Poll

What do you think is ok?

You should pay for everything.
18 (7.3%)
Tweaking hardware is ok, downloading or tweaking software is not.
22 (8.9%)
Tweaking hardware and software is ok, if it is mine I can do what I want.
155 (63%)
Everything is ok as long as it saves me money.
31 (12.6%)
Something else.
20 (8.1%)

Total Members Voted: 237

Author Topic: Stealing: The double standard?  (Read 95057 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline VEGETA

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1273
  • Country: jo
  • I am the cult of personality
    • Thundertronics
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #25 on: March 03, 2013, 08:58:21 pm »
so you are against using hacked software with a keygen or a patch?

 

Offline M. András

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1020
  • Country: hu
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #26 on: March 03, 2013, 09:07:59 pm »
if the protection only a licence code, you make a keygen which genereates the right codes its not hacked at all cos the files from the software stays the same as the original version, while if you change the exe or other files its hacked now.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32003
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #27 on: March 03, 2013, 09:18:21 pm »
Here is my take on it:

Hardware:
If I pay my money and buy hardware, I should have the right to do whatever I want with it. Hack it, improve it, whatever. If the manufacturer chooses to put things hidden in there, then tough, don't complain when I find it. Be it a gold nugget that only pops out when you enter a license key, or extra bandwidth capability. But yes, I fully support a manufacturers right to cripple hardware (or include a gold nugget) to improve their profit margin, pay for R&D costs etc, they should know and understand that is the risk they take should they chose to do that.

Software
If I pay my money and buy software, I should have the right to do whatever I want with it. Hack it, improve it, whatever. If the software company chooses to put things hidden in there, then tough, don't complain when I find it.  But yes, I fully support a companies right to cripple software to improve their profit margin, pay for R&D costs etc, they should know and understand that is the risk they take should they chose to do that.
Take for example, the video editing software I use, Sony vegas Movie Studio. I paid for it and downloaded it. Sony Vegas MovieStudio is an entirely different binary and download to "Sony Vegas Pro" So if I downloaded a copy of Vegas pro and keygened it, that's stealing. But if the Movie Studio binary I paid for and downloaded actually contained Vegas Pro hidden in it, and I happen to find it and figure out how to make it work. Tough, that was the risk Sony would have taken.

It is wrong not to pay for either one of them.

Dave.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2013, 09:25:21 pm by EEVblog »
 

Offline Bloch

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
  • Country: dk
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #28 on: March 03, 2013, 09:25:09 pm »
Usually when you are installing the software (or downloading a free trial) you are bound to the "End User License Agreement" - a contract that nobody reads and everybody blindly clicks "Yes"... :)

This is a contract electronically signed by you which usually states you can't reverse engineer, modify, etc. This is the piece that makes software hacking/copying/etc illegal, and the "crime" is breach of contract.

Even if you are in a country different than the one of the original software manufacturer, answering "yes" still makes you legally bound - in practice, it obviously is a lot harder to pursue any infringement unless the local law enforces its validity and sets the penalties.


If i buy this software [size=78%]http://www.embarcadero.com/products/delphi[/size] it cost many dollars !! I live in denmark. Let us say that i move to USA. I that case i cant use the software legaly  :palm: . Is that ok ?


How to find out. Buy the software ...... install the software .... read the License Agreement.  :--



 

Online PA0PBZ

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4436
  • Country: nl
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #29 on: March 03, 2013, 09:25:28 pm »
You can argue that it's not "hacking" at all.
It's simply using the existing commands in the unit, using an existing user interface.

So when I simply use the existing commands on my PC (the DOS debugger), using an existing user interface (DOS 3.1) to hack P-CAD to run without the dongle it is OK? (yes, I know, long time ago  :) )

Or when I buy a Windows Home version I can hack it into an Ultimate version, would that be OK?

People can argue all they want over what's "stealing" and what's not, but you can't argue the huge difference between hardware (that you have to buy) and software which has no inherent tangible value, and can be trivially copied for no cost.

So basically what you are saying is as long as you pay a little bit it is OK? I don't see the difference in hacking a piece of hardware to do things you normally have to pay for and hacking a demo software to keep running or making all options available.

Keyboard error: Press F1 to continue.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32003
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #30 on: March 03, 2013, 09:28:11 pm »
If i buy this software [size=78%]http://www.embarcadero.com/products/delphi[/size] it cost many dollars !! I live in denmark. Let us say that i move to USA. I that case i cant use the software legaly  :palm: . Is that ok ?
How to find out. Buy the software ...... install the software .... read the License Agreement.  :--

That's ridiculous and not ok. If you pay for it, it's yours.
Same thing with software that I can't install and use on multiple computers.

Dave.
 

Offline Bloch

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 441
  • Country: dk
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #31 on: March 03, 2013, 09:31:36 pm »
Or that about the problem with iphone

I buy the Phone from apple.

I buy some APP from APP store.

Apple remove the software from the APP store after some time .......

Is that ok ??
« Last Edit: March 03, 2013, 09:42:59 pm by Bloch »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32003
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #32 on: March 03, 2013, 09:34:31 pm »
So when I simply use the existing commands on my PC (the DOS debugger), using an existing user interface (DOS 3.1) to hack P-CAD to run without the dongle it is OK? (yes, I know, long time ago  :) )

NO! because you downloaded and are using P-CAD without paying for it!

Can't you see the difference? You paid for the scope. You didn't pay for P-CAD.
Once you pay for the scope, you should be able to do anything you want with it.
Once you buy P-CAD, you should be able to do anything you want with it.
If you walk into your local dealer and walk out with your scope without paying for it, you are stealing it.
If you download P-CAD without paying for it, you are stealing it.

So basically what you are saying is as long as you pay a little bit it is OK? I don't see the difference in hacking a piece of hardware to do things you normally have to pay for and hacking a demo software to keep running or making all options available.

There is huge difference between paying for something and then hacking the item you legally bought, and hacking and using software you did not pay for!

Dave.
 

alm

  • Guest
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #33 on: March 03, 2013, 09:44:39 pm »
If I pay my money and buy software, I should have the right to do whatever I want with it. Hack it, improve it, whatever. If the software company chooses to put things hidden in there, then tough, don't complain when I find it.  But yes, I fully support a companies right to cripple software to improve their profit margin, pay for R&D costs etc, they should know and understand that is the risk they take should they chose to do that.
How would you apply this to Eagle? Cadsoft give you the software for free with limitations (board size, layers, no commercial use). You acquired the software legally from cadsoftusa.com. Would you consider circumventing these (technical and/or legal) limitations acceptable?

That's ridiculous and not ok. If you pay for it, it's yours.
Same thing with software that I can't install and use on multiple computers.
Few software companies will agree. Most want you to buy a license per computer you run it on. And of course a new license if you buy a new computer and throw the old one away (this was a recent change for Microsoft Office). Few consumer hardware companies will agree. See for example Sony, Microsoft and Apple.

If you download P-CAD without paying for it, you are stealing it.
No, you're not. You may be illegally acquiring it, but that does not make it stealing. Just like how smuggling it past customs is not stealing, or using a patented technology without paying royalties, or circumventing protection against running unauthorized software on your consumer electronics widget.
 

Offline UPI

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 139
  • Country: us
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #34 on: March 03, 2013, 09:48:03 pm »
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

 

Offline mariush

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3983
  • Country: ro
  • .
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #35 on: March 03, 2013, 09:54:04 pm »
If I pay my money and buy software, I should have the right to do whatever I want with it. Hack it, improve it, whatever. If the software company chooses to put things hidden in there, then tough, don't complain when I find it.  But yes, I fully support a companies right to cripple software to improve their profit margin, pay for R&D costs etc, they should know and understand that is the risk they take should they chose to do that.
How would you apply this to Eagle? Cadsoft give you the software for free with limitations (board size, layers, no commercial use). You acquired the software legally from cadsoftusa.com. Would you consider circumventing these (technical and/or legal) limitations acceptable?

When you install the software or before you download it, you have to click on a button that says you agree with some terms. It's basically a "verbal contract" that says they "lend" you the software (or a part of the software) for a period of time so that you can evaluate it and make a decision.
It's your software just as much as a book you borrow from the local library is yours while it's borrowed, technically even though the software is on your computer it's not your property.

I agree with Dave on this one, you should pay for the software but after you purchase a copy, it is  (or should be) your right to whatever you want with it, just as you would with a painting, or a car, or a kitchen utensil.  You should be able to use it anywhere in the world, for whatever purpose you want.

If you don't want me to unlock features, don't hide them away in the software or hardware, expecting me to pay more to get them.
 

Offline VEGETA

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1273
  • Country: jo
  • I am the cult of personality
    • Thundertronics
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #36 on: March 03, 2013, 10:01:27 pm »
Or that about the problem with iphone

I buy the Phone from apple.

I buy some APP from APP store.

Apple remove the software from the APP store after some time .......

Is that ok ??

It's OK YES! why? because you put a lot of money to buy product from a company that have retarded policies.

they force users to use their own software, if the software you need isn't there, that's not their problem.

and the good software costs you money....

on the other hand, you can buy another product (galaxy) which uses android and gives you a lot of FREEDOM to use it and THEN millions of people will learn how to design programs for it.... and you will find 5 programs to do the thing you wanted instead of one.

^
by doing that, the company will put 100% effort into improving their products and never worry about any kinda copyright which gives them 0 benefit.

meanwhile, apple dedicate a lot of money and effort into armies of lawyers to track their copyrights.

but the majority of people will buy the iphone cuz it's from apple not because they know it's features, I see that a lot.

Here, it's valid for me to try running any hackable thing to use any software I want... simply because I payed 500$ for the damn thing!!

legal or not, it's the way it's and it's the way everyone will do... it's very different than someone who didn't pay anything and use illegal software.

 

alm

  • Guest
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #37 on: March 03, 2013, 10:06:36 pm »
When you install the software or before you download it, you have to click on a button that says you agree with some terms. It's basically a "verbal contract" that says they "lend" you the software (or a part of the software) for a period of time so that you can evaluate it and make a decision.
It's your software just as much as a book you borrow from the local library is yours while it's borrowed, technically even though the software is on your computer it's not your property.
Fair enough, you recognize the EULA as a valid contract. So you are not allowed to use the free Eagle for commercial use, or reverse engineer or modify it in any way, including removing limitations.

I agree with Dave on this one, you should pay for the software but after you purchase a copy, it is  (or should be) your right to whatever you want with it, just as you would with a painting, or a car, or a kitchen utensil.  You should be able to use it anywhere in the world, for whatever purpose you want.
The software that you paid with comes with exactly the same EULA, however. It's not like Eagle has a separate EULA for free and paying users. It quite explicitly states that you do not own the software and may not be able to use it for some purposes. Some software comes with licensing terms that forbid you from using it to make a competing product, forbid you from publishing a review or benchmarks on it, or forbid you from using it to produce weapons. How are these terms different from the terms you argued for in the previous paragraph?
 

Offline mamalala

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
  • Country: de
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #38 on: March 03, 2013, 10:11:51 pm »
This is a contract electronically signed by you which usually states you can't reverse engineer, modify, etc. This is the piece that makes software hacking/copying/etc illegal, and the "crime" is breach of contract.

Even if you are in a country different than the one of the original software manufacturer, answering "yes" still makes you legally bound - in practice, it obviously is a lot harder to pursue any infringement unless the local law enforces its validity and sets the penalties.

Not directly related to this topic, but: Your statement is not universally true. For example, in Germany those EULA's (and other shrink-wrap license agreements) have exactly zero legal standing. The reason is that we have consumer protection laws that require that you see such agreements before you open/install anything. If it would be printed on the box, or on the receipt from the shop you buy it, and in readable font sizes, then it would have any meaning. But for stuff you can not see/read before you open up the package or install the software there is no way that the manufacturer or seller can hold you up to it.

Of course, fundamental rights of the manufacturer, like a general copyright, is untouched by this.

Greetings,

Chris
 

Offline Alana

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • Country: pl
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #39 on: March 03, 2013, 10:12:33 pm »
This software piracy thing reminds me of stories of how catholic church dealt with witchcraft in middle ages. Most people were involved in some sort of magic but only a few were caught by inquisition.
It was wrong because church [who had legal monopoly on spirituality and magic] said so. And they said so because they benefited from this situation allot.

With software piracy its basically the same. The only difference is that you do not die if they find out your pirated windoze or altium.

 

Online PA0PBZ

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4436
  • Country: nl
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #40 on: March 03, 2013, 10:20:00 pm »
So when I simply use the existing commands on my PC (the DOS debugger), using an existing user interface (DOS 3.1) to hack P-CAD to run without the dongle it is OK? (yes, I know, long time ago  :) )

NO! because you downloaded and are using P-CAD without paying for it!


No, I did not download it (I think it was not even possible in those days, there was no such thing as the 'internet'), it came on like 40 5.25"disks if I remember correctly. I hacked it for someone who bought it and wanted to use it on multiple computers.
Keyboard error: Press F1 to continue.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32003
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #41 on: March 03, 2013, 10:25:24 pm »
That's ridiculous and not ok. If you pay for it, it's yours.
Same thing with software that I can't install and use on multiple computers.
Few software companies will agree. Most want you to buy a license per computer you run it on.

Then I won't buy from them, and neither should anyone else IME.

Dave.
 

Offline Wuerstchenhund

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3040
  • Country: gb
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #42 on: March 03, 2013, 10:33:04 pm »
Usually when you are installing the software (or downloading a free trial) you are bound to the "End User License Agreement" - a contract that nobody reads and everybody blindly clicks "Yes"... :)

This is a contract electronically signed by you which usually states you can't reverse engineer, modify, etc. This is the piece that makes software hacking/copying/etc illegal, and the "crime" is breach of contract.

Even if you are in a country different than the one of the original software manufacturer, answering "yes" still makes you legally bound.

Not necessarily. I know in the US, software vendors can get through with almost anything (the laws are clearly made for corporations and not end users) including the borderline fraudulent shrink-wrap licenses, but here in Europe the story is quite a bit different.

For one thing, software which goes to consumers is generally sold and not licensed. And second, unless the click to agree licenses follow certain standards (end users are not expected to read, understand and agree to multipage gibberish in lawyer-speak) they are null and void.
 

alm

  • Guest
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #43 on: March 03, 2013, 10:40:25 pm »
Few software companies will agree. Most want you to buy a license per computer you run it on.

Then I won't buy from them, and neither should anyone else IME.

Dave.

This is license looks like it might apply to Sony Vegas:
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/corporate/eula
Quote
The Software is licensed, not sold. Sony grants you a limited license to use the Software only on one (1) computer or mobile device, as applicable, and you may create one (1) back up copy of the Software.

From the DipTrace EULA:
Quote
You can use one registered copy on one computer at a time. If you would like to use the software on several computers you should order a corresponding number of licenses.

Did you buy any Microsoft software? Apart from some family/volume licensing schemes, almost all of them are also limited to one computer. The only exception of the programs I checked was ironically Altium.
 

Offline mamalala

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
  • Country: de
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #44 on: March 03, 2013, 10:40:49 pm »
For things that are bought and owned, i see absolutely no problem in tampering with the code to have it do whatever the owner wants. Money and goods changed hands, so there is no stealing involved.

For example the bandwidth or options in scopes. The machine _does_ have these things already built in at the moment it is bought. If the manufacturer doesn't like that the 50 MHz scope can be tampered with so as to be a 100 MHz scope, then it is up to them to not include that stuff in the first place. To me that is the exact same as buying a "fixed" analogue scope and then reworking the input and timebase circuitry to give it twice the bandwidth. Only difference is that nowdays, the manufacturer already included the parts needed for that.

Also, i think that there is a huge difference between some software program meant to run on a generic computer and a piece of hardware that includes some firmware. In the latter case the firmware is an integral part of the machine: it can not work without it, unlike for example a CAD program: the computer would still work fine, wether the CAD package is installed or not. So, tampering with a devices firmware is no different than tampering with the hardware circuitry of that machine. Both require each other to work.

Last but not least, let's not forget that many manufacturers love it to throw licenses and crap into the users faces, while at the same time giving crap about these things themselves. Prime example here is the widespread use of Linux (and the busybox program used on most embedded Linuxes). I think that many China scopes (and other gear) use it as well. So, they would be required to offer you at least all the code that is under GPL. If they make changes to such code, they would have to give you that as well. In source code, no less. But you rarely see them doing that right away, more often than not they have to be forced to hand out that stuff. So who are they to whine about users giving a crap about their licenses, when they themselves don't respect the licenses of others?

Keep in mind that on paper, a lot of laws sound rather strong and freedom-limiting. But laws don't exist in a vacuum, they are constrained by other laws. Just take the DMCA style crap for example. Yes, even here in Germany you are not allowed by law to cicumvent a protection scheme. However, if that protection scheme interferes with the allowed use of what you bought, you are free to tamper with it as much as you like. Have a software that requires a dongle to work, but said dongle causes trouble using the printer on the same LPT port? You are allowed to "hack out" that protection. Lost the dongle for a software? Same applies, plus you could even reverse engineer it to make your own dongle if you like. LIcense server causes trouble in your network, or causes vulnerabilities in the network? Feel free to circumvent it then. Copy protection schemes on CD, DVD, etc. causing problems during playback? You can then circumvent it. All that of course is assuming that you previously legally bought the software/media/machine.

Greetings,

Chris
 

Offline mamalala

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 777
  • Country: de
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #45 on: March 03, 2013, 10:48:52 pm »
This is license looks like it might apply to Sony Vegas:
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/corporate/eula

Quote
The Software is licensed, not sold. Sony grants you a limited license to use the Software only on one (1) computer or mobile device, as applicable, and you may create one (1) back up copy of the Software.

From the DipTrace EULA:
Quote
You can use one registered copy on one computer at a time. If you would like to use the software on several computers you should order a corresponding number of licenses.

Did you buy any Microsoft software? Apart from some family/volume licensing schemes, almost all of them are also limited to one computer. The only exception of the programs I checked was ironically Altium.

The problem is that manufacturers can write whatever they want into their EULA's and agreements. That does not, however, make them valid. They have to follow the laws of the country a particular user lives in in and bought/uses the stuff. They can not put in stuff that goes against local laws and expect it to be binding. It's pretty clear that software vendors try to avoid/ignore that simple fact at all cost.

Plus, for example in Germany, a contract or license that you can not read before actually opening/installing the stuff is void by default. You must be able to read the contract/license in the shop where you buy it, beforehand. It doesn't matter if it is available on some website, since no one can guarantee that you have read the correct version. It must come with the product and in a way that enables you to read it first, then buy/open/install the stuff.

Greetings,

Chris
 

Offline Lightages

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 4302
  • Country: ca
  • Canadian po
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #46 on: March 03, 2013, 10:52:12 pm »
I smell a thread lock coming.....
 

Offline David_AVD

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2607
  • Country: au
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #47 on: March 03, 2013, 10:55:59 pm »
That's ridiculous and not ok. If you pay for it, it's yours.
Same thing with software that I can't install and use on multiple computers.
Few software companies will agree. Most want you to buy a license per computer you run it on.

Then I won't buy from them, and neither should anyone else IME.

I use Delphi and that allows one developer per licence, but they do allow that developer to install it on multiple machines.  Occasionally I run out of seats (new computer, etc) but a quick email to Embarcadero sees them bump it up for me.  If they ever go bust that may become an issue mind you.

Altium will also allow multiple developers I believe with the "only one in use at any time" limit imposed by network locks.  I don't have an issue with that and paid for a licence.

I would really like to be able to use my Sony Vegas licence (that I bought for home) at work occasionally though.
 

Offline IanB

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9760
  • Country: us
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #48 on: March 03, 2013, 11:00:21 pm »
Changing the subject a little, I have trouble seeing what Agilent gain from selling a crippled version of their multimeter as noted elsewhere.

To produce the other version they have to design and produce a case with different graphics.

They have to insert code in the ROM to switch features on and off.

They have more testing to do to make sure both ROM versions work.

They have to split production into two separate streams to produce two versions of the product.

Their overall design, manufacturing, test and QA costs go up.

For this they get to sell a product for less money.

So it costs them more to sell for less. How can it possibly make business sense to do this?
I'm not an EE--what am I doing here?
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 32003
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Stealing: The double standard?
« Reply #49 on: March 03, 2013, 11:00:39 pm »
This is license looks like it might apply to Sony Vegas:
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/corporate/eula

The Software is licensed, not sold. Sony grants you a limited license to use the Software only on one (1) computer or mobile device, as applicable, and you may create one (1) back up copy of the Software.

Shame that their online registration process allows me to install the software on multiple machines. It asks you for a serial number every time you install it on a new machine, and it validates it online.

Dave.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2013, 11:03:49 pm by EEVblog »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf