe and rgb.txt.  The latter I was able 
to copy from a Solaris machine, and I had no use of the former.  This 
didn't mean my copy was legal.
[/Cool Story Bro]

> So yes, apparently ignorance /is/ a valid defence. At least under UK
> law; I imagine this varies wildly by country.

No, it's not.  Even if the law is in a filing cabinet in an unused 
lavatory in an unlit basement, with no stairs and a sign on the door 
that says "beware the leopard!"

>
> (Next fun question: What law does the Internet operate under?)

Usually, the law of the country/state/province/country/city where the 
company is located.  Sometimes, also the laws of the 
country/state/province/county/city where the servers are located.  Or 
even the laws of the country/state/province/county/city where the end 
users are located (e.g. Even though Amazon is a US company, they can't 
sell Nazi memorabilia in Germany).  It really depends on how the law is 
written.

The fun part is when laws of two jurisdictions actually contradict one 
another.
-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.01.2013 01:05, schrieb Warp:

> Maybe you should get more acquainted with copyright law then. Unless a
> copyright-based license explicitly says that you can use the copyrighted
> product, the default is that you can't. It doesn't matter how you get it.

That is nonsense. Copyright governs the right to copy (hence copyright), 
not the right to use a piece of software.

> An explicit notification saying "you need to buy a license to use this
> product" would be nice, but it's not *necessary*. Not according to copyright
> law. Copyright is automatic and doesn't require any explicit notification,
> and the *default* is that copyrighted work can *not* be used without
> explicit permission.

If they're distributing the software to you (e.g. by making it available 
on a publicly accessible web page), it is more than prudent to assume 
that they are ok with you getting a copy. As for whether they are ok 
with you actually /using/ that copy, it is likewise prudent to assume 
that whatever the downloaded software displays as EULA during 
installation is the company's intention (at least unless they 
/explicitly/ informed you otherwhise when they handed you the copy). It 
is also prudent to assume that if they let you get a copy of the 
software, there must be /some/ way to also obtain the right to actually 
use it; so if the EULA doesn't hint at a different licensing model, it 
is prudent to assume that possessing an authorized copy of the software 
also implies possessing the right to use it.

Post a reply to this message

> Even if your doormat says "Welcome", people who break into your house
> are still commiting a crime.

Not if you're running a shop in your house and the front door is open.

Post a reply to this message

Kenneth <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Maybe you should get more acquainted with copyright law then....[clip]
> >
> > An explicit notification saying "you need to buy a license to use this
> > product" would be nice, but it's not *necessary*. Not according to copyright
> > law. Copyright is automatic and doesn't require any explicit notification,
> > and the *default* is that copyrighted work can *not* be used without
> > explicit permission.
> >
> > Anything else is just an excuse to ignore copyright law.
> >

> Then why is their download page still active, that anyone can access??

What does that have to do whether it's legal to use the software without
a license or not? As I said, copyright law does not care *how* you got
the software. It only cares whether you have a license to it or not.

> The page serves no other purpose than to download their software.

The stated purpose is for people who own a legal CSE2 license to be able
to reinstall the software in their computers (because the authentication
server for that version is not active anymore.)

> It's OK to have strong opinions, but clinging doggedly to a rigid ideology--in
> the face of contrary facts-- seems to be just an argument for argument's sake.

It's not ideology. It's international copyright law. How is explaining what
the law states "ideology"?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 15.01.2013 01:05, schrieb Warp:

> > Maybe you should get more acquainted with copyright law then. Unless a
> > copyright-based license explicitly says that you can use the copyrighted
> > product, the default is that you can't. It doesn't matter how you get it.

> That is nonsense. Copyright governs the right to copy (hence copyright), 
> not the right to use a piece of software.

That is nonsense. You are clinging to the word "copy" in "copyright" and
ignoring what the copyright laws actually say.

As wikipedia puts it, "copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most
governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights
to it, usually for a limited time. Generally, it is "the right to copy",
but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the
work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may
perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other
related rights."

Besides, even if we clinged to the physical act of copying, just because
the software can be downloaded from their website doesn't mean you have
the right to, without permission.

> so if the EULA doesn't hint at a different licensing model, it 
> is prudent to assume that possessing an authorized copy of the software 
> also implies possessing the right to use it.

I think you meant to say "imprudent".

You don't seem to understand the concept that if a work does not state
anything about who can use it, then the default is that nobody (except
the author) can use it.

"I downloaded it from the author's website, therefore it's legal" is just
an excuse to ignore the law. Pure and simple.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:
> This is exactly like my car dealer who offers free coffee and pastries 
> while I get my car serviced.  It doesn't mean that all the neighborhood 
> hobos are allowed to come in and eat for free.

A closer example would be the images on a website: Just becuse you can
download the image files from a website doesn't somehow automatically
give you the right to use them as you want. This even if there's no
copyright statement or usage restrictions mentioned anywhere in the
website.

There's zero difference between an image file and a computer program.
Just because you *can* download a program from a website doesn't mean
that you somehow automatically get the right to use it however you want.

Copyright is automatic and does not need to be stated explicitly, and
the *default* is that if there's no usage license, you can *not* use it.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> A closer example would be the images on a website: Just becuse you can
> download the image files from a website doesn't somehow automatically
> give you the right to use them as you want. This even if there's no
> copyright statement or usage restrictions mentioned anywhere in the
> website.
>
> There's zero difference between an image file and a computer program.

Yes there is, the purpose of an image on a website is to make it look 
the way it does, the purpose of a program on a website is for you to 
download and install - it has no other purpose.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > A closer example would be the images on a website: Just becuse you can
> > download the image files from a website doesn't somehow automatically
> > give you the right to use them as you want. This even if there's no
> > copyright statement or usage restrictions mentioned anywhere in the
> > website.
> >
> > There's zero difference between an image file and a computer program.

> Yes there is, the purpose of an image on a website is to make it look 
> the way it does, the purpose of a program on a website is for you to 
> download and install - it has no other purpose.

I hope that was a joke.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

> You don't seem to understand the concept that if a work does not state
> anything about who can use it, then the default is that nobody (except
> the author) can use it.

Surely the author loses that right the moment they make it available for 
free to the general public? Otherwise you'd end up with the absurd 
situation where I could upload a program or book I wrote to my website, 
wait a few months, then prosecute all the people who read/installed it 
for not having my permission. It would probably never even get to court 
in the first place, the judge would laugh at you.

Actually you've just read my post which is copyrighted to me and you 
don't have my permission to read it. See you in court :-)

Post a reply to this message

>> Yes there is, the purpose of an image on a website is to make it look
>> the way it does, the purpose of a program on a website is for you to
>> download and install - it has no other purpose.
>
> I hope that was a joke.

It wasn't.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> Yes there is, the purpose of an image on a website is to make it look
> >> the way it does, the purpose of a program on a website is for you to
> >> download and install - it has no other purpose.
> >
> > I hope that was a joke.

> It wasn't.

I was talking about copyright. You talk about installations.

Yeah, same thing.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > You don't seem to understand the concept that if a work does not state
> > anything about who can use it, then the default is that nobody (except
> > the author) can use it.

> Surely the author loses that right the moment they make it available for 
> free to the general public? Otherwise you'd end up with the absurd 
> situation where I could upload a program or book I wrote to my website, 
> wait a few months, then prosecute all the people who read/installed it 
> for not having my permission. It would probably never even get to court 
> in the first place, the judge would laugh at you.

So according to your logic, if someone distributes a program on their
website, they relinquish all rights to it.

And that's why, for example, the Free Software Foundation successfully
sues people for breaking their usage license. Wait... Didn't they just
relinquish all rights by publishing the program on their website? They
shouldn't be able to impose their rights, because they lost it.

That's not how it works.

Again: It doesn't matter how you get the program. You still need a legal
license to use it (even if it's a license that grants you the permission
to use it completely free of charge.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

This discussion reminds me of another forum, where some 13yo posted his
own photograph, and the moderators removed it. Their explanation was that
they didn't want to take even the smallest possible risk of a lawsuit
against the forum. (Nobody could point out a law that prohibits a 13yo
from posting his own photograph on an internet forum, though.)

Yet you wouldn't believe the excuses that *those exact same* moderators
come up with when the question of distributing copyrighted material comes
up. Suddenly all that super-exaggerated caution goes completely out of the
window, and they start stretching the definitions of "fair use" and whatnot
beyond belief.

Somehow copyright brings forth the worst in people. Even people who are
otherwise extremely honest and moral suddenly start to come up with the
wildest of excuses to ignore authors' legal rights to their own work.

And not only from a purely legal point of view. From a moral point of
view too. Like here, they just outright *ignore* what the author is
actually saying about who can use their work, and come up with all kinds
of silly excuses like "you distributed it in your webpage, therefore
I don't have to listen what you are actually saying; by doing that you
have relinquished all rights to your own work to me." (It doesn't matter
that the law is on the author's side. It also doesn't matter that *morally*
it's wrong to use the work when the author explicitly says that he doesn't
want you to.)

People should be more honest. Don't invent excuses. If you want to use
the software completely ignoring the owner's wishes, then be a man and
just say so. "I don't care what they say. I'm going to download and use
their software because I want to. I don't care if it's illegal or immoral."

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:38:54 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Copyright is automatic and does not need to be stated explicitly, and
> the *default* is that if there's no usage license, you can *not* use it.

Copyright and licensing are two different things.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 2013-01-15 09:58, scott a écrit :
>> Even if your doormat says "Welcome", people who break into your house
>> are still commiting a crime.
>
> Not if you're running a shop in your house and the front door is open.
>
What if it's outside business hours?  Or if your serve alcohol and the 
person is underage?

The point is, there may be other conditions, implied or explicit, than a 
doormat "Welcome" message that govern whether you are allowed in.


-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Francois Labreque <fla### [at] videotronca> wrote:

>
> Likewise, leaving the door unlocked (or leaving the FTP site open) does
> not give people permission to steal your furniture (your 8 year old
> software).
>
> Adobe has officially said that people were not allowed to download this,
> it was only offered as a service to legal owners of CS2 because their
> authentication server was no longer online.
>
> This is exactly like my car dealer who offers free coffee and pastries
> while I get my car serviced.  It doesn't mean that all the neighborhood
> hobos are allowed to come in and eat for free.
>

Hmm, those are valid points, that I didn't consider.

But here's the catch (IMO): Adobe's official announcement is not actually ON the
download page--it seems to be everywhere *but* there. (On techie sites, that
is.) The 'philosophical' (legal?) question is, why isn't it there? Adobe, for
whatever reason, has not bothered to make its position crystal-clear, in the
very place that matters. I find that really strange. Someone simply stumbling
onto their page--and honestly ignorant of Adobe's statements elsewhere--would be
led to believe that there's no problem in downloading the stuff. (Putting aside
questions of how much each of us should know about copyright law and software
licensing--which are rather arcane subjects, except to lawyers.)

Of course, I can't claim such naivete (re: Adobe's statement, anyway)--and I'm
beginning to think that I've done something *really wrong* :-(  Well...maybe not
;-) It's a matter of opinion in this odd case. (And *that's* even debatable I
suppose, if only from an ethical standpoint.)

Something to ponder: Since the download page doesn't 'match' Adobe's official
announcement, it makes me wonder if there is some kind of mild turmoil going on
within the company--various factions having differing opinions as to what to do
about this situation. Otherwise, it seems to me that Adobe would have done
*something* more obvious and clear by now, to make things less equivocal. (The
company's "do not download" statement appearing solely on various techie sites
doesn't qualify as 'unequivocal,' in light of the download page itself saying
nothing similar.)

OR, as has been mentioned, perhaps Adobe just doesn't care.

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.01.2013 17:29, schrieb Warp:

> You don't seem to understand the concept that if a work does not state
> anything about who can use it, then the default is that nobody (except
> the author) can use it.

So if I obtain a copy of a book, then I can't read it? Because you know, 
the typical book doesn't say anywhere "if you are in possession of a 
copy of this book, you are allowed to read it". Nor does it state that I 
may transfer ownership of the copy, so according to your logic I'm also 
not allowed to give it to someone else as a gift.

That really doesn't add up.

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.01.2013 18:20, schrieb scott:
>> You don't seem to understand the concept that if a work does not state
>> anything about who can use it, then the default is that nobody (except
>> the author) can use it.
>
> Surely the author loses that right the moment they make it available for
> free to the general public? Otherwise you'd end up with the absurd
> situation where I could upload a program or book I wrote to my website,
> wait a few months, then prosecute all the people who read/installed it
> for not having my permission. It would probably never even get to court
> in the first place, the judge would laugh at you.
>
> Actually you've just read my post which is copyrighted to me and you
> don't have my permission to read it. See you in court :-)

LOL, yes!

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.01.2013 18:56, schrieb Warp:

> So according to your logic, if someone distributes a program on their
> website, they relinquish all rights to it.

Not if they make the download page, installer or startup screen tell you 
that they reserve some rights. (And if it's about the right to 
distribute, then it should better be the download page.)

> And that's why, for example, the Free Software Foundation successfully
> sues people for breaking their usage license. Wait... Didn't they just
> relinquish all rights by publishing the program on their website? They
> shouldn't be able to impose their rights, because they lost it.

Well, that's why software typically tells you what license model applies 
to it...

> Again: It doesn't matter how you get the program. You still need a legal
> license to use it (even if it's a license that grants you the permission
> to use it completely free of charge.)

No. Unless it states somewhere in a suitable place that you need a 
separate license to use it, you don't need a separate license to use it.

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.01.2013 19:09, schrieb Warp:

> People should be more honest. Don't invent excuses. If you want to use
> the software completely ignoring the owner's wishes, then be a man and
> just say so. "I don't care what they say. I'm going to download and use
> their software because I want to. I don't care if it's illegal or immoral."

FYI: I'm not discussing the moral side of it. Because in a discussion 
about moral we'd need to talk about a whole lot more than just the act 
of downloading a piece of software that somebody doesn't want you to 
get. We'd also have to talk about the morality of the other side; and 
let's face the truth: Big companies typically give a shit about morality.

How to make money from something creative has been a big unsolved issue 
for I'd guess about hundred years. Well, maybe there's a new, viable 
solution emerging with kickstarter & co.

Besides: No, I'm not downloading Adobe's old software.

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.01.2013 17:38, schrieb Warp:

> A closer example would be the images on a website: Just becuse you can
> download the image files from a website doesn't somehow automatically
> give you the right to use them as you want. This even if there's no
> copyright statement or usage restrictions mentioned anywhere in the
> website.
>
> There's zero difference between an image file and a computer program.
> Just because you *can* download a program from a website doesn't mean
> that you somehow automatically get the right to use it however you want.

Sorry, but that's utter rubbish.

There isn't much you can do with an image that doesn't also involve 
redistribution (be it in the original or a modified form).

There is (typically) a /lot/ you can do with a piece of software that 
does /not/ involve redistribution.

Software is more akin to a scientific paper: If you can get hold of a 
copy, you /can/ (by default) freely make use of the knowledge presented 
therein (except of course if patents are involved).


> Copyright is automatic and does not need to be stated explicitly, and
> the *default* is that if there's no usage license, you can *not* use it.

No. The default is that there is no implied license to /copy/; there 
/is/ a default implied license to redistribute the very copy you 
received from an authorized distributor (in some countries you can't 
even explicitly deny that right), and yes - there /is/ a default implied 
license to /use/ the piece of work however you deem fit (provided that 
the use doesn't involve copying it).

Post a reply to this message

Am 16.01.2013 03:41, schrieb Kenneth:

> Something to ponder: Since the download page doesn't 'match' Adobe's official
> announcement, it makes me wonder if there is some kind of mild turmoil going on
> within the company--various factions having differing opinions as to what to do
> about this situation. Otherwise, it seems to me that Adobe would have done
> *something* more obvious and clear by now, to make things less equivocal. (The
> company's "do not download" statement appearing solely on various techie sites
> doesn't qualify as 'unequivocal,' in light of the download page itself saying
> nothing similar.)
>
> OR, as has been mentioned, perhaps Adobe just doesn't care.

OR what they really want is to be generous about people downloading the 
stuff, but sue the ass off anyone who tries to re-distribute it for money.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

>
> OR what they really want is to be generous about people downloading the
> stuff, but sue the ass off anyone who tries to re-distribute it for money.

Egads, I hadn't thought of that. So my nefarious plan to sell Adobe's 8-year-old
software to all my friends just went down the tubes. :-P

Ooh, maybe I shouldn't even joke about that here. :-O

Post a reply to this message

Am 16.01.2013 05:59, schrieb Kenneth:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>
>>
>> OR what they really want is to be generous about people downloading the
>> stuff, but sue the ass off anyone who tries to re-distribute it for money.
>
> Egads, I hadn't thought of that. So my nefarious plan to sell Adobe's 8-year-old
> software to all my friends just went down the tubes. :-P
>
> Ooh, maybe I shouldn't even joke about that here. :-O

I was thinking more along the lines of computer magazines putting 
Adobe's software on some DVD.

Post a reply to this message

>> Surely the author loses that right the moment they make it available for
>> free to the general public? Otherwise you'd end up with the absurd
>> situation where I could upload a program or book I wrote to my website,
>> wait a few months, then prosecute all the people who read/installed it
>> for not having my permission. It would probably never even get to court
>> in the first place, the judge would laugh at you.
>
> So according to your logic, if someone distributes a program on their
> website, they relinquish all rights to it.

I never said all rights, just the right that you can then go ahead later 
and claim people need to pay for it. As I said, that would lead to 
absurd situations.

Post a reply to this message

> of silly excuses like "you distributed it in your webpage, therefore
> I don't have to listen what you are actually saying; by doing that you
> have relinquished all rights to your own work to me."

You're the one exaggerating now, nobody expects to relinquish all rights 
just because you put your program on your webpage for free download 
(without any message that you have to pay for it or it is limited use 
etc.). What people do expect, is that you have relinquished your right 
to then *charge* the people who downloaded it. That is likely illegal 
sales practise in most places and the sort of thing that consumer 
protection agencies frown upon.

> (It doesn't matter
> that the law is on the author's side. It also doesn't matter that *morally*
> it's wrong to use the work when the author explicitly says that he doesn't
> want you to.)

The law is not on the author's side - an author can't give you something 
for free then come around a week later and demand you pay for it.

Post a reply to this message

> But here's the catch (IMO): Adobe's official announcement is not actually ON the
> download page--it seems to be everywhere *but* there.

Their official announcement was also before they made the page available 
to everyone (previously you needed to log in). There has been no 
official announcement since they made that download page and put it up 
for the public to access.

Post a reply to this message

>> OR, as has been mentioned, perhaps Adobe just doesn't care.
>
> OR what they really want is to be generous about people downloading the
> stuff, but sue the ass off anyone who tries to re-distribute it for money.

OR they just want more people to try out their software, nothing like 
getting front-page news on all the tech websites to help that along :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> OR, as has been mentioned, perhaps Adobe just doesn't care.
> >
> > OR what they really want is to be generous about people downloading the
> > stuff, but sue the ass off anyone who tries to re-distribute it for money.
>
> OR they just want more people to try out their software, nothing like
> getting front-page news on all the tech websites to help that along :-)

It worked ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> People should be more honest. Don't invent excuses. If you want to use
> the software completely ignoring the owner's wishes, then be a man and
> just say so. "I don't care what they say. I'm going to download and use
> their software because I want to. I don't care if it's illegal or immoral."
>

I thought I did ;-)

No, I'm not making lite of the moral/ethical question. Perhaps it's hard to
believe, but I actually *did* give a fair amount of thought to it.

Most of us have a built-in 'filter' for deciding such issues, developed over
time and from personal experience, and the final analysis of a situation is
usually clear-cut, because the initial set of circumstances is clear-cut. It's a
personal filter, of course. What might seem unambiguous to one person may not be
so to another. This Adobe thing looks, smells and tastes ambiguous (to me.)
That's not making up 'excuses' (for engaging in bad behavior, as you imply),
it's actually the way I feel about it. Am I 'right' or 'wrong' to download the
software? I don't think it's so clear-cut, in this situation. Adobe has made it
ambiguous.

This particular moral/ethical question (I don't know if I would call it a
dilemma in this case) would probably make a good 'case example' in a college
course on ethics. I would bet that the class would be evenly divided as to
opinions.

Post a reply to this message

On 15/01/2013 04:38 PM, Warp wrote:
> Francois Labreque<fla### [at] videotronca>  wrote:
>> This is exactly like my car dealer who offers free coffee and pastries
>> while I get my car serviced.  It doesn't mean that all the neighborhood
>> hobos are allowed to come in and eat for free.
>
> A closer example would be the images on a website: Just becuse you can
> download the image files from a website doesn't somehow automatically
> give you the right to use them as you want. This even if there's no
> copyright statement or usage restrictions mentioned anywhere in the
> website.
>
> There's zero difference between an image file and a computer program.
> Just because you *can* download a program from a website doesn't mean
> that you somehow automatically get the right to use it however you want.
>
> Copyright is automatic and does not need to be stated explicitly, and
> the *default* is that if there's no usage license, you can *not* use it.

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*.

If you walk into somebody's house and take something, even if the door 
is left wide open, it's pretty obvious that you shouldn't be doing this. 
But if I shop offers you the wrong book for free, you have acted in good 
faith, and it's difficult to see how the courts could impose any sort of 
sanction against you. They might well order you to return the book, or 
perhaps pay some small cost to the shop. But since it was clearly the 
shop's error and you clearly did not take the book maliciously, I very 
much doubt there would be any criminal penalties.

Similarly, Adobe has some obsolete software on their site for download, 
complete with license keys. There is absolutely nothing on that page 
explaining that you're not actually allowed to download the software or 
use the license keys. It's a reasonable thing to believe that a company 
might legitimately do. I don't see how anybody making that mistake would 
be liable for anything more that desisting from using the software.

Now, if Adobe were to just put a notice on the page explaining the 
situation - which would take then about 30 seconds - then the entire 
argument changes. Now anybody taking this stuff would know that they're 
not supposed to have it. That would be an entirely other matter...

Post a reply to this message

> 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

On 16/01/2013 1:32 PM, scott wrote:
>> 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.

I think the top left hand paragraph which read:

Get access to every CS6 application and so much more for as low as 
US$49.99 per month.

Is a clue to it not being free.

>
> 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.

> Is it legally and morally correct to then take a can without
> paying?

No it is not.

> 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. Coca Cola Enterprises would write it off and if 
there was any great loss, claim it on their insurance. I had this 
discussion a few years back with a senior CCE manager, when I was 
working there.

> What will the judge say?
>

Mine is a diet coke. ;-)

Similarly if an ATM gives out more money than you ask for:

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/atms-wrong-money-165239004.html


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message