Stealing: The double standard?

[EEVblog]

We can anthropomorphise a moral code onto animals but does that mean they have actually developed one? Or are they following some other evolutionary imperative which produces behaviour we like to choose is good or bad?

If both produce the same behaviour, what's the difference?
The only difference is that we can communicate it, analyse it, and discuss it, they most likely can't. That doesn't make their "morals" / empathy / whatever other trait they exhibit any less than ours in a basic sense IMO.

[AlfBaz]

I think the pertinent question would be, how different would our morals/behaviour be if we weren't exposed to them since birth. People raised in the wild aren't called savages for nothing

[orion242]

So if I buy a fridge and convert it into a keg cooler, so I owe the manufacture the difference in price?

[c4757p]

So if I buy a fridge and convert it into a keg cooler, so I owe the manufacture the difference in price?

Not that I agree with the argument, but the argument is more that if you buy a fridge, under the condition that you will not convert it into a keg cooler, you may not convert it.

[AlfBaz]

I think the pertinent question would be, how different would our morals/behaviour be if we weren't exposed to them since birth. People raised in the wild aren't called savages for nothing

I am having a hard time trying to think of where a human child has been raised in the wild. Surely if it is raised in a tribe then it is no longer in the wild. Mostly I think they were called savages for no particularly good reason. The contemporary veneer of "civilisation" is very thin.

The point is if an animal is raised closely with humans they also learn what's acceptable and what isn't. We may be more intelligent but we don't have a monopoly on emotions

[EEVblog]

Not that I agree with the argument, but the argument is more that if you buy a fridge, under the condition that you will not convert it into a keg cooler, you may not convert it.

Say who?
Just because the lawyers at some company might put in some hidden term & conditions in some product purchase agreement that one one ever reads or signs, does not make it legally enforceable.
Quite simply, if the manufacturer decides to hide features in a product, and you purchase this product outright, then they take the risk of you being able to figure out how to access the hidden stuff.
When I buy a scope form my dealer, or even direct form the manufacturer, there is no purchase agreement, and no agreement has been signed. It is a simple straight out exchange of goods for money.
I can assure you that in the case of oscilloscopes, all the major players I have spoken to that do this accept that this is a risk. They know they cannot stop people modifying/hacking their own gear, and they don't even try. They made the choice as strategic business decision and they wear the risk. The best they can do is void the warranty, but even then that's not entirely legally enforceable either in many countries.

I'm not sure why anyone bothers to continue argue the point?
1) It's not illegal to hack a scope you own (no state or federal law)
2) There is no purchase agreement
3) There is no case law history
4) There is no record of any manufacturer even attempting to stop hacking of scopes
5) The manufacturers themselves admit they take the risk

It's a total non-issue.
The only thing left to quibble over is 'morals". And to me, when I buy something, it's mine. If there is something hidden inside, and I can access it, that's mine too.  No problems.

[JuKu]

The issue is software copyright, imo. The "By downloading this file you agree to this license" is enforceable. Writing your own software to hack a scope is fine, downloading the software for a higher model and getting that to run... Well, what did it say on the page you got the software from?

[EEVblog]

The issue is software copyright, imo.

Not so.
Take the Rigol hack for example. You do nothing but send it a serial command.
Or say a keygen hack. You download a keygen program (or compile it from source) and generate a code you enter. Not download copyright is violated. You have not taken anything from the manufacturer in terms of software that you did not pay for. The software is already in the scope you paid for, it's yours. If they sold it to you cheap because they thought they could hide it from your use, that's their problem, not yours.

[EEVblog]

Sure, what I mean is that laws are not the only reason people don't do things.

Sure.
No one is forcing you to hack your scope, it's your choice.
But because it is not illegal, then no one has any right to tell someone they shouldn't do it, once again it's their choice.
In society we make laws for things that have (in theory) been determined by society to be unacceptable, and for which you which you will be penalised if caught.
But of course there are some things that are not illegal, but you may still pay a price socially. A married person having an affair for example.
But a hacking a scope really doesn't hold any grey area. It's not illegal, and you really aren't going to pay any social penalty by doing so. So the only penalty is potentially within yourself.

[nctnico]

Not that I agree with the argument, but the argument is more that if you buy a fridge, under the condition that you will not convert it into a keg cooler, you may not convert it.

Say who?
Just because the lawyers at some company might put in some hidden term & conditions in some product purchase agreement that one one ever reads or signs, does not make it legally enforceable.
Quite simply, if the manufacturer decides to hide features in a product, and you purchase this product outright, then they take the risk of you being able to figure out how to access the hidden stuff.
When I buy a scope form my dealer, or even direct form the manufacturer, there is no purchase agreement, and no agreement has been signed. It is a simple straight out exchange of goods for money.
I can assure you that in the case of oscilloscopes, all the major players I have spoken to that do this accept that this is a risk. They know they cannot stop people modifying/hacking their own gear, and they don't even try. They made the choice as strategic business decision and they wear the risk. The best they can do is void the warranty, but even then that's not entirely legally enforceable either in many countries.

I'm not sure why anyone bothers to continue argue the point?
1) It's not illegal to hack a scope you own (no state or federal law)
2) There is no purchase agreement
3) There is no case law history
4) There is no record of any manufacturer even attempting to stop hacking of scopes
5) The manufacturers themselves admit they take the risk

It's a total non-issue.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. As I stated before game console makers succesfully sued companies en persons (from NL) who created commercial tools (hardware and/or software) to enable people to run copies of games and their own software on their hardware. You run this website as a commercial venture and (amongst lots of other things) publish hacks for various pieces of equipment to make money. That certainly is a grey area.

A Dutch computer magazine found themselves in a criminal court for publishing a manual on how to watch a paid TV channel for free using software from internet. After 8 years in court the author of the article was found guilty but didn't have to pay a fine or go to jail (unless he would do something similar within 2 years). He did got a criminal record though.

[JuKu]

+1. No different than my 3D CAD program: I know it has functions for a higher end version, but I have only paid for the key to the lesser version. All I need to do to get the high-end version is to purchase a better key. It is not ok to find a keygen program to give me the key.

It is usual to have a demo program that becomes a full version with a correct license key. Sure it is not ok to download a demo, download a keygen and enjoy.

And I have no idea about Rigol software license, I don't have one. Heck, I don't have any idea about my laser printer or scope licenses, although I'm sure those exist.

[EEVblog]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. As I stated before game console makers succesfully sued companies en persons (from NL) who created commercial tools (hardware and/or software) to enable people to run copies of games and their own software on their hardware.

We are not talking about game consoles.
You can try and compare them all you want, fact is that this industry is different, and the mechanism of the hack is different.
People are downloading the games illegally instead of paying for it. But people buy a scope and it comes with all the software and features built in, you bought it and own it.

You run this website as a commercial venture and (amongst lots of other things) publish hacks for various pieces of equipment to make money. That certainly is a grey area.

Good luck to anyone trying to sue me for running a community forum. I do not allow pirated material on this forum.

[JuKu]

I actually did my homework(!) on this after my previous post. Disclaimers: 1) I'm not a real lawyer, although I did a few law courses in university. 2) I read the Finnish law; I'm sure it is pretty much compliant to EU laws and those should be pretty much like anywhere else. 3) I'm using layman English, I don't know the real legal translations. 4) The conclusions are my own.
--
Short version: Turns out the Rigol (or HP) software licensing terms don't matter, unless they specifically allow hacking and you know they do. Hacking your scope is not ok. 

Long version:
- When you buy something, you enter to implied agreements. It is not necessary to read or sign anything. You buy a cup of coffee, and there are a lot of legally binding agreements on both sides, implied by the act. No signed agreements are needed.
- Hacking keys to get something you didn't pay for is illegal (payTV, turning demo software to full version etc).
- Ignorance is not bliss. If it is commonly known or you personally should have known something to be illegal, it is. In other words: A professional or an advanced hobbyist (needing a software based scope) should understand the concept of embedded software. Everyone should understand the concept of paying for key, getting a feature.
- Embedded software is software too, with the same protections.

All those are legal facts, that I think can't be really argued, unless laws are changed. You can argue my summary: Buying a scope (or other device with embedded software), the user enters to licensing agreement with the manufacturer. The terms of the agreements are such that could be reasonably expected. You didn't buy the high bandwidth software option, which was available.

Some analogies that I think are relevant: You buy a set-top box, but you are not free to do what you want with it. Specifically, you can't unlock channels that you did not pay for. You expect that keygen program turns your scope to a real higher end model, whereas overclocking a CPU, the expectation is that  the manufacturer guarantees the operation to a limit your paid for and you are experimenting about how high you can go. Totally different issues.

[EEVblog]

I'm not so sure this example is a good one. Software can be sold with a license for end user use, it may not be relevant if it is physically embedded within a low end product. If the purchase price of a lower level product (but still with the enhanced software inside but disabled) was not sold with a license to the enhanced functionality by virtue of a higher price, then there may be a case for the manufacturer to claim you haven't a right to it. It all depends of course on how the courts would view embedded software.

That's kind of a pointless what-if given that:
a) No manufacturer has even done, threatened to, or even indicated that they may action in this regard
b) They readily admit that's a business risk they take

In this world there are an almost infinite amount of things you can get sued over. Anyone can get sued at anything, for any thing. Doesn't make it worth worrying about.

[EEVblog]

All those are legal facts, that I think can't be really argued, unless laws are changed. You can argue my summary: Buying a scope (or other device with embedded software), the user enters to licensing agreement with the manufacturer. The terms of the agreements are such that could be reasonably expected. You didn't buy the high bandwidth software option, which was available.

Once again, no one has ever provided example of any case law in this regard, in any country that I am aware of.
If the manufacturers don't care (as seems to be the case), why should the individual?
It's all a big game. The manufacturers know (and indeed, expect a small percentage of) people do it, and the people know the manufactures don't care because that's how this market works.
When a new hack comes out, the manufacturer shrugs their shoulders and maybe or maybe not does something to patch it.
Heck, some manufacturers might even might even secretly revel in the extra sales.

[Galenbo]

a) No manufacturer has even done, threatened to, or even indicated that they may action in this regard

Indeed, rather the inverse. Rigol saw the marketing potential they have, after the hack, and send you every week a new scope now :-)

[EEVblog]

Indeed, rather the inverse. Rigol saw the marketing potential they have, after the hack, and send you every week a new scope now :-)

True.
Fact of the matter is in this market the manufacturers make most of their money form the big customers and uses  who would never bother hacking a scope, nor even think to look that such a thing is possible. Any lost sales is down in the noise, and it's very arguable that hacks actually have a net positive effect on sales.
The same can't be said for other markets like music, movies, games etc, they are entirely different scenarios.

[Rasz]

Once again, no one has ever provided example of any case law in this regard, in any country that I am aware of.

HP ink
US car mods

[AlfBaz]

A lot of the legalese cited in this latest flurry of activity on this thread seems to use examples that bolsters that very posters own argument.

With the IBM server case, it was against a company who stood to make a profit by distributing software within a legal market framework, who's intent was to subvert a companies attempt to lock the end user into a pay per utilisation scheme. This was not against an individual who bought and paid for an item and then hacked it for their own exclusive use, which is what we are talking about here.

The second talked about entering agreements which required no formal acknowledgement of the agreement. This means if you want to buy something and don't agree with the agreement, there is no fair or reasonable mechanism to inform or prevent the end user from purchasing said item and doing what they want with said item. Again if that end user hacks the machine and does not on sell it as fully licensed and specced up machine, no law has been broken.

With the set top boxes, you normally lease them from the media distributor which means it's not yours, so you shouldn't be messing with it. If you do buy your own, you'll still need to lease the card containing the decryption key and any other data required to watch those channels... you should mess with that either.

I think a lot more weight is placed on these "license agreements" than is actually merited. Several yeas ago I went to a game of skirmish where we had to sign a waiver of some kind agreeing that we were participating at our own risk. I found out later that this waiver was not worth the paper it was printed on

Try and bear in mind what it is that we are actually talking about. Purchasing something outright, modifying it to utilise all of its potential, be it changing out some op-amps for better bandwidth (because the surrounding components, track layout etc are designed for higher speed), or executing software that came with the device but was otherwise rendered useless by some trivial jump if not equal nemonic or buying an after market chip to place in your V8 to gain some more kilowatts

[nctnico]

From the viewpoint from an individual that may be true but Dave is making money by publishing information on how to hack equipment. That is an entirely different story! The fact that equipment manufacturers do not seem to object to that UNTIL NOW doesn't mean it is 100% legal. I'd urge Dave to get something in writing from Rigol, Agilent, etc which says they are OK with Dave publishing hacks for their equipment on his website.

[AlfBaz]

@nctnico

Are you talking about the rigol video that he released ages ago or the threads started by others on this forum?

[JuKu]

The second talked about entering agreements which required no formal acknowledgement of the agreement. This means if you want to buy something and don't agree with the agreement, there is no fair or reasonable mechanism to inform or prevent the end user from purchasing said item and doing what they want with said item. Again if that end user hacks the machine and does not on sell it as fully licensed and specced up machine, no law has been broken.

The point I tried to make that without a formal agreement, a "normal" agreement is assumed. If you don't agree with what can reasonably expected to be "normal", you don't buy.

With the set top boxes, you normally lease them from the media distributor which means it's not yours, so you shouldn't be messing with it.

You shouldn't be messing with your own hardware either to get channels you didn't pay for.

[AlfBaz]

The point I tried to make that without a formal agreement, a "normal" agreement is assumed. If you don't agree with what can reasonably expected to be "normal", you don't buy.

The definition of "normal" would need to be defined in legislation for that to take effect. "Normal" to most people (brought about by thousands of years of barter and trade) would mean that if I by something from you, it's now mine and you have no right to tell me what to do with it

You shouldn't be messing with your own hardware either to get channels you didn't pay for.

If data is broadcast, I capture it, study it and find that modifying that data reveals moving pictures and sounds, how is the onus on me to determine the source of this data and any licensing requirements behind it?

[JuKu]

All those are legal facts, that I think can't be really argued, unless laws are changed. You can argue my summary: Buying a scope (or other device with embedded software), the user enters to licensing agreement with the manufacturer. The terms of the agreements are such that could be reasonably expected. You didn't buy the high bandwidth software option, which was available.

Once again, no one has ever provided example of any case law in this regard, in any country that I am aware of.

There are case examples to all of the points leading to my conclusions. Also the IBM case is close, and the Netherland case might be even closer, if he used his own cable box. And for the latter the law is clear today: You can't hack your own hardware to gain access to channels you didn't buy. But you are right, as far as I know there has not been a court case to find out the significance between 70MHz to 200MHz and TV channels 70 to 200.

If the manufacturers don't care (as seems to be the case), why should the individual?

Didn't Rigol stop making the 2000 series and change it to 2000A, which is not hackable? (I might be wrong on this, I am not looking for a new scope and haven't followed.) On the other hand, they don't seem to care very much, as the "Cease and Desist" letter hasn't come. And they might even be happy for their market share on the low end scopes - or maybe not, the -A model speaks otherwise. It would be nice to get a Rigol spokesman to talk about this!

But certainly, this is one of the cases where the law is more strict than individual hobbyists sense of what is right.

Would the opinions be any different if Rigol would openly sell a "base scope" and software keys for features?

[JuKu]

The point I tried to make that without a formal agreement, a "normal" agreement is assumed. If you don't agree with what can reasonably expected to be "normal", you don't buy.

The definition of "normal" would need to be defined in legislation for that to take effect. "Normal" to most people (brought about by thousands of years of barter and trade) would mean that if I by something from you, it's now mine and you have no right to tell me what to do with it

And fifty or so years of software licensing tells that you don't use software without a license to it. Ok, you win by 11500 year or so.

It seems that the crux of the argument is "Did you modify the hardware?" or "Did you crack the software?"

You shouldn't be messing with your own hardware either to get channels you didn't pay for.

If data is broadcast, I capture it, study it and find that modifying that data reveals moving pictures and sounds, how is the onus on me to determine the source of this data and any licensing requirements behind it?

By your intentions. I'm sure any court would see that you didn't act out of curiosity, you tried to hack access to something you didn't buy a license for. On the other hand, if you do that to a signal you found in your radio telescope and see images of green seven legged creatures, you'd be the scientist of the year.