 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
There was no sign on the Adobe page saying you could download the
software for free. Bad analogy.
>
> 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.
There is also nothing on that page telling you you are allowed to
download it for free. It is NOT accessible from the home page, unless
you search for it in their search widget.
The only people who get ot that page KNOW exactly why their going to
that page. They're either legitimate users of CS2 who need to reinstall
the software they paid for and were directed there by the Adobe customer
support or Adobe's user forums, or, they're people who are trying to get
a free lunch because they read some blog post (or Forbes article on it)
This is no longer you picking up a book that shouldn't have been on the
"free" table by mistake. This is you going to the book store WITH the
intent to get THAT book that shouldn't be there, because your firend
told you it was there.
Yes, the store owner was careless, but you also have the intent to steal
the book.
>
> 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...
Agreed.
--
/*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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> 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.
Many companies (including Adobe, a bit ironically in the context of this
conversation) offer free licenses to students. The stipulation is that
when you stop being a student, you can't use the software legally anymore
without acquiring a new license.
So yes, companies have full right to distribute something for free and
then later demand money.
And this particular case is not even that. They are offering a download
of their software *for people who have a legal license*. They have said
so themselves. It's not like they are offering it for free and then
expecting you to pay for it. They are expecting you to already own a
license before you use the software. And they have full legal right to
do so.
(Ok, it might depend on the jurisdiction. According to Finnish law,
that's *exactly* how it goes. It doesn't matter how you get the software,
if you don't have a valid license to use it, then you can't legally use it.
Most countries have similar laws.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:29:34 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> 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.
To CS6 not being free. What's available is CS2 IIRC.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:25:59 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Many companies (including Adobe, a bit ironically in the context of this
> conversation) offer free licenses to students
Adobe has student/teacher pricing, but I don't think they give the
software to students for free.
I had a look at it a while back when my son was a student (he's since
graduated), and the prices are greatly reduced, but not free. They also
don't seem to have (or didn't at the time) a stipulation that once you
graduate, you can no longer use the license.
Jim
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.
>
> There was no sign on the Adobe page saying you could download the
> software for free. Bad analogy.
No. But it's a download page with no indication that this stuff is *not*
supposed to be free. And apparently half the Internet genuinely mistook
this stuff for being free; there's a bazillion news articles about how
Adobe has decided to make their old products free. I read several of
these before I found one with an actual retraction on it.
In summary, if I hadn't gone out of my way to look, I'd have no idea
that this was actually a mistake and it wasn't supposed to be free. And
it seems plenty of journalists made the exact same mistake...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/01/2013 8:54 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 15:29:34 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> To CS6 not being free. What's available is CS2 IIRC.
>
Clue!
Which leads us to...
Morning Town Crescent.
:-D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
