In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.
-
@pie_flavor Yes, it does, because software licensing is a different beast to copyright.
Software licenses are a "permission to use", not a "permission to copy". If you don't agree to be bound by the license, you don't have permission to use the software. That's it. If you're using the software without a license, you're in violation of the license terms whether or not you saw it.
Remember: YOU don't own the software. The Company does. Every single copy of Windows installed on every computer in the world is owned by Microsoft, not the computer owner.
-
@coldandtired said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
Yes, telling the judge that you don't know the law is usually a good way to get out of trouble.
Ignorantia juris
excusatcrustum flavor.
-
@Gąska said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@Gąska said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@The_Quiet_One said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@boomzilla What I just said.
What the fuck are you talking about?
That was a serious question. It makes no sense. Why don't they "have it anymore?"
Because you're holding it.
The problem with using real-world property theft as an example of why copyright infringement is wrong is that real-world property can only be in the hands of one person at a time, whereas copyrighted content can be copied ad nauseum and the original owner is still holding it. For that reason, they operate on completely separate systems of laws, a fact which you do not seem to grasp.So, let's take this full circle:
What incentive does anyone have to purchase a license for software at all? Are you saying they are fools? And if you are right, and people "wisen up" and just download cracked software without any repercussions or risk for criminal or civil suits, then what is the software company's incentive to produce anything at all?
And before you go onto the old "they make money off of services" that doesn't work for video games. Plus it incentivizes poor business practices such as providing software that's so obtuse and confusing you have to buy their service package to make sense of it all.
Companies should provide products that users are willing to pay money for.
That's unrelated to the question you were asked.
Sometimes I'll pirate a game, play it for an hour, and buy it if I liked it (pro tip if you're making a video game: make a demo!).
That's also unrelated to the question you were asked.
The studio loses nothing if I didn't like it, because if I couldn't pirate it, I just wouldn't have played it.
Guess what - this isn't what you were asked either!
Yeah, it was more of an XY question.
It really wasn't. It just looks like this to you because you moved the goalposts from X to Y without telling anyone - with X being the law and Y being what rationalizations pirates use to justify piracy. The question was about the law - it would be nice if your answer was about the law too.
No, the question was about incentive.
Meanwhile, the reason why it's a bad idea to pirate everything is because viruses are rampant everywhere, and usually you end up sticking with a few trusted torrent authors, and torrenting is illegal because you're uploading.
And neither is this. You really should've made a new topic at this point.
In the real world you will never get sued for pirating Photoshop
You the person, not you the bigcorp.
Right. She used Kazaa, which is illegal because you're uploading as well.
And if Forever 21 pirated Photoshop, odds are they agreed to a license agreement still.
Let me get this straight: you're claiming that the deciding factor in finding whether someone has violated
copyrighta license or not, is whether they clicked "agree to the license" in installer?Yes.
even if they'd win, and the primary disincentive remains the huge potential for viruses.
We're not talking about viruses. We're talking about whether using software without license is legal.
I was asked about incentives.
Not getting viruses isn't a very good incentive. By which I mean it doesn't work on most people.
And those people don't know how piracy works either, so they don't do it. Come on, this is stuff you should know yourself.
-
@TimeBandit said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
A license is required in order to copy it. Software must specifically be written to make the license necessary. Software does not automatically have a license by virtue of being software.
You didn't read the same law as me (and everybody else)
Please point out to me where it says that all software has a license to use it which you agree to by using the software.
-
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
They might be absolved of liability on their part because they made a good-faith effort to provide the license, but that doesn't automatically mean I'm bound by the terms of an agreement I didn't agree to.
Yes, telling the judge that you
don't know the lawdidn't see any license agreement is usually a good way to get out of trouble.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@The_Quiet_One said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@boomzilla What I just said.
What the fuck are you talking about?
That was a serious question. It makes no sense. Why don't they "have it anymore?"
Because you're holding it.
The problem with using real-world property theft as an example of why copyright infringement is wrong is that real-world property can only be in the hands of one person at a time, whereas copyrighted content can be copied ad nauseum and the original owner is still holding it. For that reason, they operate on completely separate systems of laws, a fact which you do not seem to grasp.So, let's take this full circle:
What incentive does anyone have to purchase a license for software at all? Are you saying they are fools? And if you are right, and people "wisen up" and just download cracked software without any repercussions or risk for criminal or civil suits, then what is the software company's incentive to produce anything at all?
And before you go onto the old "they make money off of services" that doesn't work for video games. Plus it incentivizes poor business practices such as providing software that's so obtuse and confusing you have to buy their service package to make sense of it all.
Companies should provide products that users are willing to pay money for.
You are so naive to think most people aren't cheapskates who would get around paying for something if they could.
Sometimes I'll pirate a game, play it for an hour, and buy it if I liked it (pro tip if you're making a video game: make a demo!).
Hey, that's fine. But you're still naive if you think people are going to make a purchase if they don't have to. Hell, I'd say some would not do so out of laziness even more than being cheap. Filling out a billing form for online checkout is tedious.
Meanwhile, the reason why it's a bad idea to pirate everything is because viruses are rampant everywhere, and usually you end up sticking with a few trusted torrent authors, and torrenting is illegal because you're uploading.
Ok, but that's a seriously weak argument to make. That's like saying stealing animals from a zoo shouldn't be illegal because there's a good chance you'll get killed by the very animal you're stealing.
That's not why it shouldn't be illegal. I have other reasons it shouldn't be illegal. The fact is that what you described is illegal, and what I'm describing isn't illegal.
In the real world you will never get sued for pirating Photoshop, even if they'd win, and the primary disincentive remains the huge potential for viruses.
How could they win under your own assertions? You yourself are making the claim there's no license agreement broken if they downloaded a crack. You're contradicting yourself now. Make up your damn mind.
Did you see the 'if'? Because I thought I saw an 'if'.
-
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@boomzilla What I just said.
What the fuck are you talking about?
That was a serious question. It makes no sense. Why don't they "have it anymore?"
I think @pie_flavor is making the "it's okay to steal things as long as you leave a copy with the person you stole it from" argument.
-
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
If you're using the software without a license, you're in violation of the license terms whether or not you saw it.
No. That is simply not the case. You are not subject to the conditions of any license agreement that you do not agree to.
Remember: YOU don't own the software. The Company does. Every single copy of Windows installed on every computer in the world is owned by Microsoft, not the computer owner.
That state of affairs is brought about by the license agreement, which tells you that you agree that you do not own the binaries, but are simply being licensed them. I believe you are muddling owning the binaries with owning the copyright.
-
-
@ben_lubar said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@boomzilla What I just said.
What the fuck are you talking about?
That was a serious question. It makes no sense. Why don't they "have it anymore?"
I think @pie_flavor is making the "it's okay to steal things as long as you leave a copy with the person you stole it from" argument.
No, it's the other way around. It's okay to accept a copy of something that you never touched. Well, it's legal. I never said anything about morals there.
-
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProCD,_Inc._v._Zeidenberg
Moreover, because "the software license splashed across the screen and would not let him proceed without indicating acceptance," Zeidenberg had ample opportunity to read the license before using SelectPhone. Zeidenberg was presented with this license when he installed the software, which he accepted by clicking assent at a suitable dialog box
-
@pie_flavor Again, your ALTERED variant of the software isn't what they're going to look at in terms of whether the license is viewable or not. They're going to look at the software IN ITS ORIGINAL STATE to determine if the license is applicable. Grabbing a hacked version that doesn't display the license text DOES NOT ABSOLVE YOU OF LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS.
-
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor Again, your ALTERED variant of the software isn't what they're going to look at in terms of whether the license is viewable or not. They're going to look at the software IN ITS ORIGINAL STATE to determine if the license is applicable. Grabbing a hacked version that doesn't display the license text DOES NOT ABSOLVE YOU OF LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS.
"I removed the sticker that says 'warranty void if sticker is removed', so that part of the license is no longer valid."
-
@e4tmyl33t You already said that, and I explained why that wasn't a case. You then proceeded to give me an example which wasn't actually an example. Have you a court case involving what I'm saying? Because part of their ruling was that he still explicitly agreed to it and you're talking about implicit licenses.
-
@ben_lubar said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor Again, your ALTERED variant of the software isn't what they're going to look at in terms of whether the license is viewable or not. They're going to look at the software IN ITS ORIGINAL STATE to determine if the license is applicable. Grabbing a hacked version that doesn't display the license text DOES NOT ABSOLVE YOU OF LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS.
"I removed the sticker that says 'warranty void if sticker is removed', so that part of the license is no longer valid."
AFAIK warranties explicitly say that the sticker can't be missing. I don't know whether the label on the sticker is legally required, or if it's just helpful placement, but the warranty terms are what enforce that, because you could also blame that on a manufacturing defect and you received it that way.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@ben_lubar said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor Again, your ALTERED variant of the software isn't what they're going to look at in terms of whether the license is viewable or not. They're going to look at the software IN ITS ORIGINAL STATE to determine if the license is applicable. Grabbing a hacked version that doesn't display the license text DOES NOT ABSOLVE YOU OF LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS.
"I removed the sticker that says 'warranty void if sticker is removed', so that part of the license is no longer valid."
AFAIK warranties explicitly say that the sticker can't be missing. I don't know whether the label on the sticker is legally required, or if it's just helpful placement, but the warranty terms are what enforce that, because you could also blame that on a manufacturing defect and you received it that way.
... and the EULA being missing is different... how?
-
@ben_lubar said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@ben_lubar said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor Again, your ALTERED variant of the software isn't what they're going to look at in terms of whether the license is viewable or not. They're going to look at the software IN ITS ORIGINAL STATE to determine if the license is applicable. Grabbing a hacked version that doesn't display the license text DOES NOT ABSOLVE YOU OF LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS.
"I removed the sticker that says 'warranty void if sticker is removed', so that part of the license is no longer valid."
AFAIK warranties explicitly say that the sticker can't be missing. I don't know whether the label on the sticker is legally required, or if it's just helpful placement, but the warranty terms are what enforce that, because you could also blame that on a manufacturing defect and you received it that way.
... and the EULA being missing is different... how?
Because you were presented with the warranty terms and agreed to them, which you would not have been eligible for the warranty benefits for otherwise.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@ben_lubar said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@ben_lubar said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor Again, your ALTERED variant of the software isn't what they're going to look at in terms of whether the license is viewable or not. They're going to look at the software IN ITS ORIGINAL STATE to determine if the license is applicable. Grabbing a hacked version that doesn't display the license text DOES NOT ABSOLVE YOU OF LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS.
"I removed the sticker that says 'warranty void if sticker is removed', so that part of the license is no longer valid."
AFAIK warranties explicitly say that the sticker can't be missing. I don't know whether the label on the sticker is legally required, or if it's just helpful placement, but the warranty terms are what enforce that, because you could also blame that on a manufacturing defect and you received it that way.
... and the EULA being missing is different... how?
Because you were presented with the warranty terms and agreed to them, which you would not have been eligible for the warranty benefits for otherwise.
... and the EULA being missing is different... how?
-
@ben_lubar said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@ben_lubar said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@ben_lubar said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor Again, your ALTERED variant of the software isn't what they're going to look at in terms of whether the license is viewable or not. They're going to look at the software IN ITS ORIGINAL STATE to determine if the license is applicable. Grabbing a hacked version that doesn't display the license text DOES NOT ABSOLVE YOU OF LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS.
"I removed the sticker that says 'warranty void if sticker is removed', so that part of the license is no longer valid."
AFAIK warranties explicitly say that the sticker can't be missing. I don't know whether the label on the sticker is legally required, or if it's just helpful placement, but the warranty terms are what enforce that, because you could also blame that on a manufacturing defect and you received it that way.
... and the EULA being missing is different... how?
Because you were presented with the warranty terms and agreed to them, which you would not have been eligible for the warranty benefits for otherwise.
... and the EULA being missing is different... how?
Because of your intrinsic right to run software on your computer unless you have agreed otherwise. Your right to warranty benefits isn't intrinsic, and is dependent on agreeing to warranty terms first.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
Because of your intrinsic right to run software on your computer unless you have agreed otherwise.
The problem is that your thought here is incomplete. Your intrinsic right is to be able to run software on your computer that YOU OWN or that you have LEGALLY AGREED TO LICENSE FOR USE. Because you don't own software that is licensed, ANY use of the software is governed by the license agreement, because the OWNER of the software (i.e. it's manufacturer) gets to decide what can be done with the software it owns.
If you don't agree to the license, you don't form a contract for use with the owner of the software, and therefore you don't have permission to use the software.
-
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@boomzilla What I just said.
What the fuck are you talking about?
That was a serious question. It makes no sense. Why don't they "have it anymore?"
Because you're holding it.
The problem with using real-world property theft as an example of why copyright infringement is wrong is that real-world property can only be in the hands of one person at a time, whereas copyrighted content can be copied ad nauseum and the original owner is still holding it. For that reason, they operate on completely separate systems of laws, a fact which you do not seem to grasp.Yes, yes, I'm the delusional one here. Don't accept any jobs where you're in charge of maintaining software licenses is my advice.
The lazy troll, having realized he is out of his depth, quietly exits stage left.
No, you're still posting.
Look, I'm not the retard suggesting people can launder software licenses via the Internet.
No, you're the retard saying you can't.
So in the parallel universe where Discourse is good, no one needs to pay for software either? Weird.
Why would you pay for Discourse?
-
What does the Oracle say?
not reading the EULA could very well be the most rational course of action.
-
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
Because of your intrinsic right to run software on your computer unless you have agreed otherwise.
The problem is that your thought here is incomplete. Your intrinsic right is to be able to run software on your computer that YOU OWN or that you have LEGALLY AGREED TO LICENSE FOR USE. Because you don't own software that is licensed, ANY use of the software is governed by the license agreement, because the OWNER of the software (i.e. it's manufacturer) gets to decide what can be done with the software it owns.
If you don't agree to the license, you don't form a contract for use with the owner of the software, and therefore you don't have permission to use the software.
You automatically own your copy unless you have signed away the right by way of a license agreement.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
They might be absolved of liability on their part because they made a good-faith effort to provide the license, but that doesn't automatically mean I'm bound by the terms of an agreement I didn't agree to.
Yes, telling the judge that you
don't know the lawdidn't see any license agreement is usually a good way to get out of trouble.
-
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
They might be absolved of liability on their part because they made a good-faith effort to provide the license, but that doesn't automatically mean I'm bound by the terms of an agreement I didn't agree to.
Yes, telling the judge that you
don't know the lawdidn't see any license agreement is usually a good way to get out of trouble.If it wasn't presented to me, I'm not bound by it. That's the way stuff works.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
Meanwhile, the reason why it's a bad idea to pirate everything is because viruses are rampant everywhere, and usually you end up sticking with a few trusted torrent authors, and torrenting is illegal because you're uploading.
And neither is this. You really should've made a new topic at this point.
In the real world you will never get sued for pirating Photoshop
You the person, not you the bigcorp.
Right. She used Kazaa, which is illegal because you're uploading as well.
Doesn't matter. The two articles establish two facts:
- Entities get sued for copyright infringement when using software they didn't obtain license for.
- Private people get sued for copyright infringement just like other entities.
Kazaa or not, that's enough to disprove your claim that "in the real world you will never get sued for pirating Photoshop".
And if Forever 21 pirated Photoshop, odds are they agreed to a license agreement still.
Let me get this straight: you're claiming that the deciding factor in finding whether someone has violated
copyrighta license or not, is whether they clicked "agree to the license" in installer?Yes.
But they've got sued for copyright infringement, not license violation. It's a case of copyright infringement, not license violation. Using software without license is illegal because of copyright, not because of license.
even if they'd win, and the primary disincentive remains the huge potential for viruses.
We're not talking about viruses. We're talking about whether using software without license is legal.
I was asked about incentives.
Not getting viruses isn't a very good incentive. By which I mean it doesn't work on most people.
And those people don't know how piracy works either, so they don't do it. Come on, this is stuff you should know yourself.
Here in Poland, piracy is older than the internet. Maybe USA is different, but over here it's easier to find someone who knows how to illegally obtain pirated copy of Windows - and who are fully aware it's illegal and pirated - than someone who knows how to get one legally. Piracy is what common people do all the time, even the less technologically competent. And not just software - music and movies too. Even more, in fact, than software (though it's changed a bit in recent years). And I assure you viruses don't make them rethink their behavior at all, even after going through multiple cleanups when viruses made their computers unusable.
-
@topspin said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
So in the parallel universe where Discourse is good, no one needs to pay for software either? Weird.
Why would you pay for Discourse?
https://payments.discourse.org/pricing
(I know, you're paying for hosting, but )
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
You are not subject to the conditions of any license agreement that you do not agree to.
Right. But you also keep saying that you are, so?
-
@Gąska said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
Meanwhile, the reason why it's a bad idea to pirate everything is because viruses are rampant everywhere, and usually you end up sticking with a few trusted torrent authors, and torrenting is illegal because you're uploading.
And neither is this. You really should've made a new topic at this point.
In the real world you will never get sued for pirating Photoshop
You the person, not you the bigcorp.
Right. She used Kazaa, which is illegal because you're uploading as well.
Doesn't matter. The two articles establish two facts:
- Entities get sued for copyright infringement when using software they didn't obtain license for.
- Private people get sued for copyright infringement just like other entities.
Kazaa or not, that's enough to disprove your claim that "in the real world you will never get sued for pirating Photoshop".
Fair, I'd forgotten what that was in response to.
And if Forever 21 pirated Photoshop, odds are they agreed to a license agreement still.
Let me get this straight: you're claiming that the deciding factor in finding whether someone has violated
copyrighta license or not, is whether they clicked "agree to the license" in installer?Yes.
But they've got sued for copyright infringement, not license violation. It's a case of copyright infringement, not license violation. Using software without license is illegal because of copyright, not because of license.
They picked one copy up and copied it for everyone else. That's copyright violation, even if the original downloaded copy wasn't.
even if they'd win, and the primary disincentive remains the huge potential for viruses.
We're not talking about viruses. We're talking about whether using software without license is legal.
I was asked about incentives.
Not getting viruses isn't a very good incentive. By which I mean it doesn't work on most people.
And those people don't know how piracy works either, so they don't do it. Come on, this is stuff you should know yourself.
Here in Poland, piracy is older than the internet. Maybe USA is different, but over here it's easier to find someone who knows how to illegally obtain pirated copy of Windows - and who are fully aware it's illegal and pirated - than someone who knows how to get one legally. Piracy is what common people do all the time, even the less technologically competent. And not just software - music and movies too. Even more, in fact, than software (though it's changed a bit in recent years). And I assure you viruses don't make them rethink their behavior at all, even after going through multiple cleanups when viruses made their computers unusable.
Oh, you're talking about Poland.
-
@ben_lubar said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@ben_lubar said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@ben_lubar said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor Again, your ALTERED variant of the software isn't what they're going to look at in terms of whether the license is viewable or not. They're going to look at the software IN ITS ORIGINAL STATE to determine if the license is applicable. Grabbing a hacked version that doesn't display the license text DOES NOT ABSOLVE YOU OF LEGAL REPERCUSSIONS.
"I removed the sticker that says 'warranty void if sticker is removed', so that part of the license is no longer valid."
AFAIK warranties explicitly say that the sticker can't be missing. I don't know whether the label on the sticker is legally required, or if it's just helpful placement, but the warranty terms are what enforce that, because you could also blame that on a manufacturing defect and you received it that way.
... and the EULA being missing is different... how?
Because you were presented with the warranty terms and agreed to them, which you would not have been eligible for the warranty benefits for otherwise.
... and the EULA being missing is different... how?
-
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@Gąska actually, a lot of cracked software has a custom installer that doesn't show you a license agreement, meaning you're not bound by the terms.
Nor are you entitled to the software.
It's the Internet, man! Everything is free!
-
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
You are not subject to the conditions of any license agreement that you do not agree to.
Right. But you also keep saying that you are, so?
Where did I say that?
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
Because of your intrinsic right to run software on your computer unless you have agreed otherwise.
The problem is that your thought here is incomplete. Your intrinsic right is to be able to run software on your computer that YOU OWN or that you have LEGALLY AGREED TO LICENSE FOR USE. Because you don't own software that is licensed, ANY use of the software is governed by the license agreement, because the OWNER of the software (i.e. it's manufacturer) gets to decide what can be done with the software it owns.
If you don't agree to the license, you don't form a contract for use with the owner of the software, and therefore you don't have permission to use the software.
You automatically own your copy unless you have signed away the right by way of a license agreement.
Yes, your protestations override all the lawyers out there and reality and all of the people who have gotten into trouble for doing what you say. Not that you have provided any evidence other than your sincere ignorance for this position.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
You automatically own your copy unless you have signed away the right by way of a license agreement.
And where did you legally acquire this copy of the software that magically doesn't present you with a license?
Hint: Just because you were sold something doesn't make you the legal owner of it. If someone steals my Xbox and sells it to a third guy, it doesn't become the third guy's Xbox. It's still mine. Likewise, if someone makes an illegal copy of a piece of software (which they are doing by making it available for you to download), you obtaining it from them doesn't suddenly make it a legal copy once it's in your hands.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
If it wasn't presented to me, I'm not bound by it. That's the way stuff works.
GOOD LUCK
-
@Gąska said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@Gąska actually, a lot of cracked software has a custom installer that doesn't show you a license agreement, meaning you're not bound by the terms.
Except cracking isn't illegal because of the license, but because of the general law that bans bypassing security measures (can't remember the exact legal term).
Who's doing the cracking - the person building and distributing the cracked package, or the end user that downloads it?
Anyway. Running software without license for it is illegal. I don't know the appropriate paragraphs, but I know it's illegal because if it weren't, big (and small) businesses wouldn't bother with purchasing separate Windows Server copy for each of their virtual machines. By default, you have no right to run software. To obtain that right, you must get a license, and that forces you to accept and follow license terms. Yes, you are right that the part about needing valid key to be allowed to use Windows doesn't apply if you never see/accept license - but it doesn't change anything because in lack of license agreement, by default you have no right to use the software either. If you have a problem with that, go write to your local congressman.
You now have a Ship of Theseus problem. That cracked package which might bear similarities to Windows is, in fact, not quite Windows anymore. The question is, where do we draw the line?
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
You are not subject to the conditions of any license agreement that you do not agree to.
Right. But you also keep saying that you are, so?
Where did I say that?
You keep saying that you have the right to run the software. It's like you found a car without title or registration in the glovebox and decided that it's OK to drive it.
You're under arrest!
But I didn't know that it didn't belong to me!
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla Republicans are the ones for copyright reform nowadays, aren't they?
Lol, no, not in a thousand years. Wake me when that happens.
-
As I continue to catch up with this thread, I am disappointed that the real-world theft analogy has predictably been invoked.
The correct real-world analogy to invoke would be Receiving Stolen Property, an offense that I'm still not quite sure why is an offense, but is an offense nonetheless.
-
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
You automatically own your copy unless you have signed away the right by way of a license agreement.
And where did you legally acquire this copy of the software that magically doesn't present you with a license?
Hint: Just because you were sold something doesn't make you the legal owner of it. If someone steals my Xbox and sells it to a third guy, it doesn't become the third guy's Xbox. It's still mine. Likewise, if someone makes an illegal copy of a piece of software (which they are doing by making it available for you to download), you obtaining it from them doesn't suddenly make it a legal copy once it's in your hands.
Remember, it's dangerous to equate theft and ownership of property with theft and ownership of copies of copyrighted IP.
-
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
You are not subject to the conditions of any license agreement that you do not agree to.
Right. But you also keep saying that you are, so?
Where did I say that?
You keep saying that you have the right to run the software. It's like you found a car without title or registration in the glovebox and decided that it's OK to drive it.
You're under arrest!
But I didn't know that it didn't belong to me!See above.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
You automatically own your copy unless you have signed away the right by way of a license agreement.
And where did you legally acquire this copy of the software that magically doesn't present you with a license?
Hint: Just because you were sold something doesn't make you the legal owner of it. If someone steals my Xbox and sells it to a third guy, it doesn't become the third guy's Xbox. It's still mine. Likewise, if someone makes an illegal copy of a piece of software (which they are doing by making it available for you to download), you obtaining it from them doesn't suddenly make it a legal copy once it's in your hands.
Remember, it's dangerous to equate theft and ownership of property with theft and ownership of copies of copyrighted IP.
It's still an illegal copy. You have not legally obtained the software, so you have no rights regarding the use of it.
-
@e4tmyl33t Part of the reason it's dangerous is that people assume the same rules apply to both.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@ben_lubar said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@boomzilla What I just said.
What the fuck are you talking about?
That was a serious question. It makes no sense. Why don't they "have it anymore?"
I think @pie_flavor is making the "it's okay to steal things as long as you leave a copy with the person you stole it from" argument.
No, it's the other way around. It's okay to accept a copy of something that you never touched. Well, it's legal. I never said anything about morals there.
Hey, I didn't steal it. I just bought it from the guy who did steal it.
-
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@loopback0 said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
Why would you be? It's like some guy on the street standing next to an open car door offering to let you drive but it's not his car and he just broke into it and offered it to you completely unbeknownst to the owner.
You wouldn't download a car...
Not if I didn't have legal permission to do so.
But that's the thing. How do you know you have legal permission? Does a functioning download link on some Web server somewhere become implicit permission? Even if there's bold text above it saying "PLEASE DO NOT CLICK THIS LINK" ?
Or what if your computer succumbs to a zero-day exploit which downloads gigabytes of warez without your knowledge or consent?
-
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
You automatically own your copy unless you have signed away the right by way of a license agreement.
And where did you legally acquire this copy of the software that magically doesn't present you with a license?
Hint: Just because you were sold something doesn't make you the legal owner of it.While not wanting to venture down @pie_flavour's rabbit hole, copyright law does seem a bit strange:
If I buy a book (subject to copyright) then I'm explicitly allowed to read it to myself (no license required). I'm not sure if I'm allowed to perform it (i.e. read it to someone else) - I almost certainly can't if instead it was a song lyric or music manuscript.
If the copyright artefact is a picture then I can publicly exhibit it without a license (and probably even charge other people to view it)
If it's software then I can do nothing at all without a licence.
If it's Disney then I won't be able to copy it for the next 10 000 years.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
Remember, it's dangerous to equate theft and ownership of property with theft and ownership of copies of copyrighted IP.
Not as dangerous of running unlicensed software!
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
You are not subject to the conditions of any license agreement that you do not agree to.
Right. But you also keep saying that you are, so?
Where did I say that?
You keep saying that you have the right to run the software. It's like you found a car without title or registration in the glovebox and decided that it's OK to drive it.
You're under arrest!
But I didn't know that it didn't belong to me!See above.
Looks. Yep, you're still wrong! And you're bad at analogies.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@Gąska said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
Meanwhile, the reason why it's a bad idea to pirate everything is because viruses are rampant everywhere, and usually you end up sticking with a few trusted torrent authors, and torrenting is illegal because you're uploading.
And neither is this. You really should've made a new topic at this point.
In the real world you will never get sued for pirating Photoshop
You the person, not you the bigcorp.
Right. She used Kazaa, which is illegal because you're uploading as well.
Doesn't matter. The two articles establish two facts:
- Entities get sued for copyright infringement when using software they didn't obtain license for.
- Private people get sued for copyright infringement just like other entities.
Kazaa or not, that's enough to disprove your claim that "in the real world you will never get sued for pirating Photoshop".
Fair, I'd forgotten what that was in response to.
Does it mean you agree that it is totally a real risk for common people to get sued for copyright infringement when using software they have no license for even when using is the only thing they do with the software, and they're not distributing it further etc.? Asking because your last post suggests that, but I've learned already that on this forum, everything must be spoken explicitly if I want to hold people accountable to their words.
And if Forever 21 pirated Photoshop, odds are they agreed to a license agreement still.
Let me get this straight: you're claiming that the deciding factor in finding whether someone has violated
copyrighta license or not, is whether they clicked "agree to the license" in installer?Yes.
But they've got sued for copyright infringement, not license violation. It's a case of copyright infringement, not license violation. Using software without license is illegal because of copyright, not because of license.
They picked one copy up and copied it for everyone else. That's copyright violation, even if the original downloaded copy wasn't.
Does it mean you agree that whether they clicked "accept" or not has nothing to do with that case?
even if they'd win, and the primary disincentive remains the huge potential for viruses.
We're not talking about viruses. We're talking about whether using software without license is legal.
I was asked about incentives.
Not getting viruses isn't a very good incentive. By which I mean it doesn't work on most people.
And those people don't know how piracy works either, so they don't do it. Come on, this is stuff you should know yourself.
Here in Poland, piracy is older than the internet. Maybe USA is different, but over here it's easier to find someone who knows how to illegally obtain pirated copy of Windows - and who are fully aware it's illegal and pirated - than someone who knows how to get one legally. Piracy is what common people do all the time, even the less technologically competent. And not just software - music and movies too. Even more, in fact, than software (though it's changed a bit in recent years). And I assure you viruses don't make them rethink their behavior at all, even after going through multiple cleanups when viruses made their computers unusable.
Oh, you're talking about Poland.
I am. Though I heard you have quite a few botnets on your side of the pond too, which suggests your people are just as reckless with malware as my people.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
You automatically own your copy unless you have signed away the right by way of a license agreement.
And where did you legally acquire this copy of the software that magically doesn't present you with a license?
Hint: Just because you were sold something doesn't make you the legal owner of it. If someone steals my Xbox and sells it to a third guy, it doesn't become the third guy's Xbox. It's still mine. Likewise, if someone makes an illegal copy of a piece of software (which they are doing by making it available for you to download), you obtaining it from them doesn't suddenly make it a legal copy once it's in your hands.
Remember, it's dangerous to equate theft and ownership of property with theft and ownership of copies of copyrighted IP.
I've heard people make the assertion that there should be a difference, but how is it dangerous?
What I don't understand is you keep splitting hairs saying you are in violation of uploading copyrighted material, yet it's perfectly fine to download it, on the basis that you didn't agree to a license. So, why isn't that also true when uploading? If I didn't agree to a license agreement, doesn't that clear me of any wrongdoing if I uploaded the material as well?
Again, your stance sets a dangerous precedent: When you don't give software developer the means to actually make money off their work because they're relying on the altruistic charity of its users, there's no incentive for that developer to actually develop the software. Because as soon as people find out that they can actually get around paying for the software without any legal risk, I guarantee you there will be a huge increase in people actually taking advantage of that.