 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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] 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?
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2013 3:48 PM, scott wrote:
>
> 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.
>
And I am sure that it was obvious that they were free samples. Or you
would not have taken them.
>
> 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?
>
Maybe my above statement was wrong.
I would say that yes, you should have asked.
>> 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"
>
I read that and am a bit surprised that neither you nor anyone else
mentioned that the theft act explicitly states... dishonestly
appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of
permanently depriving the other of it;
With downloading software you do not depriving the other of it.
> 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.
>
"I believe that all property is theft."
See how far that gets you in court. ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> And I am sure that it was obvious that they were free samples. Or you
> would not have taken them.
To many the Adobe CS2 download page is obviously them giving away the
software for free - I doubt most people would even give it a second
thought and would just download the software (unless they happened to
have heard about the controversy) in exactly the same way they download
free software from other authors' sites.
> I read that and am a bit surprised that neither you nor anyone else
> mentioned that the theft act explicitly states... dishonestly
> appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of
> permanently depriving the other of it;
>
> With downloading software you do not depriving the other of it.
IANAL, but if downloading software without the correct license is not
theft but copyright infringement, there's a similar clause in that law:
"97 Provisions as to damages in infringement action.
(1)Where in an action for infringement of copyright it is shown that at
the time of the infringement the defendant did not know, and had no
reason to believe, that copyright subsisted in the work to which the
action relates, the plaintiff is not entitled to damages against him,
but without prejudice to any other remedy."
So again the judge would ask the court, did the downloader have a reason
to believe the software on that page was not free. Given that it is
distributed in exactly the same way free software is, and not how paid
software is usually distributed then it might be tricky to insist the
downloader should have known they had to pay for it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 17.01.2013 13:19, schrieb Thomas de Groot:
> This might end the controversy:
>
>
http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/creative-suite-2-activation-end-life.html
>
>
> ...or not? ;-)
"While it could be interpreted as Adobe giving away software for free,
Adobe did it to help its customers."
So they do explicitly acknowledge that this interpretation is possible,
and they're not explicitly saying that it is wrong; they're just saying
that it wasn't their primary motivation.
To me, this reads:
"Unfortunately we had to disable the Activation Server permanently; to
help our paying customers without causing us and them too much hassle,
we deliberately chose to make the software publicly available. We're not
officially saying that you can have it for free, but we really couldn't
care less."
Maybe they just can't officially give the stuff away for free because of
some licensed 3rd party technology in there.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2013 5:27 PM, scott wrote:
>> And I am sure that it was obvious that they were free samples. Or you
>> would not have taken them.
>
> To many the Adobe CS2 download page is obviously
???
> them giving away the software for free -
Wishful thinking is the kindest thing that I would say.
> I doubt most people would even give it a second
> thought and would just download the software (unless they happened to
> have heard about the controversy) in exactly the same way they download
> free software from other authors' sites.
>
That is all right then.
>
> IANAL, but if downloading software without the correct license is not
> theft but copyright infringement, there's a similar clause in that law:
>
IANAL either (I have more morals than that).
> "97 Provisions as to damages in infringement action.
>
[snip]
>
> So again the judge would ask the court, did the downloader have a reason
> to believe the software on that page was not free. Given that it is
> distributed in exactly the same way free software is,
You are sounding more and more like some one else, Scott. :-(
Are you just taking a "stance"?
> and not how paid
> software is usually distributed then it might be tricky to insist the
> downloader should have known they had to pay for it.
>
Before the internet was even thought of, there was a saying (or two).
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
If it looks too good to be true then it probably isn't true.
Etc. etc.
I am just saying that people who say that "It does not say that it is
not free so it must be free." are naive and laying themselves open to a
comeback.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
