 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
Sure, but they have to tell you up front that it's only free to use
whilst you're a student. They can't not tell you that before you
download it and start using it, because you might not even be a student.
> And this particular case is not even that. They are offering a download
> of their software *for people who have a legal license*.
It doesn't say that on their web-page though - in fact they even removed
the need to log in and made the web-page available to the general
public. That doesn't sound like a download only for people who have
bought a license.
> (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.)
But there is no indication you need to pay for a licence, in fact it
seems impossible to do so. So you can't mislead people into thinking
it's free (as it appears many have done) and then later change your
mind. There is laws against that in most countries too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2013 12:29 AM, Warp wrote:
> 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?
No - my point was simply that *a lot* of people genuinely thought this
stuff was free. Even people who should supposedly know better. Plus,
their propagation of this idea does nothing to enlighten the general
public that this stuff actually isn't free.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This might end the controversy:
http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/creative-suite-2-activation-end-life.html
...or not? ;-)
Thomas
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2013 12:40 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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).
>
Poser gave away early versions, then gave a discount when upgrading.
That is how I got started with it.
>> >Which leads us to...
>> >
>> >Morning Town Crescent.
>> >
>> >:-D
> Or evening town crescent?;)
Now, you are just being silly. You have read the rules as often as I
have. :-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2013 8:29 AM, scott wrote:
.
>>
>> 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?
>
Okay, if that is how you read it.
>>> 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.
>
You do remember that this is something that you thought up?
It did not happen it would not happen. CCE have procedures in place to
stop it happening.
>>> 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.
>
Do you remember the scene in Father Ted where Ted explains the
difference between dreams and reality, to Father Dougal?
>>> 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.
>
Go on! Tell me again why you think that a company whose sole reason to
be, is to distribute Coca Cola products for profit, would give away free
product without stating that it was free as part of a marketing campaign.
I think that you are using a very bad analogy.
>> 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).
I might mention at this point that there is no such thing as UK law.
There are the laws of England and Wales also the Laws of Scotland and
the Laws of NI. Just a point.
> 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.
>
Well I will let you read the Wiki entry and you can make up your own mind.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft#United_Kingdom
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You do remember that this is something that you thought up?
> It did not happen it would not happen. CCE have procedures in place to
> stop it happening.
I was just trying to make an analogy with physical items. I have seen
large companies giving away free samples plenty of times before as a
marketing tool.
> Go on! Tell me again why you think that a company whose sole reason to
> be, is to distribute Coca Cola products for profit, would give away free
> product without stating that it was free as part of a marketing campaign.
When I got free samples before nobody told me it was free or part of a
marketing campaign, I just assumed it was because I was not asked to
pay. Was I meant to check before accepting the goods?
> Well I will let you read the Wiki entry and you can make up your own mind.
>
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft#United_Kingdom
Well this is from the "dishonesty" page that it links to:
to be regarded as dishonest:
(a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the
right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third
person; or"
So it all comes down to whether the person *believes* they have a right
to the item or not, or rather whatever a court thinks they believed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
