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