Moral dilemma
-
@blakeyrat's word is law. HE IS THE LAW.
-
@blakeyrat's word is law. HE IS THE LAW.
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/square_medium/8/80111/3277538-2012-09-28-judge_dredd_01.png
@blakeyrat's photo. (In his mind)
-
that was a good movie i guess.... the books were way better.
-
-
-
-
they remade the movie?
really?
lets see 2010s...... the remake was crap wans't it?
-
@Intercourse said:
@blakeyrat's photo. (In his mind)
Someone should photoshop one of his old avatars onto that.
-
-
that was a good movie i guess.... the books were way better.
You are being way too kind. The movies were crap. Semi-entertaining, but still crap.
-
huh... really?
well then i'd best add that to my need to watch this year list.
..... between the boxtrolls and rewatching bladerunner i think.
-
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/square_medium/0/40/2110662-judge_dredd_its_the_law_low.jpeg
Maybe this seems more like a photo of @blakeyrat?
-
they remade the movie?
really?
lets see 2010s...... the remake was crap wans't it?
Actually it wasn't terrible. Different, but not terrible.
-
The "rules" of morality are in constant flux.
To say any different is to deny 6,000+ years of human history.
Fixed so @arantor will love me again.
-
The "rules" of morality are in constant flux.
To say any different is to deny 6000 years of human history.
Are you trying to claim that that is all of human history?
-
Are you trying to claim that that is all of human history?
nope just the date that googling "earliest human civilization" spits out. at worst I am implying that you can't have morality without civilization, which I don't think is too bad an implication.
-
There are civilisations older than 4000BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization for example suggests going back best part of 12,000 years...
6000 years might only work if you follow certain religions.
-
I was too lazy to look into it in much detail, I accepted the word of the great onebox as law. stop arguing with me by reinforcing my original point! its confusing!
-
The "rules" of morality are in constant flux.
To say any different is to deny 6,000+ years of human history.
FTFY
-
done.
fucking commas
-
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=earliest+human+civilization
I was too lazy to look into it in much detail, I accepted the word of the great onebox as law. stop arguing with me by reinforcing my original point! its confusing!
Stop denying me the opportunity to show a little pendantry. I still aspire to one of the pendantry badges that isn't spellar/gramming someday.
-
of course with that + in there it's technically no less accurate to say
1+ years
at least on the timescales we're talking about compared to the age of the universe.
-
Not only that, but @blakeyrat has such a narrow worldview that he cannot see that the rules of morality are different for different people and societies. I would be willing to bet he has either never taken a philosophy class, or failed it horribly.
As a rough example, I do not think anyone here would disagree that cannibalism is immoral and reprehensible. Yet in some primitive tribes that survive to this day, it is still practiced. We may find it repugnant to think of, but within their microcosm, it is entirely moral to them.
The study of humanity is littered with similar examples. @blakeyrat has a hard time comprehending humanity though. His outdated firmware does not allow it.
-
-
Have you ever considered that the original authors of copyright law might have made a few, you know, assumptions when they wrote it?
Of course they did, but, FOR THE 237243728y375y34663478e78r76t724wb r4yw8fve90 TRILLIONTH TIME we're not talking about law, we're talking about morality.
-
@Intercourse said:
The study of humanity is littered with similar examples. @blakeyrat has a hard time comprehending humanity though. His outdated firmware does not allow it.
Maybe. But I know taking someone's shit without their permission and without compensation is wrong.
It's really that simple. Before the complicaters come in here and complicate the shit out of it, that's all it sums to.
I'm not sure how a philosophy class would change that. I have read Sophie's World, so you know, that's basically the same thing.
-
I still aspire to one of the pendantry badges that isn't spellar/gramming someday.
Good luck with that. People around here are most unhelpful in that regard.
Between you, me, and @royal_poet we could arrange to get us all of them, probably, though.
-
They didn't want compensation, they were offered far more than it was worth.
And here's the fun fact: they're not losing out by this. There's no theft, because they didn't want compensation.
-
But I know taking someone's shit without their permission and without compensation is wrong.
If only @Intercourse had offered, I don't know, a stupidly-large amount like $50K, you'd have a point here.
-
I've nominated once or twice, but people didn't agree with me.
-
I've nominated once or twice, but people didn't agree with me.
Tough crowd here. I even tried to write an entertaining article for 'em.
-
They didn't want compensation, they were offered far more than it was worth.
I gave you a VERY SIMPLE equation.
Where does "they don't want compensation" fit into it? Explain this to me. Because I don't recall typing that at all.
And here's the fun fact: they're not losing out by this. There's no theft, because they didn't want compensation.
I gave you a VERY SIMPLE equation. That doesn't figure into it either.
If only @Intercourse had offered, I don't know, a stupidly-large amount like $50K, you'd have a point here.
So? He didn't compensate them. It doesn't matter what offers were made.
THIS IS VERY FUCKING SIMPLE YOU FUCKING RETARDS, WHY ARE YOU HAVING SO MUCH TROUBLE WITH THIS.
-
How long would a fresh build take? Any chance your client can work with their client to allow enough ramp-up time? Be creative in how this gets communicated and you can avoid the moral dilemma altogether.
It is not going to be that simple. I wish it were. The application amounts to a CRM, but a very specific type of CRM with very specific functionality. It will also deal with private semi-medical information, so security is also a major issue.
There will also be no way to migrate historical data. Well, not economically feasible methods anyway. We can get the basic information though. Honestly, they are going to be happy that we can get the clients in to the database. But development time will take a little while.
-
I gave you a VERY SIMPLE equation.
Where does "they don't want compensation" fit into it? Explain this to me. Because I don't recall typing that at all.
Because law, life and everything isn't a simple black and white thing, you tool.
-
I gave you an oversimplified equation limited by my closed-mindedness and personally limited worldview that only fits with my concept of morality because I am a fucking asshat.
Where does "they don't want compensation" fit into it? Explain this to me. Because I choose to act like a bag of dicks.
FTFY
-
Because law, life and everything isn't a simple black and white thing, you tool.
OMG. The next person who brings up law in a discussion about morality is going to be responsible for some strangled kittens.
I've come to the conclusion that it is IMPOSSIBLE to communicate with you clowns. You can't read what I type, no matter how simple it is, and you can't even understand the difference between very different concepts. I might as well be grunting and throwing feces, maybe you'd figure out the message then.
I'm done with this thread.
-
almost black, but l33t c3wl solution: send them a mail saing you've hacked the config to extend licenses + send them standard payment for extending licenses to that count.
-
Because even morals are not a simple black and white thing too and are covered under the separate clause 'life' in my statement?
-
Does that mean we should stop @-mentioning you @blakeyrat?
I mean, I am not going to stop doing it. Just wondering what your opinion was on the subject. Morality is merely that, an opinion. It is not black and white, you tool.
-
@blakeyrat cannot understand gray areas. His firmware only allows binary output.
-
@Intercourse said:
@blakeyrat cannot understand gray areas. His firmware only allows binary output.
Don't you mean unary support? After all, there is only blakeyrat's truth, and nothing else.
-
Since @blakeyrat left, I guess it's up to me to pick up where he left off. Short answer: don't do it. It's bad karma, for one. Two, the legal issues need not be cut and dry.
Starting with the legal issues: your customer bought a limited license and any extension of this license without permission from the copyright owners is a flagrant breach of copyright. Copyright is a strict liability tort, but that isn't even much of an issue here, because both you and your customer know damn well what you are doing.
Whatever the standing law on decompiling the program might be, the fact that the purpose and effect of your work will be to circumvent licensing limitations will probably be enough for the vendor to prevail if they sue. 17 USC § 1201 (f) is irrelevant here, since the purpose of the exercise is purely to circumvent the terms of the purchased license in its most basic form and to unlawfully acquire access rights beyond those purchased.
Also irrelevant is the issue of the copyright owners' refusal to sell you additional licenses. They are under no obligation to do so and it has no bearing on the extent of their exclusive rights.
This brings us to the karma: you know full well that it is wrong, or you wouldn't be asking us here. The reason it's wrong is that you are appropriating something that does not belong to you. The irony inherent in your company also being in the business of software development shouldn't be lost upon us here.
Would you consider doing what you propose if the vendor was still supporting the software? Of course not. But what if they wanted more money than the customer was willing to pay? Still no, I hope. So what's different here: that they don't want to sell? Shouldn't they have that right?
Consider an analogy: the website CelebrityFap.com wants to put up those nude photos that have gotten so much attention in the news lately, so they approach Lawson, say, and offer her a big pile of wonga. She tells them to fuck off. So, now it's okay for them to hack her computer and copy those photos?
Property (and yes, copyright is property) is a cornerstone of our society. If it belongs to someone else, you need their permission to use it. If they refuse - for whatever reason - you have to go without.
Like @blakeyrat says: there's nothing hard about it.
-
THIS IS VERY FUCKING SIMPLE YOU FUCKING RETARDS, WHY ARE YOU HAVING SO MUCH TROUBLE WITH THIS.
Yikes. I, for one, think treating people like this is immoral. It's hurtful and relieves your stress at the express of lowering the listener's self-esteem. If a sensitive person is subjected to this treatment, they might even begin self-harming or even commit suicide. I believe you would be culpable for the death and that would make you a murderer. How many people have you already killed?
You totally deserve to go to hell.
-
I've nominated once or twice, but people didn't agree with me.
Right. So what I'm not suggesting, in case anyone else is reading, is a flagging cabal.
-
THIS IS VERY FUCKING SIMPLE YOU FUCKING RETARDS, WHY ARE YOU HAVING SO MUCH TROUBLE WITH THIS.
We're pretending to be you, perhaps. BTW, "Where does "they don't want compensation" fit into it?"
OP mentioned it. He offered them a pile of cash, far larger than the licenses cost, and they said they weren't interested.
That's where "they don't want compensation" fits into this discoursion.
-
and yes, copyright is property
Property rights do not have sticky, messy things such as fair use attached to them, TYVM.
In other words: a property right is absolute: I have the power to fence off my forty acres and let nobody (save for a cop with a legitimate warrant in hand) on it by penalty of shotgun blast. Copyright is not so: there are cases where someone can make use of part (or even all, depending on the work and the context it is placed in) of your work and the courts will say 'tough luck dude, your interests in making money does not outweigh so-and-so's right to speak freely, case closed.'
Short answer: don't do it. It's bad karma, for one.
On the other hand, I agree that it's bad karma, albeit not in the same way that you describe...having to hack binary patches into an already tipsy, spaghetti-coded product based on reverse engineering is a good recipe to have everything fall over on you sooner or later.Come to think of it, @Intercourse: could you buy the whole entire hog, source code and all, from the third-party vendor? Or did they do something terminally stupid like delete it all because they thought it wouldn't be ever needed again?
-
He offered them a pile of cash
If anything, that makes it worse: it's 100% unambiguous that the original authors DO NOT want him to have extra licenses. Obtaining them anyway is at the very least incredibly rude, likely a breech of contract, and probably immoral.
-
If anything, that makes it worse: it's 100% unambiguous that the original authors DO NOT want him to have extra licenses.
Well, it's not, because maybe they just don't want to fire up their license server app.
But your point is taken, but also I was only answering @blakeyrat's "where does "they don't want compensation" fit into it?"
Depending on what the app's functionality is, he may be able to clone the original server and delete a bunch of users in the second instance. That may or may not be workable.
-
lets see 2010s...... the remake was crap wans't it?
No, it was pretty good, actually. I mean, as a movie. I've never read the comic or anything, so I couldn't judge from that.
-
Are you trying to claim that that is all of human history?
How long ago do you figure people starting writing? Are you counting cave paintings? Maybe 6,000 years is too long to really consider being history.