> 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

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> 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.

So because news editors who have nothing to do with Adobe nor asked them
before publishing their articles claimed that it's free, Apple should
somehow comply? Why, exactly?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:00:27 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> 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!

Well, there are plenty of companies that take old versions and make then 
available for free - or commercial products that are now OSS (Blender, 
for example).

> Which leads us to...
> 
> Morning Town Crescent.
> 
> :-D

Or evening town crescent? ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

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

>
> So because news editors who have nothing to do with Adobe nor asked them
> before publishing their articles claimed that it's free, Apple should
> somehow comply? Why, exactly?
>

Good point; but I would imagine that *something* must have initially convinced
the tech news sites that it was all free, before Adobe's clarification. Just a
guess, though; I haven't actually read (or found) either the 'basis' of the
free-software-offer, or the 'official' direct-from-Adobe message "not to
download." Except on said tech web sites. (I would be interested to read the
original sources if they exist.)

Or did the initial 'free' idea come about simply because a tech writer somewhere
came across the (original) download page and *assumed* that the software was
free, due to Adobe's reported 'glitch'? If so, Adobe bears at least some
responsibility for the foul-up.

But this seems academic now, as Adobe then put up a (new?) page allowing anyone
to download the stuff, no strings attached.

Post a reply to this message

> 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.

No, I think it's a clue that if you like the downloadable CS2 below you 
should consider buying the latest version... Otherwise why wouldn't they 
put the price and a link to buy the software that's actually on the page?

>> 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.

Exactly - they had the opportunity to at least shut off the machine or 
simply not re-fill it yet they deliberately took different action to 
further promote people taking free cans.

>> Is it legally and morally correct to then take a can without
>> paying?
>
> No it is not.

In the UK at least theft has not been committed unless you know your are 
stealing. A court would have to decide whether someone taking a can from 
the machine that had been modified by the manufacturer thought they were 
stealing or they thought the manufacturer intended to give away the cans 
for free. Given the actions taken by the manufacturer they would have a 
very difficult case to convince a court people were knowingly stealing 
from them.

>> 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.

Agreed, because they would know it was unlikely they would be successful 
in court due to their earlier actions to "modify" the machine.

> Similarly if an ATM gives out more money than you ask for:
>
> http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/atms-wrong-money-165239004.html

The key point is whether a person taking the extra money/goods/software 
thinks they are stealing it or not. In the case of the ATM it's obvious 
you are taking more than you ask for (especially if you join a queue 
specifically to do that), so it's theft (under UK law at least). With 
the machine modified by Coke itself to remove pricing information and 
give out free cans it's likely people genuinely think the cans are being 
given away for free, so it's not theft.

Post a reply to this message