In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.
-
@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:
It's just that you're only bound by them if you agree to them.
Which you have to do to use the software. It's usually in the first paragraph of the license, and reads something like "Your use of the Software is dependant upon acceptance of these Terms and Conditions". Handwaving away the part of the software that makes you accept that doesn't change the fact that you HAVE to accept the license to use the software, and using the software is an implicit agreement with the terms of the license.
But if I download it from the internet, and it's got a custom installer, then I've installed it without agreeing to any license agreement and thus am not bound by its terms.
If someone else modified it so you don't see the license, that doesn't make it legal for you. You've now received stolen goods. IANALetcetc.
-
@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:
@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?
Simple - it would make @pie_flavor a criminal! That's a danger to him!
-
@Groaner said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@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" ?
Of course in part I would rely on what is advertised. If it's some obscure software that I'd never heard of and the site claims that they are the authors and it's find for me to download it and use then I just might, and certainly have in the past. If it's some obviously commercial software from some other entity then I know better, no matter how much @pie_flavor is certain I never saw a license.
Or what if your computer succumbs to a zero-day exploit which downloads gigabytes of warez without your knowledge or consent?
My defense will be that I didn't run the software. I hope it stands up. I'm probably grateful that it didn't download child pornography and set up an illicit server without my knowledge or consent.
-
@japonicus said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
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.
No, I believe you're allowed to sing or perform the music.
-
@topspin 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:
@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.
it's illegal to possess cigarettes that have not been properly stamped for tax purposes, or don't carry the required labels and packaging.
Seriously, everyone keeps talking about stuff that has specific legal requirements already laid out.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
Seriously, everyone keeps talking about stuff that has specific legal requirements already laid out.
Like having to have a license to use software?
Now I think we're all being trolled.
-
@Groaner said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@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?
What if the website claims to be a licensed distributor for the music in question?
-
@Groaner said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@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?
That's an argument for your questioning above why receiving stolen property should be illegal (if you don't know it, if you do it seems obvious). It doesn't change the fact that it is illegal, though.
-
@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:
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.
No. Kazaa involves distributing it further.
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?
That makes it copyright violation, yes. But that is not the common case of the initial download which is what I am talking about.
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.
Yes. The majority of people simply don't know that they can easily get viruses from torrenting.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
What incentive does anyone have to purchase a license for software at all?
To keep the lights on at the software company, support them for a job well done and give them the means to maintain the software?
Are you saying they are fools?
Well, if paying 4 grand for, say, an Autodesk product doesn't make you feel like a fool, I'm not sure what will.
Disclaimer: I have neither bought nor pirated any of their garbage.
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?
The funny thing is that software piracy has always existed and will probably continue to exist for a very long time, and yet there are still profitable software companies. Note here that I am not defending piracy or pirates but conceding that they are a fact of life.
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.
The argument/apology my floormates made when I was an undergraduate was, "We only do it for big companies because what's one lost sale to them?"
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@Groaner said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@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?
What if the website claims to be a licensed distributor for the music in question?
Like the guy on the corner with the watches?
-
To keep the lights on at the software company, support them for a job well done and give them the means to maintain the software?
You're still relying on the good will of your customers. Not everyone sees it that way.
The funny thing is that software piracy has always existed and will probably continue to exist for a very long time, and yet there are still profitable software companies. Note here that I am not defending piracy or pirates but conceding that they are a fact of life.
Lots of crimes are a fact of life. So the fuck what?
The argument/apology my floormates made when I was an undergraduate was, "We only do it for big companies because what's one lost sale to them?"
Exactly my point about relying on the goodwill of your customers.
-
@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:
@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?
Because that's how the law works. Making the copy is the illegal part. The service's liability is shunted onto the uploader by the DMCA. You haven't actually made the copy, so you've done nothing illegal. The license agreement is related to your ability to actually use the software.
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.
I 100% agree with you on the notion that US copyright law is a fuck and needs to be torn out and started over.
-
@Groaner said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
The funny thing is that software piracy has always existed and will probably continue to exist for a very long time, and yet there are still profitable software companies. Note here that I am not defending piracy or pirates but conceding that they are a fact of life.
There will always be some criminals who get away with crime. That's not a very persuasive argument that their crimes are legal.
-
@dcon said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@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:
It's just that you're only bound by them if you agree to them.
Which you have to do to use the software. It's usually in the first paragraph of the license, and reads something like "Your use of the Software is dependant upon acceptance of these Terms and Conditions". Handwaving away the part of the software that makes you accept that doesn't change the fact that you HAVE to accept the license to use the software, and using the software is an implicit agreement with the terms of the license.
But if I download it from the internet, and it's got a custom installer, then I've installed it without agreeing to any license agreement and thus am not bound by its terms.
If someone else modified it so you don't see the license, that doesn't make it legal for you. You've now received stolen goods. IANALetcetc.
No, because property != IP and property laws don't apply to IP protections. You have received the whole unmodified original property, which was created by the download server.
-
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
My defense will be that I didn't run the software. I hope it stands up. I'm probably grateful that it didn't download child pornography and set up an illicit server without my knowledge or consent.
That's again where a reasonable judge comes in. Intent makes a world of difference, so if they believe you that a virus downloaded illegal software or even child pornography (sounds like someone is trying to frame you, should get the cops involved in that) they will absolutely acquit you.
-
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@japonicus said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
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.
No, I believe you're allowed to sing or perform the music.
Private performances only.
-
@boomzilla In case you can't tell, I've stopped responding to you.
For future reference, if someone wants me to actually respond to something boomzilla said in this thread, they've got to say it themselves.
-
@topspin said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@Groaner said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@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?
That's an argument for your questioning above why receiving stolen property should be illegal (if you don't know it, if you do it seems obvious). It doesn't change the fact that it is illegal, though.
That (unknowingly) receiving stolen property is a crime seems like a gross violation of the principle of mens rea.
On the other hand, if you're acting as a fence and are knowingly complicit in the operation....
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
In case you can't tell, I've stopped responding to you.
The lazy troll, having realized he is out of his depth, quietly exits stage left.
-
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@japonicus said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
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.
No, I believe you're allowed to sing or perform the music.
Not publicly - e.g. Happy Birthday (though that case was eventually over-turned). There have been cases were even school orchestras have been banned from performing Gilbert and Sulivan operas, because D'Oyly Carte asserted copyright. Pop artists generally take a dim view of cover songs released without paying royalty fees...
-
@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:
@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.
No. Kazaa involves distributing it further.
So you're saying the above is incorrect. And the reason why this is incorrect involves further distribution. So just to make it extra clear what you mean - which of the two statements below describe your point of view?
A - People only have to worry if they do something illegal. Downloading and using is legal, therefore people who only do that don't have to worry about lawsuits.
B - People only have to worry if their illegal act involves uploading. Even if they do things with "their" software that are illegal, not uploading makes them safe from lawsuits.
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.
Yes. The majority of people simply don't know that they can easily get viruses from torrenting.
Ergo, threat of viruses would be a very ineffective incentive for buying software, in a world where pirating is legal.
-
@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:
In case you can't tell, I've stopped responding to you.
The lazy troll, having realized he is out of his depth, quietly exits stage left.
I've said it before, the line itself is pretty good.
-
@topspin said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
I've said it before, the line itself is pretty good.
It is. Especially since he was projecting when he first posted it.
Srlsy, @pie_flavor, just give us a link that backs you up. That can't be too hard, right? All these instances of companies forking over big bucks was just a big legal mixup by them, if only they'd had your legal savvy and knowledge! Help us all out!
-
@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:
@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?
The license agreement is related to your ability to actually use the software.
But you just said there is no license I signed, therefore I somehow have defacto freedom to use the software I downloaded. Because your completely imaginary law firm you own said so. I mean, if what you're saying is true (which it isn't, regardless of what imaginary law you practice) there's no point in having license agreements at all because who would ever agree to something if they could just ignore it all together? Even totally free open-source software with no strings attached has a license agreement, even if it's just to say the software is free and open-source with no strings attached. I mean, if what you say is true, why not have no agreement at all, since according to you, the default is you have free reign over any software you didn't write, but downloaded from elsewhere?
-
@The_Quiet_One said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
You're still relying on the good will of your customers. Not everyone sees it that way.
Blame André LaMothe. Through his books on game programming in the early '90s, he instilled in me two important truths:
- Everything can be copied.
- The only real solution is to make a game [or other product] so good that the pirates themselves go out and buy a copy.
Lots of crimes are a fact of life. So the fuck what?
Exactly my point about relying on the goodwill of your customers.
This "goodwill" seems to have propped up a multi-billion dollar industry just fine, so I say bring on the goodwill!
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla In case you can't tell, I've stopped responding to you.
For future reference, if someone wants me to actually respond to something boomzilla said in this thread, they've got to say it themselves.It themselves.
-
@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:
@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.
No. Kazaa involves distributing it further.
So you're saying the above is incorrect. And the reason why this is incorrect involves further distribution. So just to make it extra clear what you mean - which of the two statements below describe your point of view?
A - People only have to worry if they do something illegal. Downloading and using is legal, therefore people who only do that don't have to worry about lawsuits.
B - People only have to worry if their illegal act involves uploading. Even if they do things with "their" software that are illegal, not uploading makes them safe from lawsuits.
I don't think every part of either one describes my viewpoint. You have to worry about lawsuits no matter what you do; they could pursue something they know they'd lose simply because you don't have the money to fight it. If you knock off everything after the 'legal', then A is correct.
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.
Yes. The majority of people simply don't know that they can easily get viruses from torrenting.
Ergo, threat of viruses would be a very ineffective incentive for buying software, in a world where pirating is legal.
And they don't know what torrenting is either. They may occasionally download something from somewhere they didn't know they shouldn't, and get a virus, and take their computer to be fixed. At that point, they will learn that they shouldn't download from those places otherwise they'll get a virus. But nobody that doesn't know about the virus risk knows about torrenting.
-
@Groaner 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:
You're still relying on the good will of your customers. Not everyone sees it that way.
Blame André LaMothe. Through his books on game programming in the early '90s, he instilled in me two important truths:
- Everything can be copied.
- The only real solution is to make a game [or other product] so good that the pirates themselves go out and buy a copy.
Yeah, those aren't truths. Those are opinions.
Lots of crimes are a fact of life. So the fuck what?
Exactly my point about relying on the goodwill of your customers.
This "goodwill" seems to have propped up a multi-billion dollar industry just fine, so I say bring on the goodwill!
Wrong. You ask the average person why they purchase software, they'll tell you it's to stay on the good side of the law.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
I mean, if what you say is true, why not have no agreement at all, since according to you, the default is you have free reign over any software you didn't write, but downloaded from elsewhere?
In this hypothetical world where people knew more about this, publishers would start cracking down more on websites linking to file sharing websites hosting illegal content. I'm not saying there's absolutely no liability; I'm just saying it doesn't rest with the downloader. DMCA takedown notices were created for a reason.
-
@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:
I mean, if what you say is true, why not have no agreement at all, since according to you, the default is you have free reign over any software you didn't write, but downloaded from elsewhere?
In this hypothetical world where people knew more about this, publishers would start cracking down more on websites linking to file sharing websites hosting illegal content. I'm not saying there's absolutely no liability; I'm just saying it doesn't rest with the downloader. DMCA takedown notices were created for a reason.
Now connect the dots to using unlicensed software.
-
In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.
Filed under: Selected works of the Chinese scholar Pie Phun Pun
-
@Groaner 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 In case you can't tell, I've stopped responding to you.
For future reference, if someone wants me to actually respond to something boomzilla said in this thread, they've got to say it themselves.It themselves.
@boomzilla said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@Groaner said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
The funny thing is that software piracy has always existed and will probably continue to exist for a very long time, and yet there are still profitable software companies. Note here that I am not defending piracy or pirates but conceding that they are a fact of life.
There will always be some criminals who get away with crime. That's not a very persuasive argument that their crimes are legal.
But if it's not criminal, then there's no argument.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@Groaner 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:
You're still relying on the good will of your customers. Not everyone sees it that way.
Blame André LaMothe. Through his books on game programming in the early '90s, he instilled in me two important truths:
- Everything can be copied.
- The only real solution is to make a game [or other product] so good that the pirates themselves go out and buy a copy.
Yeah, those aren't truths. Those are opinions.
Lots of crimes are a fact of life. So the fuck what?
Exactly my point about relying on the goodwill of your customers.
This "goodwill" seems to have propped up a multi-billion dollar industry just fine, so I say bring on the goodwill!
Wrong. You ask the average person why they purchase software, they'll tell you it's to stay on the good side of the law.
I stood up and asked my roommate why he buys software instead of pirating it, and he told me that virus removal is expensive.
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@boomzilla In case you can't tell, I've stopped responding to you.
For future reference, if someone wants me to actually respond to something boomzilla said in this thread, they've got to say it themselves.I would, but it would violate copyright.
-
@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:
@Groaner 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:
You're still relying on the good will of your customers. Not everyone sees it that way.
Blame André LaMothe. Through his books on game programming in the early '90s, he instilled in me two important truths:
- Everything can be copied.
- The only real solution is to make a game [or other product] so good that the pirates themselves go out and buy a copy.
Yeah, those aren't truths. Those are opinions.
Lots of crimes are a fact of life. So the fuck what?
Exactly my point about relying on the goodwill of your customers.
This "goodwill" seems to have propped up a multi-billion dollar industry just fine, so I say bring on the goodwill!
Wrong. You ask the average person why they purchase software, they'll tell you it's to stay on the good side of the law.
I stood up and asked my roommate why he buys software instead of pirating it, and he told me that virus removal is expensive.
So you're saying it's not out of goodwill. Thanks for proving my point.
-
@Applied-Mediocrity said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.
Filed under: Selected works of the Chinese scholar Pie Phun Pun
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
I stood up and asked my roommate why he buys software instead of pirating it, and he told me that virus removal is expensive.
That's it. We have the word of a college roommate.
Checkmate capitalists!
-
@pie_flavor said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
You have to worry about lawsuits no matter what you do; they could pursue something they know they'd lose simply because you don't have the money to fight it.
If you knock off everything after the 'legal', then A is correct.
Thought so, but better safe than sorry. So, the only thing I have to do to disprove everything you said in this topic once and for all is find the law that says using copyrighted software without license is illegal, without citing actual lawsuits. This eases things up considerably.
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.
Yes. The majority of people simply don't know that they can easily get viruses from torrenting.
Ergo, threat of viruses would be a very ineffective incentive for buying software, in a world where pirating is legal.
And they don't know what torrenting is either. They may occasionally download something from somewhere they didn't know they shouldn't, and get a virus, and take their computer to be fixed. At that point, they will learn that they shouldn't download from those places otherwise they'll get a virus. But nobody that doesn't know about the virus risk knows about torrenting.
USA seems very different from Poland in this regard. And I don't mean their lack of knowledge about torrenting - I'm more surprised by the fact they learn from their mistakes.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
Wrong. You ask the average person why they purchase software, they'll tell you it's to stay on the good side of the law.
Average people do whatever is convenient, affordable and low risk, with a slight bias toward legality, all other things being equal.
e.g. the success of music sharing sites, until legalistic crackdowns made them inconvenient and legal downloads became sufficiently available and low cost; normalised software piracy in lower income countries etc.
-
@The_Quiet_One said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@Groaner 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:
You're still relying on the good will of your customers. Not everyone sees it that way.
Blame André LaMothe. Through his books on game programming in the early '90s, he instilled in me two important truths:
- Everything can be copied.
- The only real solution is to make a game [or other product] so good that the pirates themselves go out and buy a copy.
Yeah, those aren't truths. Those are opinions.
So it's just an opinion now that everything can be copied? Please do tell us more about this. There are plenty of large companies with lots of money that would just love software that could not be copied.
And before you try the SaaS defense, sure, while it's hard to copy software from a server whose backend you can't access, keep in mind that with enough resources, one could "copy" an entire Web application strictly by observing its behavior and reimplementing it.
Lots of crimes are a fact of life. So the fuck what?
Exactly my point about relying on the goodwill of your customers.
This "goodwill" seems to have propped up a multi-billion dollar industry just fine, so I say bring on the goodwill!
Wrong. You ask the average person why they purchase software, they'll tell you it's to stay on the good side of the law.
I guess that depends on who gets picked out as an average person, doesn't it?
-
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@The_Quiet_One said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@Groaner 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:
You're still relying on the good will of your customers. Not everyone sees it that way.
Blame André LaMothe. Through his books on game programming in the early '90s, he instilled in me two important truths:
- Everything can be copied.
- The only real solution is to make a game [or other product] so good that the pirates themselves go out and buy a copy.
Yeah, those aren't truths. Those are opinions.
So it's just an opinion now that everything can be copied? Please do tell us more about this. There are plenty of large companies with lots of money that would just love software that could not be copied.
Sorry, I misunderstood that point. I thought it was saying everything can be legally copied.
And before you try the SaaS defense, sure, while it's hard to copy software from a server whose backend you can't access, keep in mind that with enough resources, one could "copy" an entire Web application strictly by observing its behavior and reimplementing it.
That's a totally different scenario, though. That's reverse engineering a solution into your own, which isn't a copyright issue, but a patent issue, if one was filed.
Lots of crimes are a fact of life. So the fuck what?
Exactly my point about relying on the goodwill of your customers.
This "goodwill" seems to have propped up a multi-billion dollar industry just fine, so I say bring on the goodwill!
Wrong. You ask the average person why they purchase software, they'll tell you it's to stay on the good side of the law.
I guess that depends on who gets picked out as an average person, doesn't it?
An unbiased sample of people. And I agree with @japonicus that a good part of it is convenience, too. But goodwill is far lower on the list than one's selfish motivations, which was my original point.
-
@boomzilla said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@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:
I mean, if what you say is true, why not have no agreement at all, since according to you, the default is you have free reign over any software you didn't write, but downloaded from elsewhere?
In this hypothetical world where people knew more about this, publishers would start cracking down more on websites linking to file sharing websites hosting illegal content. I'm not saying there's absolutely no liability; I'm just saying it doesn't rest with the downloader. DMCA takedown notices were created for a reason.
Now connect the dots to using unlicensed software.
There's gaps between those dots. So obviously there is no connection!
-
@dcon said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@boomzilla said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@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:
I mean, if what you say is true, why not have no agreement at all, since according to you, the default is you have free reign over any software you didn't write, but downloaded from elsewhere?
In this hypothetical world where people knew more about this, publishers would start cracking down more on websites linking to file sharing websites hosting illegal content. I'm not saying there's absolutely no liability; I'm just saying it doesn't rest with the downloader. DMCA takedown notices were created for a reason.
Now connect the dots to using unlicensed software.
There's gaps between those dots. So obviously there is no connection!
More like this:
-
@boomzilla said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
BSA fines
I'm still not quite sure of what their purpose as an organization/lobby is. As far as I can tell, they exist to get people to rat out their employers, collect hefty fines from which they share pennies with the original informant(s), and the informants blacklist themselves from the industry in the process.
-
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
I'm still not quite sure of what their purpose as an organization/lobby is.
Uh...seems pretty obvious. It's to get money out of companies trying to leverage their @pie_flavor software licenses for the software that is put out by the companies who fund them.
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
and the informants blacklist themselves from the industry in the process.
Which industry?
-
@The_Quiet_One said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Sorry, I misunderstood that point. I thought it was saying everything can be legally copied.
Fair enough.
That's a totally different scenario, though. That's reverse engineering a solution into your own, which isn't a copyright issue, but a patent issue, if one was filed.
It is. I'm not sure if patent law would apply unless your non-obvious implementation of their interface was too similar, a chance that's vanishingly small the bigger the application gets.
An unbiased sample of people. And I agree with @japonicus that a good part of it is convenience, too. But goodwill is far lower on the list than one's selfish motivations, which was my original point.
Going back to my Autodesk example, suppose you have a teenage (or college age) aspiring game developer and/or artist. Up until a few years ago, if you wanted to work with 3DS Max, Maya, et al., you'd be shelling out 4 grand. Even if they wanted to buy it, I don't know many people that age who have that kind of coin lying around. It's especially egregious given that most consumer software is in the $X0-$X00 range.
-
@Groaner said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
Going back to my Autodesk example, suppose you have a teenage (or college age) aspiring game developer and/or artist. Up until a few years ago, if you wanted to work with 3DS Max, Maya, et al., you'd be shelling out 4 grand. Even if they wanted to buy it, I don't know many people that age who have that kind of coin lying around. It's especially egregious given that most consumer software is in the $X0-$X00 range.
I have it on good authority that you just need to close your eyes so you never see the license agreement and it's cool.
-
@Weng even -> potentially
-
@pie_flavor said in In which pie_flavor presumptuously postulates that pilfering of protected property is perfectly permissible; perhaps even preferable.:
@e4tmyl33t said in pie_flavor pontificates on the platitudinous points of provisos:
@pie_flavor No, you're not. If you use the software, you're agreeing to its license terms, including any penalties for obtaining the software through an unapproved method. \n
Wow, licenses just get magically invoked whether or not I explicitly agree with them? That sounds incredibly prone to abuse.
Where am I supposed to find this intrinsically invoked license? The software typically doesn't show it to you after install, unless you go hunting for it.See also: Oracle.