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

On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:48:07 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> 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.

Come to think, yeah, I got Poser that way as well. :)

Then there's Windows - comes free with most machines.  One might make the 
argument that the cost is "built into" the cost of the machine, but 
getting the identical hardware without Windows often costs more.

>>> >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. :-)

Would I ever be silly about MTC? ;)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> 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.

You are reading between the lines. "They are not explicitly saying that
the interpretation is wrong", therefore the interpretation is correct?

To me "while it could be interpreted" means quite unambiguously "that
interpretation is incorrect." Else they would say that it is correct.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 17.01.2013 20:56, schrieb Warp:

>> "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.
>
> You are reading between the lines. "They are not explicitly saying that
> the interpretation is wrong", therefore the interpretation is correct?
>
> To me "while it could be interpreted" means quite unambiguously "that
> interpretation is incorrect." Else they would say that it is correct.

That, too, is reading between the lines.

As I said, it might well be that they would run into trouble with 3rd 
parties if they explicitly offered the software for free to anyone. 
Adobe's behaviour is pretty much what I'd expect in such a case.

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> This might end the controversy:
>
>
http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/policy-pricing/creative-suite-2-activation-end-life.html
>

That's the first time I've seen it (just tonight.) Was it put up before the
controversy, or after? I'm wondering, because it's worded in English in the
'past tense.'

I've re-read it several times, and I still can't quite understand what Adobe is
trying to say.

This part isn't clear (to me):
"But to ensure that any customers activating those old versions can continue to
use their software, Adobe issued a serial number directly to those customers.
While it could be interpreted as Adobe giving away software for free, Adobe did
it to help its customers."

By "directly to those customers", does Adobe mean via personal email or
something like that? Or do they mean the serial number(s) that are posted on the
current download page? If the latter, then "directly to those customers" has no
meaning--at least in the sense that they imply (or hope to imply), because the
numbers are there for *all* to see and use now.

While the statement does read *somewhat* like an attempt to steer people away
from the site who don't belong there, it also seems like no more that a
'half-hearted' attempt. It amazes me that this statement isn't worded
differently, to be more clear-cut and unequivocal. It would have been so easy to
do-- "Do not download it otherwise", or some such wording. Adobe needs better
writers, at the very least. Of course, no such changes have occurred, in any
form. So the overarching question is, WHY NOT?

Post a reply to this message

Am 18.01.2013 05:20, schrieb Kenneth:

> While the statement does read *somewhat* like an attempt to steer people away
> from the site who don't belong there, it also seems like no more that a
> 'half-hearted' attempt. It amazes me that this statement isn't worded
> differently, to be more clear-cut and unequivocal. It would have been so easy to
> do-- "Do not download it otherwise", or some such wording. Adobe needs better
> writers, at the very least. Of course, no such changes have occurred, in any
> form. So the overarching question is, WHY NOT?

See my recent speculations: I really think they /want/ to give away the 
stuff away for free for anyone to try, with the aim to get people hooked 
to buy the newer versions (note the CS6 advertisement on the page!), but 
can't do so legally due to some 3rd party intellectual property in CS2. 
Codecs, color management stuff, fonts - whatever.

Post a reply to this message

> 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.

This is after the internet though, there are millions of pieces of 
software available for free, many of which you used to have to pay for.

Post a reply to this message