In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.
-
@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.
-
Let's keep the yarrr avast ye mateys stuff out of threads people read at work.
-
This is what mods put in work for? Well, what can you do.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
This is what mods put in work for? Well, what can you do.
If you want me to start cleaning up the Garage it would be a task I would take much delight in. I doubt any of the regular garage participants would enjoy the process however.
-
@Weng can you change 'duller' to 'platitudinous' and 'EULAs' to 'provisos' because the title is so close to good alliteration
-
@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.
-
@boomzilla why not?
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@boomzilla why not?
What? I mean, seriously. 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.
-
@boomzilla Ah, but then the owner of the car doesn't have it anymore. I'm allowed to download copyrighted works; I'm just not allowed to distribute them.
-
@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).
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.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@boomzilla Ah, but then the owner of the car doesn't have it anymore. I'm allowed to download copyrighted works; I'm just not allowed to distribute them.
What the fuck are you talking about?
-
@boomzilla What I just said.
-
@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?"
-
@Gąska said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
general law that bans bypassing security measures
They have one of those in Poland?
-
@pie_flavor are we talking about USA or Poland? I assumed USA, since you don't know shit about Poland and its legal system.
-
@Gąska I think he's doing the software version of sovereign citizen.
-
@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.
-
@Gąska said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@pie_flavor are we talking about USA or Poland? I assumed USA, since you don't know shit about Poland and its legal system.
We're talking about the USA. There is no law that says you can't bypass software security measures. All laws dealing with unauthorized access solely relate to physical computers, like hacking into servers. You can do whatever the fuck you want with your own computer.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@Weng can you change 'duller' to 'platitudinous' and 'EULAs' to 'provisos' because the title is so close to good alliteration
I think you should be able to do it, unless it's Different™ for Jeffed threads.
-
@hungrier said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the duller points of EULAs:
@Weng can you change 'duller' to 'platitudinous' and 'EULAs' to 'provisos' because the title is so close to good alliteration
I think you should be able to do it, unless it's Different™ for Jeffed threads.
Oh, they changed it. Titles used to be under Topic Tools.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
There is no law that says you can't bypass software security measures.
Yes there is, at least in the US. It's called the DMCA.
Software itself is considered a "copyrighted work" for the purposes of the DMCA.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in The Official Status Thread:
Never mind the costs.
Ah, but according to @pie_flavor if you close your eyes and don't see the license agreement, there are no costs!
-
@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:
There is no law that says you can't bypass software security measures.
Yes there is, at least in the US. It's called the DMCA.
Software itself is considered a "copyrighted work" for the purposes of the DMCA.
You can't bypass copy protection measures in order to copy the work. You can bypass measures in order to use the work. Crucial difference.
-
@pie_flavor have you even read the actual law? It says that you cannot bypass access protection, period:
§ 1201 · Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.
—(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
-
@Gąska That really depends on what the 'work' is. It could easily be argued that the installer which is asking you for your license key is part of the work, and not simply the conveyance for the work, especially considering that you can't copy and distribute the installer, and therefore you already have access to the work and that clause doesn't apply. But that's because a license acceptance isn't a security measure, and that's because you're not bypassing anything since it was like that when you downloaded it.
-
@pie_flavor Pirated software means you're getting a copy of something without the permission of the copyright owner, which is the very base of what copyright forbids. So it's always illegal (although it could be only illegal on the provider side depending on the specific law).
However, I don't know the legal basis for enforcing EULAs when I buy a disc in the store. I own a physical copy of it, and I don't have any agreement with the maker yet. I guess copyright might ban me from copying the files to my hard drive without permission? But I could always run and decompile the bits I want directly from the disc drive.
-
@anonymous234 said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor Pirated software means you're getting a copy of something without the permission of the copyright owner, which is the very base of what copyright forbids. So it's always illegal (although it could be only illegal on the provider side depending on the specific law).
It is only illegal on the provider side (or the uploader side, when dealing with DMCA-protected automated upload services). It is not illegal to download a copyrighted work, although torrenting will land you in hot water because you're also uploading.
However, I don't know the legal basis for enforcing EULAs when I buy a disc in the store. I own a physical copy of it, I don't have any agreement with the maker yet. I guess copyright might ban me from copying the files to my hard drive without permission? But I could always run and decompile the bits I want directly from the disc drive.
I'd never thought about the ramifications of decompiling code that isn't yours without copying it. I'm not entirely sure that one would fly in court.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
We're talking about the USA. There is no law that says you can't bypass software security measures
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
Software itself is considered a "copyrighted work" for the purposes of the DMCA.
You can't bypass copy protection measures in order to copy the work. You can bypass measures in order to use the work. Crucial difference.
You need to actually read the law. It bans all forms of circumvention of DRM (unless specifically exempted), full stop.
No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
-
@izzion https://what.thedailywtf.com/post/1420611
That part of the law wasn't written for software, it was written for traditional copyrights. Like downloading movies from Netflix.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@Gąska That really depends on what the 'work' is.
It's all defined in § 101 "Definitions", which I won't quote because it's extremely long, because it contains all the words required to prevent you from applying insane troll logic in order to push the boundaries in the way they were never meant to be pushed.
It could easily be argued that the installer which is asking you for your license key is part of the work, and not simply the conveyance for the work, especially considering that you can't copy and distribute the installer, and therefore you already have access to the work and that clause doesn't apply.
For the purpose of that paragraph, it doesn't matter if it's part of work or separate thing as long as it's a technological measure that effectively and so on.
But that's because a license acceptance isn't a security measure, and that's because you're not bypassing anything since it was like that when you downloaded it.
Oh, sorry. I didn't notice we've suddenly changed the topic from "whether it's legal to crack" back to the very different question of "whether it's legal to use software without license".
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
I'm not entirely sure that one would fly in court.
But you're absolutely confident everything you have yourself said would?
-
@Tsaukpaetra said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
He really means that, doesn't he? But I wouldn't wonder. I've done a good share of that (and worse) myself, and I still haven't become as clean about that as I would like. I don't give a rat's ass what any law has to say about it. Some people learn not to be a dick and respect other people's work in time... having an eye-opener, as it happens. Some don't.Incidentally, If I close my eyes, I really don't see any license agreements either. I have been known to see pretty, young and smiling ladies in suggestive costumes instead. But then I mention something about d20 or booleans and they all disappear. *cough* *cough*
-
@Gąska said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
It's all defined in § 101 "Definitions", which I won't quote because it's extremely long, because it contains all the words required to prevent you from applying insane troll logic in order to push the boundaries in the way they were never meant to be pushed.
This is because lawyers and computer programmers are very alike in some ways, except they approach similar problems from pretty much opposite sides.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
I have been known to see pretty, young and smiling ladies in suggestive constumes instead. But then I mention something about d20 or booleans and they all disappear.
And you find that strange? Maybe mention a good rules system and they’ll stick around.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
I'm allowed to download copyrighted works; I'm just not allowed to distribute them.
Why do you think you're allowed to download copyrighted works in the first place? Downloading implies making a copy (the one now sitting in your hard drive). You don't by default have the right to make copies of things for yourself. That's what copyright means, the right to copy. Which you don't have unless you get a license.
You're mixing up the right to make back-ups, which you do have once you've acquired a license for the work, with the right to have a copy in the first place.
Pro tip: you're not allowed to go into a bookstore and take pictures of every page of the books there either.
-
@Tsaukpaetra If I close my eyes when I see a contract (and therefore don't sign it) then I'm not bound by it. So that makes sense.
-
@Kian said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
Pro tip: you're not allowed to go into a bookstore and take pictures of every page of the books there either.
But if you close your eyes and magic happens and you get a picture of it, it's legal, right?
-
In the end, the only way to see if an apparent crazy workaround for a law actually works is to get sued for it and go to court. Has anyone tried to argue in court that it's not illegal to run software without a license as long as you're not the one doing the copying? If so, we can all find out what the court said. If not... well, someone volunteer to be the first one!
-
@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.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
It could easily be argued that the installer which is asking you for your license key is part of the work,
It's going to be much more difficult to get someone in a position of authority to agree with you, I'll bet.
-
@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...
-
@loopback0 said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
You wouldn't download a car...
If you could 3D-print it, why not?
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@boomzilla Liar.
-
-
@boomzilla I probably would though.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
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?
He hasn't argued that licenses shouldn't exist. If there was such a loophole, and people started using it, it would simply get fixed by a new copyright act. And you can be damn sure it would be passed with extreme haste.