On Mon 14/01/13 16:14, Warp wrote:
> Kenneth <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> It seems that Adobe had a technical glitch--resulting in the software being made
>> available for free(!), whether that was intended or not.  Then they did an
>> about-face and 'clarified' that--but all the software is *still* available(!!),
>> and without the need for any pre-existing licenses or what-have-you. So who am I
>> to turn down such a fabulous offer?
>
> "Can be downloaded and installed" does not mean "legal".

Adobe will find it very hard to convince a judge/jury that someone 
downloading that software from their own site should have known they 
needed to already own or buy a license. Unless it states something 
obvious when you install it (not just in amongst a million lines of EULA).

It's common practise for software companies to release old versions of 
their software for free after a certain amount of time, why would 
someone visiting that page think otherwise? The judge would argue that 
it would have taken only a few moments to add something like "You must 
own a license before downloading" to that page, yet they didn't/haven't.

Post a reply to this message

>> "Can be downloaded and installed" does not mean "legal".
>
> Adobe will find it very hard to convince a judge/jury that someone
> downloading that software from their own site should have known they
> needed to already own or buy a license. Unless it states something
> obvious when you install it (not just in amongst a million lines of EULA).
>
> It's common practise for software companies to release old versions of
> their software for free after a certain amount of time, why would
> someone visiting that page think otherwise? The judge would argue that
> it would have taken only a few moments to add something like "You must
> own a license before downloading" to that page, yet they didn't/haven't.

Indeed. It would take mere seconds to add a large disclaimer to the top 
of the page saying under what conditions it is legal to use this 
software. And yet, they have made no attempt to do so - even though 
several of their employees are apparently aware of the misinformation 
storming the Internet...

Post a reply to this message

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

>
> "Can be downloaded and installed" does not mean "legal".
>

I agree that there might be an ethical question involved here. If the offerings
were pirated software, I would not have considered downloading any of it. (I'm
not into software pirating.) But the facts mitigate against this: Adobe itself
is offering them; there are no *obvious* legal caveats on that page against
doing so (which would have been ever-so-easy to implement, as others have
mentioned); and the download page is still active!  In essence, Adobe is saying,
"Here, take our software, it's free, regardless of what we say otherwise."
Whether or not that was originally intended is really a question for Adobe's
lawyers--and I assume the company has a few ;-) For an old and wise company like
Adobe to make available software downloads that *anyone* can access (and
*without* a pre-paid license), and then say (elsewhere!) that "This software is
only for people who have already paid money to us and who have a previous
license, so don't download it otherwise" is not only a bone-headed mistake but
the height of naivete as well.

Although I personally can't claim to have innocently 'stumbled' onto their
download page, I imagine that others have (or were perhaps simply told by a
friend that Adobe was offering 'free software' with no other explanation.) In
such a case, there is nothing on that page to indicate that the apps are *not*
freely available to everyone.

Perhaps (and I could be stretching the meaning of that word) Adobe has a hidden
agenda for doing this: To 'whet the appetite' of people who don't yet own many
of these applications but who might find them useful enough to buy the latest
and greatest versions. (I'm a good example; many of these apps are new to me,
and I'd like to try them out.) If so, it might actually make good business
sense, IMO.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > "Can be downloaded and installed" does not mean "legal".

> Adobe will find it very hard to convince a judge/jury that someone 
> downloading that software from their own site should have known they 
> needed to already own or buy a license. Unless it states something 
> obvious when you install it (not just in amongst a million lines of EULA).

They don't have to convince any judge or jury because the law says so.
It doesn't matter *how* you get the software, if you don't have a legal
license, you can't legally use it.

> It's common practise for software companies to release old versions of 
> their software for free after a certain amount of time, why would 
> someone visiting that page think otherwise?

It doesn't matter what they think. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Kenneth <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I agree that there might be an ethical question involved here. If the offerings
> were pirated software, I would not have considered downloading any of it. (I'm
> not into software pirating.) But the facts mitigate against this: Adobe itself
> is offering them; there are no *obvious* legal caveats on that page against
> doing so (which would have been ever-so-easy to implement, as others have
> mentioned); and the download page is still active!  In essence, Adobe is saying,
> "Here, take our software, it's free, regardless of what we say otherwise."

Maybe you should get more acquainted with copyright law then. Unless a
copyright-based license explicitly says that you can use the copyrighted
product, the default is that you can't. It doesn't matter how you get it.

An explicit notification saying "you need to buy a license to use this
product" would be nice, but it's not *necessary*. Not according to copyright
law. Copyright is automatic and doesn't require any explicit notification,
and the *default* is that copyrighted work can *not* be used without
explicit permission.

Anything else is just an excuse to ignore copyright law.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

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

>
> It doesn't matter what they think. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
>

I'm glad you're not a Judge :-P  (Or 'my Lord' as they would say in the UK.)

Seriously though, there's another way of looking at this mess, from Adobe's
standpoint. Let's say *I* am the President of Adobe. My first thought upon being
made aware of this situation would be to say, "OMG, FIX IT!!!" (But that hasn't
happened.) So my next thought would probably be, "Well, we made some kind of
mistake, so we're just going to have to live with it now." (Hard to believe,
though, since a fix could be so easily implemented.)

WHY Adobe hasn't taken down that page (or re-worded it) is anyone's guess. There
are only three scenarios I can think of:
1) Everyone at Adobe is 'asleep at the wheel.' Doubtful, of course.
2) They don't care.
3) They have some reason for keeping the page *as-is*, regardless of the
software being freely available.

In any case, the end result is the same: Free software! With no (ethical)
strings attached.

Post a reply to this message

On 1/14/2013 4:37 PM, Kenneth wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
>>
>> It doesn't matter what they think. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
>>
>
> I'm glad you're not a Judge :-P  (Or 'my Lord' as they would say in the UK.)
>
> Seriously though, there's another way of looking at this mess, from Adobe's
> standpoint. Let's say *I* am the President of Adobe. My first thought upon being
> made aware of this situation would be to say, "OMG, FIX IT!!!" (But that hasn't
> happened.) So my next thought would probably be, "Well, we made some kind of
> mistake, so we're just going to have to live with it now." (Hard to believe,
> though, since a fix could be so easily implemented.)
>
> WHY Adobe hasn't taken down that page (or re-worded it) is anyone's guess. There
> are only three scenarios I can think of:
> 1) Everyone at Adobe is 'asleep at the wheel.' Doubtful, of course.
> 2) They don't care.
> 3) They have some reason for keeping the page *as-is*, regardless of the
> software being freely available.
>
> In any case, the end result is the same: Free software! With no (ethical)
> strings attached.
>

Adobe's "official" stance on their software (I got this direct from one 
of their reps a while back) is that it is better to have a paying 
customer, than sue someone over stolen software. This means that either 
they don't care about these older versions, at all, or, the worst they 
might do to you is insist you pay for it. However.. They have released 
some out of date versions, on occasion, via things like 3D mags, etc. 
So, this page may in fact be live "as" part of one of those promotions 
too, which would make a certain amount of possible sense.

Post a reply to this message

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

>
> Maybe you should get more acquainted with copyright law then....[clip]
>
> An explicit notification saying "you need to buy a license to use this
> product" would be nice, but it's not *necessary*. Not according to copyright
> law. Copyright is automatic and doesn't require any explicit notification,
> and the *default* is that copyrighted work can *not* be used without
> explicit permission.
>
> Anything else is just an excuse to ignore copyright law.
>

Then why is their download page still active, that anyone can access?? That's
the part that doesn't make sense re: copyright law. There's no logical *reason*
for Adobe to do this if they are at the same time trying to protect their
intellectual property. The page serves no other purpose than to download their
software.

It's OK to have strong opinions, but clinging doggedly to a rigid ideology--in
the face of contrary facts-- seems to be just an argument for argument's sake.

Post a reply to this message

On 14/01/2013 11:59 PM, Warp wrote:
> They don't have to convince any judge or jury because the law says so.
> It doesn't matter *how* you get the software, if you don't have a legal
> license, you can't legally use it.

> It doesn't matter what they think. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I am not a lawyer, however... I've seen plenty of systems which have 
written all over them "this is a secure system for use by authorised 
employees of [company X] only". Apparently this is legally required so 
that if somebody hacks in, they can't say "oh, I didn't know it was 
restricted".

So yes, apparently ignorance /is/ a valid defence. At least under UK 
law; I imagine this varies wildly by country.

(Next fun question: What law does the Internet operate under?)

Post a reply to this message

> They don't have to convince any judge or jury because the law says so.
> It doesn't matter *how* you get the software, if you don't have a legal
> license, you can't legally use it.

The point is that the user thinks they do have the required license. If 
any user wants to fight Adobe regarding this it will end up in court.

> It doesn't matter what they think. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

They're not ignorant of the law (I don't think anyone would claim they 
didn't know about laws regarding software), they're ignorant of what 
license the software is released under. As it's not made clear, there is 
no option to buy a license and it's old software distributed in a manner 
that is usually used for software with a free license, then it seems 
like you'd have a reasonable case in court to claim you were ignorant 
regarding the license. It's up to the judge to then decide whether the 
efforts required to check the license (maybe reading the EULA would 
suffice, IDK) are reasonable to expect the user to have done. But IIRC 
judges have previously ruled against companies hiding things deep in the 
EULA, so I wouldn't assume Adobe would win.

Post a reply to this message