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

> 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