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

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