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?
So if I buy a fridge and convert it into a keg cooler, so I owe the manufacture the difference in price?
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.
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.
The issue is software copyright, imo.
Sure, what I mean is that laws are not the only reason people don't do things.
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.
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.
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.
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 :-)
Once again, no one has ever provided example of any case law in this regard, in any country that I am aware of.
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.
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.
You shouldn't be messing with your own hardware either to get channels you didn't pay for.
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?
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
QuoteYou 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?