Am 16.01.2013 05:59, schrieb Kenneth:
> 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

I was thinking more along the lines of computer magazines putting 
Adobe's software on some DVD.

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.

I never said all rights, just the right that you can then go ahead later 
and claim people need to pay for it. As I said, that would lead to 
absurd situations.

Post a reply to this message

> 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."

You're the one exaggerating now, nobody expects to relinquish all rights 
just because you put your program on your webpage for free download 
(without any message that you have to pay for it or it is limited use 
etc.). What people do expect, is that you have relinquished your right 
to then *charge* the people who downloaded it. That is likely illegal 
sales practise in most places and the sort of thing that consumer 
protection agencies frown upon.

> (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.)

The law is not on the author's side - an author can't give you something 
for free then come around a week later and demand you pay for it.

Post a reply to this message

> But here's the catch (IMO): Adobe's official announcement is not actually ON the
> download page--it seems to be everywhere *but* there.

Their official announcement was also before they made the page available 
to everyone (previously you needed to log in). There has been no 
official announcement since they made that download page and put it up 
for the public to access.

Post a reply to this message

>> 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.

OR they just want more people to try out their software, nothing like 
getting front-page news on all the tech websites to help that along :-)

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> OR they just want more people to try out their software, nothing like
> getting front-page news on all the tech websites to help that along :-)

It worked ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> 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."
>

I thought I did ;-)

No, I'm not making lite of the moral/ethical question. Perhaps it's hard to
believe, but I actually *did* give a fair amount of thought to it.

Most of us have a built-in 'filter' for deciding such issues, developed over
time and from personal experience, and the final analysis of a situation is
usually clear-cut, because the initial set of circumstances is clear-cut. It's a
personal filter, of course. What might seem unambiguous to one person may not be
so to another. This Adobe thing looks, smells and tastes ambiguous (to me.)
That's not making up 'excuses' (for engaging in bad behavior, as you imply),
it's actually the way I feel about it. Am I 'right' or 'wrong' to download the
software? I don't think it's so clear-cut, in this situation. Adobe has made it
ambiguous.

This particular moral/ethical question (I don't know if I would call it a
dilemma in this case) would probably make a good 'case example' in a college
course on ethics. I would bet that the class would be evenly divided as to
opinions.

Post a reply to this message

On 15/01/2013 04:38 PM, Warp wrote:
> 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.

Let's try another example:

Suppose a book shop has a pile of several books outside, with a sign 
saying "free books!" So I pick one up, and walk off with it.

But now it turns out that the particular book I picked up was put there 
in error by the shop staff; it should actually have been full-price. So, 
hypothetically, I have committed a theft.

Now watch the shop try to prosecute me for theft. That's not going to 
fly. You see, theft is one of these crimes which requires *intent*.

If you walk into somebody's house and take something, even if the door 
is left wide open, it's pretty obvious that you shouldn't be doing this. 
But if I shop offers you the wrong book for free, you have acted in good 
faith, and it's difficult to see how the courts could impose any sort of 
sanction against you. They might well order you to return the book, or 
perhaps pay some small cost to the shop. But since it was clearly the 
shop's error and you clearly did not take the book maliciously, I very 
much doubt there would be any criminal penalties.

Similarly, Adobe has some obsolete software on their site for download, 
complete with license keys. There is absolutely nothing on that page 
explaining that you're not actually allowed to download the software or 
use the license keys. It's a reasonable thing to believe that a company 
might legitimately do. I don't see how anybody making that mistake would 
be liable for anything more that desisting from using the software.

Now, if Adobe were to just put a notice on the page explaining the 
situation - which would take then about 30 seconds - then the entire 
argument changes. Now anybody taking this stuff would know that they're 
not supposed to have it. That would be an entirely other matter...

Post a reply to this message

> Let's try another example:
>
> Suppose a book shop has a pile of several books outside, with a sign
> saying "free books!" So I pick one up, and walk off with it.
>
> But now it turns out that the particular book I picked up was put there
> in error by the shop staff; it should actually have been full-price. So,
> hypothetically, I have committed a theft.
>
> Now watch the shop try to prosecute me for theft. That's not going to
> fly. You see, theft is one of these crimes which requires *intent*.

That was exactly my original point; the question is could you have 
reasonably been aware that you had to pay for this software, and hence 
were committing the crime. It is up to the judge to decide on that based 
on all the evidence presented. Given Adobe's actions (removing the need 
to log-in, putting the serial numbers next to the downloads) and their 
non-actions (not removing that page nor adding any comment about needing 
to have previously bought the software) Adobe would find it hard to 
claim they don't want people downloading it without paying.

Another analogy I thought up, imagine a coke vending machine gets a bug 
after a software update and then gives drinks for free. Obviously word 
will spread and people will empty the machine pretty quickly. Coke gets 
a call that the machine is out of order (because it's empty) and come 
out to fix it. But they "fix it" by taking off any reference to a price 
or having to insert coins and re-stock the machine with a huge number of 
cans. Is it legally and morally correct to then take a can without 
paying? What happens if a week later coke try to force everyone who took 
a free can to pay for it by taking to court the ones who refuse to pay? 
What will the judge say?

Post a reply to this message

On 16/01/2013 1:32 PM, scott wrote:
>> Let's try another example:
>>
>> Suppose a book shop has a pile of several books outside, with a sign
>> saying "free books!" So I pick one up, and walk off with it.
>>
>> But now it turns out that the particular book I picked up was put there
>> in error by the shop staff; it should actually have been full-price. So,
>> hypothetically, I have committed a theft.
>>
>> Now watch the shop try to prosecute me for theft. That's not going to
>> fly. You see, theft is one of these crimes which requires *intent*.
>
> That was exactly my original point; the question is could you have
> reasonably been aware that you had to pay for this software, and hence
> were committing the crime.

I think the top left hand paragraph which read:

Get access to every CS6 application and so much more for as low as 
US$49.99 per month.

Is a clue to it not being free.

>
> Another analogy I thought up, imagine a coke vending machine gets a bug
> after a software update and then gives drinks for free. Obviously word
> will spread and people will empty the machine pretty quickly. Coke gets
> a call that the machine is out of order (because it's empty) and come
> out to fix it. But they "fix it" by taking off any reference to a price
> or having to insert coins and re-stock the machine with a huge number of
> cans.

I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination that would be 
considered fixing.

> Is it legally and morally correct to then take a can without
> paying?

No it is not.

> What happens if a week later coke try to force everyone who took
> a free can to pay for it by taking to court the ones who refuse to pay?

Not likely, at all. Coca Cola Enterprises would write it off and if 
there was any great loss, claim it on their insurance. I had this 
discussion a few years back with a senior CCE manager, when I was 
working there.

> What will the judge say?
>

Mine is a diet coke. ;-)

Similarly if an ATM gives out more money than you ask for:

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/atms-wrong-money-165239004.html


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message