 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kenneth <kdw### [at] gmail com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
