Quote Richard Graham:

---

I don't see a lot of novelists crying about the fact that their work is freely distibuted through libraries.

---

it's not freely distributed ...

http://www.plr.uk.com/aboutus/background.htm

Quote Tim Rainey:

---

My ‘Pocket Oxford Dictionary’ copyright statement says that no part may be reproduced… since it contains just about every word in existence, we are all obviously guilty of infringing its copyright so therefore I’m afraid the forum will have to be closed down immediately… ah well, it was nice while it lasted, bye all.

---

Except for the fact that words, names, even short phrases cannot be copyrighted (although they can be protected under trademark). Nice try, though.

Chris

--------------------
1.5GHz Al 17" Powerbook G4 (2.0GB RAM, Hitachi 60GB 7,200 rpm drive), running Logic Pro 7 under OSX 10.4.5

Quote tex:

---

Quote Feefer:

---

Wrong. Lending the novel is illegal, as it deprives the artist of the revenue generated by selling another copy.

---

Drivel. You certainly can lend the novel just like you can lend someone your software and dongle etc. You can even give it away. What you cannot give away is the license although it can be transferred. What you can't do is copy the novel / software and give that to your friend. That's why it's called COPYright. You are not allowed to COPY a creation unless you have the RIGHT to.

---

Unfortunately, you're thinking of a pre-DMCA world. One cannot assume lending a book is permitted...

The creator of the work can stipulate whether lending, selling, or even giving the work as a gift is permissible or not. Copyright law is not only about WHO makes copies, but the disposition of those copies after they're sold.

Given that the rights for lending, giving and selling of the work are granted by the copyright owner (or their agent) to the buyer, increased use of access control technologies will limit the ability of the user to dispose of the work without the authority of the copyright owner.

Bottom line: you hinted at right answer, in that you need to look at what the license says is permissible use. Some licenses are more draconian than others (and software companies are NOTORIOUS for trying to force people into restrictions that even exceed those granted by law), so caveat emptor.

Chris

--------------------
1.5GHz Al 17" Powerbook G4 (2.0GB RAM, Hitachi 60GB 7,200 rpm drive), running Logic Pro 7 under OSX 10.4.5

Quote bardo:

---

So my point is that morally, i don't steal anything to anyone, i just use it because it's here.

---

I take it you don't bother with a TV licence then ...?

Quote Feefer:

---

The creator of the work can stipulate whether lending, selling, or even giving the work as a gift is permissible or not. Copyright law is not only about WHO makes copies, but the disposition of those copies after they're sold.

---

This touches on what really depresses me about copyright theft. The originator of the work offers their work in good faith subject to certain conditions. They effectively trust the potential user to respect those conditions. It seems to me to be an abuse of that trust for users to ignore the conditions of use. That abuse of trust seems to me to be pretty misanthropic and nihilistic - hardly striving for a better world is it? if a musician plays on the street it's free, maybe you'll put some money in the hat - but would you gatecrash a gig with an entrance fee?

It seems that this whole "software is free" thing came out of the unix world. All well and good but a lot of that software was being written by publicly funded academics.

As others have pointed out, there is plenty of free/cheap software available. A genuinely talented musician can make good music with the most basic of tools. "I can't afford it" is a euphemism for "I don't want it badly enough" ...

Wrong again. The book/disk/manual etc. is a THING before anything was written to disk it is a THING. After a book/music/program has been written to it it is still a THING (Thing: Ancient Nordic for object which entitles the holder to speak at assembly. Now applied to any object without a determined name.) The thing or indeed any thing can be given away or sold. A license determines whether the new owner can read/use it or not. Computer licenses are usually not to the person but for a specific number of computers (usually one). So if it is only on one computer it does not matter whose computer it is or who is using it.
A book or publication can be read by any number of readers provided none of them tries to copy it as would be the case if one was to copy a particular magazine article and email it. That certainly would infringe copyright although it very rarely causes prosecution.
The Chinese have no copyright law. Yet. So you can eat a chinese dictionary. Alphabet noodle soup?

Nobody used to copy Neve desks did they? Lazy b.... stopit!

--------------------
Success is round the corner. It's also round the bend.

Edited by tex (09/02/07 09:17 PM)

Anybody ever tried to pay the royalties on "Happy Birthday"?
We all owe for that one.

--------------------
Success is round the corner. It's also round the bend.

I have no interest in the actual argument itself, it's against the law, and it is fairly well recognised that it affects the victims financially, so that is pretty much it. Any moral standpoints are ultimately doomed to failure because of this.

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Under UK law it is theft, not weasel words like "copyright infringement" (designed by criminals to make the criminals feel better about it).

Check out the Theft Act 1968.

Maximum penalty - 14 years in jail.

---

However I'm interested in this. I'm sure someone mentioned that you were previously a lawyer, Steve,(correct me if I'm wrong) so I imagine that your knowledge on this is pretty good. However I've searched the Theft Act 1968 (and I reckoned I knew it fairly well) and I cannot find any reference to this. It certainly doesn't fit any of the criteria for basic Theft (7 years not 14) and there is existing legislation (The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988) which deals with the offence quite adequately. Offenders who are prosecuted for this type of offence have been charged with that rather than Theft offences.

I wouldn't call 'Copyright Infringement' 'weasel words' as it's legislation brought in to combat exactly the problem that is causing so much angst here, because it wasn't catered for elsewhere!!!!!

I'm not trying to provoke an argument, I'm just interested to know if I'm missing smonething here.

I'm pretty sure you'll find that hacking into a program to bypass any copyright security is theft whereas copyng the same hacked program is infringing program's copyright though you may well be guilty of aiding and abetting the theft after the fact.
As to the original post re: discontinued software. That is up to the copyright owner. You would need to see written permission published somewhere or sent to you in correspondence.

--------------------
Success is round the corner. It's also round the bend.

It's a bit of a lawyers' debate I'm afraid. I take the view that the good old Theft Act was fine as the intention of the pirate was to "permanently deprive the owner" of something (his royalties/income etc).

The wimps at the Crown Prosecution Service got a bit scared however of prosecuting people for theft hence the CDPA 88 was passed - effectively downgrading the offence, whilst the government could trumpet to its paymasters (i.e. global media corporates, Rupert Murdoch etc) that they have Taken Tough Action, so there!

IMO the CDPA was unnecessary and a cop-out. And the Theft Act (or possibly forgery charges, also carrying a maximum 14 year sentence) could and possibly would be used in the case of say a wholesale counterfeiting operation. Without overdramatising, there's a lot of evidence that some of the worst offenders are ultimately led by organised crime and/or terrorist organisations. It's a good way to launder money and generate income, and it's pretty low risk for the criminals.

So think about whose murder you might be funding when you use cracks. (And don't even pause to think about how e.g. the CIA might deal with you if they decide you're part of the problem!).

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...


Edited by Steve Hill (10/02/07 06:05 PM)

Quote Bill C:

---

It seems that this whole "software is free" thing came out of the unix world. All well and good but a lot of that software was being written by publicly funded academics.

---

Hey, don't blame us!
Actually the Unix world has tended to be very good about respecting copyrights (In spite of the numerous legal pissing matches that occurred - AT&T/UCB first amongst them). Sure the Unix world never developed a 'shareware' market in the way that the PC scene did, and there is a long tradition of very permissive licensing (See the BSD license, or the GPL for slightly less permissive, but a better fit for what many casual developers want), which again never really occurred in the PC world, but this blatant widespread copyright infringement did not originate with us.

Actually I would say it originated in the ZX81/Spectrum/C64/BBC days with people passing cassette tapes around, and may well predate that (CF Bill gates letter to the hobbiests).

Quote:

---

"I can't afford it" is a euphemism for "I don't want it badly enough" ...

---

Agree entirely.

Regards, Dan.

--------------------
Audiophiles use phono leads because they are unbalanced people!

Is there not a "fair use" provision in Britain's copyright laws? In the US, someone who buys a CD (for example) can legally make a copy of it for backup, whether on tape or as a CD-R, etc. Though taping a TV show with one's VCR seems to be acceptable, downloading a TV show episode is forbidden. Recording songs off the radio is acceptable, making a mix tape from CDs in your own purchased collection is forbidden. And once a book or CD or DVD or software pragram has been purchased, they may be resold at used books, music and movie stores.

When I have the occasion to use a cracked software, I know I am doing so illegally--for reasons I posted earlier in this thread on page 2, I am not happy with purchasing an expensive program based on its stripped down demo version which doesn't do what the software is advertised and expected to do.

I will seek out a full version which has been cracked so that I may completely explore the software and decide whether I want to spend a large sum of money for it, and music software companies don't allow the user to test drive the "Ferrari"--no, you get the Ferrari body with the Yugo engine in it. So, I'm left with the option of stealing the fully loaded Ferrari, driving it in all the places I frequent, and then dropping that large sum of money at the dealer's desk if the car went as fast as I wanted it to and got me laid, as well. Payment after the fact.

But I don't placate myself by trying to justify my actions with excuses or diatribes (oh, wait--what am I doing now..?). It's just a business decision by the developers not to allow fully functional demos to its potential customers, and it's a business decision by me to give them the bird (temporarily) while I seek a 'demo' elsewhere to decide if their product does what I need it to do. When I do this, I am breaking the law, so I try not to do it often or for very long.

I do fervently agree that those who created it should be paid for their efforts--IF I decide their product is worth MY efforts (though most of the price goes into the marketing and advertising, those sick bastards). Other software manufacturers in other industries offer fully functioning demos, but the music software guys don't, for various questionable reasons. The market has been set this way. And I function in it according to what's available to me.

--------------------
Come down and beware of the apefist.

Quote apefist:

---

Is there not a "fair use" provision in Britain's copyright laws?

---

In a word, no. A position most of us condemn, and lobby against... but for now we are where we are.

I don't share your view that using a crack is a good "demo" of a product. If they can't provide a decent enough demo to allow me to decide if I want something, I won't buy it. Their loss.

Lots of demos are fully functional, not crippled (UAD plugins come to mind), but are valid only for a limited period... long enough to give them a decent workout, and long enough (from the manufacturer's point of view) to get you hooked so you buy it when the demo expires. I've bought a LOT of UAD plugins that way!

Other software houses could do the same, as you say.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...


Edited by Steve Hill (10/02/07 08:36 PM)

Quote Steve Hill:

---

I don't share your view that using a crack is a good "demo" of a product. If they can't provide a decent enough demo to allow me to decide if I want something, I won't buy it. Their loss.

---

No Steinberg soxware, then?

--------------------
[url=http://www.facebook.com/pages/hifi-studios/117322741632389[/url]

Quote Steve Hill:

---

It's a bit of a lawyers' debate I'm afraid. I take the view that the good old Theft Act was fine as the intention of the pirate was to "permanently deprive the owner" of something (his royalties/income etc).

The wimps at the Crown Prosecution Service got a bit scared however of prosecuting people for theft hence the CDPA 88 was passed - effectively downgrading the offence, whilst the government could trumpet to its paymasters (i.e. global media corporates, Rupert Murdoch etc) that they have Taken Tough Action, so there!

---

Yes I imagine there is a certain amount of truth in that, although I have to say I don't necessarily subscribe to the view that the Theft Act covers it. Whatever. At the end of the day, in respect of this particular argument it is mere semantics as the issue is not about what offence but whether it is right or wrong.

Maybe some case law would be good, for anyone willing to take the plunge....!

Incidentally, the argument about stealing a ferrari just so you could demo it? Purleeze!! I bought a new car 2 years ago and I was allowed a test drive (maybe another if I pushed it) but there was never any mention of having for a weekend to try it out completely, and I would not have expected it. Same with my telly, my mobile phone, my Strat etc etc. Why is it with software (well music software to be frank) we feel we have to try it out for an extended period of time before we buy it.

'Yes those flowers look lovely, but I'll tell you what, I will just take them home for a couple of days, see if they fit my colourscheme. If they do I'll have them, but if not.. well I'll have to bring them back, sorry!'

What pees me off is not the act itself, (a little bit selfish but I use hardware and not software, well not music software in any case) but it's the continual trying to justify it all the time. Why don't people just admit that D/Ling software is free, easy, immediate and relatively risk free instead of thinking of 'moral reasons' as to why they don't pay for it? There are enough people who would admit to speeding for example, which has vastly more serious consequences.

Quote hifistud2:

---

Quote Steve Hill:

---

I don't share your view that using a crack is a good "demo" of a product. If they can't provide a decent enough demo to allow me to decide if I want something, I won't buy it. Their loss.

---

No Steinberg soxware, then?

---

None whatsoever. I really, really don't buy anything ever off the back of crippled demos.

Although I will buy on the personal recommendation of e.g. a producer or engineer who I know and whose views I respect. (Better still, they sometimes bring a package they swear by into the studio for a project and I get a good look at it).

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote dmills:

---

Quote Bill C:

---

It seems that this whole "software is free" thing came out of the unix world. All well and good but a lot of that software was being written by publicly funded academics.

---

Hey, don't blame us!
Actually the Unix world has tended to be very good about respecting copyrights (In spite of the numerous legal pissing matches that occurred - AT&T/UCB first amongst them). Sure the Unix world never developed a 'shareware' market in the way that the PC scene did, and there is a long tradition of very permissive licensing (See the BSD license, or the GPL for slightly less permissive, but a better fit for what many casual developers want), which again never really occurred in the PC world, but this blatant widespread copyright infringement did not originate with us.

---

yes, I agree with what you say - I didn't express myself very well - I was just suggesting that a lot of "free" software was developed for the unix world, not that there was rampant copyright theft there, but maybe this set some sort of precedent for people thinking of software as being free.

If the precedent came via that route (and I am not convinced it did), then it predates Unix, anyone remember DecTape (A collection of user contributed software for the PDP series minicomputers maintained at some US university and distributed periodically on tape (9 track or paper, depending on what hardware you owned)?

Personally I think the collision of Unix and platforms that were affordable to run it on occurred too late to be the route for this ('386 was really the first PC platform that could run Unix as a modern user would recognize it), I know that cassettes and bootleg eproms were circulating in the hobbiest scene at least 10 years before that.

Unix (Really Freebsd and Linux) only really appeared on the hobbiest horizon somewhere in the 90s, and I can remember tapes of manic miner and the old infracom games being traded in playgrounds a good 10 years before that.

Regards, Dan.

--------------------
Audiophiles use phono leads because they are unbalanced people!

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Lots of demos are fully functional, not crippled (UAD plugins come to mind), but are valid only for a limited period... long enough to give them a decent workout, and long enough (from the manufacturer's point of view) to get you hooked so you buy it when the demo expires.

---

Yeah, in my first post on this thread, I mentioned Adobe did time limited demos. They're great. I don't have a problem with those--fully functional for 30 days! Righteous!

But if I can't test how one of these DAWs exports/encodes tracks (for example) to various formats, rates, etc., it's not very helpful. Also, I export midi files, FX banks, VST settings, etc. from program to program, and that function is always disabled, too.

My main point was the smidgen of guilt I feel i guess. That usually ends once I purchase the license or remove the software from my machine. My justification is that I don't seek to justify or defend the practice I use, but it comes in handy once or twice a year.

Just for the hell of it while I was out from work with pneumonia for a month, I learned how to crack and re-encode DVDs just for fun. I don't do it but i wanted to know how it was done and I was bored. It actually started with me wanting to export the "Renaissance Parts I & II" off the Animatrix DVD so I could make one single video file that wasn't in 2 parts (it seemed rather pointless to make 2 7.5 minute parts when one fifteen minute video was adequate for viewing purposes. Anyway, I did it and it sits in my "My Documents" folder and I watch it from time to time. I own the DVD and didn't profit from it (other than teaching myself a controversial and fun new skill!)...

Quote Steve Hill:

---

It's a bit of a lawyers' debate I'm afraid. I take the view that the good old Theft Act was fine as the intention of the pirate was to "permanently deprive the owner" of something (his royalties/income etc).

The wimps at the Crown Prosecution Service got a bit scared however of prosecuting people for theft hence the CDPA 88 was passed - effectively downgrading the offence, whilst the government could trumpet to its paymasters (i.e. global media corporates, Rupert Murdoch etc) that they have Taken Tough Action, so there!

---

That's not entirely correct. The Theft Act is criminal law and in the UK a criminal case must be proven in court beyond reasonable doubt. Civil law must be proven to the less onerous balance of probabilities.

Given that nothing tangible is ever stolen - the owner still has a copy of her software, using the Theft Act would place an onus on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any software copied was actually used, was used at a particular time and place and that such use of it constituted a permanent loss to rightful owner. This allows a defense of having a copy but not having used it, or of not having used it sufficiently to cause real loss, of having the copy rightfully thereby forcing the owner to prove the opposite in court. Criminal law is stronger, it feels good and satisfies the grinding of teeth, but is next to impossible to enforce on a meaningful basis.

Civil law allows the mere ownership of the copy to prove on the balance of probabilities a loss took place.

True, but that's what I mean about watering the law down in 1988 in order to get some (any!) penalties to stick.

The real problem is your average PC Plod does not understand these sorts of crimes. Don't even get me started on trying to make fraud charges stick....

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

--------------------
Nobukazu Takemura = God.

This doesn't really apply to the topic of this thread, but it has to do with the copyright laws in the EU changing. The Gowers Review on Intellectual Property came out and recommended the copyright laws "be amended to allow for an exception creative, transformative, or derivative works."

(www.hm-treasury.gov.uk).

I wonder if this might sort of be the EU's version of "fair use" used in the US. If this has been posted elsewhere, forgive me, I only read about it today and remembered we'd touched on copyright laws in this thread.

Cheers!

Quote Steve Hill:

---

Why should they be? Computers do not make people into especially talented musicians any more than 8 hours violin lessons a day for 15 years does.

---

Ahem?

Pardon? Do I detect a slight swipe here? I WAS talking
about the past, and possible issues about the "now" .

Or was that just an "accidental" highlight you bad maaaaan!

Anyhow,sorry to reprise a dead thread - 2-monthly access If Im lucky (and indeed if everyone else is too!).

Les

--------------------
"If I had all the money i'd spent on drink, i'd spend it on drink". Vivian Stanshall

Edited by Les (10/03/07 05:05 AM)

This thread has gone in the same way as it usually ends, both sides going out by the same door they entered!.

'So think about whose murder you might be funding when you use cracks. (And don't even pause to think about how e.g. the CIA might deal with you if they decide you're part of the problem!)'

No offence but this kind of talk is the sort of thing that really makes me cringe, the linking of piracy to terrorism nonsense, its just like government propaganda.Its not right to copy software and use it but people will allways do it until it becomes impossible, i feel for the developers of software but such is the nature of the computer world as it allways has been from the start.

The large scale piracy/P2P issue is quite a bad problem,but i have no problem with any individual who swaps software between a friend,even most developers have at some point done this (i am quite sure and dont admit it!) .Most people who copy software also buy software,it is none of my business what other indivduals do ,they must answer to their own conscience.

Many people have grown up using computers in such a way as they cannot see piracy as wrong,it all comes down to setting up good support and personal connection with the user as key to this problem.

Good luck with your software business Hollow sun i appreciate your work and your need to defend your work

Myself I try to see the other's view and think it is better to help people by education, not condemnation.Over time maybe attitudes will change over this matter,maybe i need to change my attitude.





--------------------
A gentleman is a man who can play "jump" on keyboards, but chooses not to