Moral dilemma



  • @Intercourse said:

    I went back over the post, I was rushed. I always spelled it "dilemna" and have been wrong. I am also picky about spelling, so how the hell that escaped me for 35+ years is beyond me.

    So you weren't the person who called "A Way With Words" last year to ask when the spelling they were taught in school was changed?

    (We probably all have these. Mine is "frustum", which I always thought was "frustrum".)



  • @Intercourse said:

    In more ways than one, because I already consulted my lawyer about it and his advice was that yes it would open up liability but that I likely incur more liability by driving downtown. In all likelihood, he said that if we were sued the court would side with us. If not, the highest liability would be treble damages. Which is still less than $50K.

    The fact that you offered them 50k you made it pretty easy for them to set the minimum compensations for damages on at least 50k + legal fees.

    You are also opening a door for liability toward you client and not just the software company
    How much do you think it is going to cost your client to migrate away from the instances of the violating software you sold them. and who are they going to sue for those damages?

    I doubt that you can circumvent a software to bypass a software DRM. and that will be legal because the company that sell the software is not willing to provision you another license or "support" it.

    This does not put the software in the public domain. sure there are some exception when you can reverse engineer a software. what out diving into the specifics of the law I doubt your case is protect by any of DMCA exception.

    I think this is less of a moral dilemma and more of a moron dilemma ( I am new here and I understand you have to be mean to be part of the community so no offence)



  • First up, I'm an armchair lawyer at best.

    But I reread the DMCA, and I would actually speculate that this is probably in the realms of legitimate legally speaking now that I look at the wording.

    Relevant section is (f)(1):

    Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs

    I would argue this is probably in the realms of interoperability.

    That's the fun thing about this stuff, none of it is defined rigidly enough in law.



  • @Arantor said:

    created computer program with other programs

    what other software is it introperable with?
    and why would it need more liceneses to achive that?

    In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.

    20 licenses = 20 different willful infringements x $150,000 = $3,000,000

    $222,000 for sharing 24 songs, I am not sure how you can be so optimistic that the law is in your favor



  • Firstly, I already said I wasn't a lawyer.

    Secondly, if you read the thread thus far, you would note that there is a lawyer involved in the matter who is familiar with the relevant statutes properly, and his advice has been that the matter is probably borderline acceptable.

    Thirdly... I am fully aware we do not have the full story. We have a sanitised version with some of the facts with a distinct bias. There's no real precedent for this - the rulings you refer to are not actually directly relevant here because this is only borderline a case of copyright infringement.

    They already own a licence. They're looking for a contract variation - and the other party is simply unwilling to give them any kind of contract, but presumably they already had a contract in the first place when they originally purchased it. We do not, for example, know the terms of that contract - and it may well be that for all we know, the refusal to offer additional seats may violate that original contract. Be wary of buttumptions, they usually come back to bite you in the butt.

    In any case... is adding seats to an existing licence for some software actually a copyright infringement matter? The original licence may or may not be clear about this.

    20 additional seats on an existing licence is... not necessarily 20 wilful infringements. Within the context of a company... I'd almost argue it's a single infringement. But again, IANAL.

    Then there's the matter of whether the company whose rights are being infringed upon, such as they are, would actually sue. Remember: they've already been offered favourable terms for settlement to establish a contract, and from the facts given, that offer was more than generous - but they aren't interested in said software licence. If they're not willing to accept $50,000 because it's not worth their time or trouble, what are the odds they will go to court in the hope of getting more... especially when I could quite conceivably imagine the case getting tossed out with 'they were quite prepared to buy it legitimately at a price above what was expected' assuming everything it as described (and I see no reason for it not to be)

    Seriously: that's the situation here. If this were software currently available for purchase - there's a real case. The software is not available, nor able to be legitimately extended - this is basically the sort of case the DMCA's exceptions were written for. The company in question has made good faith efforts to acquire it legitimately, which also goes a long way in such things.



  • @Arantor said:

    Secondly, if you read the thread thus far, you would note that there is a lawyer involved in the matter who is familiar with the relevant statutes properly, and his advice has been that the matter is probably borderline acceptable.

    Yes the lawyer himself said that there is a liability issue.
    my point was that putting a cap to the liability is surprising.

    @Arantor said:

    Then there's the matter of whether the company whose rights are being infringed upon, such as they are, would actually sue. Remember: they've already been offered favourable terms for settlement to establish a contract, and from the facts given, that offer was more than generous - but they aren't interested in said software licence. If they're not willing to accept $50,000 because it's not worth their time or trouble, what are the odds they will go to court in the hope of getting more... especially when I could quite conceivably imagine the case getting tossed out with 'they were quite prepared to buy it legitimately at a price above what was expected' assuming everything it as described (and I see no reason for it not to be)

    The company refused to the author offer. A refusal that they have all rights for as the copyright owner.

    @Arantor said:

    In any case... is adding seats to an existing licence for some software actually a copyright infringement matter? The original licence may or may not be clear about this.

    Yes, the fact that you need to reverse engineer and crack the software pretty much show you that the company had no intention of giving out free licenses. nor are they willing to give new licences for a price. which does not automatically put the software in the public domain

    I assume that there is no contract/license technicalities which would allow him to use the software beyond the intended licensing terms. otherwise there was no need for this dilemma.. as it was technically legal.

    The company refusal of the $50k offer (or for any price) is what raise a big red flags and is very concerning.
    What could be a refusal from the company to make big profit for minimal effort. just give provision a licenses with zero support on their end.

    You are spot on one big thing here. it is not what we know, it is what we don't know.



  • No-one was ever disputing that this software isn't public domain. It's simply that it's quite feasible that there's enough grounds to wiggle through the wiggle room left in the DMCA's exemption rules.

    But yes, the refusing $50k is interesting. Weird, but interesting.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    It would certainly indicate that the vendor doesn't have a financial interest in keeping the product going, which takes the actual financial damages out of the question. And there was a good faith offer to pay substantially over the real value, which courts tend to look very favourably on too.

    It's shit like this why you don't just have rules and laws, but actually have courts.



  • IANAL, but I would not consider that to fall under the interoperability/compatibility exemption. To me... it's not even borderline, I just don't see how it applies at all honestly.

    I think you could make a half reasonable fair use argument, but even that seems really sketchy to me; there are four areas the law says should be weighed, and I think most of them probably go against fair use.

    I don't have much of a moral qualm with this, but this to me sounds like stepping into a huge legal minefield.

    Edit And of course I forgot for a minute that circumventing the copyright protection could be an offense separate from any actual copyright ingfringement, so the fair use wouldn't help you with that.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @locallunatic said:

    I don't think changes to title get put in the same spot as the OP (they are different pencil icons) but they might be.

    They do. But think I found a bug while testing it:

    http://what.thedailywtf.com/t/testing-edits-new-title/4105?u=pjh

    Paging @discoursebot.



  • @PJH - Days Since Last Discourse Bug: 0



  • They only own 20 sets of the application. Adding 20 more is stealing 20 copies and wilfully using those 20 copies.

    It's why i said build a programmatic interface and dedicate a single license if it's not expressly forbidden, it will resolve the licensing issue for new people.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @FrostCat said:

    I had a coworker at one job who used to like to go to the Mexican fast food chain "Chipolte".

    Lots of people say it that way. It is always annoying. My father is a big, grumpy, German dude and always says "spaghetti" as "pasketti". He is 70, so I give him a pass. Plus, he has put up with my shit...as long as I have been alive. 😄

    @Monarch said:

    The fact that you offered them 50k you made it pretty easy for them to set the minimum compensations for damages on at least 50k + legal fees.

    Still less than the opportunity cost of not doing it, for both myself and the client.

    @Monarch said:

    20 licenses = 20 different willful infringements x $150,000 = $3,000,000

    $222,000 for sharing 24 songs, I am not sure how you can be so optimistic that the law is in your favor

    It doesn't work that way in this case. That question has been satisfied for me to my satisfaction.

    @Arantor said:

    Secondly, if you read the thread thus far, you would note that there is a lawyer involved in the matter who is familiar with the relevant statutes properly, and his advice has been that the matter is probably borderline acceptable.

    Correct. His exact statement was: "You drive a nice car, you expose yourself to more liability by driving downtown." (Currently we have had cases where people threw themselves in front of cars and sued. Yes, apparently that is a thing again.) He is my lawyer because he does not tell me to not do a thing, he tells me the exposure and how we can execute it more properly. I mean, I have never went to him wanting to do anything explicitly illegal. In that case he would. I mean for business purposes. ;)

    @Arantor said:

    Thirdly... I am fully aware we do not have the full story. We have a sanitised version with some of the facts with a distinct bias. There's no real precedent for this - the rulings you refer to are not actually directly relevant here because this is only borderline a case of copyright infringement.

    Yeah, and sorry,but it has to stay that way for a multitude of reasons. First among those is that I cannot tell the exact company or software. If the company was entirely out of business, I would have absolutely no moral qualms with overcoming the license, even in perpetuity. That would fall under the reasonable exception of not being able to contact the people for support. My lawyer thinks that we could reasonably argue that in this case. His advice was, "The chances of them finding out is slim to none. If they do, we make them an offer of treble damages plus lawyer fees on the licenses and the chances of the court not seeing that as reasonable are very unlikely."

    @Arantor said:

    In any case... is adding seats to an existing licence for some software actually a copyright infringement matter? The original licence may or may not be clear about this.

    The original license is a .txt file in the install directory and does not even include the line of "by using this software you agree to be bound by these terms", it is the most poorly written license I have seen.

    @Arantor said:

    If they're not willing to accept $50,000 because it's not worth their time or trouble, what are the odds they will go to court in the hope of getting more... especially when I could quite conceivably imagine the case getting tossed out with 'they were quite prepared to buy it legitimately at a price above what was expected' assuming everything it as described (and I see no reason for it not to be)

    That is another point said lawyer brought up.

    @Monarch said:

    The company refusal of the $50k offer (or for any price) is what raise a big red flags and is very concerning.What could be a refusal from the company to make big profit for minimal effort. just give provision a licenses with zero support on their end.

    Not being familiar with laws regarding support of a product in their state, I am wondering if the reason that they refuse to do so would possibly extend the statute of limitations on support? Perhaps if they do so, then they would be bound to support it for another 3 years or something?



  • @locallunatic said:

    Alright, if your lawyer says that it is probably legally OK they certainly know more than I do. Personally I still wouldn't do it for the ethical reasons, but at least your customer understands that if they pay you to do this you are going to charge them an arm and a leg due to risk (legal and other business risks cause ify at best ethically).

    I was looking for something like this.

    Your client should be willing to sign an indemnity clause where they will take up the risk in case of a lawsuit. All of it. Then you can proceed. That covers the legal side. Your lawyer can draw up the details.

    As for the moral side, you've done everything you can to get help from the original vendor with more than fair exchange offered. They simply refuse. Kind of like "no, I don't care if it's a life or death situation, you can't borrow my car." With no other immediate solutions available, I certainly would whack the owner and take their car to save someone's life - can deal with the consequences later, as the right to survive is senior. You're trying to save a business and someone's livelihood (no really, that's the situation here - the hardest crashes a company goes through is usually right after an affluence of business and income but failing to deliver - that's the situation here, and there is a real risk of going out of business if they fail). That's a judgement call, but pretty close to my analogy in my view.

    The bottom line: we live for service, not for rules. Rules are made to smooth the mechanics of making arrangements to deliver service so people can help each other accomplish what they're trying to accomplish with minimal dispute, and provide a remedy when someone steps outside of the set boundaries. But there are times in real life where you have to say to hell with the rules - they were never meant for the situation in question. Always risky when doing this (hence that knot in your gut just thinking about it). Be prepared to pay the price if you're wrong and even especially if you're right.

    Another way to look at it: "Your whole Platoon died because you weren't there!" "Yeah I saw the enemy sneaking up from behind, but I was only following orders! I was ordered to stay behind no matter what!" Some will argue that morally, he should have broken the rules. Kind of my viewpoint here.



  • @Intercourse said:

    If the company was entirely out of business, I would have absolutely no moral qualms with overcoming the license, even in perpetuity.

    Goddamned. I can't express how wrong you are here. You're fucking planning to sell software for a living in only a few months, and you're coming here posting, "oh yeah, steal all the softwares, steal steal steal fuck developers!" You are a developer, you're hurting yourself. (Not to mention most of the other people posting on this forum.)

    I can't even wrap my brain around the kind of warped thinking you have going on here. The company going out of business doesn't magically give you full rights to their product. How does that even slightly make sense? You can't steal shit out of a bankrupt business's office, either.

    Look, I'm sorry your clients are fucking idiots. But that doesn't entitle them or you to steal shit. No matter what your lawyer says.

    @redwizard said:

    They simply refuse. Kind of like "no, I don't care if it's a life or death situation, you can't borrow my car." With no other immediate solutions available, I certainly would whack the owner and take their car to save someone's life - can deal with the consequences later, as the right to survive is senior. You're trying to save a business and someone's livelihood (no really, that's the situation here - the hardest crashes a company goes through is usually right after an affluence of business and income but failing to deliver - that's the situation here, and there is a real risk of going out of business if they fail).

    Oh fuck you.

    If they fail, it's because THEY DONE FUCKED UP and deserved to fail. There's nothing "magical" about a business that they get to steal products to make up for a mistake made a few years ago. It's not a tragedy if a business fails after making a stupid business decision, it's just the way things go.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    If they fail, it's because THEY DONE FUCKED UP and deserved to fail. There's nothing "magical" about a business that they get to steal products to make up for a mistake made a few years ago. It's not a tragedy if a business fails after making a stupid business decision, it's just the way things go.

    He's already done the right thing by following up with the original owners and offering more than fair exchange. They refused to take his money, and stated they won't support it - effectively, they won't have anything to do with it, which can be interpreted as abandonment. You can't steal something that's abandoned. Come on Blakey, you're usually more insightful than this.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    steal products to make up for a mistake made a few years ago

    I'm going to expand on this:

    1. For the record, I once contracted with an IT company that supported dentists. When I found out they were condoning activation of MS Office licenses that weren't paid for, I left. How did I find this out? A dentist asked me to do exactly that. When I refused, he complained to that company, who then put pressure on me to do it. That was the last we ever communicated.[1]
    2. It wasn't a mistake. No one in their right mind will buy a bunch more licenses on a dying software "in case they land a big deal 4 years later." Doesn't happen. That was simply the way it played out here. In reality, they're a victim of their own success, ironically.

    [1] So no, I don't condone stealing. But as someone who implies that they would never steal, let me ask you this: if you were homeless, starving, no one willing to help you, and your two choices were to steal some food to survive or die, what would you end up doing? In situations like that, those who claim they would never steal end up either liars or dead. Not saying that's the situation with Intercourse - he's the one on the scene and will have to make that judgement call, and live with it.



  • @redwizard said:

    1) For the record, I once contracted with an IT company that supported dentists. When I found out they were condoning activation of MS Office licenses that weren't paid for, I left. How did I find this out? A dentist asked me to do exactly that. When I refused, he complained to that company, who then put pressure on me to do it. That was the last we ever communicated.[1]

    Good for you, I approve.

    I had a similar incident with a company that wanted me to fake some analytics data (in a relatively minor way). After the meeting I just left the office in a huff and spent a couple hours "getting coffee". When I got back, it turns out they'd had the intern do it. So whatever.

    @redwizard said:

    But as someone who implies that they would never steal,

    When did that happen? Are you talking about me?

    No. I said stealing (and pirating software or whatever term you want to use) was morally wrong. I never said I'd never done it. Lying is wrong, too.

    @redwizard said:

    let me ask you this: if you were homeless, starving, no one willing to help you, and your two choices were to steal some food to survive or die, what would you end up doing?

    A bluebird from Mars would teleport me into the Taj Mahal where I'd tame a mountain lion impressing the princess, but as it turns out her father was standing right there and he was pretty pissed so I got the bluebird to teleport me back to Cleveland where I lived happily ever after in a home modeled after the Brady Bunch's with the bird and my 3 pet boy band members.

    If you know ANYTHING about me, you also know: I fucking HATE hypotheticals.

    @redwizard said:

    Not saying that's the situation with Intercourse - he's the one on the scene and will have to make that judgement call, and live with it.

    In this thread, he doesn't even know the difference between "moral" and "legal". He's a billion years away from actually feeling guilt for doing something wrong.



  • Calling it stealing is wrong. The SIIA throw that word around and it is not appropriate. Firstly, it is not depriving anybody of property. Secondly, it is not actually what the crime is called: In the US, the crime is unauthorised duplication of software for commercial gain.

    But in any case that's not what is being suggested here. All that is being suggested is breaching the terms of the license (modifying the software and exceeding the allowed number of users). That's a breach of contract (the EULA) and a civil matter not a criminal offense surely. Or is breach of contract a criminal offense in the US?


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @blakeyrat said:

    Goddamned. I can't express how wrong you are here. You're fucking planning to sell software for a living in only a few months, and you're coming here posting, "oh yeah, steal all the softwares, steal steal steal fuck developers!" You are a developer, you're hurting yourself. (Not to mention most of the other people posting on this forum.)

    I honestly do not see it that way. Once they are out of business and no longer supporting said software, and you have made a reasonable attempt to contact them for support (I do mean reasonable, not just calling their last known phone number that now connects to "Bob's Cabaret Theatre"), if you have a need for support it is entirely acceptable to me to decompile and reverse engineer if necessary. You are not depriving anyone of income in this respect.

    I am sorry, but your black and white view of issues really shows your shallow-mindedness. To say that it is never, ever, ever, fucking ever, OK to reverse engineer software is just...I don't even know if I can come up with a word to express my emotion on this. Simplistic?

    I rarely, if ever, speak in absolutes. Edge cases will always get you.

    @blakeyrat said:

    You can't steal shit out of a bankrupt business's office, either.

    You used to work for the MPAA or the RIAA didn't you? ;)

    @redwizard said:

    For the record, I once contracted with an IT company that supported dentists. When I found out they were condoning activation of MS Office licenses that weren't paid for, I left. How did I find this out? A dentist asked me to do exactly that. When I refused, he complained to that company, who then put pressure on me to do it. That was the last we ever communicated.

    And that is the way it should be. Sadly, someone else took your place that needed the job more than you did and probably did it. But at least you were able to make the decision for yourself. Good on you.

    @blakeyrat said:

    A bluebird from Mars would teleport me into the Taj Mahal where I'd tame a mountain lion impressing the princess, but as it turns out her father was standing right there and he was pretty pissed so I got the bluebird to teleport me back to Cleveland where I lived happily ever after in a home modeled after the Brady Bunch's with the bird and my 3 pet boy band members.

    If you know ANYTHING about me, you also know: I fucking HATE hypotheticals.

    You are Maddox, aren't you?

    @LurkerAbove said:

    That's a breach of contract (the EULA) and a civil matter not a criminal offense surely.

    You are correct.

    @LurkerAbove said:

    Or is breach of contract a criminal offense in the US?

    It is not. At least not yet. Put @blakeyrat in power and it certainly would be though. ;)


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Intercourse said:

    He is my lawyer because he does not tell me to not do a thing, he tells me the exposure and how we can execute it more properly.

    HOW CAN YOU LIVE WITH YOURSELF EXPOSING YOURSELF TO EVEN TINY POTENTIAL RISKS ⁉


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @FrostCat said:

    HOW CAN YOU SLEEP AT NIGHT EXPOSING YOURSELF TO EVEN TINY POTENTIAL RISKS

    On 2000 thread count sheets.

    (fixed to make the joke better)


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @blakeyrat said:

    People with that version had a legit gripe (something about the activation server not working correctly with it? I can't remember), and as a result, Adobe said, "hey if you own it, you can use this unlock tool." But they didn't put any kind of login or proof-of-purchase gate on the support article.

    They never "gave away" any old version of Photoshop. Sure a lot of people took that as an excuse to go "cha-ching" and download it, but Adobe never gave it away.

    If they had, they would have set precedent for people to unlock software. Which is a sticky situation on their part. I think a part of that comes in to play here.



  • @Intercourse said:

    I honestly do not see it that way.

    Obviously you don't. That's not the point. The point is you're wrong.

    @Intercourse said:

    Once they are out of business and no longer supporting said software, and you have made a reasonable attempt to contact them for support (I do mean reasonable, not just calling their last known phone number that now connects to "Bob's Cabaret Theatre"), if you have a need for support it is entirely acceptable to me to decompile and reverse engineer if necessary. You are not depriving anyone of income in this respect.

    Obviously it's acceptable to you. But you're wrong.

    @Intercourse said:

    I am sorry, but your black and white view of issues really shows your shallow-mindedness. To say that it is never, ever, ever, fucking ever, OK to reverse engineer software is just...I don't even know if I can come up with a word to express my emotion on this. Simplistic?

    First of all, I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth.

    Secondly, I'm not going to apologize for having strong morals. If that's what you're looking for here.

    You have a client who fucked up bad. They were told back in 2010, probably earlier than that, that they would no longer be able to buy the software. They didn't do anything about it for 4 years. Now they're in a bind.

    There are two ways you can handle a mistake like this:

    1. You can suck it up and accept your fate with some dignity.

    2. You can be a weaselly motherfucker and try to squirm out of the situation you got yourself into.

    (Actually, you've introduced me to a number three: 3) You an hire a third-party to be a weaselly motherfucker and try to squirm out of the situation on your behalf.)

    There's three things I'm getting fucking annoyed at in this thread:

    1. People conflating "moral" and "legal"

    2. The willingness to steal software (I'M USING THE WORD STEAL GET OVER YOURSELF SLASHDOTTERS!)

    3. The weaseling. So much weaseling.

    @Intercourse said:

    You used to work for the MPAA or the RIAA didn't you?

    The MPAA and RIAA weren't wrong, they were just stupid.

    @Intercourse said:

    It is not. At least not yet. Put @blakeyrat in power and it certainly would be though.

    Look, whatever. If software is a product, then the answer is: "fuck yes it's wrong to steal it." If software is a service, then the answer is: "fuck yes, it's wrong to steal it." If it's something in between, I'm not sure how that answer would possibly change.

    Contracts are backed on good faith. If you take copies of the software without paying, how can that possibly be considered "good faith"?

    As far as software development goes, isn't software devalued enough for you already? We're already in a world of shit where any slightly original application will have a shitty free open source clone made in a matter of hours. We're already in a world of shit where game piracy is out of control to the point where game developers just have to shrug and accept that 30%+ of their players never paid a cent.

    Why are you wanting to shove more shit on the shit? You obviously think software has value, otherwise you wouldn't be planning to write and sell your own. So why are you hypocritically saying it's ok to steal it? Regardless of circumstance.

    Whatever. Like I said above: I can't wrap my head around it.



  • @Intercourse said:

    If they had, they would have set precedent for people to unlock software.

    If they had what? Put a proof-of-purchase check on that support page that tells you how to activate the software? Or do you mean if they had given away old versions of Photoshop?

    How would either case have set precedent for people to unlock software?

    I'm confused by your reply.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I'M USING THE WORD STEAL GET OVER YOURSELF SLASHDOTTERS

    But it isn't stealing! Not legally, not morally. It is a breach of contract. How amoral that is depends on the parties involved and the contract. What about other breaches of contract? E.g. you create two accounts on a web service that expressly forbids doing so (as many people do) is that stealing in your mind? If not, where do you draw the stealing line on the breach of contract curve?

    You are devaluing the word steal. Why not go the whole-hog and call it raping your mother and murdering your children? It's not those things either but if you don't care whether the thing really is what you call it then - heh - why not go nuts?



  • Look whether or not you are correct (and the answer to that is: I do not give a shit), the only people who type diatribes about the exact definition of the word "stealing" are Slashdotters trying to assuage some guilt from all the software and music they pirated.

    It's not so much the words you're typing as what crowd of people typing that shit puts you in with: the most morally bankrupt motherfuckers on Earth.

    @LurkerAbove said:

    You are devaluing the word steal. Why not go the whole-hog and call it raping your mother and murdering your children?

    From a IT community that frequently uses the word "evil" to mean "this code might be hard to maintain 5 years from now"? From a IT community where Java (apparently) is actually capable of sinning?

    Why not call it raping your mother and murdering your children. It's exactly in-line with the other exaggerated shit people in this community say.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @blakeyrat said:

    There are two ways you can handle a mistake like this:

    1. You can suck it up and accept your fate with some dignity.

    2. You can be a weaselly motherfucker and try to squirm out of the situation you got yourself into.

    (Actually, you've introduced me to a number three: 3) You an hire a third-party to be a weaselly motherfucker and try to squirm out of the situation on your behalf.)

    There is a #4, as their software is based upon concurrent users, you end up with an office where people have to do their work and immediately log out and you end up with a fucking office where everyone is constantly yelling, "Can someone get out of (LOB application), I need to enter information.

    @blakeyrat said:

    Look, whatever. If software is a product, then the answer is: "fuck yes it's wrong to steal it." If software is a service, then the answer is: "fuck yes, it's wrong to steal it." If it's something in between, I'm not sure how that answer would possibly change.

    Contracts are backed on good faith. If you take copies of the software without paying, how can that possibly be considered "good faith"?

    As far as software development goes, isn't software devalued enough for you already? We're already in a world of shit where any slightly original application will have a shitty free open source clone made in a matter of hours. We're already in a world of shit where game piracy is out of control to the point where game developers just have to shrug and accept that 30%+ of their players never paid a cent.

    Why are you wanting to shove more shit on the shit? You obviously think software has value, otherwise you wouldn't be planning to write and sell your own. So why are you hypocritically saying it's ok to steal it? Regardless of circumstance.

    Whatever. Like I said above: I can't wrap my head around it.

    What we are proposing to develop would be more like SaaS. That is just a bit harder to steal. ;) That is how I get around that problem. I just don't play on that level. Desktop apps are sincerely dying, but people like you decry it like the blacksmith lamenting the rise of the automobile.

    I also do not assume that those who would bypass activation would be paying customers to begin with. Does it suck that someone receives benefit from the work of others without compensating them? Absolutely. But do not assume that those who would hack software to be able to use it would be paying customers if they were unable to do so. We see this shit all the time with the RIAA and the MPAA.

    I am not saying it is OK to steal, I am saying that if one party decides to no longer support it at any price, those who depend on it should be allowed some sort of proper course of action to continue with their business.



  • @Intercourse said:

    What we are proposing to develop would be more like SaaS. That is just a bit harder to steal.

    ... and therefore it's ok for me to steal other people's work! (Is that the implication? I'm bad with implication.)

    @Intercourse said:

    Desktop apps are sincerely dying, but people like you decry it like the blacksmith lamenting the rise of the automobile.

    And yet stealing horseshoes isn't any less wrong than stealing tires.

    @Intercourse said:

    I also do not assume that those who would bypass activation would be paying customers to begin with.

    That doesn't matter. It's wrong of them to do so. Stop bringing up irrelevant bullshit.

    You asked if it's morally wrong. IT IS. OK? I answered the fucking OP.

    And since you seem to be confused, and have the IQ of a still-born squirrel, saying it's morally wrong isn't the same thing as saying you shouldn't do it. (Although in this particular case, I believe you shouldn't.) Everything I learned about morality, I learned from Deep Space Nine.

    We're like 50 posts in, and I still don't get the sense you even know what the fuck question you were asking in the OP. I answered the fucking question you asked. It's not my fault if you asked the wrong question. Ok? Christ.

    @Intercourse said:

    Does it suck that someone receives benefit from the work of others without compensating them? Absolutely.

    Right; it does suck. So why don't you not do it and make the world just a tiny bit less sucky?

    @Intercourse said:

    But do not assume that those who would hack software to be able to use it would be paying customers if they were unable to do so. We see this shit all the time with the RIAA and the MPAA.

    We're talking morality. That's irrelevant. Or at least I think we were talking morality, it's your fucking thread and you don't even seem to know what it's about.

    @Intercourse said:

    I am not saying it is OK to steal,

    Yes you are.

    @Intercourse said:

    I am saying that if one party decides to no longer support it at any price, those who depend on it should be allowed some sort of proper course of action to continue with their business.

    In other words, they should steal it.

    Oh, and BTW, they were given that course of action FOUR FUCKING YEARS AGO. Remember? They just didn't do anything about it. You're covering for idiots, let's not lose sight of that during the course of this idiotic discussion: the biggest idiots are your client.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. – 00:23
    — KaiEminence

    I am not sure if you are aware of this, you fucking sack of monkey shit, but morality is different for each person. You keep using that word, I do not think you really understand what it means. I was attempting to spark a discussion, you keep saying, "What I say is abso-fucking-lutely correct, so THERE!" (nyah-nyah-nyah sounds optional)



  • @Intercourse said:

    I am not sure if you are aware of this, you fucking sack of monkey shit, but morality is different for each person.

    The level of morality is different. The, for lack of a better term "rules" of morality are the same.

    @Intercourse said:

    I was attempting to spark a discussion,

    No. You'd already decided to do the wrong thing, and you posted in here in the hopes people would be like, "you made the best choice, HIGH FIVE!" to make you feel better about it.

    And now you're upset that that didn't happen.


  • Grade A Premium Asshole

    @blakeyrat said:

    No. You'd already decided to do the wrong thing, and you posted in here in the hopes people would be like, "you made the best choice, HIGH FIVE!" to make you feel better about it.

    And now you're upset that that didn't happen.

    Actually, not at all. I know where my personal morality lies on this particular issue. I am not asking for validation of anything. I found a moral dilemma that I was faced with, that others could relate to in a way. I did not seek or elicit validation.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    From a IT community that frequently uses the word "evil" to mean "this code might be hard to maintain 5 years from now"? From a IT community where Java (apparently) is actually capable of sinning?

    Oh I see you were calling it 'stealing' for comic effect. I must admit that went totally over my head and I duly apologise.

    @blakeyrat said:

    It's exactly in-line with the other exaggerated shit people in this community say.

    But you're the one exaggerating 'breach of contract' to 'stealing'. So, are you one of those shit people in this community to which you refer? If not, I'm confused.

    @blakeyrat said:

    the most morally bankrupt motherfuckers on Earth.

    They would be hypocrites first and foremost right?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    It's not so much the words you're typing as what crowd of people typing that shit puts you in with: the most morally bankrupt motherfuckers on Earth.

    WHOA WHOA WHOA.
    You consider Slashdot commenters to be worse than "Tumblr SJWs"?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @redwizard said:
    let me ask you this: if you were homeless, starving, no one willing to help you, and your two choices were to steal some food to survive or die, what would you end up doing?

    A bluebird from Mars would teleport me into the Taj Mahal where I'd tame a mountain lion impressing the princess, but as it turns out her father was standing right there and he was pretty pissed so I got the bluebird to teleport me back to Cleveland where I lived happily ever after in a home modeled after the Brady Bunch's with the bird and my 3 pet boy band members.

    If you know ANYTHING about me, you also know: I fucking HATE hypotheticals.

    I call troll - and will respond accordingly.

    Because you can't process hypotheticals? I think you can, and better than you think or would like to admit, as you solve such problems all the time - from where you should get your next meal to where you want to work for your next job. (If I work at company A...but if I work at company B...all those consequences you are considering are hypothetical, not guaranteed.)

    So comparing my somewhat realistically possible scenario that could in fact happen to anyone with a scenario that has an approximate probability of 0 occurrence does not impress me, or I would venture to say probably anyone else here reading it.



  • @redwizard said:

    Because you can't process hypotheticals?

    You said it, not me.

    @redwizard said:

    I think you can, and better than you think or would like to admit, as you solve such problems all the time - from where you should get your next meal to where you want to work for your next job.

    I know I can. You're the one who said I couldn't. So you're debating yourself at this point. Good job.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    Look whether or not you are correct (and the answer to that is: I do not give a shit)

    Obviously, and that's because you are hopelessly obtuse.

    I'd love to see you try to sue someone for the wrong thing and lose because you didn't give a shit you were using the wrong word.



  • @Intercourse said:

    @redwizard said:
    1) For the record, I once contracted with an IT company that supported dentists. When I found out they were condoning activation of MS Office licenses that weren't paid for, I left. How did I find this out? A dentist asked me to do exactly that. When I refused, he complained to that company, who then put pressure on me to do it. That was the last we ever communicated.

    And that is the way it should be. Sadly, someone else took your place that needed the job more than you did and probably did it. But at least you were able to make the decision for yourself. Good on you.

    Don't make assumptions, please. I did need the money, as that was a period in my life I was very much underemployed. Taking the moral high ground did not help me put food on the table to feed my wife and baby at the time. It led to making some tough decisions I'm not particularly proud of. I am fortunate to have had support from both my family and hers until I was able to right the ship again.

    Sadly, you are right - someone else probably took the job and contributed to the condoned piracy. Interestingly, I just searched for that IT company - it seems they're not in business anymore. Go figure. ;-)



  • @FrostCat said:

    I'd love to see you try to sue someone

    Pfft. Sue? That takes all the fun out of solving problems by hiring assassins.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    Pfft. Sue? That takes all the fun out of solving problems by hiring assassins.

    I thought you don't deal in hypotheticals.



  • @FrostCat said:

    I thought you don't deal in hypotheticals.

    Aren't you assuming he's never hired assassins before?



  • This post is deleted!

  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @redwizard said:

    Aren't you assuming he's never hired assassins before?

    A guy who has super-duper moarals?



  • @FrostCat said:

    A guy who has super-duper moarals?

    Morals: a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

    So the question becomes: what does he consider acceptable and not acceptable? If assassination as a form of handling a problem is acceptable, I don't see a conflict.

    :P


  • I survived the hour long Uno hand

    @blakeyrat said:

    If they had what? Put a proof-of-purchase check on that support page that tells you how to activate the software? Or do you mean if they had given away old versions of Photoshop?

    I think the correct answer was "If they had said 'By the way, if you don't own this software, feel free to use this tool anyway!' that would open the door for people unlocking current versions".



  • @Intercourse said:

    No, you are 100% wrong on that. The law has been interpreted time and again to say that if the vendor can no longer be contacted for support, you are free to reverse engineer.

    I'm curious to know what that law actually says. I wouldn't want someone taking my car just because I didn't answer the phone when they called me, as a practical example.
    More importantly, how do you cover yourself if said unreachable owner suddenly turned up and made a claim against you?



  • @Arantor said:

    Morally, it's wrong because the morally correct course of action is to suck it up and deal with it with a fresh build.

    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.

    Edit: working with DissedCourse on my droid is a freakin' PAIN.



  • @redwizard said:

    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.

    This is the way out of this situation: if you can get them something that works well enough to get their new users onto the new-build tool, you can then use that as a springboard to migrate their existing users.

    @FrostCat said:

    I'd love to see you try to sue someone for the wrong thing and lose because you didn't give a shit you were using the wrong word.

    Yeah. I already pointed him at Supreme Court precedent that sides against him, which is what makes his argument completely ridiculous, considering that the definition of 'theft' is a matter of law, not morality.

    @blakeyrat said:

    It's not so much the words you're typing as what crowd of people typing that shit puts you in with: the most morally bankrupt motherfuckers on Earth.

    Have you ever considered that the original authors of copyright law might have made a few, you know, assumptions when they wrote it?

    [spoiler]Hint, they did.[/spoiler]

    Have you also considered what happens when the assumptions that a piece of statute is founded in no longer hold true?



  • @tarunik said:

    Have you ever considered that the original authors of copyright law might have made a few, you know, assumptions when they wrote it?

    [spoiler]Hint, they did.[/spoiler]

    Have you also considered what happens when the assumptions that a piece of statute is founded in no longer hold true?

    Why are you asking Judge @blakeyrat any question that contravenes his world view?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Arantor said:

    Judge @blakeyrat

    Am he the law?


Log in to reply