>> 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

>> 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