EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
Products => Test Equipment => Topic started by: jixe on March 18, 2016, 03:22:18 pm
-
Hi,
There seem to be a lot of people hacking DSOs. I was interested to find out why. Why do you do it?
I mean both from a technical requirement point of view and any other reasons come to that. Do you have a specific requirement for high bandwidth? What sort of hobby project would need 300MHz B/W investigation more than once in a year?
I had considered hacking my Rigol 70MHz up to 300MHz, but am having second thoughts. My previous plan was to probe my basic 74HC circuits with a simple LED " in/out/shake it all about " logic probe , just a monostable really. That would have told me all I needed to know maybe 95% of the time. But then I got fascinated by the idea of (a) getting something for nothing and (b) enabling some future extreme high tech project. But what extreme high tech project?
I guess some people have a need for regular fixing of complex digital circuitry that is prone to random ghost glitches, but that would more than likely be a work environment. And similarly expensive serial decoding / triggering would be more in a work environment too, I guess. But why would the everyday hobbyist need more than 70MHz and basic triggering functions?
I had considered putting this in the beginners forum, since I am obviously missing the point here somewhere. Do people have specific projects or kinds of work in mind when they hack scopes, or is my motivation of " if it can be hacked, it should be hacked " the order of the day? If you hack your scope are you also a PC overclocker?
-
For me it isn't really about needing it but more about being able to do it. There isn't really a downside to doing it so why not?
Oh and yes, I am a PC overclocker. Same reason.
-
In order to really understand the nature of engineering, you have to understand what makes an engineer tick. Its his or her natural curiosity about the way things in our world work and why. We are problem solvers. We see a problem and we want to fix it. It gives us the same joy that a care giver obtains from helping others.....they get a smile, we get a blinking led, so to speak.
Its all about learning and the facination with technology around us. Even though we are bound by morals and dont wish to harm others, the curiosity factor in an engineer is huge. This is why hacking is a favorite engineering activity. It has little to do with need, more like hacking is something you do because you can. I am very sucessful but I love hacking because there is an instant reward and its fun. True, company revenues are compromised when one does that and everybody pays in the end for such activity. I have a very high end Agilent, er Keysight MSOX scope that I wrote a check for with many options enabled. Totally legit. However, I hacked a Rigol DSA815 spec analyzer for 10 hz resolution BW because I thought it should be included in the selling price of the instrument. I dont feel guilty.
Dont listen to the nay-sayers of hacking. Be true to your principles and follow your engineering instincts. The accountants will get their money and the hacking community will continue to find leaks and vulnerabilities as they have always done. Remember Steve Job and Steve Wozniack got their start with the blue box dialer that used access codes to hack long distance phone calls. I made one in the seventies and it was the most fun I had ever had with hacking.
-
Thanks for the replies guys, it's as I thought, people do it because it's there - very much my motivation. But I guess I feel it would be nice after hacking, to put the new capabilities to work. Maybe it's true, hacking has to be enjoyed for its's own sake.
-
Most people do not 'hack' their scope, they don't have the skills to do that. A few smart guys are doing that and the rest are just copying the process.
If you're talking about hacking serial numbers or/and unlocking features on your scope, that's plain stealing >:D
-
From my viewpoint, it's about both. I'm looking into one of the hackable cheapies; I need some of the features for my primary hobby and I can't afford to buy the features on a hobbyist budget unless I buy used or hack.
My primary hobby right now is Model Aviation; in particular, I mostly build and fly FPV acrobatic quads. The ones that do this:
http://qz.com/638661/a-teenager-just-won-drone-racings-biggest-ever-prize/ (http://qz.com/638661/a-teenager-just-won-drone-racings-biggest-ever-prize/)
I'm no where NEAR as good a pilot as these guys; I enjoy the building as much or more than the flying.
When building the quad, you get the fun of assembling the mechanical frame, then laying out and wiring the motors, ESCs and flight controller hardware. You have oodles of options regarding the radio control and camera and wireless video equipment; you can even add Telemetry and OSD/HUD to your setup. This ALL requires extensive learning and working in wiring, component selection, mechanical design and programming. You have to connect to and update both the ESCs and flight controllers and even the OSD units; they're all Atmel (Arduino) or similar Silabs CPUs.
In essence, you build a flying blender with telepresence and aerial photography gear, all controlled by a radio link to a scratch-built Beowulf cluster. ;)
Does that sound like fun to you? (http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x462/mnemennth/propellerhead_gif_by_dorklikeme808-d7pdrnr.gif)
mnem
Electrons may be tiny, but when they gang up on you they always win.
-
Most people do not 'hack' their scope, they don't have the skills to do that. A few smart guys are doing that and the rest are just copying the process.
If you're talking about hacking serial numbers or/and unlocking features on your scope, that's plain stealing >:D
I see your point of view cio74, but I can't help wondering what most people would do if they bought a bottle of water and found that the vendor had included a bottle of brandy in the pack, on the understanding that, although he didn't want it returned, you should keep it but not drink it. That seems to me to be similar to the keygen hack on the Rigol.
-
Does that sound like fun to you? (http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x462/mnemennth/propellerhead_gif_by_dorklikeme808-d7pdrnr.gif)
It certainly does sound like fun. Maybe I'll look into it.
I'm starting fairly basic and trying to produce a propeller clock and finding there's more to it than I thought.
Hmm
-
Most people do not 'hack' their scope, they don't have the skills to do that. A few smart guys are doing that and the rest are just copying the process.
Agreed, most of the folks running the keygen against their Rigol gear (myself included) are being the EE equivalent of script-kiddies, not that there's anything fundamentally wrong with that in this context.
If you're talking about hacking serial numbers or/and unlocking features on your scope, that's plain stealing >:D
With all due respect, I think you're mistaken, again at least in terms of Rigol. Their decision not to close any of their licensing security holes, either with firmware updates or new designs for new equipment, fairly clearly illustrate the reality that 'hacking' their equipment is a marketing/segmentation exercise for them. They've done what so many companies long to do, they've worked out how to charge different prices for the same product, dependent on the individual customer's willingness (and possibly ability) to pay. If Rigol _didn't_ offer the ultra-hackable DS1000Z and DS2K series scopes, I'd be furiously trying to decide between all the low-cost scope options in the marketplace. But since they do, the decision becomes easy, I'll buy theirs and feel like I'm getting a ton more for my money. I wasn't going to spend more than $500 for the scope anyway, the question is solely one of which company gets my money. And it costs Rigol _nothing_ for me to hack, assuming that I wasn't going to pay for the feature in the first place. And I wasn't; as a hobbyist, if I need to decode I2C and I don't have a scope that'll do it, I'm going to spend $30 on a USB dongle to do the job, not $120 on a license for my scope. But they do get the sale, and more important than a piddly little sale, they get me using their products, getting used to their interfaces, making happy memories showing my kids what music looks like as a waveform, all on my Rigol Brand Digital Storage Oscilloscope™
And that could be priceless (or at least worth a lot more than a $400 scope).
Same with the DP832 I'm also about to buy. Feels like a bargain, even if it's not really. It absolutely does feel like it to me. Bloody genius.
If anyone is interested in the topic, this is an _excellent_ Joel on Software article, well worth the read if you have any interest in marketing; http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html)
-
The notion that unlocking something that's already in the scope you bought is "stealing" is frankly hilarious and not really worth the energy behind a serious response...
-
The notion that unlocking something that's already in the scope you bought is "stealing" is frankly hilarious and not really worth the energy behind a serious response...
I wouldn't go that far. It's easier to make that argument for the frequency unlock, which is very obviously handicapping a device for the sole purposes of market segmentation and future revenue stream. It's clever, effective, but it feels a bit skeevy. Charging for decoding modules and other software features is a different matter, you're adding functionality, not just de-restricting. As someone who writes software for a living, I'd be in real trouble if my work product could be taken so lightly. Without some reasonable acknowledgement of pure intellectual property rights, we would have a very different society. However, with that said I'll refer to my earlier comment about Rigol and positioning/market segmentation. If they actually wanted to stop the privateer unlocking their cheaper scopes, they would have stopped us years ago.
-
Most people do not 'hack' their scope, they don't have the skills to do that. A few smart guys are doing that and the rest are just copying the process.
Agreed, most of the folks running the keygen against their Rigol gear (myself included) are being the EE equivalent of script-kiddies, not that there's anything fundamentally wrong with that in this context.
If you're talking about hacking serial numbers or/and unlocking features on your scope, that's plain stealing >:D
With all due respect, I think you're mistaken, again at least in terms of Rigol. Their decision not to close any of their licensing security holes, either with firmware updates or new designs for new equipment, fairly clearly illustrate the reality that 'hacking' their equipment is a marketing/segmentation exercise for them. They've done what so many companies long to do, they've worked out how to charge different prices for the same product, dependent on the individual customer's willingness (and possibly ability) to pay. If Rigol _didn't_ offer the ultra-hackable DS1000Z and DS2K series scopes, I'd be furiously trying to decide between all the low-cost scope options in the marketplace. But since they do, the decision becomes easy, I'll buy theirs and feel like I'm getting a ton more for my money. I wasn't going to spend more than $500 for the scope anyway, the question is solely one of which company gets my money. And it costs Rigol _nothing_ for me to hack, assuming that I wasn't going to pay for the feature in the first place. And I wasn't; as a hobbyist, if I need to decode I2C and I don't have a scope that'll do it, I'm going to spend $30 on a USB dongle to do the job, not $120 on a license for my scope. But they do get the sale, and more important than a piddly little sale, they get me using their products, getting used to their interfaces, making happy memories showing my kids what music looks like as a waveform, all on my Rigol Brand Digital Storage Oscilloscope™
And that could be priceless (or at least worth a lot more than a $400 scope).
Same with the DP832 I'm also about to buy. Feels like a bargain, even if it's not really. It absolutely does feel like it to me. Bloody genius.
If anyone is interested in the topic, this is an _excellent_ Joel on Software article, well worth the read if you have any interest in marketing; http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html)
That is a flipping awesome article, and it reminds me of what I learned in two semesters pursuing an MBA before switching over to Network Administration so I could feel my brain cells working again:
Most of big business is complete and utter bullshit; what is most important is APPEARING to know what you're talking about and that you know correct usage of all the current buzzwords for the same old bullshit phenomena that hasn't changed for centuries.
As an aside; since you've used some (at least one) of the scopes in question... I think I'd like your opinion on my recent post here: https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hantek-dso5102-vs-rigol-ds1102-vs-rigol-ds1054/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/hantek-dso5102-vs-rigol-ds1102-vs-rigol-ds1054/)
Cheers!
mnem
This is where I usually put some pithy remark.
-
The notion that unlocking something that's already in the scope you bought is "stealing" is frankly hilarious and not really worth the energy behind a serious response...
I write software for a living, I can't agree with you, I want to get paid for writing commercial software.
I think we shall all agree to disagree and carry on, this topic is a flame buster.
-
The notion that unlocking something that's already in the scope you bought is "stealing" is frankly hilarious and not really worth the energy behind a serious response...
I wouldn't go that far. It's easier to make that argument for the frequency unlock, which is very obviously handicapping a device for the sole purposes of market segmentation and future revenue stream. It's clever, effective, but it feels a bit skeevy.
Whoosh.
That's not the marketing plan. The marketing plan is that people make a shortlist of oscilloscopes, google each one for reviews, then notice that only one of them can be "unlocked" for free. That usually instantly closes the deal for Rigol, I've seen it happen several times in these forums.
-
The notion that unlocking something that's already in the scope you bought is "stealing" is frankly hilarious and not really worth the energy behind a serious response...
I write software for a living, I can't agree with you, I want to get paid for writing commercial software.
I think I'd be happy if a lot of people were buying my basic version instead of the competition, even if they were hacking it to get the "pro version" features.
-
Whoosh.
That's not the marketing plan. The marketing plan is that people make a shortlist of oscilloscopes, google each one for reviews, then notice that only one of them can be "unlocked" for free. That usually instantly closes the deal for Rigol, I've seen it happen several times in these forums.
Did you perhaps 'whoosh' my earlier post? ;-)
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg898318/#msg898318 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg898318/#msg898318)
-
With all due respect to the various opinions, especially those who write sorftware or develop these kinds of configurable technologies, I must maintain that hacking is purely an activity that can have two very opposing views.
On one hand, you can make the case that hacking is stealing. Pure and simple.
On the other hand, if you own the hardware that has a lock on features and you use a key ( legal or not) to unlock a feature that was not part of your orginal purchase agreement, you may not be stealing if you consider it to not be a breach to that original agreement by just trying it and then returning it to its original state.
Unfortunately many hackers do not just hack for the pure challenge. They want something for free and have a sense of entitlement....like "I paid for this box and what I do with it is my business" These people do not understand nor respect the law.
If you are a honest person that respects the law then you should not hack. If you are a maverick like me who has no respect for rules written by corporate lawyers that are trying to squeeze every dime they can from you, then hack away to your hearts content.
We have an expression in french. It goes like this: chacun à son goût.....to each his own
The engineering and business community will remain divided on this issue until the end of time
-
It's easier to make that argument for the frequency unlock, which is very obviously handicapping a device for the sole purposes of market segmentation and future revenue stream. It's clever, effective, but it feels a bit skeevy. Charging for decoding modules and other software features is a different matter, you're adding functionality, not just de-restricting.
I happily disagree with you. The decoding modules are, like the frequency capabilities, already there, they are just turned off without the correct key. I don't see that being different from the frequency unlock.
-
People have been unlocking features since forever. Unlocking cores on processors or graphics chips or modifying them so they run on hardware supposedly not designed for it. These are things "you haven't paid for" but no company has turned round and said that you cannot do it. Intel recently turned round and told motherboard manufacturers to stop allowing non-K SKUs from being unlocked, but this is to the manufacturer of the boards and not to end users. Qualcomm ARM processors that now come with an eFuse when you unlock the bootloader; AMD etching out silicon to stop users unlocking cache and cores via a simple BIOS flash or BIOS unlock.
If Rigol and others want to stop users from unlocking features, they are well within their right to, but if they don't stop us from doing it, we will still do it. The fact Rigol haven't done so screams that theirishscion's viewpoint is spot on. Once Rigol have accomplished this, though, don't expect any easy hacks.
-
Why do you need a scope with more than 70MHz bandwidth when observing logic signals?
Simple. Because a 70MHz measurement system (i.e. scope+probes) will have a risetime of 5ns, and modern digital signals are much faster than that. Even jellybean logic can have risetimes ~600ps, i.e. almost 10 times faster. Note that there is no mention of a signal's period/frequency, since that is completely irrelevant.
Why is that important? Because a 70MHz scope can miss things that will cause a digital system to malfunction either quickly or, worse, eventually. A primary use-case for a scope is to ensure the "signal integrity" of digital signals: verifying that the analogue waveforms (that are interpreted by the logic as being digital) are clean, so that they will be interpreted correctly.
What can cause signal integrity problems? Poor grounding, incorrect termination, stubs, crosstalk, and many other things.
And then of course, there are simple logic errors. Even 40 year old logic families can have "runt pulses" than can be missed by a 70MHz scope.
-
Once Rigol have accomplished this, though, don't expect any easy hacks.
This is the interesting question though isn't it? As Rigol becomes more successful, will their competitors be inclined to try copying their methods? If Rigol stops doing it because they don't feel they need to any more, will someone else pick up the mantle? Is there enough of a worldwide market for low end DSOs and other electronic test and development equipment to support that level of competition? As hardware and processing power gets ever cheaper, what is the justification for charging so much for the hardware itself?
I suspect that Rigol are to test equipment as Dell and Compaq were to the PC back in the early days. They're shaking the hegemony up and it's quite hard to say where the chips will ultimately fall.
My prediction (and I'm not prepared to argue the point, just my hunch) is that they've opened Pandora's Box (nice girl, Pandora) and things will never quite return to the way they were. There's no technical _requirement_ that a $400 scope be limited in the way an un-hacked DS1054Z comes from the factory, that's simply something that the market would bear at the time. I suspect that rather than Rigol giving up the practice, other manufacturers will instead start. Keep an eye out for a random noob signing up on EEVBlog and starting a thread to document their unexpectedly successful attempts to hack whatever the latest OWON low end offering is (or whatever, you get the point. A Challenger Will Appear, is the point, there'll be a ringer.)
Or if there's a truly _wise_ company out there that will realize that R&D equipment is these days much less about hardware than it is about software, and start selling the hardware for a reasonable margin, and the software in commercial and non-commercial/education/hobby licenses. Let the hobbyist pay $10 for the CAN bus decode option (or give it away for free), and the professional $100. Give no support with the hobby license and write it up as single user/educational/non-commercial use only. Large organizations will pay the $100 (or $1000, these costs are mostly financial noise for a large company, a competent engineer/developer/architect costs them over $100/hour) happily to keep in licensing compliance, and for good support.
-
Normally these companies want to build a reputation and do it cheaply. They can only do it cheaply by having as few SKUs as possible and with as few hands and hours spent on it. So Rigol need a quick and dirty way to have "high end" products along with their core.
My feeling is that once Rigol's sales mean they can spend more on the dirty side they will just slowly remove the ability to hack.
The problem with likening Rigol to Compaq/Dell is really the opposite: Dell and Compaq removed people's ability to hack. No DIP switches or jumpers to change bus or multiplier speeds on them; no BIOS options either compared to off the shelf parts.
Hobbyists will always tinker. Business-centric companies like Keysight and Dell don't care for the enthusiasts so that's what Rigol and ASUS are there for. If Rigol wants to be consumer and enthusiast focused they will keep these Easter eggs but should they become successful, I'd be surprised if they kept them in because these hackable scopes just scream of lazy design.
-
The problem with likening Rigol to Compaq/Dell is really the opposite: Dell and Compaq removed people's ability to hack. No DIP switches or jumpers to change bus or multiplier speeds on them; no BIOS options either compared to off the shelf parts.
Well, I'm likening Rigol to Compaq and Dell because those two companies were disruptors who stole the PC business from IBM. Compaq created and sold the first ever PC Compatibles (IBM didn't think to pay to exclusively license DOS from MS, and Compaq clean-room reverse engineered their BIOS, if memory serves, and most everything else was off the shelf), and very quickly started selling better/faster computers than IBM themselves were. And Dell stacked 'em high and sold 'em cheap. There was a _long_ time during which "Business Computer" meant "IBM" for many companies, just like HP/Agilent/WhateverItIsThisMonth, Tek, etc. They seemed unassailable. They were not.
-
Hi,
There seem to be a lot of people hacking DSOs. I was interested to find out why. Why do you do it?
It's fun, it can be educational(if you're doing the actual hacking), and of course it can be useful to have the extra features/bandwidth/memory etc. I know my spectrum analyzer is way more useful now that it works to 6 GHz instead of the original 3 GHz.
And it isn't just DSO's. It is also spectrum analyzers, power supplies, signal generators, DMMs etc.
The crowd here at the eevblog don't just use electronics, we often take it apart just to see what is inside. Many of us also take a look at the firmware/software too, you never know what you might find.
-
you own what you buy , that's why it's called buying not borrowing. Standardizing hardware and software over a full range of products make it less expensive for manufacturer than to make different hardware and software for each product. but it's stupid to buy high end dso only to use a part of it just because the user manual say so, and will be unfair to the one who buy the high end product knowing that he basically paid the price for all those who bought the low end devices and hacked it ... imagine you buy a closet with one door locked just because you payed less than an other customer who payed full price for the same closet and can use two doors. that's stupid.
If a manufacturer want to offer multiple version of a product that he have to do what it take to make them different, either by taking out the additional hardware or the additional software.
-
The notion that unlocking something that's already in the scope you bought is "stealing" is frankly hilarious and not really worth the energy behind a serious response...
I write software for a living, I can't agree with you, I want to get paid for writing commercial software.
I think we shall all agree to disagree and carry on, this topic is a flame buster.
The software is already on the scope. I'm well within my rights to "steal" what I have already bought, screw your paycheck. If you want to get paid separately for it, don't give it to me with my scope and try to hide it away.
-
The software is already on the scope. I'm well within my rights to "steal" what I have already bought, screw your paycheck. If you want to get paid separately for it, don't give it to me with my scope and try to hide it away.
Uhh, you haven't already "bought it." You wouldn't have to illegally unlock it, if you had paid for it. They sell that version, too, but you didn't want to actually pay for it.
Some people want the one with the higher numbers on the stat sheet, period. Even if they don't need it. This is why capitalism works and the peons still have nice things. :) Thank the 5% that pay a crazy premium on the top end gear so you can buy a basic scope at a very good price. (One that you can even hack, and no one is going to stop you; but you did not "already pay for it.")
Are the 5% stupid for paying vs hacking? No. They just have lots of money.
-
Relax. Rigol, Agilent and others hide features for convenience and can easily unlock them for money. Thats what they want, a simple unlock code and you give them money for something they already developed and spent money on. They are hoping you will be honest and pay them for their cleverness.
If an OEM assumes you are dumb and wont spend the effort to thwart their lame attempts to circumvent you then they are just plain stupid. Typical Marketing wanks( as dave calls em......LOL) need to be a little more inventive and do more of this in hardware.....but that costs more money.
Weight that against letting a few hackers unlock thieir boxes. Trust me, the beancounters win every time and the software dudes get a full paycheck. No worries.
Been in those meetings and know the tradeoffs. Its always about revenue.
-
On feature unlocking: Honestly, if $MFG doesn't want someone to unlock their shiny math functions or trigger modes by entering the magic code, stop shipping the instrument with said functionality built-in but disabled! I can understand copyright, but if all you're doing is take a key generated by the instrument, apply ~math~, and enter a new key? Totally 100% fine with me. Just like removing the BW limiting components from the hardware if it can't be turned off by software - the instrument is mine, regardless of what your fancy EULA says.
Yes, I'm well aware that it's "more convenient" than having the user flash new firmware/stick a module in/return it. So what? Either keep the convenience and deal with people "stealing" your precious $1500 options, or protect it better. Expecting me to honor a sleazy agreement to Not Do The Naughty Thing just so you can make a buck more is bound to lead to disappointment.
-
The software is already on the scope. I'm well within my rights to "steal" what I have already bought, screw your paycheck. If you want to get paid separately for it, don't give it to me with my scope and try to hide it away.
Uhh, you haven't already "bought it." You wouldn't have to illegally unlock it, if you had paid for it. They sell that version, too, but you didn't want to actually pay for it.
Yes I have, it's on a memory chip inside a device I paid money for, that's how buying works. No, I didn't buy it on the terms they wanted me to, but I don't care what they want.
It'd be different if they didn't preload the software onto the device - if I had to download it from somewhere and load it on, that'd be piracy. But it's already there, all I have to do is say the right thing to it to make it work.
-
The reason most people would need certain features is because combined with their $80,000 education it gives them the ability to make money at their 6 figure job/company. And hacking it illegally would create a liability. If you need $1500 features and you can't afford it, then you might be an idiot.
-
What does whether or not you think I'm an idiot who can't make use of the features have to do with whether using something I bought is theft?
Bloody hell there are some stupid, stupid people on this forum.
-
I'm not calling you an idiot. Those features have a cost. And you are not paying for them by buying the base unit and hacking it. Therefore it is theft. The only reason you can buy your scope at the price you paid IS because other people are buying the top end stuff at a premium. And ACTUALLY PAYING FOR IT. If you want to hack your scope, then do it. But don't insinuate that the manufacturer is greedy and is "locking" features that you "paid for." That is not true.
The cost of those features is insignificant to those who need them. If you have the knowledge and expertise to need them, someone will GIVE you a scope with those features and a nice paycheck, if you actually apply your knowledge in a way that is productive to them. I.e. get off your couch and work.
-
Those features have a price that the vendor wants to sell them to me for - but they also sell them to me for much less, just with an inconvenient lock attached. What part of "they're already loaded onto my oscilloscope" don't you understand?
It's not my problem that they've chosen to give them away for less than they probably should. I don't owe them charity. They're offering me a choice: pay $X to get these features ready to use, or pay $Y to get these features (but you'll have to break into them, because we're giving them to you but putting a lock on them). If $X-$Y is more than what my time doing that is worth, then of course I'm going with the latter.
-
Well, I'm likening Rigol to Compaq and Dell because those two companies were disruptors who stole the PC business from IBM. Compaq created and sold the first ever PC Compatibles (IBM didn't think to pay to exclusively license DOS from MS, and Compaq clean-room reverse engineered their BIOS, if memory serves, and most everything else was off the shelf), and very quickly started selling better/faster computers than IBM themselves were. And Dell stacked 'em high and sold 'em cheap. There was a _long_ time during which "Business Computer" meant "IBM" for many companies, just like HP/Agilent/WhateverItIsThisMonth, Tek, etc. They seemed unassailable. They were not.
Except thats not even close to whats happening. Rigol's not a threat to the big boys, and hasn't really taken anything away from them. They may be doing very well at the bottom of the bottom, but thats not a place the big boys really even care about or try to compete in. Even Rigol's higher DS4000 and DS6000 models are no where near a threat to the established companies because they suffer from the same issues as the lower end models yet Rigol charges similar prices to the competition. If you are going to pay that much for a scope wouldn't you rather have something thats proven to work well?
The reason I unlocked my scope even though I don't need all the functionality that gets me is because Rigol doesn't seem to care and hopefully that will get me further into the future before I need to upgrade.
-
The reason most people would need certain features is because combined with their $80,000 education it gives them the ability to make money at their 6 figure job/company. And hacking it illegally would create a liability. If you need $1500 features and you can't afford it, then you might be an idiot.
Need and want are different things. I don't need a serial protocol analyzer; it's still convenient to not have to do it by hand.
As for affording it: There is also a difference between being able to afford something, and being willing to pay through the nose to unlock something you already own. And the whole argument that there would be no cheap scopes if there weren't unlockable features is frankly laughable. How many people actually shell out for the extras? How much extra development time does it take? Frankly it'd appear that most of the unlockables would recoup their dev cost with only a handful sales, which would leave a rather sour taste in my mouth if I were to pay the going rate.
Also, my general policy is that I spend more money on things (and companies) I like or approve of, and avoid spending money on things I don't like. And since I think the "everything is an optional extra" school of business is fucking stupid, I'm not going to support it by spending money on it. I'd rather buy a product that the manufacturer can proudly proclaim to have done their very best work on, and that is complete - not sold piece-meal to appease the beancounters. This also means that while I happily spend money on independent music, the big labels will never see a single cent from me. A fact that does not preclude me from enjoying big-label music, something I'm sure horrifies your sense of morality. I keep mine locked in a box; it's made both our lives easier.
In any event, your argument would hold more water if the cheap scopes market was slowly dying and the manufacturers were circling the drain. But the opposite is true. Food for thought, isn't it?
-
There's some interesting legislation on this in the USA, mostly around unlocking cell phones.
Of course, Keysight doesn't encourage, support, or aid "hacking" our scopes. But, don't try to by a cheap scope, hack it, and sell it as an upgraded scope. In my personal opinion, that's when it becomes stealing.
Why do it? Because it's there...
-
And the whole argument that there would be no cheap scopes if there weren't unlockable features is frankly laughable. How many people actually shell out for the extras?
This is not laughable. This is capitalism. This is how we all eat. Giving consumer options. Without this, we live in a boring efficient society where everyone gets the same thing... the minimum that is needed for their government job, lol.
Capitalism creates a crazy wealthy minority. Must give them something to spend their money on. Am I sad because I don't have a Borghatti in my driveway? Sure. Yeah. I hate Borghotti for not selling me a car for the same cost as a Ford Focus. How dare they!
And since I think the "everything is an optional extra" school of business is fucking stupid, I'm not going to support it by spending money on it.
I don't care about this too much. When I shopped my scope, I really jonesed for the latest 4 channel lower-end Siglent, phosphor tech. I passed because because it was too expensive. Not because the other 2 channels has to be unlocked for 250.00.. Because the TOTAL cost of the scope plus upgrade was too much.
So I bought a Hantek. And no, I don't care at all that it can be hacked to a higher bandwidth. It does not bother me. I don't feel cheated. It has the specs I wanted for the price I wanted. That's WHY I bought it in the first place.
If I have a job that calls for a $10,000 scope (and if the job will net me more than $10,000) I will buy it. If will get $10,000 worth of enjoyment out of a scope just to look at it on my bench and know it's the best, I will buy it.
If I enjoy hacking stuff, maybe I will hack a scope for the sheer fun of it. Maybe I will torrent movies and music, too, while I'm at it. But I won't claim I "bought and paid for and own" this stuff, already.
When the guy paying me to write firmware asks me to lock certain features, I do it. He's paying. I'm making. No big deal.
-
When you buy software, you are purchasing the license to utilize the bits that make the software. I have licenses for SolidWorks, MasterCAM and other high-end software licenses. They send my media with all possible options, but only give me a key for the modules I pay for. The difference is about $10k from basic to loaded. Am I allowed to hack and use what I did not pay for just because I have the program on my computer but have no key? It is explicitly illegal and it should be.
Sent from mobile device.... Keeping it short and mis-spelled
-
I write software for a living, I can't agree with you, I want to get paid for writing commercial software.
You got paid when you wrote the software for the high end device. The way the company finances that and how it reflects on its customers doesn't directly affect you.
It's easier to make that argument for the frequency unlock, which is very obviously handicapping a device for the sole purposes of market segmentation and future revenue stream. It's clever, effective, but it feels a bit skeevy. Charging for decoding modules and other software features is a different matter, you're adding functionality, not just de-restricting.
I happily disagree with you. The decoding modules are, like the frequency capabilities, already there, they are just turned off without the correct key. I don't see that being different from the frequency unlock.
This depends a bit on the options, let's see what Rigol offers.
Frequency capability is determined 100% by hardware, there is no additional software work involved to make use of it. So if the hardware I bought is capable of a certain frequency but the manufacturer tries to make me pay extra for it then I clearly feel robbed. Same for memory, it's there in the machine, I've paid for it, but they lock it out for no good reason.
Advanced trigger, serial decoding are software-only features, so there it makes more sense to ask for extra payment - BUT it should be reasonable, and the problem is that it usually isn't. If you can build an entire scope and its huge firmware and sell it for $400, then the comparatively tiny amount of work your engineers had to do to add decoding of 4 serial protocols to the existing firmware base certainly isn't worth $174.
I mean, I can buy a full-fledged product that includes hardware and dedicated software that did not have a base developed for another already marketed application and does much more than that for $100... so that pricing simply makes no sense and can't appear in any other way than price gouging.
Another way to see it is that by having serial decoding as an option it is obvious only a fraction of users will buy it, say 10%. It means that had they shipped it by default and priced it for same income on that feature each scope would be only $17.4 more. That's the real price of the feature. I'd happily pay $17.4 more for it even if I didn't use it, and I doubt anybody would complain about it being an excessively expensive feature they don't want. They'd do more good by selling the scope for a mere 4% more and allowing everybody to make use of a tool rather than restrict its access by asking for a disproportionate amount to a small number of users. Given that decision of theirs that appear excessievely stupid to me, I won't feel bad hacking the $17.4 feature that should have been built-in in the first place.
I certainly understand the ways a company might use to attract customers, offer devices cheaper than they can be made for and recouping costs somewhere else etc, but ultimately it is their decision of how much they deviate from "reasonable" pricing and how it affects their customers' perception. If they want to go with it even if it feels so wrong, so be it, and the consequence is that people will try to "correct" that if they can. It is totally avoidable, but in the end it makes people talk, and as previously said there is a gain from that as well that they are certainly factoring in.
-
Of course, Keysight doesn't encourage, support, or aid "hacking" our scopes. But, don't try to by a cheap scope, hack it, and sell it as an upgraded scope. In my personal opinion, that's when it becomes stealing.
This is something I agree with. Don't try to make a profit on hacking stuff, unless you yourself have invested a substantial amount of work in it - for instance, if you've repaired your Rigol scope (*rolls eyes*). And never try to pass it off as something it isn't - my hacked Flir E4 is still a hacked E4, not an E8. I'd happily describe it as having "E8-like performance", but that's where the buck stops.
-
There's some interesting legislation on this in the USA, mostly around unlocking cell phones.
US law is also different to European law as to how it treats software. As an end user, if you buy some software then you're pretty much just buying a right-to-use license as stipulated in EULAs and similar licensing conditions. In the EU, software sales in general are treated as sales of goods, i.e. you "own" the copy of your software and are free to do with it as you please as long as it doesn't violate other laws (i.e. copyright, which of course remains with the rights holder).
Of course, Keysight doesn't encourage, support, or aid "hacking" our scopes. But, don't try to by a cheap scope, hack it, and sell it as an upgraded scope. In my personal opinion, that's when it becomes stealing.
I agree, and I'd go as far as saying that hacking should be limited to non-commercial use only.
However, I also have to say that I think the manufacturers like Keysight carry a large part of blame for the increase in hacking, which could have easily avoided by offering cheap genuine licenses without any support for non-commercial use, and by offering a way for owners of obsolete kit to unlock the once locked features (which in most cases are obsolete technology anyways) for little money or even for free.
Pretty much the only manufacturer I'm aware of that has done something like that is LeCroy. If you own any of their old high-end scopes (9300 Series, LC Series) then you can get the GALs that unlock all the advanced functionality in these scopes for $40 or so (or just download the images and burn the GALs yourself), with full approval from LeCroy.
It's a real shame that other manufacturers (like Keysight) can't offer something similar for their obsolete kit.
-
There's some interesting legislation on this in the USA, mostly around unlocking cell phones.
US law is also different to European law as to how it treats software. As an end user, if you buy some software then you're pretty much just buying a right-to-use license as stipulated in EULAs and similar licensing conditions. In the EU, software sales in general are treated as sales of goods, i.e. you "own" the copy of your software and are free to do with it as you please as long as it doesn't violate other laws (i.e. copyright, which of course remains with the rights holder).
Can you cite a reputable reference for this? Something from the EC.
-
There's some interesting legislation on this in the USA, mostly around unlocking cell phones.
US law is also different to European law as to how it treats software. As an end user, if you buy some software then you're pretty much just buying a right-to-use license as stipulated in EULAs and similar licensing conditions. In the EU, software sales in general are treated as sales of goods, i.e. you "own" the copy of your software and are free to do with it as you please as long as it doesn't violate other laws (i.e. copyright, which of course remains with the rights holder).
Can you cite a reputable reference for this? Something from the EC.
IIRC the legal precedent was set in the case about jailbraking the iphones.
Here it is: http://www.wired.com/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/ (http://www.wired.com/2010/07/feds-ok-iphone-jailbreaking/)
-
Of course, Keysight doesn't encourage, support, or aid "hacking" our scopes. But, don't try to by a cheap scope, hack it, and sell it as an upgraded scope. In my personal opinion, that's when it becomes stealing.
I agree, and I'd go as far as saying that hacking should be limited to non-commercial use only.
However, I also have to say that I think the manufacturers like Keysight carry a large part of blame for the increase in hacking, which could have easily avoided by offering cheap genuine licenses without any support for non-commercial use, and by offering a way for owners of obsolete kit to unlock the once locked features (which in most cases are obsolete technology anyways) for little money or even for free.
It's a real shame that other manufacturers (like Keysight) can't offer something similar for their obsolete kit.
+1000!
-
The notion that unlocking something that's already in the scope you bought is "stealing" is frankly hilarious and not really worth the energy behind a serious response...
I write software for a living, I can't agree with you, I want to get paid for writing commercial software.
I think we shall all agree to disagree and carry on, this topic is a flame buster.
Was the practice of unlocking a CPU multiplier with a pencil stealing as well? AMD surely didn't mind because they sold shitloads of CPU's once it became common knowledge.
-
I'm not calling you an idiot. Those features have a cost. And you are not paying for them by buying the base unit and hacking it. Therefore it is theft. The only reason you can buy your scope at the price you paid IS because other people are buying the top end stuff at a premium. And ACTUALLY PAYING FOR IT.
If that where true then Rigol would have been long gone. It is extremely foolish to structurally sell products at a loss!
-
Pretty much the only manufacturer I'm aware of that has done something like that is LeCroy. If you own any of their old high-end scopes (9300 Series, LC Series) then you can get the GALs that unlock all the advanced functionality in these scopes for $40 or so (or just download the images and burn the GALs yourself), with full approval from LeCroy.
It's a real shame that other manufacturers (like Keysight) can't offer something similar for their obsolete kit.
Actually, Tektronix did with the TDS3000 series. With a firmware update, they enabled TDS3TRG and TDS3FFT.
That's the only one I know of other than the Lecroy GALS.
Jay
-
ISTR Agilent increased the deep memory on the 5000/6000/7000 series to 8Mpt in a firmware upgrade at some point.
-
By the letter of the law - unlocking a feature that explicitly requires a paid license is stealing. The law doesn't care about your feelings, it only cares about the rules on the paper. With that said, any manufacturer will balance the ease of manufacturing/support with threat of hacking based loss of revenue. If a bunch of hobbyists spend a ton of time figuring out how to circumvent a lecinse so they can get an extra feature - it's not really lost revenue so it's not worth pursuing any legal action. Technically illegal, but in the noise floor of issues that need to be dealt with.
On the other hand, if those hacks are being used by commercial companies that are making money off the hacked features - another story may unfold. This argument:
I write software for a living, I can't agree with you, I want to get paid for writing commercial software.
You got paid when you wrote the software for the high end device. The way the company finances that and how it reflects on its customers doesn't directly affect you.
Yes, it does. Or at least it can. If the company is not making money off the software add-ons because they are being hacked and not paid for. They will no longer offer those and the software team will be thinned out. While I care about today's paycheck - I don't want it to be my last one.
I would hazard a guess that the target customer of Keysight is not likely to bother with hacking software features. It is generally less expensive to just pay the money and have the features you need to do your job. My milling machines had all kinds of software locks that ranged from $500 to a few $k but with a 200 hours 'demo' mode. You could turn them on and see if they help you. After 200 hours you have to pay up if you want to keep them. A number of people tried to hack the clock, but the software/hardware had some tamper monitor and it would brick the machine controller. I did not want that so I wrote a check, got my options, and milled parts.
-
Why do you need a scope with more than 70MHz bandwidth when observing logic signals?
Simple. Because a 70MHz measurement system (i.e. scope+probes) will have a risetime of 5ns, and modern digital signals are much faster than that. Even jellybean logic can have risetimes ~600ps, i.e. almost 10 times faster. Note that there is no mention of a signal's period/frequency, since that is completely irrelevant.
Why is that important? Because a 70MHz scope can miss things that will cause a digital system to malfunction either quickly or, worse, eventually. A primary use-case for a scope is to ensure the "signal integrity" of digital signals: verifying that the analogue waveforms (that are interpreted by the logic as being digital) are clean, so that they will be interpreted correctly.
What can cause signal integrity problems? Poor grounding, incorrect termination, stubs, crosstalk, and many other things.
And then of course, there are simple logic errors. Even 40 year old logic families can have "runt pulses" than can be missed by a 70MHz scope.
Thanks for the info tggzz, et al.
So I guess a lot of hobbyists - even ones like me using 8Mhz Arduinos and 74HC595 etc chips would benefit from a faster scope than 5ns ( or 5.1ns with the 350MHz probes) regardless of the fact that the 74HC chips are only clocked per 125ns. It's the rise time that counts.
There's good reason to suppose then that a bit of the motivation I asked about in my original post is from genuine need (even for hobbyists) , but I have to take away the impression that "because it's there" is paramount.
You learn something every day !
I honestly didn't expect to start an argument - I should take more care.
-
Some options prices are rather insane though. For example a Tektronix TLA7AA4 acquisition module. AFAIK the base price was $22000 but with the full options (memory depth and state sampling speed) enabled it cost $79000. That is a lot of money for 2 limits in the software!
-
Some options prices are rather insane though. For example a Tektronix TLA7AA4 acquisition module. AFAIK the base price was $22000 but with the full options (memory depth and state sampling speed) enabled it cost $79000. That is a lot of money for 2 limits in the software!
So what?
IBM used to increase their computers performance by removing a wire on the backplane. Since their pricing structure was that price was the square of the performance, that was a very lucrative upgrade.
If you don't like the price, vote with your feet. Suppliers can change anything they like for their product.
BTW I've seen a company destroyed by idiot marketing department that treated software as free - and since they didn't make money from it, they didn't invest in it. The product was, of course software; go figure!
-
By the letter of the law - unlocking a feature that explicitly requires a paid license is stealing.
No, by the letter of the law certain penalties are attached to the action. The law defines neither ethics nor meanings of words outside legal situations. It's not relevant to whether something is theft, only to whether legal professionals are to treat it as such when performing the duties of their positions.
-
By the letter of the law - unlocking a feature that explicitly requires a paid license is stealing.
No, by the letter of the law certain penalties are attached to the action. The law defines neither ethics nor meanings of words outside legal situations. It's not relevant to whether something is theft, only to whether legal professionals are to treat it as such when performing the duties of their positions.
WTF?
I am not a lawyer or legal scholar, but I am pretty sure that a software license is considered a valuable product and that if it is used without the proper permission - it's stealing. Not really an ethics thing, but rather black and white. Software companies sell licenses, that is their revenue stream. That is what pays the engineers. Period. It costs a boat load of cash to develop even minor pieces of software.
Lawyers have to determine if the loss is worth the expensive legal chase but that has nothing with whether or not the use of the software was stolen by illegal means. Go read a few of the exciting software terms of use. It's pretty clear.
-
Go read the rest of the thread, because I've addressed everything you said already.
- No, the law doesn't make it "stealing". The law makes it illegal. The law doesn't get to dictate what words mean.
- I don't care if that's where their money comes from, they chose to give me the software, so I'm going to use it. If you sell me something, I'm going to do whatever I want with it. Don't like it, don't sell it to me. That simple. I'm not playing your stupid lawyer licensing games. I have an object, I use the object.
If you don't like that your money comes from a place that makes it hard to get money, that's your problem, not mine.
In other words: if you have to legislate or license away my right as a consumer to use the product I bought as I see fit just to make your chosen profession profitable, get another profession.
-
EULAs aren't necessarily legally binding, even if they proclaim to. You can argue copyright though.
But the fact hardware can be "legally" hacked while software "can't" is likely an issue of semantics rather than actual law.
-
EULAs aren't necessarily legally binding, even if they proclaim to. You can argue copyright though.
But the fact hardware can be "legally" hacked while software "can't" is likely an issue of semantics rather than actual law.
Actually that's a good point. Say, as in the DS1000Z, the bandwidth is controlled by a couple of resistors and a CMOS switch, you could fairly easily alter circuit physically. Or you could fiddle the firmware. The end result is the same, but fiddling the firmware is easier.
Are both illegal, or are they different, and if so what is the difference?
Now let's take it a stage further. Say you have some trial options that you haven't had chance to use yet but are about to disappear. You figure out a way to stop the trial clock without modifying any software or entering any keys. Is that illegal, or is it different, and if so what is the difference?
-
Some options prices are rather insane though. For example a Tektronix TLA7AA4 acquisition module. AFAIK the base price was $22000 but with the full options (memory depth and state sampling speed) enabled it cost $79000. That is a lot of money for 2 limits in the software!
IBM used to increase their computers performance by removing a wire on the backplane. Since their pricing structure was that price was the square of the performance, that was a very lucrative upgrade.
IBM wasn't the only one doing that. Certain Harris computers had similar straps. That could lead to problems though when somehow during the lifetime of the system the jumper got removed (replacement). When the customer wanted the upgrade to get more performance they sometimes didn't get the extra performance they expected because they already got it. Very tough to explain...
If you don't like the price, vote with your feet. Suppliers can change anything they like for their product.
Software isn't free but IMHO paying for options in test equipment can be a dissapointment. It seems that TE manufacturers are giving away their options (almost) for free as package deals or during clearout sales. I definitely feel cheated when I pay full price and a couple of months later others pay 30% less. What do I get for being a loyal customer? For the last two oscilloscopes I bought I decided not to buy from Lecroy and R&S due to their insanely priced options.
-
If you think about them, you make pretty silly points...
Software isn't free
Well, as I noted not charging for software can be just as bad, viz "I've seen a company destroyed by idiot marketing department that treated software as free - and since they didn't make money from it, they didn't invest in it. The product was, of course software; go figure!"
but IMHO paying for options in test equipment can be a dissapointment. It seems that TE manufacturers are giving away their options (almost) for free as package deals or during clearout sales.
Don't you realise that "package deals" are what happens when customers aren't indicating the prices are unaffordable? Sounds good to me.
I definitely feel cheated when I pay full price and a couple of months later others pay 30% less.
I suggest you never buy any electronics, since in six months time there will be a cheaper equivalent. Deal with it.
What do I get for being a loyal customer? For the last two oscilloscopes I bought I decided not to buy from Lecroy and R&S due to their insanely priced options.
As for "loyal customers", for a couple of decades companies of all sorts have regarded them as sheep ready to be slaughtered. Nowadays you get discounts for disloyalty! Deal with it. Welcome to tomorrow.
-
Oh, good grief...
I don't care if that's where their money comes from, they chose to give me the software, so I'm going to use it. If you sell me something, I'm going to do whatever I want with it. Don't like it, don't sell it to me. That simple.
They didn't give anything to you, they only sold a licence to use it. You should be able to do anything reasonable with the things you have licenced but not the things you haven't licenced. In particular there should, of course, be a secondhand market in selling such licences, and the EU is attempting to enforce that concept.
I'm not playing your stupid lawyer licensing games. I have an object, I use the object.
... and the toys exit the pram and end up on the floor.
In other words: if you have to legislate or license away my right as a consumer to use the product I bought as I see fit just to make your chosen profession profitable, get another profession.
True, where the product is a licence just as for atoms. But not for products you haven't bought.
-
No, they gave me an oscilloscope and it contained software. At no point did I sign a license agreement. The idea that software is only "licensed" even when you give me a copy and I don't agree to anything is a lawyer fantasy. If I don't specifically agree to give up my rights to the thing you gave me, I still bloody have them.
The number of profit-worshippers here is fascinating. You people all seem to think that anything is inherently unethical if it results in someone making less money. How many of you are in business rather than actually making things, I wonder?
-
but IMHO paying for options in test equipment can be a dissapointment. It seems that TE manufacturers are giving away their options (almost) for free as package deals or during clearout sales.
Don't you realise that "package deals" are what happens when customers aren't indicating the prices are unaffordable? Sounds good to me.
You are missing the point: some test equipment manufacturers don't seem to place any value on options other than being some random bargaining chip to lure customers in when business is slow or potential customers may have money to spend. So to get back on topic: how can you hurt test equipment manufacturers by getting for free what they hand out for free by hacking?
There is also the advantage the competition can get over you. If you are paying $2000 for a bunch of options but your direct competitor gets it for free it means he has to make $2000 less on his product to make the same profit as you do!
-
but IMHO paying for options in test equipment can be a dissapointment. It seems that TE manufacturers are giving away their options (almost) for free as package deals or during clearout sales.
Don't you realise that "package deals" are what happens when customers aren't indicating the prices are unaffordable? Sounds good to me.
You are missing the point: some test equipment manufacturers don't seem to place any value on options other than being some random bargaining chip to lure customers in when business is slow or potential customers may have money to spend.
So that's their perfectly rational reasonable legal business choice. Tough luck if you don't like it.
So to get back on topic: how can you hurt test equipment manufacturers by getting for free what they hand out for free by hacking?
Don't buy their product, or wait until they want to drum up more sales, e.g. if they a have unsold products they want to shift, or if they want to buy market share. (The latter was an invalid business strategy according to Dave Packard :) )
There is also the advantage the competition can get over you. If you are paying $2000 for a bunch of options but your direct competitor gets it for free it means he has to make $2000 less on his product to make the same profit as you do!
So they are better at business than you, or just got lucky. That's life.
What would you say if you got something $2000 cheaper than your direct competitor? Would you feel bad or happy?
-
Most people do not 'hack' their scope, they don't have the skills to do that. A few smart guys are doing that and the rest are just copying the process.
Agreed, most of the folks running the keygen against their Rigol gear (myself included) are being the EE equivalent of script-kiddies, not that there's anything fundamentally wrong with that in this context.
If you're talking about hacking serial numbers or/and unlocking features on your scope, that's plain stealing >:D
With all due respect, I think you're mistaken, again at least in terms of Rigol. Their decision not to close any of their licensing security holes, either with firmware updates or new designs for new equipment, fairly clearly illustrate the reality that 'hacking' their equipment is a marketing/segmentation exercise for them. They've done what so many companies long to do, they've worked out how to charge different prices for the same product, dependent on the individual customer's willingness (and possibly ability) to pay. If Rigol _didn't_ offer the ultra-hackable DS1000Z and DS2K series scopes, I'd be furiously trying to decide between all the low-cost scope options in the marketplace. But since they do, the decision becomes easy, I'll buy theirs and feel like I'm getting a ton more for my money. I wasn't going to spend more than $500 for the scope anyway, the question is solely one of which company gets my money. And it costs Rigol _nothing_ for me to hack, assuming that I wasn't going to pay for the feature in the first place. And I wasn't; as a hobbyist, if I need to decode I2C and I don't have a scope that'll do it, I'm going to spend $30 on a USB dongle to do the job, not $120 on a license for my scope. But they do get the sale, and more important than a piddly little sale, they get me using their products, getting used to their interfaces, making happy memories showing my kids what music looks like as a waveform, all on my Rigol Brand Digital Storage Oscilloscope™
And that could be priceless (or at least worth a lot more than a $400 scope).
Same with the DP832 I'm also about to buy. Feels like a bargain, even if it's not really. It absolutely does feel like it to me. Bloody genius.
If anyone is interested in the topic, this is an _excellent_ Joel on Software article, well worth the read if you have any interest in marketing; http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html)
Great post and link out to further interesting discussion. But I'll disagree with:
it costs Rigol _nothing_ for me to hack, assuming that I wasn't going to pay for the feature in the first place
If your decision to buy the scope was biased by the presence of the additional possible features then they did pay by developing the features, if they had not invested the money in developing all those juicy features then they would not have sold the scope to you. This is probably all very carefully accounted for as we all say they're not closing the loopholes or hacks like some other brands are. It may be a fixed cost rather than a variable cost, but it is a cost.
The pricing of "unlockable features" is driven heavily by the cost of sales, in a huge multinational like Keysight they will probably lose money on selling a single licence at a time for the lower cost ?$300 options, their profit on selling the middle priced options for the low end scopes $500-$1000 will be very small. They've dug themselves a hole for these sorts of features through their deep and complex sales channel. Until the manufacturers offer an automated way of selling the licenses to you by credit card (no human interaction required) it will continue to be expensive. We all hoped Altium would see the light with incremental options for a free version, but they killed that off and the only option remains a fully optioned out and high barrier for entry $3000+subscription.
Delivering copyright material to the end user and asking they don't use it by licensing does not work in all jurisdictions around the world, and will receive more and more scrutiny in coming years as "everyday" products like cars become a mess of licensed software you're not "allowed" to repair or modify. I work for a company that handles this simply where a software product has multiple tiers or options, you hand the customer the code only for the version they purchased, completely different downloads that require different hardware activation. The option is there for companies to send a clear message but they choose not to.
Why big companies are not offering anything for free came back to the Sarbanes–Oxley debacle, and frightening the American accountants into worrying they might not be capturing the underlying value for the books if any customer was ever offered a free update that added additional functions. As ridiculous as it sounds these abstract ideas of recognising revenue are still constraining what is offered, accountants ruin everything.
-
I definitely feel cheated when I pay full price and a couple of months later others pay 30% less.
I suggest you never buy any electronics, since in six months time there will be a cheaper equivalent. Deal with it.
Eggzzactly.
4 months after I bought my 4 channel Hantek, I can buy a 4 channel Rigol for ~25% less. So how much do you think I care?
....
None. I didn't buy my Hantek to look at it for 4 months. I bought it because I needed it at the time. (And I haven't used more than 2 channels at a time in the year+, since!). It made possible a specific task/job. If I wanted a shiny new Rigol just for the sake of "what if I need it in the future," I would buy one, too. But I'm more inclined to wait... because as you have noticed, prices on DSO's seem to come down over time, and features go up. Because people are working to make better machines for cheaper. Because there's competition. Because a lot of people actually pay for things. If you're concerned about costs coming down, then wait to buy a scope until you need it. You will not be sad when prices drop, later.
-
With all due respect, I think you're mistaken, again at least in terms of Rigol. Their decision not to close any of their licensing security holes, either with firmware updates or new designs for new equipment, fairly clearly illustrate the reality that 'hacking' their equipment is a marketing/segmentation exercise for them.
Or the segment is so small that it is lost in the noise. Or they are technically incompetent to do that, perish the thought. Or doing it would cost more than the extra income, i.e. negative profit.
If Rigol _didn't_ offer the ultra-hackable DS1000Z and DS2K series scopes, I'd be furiously trying to decide between all the low-cost scope options in the marketplace. But since they do, the decision becomes easy, I'll buy theirs and feel like I'm getting a ton more for my money.
A reasonable point.
It also reduces their post-sales costs: "you hacked it, you are on your own" :)
And I wasn't; as a hobbyist, if I need to decode I2C and I don't have a scope that'll do it, I'm going to spend $30 on a USB dongle to do the job, not $120 on a license for my scope.
Which is probably the right decision for technical reasons as well! When debugging in the digital domain, use digital debuggers not analogue debuggers that infer a digital signal.
If anyone is interested in the topic, this is an _excellent_ Joel on Software article, well worth the read if you have any interest in marketing; http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html)
Yes, a good literate article.
-
It's easier to make that argument for the frequency unlock, which is very obviously handicapping a device for the sole purposes of market segmentation and future revenue stream. It's clever, effective, but it feels a bit skeevy. Charging for decoding modules and other software features is a different matter, you're adding functionality, not just de-restricting.
I happily disagree with you. The decoding modules are, like the frequency capabilities, already there, they are just turned off without the correct key. I don't see that being different from the frequency unlock.
That is just wrong.
Many computers ship with a demo copy of Microsoft Office. Its only bits, they are already there, so customers replacing the demo with a pirate copy is ok, right? My mobile phone can connect to other carriers cell towers too, but they might agree that I should pay for access to the network, despite the infrastructure already being there. The bus goes right past my house, the gall of them to ask me to pay for something that is already there!
The key is for simplicity. You don't own the license, but it is conveniently in place and available. The DSO company spent good money developing serial decoding into the scope, it is fair they can ask for compensation. You get to choose if the price is worth it, and if not, go to the competition, or get your notebook out.
-
I don't care if that's where their money comes from, they chose to give me the software, so I'm going to use it. If you sell me something, I'm going to do whatever I want with it. Don't like it, don't sell it to me. That simple.
They didn't give anything to you, they only sold a licence to use it.
Yes they did, because you're "physically" in possession of the actual code for the feature, it's just locked.
I work for a company that handles this simply where a software product has multiple tiers or options, you hand the customer the code only for the version they purchased, completely different downloads that require different hardware activation. The option is there for companies to send a clear message but they choose not to.
That. The whole issue here revolves about hardware and software with a given set of capabilities and characteristics that has been physically created AND delivered to you, but some of it you can't use, it's silly and is what causes the perception issues we see here.
We wouldn't see people feeling robbed if the software or hardware was not included at all in the first place. Back in the day when upgrades meant physically buying and installing an actual hardware module with better capabilities that uses a more expensive component than what they already have to provide them (i.e. there was a real difference in cost between the parts providing the limited or advanced capabilities and their choice of going with the limited ones to save was deliberate, and you know what you're paying for when you buy the upgrade), or purchasing a separate software package that you install next to the existing one or replacing it things were clear and nobody was complaining. The thing is an actual, "physical" product (counting downloads as such) that is clearly stolen if you get it in your possession without paying for it.
Technically there is no difference with the unlocking key, but perceptually the difference is huge. The licensing scheme is only "legal BS" that nobody in the general public actually can relate to. Music, movies, software have been working on that scheme "forever" but you never hear someone say "I licenced XYZ's new album", they'll say "I bought...". They physically got something, whether a vinyl, cassette, CD or download in return for their money, now they can use it. Breaking the link between payment and an actual physical thing in people's minds would take decades to change. I occasionally work in the production industry, and when the managers get to a licensing agreement that they can use "2 minutes from that 15min video" we still don't give them the whole 15min file which would of course be easier, but we'll extract and physically only give them the 2 minutes they chose. If we had given them the 15 min file ourselves we'd expect them to try to use more if we didn't do that because that's just how people work. The fact we did the effort to make a cut for them will burn in their mind the fact that we don't mess about this, and even if it's a piece of cake to download the 15 min version from Youtube they know doing this would be very wrong, so they don't.
So in the meantime as Someone (hah) says the solution is simple, if you don't want me to use something then don't give it to me. If you do, don't complain if I do whatever I can to use it. Don't load the device with software that is perfectly capable of performing some functions but are disabled if a bit isn't flipped. Don't put a 64MB RAM chip or fast ADC and let me use only 8MB / part of the ADC's capabilities. I've bought it, I have it in my hands and want to use it. If you want to sell a scope with a slower ADC or less memory then build one, the fact you can save some money by making all the units identical is not my problem. At most, it says something about how much a scope with only 8MB RAM is worth on the market - nothing given you decided it was not worth making. If you decided making a scope with 64MB was less expensive than making one with 8MB then great! But then give me all 64MB at that price, don't try to make me pay extra for something that obviously didn't cost you, or you even saved on.
Screw the "product is worth what people are ready to pay for it, not how much it actually costs to make" paradigm. This marketing scheme is a pain for users and nobody really wants it, it's unfortunately imposed by pretty much every test equipment manufacturer so that you pretty much have no other option as a buyer, but they're the only ones thinking it's good. There are industries where artificial market segmentation was also heavy, but some manufacturer has tried going the opposite way... and their success no doubt proves buyers are really tired of the old scheme. Their products are segmented only based on actual hardware features, cheaper or more high end contruction, different form factors, hardware components that allow for new features on newer models etc but the cheapest model can already do 90% of what the top end one can, and most importantly getting those capabilities from other manufacturers would require you to buy their top end model at 5x the price or more, anything cheaper while technically just as capable is artificially crippled. In the new market segment mnementh talks of the artificial crippling caused features that are useful for that new segment to only be found in the higher end models, but nobody's ready to pay the price they ask for it, so... guess who's got 50% market share in the now most active and insanely fast growing segment of the industry.
-
Let's take it a bit too far and say that someone with enough time and knowledge rewrite the entire software that run on a specific oscilloscope model, and by doing that he actually now capable of using what ever hardware feature available of the scope.
does this count as stealing !! does this void any licence agreement of not using that equipment as sold !!
not if it's not stealing, can he sell it for anyone who think that his software is better than what OEM did, knowing he did invest money and time on it and didn't use any bit of the original software :box:
-
Let's take it a bit too far and say that someone with enough time and knowledge rewrite the entire software that run on a specific oscilloscope model, and by doing that he actually now capable of using what ever hardware feature available of the scope.
Heh it's not too far, that's exactly what happened in the case of my previous post's last paragraph. Someone was tired of the stupid marketing-driven limitations of existing products, took a cheap Chinese device that was technically simple but appropriate, and started writing an alternative open source software for it that was obviously free of any artificial restrictions and as flexible as possible. It grew a lot over the years, dedicated replacement boards with more capability were developed for the existing casing (PCBs are cheap, a whole product with the related mechanical design was out of reach), and now that this manufacturer who was eager to join the market teamed up with the appropriate resources there are several fully dedicated complete products.
Many industry segments and the individuals they "serve" would benefit from it. I put "serve" in quote marks because while the original goal of a business was to make appropriate tools for people to use and create things with, they're nowadays mostly looking at themselves and their profits rather than what the users need or want. Initiatives like the above hopefully can do a bit to bring things back towards where they belong.
-
You that happening quite often, take DD-WRT for example.
DD-WRT is an open source alternative firmware for a lot of wireless routers which greatly enhances the functionality and performance of those devices.
Another example is OpenPLi, a project that provides software for satellite and cable receivers. It has gone so far as that most of the target receivers are now shipped with this software from the manufacturer.
-
Indeed, and if you upscale that a lot you can actually consider Linux and the GNU ecosystem as being the same kind of thing - even if it dates much further back they also started as alternatives to existing proprietary solutions, and have replaced them in a vast number of cases. Ironic that the vendors who create the things we're complaining about right here often use it as a foundation by the way - the movement simply hasn't reached their field just yet ;)
-
but does this make it OK but the same legal, ethical rules that say that you not allowed to modify "hack" and unlock a software in order to use the existing hardware in a different way than is meant to be. Following this logic the answer is No, neither making it profitable business. But it happen and if anyone follow this rules Linux and all freeware open source things will never be on the market. and what happen is company sell linux distribution embedded in it's hardware and once again it's locked and not free to use and by definition is against the raison why such software as linux exists in the first place. And now am confused ...
-
And I think that is the main reason a lot of folks do this... In the case Kilrah is talking about, a cheap, closed-source RC Transmitter with an utterly craptacular UI was the base "guinea pig"; smart programming folks found that it used a common Atmel CPU and could be relatively easily flashed with a new sketch containing much more straightforward and flexible Open-Source UI.
This UI has grown over a decade and is now really the De Facto standard of the industry; new features are released constantly and the original manufacturer of the guinea pig released models specifically deisgned to be easily flashed to this FW. Another Chinese manufacturer has become one of the most popular brands worldwide because they developed a family of inexpensive but decent quality RC Transmitters specifically to work with the firmware.
These TX have become so popular, in fact, that in order to keep up with the Open-Source UI, the established big names in the industry have been forced to release whole new entry-level product lines with much greater feature set than their previous top-tier products used to have.
At the core, THIS is why we hack. To upset the prevailing paradigm and bring about one we like better.
mnem
Be the change you wish to see in the world.
-
but does this make it OK but the same legal, ethical rules that say that you not allowed to modify "hack" and unlock a software in order to use the existing hardware in a different way than is meant to be. Following this logic the answer is No, neither making it profitable business.
It's different because in the "replacement software" case there is typically no loss of gain involved for the manufacturer. After all, if you buy $device only to throw the supplied software away you've still paid the manufacturer for both the hardware and the software you don't use, so they've got nothing to complain about. I've never read about someone explicitely restricting someone from doing such a thing with their hardware, nor if they'd have the right to in the first place. Kinda doubt this would be done. For example Apple clearly forbids in the OSX licensing agreement to run it on non-Apple hardware, but if you buy Apple hardware they couldn't care less about what other OS you run on it.
You'd probably want to open your scope's manual and read what nobody usually ever reads, where there would typically be a license agreement for the software and something stating that "by using the product you agree to it", and see if that includes something about the hardware as well. If there isn't then you're free to do whatever you want, otherwise you'd be bound to those as well providing they're legal. Whether they are is another matter, and whether variations like buying a bare scope (without $option that manufacturer sells) then replacing the firmware with something that implements the functionality $option provides (i.e. involving loss of gain) could be considered a breach etc is something that I believe has never been debated despite it happening many times in history, and if it was to be it probably would become a matter of an army of lawyers spending a couple of years to decide on, not something we can figure out here (and is why it's unknown at this point, the investment needed to find out would probably be bigger than what anyone could afford and more than what anyone would ever risk losing due to the practice).
-
I don't care if that's where their money comes from, they chose to give me the software, so I'm going to use it. If you sell me something, I'm going to do whatever I want with it. Don't like it, don't sell it to me. That simple.
They didn't give anything to you, they only sold a licence to use it.
Yes they did, because you're "physically" in possession of the actual code for the feature, it's just locked.
No. You have bought and are in possession of a very large finite state machine (the executable code). You are modifying that FSM to do something you haven't bought.
-
You are modifying that FSM to do something you haven't bought.
No, only inputting a bit of data to one of that state machine's inputs that has precisely been provided to modify its behavior, with nothing being put in place to prevent me from doing so other than not documenting it.
If it involved breaking encryption or other non-trivial measures that have been actively implemented to prevent such a thing, which I believe DMCA is about then it could be a problem, but it's far from being a "black or white" scenario and isn't really the case here.
For example Tektronix giving unlock modules as EEPROMS containing plaintext... Come on, 99% of your customers are EEs for which it's absolutely trivial and who might nearly even find that by accident without even looking to hack due to their inherent curiosity... it's obvious they either had no intention to protect their system, or were absolutely stupid to the level where they should be ashamed of themselves and deserve to eat it.
-
It used to be a manufacturer made different actual hardware to produce various models with more or less capability, thereby making market segmentation. Once software-based control systems became sophisticated enough, then they were able to restrict hardware capabilities by not including the control software to make it work. This was the beginning of crippleware. Now, instead of even bothering to produce different software for the different models, they've taken the ultimate lazy-ass and made the crippleware simple toggles they can turn on and off.
There are STILL ongoing litigation that have been fought for decades over whether it is legal to SELL a hardware product yet still hold the software required for that hardware to work as a separate entity that you don't relinquish rights to; in essence SELLING something but STILL demanding that you STILL OWN some part of it. In other parts of the civilized world these arguments have been shut down in favor of the consumer, and it has been decided that you can't do that. SELL means SELL, RENT means RENT. Microsoft has gotten spanked dozens of times by these proceedings, and it is why they're moving to a services-for-hire business model.
The batshit crazy pro-corporation political climate of the US has allowed these battles to continue, and to keep common sense from obtaining scenarios like this. Even the very legality of "break-seal licensing" and "click-through" licensing is still up in the air over here. ::)
That said... given how much real concern these very same Chinese manufacturers have for US Copyright and CopyLeft laws, and knowing that the very code in these machines is probably a mix of both stolen copyrighted code and LINUX, which license expressly requires that all such code modifications, even even that forked to use for profit, much be released back to the open-source source pool, I have very little compunction regards using the digital equivalent of a bent paper clip to "unlock" code that is probably illegally locked away to begin with, and is locked under the equivalent of a novelty pair of fuzzy handcuffs.
Bottom line is if they're too damned lazy to even make different versions of the code, but instead deliver the hardware with ALL the software fully functional on it but deliberately crippled, they DESERVE to have folks unlock their hardware once they take physical possession of it. And they deserve to have folks who know how to code release their "unlocked" source code back to the LINUX code pool, thereby fulfilling the terms of that license as the CopyLeft of that base code explicitly states.
mnem
Food for thought; thought from food.
-
I think optimizing things is part of the "engineering dna".
Having this mindset it's only natural if you want to optimize your test equipment too.
-
You are modifying that FSM to do something you haven't bought.
No, only inputting a bit of data to one of that state machine's inputs that has precisely been provided to modify its behavior, with nothing being put in place to prevent me from doing so other than not documenting it.
If it involved breaking encryption or other non-trivial measures that have been actively implemented to prevent such a thing, which I believe DMCA is about then it could be a problem, but it's far from being a "black or white" scenario and isn't really the case here.
For example Tektronix giving unlock modules as EEPROMS containing plaintext... Come on, 99% of your customers are EEs for which it's absolutely trivial and who might nearly even find that by accident without even looking to hack due to their inherent curiosity... it's obvious they either had no intention to protect their system, or were absolutely stupid to the level where they should be ashamed of themselves and deserve to eat it.
By that "argument" you think it is acceptable if someone took things from your home because you didn't have the most secure known locks on the front door.
Or do you think that is acceptable?
-
It's more like someone sells you a house but wants 50% extra for the keys to the rooms. So you decide to buy the house and break open the room doors.
-
It's more like someone sells you a house but wants 50% extra for the keys to the rooms. So you decide to buy the house and break open the room doors.
No, it's more like your purchased a condo and you broke into the adjacent condos because they are all connected. Or maybe you wanted a deal on the house so you purchased a portion of it, with the option to buy the other rooms at a later time. Without payment, you decide to use those rooms anyway because you figured out how to pick the lock.
The arguments here are kind of funny to me, justified stealing. Because no one is getting in trouble for it, it's no longer stealing. If a manufacturer, for whatever reason they choose, writes software that is intended for sale and someone uses it without buying it by circumventing a lock system - its stealing. The magnitude and the reason does not matter. If the manufacturer chooses, they can give you the key or sell it to you but that is the decision of the IP owner. You own the physical hardware but you do NOT own the intellectual property. That means that you could, if you wanted, write your own code from scratch to make the hardware do what you want, but you cannot break a lock to use a feature that the company sells.
Like I said earlier - I have various expensive software packages on my computer that are sold in modules. The entire program is installed on the computer but only the modules I paid for will work. If I break the lock (which I know how to do), I will be treated like a murderer. I should not get the benefit of something that I was unwilling to pay for. I am not entitled to use it just because the bits and bytes are on my system drive.
Imagine if every single user of modern scopes purchased the cheapest model and hacked all the features. Now imagine you own the scope business and just spent $10mil on on options that allow you to offer a wider range of solutions to your customers. Your $10million will not be coming back to you.
Now, if the manufacturers did not include any of this on the scopes and required owners to send the scoped in for any update or add-on - that is SHITTY for everyone. I really like the idea of paying for what I need and only needing to apply a key to unlock the option. Software is essentially a rental license since no-one sells the software they only the sell you a license to benefit from it.
So when the manufacturers decide to make the options a total pain in the ass difficult - I will have many of you hackers to thank for that. Thanks in advance for pushing the industry into a defensive position where we all suffer. You people can justify all day long - but the end result is that we all suffer the consequence eventually. You cannot justify it because you think the manufacturer has made enough money, or the option is ridiculously expensive - that is their choice and there are a LOT of competitors that keep that in check.
-
No it's not like breaking in another condo. It doesn't belong to anyone else. You bought the house with all the rooms. The business model is just not the best when you decide to build all the houses the same and differentiate between them with the keys you give the buyer.
They had exactly the same expenses, if you bought it with or without options. They sent you all the software and hardware. It's yours! You can do with it whatever you want.
If you don't have the right to do with it what you want you haven't bought it but rented/leased/licensed it.
-
If you don't have the right to do with it what you want you haven't bought it but rented/leased/licensed it.
Correct. You have not licensed it.
The manufacturer chooses to offer options and those options are easily accessible should you need them. Or you can steal them and say fuck you to the manufacturer. You don't own the license or the right to use the software. Period end of story. You choose to and it is relatively easy, but you are still stealing no matter what.
-
Screw the "product is worth what people are ready to pay for it, not how much it actually costs to make" paradigm. This marketing scheme is a pain for users and nobody really wants it,
If you think Agilent/Rigol/Keysight et al are simply "making extra money for nothing," with this sales model, you're not thinking it thru all the way. If the profit margin is this huge, why the hell don't you go into the oscilloscope business for yourself, lol. Or start buying stock. You're not paying for just the hardware. You're paying for the marketing, the shipping department, the R&D... and the exective's fat salary.
It's a competitive market. They have these strategies in order to STAY in business. To continue providing us with the tools we need. If profits go down, or negative, do you think the CEO is going to cut his salary first? Or are there a lot of other people like you and me that are going to be out of a job, first? The fat cats at the top are going to get paid, either way.
-
It's more like someone sells you a house but wants 50% extra for the keys to the rooms. So you decide to buy the house and break open the room doors.
It is considered polite to quote what you are responding to. If we presume it it https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg899888/#msg899888 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg899888/#msg899888)
then your note is not addressing that message.
In addition, your response is not a good point. If you want to argue by analogy, which is always weak and dangerous, then you have chosen not to buy the whole building when it was offered to you, but you have chosen to only buy part of the building. That doesn't entitle you to take possession of the rest of the building.
-
Screw the "product is worth what people are ready to pay for it, not how much it actually costs to make" paradigm. This marketing scheme is a pain for users and nobody really wants it,
If you think Agilent/Rigol/Keysight et al are simply "making extra money for nothing," with this sales model, you're not thinking it thru all the way. If the profit margin is this huge, why the hell don't you go into the oscilloscope business for yourself, lol. Or start buying stock.
It's a competitive market. They have these strategies in order to STAY in business. To continue providing us with the tools we need.
Precisely. TANSTAAFL.
-
Selling someone a piece of hardware but only allowing them to use half of the memory/bandwidth is stealing.
Hacking the firmware is not stealing. It may be considered to be copyright violation but it isn't stealing because the person who wrote the software still has the code. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STEAL SOFTWARE!
-
If you want to buy just the hardware with no firmware on it, they can probably sell you that, too. You're not buying "hardware" when you buy a scope.
I'll give you a pile of ADC's and RAM and an LCD and CPU for $200.00. All the stuff you need to make a top end $2,000 scope. You'll have it 10 years and $30 million dollars, later. Let's see how "free" it feels when you have design the circuitry and write the firmware, yourself.
-
A machinst that I know got hacked SolidWorks and MasterCAM so that he could save money. Total value is over $20k. That isn't stealing because the software developers still have the source code?
Wow, that is an interesting argument. You can steal intangible property, and that is what this guy did. He is legally forbidden from using these two pieces if software without a license. If I reported it, do you think a lawyer will struggle to put him in jail?
Sent from my horrible mobile....
-
There are several open source oscilloscope software packages. The biggest problem is getting the hardware cheap enough. One of the projects I'm working on is a distributed oscilloscope which are synchronised down to a few ps over a network (albeit with special switches). This is to be released as open hardware/software at some point.
Anyway, hacking isn't always about unlocking features. Hacking is also very usefull to extend and enhance features. For example: the Tektronix logic analyser I have allows to load plugins for dissambly and protocol decoding. Someone figured out what the plugin DLL should look like and I created some useful decoder packages for it. Other hacks I did in the past was putting a higher resolution screen in a logic analyser or replace CRT screens with TFT screens.
@rx8pilot: putting people in jail doesn't help software manufacturers. The usual way is to make people pay for the software IF a lawsuit to do so has any chance of succes. The number of people going to jail for copyright infringement (yes, you really can't steal software!) is in the sub-ppm range but those cases usually involve mass scale distribution and making loads of money in the process.
-
I don't care if that's where their money comes from, they chose to give me the software, so I'm going to use it. If you sell me something, I'm going to do whatever I want with it. Don't like it, don't sell it to me. That simple.
They didn't give anything to you, they only sold a licence to use it.
Yes they did, because you're "physically" in possession of the actual code for the feature, it's just locked.
No. You have bought and are in possession of a very large finite state machine (the executable code). You are modifying that FSM to do something you haven't bought.
Now imagine someone that proposed that changing parts in a machine to make it do something else was illegal. Completely ridiculous, right? That would never hold up - you own a machine, you can do what you want with it.
Some devices use resistors to select hardware capabilities. Is moving that resistor illegal?
These cases are far from as settled as some would like them to be. Courts are still divided over the general enforcibility of software licenses, but several have found that a paper license included in the box, but with no "I agree" prompt required to use the software, is unenforceable. Rigol does not prompt for license agreements, and under these rulings the software on the scope is sold, and not licensed.
-
I did not literally mean jail time. However a fine plus a demand for immediate payment is not at all ridiculous if they have the appropriate legal requirements to do so. The point was to say that using licensed software without a license is indeed illegal and having the bits on your computer or scope does not give you a license.
Sent from my horrible mobile....
-
Some quick reading revealed some interesting numbers.
Copyright owner can go after $150k and the government can independently prosecute for $250k AND 5 years in jail.
http://www.bsa.org/anti-piracy/tools-page/software-piracy-and-the-law/?sc_lang=en-US
Sent from my horrible mobile....
-
Entering numbers into a screen isn't a copyright violation. Its maybe a DMCA violation, possibly a license violation if you're in a court where it happens to be enforceable that week. To violate copyright you must distribute something. Copying someone elses artwork and redistributing it is a copyright violation, downloading that work in your browser and viewing it is not.
Good thing too, or opening your eyes would be illegal.
-
Some quick reading revealed some interesting numbers.
http://www.bsa.org/anti-piracy/tools-page/software-piracy-and-the-law/?sc_lang=en-US (http://www.bsa.org/anti-piracy/tools-page/software-piracy-and-the-law/?sc_lang=en-US)
I wouldn't quote the BSA for any reliable information on the subject! The information provided by these kind of organisations is very coloured and opiniated to say the least.
-
I guess this is why im not a lawyer, lol.
Sent from my horrible mobile....
-
Words in general.
A) Not everyone is in the US and bound by US laws. Thank god.
B) I quite honestly do not give a shit about whether the law (or the EULA) says something is right or wrong or purple or tastes like oranges. I consider certain actions to be morally valid (helping old ladies across the road, paying taxes, unlocking options), and certain to be immoral (killing people, stealing someone's car, being involved in politics). In situations where my morals differ from the letter of the law, my main consideration is the likelihood of being prosecuted for breaking them. If it's low - and it really generally is low! - I do whatever I damn well please.
People like yourself who prance around with the idea that they're somehow superior because they obliviously - and obsessively - obey every single tenet of the law without consideration for common sense amuse me greatly. How in the world do you think things have progressed - by everyone blindly following our beloved leaders at all times? I think a rather large number of minorities would disagree with you there.
-
My $0.25. I bought the Rigol DS2000 for the features, and felt strongly that a hack may happen.
I feel Rigol knew the marketing benefits, as the news of a hack was spread to public from the past sales of the DS1052. And the results of new FW on sales. Rigol setup for large sales . Institutions would buy any options needed .Rigol setup to maximize profits. Cover manufacturing costs and get profits. Rigol knew fully that the first DS2000 FW releases were open text and people could see BW and all options were in the FW. And the assemble code was easy to disassemble . It would have been So easy to encrypt the FW. Setting up some cheese to catch many sales. Look how much Rigol has become a popular Test equipment.
On another side , I have tested many features of The Rigol and report bugs in options to Rigol, with fixes occurring in new FW.
I have also recieved Beta FW to test, and token gifts . They know I have hacked the DSO.
I feel I have developed a cooperative relationship with Rigol , to Everyone's benefit.
I Love the investigation and develope of the hack as a mystery story :)
I have 4 Rigol Equipment.
-
My moral compass points this way:
To hack a scope I own - I'm fine with that, might be annoyed if I (rightfully) get denied after sale support, but that is the price I pay for being cheep.
To hack a scope for somebody else - Nope, not worth the hassle. They can do it themselves
To hack a scope just so you can sell it on for a premium - Not happy with that at all. That is just wrong
It is a bit like using chips from a slower speed grade or overclocking... yeah, it might work for me but I'm not going to inflict it on others.
But then I am left with one troubling scenario - If I was to hack a scope I own, and then later sell it on... ohhh that gets tricky! Full disclosure would be the way I roll, I guess.
-
Bottom line is if they're too damned lazy to even make different versions of the code, but instead deliver the hardware with ALL the software fully functional on it but deliberately crippled, they DESERVE to have folks unlock their hardware once they take physical possession of it. And they deserve to have folks who know how to code release their "unlocked" source code back to the LINUX code pool, thereby fulfilling the terms of that license as the CopyLeft of that base code explicitly states.
There are a lot of legal and moral reasons that have been posted, already. I believe I have read every post, so apologies if this has already been addressed:
There's another reason, and that is security.
If you write a completely different firmware, you have to have the customer send his scope in for an upgrade. This will cost way more, due to handling time and shipping. And it will cause significant downtime.
Or, you have to send every customer who orders an upgrade a copy of this firmware upgrade. How do you do this, securely?
Sure, you can use an encrypted bootloader. But a bootloader can be cracked. Now instead of the keys to an upgrade, the hacker has your entire firmware. (And even if it is not cracked, now this dishonest person can use the same firmware to upgrade other scope for free.... or a unique ID must be placed on each device and recorded in a database and accessed by a service rep for a unique firmware to be sent to each customer - adding cost. And there will STILL remain the possibility that someone will hack and possess your entire firmware.)
It is much more desirable (for a product like this) to protect your firmware from such a threat. Even if it means a lesser security to hacking the upgrade.
As others have said, the code locked upgrade is like a car key. It's enough to keep honest people honest. At least you're not giving them the chance to steal the whole kit and caboodle. (Yeah, I know some IC's can be physically hacked either electrically or by decapping and selectively flipping bits with focused UV light. But some chips are made so this is basically impossible without destroying the chip. Even if possible it would be pretty expensive to do this and could take a lot of examples that will be destroyed just for the chance.)
-
But then I am left with one troubling scenario - If I was to hack a scope I own, and then later sell it on... ohhh that gets tricky! Full disclosure would be the way I roll, I guess.
Rigols can be de-hacked. :)
-
My moral compass points this way:
To hack a scope I own - I'm fine with that, might be annoyed if I (rightfully) get denied after sale support, but that is the price I pay for being cheep.
To hack a scope for somebody else - Nope, not worth the hassle. They can do it themselves
To hack a scope just so you can sell it on for a premium - Not happy with that at all. That is just wrong
It is a bit like using chips from a slower speed grade or overclocking... yeah, it might work for me but I'm not going to inflict it on others.
But then I am left with one troubling scenario - If I was to hack a scope I own, and then later sell it on... ohhh that gets tricky! Full disclosure would be the way I roll, I guess.
Yep honesty is always the best policy, like member Bud did:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/buysellwanted/fs-rigol-ds2072a-oscilloscope-300mhz/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/buysellwanted/fs-rigol-ds2072a-oscilloscope-300mhz/)
And documented his repairs so it's now better than ex factory:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/project-yaigol-fixing-rigol-scope-design-problems/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/projects/project-yaigol-fixing-rigol-scope-design-problems/)
-
sometimes it may make sense to supply more software than required. where I work we developed a system that came in two parts but used one ECU, the first part was the basic they would always buy. The second part may or may not be required. We shipped the software to control a complete system and to recognise the extra stuff if connected. So in a way when we sell the second part we are also selling the software that they already have in the ECU they already bought. Except in this case they need the hardware and the software is to run the hardware, not provide additional software funtionality.
Supplying software with a unit but dissabling it works both ways. I bet if you had to buy a memory stick with the additional software on it and have it shipped you would be whinging about why they don't just put it in the unit and lock it off so that you buy it when you want it and get "instant" access.
-
sometimes it may make sense to supply more software ........
Supplying software with a unit but dissabling it works both ways. I bet if you had to buy a memory stick with the additional software on it and have it shipped you would be whinging about why they don't just put it in the unit and lock it off so that you buy it when you want it and get "instant" access.
In much the same way a Cummins 425 hp engine doesn't know it's a 550 hp until it told to be such.
It's the world we live in these days and you'd be surprised what can't be hacked if time and inclination is applied.
The trick is preserve one's code.....or in the case of some marketing strategies make it easy to break.
-
If you don't have the right to do with it what you want you haven't bought it but rented/leased/licensed it.
This is where the legal battles end up, for consumers its simple that a sale is a sale, but for business to business it suddenly becomes "normal" for a complex contract to be part of any transaction and that contract includes that you haven't bought a product but instead purchased a license to use the produce. Remember when certain companies would only sell to you if you were a company? This was to avoid all the customer friendly mandates that go along with selling to consumers.
It gets very murky when the contract says you cannot transfer the license to another person/entity, and shinkwrapping that type of contract lacking consideration (license) is and has been argued in court with results falling both ways. Applying licensing to software in my opinion is a ridiculous restriction as you do not reproduce the work for profit, but utilise its function as a tool, there is no competition with the original creator of the software (in the vast majority of cases) by using it as there is by performing or showing licensed media. Copyright is important to protect the creator of the software from others distributing it and them losing income, but the lawyers have continued to extend licensing out into obscene lengths.
-
sometimes it may make sense to supply more software ........
Supplying software with a unit but dissabling it works both ways. I bet if you had to buy a memory stick with the additional software on it and have it shipped you would be whinging about why they don't just put it in the unit and lock it off so that you buy it when you want it and get "instant" access.
In much the same way a Cummins 425 hp engine doesn't know it's a 550 hp until it told to be such.
It's the world we live in these days and you'd be surprised what can't be hacked if time and inclination is applied.
The trick is preserve one's code.....or in the case of some marketing strategies make it easy to break.
Cars are tricky, most "chip tuning" replaces the factory lookup tables with a higher performance set, no problems there unless the seller of the "chip" is also selling a copy of the ECU firmware on the chip at the same time. Most modern engines are running well below their capability and the same block could be used in variations across a factor of 3 or more in power, but they are tuned back to match other components of the driveline and meet warranty expectations rather than segmenting the market while using the same underlying parts.
For more car fun, note that some ABS implementations use identical physical parts to the traction control option, just a change of firmware...
-
Perhaps I'm being simplistic - but here's my take.
1. In today's environment, the practice of 'unlocking' features is quite simply an effective way to ship a product with stable, properly configured FW/SW.
2. It is clear extra features were designed to made available after obtaining the appropriate licence/key through certain channels - eg purchase. Market segmentation is not evil - it is pragmatic and it is transparent.
3. Accessing these features outside the spirit of the licensing schema is wrong. Call it what you want - theft, stealing, or whatever. The bleating about the exact words used is simply SEMANTICS. Get over it.
4. Saying that a programmer has already been paid for the software on a device is simply short-sighted and a vain attempt to justify wrong actions. There's a lot of attempting to justify wrong actions.
5. If you want to rewrite the FW/SW yourself to do all sorts of cool stuff, then you aren't benefiting from someone else's work - so, go for it.
In a nutshell - if you want to benefit from using a paid feature without paying, then try and justify it all you want - but it is wrong.
-
A machinst that I know got hacked SolidWorks and MasterCAM so that he could save money. Total value is over $20k. That isn't stealing because the software developers still have the source code?
Wow, that is an interesting argument. You can steal intangible property, and that is what this guy did. He is legally forbidden from using these two pieces if software without a license. If I reported it, do you think a lawyer will struggle to put him in jail?
There's a huge difference in copyright violation, which is more like breach of contract than theft of physical property.
If a jeweler has $20k worth of stock stolen, then that's $20k of stock they can no longer sell to anyone else.
In the case of the machinist violating copyright law, by using a $20k piece of software, when they don't have the license (permission of the developer) to do so, the developer has not physically lost anything. They are still free to sell a license to someone else, who will pay for it. It's quite likely the machinist wouldn't pay for the software anyway.
This is why all the analogies comparing hacking software to breaking into people's houses are very silly.
I'm sure if you reported someone who stole $20k of jewelry to the police, they'd take it far more seriously, than someone who's using $20k worth of software, when they don't have the license to do so.
-
In the case of the machinist violating copyright law, by using a $20k piece of software, when they don't have the license (permission of the developer) to do so, the developer has not physically lost anything.
The developer certainly HAS lost something - $20k cash! Do you not see that? Without the benefit of being rewarded for his work, how will he be able to support this software - and/or be able to create his next one?
They are still free to sell a license to someone else, who will pay for it.
A developer has 100 widgets for sale and misses out on selling one - but he still has 100 widgets to sell and somebody is benefiting from his work, without having paid for it. Pity he has to live on bread and water for a couple of months and sell the car to pay the rent.
Again, this is a simplistic view - but the principles still apply however you scale them.
-
In the case of the machinist violating copyright law, by using a $20k piece of software, when they don't have the license (permission of the developer) to do so, the developer has not physically lost anything.
If the machinist is selling the stuff he makes using that software then he ought to pay.
This is the crux of the matter.
If you're just messing about at home for a hobby then I say "fair enough" but if you're making money using the hacked oscilloscope (or whatever) then really you ought to be paying for it. End of story.
In the case of the machinist violating copyright law, by using a $20k piece of software, when they don't have the license (permission of the developer) to do so, the developer has not physically lost anything.
The developer certainly HAS lost something - $20k cash! Do you not see that?
Yep. Developers have to eat, they have bills to pay, they like to have something left over to go on holiday every now and again, etc.
-
Bottom line is if they're too damned lazy to even make different versions of the code, but instead deliver the hardware with ALL the software fully functional on it but deliberately crippled, they DESERVE to have folks unlock their hardware once they take physical possession of it. And they deserve to have folks who know how to code release their "unlocked" source code back to the LINUX code pool, thereby fulfilling the terms of that license as the CopyLeft of that base code explicitly states.
There are a lot of legal and moral reasons that have been posted, already. I believe I have read every post, so apologies if this has already been addressed:
There's another reason, and that is security.
If you write a completely different firmware, you have to have the customer send his scope in for an upgrade. This will cost way more, due to handling time and shipping. And it will cause significant downtime.
Or, you have to send every customer who orders an upgrade a copy of this firmware upgrade. How do you do this, securely?
Sure, you can use an encrypted bootloader. But a bootloader can be cracked. Now instead of the keys to an upgrade, the hacker has your entire firmware. (And even if it is not cracked, now this dishonest person can use the same firmware to upgrade other scope for free.... or a unique ID must be placed on each device and recorded in a database and accessed by a service rep for a unique firmware to be sent to each customer - adding cost. And there will STILL remain the possibility that someone will hack and possess your entire firmware.)
It is much more desirable (for a product like this) to protect your firmware from such a threat. Even if it means a lesser security to hacking the upgrade.
As others have said, the code locked upgrade is like a car key. It's enough to keep honest people honest. At least you're not giving them the chance to steal the whole kit and caboodle. (Yeah, I know some IC's can be physically hacked either electrically or by decapping and selectively flipping bits with focused UV light. But some chips are made so this is basically impossible without destroying the chip. Even if possible it would be pretty expensive to do this and could take a lot of examples that will be destroyed just for the chance.)
Yeah... call me old fashioned, but all this points to is how entrenched the lazy has become; that we now EXPECT it.
When I need a more powerful 1/2" drive impact wrench, I don't expect to be able to call Snap-On and have them send me a passkey to enable an extra 100 Ft/lbs from my existing impact wrench; I expect to either replace said impact, send it back for rebuilding with a healthy/more powerful motor, or as most tool vendors will do, trade up to a more powerful tool.
I see this much the same way. Marketing weenies and lawyers have used technology to pervert the normal course of business here; it IS laziness, it IS being cheap to try and sell the SAME EXACT PRODUCT to a dozen different market segments. It IS BS to try and SELL something "but not really; we still own the software" that makes the thing not a paperweight. BUY means BUY... RENT means RENT.
Other nations have already decided this in the consumers' favor; the TPP notwithstanding, eventually it will happen here as well.
mnem
Pants are just a diversion.
-
by using a $20k piece of software, when they don't have the license (permission of the developer) to do so
people tend to treat "software" less seriously to a point they think its ok to violate or ignore an agreement.
the developer has not physically lost anything. They are still free to sell a license to someone else, who will pay for it.
if we only want to talk about "physical" then.. all "software" should be free. the developer has certainly lost the potential of one paying customer.
It's quite likely the machinist wouldn't pay for the software anyway.
two situations:
1) he doesnt pay, he doesnt get to use it (this is the normal "physical" purchase like)
2) he doesnt pay, but he got the chance to use it through some unclever hack attempt. (most happening in softwares)
if he wants to be in position of not paying it, he should not use/violate it. thats plain simple. using it without paying it, is just plain wrong. no one with a right mind will say otherwise. he violate it? he should keep it to himself, he should not say to public it is ok to do so. but...
but there are circumtances thats special, like rigol hack. if rigol doesnt want people to further hack resulting loss of sell, then they can easily block it in newer firmware update. but they probably realized if they do that, potential customers will divert their money to other brands, this is tight, physical and real competition matter. so this "hack" is one of marketing strategy to boost sales. we all should aware this by now, rigol just happily let us to do that with every firmware revisions.
in software, if you want to compete, you make it as cheap as possible and as more features as possible. letting it lose, people hack it easily and use for free resulting in closing down of major competitors, not only the one whose software got hacked.
-
it IS laziness, it IS being cheap to try and sell the SAME EXACT PRODUCT to a dozen different market segments.
No it isn't. :palm:
It's all about reducing costs in the supply chain. These cost savings are passed on to the consumers, ie. you. You get cheaper tools as a result.
-
it IS laziness, it IS being cheap to try and sell the SAME EXACT PRODUCT to a dozen different market segments.
easily said than done. its easier to talk if one is in position of a "customer" instead of the "maker" who want to make a living.
-
but there are circumtances thats special, like rigol hack. if rigol doesnt want people to further hack resulting loss of sell, then they can easily block it in newer firmware update. but they probably realized if they do that, potential customers will divert their money to other brands, this is tight, physical and real competition matter. so this "hack" is one of marketing strategy to boost sales. we all should aware this by now, rigol just happily let us to do that with every firmware revisions.
More or less.
Going back to the software analogy: If the person had paid $100,000 for some of my software then used a hack to unlock a $20,000 option then I'm not sure I'd be too angry. I made $100,000 and that hack might be the difference between buying my software or buying a competitors.
The problem appears when somebody buys a cheap machine from China and uses $120,000 of my software on it without paying me a single cent. That really hurts me as a developer even if I didn't physically lose anything.
(This really happens, it's exactly what people do with, eg., Saleae logic analysers...buy the cheap clones then run Saleae's software on them)
-
Jee.., What type of software you writing?? :o
-
I am not in software business but just like other types of products producing one-fit-all product may be because of pragmatic reasons, i.e. It is easier to develop and maintain. It is also more convenient to the customers. Any percieved loss in revenue because of hacking is easily offset by the benefits of the method.
-
In the case of the machinist violating copyright law, by using a $20k piece of software, when they don't have the license (permission of the developer) to do so, the developer has not physically lost anything.
The developer certainly HAS lost something - $20k cash! Do you not see that?
No he hasn't, he would never have seen those $20k. If the machinist has decided that was too much he was never going to pay them and would have gone to a competitor or found a different solution. That doesn't make it right of course, but the loss isn't a tangible one.
Actually now that the guy is getting used to the software by using a cracked copy he's more likely to end up paying for it at some point rather than moving to a completely different solution and relearning everything. That's definitely a thing, I've seen it done and done it myself on more than one occasion. As a student or for hobby uses I've used cracked versions of several popular and expensive software packages for some time, but then once I could afford to pay for them and/or had more serious use cases for them than just playing around I've licensed them correctly. See it as an extension for the free trial that's always too short, and the more it's extended the more the person is likely to shell out one day.
What I can't condone and I've seen some guys do is purchase cracked software from "hacker groups", in quote marks because those aren't real hackers.
-
by using a $20k piece of software, when they don't have the license (permission of the developer) to do so
people tend to treat "software" less seriously to a point they think its ok to violate or ignore an agreement.
the developer has not physically lost anything. They are still free to sell a license to someone else, who will pay for it.
if we only want to talk about "physical" then.. all "software" should be free. the developer has certainly lost the potential of one paying customer.
It's quite likely the machinist wouldn't pay for the software anyway.
two situations:
1) he doesnt pay, he doesnt get to use it (this is the normal "physical" purchase like)
2) he doesnt pay, but he got the chance to use it through some unclever hack attempt. (most happening in softwares)
if he wants to be in position of not paying it, he should not use/violate it. thats plain simple. using it without paying it, is just plain wrong. no one with a right mind will say otherwise. he violate it? he should keep it to himself, he should not say to public it is ok to do so.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it's OK to use software without the agreement of the developer or that is shouldn't be illegal, just that it isn't stealing.
but there are circumtances thats special, like rigol hack. if rigol doesnt want people to further hack resulting loss of sell, then they can easily block it in newer firmware update. but they probably realized if they do that, potential customers will divert their money to other brands, this is tight, physical and real competition matter. so this "hack" is one of marketing strategy to boost sales. we all should aware this by now, rigol just happily let us to do that with every firmware revisions.
In the case of the Rigol hack, where the reason is to unlock hardware which one has already paid for, then it's perfectly morally right as far as I'm concerned. It's my hardware, which I paid good money for and I have the right to use it. Asking for more money to allow me to use something I already own is like demanding a ransom.
in software, if you want to compete, you make it as cheap as possible and as more features as possible. letting it lose, people hack it easily and use for free resulting in closing down of major competitors, not only the one whose software got hacked.
Then, when you have market dominance, you can crack down on the crackers and raise the price. This sort of tactic was used by Microsoft in the early days and they're still doing it in developing countries.
In the case of the machinist violating copyright law, by using a $20k piece of software, when they don't have the license (permission of the developer) to do so, the developer has not physically lost anything.
The developer certainly HAS lost something - $20k cash! Do you not see that?
No he hasn't, he would never have seen those $20k. If the machinist has decided that was too much he was never going to pay them and would have gone to a competitor or found a different solution. That doesn't make it right of course, but the loss isn't a tangible one.
Actually now that the guy is getting used to the software by using a cracked copy he's more likely to end up paying for it at some point rather than moving to a completely different solution and relearning everything. That's definitely a thing, I've seen it done and done it myself on more than one occasion. As a student or for hobby uses I've used cracked versions of several popular and expensive software packages for some time, but then once I could afford to pay for them and/or had more serious use cases for them than just playing around I've licensed them correctly. See it as an extension for the free trial that's always too short, and the more it's extended the more the person is likely to shell out one day.
What I can't condone and I've seen some guys do is purchase cracked software from "hacker groups", in quote marks because those aren't real hackers.
Exactly.
-
but there are circumtances thats special, like rigol hack. if rigol doesnt want people to further hack resulting loss of sell, then they can easily block it in newer firmware update. but they probably realized if they do that, potential customers will divert their money to other brands, this is tight, physical and real competition matter. so this "hack" is one of marketing strategy to boost sales. we all should aware this by now, rigol just happily let us to do that with every firmware revisions.
In the case of the Rigol hack, where the reason is to unlock hardware which one has already paid for, then it's perfectly morally right as far as I'm concerned. It's my hardware, which I paid good money for and I have the right to use it. Asking for more money to allow me to use something I already own is like demanding a ransom.
Simple solution: use the hardware but not the software.
I don't see any problem if you use the hardware you have paid for. I do see a problem if you use software you haven't paid for.
I do see problems if a manufacturer prevents you using software you have paid for - as Microsoft did with WinXP on one of my machines when the disk died.
I do see problems if a manufacturer prevents you from playing music you have paid for - as Microsoft did with PlaysForSure(TM) [sic].
But neither of those are the case here.
-
but there are circumtances thats special, like rigol hack. if rigol doesnt want people to further hack resulting loss of sell, then they can easily block it in newer firmware update. but they probably realized if they do that, potential customers will divert their money to other brands, this is tight, physical and real competition matter. so this "hack" is one of marketing strategy to boost sales. we all should aware this by now, rigol just happily let us to do that with every firmware revisions.
In the case of the Rigol hack, where the reason is to unlock hardware which one has already paid for, then it's perfectly morally right as far as I'm concerned. It's my hardware, which I paid good money for and I have the right to use it. Asking for more money to allow me to use something I already own is like demanding a ransom.
Simple solution: use the hardware but not the software.
I don't see any problem if you use the hardware you have paid for.
And that's exactly what I've done. I hacked my Rigol to so I can use the full bandwidth and memory I rightly own. I don't need the extra software features such as I2C decoding and what not. Rigol has received a fair price for their oscilloscope. They haven't sold me the oscilloscope at a loss. They've made a nice profit.
I do see a problem if you use software you haven't paid for.
I do see problems if a manufacturer prevents you using software you have paid for - as Microsoft did with WinXP on one of my machines when the disk died.
I do see problems if a manufacturer prevents you from playing music you have paid for - as Microsoft did with PlaysForSure(TM) [sic].
But neither of those are the case here.
I agree with that but it's hardware locking which is immoral and could even be illegal in some jurisdictions.
-
1. In today's environment, the practice of 'unlocking' features is quite simply an effective way to ship a product with stable, properly configured FW/SW.
2. It is clear extra features were designed to made available after obtaining the appropriate licence/key through certain channels - eg purchase. Market segmentation is not evil - it is pragmatic and it is transparent.
3. Accessing these features outside the spirit of the licensing schema is wrong. Call it what you want - theft, stealing, or whatever. The bleating about the exact words used is simply SEMANTICS. Get over it.
4. Saying that a programmer has already been paid for the software on a device is simply short-sighted and a vain attempt to justify wrong actions. There's a lot of attempting to justify wrong actions.
5. If you want to rewrite the FW/SW yourself to do all sorts of cool stuff, then you aren't benefiting from someone else's work - so, go for it.
I hate to repeat myself, but I don't see anyone else commenting on this.
6. Security of the firmware.
Having been asked to make unlockable features in firmware for a client, I have thought on it and given the following "secure" options, of which they all include flashing the entire firmware onto the chip.
1. Have a simple code to unlock. Just email the code. But once the cat is out of the bag, everyone will have it.
2. Have a mathematic algorhythm query/response for an unlock. Same deal, but at least it might hold up longer.
3. Have a unique random chip ID for each device. Adds expense, and you have to track each product serial number and this must be looked up for each customer requesting an upgrade.
AFAIC, sending customers firmware as an upgrade is not secure. Once the firmware is decrypted or the bootloader is cracked, it's game over. Rather than an unlock code being public, now your entire firmware is available to any cloner in china who can reverse engineer your hardware and use your own (very slightly modified, so now it's not a copy) firmware to make a clone product with only a minimal time and effort... completely bypassing the R&D that you put into your product.
So all this "they put the entire software on the device, because they're lazy and it deserves to be hacked" is nonsense. The software/firmware is the majority of the dev cost on these new DSO's and a very valuable part of the IP, and sending it out to thousands of people, encrypted or not, would be lunacy. Code-protection on the chip is still one of the most secure ways to protect this IP; hence, delivering the product with the full firmware burned on it is very practical from a security standpoint. Forget morality and laziness... this is common sense. Sending a firmware for an upgrade produces all of the same problems as an unlock code, but now you're adding vulnerability of your actual firmware.
-
I agree with that but it's hardware locking which is immoral and could even be illegal in some jurisdictions.
That is hard to agree with. PC hardware is completely useless without hardware. It needs the software to accomplish anything useful. If you buy bare PC hardware, you can design and code your own operating system to make it do whatever you want, however you want. If, however, you want an operating system that is already done and ready to go, you may have to pay for that (Windows for example). With most modern equipment, you are buying the hardware as a platform to run software - neither one on it's own is worth anything. Because both have value together - they both have value and that is what you pay for.
Software allows anyone (including myself) to have a scalable hardware system that can meet the needs of many. The lowest cost offering is enough to cover the cost of the hardware and the development of the basic software. The extra capacity or the capability of the hardware is totally free to use how you see fit - BUT using the software that you illegally circumvented a security scheme for is not yours to use. If you write your own code - it's yours. If you spend 30 minutes circumventing a key system so that you can have the benefit of the 100's or 1000's of hours of paid efforts of others is not right.
Just because the manufacturers have not yet become aggressive about enforcement does not make it right. You are counting on others to pay for your software so that you can buy cheap and hack it. If a company NEVER sold a single software option it would either never be made or it would be bundled into the initial cost - eliminating the entry level scopes with options to upgrade.
I am not high-and-mighty Mr. Morality, I just believe that I should treat others the way I want to be treated. I don't expect everyone to do the same - I live in Los Angeles where 99% of the people are morally absent. Since I sell a product that the food on my table comes from, I want it to remain viable. I have built in various options that add features and performance for a cost. It allows me to capture the customers looking for a lower cost of entry and also be interesting to the higher-end with only a single manufacturing configuration - everyone wins. If a base model needs to be upgraded, there is no downtime. The customer pays for the option, I send a key and they have the feature they wanted. It would be such a disappointment if someone started hacking my product and posting the hack on the internet claiming that it is totally fair because they own the hardware. The option software took me months to work out. The only reason I offer a lower cost is for the benefit of the entry level customers that don't need it or want to get it upgraded later. I will admit, the key system is not very secure since security is not my specialty and I don't have the time to make it better. To some extent, it is on the honor system. I am positive that my customers are smart enough to break my little system, and I have to balance my response with the offense. If a few people do it per year, whatever - if 30-40% are doing it I will start forcing upgrades to come back to us.
No company gives anything away for free. The cost goes somewhere. I see scope manufactures using options to level the peaks and valleys of the sales cycles and I have no problem with that. If I am not in a hurry, I just wait for a promo to surface and buy then. If I need it now, I pay what I have to pay that day and get back to work.
-
AFAIC, sending customers firmware as an upgrade is not secure. Once the firmware is decrypted or the bootloader is cracked, it's game over. Rather than an unlock code being public, now your entire firmware is available to any cloner in china who can reverse engineer your hardware and use your own (very slightly modified, so now it's not a copy) firmware to make a clone product with only a minimal time and effort... completely bypassing the R&D that you put into your product.
Total nonsense. Every oscilloscope has the complete firmware already loaded into its flash memory, which can easily be hacked at low cost in China.
It would be more secure to only put the basic firmware on the instrument and allow the user to download additional apps to improve the functionality of the software. The downloads can be encrypted with the unique key hidden away in a flash IC somewhere and the user only gets the software they have purchased the licence for.
Software allows anyone (including myself) to have a scalable hardware system that can meet the needs of many. The lowest cost offering is enough to cover the cost of the hardware and the development of the basic software. The extra capacity or the capability of the hardware is totally free to use how you see fit - BUT using the software that you illegally circumvented a security scheme for is not yours to use. If you write your own code - it's yours. If you spend 30 minutes circumventing a key system so that you can have the benefit of the 100's or 1000's of hours of paid efforts of others is not right.
That's total nonsense. I paid for the all the hardware, therefore the software should enable me to be able to use all of it. It costs the developer no extra time to give me the full bandwidth, that was already in the 'scope in the first place. Fair enough, writing a routine to decode I2C does ensure an additional software development costs but the extra bandwidth does not. In fact it's more likely the developer has spent additional time crippling the hardware in the first place!
Since I sell a product that the food on my table comes from, I want it to remain viable. I have built in various options that add features and performance for a cost. It allows me to capture the customers looking for a lower cost of entry and also be interesting to the higher-end with only a single manufacturing configuration - everyone wins. If a base model needs to be upgraded, there is no downtime. The customer pays for the option, I send a key and they have the feature they wanted. It would be such a disappointment if someone started hacking my product and posting the hack on the internet claiming that it is totally fair because they own the hardware. The option software took me months to work out.
I don't mind paying for additional software options but if you start charging me to use extra memory, bandwidth, speed, etc. which I already have, then you can get lost.
-
You are exactly the wrong customer for us I guess.
We could, as an alternative, offer 4 or 5 different hardware variants each with it's own fixed features and pricing. When you buy it you are stuck with it forever. If you want another small feature, you have to buy a whole new system for a few $k or so. Your original unit will still work of course, but now you have 99% feature overlap that you do not need. The cost of which one would be higher since we now have to manage 4-5 different designs instead of one. Or, I could simply sell the bare hardware and a good luck charm necklace. Good luck figuring out the software entirely on your own.
I will continue down my road. Being thankful that you are in the minority enough that it is not a real business problem - yet.
-
loaded into its flash memory, which can easily be hacked at low cost in China.
Hmm. I'm not too sure on that. Yeah, I guess it's different when scopes runs on Unix and the code is on separate EEPROMS.
The other thing that I just thought about is the cost of manufacturing. Say you have 3 different upgrades/options. If you load a different firmware/software for each model you have potentially eight different assembly lines and inventory of parts. Or at least you have to switch over your assembly line(s) to make different models and still have to stock 8 different variants. (I believe in most large scale manufacturing the IC's are flashed before the boards are even assembled; not done through ICSP.... that's how I do it, anyway, lol).
Using the same firmware for each model gives you one assembly line and stock of inventory and 8 different labels/housings. In the final step of QA, the device is set to w/e is needed by a tech who doesn't need to have access to the naked firmware.
In a competitive market, increasing profit for the manufacturer is the same thing as reducing cost for the consumer. Is good for all.
I paid for the all the hardware
I don't know how many times this has been written by other people. This is complete and utter nonsense. When you buy a DSO you are not paying for the hardware! If you want hardware, you can go to mouser and buy the high speed ADCs and BNC connectors and processor and LCD... and you will have nothing.
BTW, as I understand it, a scope that is say 70MHz that can be hacked to 200MHz is not like the manufacturer is locking out the functionality beyond 70MHz. It's just the signal becomes attenuated (more than the minimum 3dB spec or w/e) past 70MHz. It will still work at 71MHz, and even up to 200MHz. I am not familiar with scope design, but perhaps it is possible that in this specific case, the scope is using software to boost/correct the signal to actually get beyond 70MHz?
-
Saleae Logic is a good case in point - AFAIK, the hardware is a Cypress FX2 chip with a PID:VID.
$15 for a 'compatible' clone or $109 for the original (in a far nicer case).
Both work just as well, but only one actually supports the team that write the "free to download" software.
I shamefully admit that I have a $15 compatible from a friend that I use quite a bit, but have a real one on my Christmas/Birthday wishlist.
-
I bought the real Logic, first. I ordered a clone when I heard about them on the forum, just to play with.... was thinking of doing some hardware hacking on it add some features.
But I think customs maybe destroyed it, lol. It never arrived. This clone had the gall to actually put "Seleae" on the label.
-
The other thing that I just thought about is the cost of manufacturing. Say you have 3 different upgrades/options. If you load a different firmware/software for each model you have potentially eight different assembly lines and inventory of parts. Or at least you have to switch over your assembly line(s) to make different models and still have to stock 8 different variants. (I believe in most large scale manufacturing the IC's are flashed before the boards are even assembled; not done through ICSP.... that's how I do it, anyway, lol).
Using the same firmware for each model gives you one assembly line and stock of inventory and 8 different labels/housings. In the final step of QA, the device is set to w/e is needed by a tech who doesn't need to have access to the naked firmware.
No, forget the 8 firmware options. Just ship them all with exactly the same basic firmware and even the same labels/housings. No crippling the hardware. Additional software can be supplied on a cheap USB stick which the user can install on purchase.
I paid for the all the hardware
I don't know how many times this has been written by other people. This is complete and utter nonsense. When you buy a DSO you are not paying for the hardware! If you want hardware, you can go to mouser and buy the high speed ADCs and BNC connectors and processor and LCD... and you will have nothing.
No, it's not nonsense. When I buy a 'scope I do own the hardware. Not only have I paid for all of the parts but I've paid for them to be assembled on to a PCB and packaged in a box, including a good fair share of it towards non-recurring engineering costs, which I accept is probably the lion share of the cost. When I buy a 'scope with 24MB, I've paid for every single MB of that memory, including all of the design costs of getting it to work, irrespective of whether only half of the memory is enabled or not. Demanding a ransom to unlock half of the memory is a clearly a con.
-
Ok. You win. :wtf:
You own the hardware. You can write your own software to run it.
And we can all buy only top end oscilloscopes, even when we don't need them.
Anyhow, I was responding to the post that said the manufacturers are lazy for not making a different firmware for each model... so your idea of just having one model is a little different and just revolving that initial argument.
BTW, as I understand it, a scope that is say 70MHz that can be hacked to 200MHz is not like the manufacturer is locking out the functionality beyond 70MHz. It's just the signal becomes attenuated (more than the minimum 3dB spec or w/e) past 70MHz. It will still work at 71MHz, and even up to 200MHz. I am not familiar with scope design, but perhaps it is possible that in this specific case, the scope is using software to boost/correct the signal to actually get beyond 70MHz?
Any thoughts on this? It's not like when you turn your function generator to 71MHz, the screen says "please see your local dealer for an upgrade."
-
Ok. You win. :wtf:
You own the hardware. You can write your own software to run it.
That's not my point. I accept that the firmware costs money to write and am happy to fund it. My only demand is that the software doesn't deliberately cripple the hardware I've purchased and I don't have to pay a ransom to use it.
BTW, as I understand it, a scope that is say 70MHz that can be hacked to 200MHz is not like the manufacturer is locking out the functionality beyond 70MHz. It's just the signal becomes attenuated (more than the minimum 3dB spec or w/e) past 70MHz. It will still work at 71MHz, and even up to 200MHz. I am not familiar with scope design, but perhaps it is possible that in this specific case, the scope is using software to boost/correct the signal to actually get beyond 70MHz?
Any thoughts on this? It's not like when you turn your function generator to 71MHz, the screen says "please see your local dealer for an upgrade."
I haven't done any tests to confirm this. I bought my Rigol 1054z knowing it's really a 100MHz 'scope with 24MB or memory, not 12MB. Had it not being so trivial to unlock those things I've paid for, I wouldn't have bought it.
-
Perfectly fine, except when you says things like this:
unlock those things I've paid for
So can you just buy another handful of EEPROMS and boost your memory to 48MB? It's that easy, right? :-DD It doesn't take any design work to get that much information on an EEPROM that fast? No possibility that there is some software trickery through data compression, etc? That maybe took some work? That maybe cost someone some money?
They probably just downloaded 99% of their firmware from the Arduino library, right? :)
I can buy a 128 GB thumb drive for $40.00.. I'm sure I can boost my scope, no problem.
Beside, offering increased memory has been a staple "scam" of our economy for decades. Whether it's physical or just a code unlock... meh. I don't care. This shit is what makes the economy go round. It's how we get to keep borrowing money from China. It's how we continue to live the American dream. It's fully necessary. Without this kind of thing, we have the Great Depression all over again. Give people something to buy... Make them want it... and we all have roofs and AC and food. Without the want, without the dangling carrot, without the push to spend... half of us are out of jobs and this carousel doesn't work anymore. :)
I haven't done any tests to confirm this.
So you don't even know what your bandwidth hack actually did, other than giving you a warm fuzzy feeling of accomplishment? :)
-
That's total nonsense. I paid for the all the hardware, therefore the software should enable me to be able to use all of it.
By that reasoning, and I use the term loosely, once you have bought the PC hardware all software on it should be free. Or maybe you think it is immoral for Microsoft to charge more for Win*Pro than Win*Home?
A more accurate statement would be that you bought the hardware and you bought low-end software. If you want high end software, you have to pay extra to get it.
-
HAAS does this kind of thing on CNC milling machines.
There response is that you did not buy the inactive hardware, but they were kind enough to put their property in the machine in the event you choose to pay for it in the future. When you pay the option price, you now own the hardware too. Legally, I doubt that has even a pinch of good standing, but it illustrates the concept reasonably well.
They charge $1000 for an ethernet port and people pay for it. Why? Because they can't get it any other way and their are still many people that are willing to work with RS-232 or USB sticks. The only thing you get for the $1k is the pigtailed RJ-45 on a custom sheet metal plate along with a software key. Done.
If you don't like it, you can buy a Mori, Okuma, etc that cost 3x the price (extra $200k) and have ethernet included. You could hack it and risk bricking your $100k machines while voiding the warranty.
-
1. In today's environment, the practice of 'unlocking' features is quite simply an effective way to ship a product with stable, properly configured FW/SW.
2. It is clear extra features were designed to made available after obtaining the appropriate licence/key through certain channels - eg purchase. Market segmentation is not evil - it is pragmatic and it is transparent.
3. Accessing these features outside the spirit of the licensing schema is wrong. Call it what you want - theft, stealing, or whatever. The bleating about the exact words used is simply SEMANTICS. Get over it.
4. Saying that a programmer has already been paid for the software on a device is simply short-sighted and a vain attempt to justify wrong actions. There's a lot of attempting to justify wrong actions.
5. If you want to rewrite the FW/SW yourself to do all sorts of cool stuff, then you aren't benefiting from someone else's work - so, go for it.
I hate to repeat myself, but I don't see anyone else commenting on this.
6. Security of the firmware.
Having been asked to make unlockable features in firmware for a client, I have thought on it and given the following "secure" options, of which they all include flashing the entire firmware onto the chip.
1. Have a simple code to unlock. Just email the code. But once the cat is out of the bag, everyone will have it.
2. Have a mathematic algorhythm query/response for an unlock. Same deal, but at least it might hold up longer.
3. Have a unique random chip ID for each device. Adds expense, and you have to track each product serial number and this must be looked up for each customer requesting an upgrade.
AFAIC, sending customers firmware as an upgrade is not secure. Once the firmware is decrypted or the bootloader is cracked, it's game over. Rather than an unlock code being public, now your entire firmware is available to any cloner in china who can reverse engineer your hardware and use your own (very slightly modified, so now it's not a copy) firmware to make a clone product with only a minimal time and effort... completely bypassing the R&D that you put into your product.
So all this "they put the entire software on the device, because they're lazy and it deserves to be hacked" is nonsense. The software/firmware is the majority of the dev cost on these new DSO's and a very valuable part of the IP, and sending it out to thousands of people, encrypted or not, would be lunacy. Code-protection on the chip is still one of the most secure ways to protect this IP; hence, delivering the product with the full firmware burned on it is very practical from a security standpoint. Forget morality and laziness... this is common sense. Sending a firmware for an upgrade produces all of the same problems as an unlock code, but now you're adding vulnerability of your actual firmware.
And providing the entire firmware/software with all the options inside it is somehow more secure? Copyright very explicitly protects the distribution of the software without the right holders permission, the grey area is these "licenses" that are growing to cover more and more software, they don't have a strong track record in courts but keep getting pushed as legitimate ways to protect the copyright owner when they aren't as strong as the alternatives.
You've chosen one model, and others will choose other models. If I buy software from a seller second hand, I'll use it, the shrink-wrap license should not apply to me. It gets more entertaining when you do these transactions cross border.
-
And providing the entire firmware/software with all the options inside it is somehow more secure?
Yes. In my case. (I'm sure there are differences in a modern DSO running unix, though, and sometimes the manufacturer has to issue firmware patches updates etc, anyway... but....) The security of the "upgrade/unlock" is secondary in this case. I'm talking about the ability to clone the entire device. Not to unlock devices I purchase from the manufacturer to get an extra feature. Handing out firmware with an installer is one step closer to posting your source code online. And it doesn't solve any problem.
What's to stop you from buying the upgrade, getting this new firmware, then sharing it? Code locks/registration keys, of course. So why not just use the code lock by itself? As I have shown there are a lot of practical reasons, not just security, why doing separate firmwares is costly. Single firmware is not lazy, it's practical.
To touch base with the OP, I bet most of the hackers are just hobbyists. And most of them probably do it just because other people are doing it. And because higher numbers are better. And just in case they need it in the future. Etc.
As for 24MB vs 12MB.... that is going to make what difference, exactly, in practice? A factor of 10 or 100, yeah, I can imagine some things that tool could do which the lower version could not. A factor of 2?... same thing except for the 1 in 1000 borderline cases where it matters. 12MB is going to be WAY more than enough in most cases. And in most cases where it is not, 24MB is still going to be WAYYY too small. In 999 out of 1000 cases it does matter... as a selling point. Because bigger numbers are better, and we all want what's better. And that's why it was offered that way in the first place. :-DD Seriously ironic. That someone would take issue that he's not getting what he "paid for." In a case where the issue at stake is just fluff for the guy that has to have bigger and better (and is willing to pay for it.)
-
And providing the entire firmware/software with all the options inside it is somehow more secure?
Yes. In my case. (I'm sure there are differences in a modern DSO running unix, though, and sometimes the manufacturer has to issue firmware patches updates etc, anyway... but....) The security of the "upgrade/unlock" is secondary in this case. I'm talking about the ability to clone the entire device. Not to unlock devices I purchase from the manufacturer to get an extra feature. Handing out firmware with an installer is one step closer to posting your source code online. And it doesn't solve any problem.
What's to stop you from buying the upgrade, getting this new firmware, then sharing it? Code locks/registration keys, of course. So why not just use the code lock by itself? As I have shown there are a lot of practical reasons, not just security, why doing separate firmwares is costly. Single firmware is not lazy, it's practical.
I've made it very clear, sharing the code is a copyright infringement, while breaking a license is a contractual issue. Different legal protections, one of which is harmonised worldwide while one is not and requires localisation (and may not be possible in some jurisdictions).
Handing over the entire codebase in a product, with an update, etc, is relying on the contract to keep it from being used. Less protection than copyright, and you can combine both with copyright and licensing for more protection if you do not distribute the entire package to all customers. Handing out the entire software/firmware is cheaper/easier/convenient but offers less legal protection. How can you say it offers more protection?
If you want to discuss cloning and counterfeit products, this really isn't the discussion to derail.
-
I didn't know that was a derailment. It seemed pertinent, at the time. I guess legal protection is all that matters. Proprietary IP and trade secrets, who cares? :-//
We all know you can patent code. Oh wait, you can't. So you should just rely on copyright and law to protect your code. Yep. Surely there is no novel code that was written in the pushing of the speed and resolution and refresh rate and fidelity envelope. Nope. Nothing new in recreating phospur brightness and dwell time. That was probably perfected years ago by some dude on an Arduino. ;D And they can't steal our version/agorythms, because it's copyrighted. ALL they could do is to take this work and improve it to make it better! And who'd want to do that?! (Considering the belief that these companies have license to print money for nothing, I think we ALL would! But I'd be more worried about competing companies. :))
OK, I'm going to get back on my medication. Sorry for the interruption. >:D :-[
-
Even though it is seldom done,you can make the same argument for "hardware hacks".
Many years ago,(1988),I was heavily involved in a project to convert a TV Transmitting site,designed for full-time attended operation into one which would normally operate in an,automatic,unattended mode.
This entailed getting access to the relay/contactor control system of the 1959 vintage Marconi Transmitters,setting up a Programmable Logic Controller to switch these controls in the required sequence,plus add emergency shutdowns in case of failure.
Another necessity,was to provide automatic program source changeover in case of the loss of the active Studio to Transmitter Link.
The installed (1974 vintage) Marconi video switcher didn't have the ability to also switch audio,so we "reverse-engineered" it to add that facility.
Upon the receipt of the correct relay closure from the PLC,it would switch the Transmitter's video & audio from one source to another as required.
There were many other things that had to be done,but I can ask the question re the two above ones.
(1)Was there an "implied" facility of automatic operation in the Transmitters,simply from the sequence of control operations used?
(2)Were we "stealing" functionality from the video switcher manufacturer,knowing that they did produce a combined unit?
(1)In this,case,it is unlikely such an argument would hold water,as we designed our controller to duplicate the operations which a Human would perform.
In any case,if we had replaced the Transmitters with new ones it would have almost certainly been from another source,so no loss to Marconi
(2)Maybe,but again there was no loss of sale to Marconi,as replacements would probably have been "Grass Valley' not Marconi.
Of course,Management would have laughed in my face if I had suggested spending several million dollars to assuage my conscience!
Another,"sort of" related thing--
Some years back,I bought an "e-Machines" W7 desktop computer,for $A400--quite a good deal.
It turned out the rotten thing would "crash' at any pretext.
"OK,let's look at the Microsoft pages to find out how to fix this."
Alas,none of the fixes worked,as the computer was shipped with a "dumbed down" version of Windows 7,with some of the more useful functions replaced with proprietary "e-Machines" crap.
Eventually,I could stand it no more,so I bought a proper Windows 7 disc,& did a "clean install".
The thing has run like a dream,ever since!
Of course.it has now cost me $600!
Maybe I should have lived with the dumbed down version,as that is how I bought it!
-
1. In today's environment, the practice of 'unlocking' features is quite simply an effective way to ship a product with stable, properly configured FW/SW.
2. It is clear extra features were designed to made available after obtaining the appropriate licence/key through certain channels - eg purchase. Market segmentation is not evil - it is pragmatic and it is transparent.
3. Accessing these features outside the spirit of the licensing schema is wrong. Call it what you want - theft, stealing, or whatever. The bleating about the exact words used is simply SEMANTICS. Get over it.
4. Saying that a programmer has already been paid for the software on a device is simply short-sighted and a vain attempt to justify wrong actions. There's a lot of attempting to justify wrong actions.
5. If you want to rewrite the FW/SW yourself to do all sorts of cool stuff, then you aren't benefiting from someone else's work - so, go for it.
I hate to repeat myself, but I don't see anyone else commenting on this.
6. Security of the firmware.
Having been asked to make unlockable features in firmware for a client, I have thought on it and given the following "secure" options, of which they all include flashing the entire firmware onto the chip.
1. Have a simple code to unlock. Just email the code. But once the cat is out of the bag, everyone will have it.
2. Have a mathematic algorhythm query/response for an unlock. Same deal, but at least it might hold up longer.
3. Have a unique random chip ID for each device. Adds expense, and you have to track each product serial number and this must be looked up for each customer requesting an upgrade.
That's pretty much the Siglent model for their IP protection and thus far it's been robust.
Enabling options and factory set BW's use SN #'s and unique unit ID hexadecimal codes for generation of activation codes and to date AFAIK this method has not been cracked.
However leaving Telnet access open on their SDG2000X series AWG's must have been an oversight. :palm:
-
Perfectly fine, except when you says things like this:
unlock those things I've paid for
So can you just buy another handful of EEPROMS and boost your memory to 48MB? It's that easy, right? :-DD It doesn't take any design work to get that much information on an EEPROM that fast? No possibility that there is some software trickery through data compression, etc? That maybe took some work? That maybe cost someone some money?
Of course it costs money. I've already paid for the RAM and development costs of writing the software to transfer the data to it quickly. Whether it's unlocked or not I've still paid good money for it.
Beside, offering increased memory has been a staple "scam" of our economy for decades. Whether it's physical or just a code unlock... meh. I don't care. This shit is what makes the economy go round. It's how we get to keep borrowing money from China. It's how we continue to live the American dream. It's fully necessary. Without this kind of thing, we have the Great Depression all over again. Give people something to buy... Make them want it... and we all have roofs and AC and food. Without the want, without the dangling carrot, without the push to spend... half of us are out of jobs and this carousel doesn't work anymore.
You Americans keep forgetting that not everyone lives in a place with all the BS and get along quite fine. This kind of rubbish is holding the economy back, rather than advancing it.
We all know you can patent code.
And the result is not people being rewarded for their development costs but patent trolls who make it difficult for everyone else to innovate.
That's total nonsense. I paid for the all the hardware, therefore the software should enable me to be able to use all of it.
By that reasoning, and I use the term loosely, once you have bought the PC hardware all software on it should be free. Or maybe you think it is immoral for Microsoft to charge more for Win*Pro than Win*Home?
A more accurate statement would be that you bought the hardware and you bought low-end software. If you want high end software, you have to pay extra to get it.
That's totally different since, apart from a small amount of firmware, the software is purchased separately. The hardware is fully operational and the means to use it fully documented. You could install another operating system than Windows free of charge if you wish. The practice of bundling Windows has caused Microsoft problems with those who disagree with the EULA and demand to be refunded for the software.
That's pretty much the Siglent model for their IP protection and thus far it's been robust.
Enabling options and factory set BW's use SN #'s and unique unit ID hexadecimal codes for generation of activation codes and to date AFAIK this method has not been cracked.
However leaving Telnet access open on their SDG2000X series AWG's must have been an oversight. :palm:
And as a result, they've lost numerous customers to Rigol.
-
What does whether or not you think I'm an idiot who can't make use of the features have to do with whether using something I bought is theft?
Bloody hell there are some stupid, stupid people on this forum.
Some of them don't even understand that manufacturing a device with the same binary file is milion times cheaper and faster than having customer-specific binaries for every single customer....
You're buying a scope, not a car. Deal with it. 8)
-
Start addressing, not avoiding, the point being made.
Stop making false statements. Start making arguments based on correct facts and coherent reasoning.
That's total nonsense. I paid for the all the hardware, therefore the software should enable me to be able to use all of it.
By that reasoning, and I use the term loosely, once you have bought the PC hardware all software on it should be free. Or maybe you think it is immoral for Microsoft to charge more for Win*Pro than Win*Home?
A more accurate statement would be that you bought the hardware and you bought low-end software. If you want high end software, you have to pay extra to get it.
That's totally different since, apart from a small amount of firmware, the software is purchased separately.
False, in most cases. Most people buy a software+hardware bundle.
The hardware is fully operational and the means to use it fully documented. You could install another operating system than Windows free of charge if you wish.
False in many cases: see UEFI.
-
For me morally it comes down to:
Do you believe the manufacturers claimed cost for the upgrade?
In some cases, like the resolution crippled thermo cams, I really doubt that.
-
Selling someone a piece of hardware but only allowing them to use half of the memory/bandwidth is stealing.
Hacking the firmware is not stealing. It may be considered to be copyright violation but it isn't stealing because the person who wrote the software still has the code. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STEAL SOFTWARE!
I am wondering what kind of coffee you're drinking ? ;)
-
That's pretty much the Siglent model for their IP protection and thus far it's been robust.
Enabling options and factory set BW's use SN #'s and unique unit ID hexadecimal codes for generation of activation codes and to date AFAIK this method has not been cracked.
However leaving Telnet access open on their SDG2000X series AWG's must have been an oversight. :palm:
And as a result, they've lost numerous customers to Rigol.
It might appear that way on this forum, but I don't have the sales stats to confirm or deny, do you?
-
For me morally it comes down to:
Do you believe the manufacturers claimed cost for the upgrade?
If you want to pursue your argument further, start by stating what you mean by "cost". Cost including the very significant amortised NRE costs? Marginal production cost? Including/excluding sales and support costs? Most engineers haven't got a clue as to the order of magnitude of those costs.
Even apart from that: no, it shouldn't. Vendors can choose any price they want when selling you something. You can choose to pay that price or not. If too few people pay the manufacturer will either reduce the price or stop selling it.
The only exception is, and should be, where the state controls prices to prevent dangerous profiteering - but obviously that's irreelvant in this case.
-
Selling someone a piece of hardware but only allowing them to use half of the memory/bandwidth is stealing.
How can denying access to something that they never had be stealing? How can selling someone exactly what was on the spec. sheet for the stated price a problem?
Jumping into a straw man argument, methinks.
Hacking the firmware is not stealing. It may be considered to be copyright violation but it isn't stealing because the person who wrote the software still has the code. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO STEAL SOFTWARE!
Semantics. The action is still wrong.
So - the next time you take a flight somewhere, you buy your economy ticket and when you get on the plane decide you want to occupy a business class seat - or maybe first class ... and your argument is 'I bought a seat on this plane - and I want that one!'
No different to advanced software features.
You didn't pay for the feature, so you aren't entitled to make use of it.
-
The hardware is fully operational and the means to use it fully documented. You could install another operating system than Windows free of charge if you wish.
False in many cases: see UEFI.
well this is new? i'll sure avoid those kind of hardware that wont let me install any OS version that i like. unless i can quite happily live with the bundled OS.
anybody agree to this can buy the hardware and agree to the limitation outlined, even though the hardware is capable of running more than that (other OSes). this is just a matter of agreeing to the term or not, simple. you agree, you buy, dont mourn. you dont agree, you dont buy. you agree, you buy, and then you hack. you are violating the term thats it, the seller has the right to sue you, and they can take any necessary action to avoid further hack. if they lose sale because of that, its their problem. our problem is violating the term. most problem when people buy and mourn, is when the buyer failed to read the T&C, or the seller tend to keep the T&C hidden or didnt warn the buyer, in this later case i prefer to call them cheating.
Selling someone a piece of hardware but only allowing them to use half of the memory/bandwidth is stealing.
no. the manufacturer/seller specifically told you, you only can use some of it with the price you pay. if you want all of it, you have to pay for the "license key". so "in agreeing" with that "agreement", you give your money to the seller. there is no who stealing who, both party agreed to the terms. and then the hacking, the "copyright violation", this is a clear, "who's right who's wrong".
this is not 18th century anymore where we can only think about "hardware" to be judged as stealing. "software" can be duplicated, the original is kept with the MAKER, correct, but... any duplicate you possess without permission or in violation with the T&C, is just as equally wrong as "stealing a tangible matter", imho. but depending on how the manufacturer sees this as risking their business or well-beingness. if someone steal your old shoe that you dont use anymore, you see this as not so serious stealing and we tend to apologize the theft, but not so if the stolen item is priced so much that really meant something to us. so the seriousness is also depending how it will affect the manufacturer/seller side. ymmv.
-
Selling someone a piece of hardware but only allowing them to use half of the memory/bandwidth is stealing.
They should be paying you to take away this useless piece of equipment, right? :palm:
So - the next time you take a flight somewhere, you buy your economy ticket and when you get on the plane decide you want to occupy a business class seat - or maybe first class ... and your argument is 'I bought a seat on this plane - and I want that one!'
Exactly.
-
False, in most cases. Most people buy a software+hardware bundle.
Which could be in violation of many consumer laws. Google Windows refund.
False in many cases: see UEFI.
Thanks for making me aware of this, so I can avoid it.
Selling someone a piece of hardware but only allowing them to use half of the memory/bandwidth is stealing.
How can denying access to something that they never had be stealing? How can selling someone exactly what was on the spec. sheet for the stated price a problem?
You're right. Selling someone some hardware with half of it disabled, is not stealing but it's still wrong, just as using unlicensed software is. Still I suppose two wrongs, don't make a right.
So - the next time you take a flight somewhere, you buy your economy ticket and when you get on the plane decide you want to occupy a business class seat - or maybe first class ... and your argument is 'I bought a seat on this plane - and I want that one!'
No different to advanced software features.
You didn't pay for the feature, so you aren't entitled to make use of it.
Another silly and completely invalid analogy.
By taking the business class seat, you're occupying a space, which could go to a passenger who would pay for it. That seat is no longer available to someone else, who may pay for the upgrade. Even that seat is free anyway, it still needs to be cleaned and there will be consumables used such as food and drink. The extra cost to the airline is real.
This is not the case with using software without the license or firmware hacking. There could be a 1000s of extra unlicensed users of the product, who'll never ever pay to use it. Those 1000s of extra unlicensed users incur no extra cost to the developer. If anything those extra users could be: finding bugs, providing free technical support, by helping people on bulletin boards on the Internet and increasing awareness of the software, so will benefit the developer anyway, even if they've not paid them any money.
-
Selling someone some hardware with half of it disabled, is not stealing but it's still wrong
You'd rather they build a special model with the exact feature set and sell it to you for more money?
If they do that you won't feel 'wronged' when they sell it to you?
:palm:
-
So all this "they put the entire software on the device, because they're lazy and it deserves to be hacked" is nonsense. The software/firmware is the majority of the dev cost on these new DSO's and a very valuable part of the IP, and sending it out to thousands of people, encrypted or not, would be lunacy.
Then don't. Require service center upgrades.
That is hard to agree with. PC hardware is completely useless without software. It needs the software to accomplish anything useful. If you buy bare PC hardware, you can design and code your own operating system to make it do whatever you want, however you want. If, however, you want an operating system that is already done and ready to go, you may have to pay for that (Windows for example).
By that reasoning, and I use the term loosely, once you have bought the PC hardware all software on it should be free. Or maybe you think it is immoral for Microsoft to charge more for Win*Pro than Win*Home?
Not at all. But I have never seen any PC supplied with software that would limit you to using half the RAM you have installed. That's the entire difference. 100% of the hardware you bought is available to whatever software you want to run on it, and the supplied software platform is there to enable it, not restrict it. Again there is a big distinction between software functionality like protocol decoding, and limiting your access to the hardware you are in possession of to be able to provide unlocks later.
Sensible options are OK, but many of those currently offered by manufacturers aren't. Choose the right ones and you won't have issues.
We could, as an alternative, offer 4 or 5 different hardware variants each with it's own fixed features and pricing. When you buy it you are stuck with it forever.
Again, require service center upgrades. Customers have an upgrade path and you're covered against hacks.
Whoever chooses to distribute all the capability exposes themselves to it being accessed without authorization regardless of how right or wrong it is.
As for 24MB vs 12MB.... that is going to make what difference, exactly, in practice?
So you're confirming that the $200 memory upgrade for the Rigol scopes is pointless, thanks for agreeing! I that case it wouldn't hurt them to make it available by default.
You Americans keep forgetting that not everyone lives in a place with all the BS and get along quite fine. This kind of rubbish is holding the economy back, rather than advancing it.
And the result is not people being rewarded for their development costs but patent trolls who make it difficult for everyone else to innovate.
+1.
False in many cases: see UEFI.
UEFI allows you to install whatever you want. If you're not careful you may lose the keys that auto-activate the bundled software which could cause a loss if you wanted to put it back on later, but you can back them up. No problem.
It allows me to capture the customers looking for a lower cost of entry and also be interesting to the higher-end with only a single manufacturing configuration - everyone wins.
No, everyone (from your customers) loses. By making feature X a $100 option that 10% of people will buy those who do will be ripped off, and those who don't won't have access to a tool that if it had been included by default for $10 extra could have worthy for them.
Another silly and completely invalid analogy.
By taking the business class seat, you're occupying a space, which could go to a passenger who would pay for it. That seat is no longer available to someone else, who may pay for the upgrade. Even that seat is free anyway, it still needs to be cleaned and there will be consumables used such as food and drink. The extra cost to the airline is real.
This is not the case with using software without the license or firmware hacking. There could be a 1000s of extra unlicensed users of the product, who'll never ever pay to use it. Those 1000s of extra unlicensed users incur no extra cost to the developer. If anything those extra users could be: finding bugs, providing free technical support, by helping people on bulletin boards on the Internet and increasing awareness of the software, so will benefit the developer anyway, even if they've not paid them any money.
+1.
-
Another silly and completely invalid analogy.
By taking the business class seat, you're occupying a space, which could go to a passenger who would pay for it. That seat is no longer available to someone else, who may pay for the upgrade. Even that seat is free anyway, it still needs to be cleaned and there will be consumables used such as food and drink. The extra cost to the airline is real.
Nitpicking the details to make the analogy invalid? Really? :palm:
What if they didn't include any of the first class perks? What if you only asked to sit there because it's a better chair? It doesn't cost them anything extra. Should they let you?
-
I have never seen any PC supplied with software that would limit you to using half the RAM you have installed.
Just because they haven't done it with RAM yet doesn't mean it would be wrong to do so.
What about CPUs? I bet you've owned a CPU that could easily go faster if they took off the limiter. That happens all the time.
The majority of CPUs out there are artificially limited. How do you feel about that? Should we be starting a class action lawsuit because we're all being "wronged"? Let's see if you can find a lawyer who'll take on that cause for you.
-
By that reasoning, and I use the term loosely, once you have bought the PC hardware all software on it should be free. Or maybe you think it is immoral for Microsoft to charge more for Win*Pro than Win*Home?
Not at all. But I have never seen any PC supplied with software that would limit you to using half the RAM you have installed. That's the entire difference. 100% of the hardware you bought is available to whatever software you want to run on it, and the supplied software platform is there to enable it, not restrict it. Again there is a big distinction between software functionality like protocol decoding, and limiting your access to the hardware you are in possession of to be able to provide unlocks later.
Wrong again. Microsoft limited my WinXP Home to only use half my hardware: one processor core out of two.
Sensible options are OK, but many of those currently offered by manufacturers aren't. Choose the right ones and you won't have issues.
And I suppose you think you are the authority on what it sensible or not? Twit. The manufacturer is free to choose and you are free to use them or to go elsewhere.
-
Just because they haven't done it with RAM yet doesn't mean it would be wrong to do so.
They of course could do it, but there likely would be a massive uproar. It's much smaller with scopes from the few-but-yet-half of those voicing their opinion on this thread and so far scope manufacturers have been able to get away with it, but it's the same thing.
What about CPUs? I bet you've owned a CPU that could easily go faster if they took off the limiter. That happens all the time.
Can't find an analogy that is more wrong - It isn't illegal to overclock my CPU, and once it's in my hands I can very well and totally legally get the performance of a part that would have cost double (and incidentally I do, but I tend to rather get the expensive part and push it to the level of one that doesn't exist). If you want to put that as an analogy then we can turn it over and all software limitations can be legally broken without issue.
Wrong again. Microsoft limited my WinXP Home to only use half my hardware: one processor core out of two.
Unless you have a machine with 2 sockets you're not limited at all. And I wouldn't believe any machine with 2 sockets would ever have been sold with XP Home. Or if it had then a compaint with the seller (or a switch to another one as he'd be highly stupid) would have been in order.
And I suppose you think you are the authority on what it sensible or not?
Myself? No. But just see the others who have the same view, then extrapolate. I'm certainly not alone.
-
Comparing to the PC is ridiculous, it is a low margin product, unlike high end test gear. The facts are simple, if you use the software/firmware supplied with the unit, and it imposes a licence for certain features, then circumventing those constitutes a breach of the licence agreement, and invalidates your contract with the supplier. You do not have the right to enable features that you have not paid for.
All of this "it is my hardware" rubbish is exactly that. By all means write your own software for your oscilloscope, and liberate the hardware, but if you use the supplied software/firmware, you do not own the right to use it in a way that you have not licenced.
My pay TV set top box has the ability to stream movies on demand. Unless I pay for the movie, it will be disabled. The hardware is all there, but it s of no use unless I pay for the pay per view. When I am done, they turn it off again. If you want segmented memory, you pay for it, and they will enable it. Sure, the memory is in there, but you haven't payed for the licence to use it with the software.
-
Just because they haven't done it with RAM yet doesn't mean it would be wrong to do so.
They of course could do it, but there likely would be a massive uproar. It's much smaller with scopes from the few-but-yet-half of those voicing their opinion on this thread and so far scope manufacturers have been able to get away with it, but it's the same thing.
What about CPUs? I bet you've owned a CPU that could easily go faster if they took off the limiter. That happens all the time.
Can't find an analogy that is more wrong - It isn't illegal to overclock my CPU, and once it's in my hands I can very well and totally legally get the performance of a part that would have cost double (and incidentally I do, but I tend to rather get the expensive part and push it to the level of one that doesn't exist). If you want to put that as an analogy then we can turn it over and all software limitations can be legally broken without issue.
Wrong again. Microsoft limited my WinXP Home to only use half my hardware: one processor core out of two.
Unless you have a machine with 2 sockets you're not limited at all. And I wouldn't believe any machine with 2 sockets would ever have been sold with XP Home. Or if it had then a compaint with the seller (or a switch to another one as he'd be highly stupid) would have been in order.
The point is that you are wrong: MS did limit me to only using half my hardware. Your beliefs and argument is fallacious.
(Not that it is relevant to the point and your avoidance of the point, but at that time there were only opteron systems with two sockets. What do you suggest in that case?)
And I suppose you think you are the authority on what it sensible or not?
Myself? No. But just see the others who have the same view, then extrapolate. I'm certainly not alone.
Ah. The old "proof by numbers of believers" argument. Always was unimpressive, remains unimpressive, and clearly indicates that you know your chain of "reasoning" has run out of steam.
-
Wrong again. Microsoft limited my WinXP Home to only use half my hardware: one processor core out of two.
Both my use of a quad-core PC on XP and Microsoft's documentation are wrong then... ::)
http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_xp-hardware/multi-core-processor-and-multiprocessor-limit-for/abd0a0ce-4ac2-484b-88cb-fbf93beb54e0?auth=1 (http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_xp-hardware/multi-core-processor-and-multiprocessor-limit-for/abd0a0ce-4ac2-484b-88cb-fbf93beb54e0?auth=1)
Most likely you're confused:
Dual-Core
Microsoft's licensing policy limits the number of processors Windows supports for its Home and Professional versions, as outlined below. It's important to understand, however, that this is on a per-processor basis, not a per-core basis. This means that, under the licensing policy, a dual- or even quad-core processor counts as a single processor---something that confused many people in the early days of dual-core technology.
Or seeing the below, not using proper terminology:
at that time there were only opteron systems with two sockets. What do you suggest in that case?)
What I said, complain to your vendor as they should never have supplied you that machine with a copy of XP Home. Microsoft has nothing to do with that.
Ah. The old "proof by numbers of believers" argument. Always was unimpressive
Well... it's people's actions that make things change, and usually the bigger the number the higher the chances. The old "dismissing them as unimpressive" argument is your last resort at trying to discourage them from starting the revolution ;D
-
Most likely you're confused:
Dual-Core
Microsoft's licensing policy limits the number of processors Windows supports for its Home and Professional versions, as outlined below. It's important to understand, however, that this is on a per-processor basis, not a per-core basis. This means that, under the licensing policy, a dual- or even quad-core processor counts as a single processor---something that confused many people in the early days of dual-core technology.
More nit-picking to try to avoid the real argument. :palm:
(Which is: Microsoft DID artificially limit the number of CPUs people were allowed to use via software )
-
Buuuut nobody in their right mind would have shipped PC hardware with a version of Windows that limited usage of that hardware, as is with the scopes and is what people complain about. That's where the comparison ends, beyond that the 2 platforms are too different to compare.
-
What about CPUs? I bet you've owned a CPU that could easily go faster if they took off the limiter. That happens all the time.
It isn't illegal to overclock my CPU, and once it's in my hands I
But ... is it wrong to sell an "underclocked" cpu?
The claim being made is that Rigol is doing something bad, eg:
Selling someone some hardware with half of it disabled, is not stealing but it's still wrong
The question I actually asked in my original post (which you neatly trimmed) was:
"The majority of CPUs out there are artificially limited. Should we be starting a class action lawsuit because we're all being "wronged"?"
-
Most likely you're confused:
Dual-Core
Microsoft's licensing policy limits the number of processors Windows supports for its Home and Professional versions, as outlined below. It's important to understand, however, that this is on a per-processor basis, not a per-core basis. This means that, under the licensing policy, a dual- or even quad-core processor counts as a single processor---something that confused many people in the early days of dual-core technology.
More nit-picking to try to avoid the real argument. :palm:
(Which is: Microsoft DID artificially limit the number of CPUs people were allowed to use via software )
It's only nitpicking if you don't understand the difference between a CPU core and a physical CPU. Until now MS has licensed operating systems on the number of physical CPUs, not CPU cores:
Windows 95/98/ME only supported one CPU with a single core.
Windows NT 3.x Workstation, Windows NT 4 Workstation1, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Professional, Windows Vista Business/Enterprise/Ultimate, Windows 7 Professional/Enterprise/Ultimate and Windows 8.x Pro all support two physical processors and an unlimited number of cores per CPU.
Windows XP Home, Windows Vista Home, Windows 7 Home and Windows 8.x (non-Pro) support one CPU with an unlimited number of cores.
If I remember right Windows XP MCE supported the same number of CPUs as XP Home.
Windows Server supports from 2 CPUs/unlimited cores to 128 CPUs/unlimited cores depending on version and edition. That will apparently change with Server 2016 where MS has now reverted to 'per core' licensing :palm:
Don't know Windows 10 (urgh!) but I assume the CPU/core limits are the same as for Windows 8. For a desktop OS it's unlikely to change, though.
1 Windows NT 4 Workstation on a SGI Visual Workstation 540 supports four physical processors
-
It's only nitpicking if...
No, it's nitpicking, period.
Windows 95/98/ME only supported one CPU with a single core.
Windows NT 3.x Workstation, Windows NT 4 Workstation1, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Professional, Windows Vista Business/Enterprise/Ultimate, Windows 7 Professional/Enterprise/Ultimate and Windows 8.x Pro all support two physical processors and an unlimited number of cores per CPU.
Windows XP Home, Windows Vista Home, Windows 7 Home and Windows 8.x (non-Pro) support one CPU with an unlimited number of cores.
If I remember right Windows XP MCE supported the same number of CPUs as XP Home.
Windows Server supports from 2 CPUs/unlimited cores to 128 CPUs/unlimited cores depending on version and edition. That will apparently change with Server 2016 where MS has now reverted to 'per core' licensing :palm:
Don't know Windows 10 (urgh!) but I assume the CPU/core limits are the same as for Windows 8. For a desktop OS it's unlikely to change, though.
1 Windows NT 4 Workstation on a SGI Visual Workstation 540 supports four physical processors
ie. It's possible to own a machine where not all the CPUs are used because the Microsoft license doesn't let you, and that yaying more money to Microsoft will magically "unlock" those CPUs (without needing to alter the hardware).
-
The question I actually asked in my original post (which you neatly trimmed) was:
"The majority of CPUs out there are artificially limited. Should we be starting a class action lawsuit because we're all being "wronged"?"
I trimmed it because it was obviously irrelevant, we're NOT being "wronged".
The CPU manufacturer sells me a "locked" CPU. I bring it home and can promptly overclock (or "unlock") it for free perfectly legally.
The scope manufacturer sells me a scope with some memory disabled, I bring it home and can NOT unlock that memory for free as that would be illegal.
See the difference? That's why the PC example goes the exact other way you claim it does. If you take the CPU as reference there would be no issue hacking the scope.
It's possible to own a machine where not all the CPUs are used because the Microsoft license doesn't let you, and that yaying more money to Microsoft will magically "unlock" those CPUs (without needing to alter the hardware).
Again irrelevant, because such a machine DOES NOT come bundled with a version of Windows that limits it, while the scope does.
-
If you take the CPU as reference there would be no issue hacking the scope.
OK, there's no written law against overclocking at the moment, does that make it right?
What would you say if a such a law was passed tomorrow? Would you stop overclocking?
What about this?
http://wccftech.com/intel-forcing-ban-nonk-oc-feature-skylake-motherboards-bios-rolling/ (http://wccftech.com/intel-forcing-ban-nonk-oc-feature-skylake-motherboards-bios-rolling/)
-
The scope manufacturer sells me a scope with some memory disabled, I bring it home and can NOT unlock that memory for free as that would be illegal.
if we are talking about rigol actually... where it is written that it is illegal to do so? afaik, from their site... it can be unlocked using the right "key", not the "purchased key", and the key is available in riglol for free... heck where you are going to purchase the key? legally?. afaics, rigol silence to this matter is not hurting them, and i can safely bet this is somewhat legal or condoned by them.
OK, there's no written law against overclocking at the moment, does that make it right?
in the sense if one can do or cannot do? it is right. in the sense of the cpu longevity? it is not.
What would you say if a such a law was passed tomorrow? Would you stop overclocking?
the rationale behind the "man made" law need to be considered. if its involving other's life, then he should. if not then its complicated. (actually i hate to type long text about this).
-
What would you say if a such a law was passed tomorrow? Would you stop overclocking?
the rationale behind the "man made" law need to be considered. if its involving other's life, then he should. if not then its complicated. (actually i hate to type long text about this).
It's a "yes" or "no" answer.
Is Intel harmed by overclocking? Is Rigol harmed by hacking?
-
It's only nitpicking if...
No, it's nitpicking, period.
It is. Seriously, it is.
ie. It's possible to own a machine where not all the CPUs are used because the Microsoft license doesn't let you, and that yaying more money to Microsoft will magically "unlock" those CPUs (without needing to alter the hardware).
Yes, if you buy a dual processor workstation and try to use Windows 9x/ME or one of the Home (XP/Vista/W7) or non/Pro (Win8.x) editions on it, which would be plain stupid.
No, if you buy a standard PC with a single processor (no matter how many cores!) or build one yourself.
-
Yes, if you buy a dual processor workstation and try to use Windows 9x/ME or one of the Home (XP/Vista/W7) or non/Pro (Win8.x) editions on it, which would be plain stupid.
Nobody's asking if it would be sensible or not.
-
Buuuut nobody in their right mind would have shipped PC hardware with a version of Windows that limited usage of that hardware, as is with the scopes and is what people complain about. That's where the comparison ends, beyond that the 2 platforms are too different to compare.
Stop trying to avoid the issue: MS did limit the proportion of my hardware that could be used. You may wriggle and squirm, but MS did it.
As an irrelevant aside, what makes you think a company did ship Windows with the hardware? It was principally a linux box, with Windows on it for occasional use.
-
Buuuut nobody in their right mind would have shipped PC hardware with a version of Windows that limited usage of that hardware, as is with the scopes and is what people complain about. That's where the comparison ends, beyond that the 2 platforms are too different to compare.
Stop trying to avoid the issue: MS did limit the proportion of my hardware that could be used. You may wriggle and squirm, but MS did it.
As an irrelevant aside, what makes you think a company did ship Windows with the hardware? It was principally a linux box, with Windows on it for occasional use.
So what? There are plenty of other operating systems you can use to unlock your hardware's full functionality, which isn't the case with an oscilloscope. Microsoft didn't provide you with the hardware, only the software. If you bought them as a bundle, then it's the stupid seller's fault for providing inadequate software for the hardware. Install a new OS or complain to the seller and get a refund.
Another silly and completely invalid analogy.
By taking the business class seat, you're occupying a space, which could go to a passenger who would pay for it. That seat is no longer available to someone else, who may pay for the upgrade. Even that seat is free anyway, it still needs to be cleaned and there will be consumables used such as food and drink. The extra cost to the airline is real.
Nitpicking the details to make the analogy invalid? Really? :palm:
What if they didn't include any of the first class perks? What if you only asked to sit there because it's a better chair? It doesn't cost them anything extra. Should they let you?
There was absolutely no nitpicking whatsoever. They are totally different things.
The number of first class seats is physically limited. It is a finite resource. Irrespective of the cost or lack of thereof to the airline.
The number of users of a piece of software has no upper limit. It's just information and can be copied infinitely.
Analogies comparing software to physical space or material items are inherently flawed.
It's a "yes" or "no" answer.
Is Intel harmed by overclocking? Is Rigol harmed by hacking?
The answer is no. Intel benefits from overclocking and Rigol from firmware hacking.
And while we're on the subject of overclocking. Is it right to overclock a part, then sell it on? Rigol has done exactly that!
http://www.eevblog.com/2009/10/12/eevblog-37-rigol-ds1052e-oscilloscope-teardown/ (http://www.eevblog.com/2009/10/12/eevblog-37-rigol-ds1052e-oscilloscope-teardown/)
-
Yes, if you buy a dual processor workstation and try to use Windows 9x/ME or one of the Home (XP/Vista/W7) or non/Pro (Win8.x) editions on it, which would be plain stupid.
Nobody's asking if it would be sensible or not.
Sure, but if you buy a piece of hardware (PC) and try to use it with a piece of software (Windows Home Edition) that does not fully support your piece of hardware then you have only yourself to blame. Simple as that.
-
As for 24MB vs 12MB.... that is going to make what difference, exactly, in practice?
So you're confirming that the $200 memory upgrade for the Rigol scopes is pointless, thanks for agreeing! I that case it wouldn't hurt them to make it available by default.
You are completely missing the point, here. I'm saying (that in my barely informed opinion which doesn't matter, but since you're biting...) this 24MB of memory is an add-on created almost solely for the purpose of upselling to those folks that must have bigger/better. In order to offer more options and make more money. Suggesting that EVERYONE get this upgrade (and presumably pay for it)... OK, just think about it. Now you want everyone to equally pay the cost for this silly piece of faff.
If you want deep memory, buy an Owon. They have some of the deepest memory machines. And then please tell me what it's good for. Maybe one day when we are making analog computers this will come in handy. After you build the analog logic analyzer to go with it.
You Americans keep forgetting that not everyone lives in a place with all the BS and get along quite fine. This kind of rubbish is holding the economy back, rather than advancing it.
And the result is not people being rewarded for their development costs but patent trolls who make it difficult for everyone else to innovate.
Sorry. I sometimes forget my internet isn't America. This wasn't meant to be an americentric comment. It applies to the global economy, anyway. Europe is not exempt. Or Finland. Or w/e you are from.
-
What if they didn't include any of the first class perks? What if you only asked to sit there because it's a better chair? It doesn't cost them anything extra. Should they let you?
There was absolutely no nitpicking whatsoever. They are totally different things.
The number of first class seats is physically limited. It is a finite resource. Irrespective of the cost or lack of thereof to the airline.
Please stop nitpicking and trying to avoid the question. You know perfectly well is being asked here.
Assuming:
a) There's some free seats in first class,
b) The plane has already left the ground and the fasten-seatbelt sign has been turned off,
c) They they just sit quietly in the seat and don't ask for first-class perks
Should tourist-class passengers be allowed to go up to first class and sit there in the nicer seats?
-
Buuuut nobody in their right mind would have shipped PC hardware with a version of Windows that limited usage of that hardware, as is with the scopes and is what people complain about. That's where the comparison ends, beyond that the 2 platforms are too different to compare.
Stop trying to avoid the issue: MS did limit the proportion of my hardware that could be used. You may wriggle and squirm, but MS did it.
As an irrelevant aside, what makes you think a company did ship Windows with the hardware? It was principally a linux box, with Windows on it for occasional use.
So what? There are plenty of other operating systems you can use to unlock your hardware's full functionality, which isn't the case with an oscilloscope. Microsoft didn't provide you with the hardware, only the software. If you bought them as a bundle, then it's the stupid seller's fault for providing inadequate software for the hardware. Install a new OS or complain to the seller and get a refund.
Another silly and completely invalid analogy.
By taking the business class seat, you're occupying a space, which could go to a passenger who would pay for it. That seat is no longer available to someone else, who may pay for the upgrade. Even that seat is free anyway, it still needs to be cleaned and there will be consumables used such as food and drink. The extra cost to the airline is real.
Nitpicking the details to make the analogy invalid? Really? :palm:
What if they didn't include any of the first class perks? What if you only asked to sit there because it's a better chair? It doesn't cost them anything extra. Should they let you?
There was absolutely no nitpicking whatsoever. They are totally different things.
The number of first class seats is physically limited. It is a finite resource. Irrespective of the cost or lack of thereof to the airline.
The number of users of a piece of software has no upper limit. It's just information and can be copied infinitely.
Analogies comparing software to physical space or material items are inherently flawed.
It's a "yes" or "no" answer.
Is Intel harmed by overclocking? Is Rigol harmed by hacking?
The answer is no. Intel benefits from overclocking and Rigol from firmware hacking.
And while we're on the subject of overclocking. Is it right to overclock a part, then sell it on? Rigol has done exactly that!
http://www.eevblog.com/2009/10/12/eevblog-37-rigol-ds1052e-oscilloscope-teardown/ (http://www.eevblog.com/2009/10/12/eevblog-37-rigol-ds1052e-oscilloscope-teardown/)
I'm having difficulty distinguising your posts from trolling. Why? Because one trolls' technique is to continually avoid the point being made, and try to get other people's attention diverted onto irrelevancies.
How would you suggest I distinguish your posts from trolling?
-
As for 24MB vs 12MB.... that is going to make what difference, exactly, in practice?
So you're confirming that the $200 memory upgrade for the Rigol scopes is pointless, thanks for agreeing! I that case it wouldn't hurt them to make it available by default.
You are completely missing the point, here. I'm saying (that in my barely informed opinion which doesn't matter, but since you're biting...) this 24MB of memory is an add-on created almost solely for the purpose of upselling to those folks that must have bigger/better. In order to offer more options and make more money. Suggesting that EVERYONE get this upgrade (and presumably pay for it)... OK, just think about it. Now you want everyone to equally pay the cost for this silly piece of faff.
Well, everyone does pay for the 24MB option, whether it's enabled or not because the memory is in the machine, along with the firmware to use it. A select few just decide to give Rigol a bit of extra money to use it because they find it useful and still want the warranty.
It's quite likely the Rigol hacks are just a marketing ploy and a very effective one at that.
If you want deep memory, buy an Owon. They have some of the deepest memory machines. And then please tell me what it's good for. Maybe one day when we are making analog computers this will come in handy. After you build the analog logic analyzer to go with it.
I agree. My main 'scope is a two channel 100MHz Owon (can't remember the exact model). I like it because it's compact, has a big display and a battery, rather memory. My Rigol doesn't get much use.
Please stop nitpicking and trying to avoid the question. You know perfectly well is being asked here.
Assuming:
a) There's some free seats in first class,
b) The plane has already left the ground and the fasten-seatbelt sign has been turned off,
c) They they just sit quietly in the seat and don't ask for first-class perks
Should tourist-class passengers be allowed to go up to first class and sit there in the nicer seats?
Of course the airline could allow them to use the nicer seats, at no extra cost but of course they're not obliged to. The trouble then is, when word gets round, everyone will want the seats and trouble could ensue.
Still, the question is of no relevance to the debate because you're referring to a finite resource.
-
se.
Please stop nitpicking and trying to avoid the question. You know perfectly well is being asked here.
Assuming:
a) There's some free seats in first class,
b) The plane has already left the ground and the fasten-seatbelt sign has been turned off,
c) They they just sit quietly in the seat and don't ask for first-class perks
Should tourist-class passengers be allowed to go up to first class and sit there in the nicer seats?
Of course the airline could allow them to use the nicer seats, at no extra cost but of course they're not obliged to. The trouble then is, when word gets round, everyone will want the seats and trouble could ensue.
And what should happen and could happen if the airline said "no", and the tourist passengers did it anyway?
-
to continually avoid the point being made, and try to get other people's attention diverted onto irrelevancies.
I did address the point you made about Microsoft limiting access to the hardware. You just didn't notice it.
To reiterate. Although you might have purchased Windows home and the hardware as a bundle, they are still two distinct items. Microsoft are not preventing you from using your hardware. For example, you are free to dual boot with GNU/Linux and access all of the hardware.
The point you made was off topic. It is completely irrelevant to the hacking oscilloscopes debate because it referred to a generic operating system, running on generic hardware, rather than specially tailored firmware, running on specialised hardware.
se.
Please stop nitpicking and trying to avoid the question. You know perfectly well is being asked here.
Assuming:
a) There's some free seats in first class,
b) The plane has already left the ground and the fasten-seatbelt sign has been turned off,
c) They they just sit quietly in the seat and don't ask for first-class perks
Should tourist-class passengers be allowed to go up to first class and sit there in the nicer seats?
Of course the airline could allow them to use the nicer seats, at no extra cost but of course they're not obliged to. The trouble then is, when word gets round, everyone will want the seats and trouble could ensue.
And what should happen and could happen if the airline said "no", and the tourist passengers did it anyway?
The easiest solution is to lock the door and physically stop them from gaining access. If they're there already and aren't causing any trouble, there's little point in forcing them to leave, if they refuse to do so when asked politely, as it could cause trouble.
Still, this is way off topic. . .
-
Copyright very explicitly protects the distribution of the software without the right holders permission, the grey area is these "licenses" that are growing to cover more and more software, they don't have a strong track record in courts but keep getting pushed as legitimate ways to protect the copyright owner when they aren't as strong as the alternatives.
So you're saying,
1. Because a license is not as legally binding, you have no problem hacking a software to circumvent this license fee. This is not stealing.
2. The better solution would be to not give you the software until after you pay for it. After you pay, the software has to be distributed to you.
A. you can download it. Since you recognize the significance of copyright law, you would hack a license. But you will not redistribute this software to other parties, because you recognize the distinction between licensing and copyright law. As do most of the other folks who would hack a license. This is some sort of common sense between thieves?
or B. have to send the device in to a service center in order to install the upgrade. Increasing cost and adding inconvenience to the consumer.
or C. maintain a serial number database with random individual device ID of each unit, increasing cost.
Furthermore, if you were not going to buy it, anyway, then it isn't stealing. If I would have never paid the money to see the new Star Trek movie, it isn't stealing if I torrent it. Yeah... see how this relies on the honor system? And can you even be honest with YOURSELF? Now the new Star Wars movie is out. But you will remember how you could watch it for free.... And you can convince yourself you wouldn't have paid to see this movie, either. :-//
-
Well, everyone does pay for the 24MB option, whether it's enabled or not because the memory is in the machine, along with the firmware to use it. A select few just decide to give Rigol a bit of extra money to use it because they find it useful and still want the warranty.
As mentioned: The cost of the extra 12Mb of memory is probably less than the logistical cost of of manufacturing two separate pieces of hardware.
Of course the airline could allow them to use the nicer seats, at no extra cost but of course they're not obliged to. The trouble then is, when word gets round, everyone will want the seats and trouble could ensue.
The problem is that people in this thread seem to be telling the airline they have every right to sit there because the seats are free and it doesn't cost the airline anything.
Technically they're correct: It doesn't cost the airline anything.
It's a finite resource
Nitpicking. There IS a way to allocate those seats fairly.
Nope. The reason nobody goes up and sits there is because they have a built-in sense that they're not entitled to that, that they're only entitled to the seat they paid for.
Funny how that same sense of entitlement changes when it comes to hacking/copyright infringement, eh?
-
No, everyone (from your customers) loses. By making feature X a $100 option that 10% of people will buy those who do will be ripped off, and those who don't won't have access to a tool that if it had been included by default for $10 extra could have worthy for them.
if it had been included by default for $10 extra could have worthy for them
.
Huh... Ok, due to a huge group buy, we can all go to zoot.com and buy a $20.00 socket wrench for only $10.00. But only if we all buy it. This is a great deal, because for some of us, this might come in handy. The 10% of people who actually needed one are going to by happy. The rest of us are going to get a great deal on a socket wrench. Everyone happy, right?
In reality, the guy that needs these scope features. The guy who KNOWS he needs these features. He doen't mind paying. It's the guys that think they might possibly ever use it and they simply WANT it that complain that it isn't included for free.
-
Copyright very explicitly protects the distribution of the software without the right holders permission, the grey area is these "licenses" that are growing to cover more and more software, they don't have a strong track record in courts but keep getting pushed as legitimate ways to protect the copyright owner when they aren't as strong as the alternatives.
So you're saying,
1. Because a license is not as legally binding, you have no problem hacking a software to circumvent this license fee. This is not stealing.
No, I never said that. As a manufacturer you get more protection by relying on the easily enforceable copyright laws, instead of just licensing. Yes it adds more cost to the business, but you get more protection. The default licenses businesses are relying on have been proven ineffective in court, you can go down that path if you like but it is not better protection than never handing over the copyright material to begin with.
Copyright covers PCB layouts just as it covers software, but only the software world decided they wanted additional contracts to further limit the end users application of their work.
-
That's pretty much the Siglent model for their IP protection and thus far it's been robust.
Enabling options and factory set BW's use SN #'s and unique unit ID hexadecimal codes for generation of activation codes and to date AFAIK this method has not been cracked.
Agilent use a basic S/N and keycode system for their test gear. I'm an RF engineer and only dabble in programming but I managed to reverse engineer their system in a few hours. I wanted to unlock options in an E5071 VNA I have here at home. I can probably hack a whole load of their test gear now just with access to a serial number. Note that I'm not going to release this hack into the wild or give out any free licence options :)
I did this a few months ago as you can see in post #64 in this thread here:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/buysellwanted/auction-(uk)-test-gear-from-nvidia/50/ (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/buysellwanted/auction-(uk)-test-gear-from-nvidia/50/)
So it's probably only a matter of time before someone (who has enough motivation) hacks the Siglent system even if it is a bit more complex than the Agilent system. I'm not volunteering to do it BTW ;D
-
So - the next time you take a flight somewhere, you buy your economy ticket and when you get on the plane decide you want to occupy a business class seat - or maybe first class ... and your argument is 'I bought a seat on this plane - and I want that one!'
No different to advanced software features.
You didn't pay for the feature, so you aren't entitled to make use of it.
Another silly and completely invalid analogy.
By taking the business class seat, you're occupying a space, which could go to a passenger who would pay for it. That seat is no longer available to someone else, who may pay for the upgrade. Even that seat is free anyway, it still needs to be cleaned and there will be consumables used such as food and drink. The extra cost to the airline is real.
Thank you for that response. I won a bet on you taking that line of argument. Predictable.
And my response has already been presented.....
What if they didn't include any of the first class perks? What if you only asked to sit there because it's a better chair? It doesn't cost them anything extra. Should they let you?
There was absolutely no nitpicking whatsoever. They are totally different things.
The number of first class seats is physically limited. It is a finite resource. Irrespective of the cost or lack of thereof to the airline.
Please stop nitpicking and trying to avoid the question. You know perfectly well is being asked here.
Assuming:
a) There's some free seats in first class,
b) The plane has already left the ground and the fasten-seatbelt sign has been turned off,
c) They they just sit quietly in the seat and don't ask for first-class perks
Should tourist-class passengers be allowed to go up to first class and sit there in the nicer seats?
As for cleaning costs (I'm only guessing here) but I don't think an airline will say "Nobody sat in that seat - so it doesn't have to be cleaned."
You have been given a scenario where the constraints offer a neutral impact on the airline at that time. (Subsequent issues arising from a precedent might be less so.)
Just answer the question.
-
It's a finite resource
Nitpicking. There IS a way to allocate those seats fairly.
Nope. The reason nobody goes up and sits there is because they have a built-in sense that they're not entitled to that, that they're only entitled to the seat they paid for.
Funny how that same sense of entitlement changes when it comes to hacking/copyright infringement, eh?
You could try to apply the same analogy to anything be it seats at a cinema, on a bus, train etc. but it completely ignores the fact that there are not limitless seats. Deciding on the ratio of premium vs standard seats on an aeroplane is not a simple matter. It depends on how many people are willing to pay the premium. Get the ratio wrong and the airliner loses money.
When you take into account that software can be distributed to limitless numbers of users, the analogy totally breaks down. The development cost purely depends on the complexity of the software. It is a fixed overhead, which remains the same, irrespective of how many users there maybe. Of course those development costs need to be recouped and I'm not saying it's right that everyone should get it for free but it's totally different to physical property, space, seats etc.
A bit off-topic I know. If you're very lucky or just down right manipulative and there is room in business class, you may get a free upgrade. Plenty of people do get those nice seats, they're not entitled to. Some people are cleaver.
http://www.skyscanner.net/news/how-get-flight-upgrade-15-ways-get-bumped-business (http://www.skyscanner.net/news/how-get-flight-upgrade-15-ways-get-bumped-business)
-
Of course those development costs need to be recouped and I'm not saying it's right that everyone should get it for free
No, you have been saying EVERYONE should get the same suite. And everyone should pay the same cost. And there should be only ONE model scope. One model DMM. One kind of turkey dinner. That way "I" don't have to be jealous that someone else has a higher model, because he was willing to pay for it and I wasn't.... I mean I was wiling for everyone to pay a little more so we can ALL have "deluxe"... which is now just standard.... But I don't like the fact that some people will pay more than I will, because they actually need a feature where I just want to have as good a device as everyone else. lol. lol. lol. lol.
lol.
It's a competitive market. There are options. A manufacturer can't use a business model that doesn't work, because they will go out of business.
If you think people don't like and pay for options, you are wrong. I have been paid to make options that are meaningless... simply because people want to buy things with better numbers. I tell my client it's pointless. He says. "I know, but the other guys have it, and I need something to put on the spec sheet."
Half your customers might not even know what the hell these stats mean, but they sure as hell want what's "better." In some cases these options are created for such ego/clueless buyers with fat wallets in the first place.
-
Of course those development costs need to be recouped and I'm not saying it's right that everyone should get it for free
No, you have been saying EVERYONE should get the same suite. And everyone should pay the same cost. And there should be only ONE model scope. One model DMM. One kind of turkey dinner. That way "I" don't have to be jealous that someone else has a higher model, because he was willing to pay for it and I wasn't.... I mean I was wiling for everyone to pay a little more so we can ALL have "deluxe"... which is now just standard.... But I don't like the fact that some people will pay more than I will, because they actually need a feature where I just want to have as good a device as everyone else. lol. lol. lol. lol.
lol.
No, I didn't say any of that. You've clearly not read any of my posts properly.
-
I may have confused some other posts for yours. I'm not going to go back and check. This thread has kinda become a beast. Apologies if this is the case.
Wait, here it is. Hero999 says:
No, forget the 8 firmware options. Just ship them all with exactly the same basic firmware and even the same labels/housings. [then sell additional features, sending FIRMWARE rather than UNLOCK CODES]
... err, what the hell is the difference to the average end user... not your sophisticated hacker-cum-laywer/social activist which is only 0.1% of your customers?
Also, do you know even if/how the bandwidth is actively limited by firmware? You never even responded to this other than "I don't know." But you still insist on calling it intentional crippling of the hardware (which you paid for your precious hardware, yeh I know).
-
The development cost purely depends on the complexity of the software. It is a fixed overhead, which remains the same, irrespective of how many users there maybe. Of course those development costs need to be recouped and I'm not saying it's right that everyone should get it for free
Good. Progress towards sense.
Now take the next steps... If you were a manufacturer, how would ensure you recouped the costs? Then how would you ensure you made a sufficient profit?
-
If I am reading Hero999's posts, correctly:
Apparently, sending out firmware upgrades is different than sending out unlock codes. Because of copyright law. So Hero thinks the manufacturer making that change is important. Because if I were a manufacturer, I would definitely consider these outlier customers in my business plan. :) The potential for a firmware update to brick the scope vs an unlock code that will guarantee the user is up and running (because he's buying the upgrade for a reason, usually!?)... meh, who cares about the functionality of a TOOL.
Also, he feels that putting in hardware that is not functional by default is a crime, even if that hardware is NOT NECESSARY for complete functionality of the device, and if physicaly NOT including it and adding it later would cost more than just putting it in (talking the memory thing). Even if this "feature" is just a barely meaningful "upgrade" only conceived to offer an idiot with a fat wallet more to spend on. (Or that 1 in 1000 customer who has a specific problem where this is needed.... who is GRATEFUL to overpay for this upgrade (and fatten the bill to his client!), even though he knows he is also subsidizing the cost so that EVERYONE ELSE can also have that OPTION.) So now, because of the practicality of this physical memory cost and assembly/design, Hero would rather EVERYONE should get and pay for this meaningless upgrade. Or NO one should get the option. Ok, pesto soup for everyone.
Also, he feels like bandwidth of these scopes is actively crippled by firmware in order to extort money from people, but he does not even know if this is actually the case, versus firmware changes that actually enhance the image of the trace through software algorhithms, and he can't be bothered by this possibility. I mean, today's scopes don't deflect a beam of subatomic particles onto a phosphor screen, anymore. The signals are read with ADC and converted into digital data. Which can be manipulated. By software. When frequency exceeds the limitations of the ADC/circuitry, it could be possible to extrapolate a closer approximation of how the actual signal should look by using frequency, known rise/fall curves, and other various data, perhaps?
My favorite whine is "if someone else needs it, I MIGHT need it, too. Let's ALL have it!" Some of these options are not going to do anything for you, anyway. 95% of these hackers will never see a difference in their hacked scope. If and when you DO need a feature, you will more than likely be happy and grateful to actually pay for this feature. And it will be as easy as pie. Money for unlock code. Instant. The words that come to mind are "thank" and "you!" Everyone happy but the conspiracy theorists.
-
Doesn't this argument avoid the point why the hack is possible? For Rigol, it is more profitable to engineer a 100MHz scope, and sell a 'locked' version as a 50MHz model, than it is to engineer, manufacture, sell and support a different 50MHz and 100MHz models
I assume product development went something like this...
A long long time ago
Sales : 100MHz is the new 50MHz - we need a low-end 100MHz model.
Engineer : Well, we can't upgrade the 50MHz model, we will need to R&D a 100 MHz model. It'll cost - big $.
Sales : Just do it!
A long ago
Sales : That old 50MHz model is really tired, and not selling - can you give it a refresh
Engineer : Can't we just sell the 100MHz model at the current 50MHz price point?
Sales : No! 100MHz is still a compelling feature - people pay for twice the bandwidth!
Engineer : Well, we can either design a completely new model for lots of $$$, or we can just software lock the 100MHz down to 50MHz, and the per-unit R&D cost is zero.
Sales: I like your thinking - that would give a lowest-end product refresh for almost free. Time to market - zero! Do it!
A short time later...
Sales : People are hacking our 50MHz model into a 100MHz model! It's costing us money!
Engineer : Um, but the hardware is the same? They can't afford a 100MHz model, so they by the 50MHz model. It isn't actually costing us anything (as long as we still make money on the 50MHz model for it to be economically viable, that is)
Sales : But but but... they are stealing from us! It is hurting our bottom line.
Engineer : No they aren't. It wasn't viable for us to engineer a 50MHz model, so you have already made that money by not having to pay all that R&D for a new low margin model. And it only took a week to change the sticker on the front.
Sales : But but but... if they use 100MHz, they should pay the premium - we aren't a charity!
Engineer : If the can't or won't buy a 100MHz model in the first place, what would you like our customers to do? If they 'need' 100MHz they will go and buy a knock-off 100MHz scope from Ali Express, or worse buy one from our competitor. Let them buy our 50MHz, at maybe a slight premium other other 50MHz scopes, upgrade it for free, and then feel happy that they have got something for nothing, and we made the sale while our competitors didn't. Our competitors who did engineer a new low-end product will feel the burn as they can't make back the money for their R&D costs - you know, the costs we never paid because we used an existing design?
Sales: but but but...
-
It's a finite resource
Nitpicking. There IS a way to allocate those seats fairly.
Nope. The reason nobody goes up and sits there is because they have a built-in sense that they're not entitled to that, that they're only entitled to the seat they paid for.
Funny how that same sense of entitlement changes when it comes to hacking/copyright infringement, eh?
You could try to apply the same analogy to anything be it seats at a cinema, on a bus, train etc. but it completely ignores the fact that there are not limitless seats. Deciding on the ratio of premium vs standard seats on an aeroplane is not a simple matter. It depends on how many people are willing to pay the premium. Get the ratio wrong and the airliner loses money.
When you take into account that software can be distributed to limitless numbers of users, the analogy totally breaks down. The development cost purely depends on the complexity of the software. It is a fixed overhead, which remains the same, irrespective of how many users there maybe. Of course those development costs need to be recouped and I'm not saying it's right that everyone should get it for free but it's totally different to physical property, space, seats etc.
You are missing the whole point of the analogy. You are doing it deliberately. You are nitpicking the shortcomings of the analogy that are - in the scenario specified - totally irrelevant ... and ignoring the fundamental question. All analogies fall down at some point, so relying on using those aspects to dismiss the analogy entirely is simply weak.
A bit off-topic I know. If you're very lucky or just down right manipulative and there is room in business class, you may get a free upgrade. Plenty of people do get those nice seats, they're not entitled to. Some people are cleaver.
http://www.skyscanner.net/news/how-get-flight-upgrade-15-ways-get-bumped-business (http://www.skyscanner.net/news/how-get-flight-upgrade-15-ways-get-bumped-business)
Now you are using the analogy (for which you seem to hold such contempt) to make an argument. Can we try and be consistent?
But, to address the point being made - the fact that the airline gives the upgrade (for whatever reason) IS sufficient entitlement. It is the airline's decision - not the passenger's. The morality of whatever shenanigans were employed to gain that is a different question.
-
The pragmatist in me suggests arguments such as this are futile.
People who want to do the wrong thing will justify it every which way until the cows come home.
-
Engineer : Um, but the hardware is the same? They can't afford a 100MHz model, so they by the 50MHz model. It isn't actually costing us anything (as long as we still make money on the 50MHz model for it to be economically viable, that is)
I know this is all hypothetical. But did you forget this part of your hypothetical story?
Engineer : Well, we can't upgrade the 50MHz model, we will need to R&D a 100 MHz model. It'll cost - big $.
And to fill in the blanks: 100MHz is the new 50MHz. Every day we don't have one, we are losing business to our competitors. Projections estimate we are millions of dollars in the red in 10 years and the company will be sold for parts.
It's a mistake to assume people/companies can sit on their laurels and continue to make what they have. And that they only do things to make MORE money. It takes work just to keep what you have.
And let's take a quick peek at reality. A $400.00 Rigol has 50MHz and 4 channels. 6 years ago, the cheapest 25MHz 2 channel DSO was close to that price. Even two years ago, this would be incredible news. These greedy scope manufacturers.... they're so greedy they are trying to put each other out of business by undercutting each other and throwing scopes at us for peanuts. How awful.
People who want to do the wrong thing will justify it every which way until the cows come home.
Yes. I guess this is the reason why we have to explicitly make murder illegal and actually enforce it.
-
Doesn't this argument avoid the point why the hack is possible? For Rigol, it is more profitable to engineer a 100MHz scope, and sell a 'locked' version as a 50MHz model, than it is to engineer, manufacture, sell and support a different 50MHz and 100MHz models
I assume product development went something like this...
A long long time ago
Sales : 100MHz is the new 50MHz - we need a low-end 100MHz model.
Engineer : Well, we can't upgrade the 50MHz model, we will need to R&D a 100 MHz model. It'll cost - big $.
Sales : Just do it!
A long ago
Sales : That old 50MHz model is really tired, and not selling - can you give it a refresh
Engineer : Can't we just sell the 100MHz model at the current 50MHz price point?
Sales : No! 100MHz is still a compelling feature - people pay for twice the bandwidth!
Engineer : Well, we can either design a completely new model for lots of $$$, or we can just software lock the 100MHz down to 50MHz, and the per-unit R&D cost is zero.
Sales: I like your thinking - that would give a lowest-end product refresh for almost free. Time to market - zero! Do it!
A short time later...
Sales : People are hacking our 50MHz model into a 100MHz model! It's costing us money!
Engineer : Um, but the hardware is the same? They can't afford a 100MHz model, so they by the 50MHz model. It isn't actually costing us anything (as long as we still make money on the 50MHz model for it to be economically viable, that is)
Sales : But but but... they are stealing from us! It is hurting our bottom line.
Engineer : No they aren't. It wasn't viable for us to engineer a 50MHz model, so you have already made that money by not having to pay all that R&D for a new low margin model. And it only took a week to change the sticker on the front.
Sales : But but but... if they use 100MHz, they should pay the premium - we aren't a charity!
Engineer : If the can't or won't buy a 100MHz model in the first place, what would you like our customers to do? If they 'need' 100MHz they will go and buy a knock-off 100MHz scope from Ali Express, or worse buy one from our competitor. Let them buy our 50MHz, at maybe a slight premium other other 50MHz scopes, upgrade it for free, and then feel happy that they have got something for nothing, and we made the sale while our competitors didn't. Our competitors who did engineer a new low-end product will feel the burn as they can't make back the money for their R&D costs - you know, the costs we never paid because we used an existing design?
Sales: but but but...
And this is the point I was making with my statement that it was just plain LAZY to NOT make an actual DIFFERENT Firmware for each model. Even if all you do is comment out the disabled modules in the version with less features, it's STILL reasonably small R&D. But NO... they want to make it even CHEAPER and LAZIER.
Bottom line is this FW is *NIX based, and their code base is ALREADY 3/4 written by other folks before they even started. They never returned their code base (The apps are a grey area; but the hardware extensions are SPECIFICALLY included in the CopyLeft) to the common repository as per the GPL, so they're already in violation of CopyLeft law... but hey, who gives a SHIT about that?!?
Yes, they DID have to develop some plugins for the *NIX HAL, and the GUI must have taken all of a week to come up with... that is real and unique R&D that should be recouped. And it IS... in the base price of the cheapest models. As is the cost of the extra RAM, and the cost of the special switching hardware they use to attenuate the scope above the "Paid For" feature level.
Bottom line is, the Marketing Folks are wanting to have it both ways... cheap and quick release of the lower-end product, while NOT paying for the cost of actually MAKING a different product, or even differentiating the products in any reasonably secure manner. Or at least, so say those who keep taking the side of the Stef Murky set. My personal opinion is that those are IMAGINED profits, and one cannot hold someone responsible for IMAGINED losses, only REAL ones.
Probably, much more likely, Rigol, et al are deliberately looking the other way because they know that their bottom of the line scopes' popularity are largely derived from this VERY STATE of HACKABILITY... just as MicroSoft has admitted that they deliberately look the other way while their software is "Pirated" by the Chinese Government (which does not recognize about 3/4 of the Copyright and Licensing BS law that corporations have saddled us poor fools in the US with) because it is still better to them than letting.... BING! BING! BING! *NIX get a foothold.
They consider it better to gain market penetration via "Piracy" than not at all.
And guess what?
That "hackability" is a LARGE part of what makes the Rigol, for example, WORTH MORE. In another thread, I ask about a Hantek 100mHZ scope "hackable" to 200 MHz for $240 vs the Rigol 50Mhz "hackable" to 100MHz for $400.
By and large, the response is that the Rigol is a much better value BECAUSE OF THE HACKABLE SOFTWARE.
Half the bandwidth, 2/3 ($160) MORE EXPENSIVE, yet STILL a better deal.
The BOM Between the two machines is very similar. So, in truth, are the specs. The difference is the software. They ARE getting it both ways already; Rigol is selling the "extra" software for $160 on EVERY 50MHz machine.
THIS is what is REALLY happening:
The scopes that sell to clients who need to maintain factory service with them are making them lots of money in upgrades and added software modules, and service contracts on top of that. SOME of the general everyday users are buying the higher end scopes and paying full price as well; this is historically where the "profit margin" is.
Meanwhile, the bottom-end scopes, the ones that "keep the doors open", are selling for WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR. Right now, they are getting an extra $160 for that software. Whether the customer USES IT OR NOT.
And Rigol gets to do this ALL with ONE product across a dozen different market segments, just by "looking the other way" when some of us "hack" our scopes, knowing full well they'll NEVER have to provide warranty on at least half of the entry-level scopes they sell as a result. Overclocked ADC... Who cares? Effed-up master clock PLL circuit... DILLIGAF? MORE profit margin.
And they're doing this with base code that THEY are using in violation of the GPL. And PROBABLY, also stolen COPYRIGHTED code as well. In CHINA... which laws don't support 3/4 of the CopyRight and Licensing BS laws WE do in the US; and you can see what they think of CopyLeft.
I can tell you this... if any of them see this thread, they're going to be laughing their ASSES OFF at you guys defending their Licensing Rights. SERIOUSLY.
mnem
Everybody needs something to believe in... I believe I'm going to bed.
-
Please stop nitpicking and trying to avoid the question. You know perfectly well is being asked here.
Assuming:
a) There's some free seats in first class,
b) The plane has already left the ground and the fasten-seatbelt sign has been turned off,
c) They they just sit quietly in the seat and don't ask for first-class perks
Should tourist-class passengers be allowed to go up to first class and sit there in the nicer seats?
As for cleaning costs (I'm only guessing here) but I don't think an airline will say "Nobody sat in that seat - so it doesn't have to be cleaned."
Please stop avoiding the question. You know perfectly well is being asked here.
-
Bottom line is, the Marketing Folks are wanting to have it both ways... cheap and quick release of the lower-end product, while NOT paying for the cost of actually MAKING a different product, or even differentiating the products in any reasonably secure manner.
For starters, it's the customer that pays. The customer is the one who wants the world in a product for a penny price - and the manufacturers are merely adapting production processes to deliver. The customer is also demanding convenience and immediacy in addressing after sales matters, such as support, warranty, repairs and upgrades.
But I smell hypocrisy...
While the marketing folks, bean counters, management, designers, developers and warehouse might want to have it both ways - it is the customer who is DEMANDING to have it both ways.
You use the word 'lazy' - but that is not what is being described. The correct word is efficient - producing the maximum result for the minimum expenditure of resources. If you honestly want manufacturers to make truly differentiated products - will you be willing to pay for it? (I can hear the screams of outrage already...)
My personal opinion is that those are IMAGINED profits, and one cannot hold someone responsible for IMAGINED losses, only REAL ones.
Oh, the losses are real, alright. It's just that they are not easy to measure. Doesn't make them any less relevant.
-
Yes, they DID have to develop some plugins for the *NIX HAL, and the GUI must have taken all of a week to come up with... that is real and unique R&D that should be recouped. And it IS... in the base price of the cheapest models. As is the cost of the extra RAM, and the cost of the special switching hardware they use to attenuate the scope above the "Paid For" feature level.
Bottom line is, the Marketing Folks are wanting to have it both ways... cheap and quick release of the lower-end product, while NOT paying for the cost of actually MAKING a different product, or even differentiating the products in any reasonably secure manner. Or at least, so say those who keep taking the side of the Stef Murky set. My personal opinion is that those are IMAGINED profits, and one cannot hold someone responsible for IMAGINED losses, only REAL ones.
Wow, what a load of BS. How you do know if, say, Rigol makes a profit at all, currently? Do you do their books? Do you know their payroll? Taxes? Leases? Loan/interest payments? All their costs of operation? Any given company at any given time can be losing huge money on any given product. Huge.
Xbox... huge loser for Microsoft.
Amazon... years and years of huge losses, buying market share.
Any given year, some scope company may go out of business. At any given time, competing companies may be waging a war of attrition on each other. Or they may be selling some of their product line at a huge loss (at least for the foreseeable future) in order to gain market share while making a bigger profit on other products... Anyhow, the long development cycle being what it is for a scope, the actual profit/loss on any given model is really not applicable. It's more like social security. The current sales are paying dev for today's payroll, marketing, support, and others costs of operation, and hopefully some left for R&D future product... Sale is sale. Money is money. It could be many thousands of units before they will turn a book profit on a scope. They may NEVER make a profit. There will be some winners and some losers. A company might have spent a couple years designing a sweet 4 channel 50MHz scope for the bargain price of only $600.00 range.... only to find out they're up against Rigols latest bargain scope at 50% less. Again, not that it even matters if THIS specific product makes profit or not.
In business you are either making money or losing money. There's no in between. There's nothing wrong with maximizing profit on a particular product (if there is even any to begin with).
Scopes are so cheap and quick to design, this is why Tek is now selling rebranded scopes instead of making their own, of course... No, they're doing whatever it takes to remain relevant and in business.
As for your real vs imagined profits? I was never going to pay for this music and movies, anyway, right? So I can watch it on a torrent and I'm not hurting anyone?
-
People who want to do the wrong thing will justify it every which way until the cows come home.
And the justifications will be difficult to distinguish from trolling.
-
People who want to do the wrong thing will justify it every which way until the cows come home.
And the justifications will be difficult to distinguish from trolling.
Quite true. More than once I've done a double-take on some of these before deciding to respond or ignore...
-
Bottom line is, the Marketing Folks are wanting to have it both ways... cheap and quick release of the lower-end product, while NOT paying for the cost of actually MAKING a different product, or even differentiating the products in any reasonably secure manner.
For starters, it's the customer that pays. The customer is the one who wants the world in a product for a penny price - and the manufacturers are merely adapting production processes to deliver. The customer is also demanding convenience and immediacy in addressing after sales matters, such as support, warranty, repairs and upgrades.
But I smell hypocrisy...
While the marketing folks, bean counters, management, designers, developers and warehouse might want to have it both ways - it is the customer who is DEMANDING to have it both ways.
You use the word 'lazy' - but that is not what is being described. The correct word is efficient - producing the maximum result for the minimum expenditure of resources. If you honestly want manufacturers to make truly differentiated products - will you be willing to pay for it? (I can hear the screams of outrage already...)
My personal opinion is that those are IMAGINED profits, and one cannot hold someone responsible for IMAGINED losses, only REAL ones.
Oh, the losses are real, alright. It's just that they are not easy to measure. Doesn't make them any less relevant.
EVERYTHING you've stated here is a matter of opinion or conjecture, no less than you claim MY statements to be.
On the flip side, they could, and probably are, making money hand over fist... enough to drive Tek and HP out of the business with substandard gear that leaves the end-user to do their own quality control and bug-fix.
YES, I WILL pay for it... or I WILL buy the less expensive, lower featured product... or I will buy USED Tek gear to do what I want to do. The ONLY reason to buy the Rigol is BECAUSE it has this readily "hackable software". PERIOD.
Yes, those profits ARE imagined. But that extra $160 / scope whether the customer USES that software or not is NOT imagined. I JUST SHOWED IT in black and white.
Yes, they DID have to develop some plugins for the *NIX HAL, and the GUI must have taken all of a week to come up with... that is real and unique R&D that should be recouped. And it IS... in the base price of the cheapest models. As is the cost of the extra RAM, and the cost of the special switching hardware they use to attenuate the scope above the "Paid For" feature level.
Bottom line is, the Marketing Folks are wanting to have it both ways... cheap and quick release of the lower-end product, while NOT paying for the cost of actually MAKING a different product, or even differentiating the products in any reasonably secure manner. Or at least, so say those who keep taking the side of the Stef Murky set. My personal opinion is that those are IMAGINED profits, and one cannot hold someone responsible for IMAGINED losses, only REAL ones.
Wow, what a load of BS. How you do know if, say, Rigol makes a profit at all, currently? Do you do their books? Do you know their payroll? Taxes? Leases? Loan/interest payments? All their costs of operation? Any given company at any given time can be losing huge money on any given product. Huge.
Xbox... huge loser for Microsoft.
Amazon... years and years of huge losses, buying market share.
Any given year, some scope company may go out of business. At any given time, competing companies may be waging a war of attrition on each other. Or they may be selling some of their product line at a huge loss (at least for the foreseeable future) in order to gain market share while making a bigger profit on other products... Anyhow, the long development cycle being what it is for a scope, the actual profit/loss on any given model is really not applicable. It's more like social security. The current sales are paying dev for today's payroll, marketing, support, and others costs of operation, and hopefully some left for R&D future product... Sale is sale. Money is money. It could be many thousands of units before they will turn a book profit on a scope. They may NEVER make a profit. There will be some winners and some losers. A company might have spent a couple years designing a sweet 4 channel 50MHz scope for the bargain price of only $600.00 range.... only to find out they're up against Rigols latest bargain scope at 50% less. Again, not that it even matters if THIS specific product makes profit or not.
In business you are either making money or losing money. There's no in between. There's nothing wrong with maximizing profit on a particular product (if there is even any to begin with).
Scopes are so cheap and quick to design, this is why Tek is now selling rebranded scopes instead of making their own, of course... No, they're doing whatever it takes to remain relevant and in business.
As for your real vs imagined profits? I was never going to pay for this music and movies, anyway, right? So I can watch it on a torrent and I'm not hurting anyone?
Lets not even get STARTED on the RIAA and their socially, economically and ethically retarded stance that even in the age where the CUSTOMER provides and pays for the production and DELIVERY of their product, THEY still have the right to DEMAND to get paid on the antiquated "Pay for Play" business model. They keep trying to pervert the law to the point that they can essentially have the deal they USED to have in the '40-60s; where somebody ELSE paid for a jukebox, paid THEM for the media, and then paid them AGAIN for every damned time that media got played. And THEN did everything they could to pay the artist ONCE, hourly. As cheaply as possible.
GOOD Scopes are expensive... but not everybody NEEDS a good scope. We're only having this conversation because Rigol And Hantek, et al have put together some "good enough" scopes... and have sold them cheaply enough, long enough to drive Tek and Agilent out of everything but the domestic Lab and Engineering markets.
Yes, those losses ARE imagined. As is their "Right" to set multiple prices for the same damned product.
In America, the LAW is that you have to "aggressively defend your IP" or you by default you lose the right to it. THIS is why you constantly see Apple, et al suing over EVERY LITTLE THING that the Chinese knock-offs steal from their products; this is why we have such a thing as specialists in "Trade Dress".
These manufacturers have EXPLOITED that law to their benefit; EVERYTHING about their product is a copy of designs created by companies like HP and Tek, who actually did the R&D, figured out WHAT TOOLS WE NEEDED, and then FIGURED OUT how to make a usable tool to DO THOSE THINGS, and figured out HOW that tool needed to work to be usable. They CREATED and DEFINED the market, AND the tools that were needed.
HP and Tek did NOT "aggressively defend their IP", and now they're essentially only niche manufacturers in a market THEY CREATED.
And you're RIGHT... there's nothing wrong with maximizing profits... as long as you're willing to accept the COSTS of YOUR CHOSEN METHOD of maximizing those profits. In this case, the COST of that maximization is that a certain percent of Rigol's product is going to be hacked, because they DID NOT bother to pay the initial costs of effectively differentiating their base product from their upscale product. In FACT, they have continued to grow BECAUSE of that fact.
You try to paint them as losers in this deal; they are not. They are WINNING to the tune of $160/unit. EVERY. SINGLE. UNIT.
The law of supply and demand is fulfilled; they win, we relative few who can "hack" our scopes win, and they gain market share BECAUSE their scopes can be "hacked". That "Hackability" IS A FEATURE. It is one they've used to take away market share from the big names. And CLEARLY they've been making a profit at it; they've been doing it for 2 decades.
When and if they do implement security measures to prevent that hackage, we will vote with our feet. We will buy what we can afford that meets our needs; we will buy from another manufacturer who offers more features, or whose product is still "hackable" for more features, or we will buy used product from Tek or HP that DOES meet our needs. Up till now, my own hobbyists needs have been met by a Tek 2465 and 2230 that I bought when I was in the industry and could afford them. Even NOW, a decent, calibrated 2465 from a reputable vendor sells in the range of $600-800 on eBay.
THAT says a lot about the relative values of these products, and who REALLY is losing every time we buy one of these "good enough" scopes.
You are trying to paint "hacking" as a "Black vs White" issue... when like everything in business, it is all shades of grey. And Rigol, Hantek, et al have carved a niche for themselves in this market BASED ON PLAYING those shades of grey against each other; as has every damned corporation that has EVER existed. In business, illegal or not doesn't matter unless you get caught; and even if you DO get caught, it doesn't matter unless it costs you REAL MONEY, and enough of it to outweigh the profits you're making breaking the law. Rigol, Hantek, et al... even the big names are playing this game.
Why should we end-users be the only ones who DON'T benefit from the game they're already playing against US?
YES, those losses ARE imagined. Especially since Rigol is WINNING to the tune of $160/unit, while Tek's best value lies in used gear that has changed hands a dozen times. Shall we now consider every scope that sells to anybody but Tek and HP/Agilent and Le Croy and Fluke and Rodhe & Schwarz, to be REAL losses to them? Shall we feel sorry for Tek and HP and all the others who've defined what a modern scope is; shall we defend THEIR IP the way you expect us to defend that of Hantek, Rigol et al? ESPECIALLY since the basic nuts and bolts of ANY modern scope is essentially THEIR IP?
Of course not. This is BUSINESS. And real profits trump imagined losses EVERY. DAMNED. TIME. And Rigol, et al are taking those real profits directly to the bank.
mnem
Gimme a fu**ing break.
-
As an irrelevant aside, what makes you think a company did ship Windows with the hardware? It was principally a linux box, with Windows on it for occasional use.
So what? There are plenty of other operating systems you can use to unlock your hardware's full functionality, which isn't the case with an oscilloscope. Microsoft didn't provide you with the hardware, only the software. If you bought them as a bundle, then it's the stupid seller's fault for providing inadequate software for the hardware. Install a new OS or complain to the seller and get a refund.
That. The comparison doesn't hold. It would if you could buy a scope without an OS and choose your scope OS from a few existing options, and you deliberately installed one that can't make use of all the hardware's capabilities. But you're the only one to blame then, it wasn't something that was forced on you by the manufacturer.
I'm having difficulty distinguising your posts from trolling. Why? Because one trolls' technique is to continually avoid the point being made, and try to get other people's attention diverted onto irrelevancies.
How would you suggest I distinguish your posts from trolling?
I'll return the question since you just as well continuously avoid, ignore or "misunderstand" the point we make.
Huh... Ok, due to a huge group buy, we can all go to zoot.com and buy a $20.00 socket wrench for only $10.00. But only if we all buy it. This is a great deal, because for some of us, this might come in handy. The 10% of people who actually needed one are going to by happy. The rest of us are going to get a great deal on a socket wrench. Everyone happy, right?
No. You're buying a $100 toolbox and you could have one more tool for an extra $1. Who'd complain now? Even those who don't need it would say "meh OK, who knows I'll probably need it one day" Then be super happy the day they do.
No, you have been saying EVERYONE should get the same suite. And everyone should pay the same cost. And there should be only ONE model scope. One model DMM.
No. But decline your products sensibly, i.e. through hardware or software capabilities - just don't artificially cripple.
While the marketing folks, bean counters, management, designers, developers and warehouse might want to have it both ways - it is the customer who is DEMANDING to have it both ways.
Any talk that the customer is demanding is absolute BS markerting "justification". Like at your grocery store you can now find seasonal goods all year round, which is ecologically ridiculous, but when questioned they'd say "but the customer demands!" Total BS, if you didn't offer it in the first place nobody would come and ask you to add that to your assortment. Now it's there in front of them of course they won't ask themselves the question and take it. There was no demand, you created an artificial one.
The potential for a firmware update to brick the scope
That's close to 0 if you do it right. If only people took the time to do it right though, but that's another problem...
Sales: but but but...
Exact!
-
I'm having difficulty distinguising your posts from trolling. Why? Because one trolls' technique is to continually avoid the point being made, and try to get other people's attention diverted onto irrelevancies.
How would you suggest I distinguish your posts from trolling?
I'll return the question since you just as well continuously avoid, ignore or "misunderstand" the point we make.
Troll => Plonk.
-
First off I must clarify, I never took this thread as pertaining to Rigol, specifically. A lot of good points have been made pertaining specifically to Rigol.
W/e is your opinion of that company, I do not share. I have no opinion on Rigol of their business practices. I have never used one of their scopes.
Agilent and Siglent are major players for a long time. They also piecemeal their scope and have upgradeable features. If locking your memory is annoying, you would be really annoyed buying a 4 channel scope, 4 sets of BNC, 4 sets of position and voltage control... and 2 of them don't work by default! Also, tgzzz and others have shown similar cases regarding CNC milling equipment.
I'm not sure how this is a poor Tek, bad Rigol issue. But if you're so sympathetic, why are you buying Rigol in the first place? Apparently, you can't even screw them out of any money by hacking their scope, since there is no loss of profit to them using your math? BTW, in Tek's heyday, do you ever supposed they said.. Hmmm, we can manufacture this scope for $2,000.00, now. Maybe we should lower the selling price to $2,001.00? If we well 3 million of them this year without any sales personnel and marketing, and if all the extra sales don't result in any support calls, we will break even?
And can you give me a post number where you figured out Rigol's profit of $160 per unit????
The cost of the product is set to maximize profit. OR to minimize loss. You do not know what is the case. Just because they are making money on each unit doesn't mean they will actually recoup their initial investment. They already made a huge investment and took a huge gamble. Now they're lying in that bed. Selling at significantly less than other brands might be the best way to recoup most of their investment. This is why I'm curious how you can know what is their profit to the dollar per unit and how many people in the chain must share a cut of this? And how does this relate to their operating profit? And how do you know their upfront investment in the circuit design, firmware, software, assembly and testing plant, website, support and dealer chain, plastics/molds, et al?
-
First off I must clarify, I never took this thread as pertaining to Rigol, specifically. A lot of good points have been made pertaining specifically to Rigol.
W/e is your opinion of that company, I do not share. I have no opinion on Rigol of their business practices. I have never used one of their scopes.
Agilent and Siglent are major players for a long time. They also piecemeal their scope and have upgradeable features. If locking your memory is annoying, you would be really annoyed buying a 4 channel scope, 4 sets of BNC, 4 sets of position and voltage control... and 2 of them don't work by default! Also, tgzzz and others have shown similar cases regarding CNC milling equipment.
I'm not sure how this is a poor Tek, bad Rigol issue. But if you're so sympathetic, why are you buying Rigol in the first place? Apparently, you can't even screw them out of any money by hacking their scope, since there is no loss of profit to them using your math? BTW, in Tek's heyday, do you ever supposed they said.. Hmmm, we can manufacture this scope for $2,000.00, now. Maybe we should lower the selling price to $2,001.00? If we well 3 million of them this year without any sales personnel and marketing, and if all the extra sales don't result in any support calls, we will break even?
And can you give me a post number where you figured out Rigol's profit of $160 per unit????
The cost of the product is set to maximize profit. OR to minimize loss. You do not know what is the case. Just because they are making money on each unit doesn't mean they will actually recoup their initial investment. They already made a huge investment and took a huge gamble. Now they're lying in that bed. Selling at significantly less than other brands might be the best way to recoup most of their investment. This is why I'm curious how you can know what is their profit to the dollar per unit and how many people in the chain must share a cut of this? And how does this relate to their operating profit? And how do you know their upfront investment in the circuit design, firmware, software, assembly and testing plant, website, support and dealer chain, plastics/molds, et al?
I didn't say Rigol's net profit is $160... I said that the price the market will bear for those additional features is $160 right now. They are getting $160 MORE for this unit than the closest competitor, when their base specs are actually 1/2 what the Hantek lists at.
The 100MHz Hantek DSO5102 and the 50Mhz Rigol DS1054 have very similar featureset, very similar BOM and are manufactured In China, so actual tooling and supply chain are very similar. If these costs are NOT very nearly identical, then they are DOING SOMETHING WRONG and the customer should NOT be expected to pay the difference.
The current market value difference between the two, from reputable vendors, is $160. And yet, I've been told repeatedly in this very forum that the Rigol, rated at 1/2 the bandwidth, is a better value at $160 more BECAUSE of this additional software that can easily be unlocked.
That is $160 per unit, MINIMUM, plus free advertising due to brand loyalty, that they get for all their R&D on that additional software. Not too shabby, really. And the best part is that they STILL get to sell the same exact scope for more, at a dozen different prices in a dozen different market segments. And the law of Supply & Demand is still fulfilled, unlike here in the US, where a corporation is now rewarded for attempting to gain Monopoly power to circumvent that law.
Yes, most manufacturers DO sell upgrade/unlock. The difference is that they ALSO spend the time & money to actually put a LOCK on stuff rather than just zip-tie it down and say "You haven't paid for this; now don't cut that zip-tie or we'll stop liking you and refuse you warranty!!!"
THAT, IMO, is deliberately encouraging you to whip out the ol' MacGyver knife. ;) This is no different in principle from the dozen or so upgrades I've done myself on my own Tek gear from used parts and softwares bought on fleaBay. I'm not afraid to void warranties; that is part of the price I pay for modding my stuff.
Cheers!
mnem
Do these pants make my ass?
-
Yes, most manufacturers DO sell upgrade/unlock. The difference is that they ALSO spend the time & money to actually put a LOCK on stuff rather than just zip-tie it down and say "You haven't paid for this; now don't cut that zip-tie or we'll stop liking you and refuse you warranty!!!"
Ok, this is different from a lot of people saying something to the effect of:
"I paid for the hardware, hence I already paid for the features. It's mine to unlock." These are the comments that drew myself and tgzzz and some others into the thread, and the defense of this stance is still a little shabby, IMO. (Other than some EU laws, maybe, lol.) In reality, the honest fellas who purchased the upgrade are the ones who paid (the extremely trivial cost in the case of this memory deal) for your additional hardware! And don't cry for them, because they were happy to do it. No one forced them to buy a particular scope.
You are saying, if you want people to pay for the upgrade, you should make it more difficult to get for free. Morality and legality is not a part of this "better lock" argument, at all, then. So that's fine. I can't argue with that. Although I still see a lot of valid reasons why they would choose to use a single firmware and a simple code unlock, even if their goal is to actually encourage people to pay. If you want to sell a cheaper door, you put a cheaper lock on it. And the end users benefits from a cheaper price... whether they leave it alone or they break the lock. I'm sure there are a lot of buyers who do not break this lock. Whether morality reasons, or they can't be bothered, or they don't even care what's on the other side of the door. And there are still a lot of buyers that just pay for the higher model without a second thought. So Rigol will probably continue using the cheap lock as long as it works enough of the time. Nothing immoral or lazy or stupid on the part of Rigol, there. Whether this is actually a marketing ploy and they are subliminally encouraging people to unlock their scope... uhhmm, yeah I agree it's not beyond the realm of possibility, but why go to such lengths to make a crazy theory strung together with unproveable assumptions to justify what you are doing?
In your specific case, if you would have purchased the Hantek, then I suppose it IS a win-win. This isn't the same page I was writing on.
-
First off I must clarify, I never took this thread as pertaining to Rigol, specifically. A lot of good points have been made pertaining specifically to Rigol.
W/e is your opinion of that company, I do not share. I have no opinion on Rigol of their business practices. I have never used one of their scopes.
Agilent and Siglent are major players for a long time. They also piecemeal their scope and have upgradeable features. If locking your memory is annoying, you would be really annoyed buying a 4 channel scope, 4 sets of BNC, 4 sets of position and voltage control... and 2 of them don't work by default! Also, tgzzz and others have shown similar cases regarding CNC milling equipment.
I'm not sure how this is a poor Tek, bad Rigol issue. But if you're so sympathetic, why are you buying Rigol in the first place? Apparently, you can't even screw them out of any money by hacking their scope, since there is no loss of profit to them using your math? BTW, in Tek's heyday, do you ever supposed they said.. Hmmm, we can manufacture this scope for $2,000.00, now. Maybe we should lower the selling price to $2,001.00? If we well 3 million of them this year without any sales personnel and marketing, and if all the extra sales don't result in any support calls, we will break even?
And can you give me a post number where you figured out Rigol's profit of $160 per unit????
The cost of the product is set to maximize profit. OR to minimize loss. You do not know what is the case. Just because they are making money on each unit doesn't mean they will actually recoup their initial investment. They already made a huge investment and took a huge gamble. Now they're lying in that bed. Selling at significantly less than other brands might be the best way to recoup most of their investment. This is why I'm curious how you can know what is their profit to the dollar per unit and how many people in the chain must share a cut of this? And how does this relate to their operating profit? And how do you know their upfront investment in the circuit design, firmware, software, assembly and testing plant, website, support and dealer chain, plastics/molds, et al?
I didn't say Rigol's net profit is $160... I said that the price the market will bear for those additional features is $160 right now. They are getting $160 MORE for this unit than the closest competitor, when their base specs are actually 1/2 what the Hantek lists at.
The 100MHz Hantek DSO5102 and the 50Mhz Rigol DS1054 have very similar featureset, very similar BOM and are manufactured In China, so actual tooling and supply chain are very similar. If these costs are NOT very nearly identical, then they are DOING SOMETHING WRONG and the customer should NOT be expected to pay the difference.
The current market value difference between the two, from reputable vendors, is $160. And yet, I've been told repeatedly in this very forum that the Rigol, rated at 1/2 the bandwidth, is a better value at $160 more BECAUSE of this additional software that can easily be unlocked.
That is $160 per unit, MINIMUM, plus free advertising due to brand loyalty, that they get for all their R&D on that additional software. Not too shabby, really. And the best part is that they STILL get to sell the same exact scope for more, at a dozen different prices in a dozen different market segments. And the law of Supply & Demand is still fulfilled, unlike here in the US, where a corporation is now rewarded for attempting to gain Monopoly power to circumvent that law.
Yes, most manufacturers DO sell upgrade/unlock. The difference is that they ALSO spend the time & money to actually put a LOCK on stuff rather than just zip-tie it down and say "You haven't paid for this; now don't cut that zip-tie or we'll stop liking you and refuse you warranty!!!"
THAT, IMO, is deliberately encouraging you to whip out the ol' MacGyver knife. ;) This is no different in principle from the dozen or so upgrades I've done myself on my own Tek gear from used parts and softwares bought on fleaBay. I'm not afraid to void warranties; that is part of the price I pay for modding my stuff.
Cheers!
mnem
Do these pants make my ass?
Rigol is 4 channel, Hantek is 2 channel. There is at least $160 right there.
-
I am not a lawyer or legal scholar, but I am pretty sure that a software license is considered a valuable product and that if it is used without the proper permission - it's stealing.
This assumes there is a license. I've never seen an scope or any other instrument that requires agreeing to a license before using it. This means plain vanilla copyright and patent law applies - you can't make copies of the software, and you can't reimplement patented functionality and sell it. You can of course make copies for your own use and reimplement patented functionality in your lab to your heart's content. Without explicitly agreeing not to, you can also reverse engineer to your heart's content.
A software license is a contract. If you haven't agreed to a contract then one doesn't exist and you're purely bound by the letter of the law, which in no way prevents you from modifying the software in your scope in any which way you like. Maybe you think that's immoral and should be illegal, but that doesn't make it so.
-
That is a good point. And I think we have a winner. :)
FTR, I am one of those guys that would probably (try to) hack my scope if I ever needed to. But I am also one of those guys that would have bought a XXXMHz scope to begin with if I thought I needed it; and I probably won't ever need more than 10MHz. :-DD. If my scope is already working and doing what I need, the last thing I'm going to do is screw around with it for no reason. Every now and then I NEED it to work. And being an early adopter of a new Hantek model, I do not take that for granted.
-
Just wondering why that discussion pops up now, and is fought out so fierce...
20 years ago, when somebody unsoldered some SRAM and soldered in 500eur worth of larger capacity SRAM to get 10k worth of extra memory, nobody complained it might be "bad". After all, you did supply the components and did the work.
10 years ago, one moved 4 solder bridge to connect those 4 extra adress lines resulting in exactly the same outcome, also nobody thought its "bad".
You did some work after all, and well, the RAM is there, so lets use it.
Now, you use some software to do it, and suddenly its the end of the world...
Manufacturers would have the option of actually securing their stuff, just like its done on game consoles etc. They decide not to. If FLIR, Rigol or Tek would actually want to discourage "hacking", they would have implemented actual security by now, as the whole "hacking" is ecactly as old as the whole industry. Tek used their 24C02 "security modules" for over 10 years, in at least 3 different product lines, AFTER it was well known (which happened the moment the first customer popped one open and stopped laughing off his ass) how to copy these.
-
I'm not sure how the 'hack' I did on my Agilent E5071 VNA would be categorised (other than cheating the system). I reverse engineered the main VNA program code and worked out that the VNA options could be added by other means when compared to the usual keypad entry. i.e. I worked out the file format for a text based licence file and then debugged the running VNA code to get the licence key code to include in the file.
So to hack it I ended up placing a text file with the right filename and right contents with the right keycodes in it to unlock the options permanently. The VNA looks for this file and then releases the options if the key is valid for each option and expiry date listed in the file.
So I didn't change any software and I didn't change any hardware in the VNA unless you class the addition of a simple text file as a change.
-
This assumes there is a license. I've never seen an scope or any other instrument that requires agreeing to a license before using it. This means plain vanilla copyright and patent law applies - you can't make copies of the software, and you can't reimplement patented functionality and sell it. You can of course make copies for your own use and reimplement patented functionality in your lab to your heart's content. Without explicitly agreeing not to, you can also reverse engineer to your heart's content.
A software license is a contract. If you haven't agreed to a contract then one doesn't exist and you're purely bound by the letter of the law, which in no way prevents you from modifying the software in your scope in any which way you like. Maybe you think that's immoral and should be illegal, but that doesn't make it so.
This is a good point and one that has clearly been pushed in this thread. It appears that there is no real effort on the part of the manufactures to wrap the software components in any legal protections. This is most likely because they don't think anyone would bother, at least not enough to dent the bottom line. If that remains true, it will never be a problem legal or otherwise.
I am somewhat worried about what will happen when they do decide they need protection. it will probably be a lot of PITA efforts to prevent hacking which will add to the initial cost and add more process and procedure to the ownership experience.
Like a long time ago when you purchased a record to listen to music. Then people started copying to cassettes for profit or just sharing with a potential customer. As we progressed into the digital age - we have extremely complicated systems to slow down music sharing but it's a PITA for anyone that buys music. For example, I purchased a ton of music on iTunes when I had MACs and iPhone's. Now my MACs are gone and I am on Android - it is such a pain to deal with the various DRM efforts. Far more difficult than a CD anyway.
-
I am somewhat worried about what will happen when they do decide they need protection. it will probably be a lot of PITA efforts to prevent hacking which will add to the initial cost and add more process and procedure to the ownership experience.
For various reasons I think that medium to large companies would prefer to pay the extra for features rather than hack for them. This probably explains why the feature unlock system only needs to be basic. Therefore, the majority of customers will simply pay up for the options they need.
-
I am somewhat worried about what will happen when they do decide they need protection. it will probably be a lot of PITA efforts to prevent hacking which will add to the initial cost and add more process and procedure to the ownership experience.
For various reasons I think that medium to large companies would prefer to pay the extra for features rather than hack for them. This probably explains why the feature unlock system only needs to be basic. Therefore, the majority of customers will simply pay up for the options they need.
Speaking for my own business - I will pay for the features because I want it right then and I want it to be supported if anything in not right. In general, hacking is slow and expensive for a business environment and most biz owners don't want the risk on top of that.
-
I'm not sure how the 'hack' I did on my Agilent E5071 VNA would be categorised (other than cheating the system). I reverse engineered the main VNA program code and worked out that the VNA options could be added by other means when compared to the usual keypad entry. i.e. I worked out the file format for a text based licence file and then debugged the running VNA code to get the licence key code to include in the file.
So to hack it I ended up placing a text file with the right filename and right contents with the right keycodes in it to unlock the options permanently. The VNA looks for this file and then releases the options if the key is valid for each option and expiry date listed in the file.
I would say that probably no one cares as long as you're not selling this information and/or making money off it.
The thing is for most people who can do these types of things, I would imagine they have better things to spend their time on. Things what will make them real money. This time you spent figuring this out is not going to be reuseable. It's specific to this unique device. And you're not going to do it again. So in a way it's a waste of your time. But it's very cool that you know how to do this, BTW.
The manufacturers probably don't care too much about the (very small) percentage of people who have the knowledge and tools and inclination to do such a thing with their spare time for their personal scope.
-
This time you spent figuring this out is not going to be reuseable. It's specific to this unique device. And you're not going to do it again. So in a way it's a waste of your time.
I think you are mistaken... The system they use is generic and not limited to Agilent test gear. I already knew the system very well from my time looking at other things not associated with Agilent. I knew where to look in system memory to find the keycode merely by disassembling the main program code and looking for sections of familiar code. This familiar (third party) code is buried/hidden deep within Agilent's code inside a 12Mb file. This part of the process only took a minute or so because I know this system so well in its various guises. The tricky bit was getting the VNA system code to run on a PC so I could debug it and halt the program at the critical spot where it is vulnerable to attack. I probably could have done this with the VNA itself but I didn't want to risk damaging any hardware if I messed up and caused crashes etc.
-
Woosh. :-/O
Thanks for the explanation. Lol.
That sounds really awesome. :-DD
I'd say you deserve to use those features and someone should call you up for a job in software security. ;D
-
It is a fairly trivial system in terms of security and there will be a lot of people out there who could do the same thing in even less time than it took me. Probably enough people to fill a football stadium :)
I'm not a programmer, my main skills are in RF design.
-
Rigol is 4 channel, Hantek is 2 channel. There is at least $160 right there.
You're right, and I did forget to mention that in my thumbnail comparison. But the Rigol is still rated 50MHz, unlockable to 100 MHz while the Hantek is rated 100MHz, unlockable to 200 MHz. I'd call that a wash.
-
I am not a lawyer or legal scholar, but I am pretty sure that a software license is considered a valuable product and that if it is used without the proper permission - it's stealing.
This assumes there is a license. I've never seen an scope or any other instrument that requires agreeing to a license before using it. This means plain vanilla copyright and patent law applies - you can't make copies of the software, and you can't reimplement patented functionality and sell it. You can of course make copies for your own use and reimplement patented functionality in your lab to your heart's content. Without explicitly agreeing not to, you can also reverse engineer to your heart's content.
A software license is a contract. If you haven't agreed to a contract then one doesn't exist and you're purely bound by the letter of the law, which in no way prevents you from modifying the software in your scope in any which way you like. Maybe you think that's immoral and should be illegal, but that doesn't make it so.
Well, this is one of those "grey areas" that modern litigious society has made for us, and it is one of the points I made a while back. Most of the civilized world has already outlawed "Break-seal" license contracts as a violation of consumer rights. It's mostly only here in the US that they've been able to keep that turd of legalese alive.
Patenting software is another controversial legal principle, though the argument is still heavily contested on both sides in most of the tech-savvy world. Personally, I consider it similarly absurd as trying to patent the human genome. :rolleyes:
mnem
*Toddles off to ded*
-
Since every „big“ manufacturer produce in China, interesting has happened-
what have we get:
1.products from mostly lower quality,
2.products with higher prices, despite the fact of significantly cheaper working environment!
On the end, the costumer is pulled over the barrel, and pay more for less, which is bitter truth!
In such one constellation, only manufacturer is winner, and he earn extra profit on count of cheap manufacturing!
-
Yes, most manufacturers DO sell upgrade/unlock. The difference is that they ALSO spend the time & money to actually put a LOCK on stuff rather than just zip-tie it down and say "You haven't paid for this; now don't cut that zip-tie or we'll stop liking you and refuse you warranty!!!"
Ok, this is different from a lot of people saying something to the effect of:
"I paid for the hardware, hence I already paid for the features. It's mine to unlock." These are the comments that drew myself and tgzzz and some others into the thread, and the defense of this stance is still a little shabby, IMO. (Other than some EU laws, maybe, lol.) In reality, the honest fellas who purchased the upgrade are the ones who paid (the extremely trivial cost in the case of this memory deal) for your additional hardware! And don't cry for them, because they were happy to do it. No one forced them to buy a particular scope.
You are saying, if you want people to pay for the upgrade, you should make it more difficult to get for free. Morality and legality is not a part of this "better lock" argument, at all, then. So that's fine. I can't argue with that. Although I still see a lot of valid reasons why they would choose to use a single firmware and a simple code unlock, even if their goal is to actually encourage people to pay. If you want to sell a cheaper door, you put a cheaper lock on it. And the end users benefits from a cheaper price... whether they leave it alone or they break the lock. I'm sure there are a lot of buyers who do not break this lock. Whether morality reasons, or they can't be bothered, or they don't even care what's on the other side of the door. And there are still a lot of buyers that just pay for the higher model without a second thought. So Rigol will probably continue using the cheap lock as long as it works enough of the time. Nothing immoral or lazy or stupid on the part of Rigol, there. Whether this is actually a marketing ploy and they are subliminally encouraging people to unlock their scope... uhhmm, yeah I agree it's not beyond the realm of possibility, but why go to such lengths to make a crazy theory strung together with unproveable assumptions to justify what you are doing?
In your specific case, if you would have purchased the Hantek, then I suppose it IS a win-win. This isn't the same page I was writing on.
Yeah, that IS kindof what I meant when I said they were being lazy.
I feel that if they don't want me to have those extra features on the cheaper scope, they shouldn't put them on there AT ALL. Then I don't have the option of hacking them into functionality. Anything less than that is just them being lazy and not wanting to pay the REAL price of differentiating their product for different markets. It USED to be we had no choice; it was ALL hardware and you HAD TO add or remove parts to add or delete functionality. And EVEN THEN, some of us STILL hacked our gear. ;)
Making it software makes it all so much easier; you only have to write the software once and copy it a thousand or 100,000 times. It ENCOURAGES the Stef Murky set to try and invent new ridiculous means of making a single product fit multiple markets; even to the point of NOW altering the HARDWARE so it can be mechanically crippled by the software.
THIS I think is really that one step over the line; because EVERYBODY has to pay for all their R&D and the additional technology that goes into CRIPPLING the product. The bottom end customer shouldn't have to pay for the features put on his scope for the high-end customer that he can't use, and neither he nor the high-end customer should have to pay for the technology used to cripple the product.
Again, most of the civilized world has decided this in the customers' favor; that SELLING a hardware product while trying to hold control over the software required to make it work amounts to not selling it at all. "Buy" means "Buy"; "Rent" means "Rent". You buy a device, you own the copy of the software that makes it work, and you have the right to reverse-engineer that software to understand how it works. If in the course of that investigation you discover that they left additional software on it, YOU OWN THAT COPY OF THAT SOFTWARE TOO; "break-seal" license BS be damned.
On top of that, these scopes all operate on *NIX, which license specifically stipulates that you have to release your code back to the the public repository. Apps that run on it are not necessarily subject to this, but for sure any hardware extensions... the stuff that lets the OS control the scope... MUST be released back to the originating code base.
If I were a programmer capable of understanding and dismantling the code on my machine, I would be well within my rights, actually arguably bound by the GNU license, to release that code back to public code base.
And I think that too may be part of why these manufacturers don't get too oppressive with their security... they don't want to have to spend the money rewriting EVERYTHING because they pissed off the wrong hacker and s/he did exactly THAT with their entire firmware.
mnem
ZZZzzzZZZzzz...
-
I feel that if they don't want me to have those extra features on the cheaper scope, they shouldn't put them on there AT ALL. Then I don't have the option of hacking them into functionality. Anything less than that is just them being lazy and not wanting to pay the REAL price of differentiating their product for different markets. It USED to be we had no choice; it was ALL hardware and you HAD TO add or remove parts to add or delete functionality. And EVEN THEN, some of us STILL hacked our gear. ;)
The airline seats analogy is illuminating. You prefer the SouthWest Airlines business model where everybody is in cattle class. That's reasonable. But if you choose to fly, I don't know, cattle class in United then you feel entitled to barge into first class and sit there. There are epithets for people like that, none of them complementary.
Making it software makes it all so much easier; you only have to write the software once and copy it a thousand or 100,000 times. It ENCOURAGES the Stef Murky set to try and invent new ridiculous means of making a single product fit multiple markets; even to the point of NOW altering the HARDWARE so it can be mechanically crippled by the software.
This is standard practice in the corporate world. For example Oracle and IBM are famous for suing their customers if they catch them using more processors/cores that they have paid for.
Again, most of the civilized world has decided this in the customers' favor; that SELLING a hardware product while trying to hold control over the software required to make it work amounts to not selling it at all. "Buy" means "Buy"; "Rent" means "Rent". You buy a device, you own the copy of the software that makes it work, and you have the right to reverse-engineer that software to understand how it works. If in the course of that investigation you discover that they left additional software on it, YOU OWN THAT COPY OF THAT SOFTWARE TOO; "break-seal" license BS be damned.
That is an entirely different case, and it is either ignorant or disingenuous to conflate it with your other points above.
-
THIS I think is really that one step over the line; because EVERYBODY has to pay for all their R&D and the additional technology that goes into CRIPPLING the product. The bottom end customer shouldn't have to pay for the features put on his scope for the high-end customer that he can't use, and neither he nor the high-end customer should have to pay for the technology used to cripple the product.
You really need to have a closer look at development costing. Your model will make it more expensive for EVERYBODY.
-
You're right, and I did forget to mention that in my thumbnail comparison. But the Rigol is still rated 50MHz, unlockable to 100 MHz while the Hantek is rated 100MHz, unlockable to 200 MHz. I'd call that a wash.
Depends on what you use it for.
Since every „big“ manufacturer produce in China, interesting has happened-
what have we get:
1.products from mostly lower quality,
2.products with higher prices, despite the fact of significantly cheaper working environment!
"Higher prices?" :-//
Go back a couple of years and make a list of 'scopes for under $500. Compare it to today.
-
Scopes for under $500 come not from "big" manufacturer, rather Chinese.
I have completely clear sad what is all about - if you don't or won't realise "it's your own fault" :box:
-
I feel that if they don't want me to have those extra features on the cheaper scope, they shouldn't put them on there AT ALL. Then I don't have the option of hacking them into functionality. Anything less than that is just them being lazy and not wanting to pay the REAL price of differentiating their product for different markets. It USED to be we had no choice; it was ALL hardware and you HAD TO add or remove parts to add or delete functionality. And EVEN THEN, some of us STILL hacked our gear. ;)
The airline seats analogy is illuminating. You prefer the SouthWest Airlines business model where everybody is in cattle class. That's reasonable. But if you choose to fly, I don't know, cattle class in United then you feel entitled to barge into first class and sit there. There are epithets for people like that, none of them complementary.
Making it software makes it all so much easier; you only have to write the software once and copy it a thousand or 100,000 times. It ENCOURAGES the Stef Murky set to try and invent new ridiculous means of making a single product fit multiple markets; even to the point of NOW altering the HARDWARE so it can be mechanically crippled by the software.
This is standard practice in the corporate world. For example Oracle and IBM are famous for suing their customers if they catch them using more processors/cores that they have paid for.
Again, most of the civilized world has decided this in the customers' favor; that SELLING a hardware product while trying to hold control over the software required to make it work amounts to not selling it at all. "Buy" means "Buy"; "Rent" means "Rent". You buy a device, you own the copy of the software that makes it work, and you have the right to reverse-engineer that software to understand how it works. If in the course of that investigation you discover that they left additional software on it, YOU OWN THAT COPY OF THAT SOFTWARE TOO; "break-seal" license BS be damned.
That is an entirely different case, and it is either ignorant or disingenuous to conflate it with your other points above.
The Airline Seat analogy is completely irrelevant to this scenario. They HAVE security and bulkheads between the classes of seat, and the stewards won't serve you if you do move to the 1st class section, they'll send you back to cattle class.
This would be more like if all the classes were in the same single cabin, and the only thing stopping you from moving to an empty 1st class seat is a line of tape on the floor and the disapproving glances of other cattle class passengers. And when you DO step across the line, the stewards serve you as if you belonged there, because they don't have security to escort you back to cattle class, and because the Arline decided it was more efficient to serve a few brazen advantage-takers than to pay for Security and bulkheads that cost them 2 rows of seats apiece.
There. NOW your stupid Airline example is comparable.
I don't GIVE A DAMN if it is "Standard Practice in the Corporate World".
Standard practice in the corporate world nowadays is essentially to assrape EVERYBODY but the few who have the money to afford their OWN bodyguards and armies of lawyers, and to buy whatever laws they like to make it legal to continue assraping everybody. This is EXACTLY the kind of idiotic "Corporations Know Best" attitude that has turned the whole South of the US into a stinking cesspit of corruption, fracking and pollution. The entirety of Texas is turning into an episode of "The Oblongs"; and you KNOW where everybody but the CEOs are living... downstream.
No, it is NOT an entirely different case. You WISH it were, but it is NOT. It is actually the CORE of the problem, and it is a GLOBAL problem. The only people anybody actually expects to play fair anymore are those at the bottom of the economic pyramid.
SOME of the world has caught on to this and are changing their laws to level the playing field to SOME EXTENT. It is supremely arrogant to assume that the laws of the US are or should be applicable to the rest of the world; quite the opposite, really, in this age of batshit crazy litigation created out of whole cloth entirely by the American corporate culture of rampant greed and political corruption.
The GPL is just such an attempt at leveling the playing field. It is ENTIRELY relevant here, and it will continue to be until corporations actually lose enough cases in costly enough fashion that they stop treating the *NIX code base like it's their private property to raid for free at will. It is YOU who is being disingenuous to claim otherwise.
THIS I think is really that one step over the line; because EVERYBODY has to pay for all their R&D and the additional technology that goes into CRIPPLING the product. The bottom end customer shouldn't have to pay for the features put on his scope for the high-end customer that he can't use, and neither he nor the high-end customer should have to pay for the technology used to cripple the product.
You really need to have a closer look at development costing. Your model will make it more expensive for EVERYBODY.
I know quite a bit about development costing, particularly in hardware. And I know that things have gotten MUCH cheaper since we've been able to make drastic changes in a product's fundamental architecture just by punching a few keys. Software development isn't free either, but it is exponentially cheaper than hardware development. And the final deployment cost is essentially free. THIS is why it is now the means of choice for Marketers for just this kind of BS; they've come to expect to be able to do it for EVERYTHING. The bar has been LOWERED exponentially as a result.
Yeah... playing fair does cost more. Sucks, don't it?
You're right, and I did forget to mention that in my thumbnail comparison. But the Rigol is still rated 50MHz, unlockable to 100 MHz while the Hantek is rated 100MHz, unlockable to 200 MHz. I'd call that a wash.
Depends on what you use it for.
Since every „big“ manufacturer produce in China, interesting has happened-
what have we get:
1.products from mostly lower quality,
2.products with higher prices, despite the fact of significantly cheaper working environment!
"Higher prices?" :-//
Go back a couple of years and make a list of 'scopes for under $500. Compare it to today.
I agree with you on both counts.
mnem
*FLUP!*
-
I've omitted your rants that deliberately create strawman arguments and ignore the points being made. That leaves us with...
*FLUP!*
Your moniker, a fictional dragon from young adult SF, is appropriate.
-
I feel that if they don't want me to have those extra features on the cheaper scope, they shouldn't put them on there AT ALL. Then I don't have the option of hacking them into functionality. Anything less than that is just them being lazy and not wanting to pay the REAL price of differentiating their product for different markets. It USED to be we had no choice; it was ALL hardware and you HAD TO add or remove parts to add or delete functionality. And EVEN THEN, some of us STILL hacked our gear. ;)
The airline seats analogy is illuminating. You prefer the SouthWest Airlines business model where everybody is in cattle class. That's reasonable. But if you choose to fly, I don't know, cattle class in United then you feel entitled to barge into first class and sit there. There are epithets for people like that, none of them complementary.
Perhaps but if you hack your scope nobody is going to say anything about it so that makes it a lot more OK than barging into first class on an airplane after which the flight attendant (and perhaps some security guy) will put you in your place.
-
I've omitted your rants that deliberately create strawman arguments and ignore the points being made. That leaves us with...
*FLUP!*
Your moniker, a fictional dragon from young adult SF, is appropriate.
And you have been identified before as a self-important blowhard :blah:, who continually ignores all refutation of your own BS arguments. :bullshit:
How appropriate that you yourself deleted everything but your own wardrobe malfunction.
Kilrah was right, you're a troll; I've deleted your entire existence from my own paradigm. Thanks for playing!
I feel that if they don't want me to have those extra features on the cheaper scope, they shouldn't put them on there AT ALL. Then I don't have the option of hacking them into functionality. Anything less than that is just them being lazy and not wanting to pay the REAL price of differentiating their product for different markets. It USED to be we had no choice; it was ALL hardware and you HAD TO add or remove parts to add or delete functionality. And EVEN THEN, some of us STILL hacked our gear. ;)
Perhaps but if you hack your scope nobody is going to say anything about it so that makes it a lot more OK than barging into first class on an airplane after which the flight attendant (and perhaps some security guy) will put you in your place.
Umm... We have 10 pages of people saying something about it right here. :-DD
The Airline analogy is not mine, it appears to be a fixture of the internet. I've seen it more times than I can count, and as here, applied entirely inappropriately. All I did what put it in the wastebin where it belongs. You're welcome! :-+
mnem
:-BROKE
[EDITED: Incorrect Attribution]
-
I feel that if they don't want me to have those extra features on the cheaper scope, they shouldn't put them on there AT ALL. Then I don't have the option of hacking them into functionality. Anything less than that is just them being lazy and not wanting to pay the REAL price of differentiating their product for different markets. It USED to be we had no choice; it was ALL hardware and you HAD TO add or remove parts to add or delete functionality. And EVEN THEN, some of us STILL hacked our gear. ;)
Perhaps but if you hack your scope nobody is going to say anything about it so that makes it a lot more OK than barging into first class on an airplane after which the flight attendant (and perhaps some security guy) will put you in your place.
Umm... We have 10 pages of people saying something about it right here. :-DD
The Airline analogy is not mine, it appears to be a fixture of the internet. I've seen it more times than I can count, and as here, applied entirely inappropriately. All I did what put it in the wastebin where it belongs. You're welcome! :-+
mnem
:-BROKE
mnementh, please ensure your replies don't misattribute quotes. Follow the link in your post and you will see your mistake.
I'm perfectly happy for others to see what else I've posted in this forum and make their own judgement of me - as they will also do of you.
-
Yeah don't make it look like tggzzz contributed something sensible for a change >:D Sorry I couldn't resist... :popcorn:
-
Yeah don't make it look like tggzzz contributed something sensible for a change >:D Sorry I couldn't resist... :popcorn:
Please accept my most humble apologies for the unintended slight; I promise it was a typo. :palm: [EDIT] When I quoted you I quoted him as well, which I tried to delete but screwed up the formatting of my post. I overlooked the fact that I deleted the wrong lines when I previewed.[/EDIT]
OP (Offending Post ;) ) edited and annotated. :D
mnem
This entire thread is an exercise in series-parallel resistance.
-
The Airline analogy is not mine, it appears to be a fixture of the internet. I've seen it more times than I can count, and as here, applied entirely inappropriately. All I did what put it in the wastebin where it belongs. You're welcome! :-+
I believe I am responsible for introducing the airline analogy in this thread - and those who understand the concept I was trying to illustrate seemed to have done so without much hesitation.
The problem with all analogies is that they will never perfectly reflect the original subject matter and the limitations may be many. Your continued dismissal of the airline analogy as inappropriate sounds more like decree than debate. It is founded on a number of incidental factors that really have very little (if anything) to do with the question put.
Then, there's the matter of consistency. You bag the analogy - and then come up with a variation which you declare as 'comparable' and STILL don't answer the question.
|O
-
OP (Offending Post ;) ) edited and annotated. :D
But still visible in https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg903979/#msg903979 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg903979/#msg903979)
-
The Airline analogy is not mine, it appears to be a fixture of the internet. I've seen it more times than I can count, and as here, applied entirely inappropriately. All I did what put it in the wastebin where it belongs. You're welcome! :-+
I believe I am responsible for introducing the airline analogy in this thread - and those who understand the concept I was trying to illustrate seemed to have done so without much hesitation.
The problem with all analogies is that they will never perfectly reflect the original subject matter and the limitations may be many. Your continued dismissal of the airline analogy as inappropriate sounds more like decree than debate. It is founded on a number of incidental factors that really have very little (if anything) to do with the question put.
Then, there's the matter of consistency. You bag the analogy - and then come up with a variation which you declare as 'comparable' and STILL don't answer the question.
|O
Precisely.
I wonder if such posters realise they are doing that kind of thing, and how badly it reflects on them and their argument.
The tone of some of their replies is also revealing. Now I know that the unit of discourse on usenet isn't "the posting" but is "the flame" - but fortunately on this forum the discourse is usually pretty civil.
-
I believe I am responsible for introducing the airline analogy in this thread - and those who understand the concept I was trying to illustrate seemed to have done so without much hesitation.
The problem with all analogies is that they will never perfectly reflect the original subject matter and the limitations may be many. Your continued dismissal of the airline analogy as inappropriate sounds more like decree than debate. It is founded on a number of incidental factors that really have very little (if anything) to do with the question put.
Then, there's the matter of consistency. You bag the analogy - and then come up with a variation which you declare as 'comparable' and STILL don't answer the question.
You're confusing not understanding with not agreeing with you.
I understood the point you were trying to make the first time. Whether I agreed with it or not, or think your argument is a good one, is another thing.
The same could be said about a bus. If a bus drives past with lots of empty seats and I'd like to travel but don't have any money, should I be entitled to travel for free? After all I'm not costing the driver or bus company any more money by sitting on the bus. Of course not. I'm not entitled to travel for free!
A developer could write some software and charge each user for a licence, but does that mean everyone is entitled to visit pirate bay and use it, without paying?
Both running the bus and writing software incur costs to the company, which need to be recouped by paying users. But you're not comparing like with like. The bus has only a limited number of seats, when an unlimited number of people could use the software, paying or otherwise.
What would a software developer prefer: 1000 000 users, with only 10% of them paying or 100 000 users?
The developer would be foolish if they'd really prefer 100 000 users, over 1000 000 users. Those extra 900 000 users won't pay anyway, are not costing them anything and are spreading awareness of the product, attracting more paying users.
Yeah, that IS kindof what I meant when I said they were being lazy.
I feel that if they don't want me to have those extra features on the cheaper scope, they shouldn't put them on there AT ALL. Then I don't have the option of hacking them into functionality. Anything less than that is just them being lazy and not wanting to pay the REAL price of differentiating their product for different markets. It USED to be we had no choice; it was ALL hardware and you HAD TO add or remove parts to add or delete functionality. And EVEN THEN, some of us STILL hacked our gear. ;)
Making it software makes it all so much easier; you only have to write the software once and copy it a thousand or 100,000 times. It ENCOURAGES the Stef Murky set to try and invent new ridiculous means of making a single product fit multiple markets; even to the point of NOW altering the HARDWARE so it can be mechanically crippled by the software.
THIS I think is really that one step over the line; because EVERYBODY has to pay for all their R&D and the additional technology that goes into CRIPPLING the product. The bottom end customer shouldn't have to pay for the features put on his scope for the high-end customer that he can't use, and neither he nor the high-end customer should have to pay for the technology used to cripple the product.
Again, most of the civilized world has decided this in the customers' favor; that SELLING a hardware product while trying to hold control over the software required to make it work amounts to not selling it at all. "Buy" means "Buy"; "Rent" means "Rent". You buy a device, you own the copy of the software that makes it work, and you have the right to reverse-engineer that software to understand how it works. If in the course of that investigation you discover that they left additional software on it, YOU OWN THAT COPY OF THAT SOFTWARE TOO; "break-seal" license BS be damned.
On top of that, these scopes all operate on *NIX, which license specifically stipulates that you have to release your code back to the the public repository. Apps that run on it are not necessarily subject to this, but for sure any hardware extensions... the stuff that lets the OS control the scope... MUST be released back to the originating code base.
If I were a programmer capable of understanding and dismantling the code on my machine, I would be well within my rights, actually arguably bound by the GNU license, to release that code back to public code base.
And I think that too may be part of why these manufacturers don't get too oppressive with their security... they don't want to have to spend the money rewriting EVERYTHING because they pissed off the wrong hacker and s/he did exactly THAT with their entire firmware.
This represents my point of view quite well, with the most prominent bit highlighted. Of course companies will maximise profits but when they start violating the rights of the consumer, the line is crossed.
Another one is crappy licensing schemes which inconvenience the paying user and someone who has cracked it and not paid doesn't have to deal with. Worry about the paying customers for goodness sake. You're not going to encourage then with this BS. Those who want to use your product without paying will find a way. Your legitimate users shouldn't have to pay!
This is one of the things I consider when purchasing software. If has this sort of retarded BS then it counts against it. If it's easy to crack then I may do that, even if I do pay for the licence!
-
The developer would be foolish if they'd really prefer 100 000 users, over 1000 000 users. Those extra 900 000 users won't pay anyway, are not costing them anything and are spreading awareness of the product, attracting more paying users.
Herein lies the weakness of that argument....
If 900,000 users get to use the software for free, then the 100,000 who would pay for it, will ask "Why should I pay?". You end up with everybody expecting to use it for free - and the developer gets nothing. The knife cuts both ways. You can't claim one and ignore the other.
Both running the bus and writing software incur costs to the company, which need to be recouped by paying users. But you're not comparing like with like. The bus has only a limited number of seats, when an unlimited number of people could use the software, paying or otherwise.
This is exactly what I mean by leaning on the weaknesses of an analogy and avoiding the question. Also, that particular weakness has been covered by establishing conditions of the scenario where it is no longer relevant. This is best demonstrated with the airline analogy, where the limited number of seats is not a consideration in the scope of the question. If I can re-phrase the question it might go something like this: IF you were to buy an economy class ticket for a flight and after it has taken off you notice there are no doors or guards to prevent you from walking up to first class and taking an empty seat - do you feel 'entitled' to take advantage of the opportunity?
There's no 'limited resource' argument here - the conditions have been specified so that that argument does not apply in this example. So please don't try it on ... and just answer the question.
-
The developer would be foolish if they'd really prefer 100 000 users, over 1000 000 users. Those extra 900 000 users won't pay anyway, are not costing them anything and are spreading awareness of the product, attracting more paying users.
Herein lies the weakness of that argument....
If 900,000 users get to use the software for free, then the 100,000 who would pay for it, will ask "Why should I pay?". You end up with everybody expecting to use it for free - and the developer gets nothing. The knife cuts both ways. You can't claim one and ignore the other.
That clearly hasn't happened. People do widely use software without the licence to do so, yet the software developers have not gone out of business. Many software companies make a fair profit from selling their software and Microsoft even admit that they gain in other ways from unlicensed users.
http://www.informationweek.com/if-youre-going-to-steal-software-steal-from-us-microsoft-exec/d/d-id/1052865?cid=rssfeed_iwk_all (http://www.informationweek.com/if-youre-going-to-steal-software-steal-from-us-microsoft-exec/d/d-id/1052865?cid=rssfeed_iwk_all)
At some point people will pay for the software: there are other ways of making money, such as technical support and as long as it's just easier to buy it, then people will.
Both running the bus and writing software incur costs to the company, which need to be recouped by paying users. But you're not comparing like with like. The bus has only a limited number of seats, when an unlimited number of people could use the software, paying or otherwise.
This is exactly what I mean by leaning on the weaknesses of an analogy and avoiding the question. Also, that particular weakness has been covered by establishing conditions of the scenario where it is no longer relevant. This is best demonstrated with the airline analogy, where the limited number of seats is not a consideration in the scope of the question. If I can re-phrase the question it might go something like this: IF you were to buy an economy class ticket for a flight and after it has taken off you notice there are no doors or guards to prevent you from walking up to first class and taking an empty seat - do you feel 'entitled' to take advantage of the opportunity?
There's no 'limited resource' argument here - the conditions have been specified so that that argument does not apply in this example. So please don't try it on ... and just answer the question.
Hell, I'd certainly do that, without a shred of guilt whatsoever.
The allocation of which seats are premium and which aren't is a complex decision and if the situation is as you've described, the airline got it wrong.
EDIT:
Come to think of it, I've done that kind of thing before. I often used to go to the cinema with a few people, late at night. The theatre was mostly empty so we just picked the best seats, rather than the ones the ticket was for. Technically a member of staff could have insisted we sat in the correct seats, but they were glad to have the business and we were happy we got the best seats, at no extra cost.
While the marketing folks, bean counters, management, designers, developers and warehouse might want to have it both ways - it is the customer who is DEMANDING to have it both ways.
Awhile ago the customer either purchased something, whether it be a radio or a piece of test equipment, or rented it.
If customer purchased the item outright, that meant it became their personal property. It meant they became responsible for insuring the item and any repairs, after the warranty period expired. It also gave them the right to modify it and improve its performance and accept that it would no longer be covered by the manufacturer's warranty.
If you rented the item, it still remained the vendor's property, which meant the customer could no longer modify the item. However, the vendor still had to insure the item and pay for any repairs, including spare parts, other than consumables.
Now the manufacturer wants it both ways. They want to customer to pay for the overall cost of the item but still own parts of it and forbid any modification to it. In some cases (Siglent, possibly Rigol, but we can't be sure about the latter) they've attempted to go further, by preventing resale of the (unmodified, not hacked item) in violation of the consumer law in most countries. It's this sort of crap which is immoral.
-
The developer would be foolish if they'd really prefer 100 000 users, over 1000 000 users. Those extra 900 000 users won't pay anyway, are not costing them anything and are spreading awareness of the product, attracting more paying users.
Herein lies the weakness of that argument....
If 900,000 users get to use the software for free, then the 100,000 who would pay for it, will ask "Why should I pay?". You end up with everybody expecting to use it for free - and the developer gets nothing. The knife cuts both ways. You can't claim one and ignore the other.
So one way or the other you have to give all the users the feeling they should pay for the software which is why organisations like the BSA exist.
-
The Airline Seat analogy is completely irrelevant to this scenario. They HAVE security and bulkheads between the classes of seat, and the stewards won't serve you if you do move to the 1st class section, they'll send you back to cattle class.
This would be more like if all the classes were in the same single cabin, and the only thing stopping you from moving to an empty 1st class seat is a line of tape on the floor and the disapproving glances of other cattle class passengers. And when you DO step across the line, the stewards serve you as if you belonged there, because they don't have security to escort you back to cattle class, and because the Arline decided it was more efficient to serve a few brazen advantage-takers than to pay for Security and bulkheads that cost them 2 rows of seats apiece.
There. NOW your stupid Airline example is comparable.
The Airline analogy is not mine, it appears to be a fixture of the internet. I've seen it more times than I can count, and as here, applied entirely inappropriately. All I did what put it in the wastebin where it belongs. You're welcome! :-+
I believe I am responsible for introducing the airline analogy in this thread - and those who understand the concept I was trying to illustrate seemed to have done so without much hesitation.
The problem with all analogies is that they will never perfectly reflect the original subject matter and the limitations may be many. Your continued dismissal of the airline analogy as inappropriate sounds more like decree than debate. It is founded on a number of incidental factors that really have very little (if anything) to do with the question put.
Then, there's the matter of consistency. You bag the analogy - and then come up with a variation which you declare as 'comparable' and STILL don't answer the question.
|O
No, only the folks who agree with your position. The rest of us see it for the aardvark in a punchbowl it is; that is to say, completely inappropriate to the conversation at hand.
As for whether I would feel "entitled"... don't try to drag me into THAT recursive sophistry. ::)
WOULD I move to the 1st class seating, given my scenario above? Hells yes. I, like the universe itself, loathe a vacuum and will rush to fill it, and maybe I can bring something more to the equation than merely "Doing the disapproved of thing just because I can." I am willing to accept THOSE consequences of my actions, just as I am willing to accept the present consequences of hacking my 'scope.
If the consequences of jumping to 1st class were more severe; say I'd have to fight with a security guard and probably get arrested at the ends of the flight, then probably not. Just as if they started making the consequences of hacking my scope more severe; like having it check home with mommynet and disable itself if it discovers that it has been tampered with. Of course, I'd probably try and find a hack for THAT as well. ;)
In short, you are conflating "Legal\Illegal" with "Right\Wrong".
Personally, I STILL think it's ridiculous to try and apply American mores and Licensing Law to a product made and sold in China. Their Laws are not the same as ours, and their ideas of "Right & Wrong" most certainly are not the same.
mnem
Was/Not Was.
-
As for whether I would feel "entitled"... don't try to drag me into THAT recursive sophistry. ::)
Interesting - since that sense of 'entitlement' is fundamental to this argument.
Still - if you say the analogy is irrelevant, then it must be so.
-
They didn't give anything to you, they only sold a licence to use it. You should be able to do anything reasonable with the things you have licenced but not the things you haven't licenced. In particular there should, of course, be a secondhand market in selling such licences, and the EU is attempting to enforce that concept.
If they sold me a license, then there must have been some point at which I agreed to that license. At what point did I agree to such a thing when I purchased my piece of test gear? Nothing appeared on the screen indicating any such thing.
Let's get something out of the way: firstly, do you agree that manufacturers are free to implement features however they want, and are perfectly free to implement them in such a way that they cannot be "hacked" if they so desired?
Secondly, do you agree that if something is in your lawful possession, that you should be able to do anything you want with it (excluding obvious things, of course, like intentionally using it to harm someone else)?
Which is to say, do you believe the market should be free?
A free market depends on freedom of the players involved. The sellers have to be free to build what they want in whatever way they want. The buyers have to be free to buy what they want and do what they want with it once they have it. Both entities have to be free to enter into binding agreements with each other as to who will do what. And buyers and sellers both have to be free to do whatever they wish, absent the restrictions they agree to. There are some basic limitations on that (e.g., warranties, right of return, etc. And yes, even copyright. See below) which have been imposed for the purpose of general improvement of the market, but aside from those things, markets are generally free. Is that something you have a problem with?
In the United States, at least, copyright law exists for one reason only: to promote the progress of the sciences and the useful arts. This is the explicitly stated purpose in the United States Constitution for which the power to impose copyright laws was granted to Congress, and the reason copyrights have term limits in the United States is because the Constitution explicitly states that the terms are to be limited. Keep this in mind when you make claims about software copyright and its purpose.
Sellers generally have the right to build their products however they want. But implicit in that liberty is the recognition that they must also bear the cost of doing so. Obviously, that cost will be reflected in their prices. Similarly, buyers are free to do whatever they want with the products they purchase, but implicit in that is the recognition that sellers might take steps to limit that through various means.
How does all this relate to "hacking" DSOs? Simple: "hacking" the DSO is simply an action that the purchaser is physically able to take. There isn't anything that physically constrains the purchaser from doing so. Copyright law does not forbid the purchaser from doing so, either, at least with respect to the "unlock codes" we're talking about. The DMCA covers mechanisms that prevent "access to a work protected under this title", but as applied to software, that "access" is with respect to the code, not the features implemented by that code. This interpretation makes sense because copyright protects against unauthorized copies. It does not govern use, at least in the United States, thanks to the exemption in 17 U.S.C. 117 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117). If use of the software/firmware during normal operation were covered by copyright law, then a license agreement would be necessary in order to legally use any computing device at all, including special purpose ones such as oscilloscopes.
So: at least as regards United States law, it appears that "hacking" these scopes is perfectly legal, at least if we're talking about the type that involves entering an unlock key. But, of course, manufacturers are free to implement measures that protect against that. The kind of hacking that some refer to here (decrypting the code in the ROMs, for instance) is illegal per copyright law, as that does involve making copies. But entering a magic key that unlocks a feature is not.
A manufacturer who is concerned about the kind of unlocking that we're primarily discussing here can easily implement a system that would make it impossible for the end user to determine what key he should enter into the scope to unlock a feature. The manufacturer need only cryptographically sign with its private key a packet that contains both the feature descriptor and the scope's serial number, generating a blob that contains the signature and the feature descriptor. Uploading the resulting blob to the scope would cause the scope to store the blob in its database. The bootloader would have on file the public key of the manufacturer. When the scope boots, the bootloader would go through the signed blobs and activate the features for which it is able to cryptographically verify the signature.
In light of the ease with which manufacturers can make unlocking features impossible without their explicit permission, and do so on a per-device basis, the ones that fail to do so anyway clearly are intentionally making it possible to "hack" their scopes. That is a business decision on their part, just like purchasing the scope is a business decision on the part of the buyer. If the scope can be "hacked" in that fashion, and the manufacturer fails to take steps to prevent it, who are we to say that "hacking" it is "wrong", when it's clear that the manufacturer clearly prefers that their scopes be "hackable"?
No, in this case, if someone has reservations about "hacking" these scopes, that's on them and them alone.
-
Perhaps but if you hack your scope nobody is going to say anything about it so that makes it a lot more OK than barging into first class on an airplane after which the flight attendant (and perhaps some security guy) will put you in your place.
This is the point: People choose different standards of right/wrong when it comes to oscilloscopes, copying music, etc.
They do things that they wouldn't do in other circumstances and justify it to themselves as "harmless, I wasn't going to buy it anyway".
Sitting in first class is harmless to the airline, you were never going to pay for a first class ticket, the seats are unoccupied ... so why is nobody here arguing that they are entitled to sit there or that the airline is wronging passengers by leaving the seats empty? Interesting psychology, n'est pas? :popcorn:
-
They probably hire more or less staff and order more or less food depending on whether first class is nearly full or nearly empty so again the airplane analogy doesn't really fit well.
-
A manufacturer who is concerned about the kind of unlocking that we're primarily discussing here can easily implement a system that would make it impossible for the end user to determine what key he should enter into the scope to unlock a feature. The manufacturer need only cryptographically sign with its private key a packet that contains both the feature descriptor and the scope's serial number, generating a blob that contains the signature and the feature descriptor. Uploading the resulting blob to the scope would cause the scope to store the blob in its database. The bootloader would have on file the public key of the manufacturer. When the scope boots, the bootloader would go through the signed blobs and activate the features for which it is able to cryptographically verify the signature.
You make it sound really easy but the system you describe above would be prone to a patch (or a clone?) based attack.
-
They probably hire more or less staff and order more or less food depending on whether first class is nearly full or nearly empty so again the airplane analogy doesn't really fit well.
Well obviously you don't get the extra attention, free first class food, etc.
(As has been mentioned several times already...)
-
They probably hire more or less staff and order more or less food depending on whether first class is nearly full or nearly empty so again the airplane analogy doesn't really fit well.
Well obviously you don't get the extra attention, free first class food, etc.
It will still be extra hassle for the flight attendants to figure out who gets economy food and who gets the first class food (including porcelain plates, real dinnerware, etc). So either way it is going to cost the airline extra if they fill those chairs with economy class passengers.
-
They probably hire more or less staff and order more or less food depending on whether first class is nearly full or nearly empty so again the airplane analogy doesn't really fit well.
Well obviously you don't get the extra attention, free first class food, etc.
It will still be extra hassle for the flight attendants to figure out who gets economy food and who gets the first class food (including porcelain plates, real dinnerware, etc). So either way it is going to cost the airline extra if they fill those chairs with economy class passengers.
:palm:
For the sake of argument: Let's make it a condition that they wear a bunny suit so the attendants know who the cattle-class passengers are and to make sure they don't dirty the nice leather seats, OK?
Point is: Stop avoiding the point by nitpicking the details.
People in aircraft have no expectation of being allowed to sit up front if the seats are empty. None. Zero. It doesn't even cross their minds that they might be allowed to because they instinctively feel they don't have that right. THAT's the point being made.
Contrast that with the people who say they're being wronged by Rigol selling them an oscilloscope with a couple of features disabled ('wronged' was the actual word used if you're new to the thread).
Why the dissonance? Where on earth does that come from.
-
I have been bumped up to first class once on a flight, was travelling standby, and economy was full, so they started doing upgraded standby and by the time I got to the front of the line they were full in business so I got a free first class upgrade at business rate. Real cutlery (not plastic anywhere), real ceramic plates, glassware and a decent enough wine with the meal, which was superlative.
Funny thing about airlines is that they tend to take a full set of meals for first class, irrespective of the number of passengers travelling first class, as they always might sell those seats just before the gate closes, or bump standby up to first class if coach or business is oversubscribed.
Of course these days there is no more first class, just cattle class and slightly less cattle class, unless you travel on some top branded airlines.
-
I have been bumped up to first class once on a flight
Me too.
Funny thing about airlines is that they tend to take a full set of meals for first class, irrespective of the number of passengers travelling first class, as they always might sell those seats just before the gate closes
Makes sense (sorta).
First class also has a menu to choose from so they don't know what people will pick. They'll have to take at a few extra of each menu along in case everybody chooses the same thing.
-
A manufacturer who is concerned about the kind of unlocking that we're primarily discussing here can easily implement a system that would make it impossible for the end user to determine what key he should enter into the scope to unlock a feature. The manufacturer need only cryptographically sign with its private key a packet that contains both the feature descriptor and the scope's serial number, generating a blob that contains the signature and the feature descriptor. Uploading the resulting blob to the scope would cause the scope to store the blob in its database. The bootloader would have on file the public key of the manufacturer. When the scope boots, the bootloader would go through the signed blobs and activate the features for which it is able to cryptographically verify the signature.
You make it sound really easy but the system you describe above would be prone to a patch (or a clone?) based attack.
Not if the entirety of the firmware (save for the basic bootstrapper, which, if the manufacturer was determined to prevent what we're talking about, could be cryptographically signed and its contents verified and enforced in hardware) is also encrypted with the same private key as the individual features. Attacking that would require a violation of copyright law, because the manufacturer could claim copyright on the public key.
Again, this isn't hard. Indeed, even the hardware cryptographic verification bit I referred to (which isn't strictly necessary to prevent someone from legally hacking the scope in such a way that they can use the vendor-provided firmware in an unencumbered manner) is something that is widely available and inexpensive (one of the Atmel chips that does this, the AT97SC3205T, is about $3 from Mouser in quantity).
I must stress again: what people are doing when they "hack" a Rigol scope is not illegal! If the manufacturer aims to prevent illegal manipulation of their firmware (which, here, means copying the firmware or parts of it), or use of firmware acquired through illegal means, then they must take steps over and beyond those that would be required to prevent certain types of legal manipulation.
-
Perhaps but if you hack your scope nobody is going to say anything about it so that makes it a lot more OK than barging into first class on an airplane after which the flight attendant (and perhaps some security guy) will put you in your place.
This is the point: People choose different standards of right/wrong when it comes to oscilloscopes, copying music, etc.
They do things that they wouldn't do in other circumstances and justify it to themselves as "harmless, I wasn't going to buy it anyway".
Sitting in first class is harmless to the airline, you were never going to pay for a first class ticket, the seats are unoccupied ... so why is nobody here arguing that they are entitled to sit there or that the airline is wronging passengers by leaving the seats empty? Interesting psychology, n'est pas? :popcorn:
Because the airline owns the seat, not the passenger. This means the airline gets to dictate what happens with the seat, not the passenger.
The person who bought the oscilloscope owns the copy of the software that's running on his device, as well as the device itself. Copyright law restricts the ability of that person to lawfully copy the software, but the person nevertheless owns the copy of the software that exists in his oscilloscope. It is his to do with as he pleases, provided he doesn't violate copyright law (or any other law for that matter) in the process.
-
Not if the entirety of the firmware (save for the basic bootstrapper, which, if the manufacturer was determined to prevent what we're talking about, could be cryptographically signed its contents verified and enforced in hardware) is also encrypted with the same private key as the individual features. Attacking that would require a violation of copyright law, because the manufacturer could claim copyright on the public key.
I agree you can make things a lot harder, but you also have to factor in that the supplier needs to introduce a lot of versatility into the system allowing stuff like time trials, licence transfer etc etc. This would not be so simple to develop and manage so a common solution is to approach a third party company that specialise in this stuff and let them 'protect' the system using their own licensing system. That's where the problems start because it becomes much harder to keep it all secure.
I'm getting old and very rusty on stuff like this but in the past I've successfully attacked systems (these were not TEqpt systems) that came in an encrypted shell or wrapper that could also detect debugging and could self check itself and the protected code for signs of tampering.
A lot depends on how accessible the system is in terms of debug tools and if it runs a bloated OS. I've had success in some extreme cases by writing programs that run alongside the main app and the little side program can search and wait for vulnerable (or anti tamper) code in system RAM and modify or dump it to a file. At some point it has to decrypt and store and run the application code. So an attacker can exploit this and dump out code and analyse it. I'm getting too old and slow to do this stuff now and the VNA was the first thing I've looked at in quite a while. So I think I'm more pleased that I still managed to hack it than I am with the options I unlocked!. I'm unlikely to do much with the time domain option in my VNA other than learn how to use it. I'll probably never use the other option I unlocked :)
-
Perhaps but if you hack your scope nobody is going to say anything about it so that makes it a lot more OK than barging into first class on an airplane after which the flight attendant (and perhaps some security guy) will put you in your place.
This is the point: People choose different standards of right/wrong when it comes to oscilloscopes, copying music, etc.
They do things that they wouldn't do in other circumstances and justify it to themselves as "harmless, I wasn't going to buy it anyway".
Sitting in first class is harmless to the airline, you were never going to pay for a first class ticket, the seats are unoccupied ... so why is nobody here arguing that they are entitled to sit there or that the airline is wronging passengers by leaving the seats empty? Interesting psychology, n'est pas? :popcorn:
Because the airline owns the seat, not the passenger. This means the airline gets to dictate what happens with the seat, not the passenger.
The person who bought the oscilloscope owns the copy of the software that's running on his device, as well as the device itself. Copyright law restricts the ability of that person to lawfully copy the software, but the person nevertheless owns the copy of the software that exists in his oscilloscope. It is his to do with as he pleases, provided he doesn't violate copyright law (or any other law for that matter) in the process.
Yes, I agree. The airline owns the seat and the passenger rents it.
When one buys an oscilloscope, they own it and are free to do anything they like with it.
No one is nitpicking. Comparing this with travelling on an airline, is as silly as saying driving a car and travelling on the bus are the same.
If the manufacture wants you to not hack your oscilloscope. They need to make you sign a contract with them, agreeing you won't hack it, before you buy it. Even then, the contract may not be legally binding in some jurisdictions, especially if the customer is a private individual, rather than a business, as the laws often differ between the two.
The kind of hacking that some refer to here (decrypting the code in the ROMs, for instance) is illegal per copyright law, as that does involve making copies.
Are you sure that would violate copyright law?
I don't know about the US but in most jurisdictions, copying copyrighted material is allowed for back up and archival purposes, so as long as the code you've ripped of your device is not transferred to a third party or used simlutaniously on another device i.e. it just sits on your hard drive, then it should be allowed.
-
The kind of hacking that some refer to here (decrypting the code in the ROMs, for instance) is illegal per copyright law, as that does involve making copies.
Are you sure that would violate copyright law?
It would have to be a specific exemption in the law for it to not be a violation of it. Copyright forbids all unauthorized copies, with specific exceptions (such as the one I pointed out that exempts the copying required for normal operation of a computer).
I don't know about the US but in most jurisdictions, copying copyrighted material is allowed for back up and archival purposes, so as long as the code you've ripped of your device is not transferred to a third party or used simlutaniously on another device i.e. it just sits on your hard drive, then it should be allowed.
I believe the U.S. doesn't have that kind of exemption, else allowances for archival purposes wouldn't be needed in license agreements and thus wouldn't be present within them.
In any case, while making a copy of the software strictly for archival purposes might be allowed by copyright law, modification of the copy and then transference of the modified copy back to the machine would not be allowed by it, as the end result would be a "derivative work".
-
Not if the entirety of the firmware (save for the basic bootstrapper, which, if the manufacturer was determined to prevent what we're talking about, could be cryptographically signed its contents verified and enforced in hardware) is also encrypted with the same private key as the individual features. Attacking that would require a violation of copyright law, because the manufacturer could claim copyright on the public key.
I agree you can make things a lot harder, but you also have to factor in that the supplier needs to introduce a lot of versatility into the system allowing stuff like time trials, licence transfer etc etc. This would not be so simple to develop and manage so a common solution is to approach a third party company that specialise in this stuff and let them 'protect' the system using their own licensing system. That's where the problems start because it becomes much harder to keep it all secure.
Those things are important for general purpose computer systems, of course, but aside from time trials, really aren't terribly relevant for special purpose devices such as oscilloscopes.
Implementation of time trials in the framework I described would be trivial: the various attributes of the time trial could be encoded along with the serial number and feature name, and included in the packet that is cryptographically signed.
I'm getting old and very rusty on stuff like this but in the past I've successfully attacked systems (these were not TEqpt systems) that came in an encrypted shell or wrapper that could also detect debugging and could self check itself and the protected code for signs of tampering.
Tampering, reverse engineering, etc., is becoming much more difficult with the advent of "system on a chip" technology. An architecture that is nearly tamperproof is quite trivial with such a system: you store the bootloader and decryption key in PROM inside the SOC (note: not EPROM! It has to be write-once), and the bootloader can load the encrypted code from flash into the SOC's RAM for execution. As long as the decryption key remains undiscovered, the entire system is essentially hack-proof, since hacking would then require that one gain access to the chip's internals -- a step that only the most well-heeled organizations might be able to pull off.
Of course, if the decryption key is discovered, it could be used to decrypt the firmware. But even that doesn't help you if the decryption key is half of an asymmetric key pair, because you'd need the other half in order to encrypt a modified version of the firmware for execution in the SOC.
You'd have to replace the SOC itself with your own in order to go any further with the above. At that point, you've probably hit the point of diminishing returns. A company that is selling the device will, of course, be much more concerned about someone learning the techniques they used in their code, but that's what patents are for. And someone who considers such examination of the code to be "wrong" had better think carefully about whether their stance is consistent with their stance on reverse engineering, since they're really the same thing.
In the end, everything depends on just how concerned the manufacturer is about these things. The system I described above easily takes care of all but the most determined hackers. The more determined a hacker is, the smaller his impact will be on the marketplace, as long as he is unable to share his hacks with others in such a way as to make them easy to deploy. Replacing the SOC with one that someone has programmed their own bootloader into is a relatively involved thing, something that most people here wouldn't bother with.
In any case, the real point of all of this is that a manufacturer that is concerned about people "hacking" their products so as to enable features that are otherwise disabled is easily capable of preventing that. It's not like we're talking about some technologically ignorant company here, we're talking about a company that does hardware and software design as its business. It will deploy the kind of measures I'm talking about if it really wants to prevent its customers from easily enabling features. Otherwise, it will do as Rigol has done: make it relatively easy to "hack" the product to enable features, but difficult enough to maintain the illusion that someone who buys a higher end model of the line is getting something for their money (in reality, they are getting something for their money: support, such as it may be, for the features they purchased). Such easy hackability is not without its business benefits, as has already been pointed out, so to insist that "hacking" such a scope is "wrong" is amusing, to say the least, seeing how the manufacturer wants the scope to be "hackable" in that way.
-
Tampering, reverse engineering, etc., is becoming much more difficult with the advent of "system on a chip" technology.
True, but I'm not sure how many TE manufacturers would try and cram a 'system' in a chip. Maybe they do this already, I don't know... I'm out of touch, mainly because I only take an interest in stuff like this if it is relevant to my situation.
However, experience has taught me that the people who produce 'protection systems' are often lazy or incompetent and often over confident about the robustness of their elaborate system. What could/should be secure is often woefully insecure.
-
In any case, the real point of all of this is that a manufacturer that is concerned about people "hacking" their products so as to enable features that are otherwise disabled is easily capable of preventing that. It's not like we're talking about some technologically ignorant company here, we're talking about a company that does hardware and software design as its business. It will deploy the kind of measures I'm talking about if it really wants to prevent its customers from easily enabling features.
I agree that they could try and make things a lot harder but I suspect that the decision on how to adopt such a system is based on NRE dev costs and management costs... At a guess the big players will prefer to choose a generic third party system that they simply staple into their system. This will be useable across a wide variation of hardware (and software) platforms and will be very versatile in terms of management. With this choice, they don't have to develop and manage numerous bespoke protection systems for various platforms.
They will know it isn't the most secure option but it is probably the best all round 'business' option and they probably don't care too much about the impact of hacking. A hack released into the wild has the same impact if it was trivial to discover or if it took the work of a genius to discover :)
-
Tampering, reverse engineering, etc., is becoming much more difficult with the advent of "system on a chip" technology.
True, but I'm not sure how many TE manufacturers would try and cram a 'system' in a chip. Maybe they do this already, I don't know... I'm out of touch, mainly because I only take an interest in stuff like this if it is relevant to my situation.
There's actually a great deal of incentive for manufacturers to use SOC units when possible. It reduces cost, increases reliability, reduces board space requirements, and (as explained previously) makes tampering more difficult. Indeed, the only reason to not use a SOC is lack of capability, e.g. if you need more RAM than the SOC can provide. That's becoming less of an issue over time, though everything ultimately depends on improvements in transistor density.
I'm sure you've heard of the Raspberry Pi, right? That's a SOC implementation. Current versions have a gigabyte of RAM. It happens to be that the RAM is a separate chip in the current models, but the model B+ had 512M of memory in the form of a "package on package" construction, where the two chips are soldered directly to each other. With respect to immunity from hacking, that's clearly not going to be as good as a complete SOC if the two can somehow be separated afterwards, but it's apparently quite a bit less expensive to produce. A manufacturer that is concerned with tampering might easily be able to produce a hybrid package that contains both the RAM and the SOC in such a way as to make gaining access to the memory bus a difficult proposition.
However, experience has taught me that the people who produce 'protection systems' are often lazy or incompetent and often over confident about the robustness of their elaborate system. What could/should be secure is often woefully insecure.
Manufacturers only have to get it right once. And the more capable a manufacturer is, the more likely they'll get it right. Obviously, a manufacturer that doesn't really care about getting it right probably won't, but the market will tend to reveal whether or not that was a good business decision. The point here is that it's not hard to get it right, so a manufacturer that really cares about this stuff will be perfectly capable of preventing the kind of easy hacks we've been discussing.
In any case, the real point of all of this is that a manufacturer that is concerned about people "hacking" their products so as to enable features that are otherwise disabled is easily capable of preventing that. It's not like we're talking about some technologically ignorant company here, we're talking about a company that does hardware and software design as its business. It will deploy the kind of measures I'm talking about if it really wants to prevent its customers from easily enabling features.
I agree that they could try and make things a lot harder but I suspect that the decision on how to adopt such a system is based on NRE dev costs and management costs... At a guess the big players will prefer to choose a generic third party system that they simply staple into their system. This will be useable across a wide variation of hardware (and software) platforms and will be very versatile in terms of management. With this choice, they don't have to develop and manage numerous bespoke protection systems for various platforms.
That could be, of course, and if they go that route, they'll likely be able to evaluate ahead of time whether or not the third party's solution is an effective one.
They will know it isn't the most secure option but it is probably the best all round 'business' option and they probably don't care too much about the impact of hacking. A hack released into the wild has the same impact if it was trivial to discover or if it took the work of a genius to discover :)
Well, it might actually be the most secure option! It depends on the quality of the third party solution. That said, if they don't care too much about the impact of hacking, then that's a legitimate business decision on their part. Those here shouldn't then complain about the "immorality" of hacking the resulting devices, particularly when the "hacks" aren't even violations of law. The plain fact is that prevention of the kind of "hacking" that is mainly being discussed here is straightforward and easy to implement, so manufacturers that fail to do so anyway clearly have no real desire to prevent it (only perhaps a token desire, if that).
-
As for whether I would feel "entitled"... don't try to drag me into THAT recursive sophistry. ::)
Interesting - since that sense of 'entitlement' is fundamental to this argument.
Still - if you say the analogy is irrelevant, then it must be so.
Common sense says that it is so.
We are all free to do whatever we choose to do. You are free to live by a narrow, rigid set of rules. I am free to ignore them.
If I disagree with a set of rules that the society of a region considers to be just and lawful, I am still free to do AS I FEEL; I may encounter some resistance to that, however, as others of that society are also free to attempt to stop me, or to lock me away as a danger to their beliefs, or to ignore me as a pest, or also to ignore the same laws.
If I fear those consequences of my actions, I am free to go somewhere those laws don't exist, or work to get them changed, or to violate them as I see fit and hope nobody catches me who can do something about it.
This is what FREE WILL means. "Entitlement" is a lie that power-merchants and lawyers use to rob you of your free will.
As I said; a recursive sophistry... and a sophomoric one at that. ::)
mnem
My shoes disagree with that.
-
What about the case of hacking the hardware to increase the bandwidth limit? Not a single byte of the firmware is changed.
-
What about the case of hacking the hardware to increase the bandwidth limit? Not a single byte of the firmware is changed.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg899219/#msg899219 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg899219/#msg899219)
-
Didn't read the whole discussion, but how can pressing some keys in a special order on my own property be illegal? I haven't licensed any software, service, or SAAS, nor have I agreed with any contract other than the purchase contract with the equipment distributor. I just got the "black box" hardware product, where I can feel free to press any key in any order I want and solder anything out or in of it as I like.
-
So here is my opinion:
Options exist, not to segment the market, but to lure companies to buying the product. Big companies, the purchasing goes on several levels. If you sell a scope for 10001 EUR, you need a chief senior vice president of manager's signature on the purchase order. If it costs 9999 EUR, a lower lever manager can sign it, who may understand that you need the scope. So the scope maker will not sell a scope for 10001 EUR because that will yield less sales. They will sell it for 4999 and the options will cost 499 each (ask a quote, mention how much can you sign. It will be that much, unless big difference). If you need CAN analysing, it will cost 499. The company saves few hours of enginers time, the manufacturer gets 499, the manager doesn't need to make a powerpoint presentation with ROI calculations. Screw shareholders, screw corporate politics, it is evil.
Why are there chinese scopes come with unlock software? Because, as always, Chinese copied the west. It works the same way at Agilent, lets do the same. 150 USD for bandwidth update, are you kidding me?
It is ultimately a flawed model, because there are no big companies buying BK-Segirol sold as Tenma scopes paying with paypal. So it is stealing to unlock it? Not really. You are probably not going to use it to make money anyway. If you do make money with it, then pay for it.
-
We are all free to do whatever we choose to do. You are free to live by a narrow, rigid set of rules. I am free to ignore them.
This is what FREE WILL means.
Grown-ups can recognize that if you live in a society then you have a moral debt to that society. That society is what made you who you are and allows you to live freely.
-
We are all free to do whatever we choose to do. You are free to live by a narrow, rigid set of rules. I am free to ignore them.
This is what FREE WILL means.
Grown-ups can recognize that if you live in a society then you have a moral debt to that society. That society is what made you who you are and allows you to live freely.
Just so.
And of course mnementh's next sentence (viz: "Entitlement" is a lie that power-merchants and lawyers use to rob you of your free will) might be re-cast as "entitlement is a lie used by selfish young adults in an attempt to justify their antisocial behaviour"
-
Quite right. I believe in the freedom to do what I want with my own personal property, which includes modifying/hacking it to gain better performance.
As I said before if the manufacturer doesn't want me to hack it, then they need to get me to sign a contract on purchase of said equipment but if they do that, I'll go elsewhere.
Why are there chinese scopes come with unlock software? Because, as always, Chinese copied the west. It works the same way at Agilent, lets do the same. 150 USD for bandwidth update, are you kidding me?
It is ultimately a flawed model, because there are no big companies buying BK-Segirol sold as Tenma scopes paying with paypal. So it is stealing to unlock it? Not really. You are probably not going to use it to make money anyway. If you do make money with it, then pay for it.
I think it's fine to hack an oscilloscope for commercial purposes. I know someone who has done it and good on them too. I wonder if the fact that they do a crappy day job, are just doing extra part time work at home and can't afford to pay the unlock ransom, influence your judgement of them? I don't care either way. I've taken my hacked Rigol 1054Z into work before and used it commercially, without a shred of guilt.
-
What about the case of hacking the hardware to increase the bandwidth limit? Not a single byte of the firmware is changed.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg899219/#msg899219 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg899219/#msg899219)
I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone answer that question, ie what is the difference between lifting a resistor and fiddling the code.
-
What about the case of hacking the hardware to increase the bandwidth limit? Not a single byte of the firmware is changed.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg899219/#msg899219 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg899219/#msg899219)
I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone answer that question, ie what is the difference between lifting a resistor and fiddling the code.
I don't see any difference, morally, ethically or legally. If the manufacturer is also selling and supporting an equivalent to the modified device, then in neither case is there a valid entitlement to the modification.
If it is abandonware, then the argument is probably still legally valid but, IMHO, much less morally and ethically clearcut. I would have little compunction about ensuring what I had already purchased continued to operate. Examples: Microsoft's PlaysForSure(TM) [sic], or attempting to reinstal WinXP on my laptop after a disk failure.
-
A side question....
Would you consider any modification to the hardware and/or software (incl. firmware) as actions that would void warranty?
Would you include 'cracking' unpurchased software keys in this?
-
A side question....
Would you consider any modification to the hardware and/or software (incl. firmware) as actions that would void warranty?
Would you include 'cracking' unpurchased software keys in this?
People make false warranty claims all the time; the legal profession is well versed in sniffing that out. It would be more difficult to disguise a hardware modification, since software modifications can, potentially, be invisibly reversed.
In the event of a warranty claim, if the manufacturer accepts the liability there is no practical issue. If the manufacturer claims your actions voided the warranty then either you drop the claim or it will end up in the courts. If it ends up in the courts, then the judgement will depend on the law of the land and the quality of the legal presentations.
In the UK consumer items have to be "of merchandable quality" and without design flaws that have contributed to the claim. If you have modified the equipment then the manufacturer can easily claim your modification damaged the equipment, and you will have difficulty persuading the court that isn't the case.
-
If a warranty claim end up in court - everyone has lost. The time and money for even the smallest of legal actions is more than a nice scope.
-
Again, my question was not answered directly.
While an answer was given, it was in the third person - whereas my question was presented in the second person.
-
What about the case of hacking the hardware to increase the bandwidth limit? Not a single byte of the firmware is changed.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg899219/#msg899219 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg899219/#msg899219)
I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone answer that question, ie what is the difference between lifting a resistor and fiddling the code.
The difference is that fiddling with the code of necessity requires making copies of the code, whether it be for the purpose of getting your code onto the computer for modification, or for inspection, or whatever, and certainly requires making a copy when flashing the firmware.
That lands you straight into the middle of copyright law. You don't have that problem when hacking the hardware.
Now, if your question is whether or not there's an ethical difference, well, I can't reasonably say that there is. In both cases, you'd be making changes to something that is rightfully in your possession (because you paid money in exchange for it). It's not like you'd be distributing copies of the manufacturer's firmware to the world or anything like that (even in that case, one can reasonably argue that the because the code being modified is simultaneously not in source form and sufficiently specific to the hardware, the normal concerns of copyright do not arise).
-
A side question....
Would you consider any modification to the hardware and/or software (incl. firmware) as actions that would void warranty?
Would you include 'cracking' unpurchased software keys in this?
I'd have to say that, in the general case, I would consider both to give the manufacturer proper justification to void the warranty, depending on the circumstances. The warranty's purpose is to ensure that you are provided with a properly functioning product that meets the specifications and feature set that was advertised for the product you specifically purchased. To expect the manufacturer to adhere to the warranty after you've made changes to the hardware is plainly unreasonable in the general case, since to do so would be to insist that the manufacturer guarantee functionality in the face of your changes, which are arbitrary in nature. Now, if you can prove that the malfunction in question is unrelated to the change you made and cannot arise from the change you made, then you'd have a reasonable warranty claim, but in the absence of that, the manufacturer would be perfectly justified in denying the claim.
So: what about cracking the software keys? Well, in that case, I'd say that your warranty claim would be valid as long as it is with respect to functionality that exists in the absence of the keys. If you attempt to make a warranty claim that depends on the functionality that you unlocked, then the manufacturer is perfectly within its rights to either deny the warranty claim, or to "satisfy" the warranty claim by deactivating the functionality you activated, thus restoring the device to its as-manufactured state. After all, the purpose of the warranty is to ensure that you possess a product with the attributes advertised for what you purchased.
-
We are all free to do whatever we choose to do. You are free to live by a narrow, rigid set of rules. I am free to ignore them.
This is what FREE WILL means.
Grown-ups can recognize that if you live in a society then you have a moral debt to that society. That society is what made you who you are and allows you to live freely.
Moral debt?!? You bring this infantile "Philosophy 101" BS and call me immature? If you understood the Social Contract, you'd understand that the fact we're having this conversation means you've already violated it. ::)
You do not have the right to go ANYWHERE and expect ANYTHING. Once you realize THAT, THEN you can start building a meaningful Social Contract.
You can start by pulling your head out of your entitlement and realize you also don't have any right to expect me to adhere to your narcissistic judgmental bunk, either.
We WERE discussing legal and licensing issues around hacking a piece of equipment after one buys it; a tenuous argument at best. Once you try to bring morality into play, then you really are just shouting up your own posterior; as I've said before, it's ridiculous to attempt to apply American mores and licensing law to a product made and sold in China.
"Entitlement" and Moral Debt" are both aspects of the same lie and you know it; the latter is the one you tell yourself to justify telling others how they should live.
mnem
No.
-
You can start by pulling your head out of your entitlement and realize you also don't have any right to expect me to adhere to your narcissistic judgmental bunk, either.
You deserve it because you're smarter than the rest! Got it.
it's ridiculous to attempt to apply American mores and licensing law to a product made and sold in China.
It's OK because they're foreigners! Noted.
-
as I've said before, it's ridiculous to attempt to apply American mores and licensing law to a product made and sold in China.
The Chinese use exactly that argument when cloning foreign companies' (e.g. US) products and selling them for a fraction of the price.
Do you support them doing that?
-
We are all free to do whatever we choose to do. You are free to live by a narrow, rigid set of rules. I am free to ignore them.
This is what FREE WILL means.
Grown-ups can recognize that if you live in a society then you have a moral debt to that society. That society is what made you who you are and allows you to live freely.
And if the society in question is one that does not allow you to live freely? Do you then still have a debt to that society because you live in it?
Do the citizens of North Korea have a debt to the authoritarian society that has arisen there merely by the fact that they live there and, in most cases, grew up there?
I'd wager you believe not, but I'll let you answer that one yourself.
The "debt" you speak of is a mutually beneficial implicit agreement. It applies as long as the benefit remains mutually beneficial and well-balanced. It is nullified the moment it becomes substantially one-sided.
-
OK - let me take the warranty issue a little further....
Let's say we have a scope - advertised and sold as a 50MHz unit - that's been modified to run as a 100MHz scope and it fails under warranty.
Upon return to the manufacturer, the fault is located in a particular chip, which has an upgraded replacement - however this chip is only capable of operating at a maximum of 50MHz.
The manufacturer replaces the chip and returns the scope, which now operates perfectly under it's original specifications - but cannot handle any frequencies between 50MHz and 100MHz.
Question: Has the manufacturer done anything wrong?
Extension: The same chip is used in the manufacturer's 100MHz version, but lower performance chips are tested and binned as 50MHz units. Each chip is to be used according to the matching specification of the scope, so you would not expect a 100MHz capable chip to be fitted to a 50MHz scope.
Again the question - Is there anything wrong with that?
-
The manufacturer replaces the chip and returns the scope, which now operates perfectly under it's original specifications - but cannot handle any frequencies between 50MHz and 100MHz.
Again the question - Is there anything wrong with that?
Nope. The owner has no right to anything more than they paid for. The manufacturer is even doing them a favor by honoring the warranty.
When the DS1054Z was released there was some discussion about whether or not the 50MHz units were binned versions of the 100MHz units.
There's no evidence that they are ... OTOH there's no proof that they aren't.
-
OK - let me take the warranty issue a little further....
Let's say we have a scope - advertised and sold as a 50MHz unit - that's been modified to run as a 100MHz scope and it fails under warranty.
Upon return to the manufacturer, the fault is located in a particular chip, which has an upgraded replacement - however this chip is only capable of operating at a maximum of 50MHz.
The manufacturer replaces the chip and returns the scope, which now operates perfectly under it's original specifications - but cannot handle any frequencies between 50MHz and 100MHz.
Question: Has the manufacturer done anything wrong?
Extension: The same chip is used in the manufacturer's 100MHz version, but lower performance chips are tested and binned as 50MHz units. Each chip is to be used according to the matching specification of the scope, so you would not expect a 100MHz capable chip to be fitted to a 50MHz scope.
Again the question - Is there anything wrong with that?
The manufacturer replaces the chip and returns the scope, which now operates perfectly under it's original specifications - but cannot handle any frequencies between 50MHz and 100MHz.
Again the question - Is there anything wrong with that?
Nope. The owner has no right to anything more than they paid for. The manufacturer is even doing them a favor by honoring the warranty.
When the DS1054Z was released there was some discussion about whether or not the 50MHz units were binned versions of the 100MHz units.
There's no evidence that they are ... OTOH there's no proof that they aren't.
Absolutely right, Fungus. In all honesty, the moment you open up the enclosure or the FW and start tinkering inside, you no longer have a warranty. This is pretty much universal under both US and Chinese Export laws. They COULD charge you Parts & Labor for OOW Service PLUS return shipping; anything more than that which you receive is them doing you a favor. It is entirely reasonable for them to assume that your meddling is what caused the failure in the first place; it constitutes abuse of the product.
Taking on responsibility for the repair and maintenance of the unit is part of the cost of modding ANYTHING; if it breaks in half after you hack it, you now own two pieces. By returning a modded product for warranty service, you are in essence attempting to commit fraud.
mnem
No, I do NOT feel entitled to Warranty Service on a hacked 'scope. ;)
-
OK - let me take the warranty issue a little further....
Let's say we have a scope - advertised and sold as a 50MHz unit - that's been modified to run as a 100MHz scope and it fails under warranty.
Upon return to the manufacturer, the fault is located in a particular chip, which has an upgraded replacement - however this chip is only capable of operating at a maximum of 50MHz.
The manufacturer replaces the chip and returns the scope, which now operates perfectly under it's original specifications - but cannot handle any frequencies between 50MHz and 100MHz.
Question: Has the manufacturer done anything wrong?
Extension: The same chip is used in the manufacturer's 100MHz version, but lower performance chips are tested and binned as 50MHz units. Each chip is to be used according to the matching specification of the scope, so you would not expect a 100MHz capable chip to be fitted to a 50MHz scope.
Again the question - Is there anything wrong with that?
The manufacturer replaces the chip and returns the scope, which now operates perfectly under it's original specifications - but cannot handle any frequencies between 50MHz and 100MHz.
Again the question - Is there anything wrong with that?
Nope. The owner has no right to anything more than they paid for. The manufacturer is even doing them a favor by honoring the warranty.
When the DS1054Z was released there was some discussion about whether or not the 50MHz units were binned versions of the 100MHz units.
There's no evidence that they are ... OTOH there's no proof that they aren't.
Absolutely right, Fungus. In all honesty, the moment you open up the enclosure or the FW and start tinkering inside, you no longer have a warranty. This is pretty much universal under both US and Chinese Export laws. They COULD charge you Parts & Labor for OOW Service PLUS return shipping; anything more than that which you receive is them doing you a favor. It is entirely reasonable for them to assume that your meddling is what caused the failure in the first place; it constitutes abuse of the product.
Taking on responsibility for the repair and maintenance of the unit is part of the cost of modding ANYTHING; if it breaks in half after you hack it, you now own two pieces. By returning a modded product for warranty service, you are in essence attempting to commit fraud.
mnem
No, I do NOT feel entitled to Warranty Service on a hacked 'scope. ;)
I agree with that, unless the failure was obviously nothing to do with the hack, such as the LCD failing. In that case, the manufacture should replace the LCD for me but even then, they're perfectly within their rights to reset the firmware to its unhacked state.
-
No, I do NOT feel entitled to Warranty Service on a hacked 'scope. ;)
And this is why I wouldn't hack anything until I've owned/used it for a few weeks.
I recall a few people on here posting about how they hacked the bandwidth of their DS1054Z as soon as they got it out of the box then noticed a problem on channel 4 a few hours later (or whatever). Yes, I enjoyed a little schadenfreude ...
(and yes, we know you can un-hack them)
-
No, I do NOT feel entitled to Warranty Service on a hacked 'scope. ;)
And this is why I wouldn't hack anything until I've owned/used it for a few weeks.
I recall a few people on here posting about how they hacked the bandwidth of their DS1054Z as soon as they got it out of the box then noticed a problem on channel 4 a few hours later (or whatever). Yes, I enjoyed a little schadenfreude ...
(and yes, we know you can un-hack them)
Yes, but that is NOT the same. When you hack, you take responsibility for your actions. Or at least you SHOULD. One of the consequences of those actions is that you no longer have a Manufacturer's Warranty.
I agree with that, unless the failure was obviously nothing to do with the hack, such as the LCD failing. In that case, the manufacture should replace the LCD for me but even then, they're perfectly within their rights to reset the firmware to its unhacked state.
Really? How do you know the hacked FW didn't alter the scan frequency, causing the LCD to fail because it was being incorrectly driven? Aside from a VERY few individuals, most folks using the "updating tools" are effectively little more than script kiddies, with no idea what the tool is actually changing in the brains of their 'scope.
If you opened up the scope to hack it, how do you KNOW you didn't accidentally short something to ground which ultimately caused the fault?
So yeah... I think it's fair for them to refuse ANY warranty service on ANY modded scope. Once it's modded, it is no longer THEIR scope.
mnem
In other news... (http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x462/mnemennth/smiley_spinning.gif)
-
What about the case of hacking the hardware to increase the bandwidth limit? Not a single byte of the firmware is changed.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg899219/#msg899219 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg899219/#msg899219)
I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone answer that question, ie what is the difference between lifting a resistor and fiddling the code.
The difference is that fiddling with the code of necessity requires making copies of the code, whether it be for the purpose of getting your code onto the computer for modification, or for inspection, or whatever, and certainly requires making a copy when flashing the firmware.
And if you don't copy any code? For example, you start the scope with a different set of boot parameters?
-
What about the case of hacking the hardware to increase the bandwidth limit? Not a single byte of the firmware is changed.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg899219/#msg899219 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg899219/#msg899219)
I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone answer that question, ie what is the difference between lifting a resistor and fiddling the code.
I don't see any difference, morally, ethically or legally. If the manufacturer is also selling and supporting an equivalent to the modified device, then in neither case is there a valid entitlement to the modification.
What is your view if you were to discover that your scope operates beyond its specified bandwidth without you doing any modification?
For example, you discovered it's twice its specified bandwidth in certain (non-contrived or fiddled) scenarios?
Would it be morally, ethically or legally wrong to use the scope in a way that benefitted from this additional bandwidth that you didn't pay for?
The specific case I am referring to is that I have a 600MHz scope that runs at 840MHz bandwidth in real time, and when running in equivalent time has a bandwidth of over 1.2GHz.
-
The difference is that fiddling with the code of necessity requires making copies of the code, whether it be for the purpose of getting your code onto the computer for modification, or for inspection, or whatever, and certainly requires making a copy when flashing the firmware.
And if you don't copy any code? For example, you start the scope with a different set of boot parameters?
It depends on how you managed that.
If you managed that by changing the parameters through an interface on the scope itself (e.g., by giving it a different set of boot parameters through a SCPI command or something), then no copying of the firmware or any other copyrighted work occurred, and you're free and clear of copyright law.
But if you managed it by copying the firmware (be it the whole thing or a portion of it) off the scope, then modifying it, then uploading it back to the scope, then that would be copyright infringement. But that doesn't mean it's unethical.
You'll find that law and ethics rarely overlap. The law is an expression of what people with power think you shouldn't do. It is an expression of control, not of ethics. People with power tend to be more ethically challenged than most people, and tend to want to control others for their own (direct or indirect) gain rather than for some more noble purpose, which is why the law and ethics are so divergent.
-
What about the case of hacking the hardware to increase the bandwidth limit? Not a single byte of the firmware is changed.
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg899219/#msg899219 (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/msg899219/#msg899219)
I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone answer that question, ie what is the difference between lifting a resistor and fiddling the code.
I don't see any difference, morally, ethically or legally. If the manufacturer is also selling and supporting an equivalent to the modified device, then in neither case is there a valid entitlement to the modification.
What is your view if you were to discover that your scope operates beyond its specified bandwidth without you doing any modification?
For example, you discovered it's twice its specified bandwidth in certain (non-contrived or fiddled) scenarios?
Would it be morally, ethically or legally wrong to use the scope in a way that benefitted from this additional bandwidth that you didn't pay for?
The specific case I am referring to is that I have a 600MHz scope that runs at 840MHz bandwidth in real time, and when running in equivalent time has a bandwidth of over 1.2GHz.
No problem, of course. The manufacturer exceed their specification; good for them. HP used to do that kind of thing all the time with their instruments.
As an engineer I would, of course, be a fool to order such a scope in the expectation that the particular one delivered to me would exceed the specification. Ditto ordering 1% resistors in the expectation that they would be 0.1%, because I once had a 1% resistor that was only 0.1% away from its nominal value.
Here's a more interesting and less contrived example of this...
In the late 70s when digital was being introduced between exchanges and before optical fibres were widespread, the PCM was carried by existing paper insulated quad pairs. These were specified and guaranteed at 1.6kHz, but they were being used for 2Mb/s PCM - or at least the subset of pairs in a cable that were sufficiently good were being pressed into service.
The GPO, because it was before BT, would have liked to agree test specifications with the cable manufacturer for 2Mb/s operation, which wouldn't have changed the cable's manufacture. But the GPO didn't dare do that because it would have given the cable manufatrures the opportunity to hike prices. Instead the GPO developed a test set to measure which pairs would work in any give cable.
The cable company delivered cables tested at 1.6kHz, and the client used bits at 2Mb/s. Everybody knew what was happening, none had any grounds for complaint.
-
You'll find that law and ethics rarely overlap. The law is an expression of what people with power think you shouldn't do. It is an expression of control, not of ethics. People with power tend to be more ethically challenged than most people, and tend to want to control others for their own (direct or indirect) gain rather than for some more noble purpose, which is why the law and ethics are so divergent.
Simple observation: we have courts of law, not courts of justice nor courts of ethical behaviour.
-
No, I do NOT feel entitled to Warranty Service on a hacked 'scope. ;)
And this is why I wouldn't hack anything until I've owned/used it for a few weeks.
I recall a few people on here posting about how they hacked the bandwidth of their DS1054Z as soon as they got it out of the box then noticed a problem on channel 4 a few hours later (or whatever). Yes, I enjoyed a little schadenfreude ...
(and yes, we know you can un-hack them)
Yes, but that is NOT the same. When you hack, you take responsibility for your actions. Or at least you SHOULD. One of the consequences of those actions is that you no longer have a Manufacturer's Warranty.
I agree with that, unless the failure was obviously nothing to do with the hack, such as the LCD failing. In that case, the manufacture should replace the LCD for me but even then, they're perfectly within their rights to reset the firmware to its unhacked state.
Really? How do you know the hacked FW didn't alter the scan frequency, causing the LCD to fail because it was being incorrectly driven? Aside from a VERY few individuals, most folks using the "updating tools" are effectively little more than script kiddies, with no idea what the tool is actually changing in the brains of their 'scope.
If you opened up the scope to hack it, how do you KNOW you didn't accidentally short something to ground which ultimately caused the fault?
So yeah... I think it's fair for them to refuse ANY warranty service on ANY modded scope. Once it's modded, it is no longer THEIR scope.
mnem
In other news... (http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x462/mnemennth/smiley_spinning.gif)
I had a feeling you'd say something like that and yes, if you actually modified the firmware, there's a slim chance something like that could happen but it's BS that simply entering a key to unlock more bandwidth or memory would damage the LCD. A better example would be something like a switch or encoder (used for the standard non-hacked feature set of course) failing, which is obviously nothing to do with the firmware.
as I've said before, it's ridiculous to attempt to apply American mores and licensing law to a product made and sold in China.
The Chinese use exactly that argument when cloning foreign companies' (e.g. US) products and selling them for a fraction of the price.
Do you support them doing that?
That's not a straightforward question.
The laws and whether they're enforced or not differ greatly between the US and China. Many people in the US would say it's wrong that the Chinese can simply copy US products at low cost and not have to pay for the design. They may say China has an unfair competitive advantage, being able to use pirate copies of US software, while the US companies have to pay for the licence.
In reality China will not change any time soon. The opposite argument could be made. If people feel China's lax copyright/patent laws put them at an unfair competitive advantage then perhaps the US could change their laws, so American companies can copy one another?
It works the other way round too. Is it fair that US companies can operate in China, polluting the environment, dumping their waste over there, poisoning the villages and making a profit?
-
as I've said before, it's ridiculous to attempt to apply American mores and licensing law to a product made and sold in China.
The Chinese use exactly that argument when cloning foreign companies' (e.g. US) products and selling them for a fraction of the price.
Do you support them doing that?
That's not a straightforward question.
It is both a straightforward question, and one which reflects real problems and attitudes. You may find it awkward to answer; I understand that.
I repeat: do you support the Chinese copying and selling products without compensating the original manufacturers?
(The rest of your points are irrelevant flack about entirely different subjects.)
-
as I've said before, it's ridiculous to attempt to apply American mores and licensing law to a product made and sold in China.
The Chinese use exactly that argument when cloning foreign companies' (e.g. US) products and selling them for a fraction of the price.
Do you support them doing that?
Do you support reverse engineering?
-
as I've said before, it's ridiculous to attempt to apply American mores and licensing law to a product made and sold in China.
The Chinese use exactly that argument when cloning foreign companies' (e.g. US) products and selling them for a fraction of the price.
Do you support them doing that?
Do you support reverse engineering?
Depends on the objectives, and what use is made of the info gathered. Yes to enable me to continue using what I've already purchased and the manufacturer has abandoned. No to steal and/or profit from trade secrets that I have not purchased. There are many grey areas, which are outside the scope of this discussion.
-
From the previous post of mine, namely:
OK - let me take the warranty issue a little further....
Let's say we have a scope - advertised and sold as a 50MHz unit - that's been modified to run as a 100MHz scope and it fails under warranty.
Upon return to the manufacturer, the fault is located in a particular chip, which has an upgraded replacement - however this chip is only capable of operating at a maximum of 50MHz.
The manufacturer replaces the chip and returns the scope, which now operates perfectly under it's original specifications - but cannot handle any frequencies between 50MHz and 100MHz.
Question: Has the manufacturer done anything wrong?
Extension: The same chip is used in the manufacturer's 100MHz version, but lower performance chips are tested and binned as 50MHz units. Each chip is to be used according to the matching specification of the scope, so you would not expect a 100MHz capable chip to be fitted to a 50MHz scope.
Again the question - Is there anything wrong with that?
The question I was asking was NOT a matter of whether a warranty should be honoured or not.
The scenario I proposed is one where the manufacturer DID honour the warranty because, let's say, the failed chip had a history of failure in the field whether the firmware had been hacked or not. Maybe they decided it was a good PR move and wasn't worth the pain of arguing - but they did honour the warranty.
IN THAT SITUATION, an 'upgraded' 50MHz chip was fitted to the 50MHz scope thus making it physically incapable of operating at the higher frequency.
Is that a problem?
-
Do you support reverse engineering?
Depends on the objectives, and what use is made of the info gathered. Yes to enable me to continue using what I've already purchased and the manufacturer has abandoned. No to steal and/or profit from trade secrets that I have not purchased. There are many grey areas, which are outside the scope of this discussion.
So your belief, then, is that the patent system should be redundant (after all, why patent something if you can simply make it a trade secret, knowing that nobody will be able to make use of it)? That there is ownership of ideas in perpetuity? That the only valid use of an idea you get from someone else without their explicit permission is that which would not benefit you or anyone else except in the narrowest of circumstances?
With such rules in place, the progress of man would grind to a halt. There is a reason the United States Constitution patent/copyright clause was written the way it was.
Your (apparent) stance puts you at odds with a substantial amount (if not the majority) of what happens on this very site.
-
Do you support reverse engineering?
Depends on the objectives, and what use is made of the info gathered. Yes to enable me to continue using what I've already purchased and the manufacturer has abandoned. No to steal and/or profit from trade secrets that I have not purchased. There are many grey areas, which are outside the scope of this discussion.
Also, I would argue that this stance is internally inconsistent. It's likely that the foundation of your position is that of reduced ability to profit from one's ideas (since ideas are not conserved entities the way physical objects are, and thus the unauthorized discovery of an idea by another does not diminish its originator of the idea itself). Which is to say, as applied to electronic devices (for instance), your stance hinges on the notion that a reduction in sales is roughly equivalent to a theft of assets. Or, put another way, a reduction in potential profit is equivalent to an actual theft of assets.
But if loss of potential profit is the metric by which you measure the unauthorized use of ideas, then your use of reverse engineering to enable your continued use of your device is no different than your use of reverse engineering to enable you to produce a good for sale, since the former represents a potential reduction of profit for the producing company as your ability to continue to use your abandoned product means the company will not be able to sell you a replacement.
-
OK - let me take the warranty issue a little further....
Let's say we have a scope - advertised and sold as a 50MHz unit - that's been modified to run as a 100MHz scope and it fails under warranty.
Upon return to the manufacturer, the fault is located in a particular chip, which has an upgraded replacement - however this chip is only capable of operating at a maximum of 50MHz.
The manufacturer replaces the chip and returns the scope, which now operates perfectly under it's original specifications - but cannot handle any frequencies between 50MHz and 100MHz.
Question: Has the manufacturer done anything wrong?
Extension: The same chip is used in the manufacturer's 100MHz version, but lower performance chips are tested and binned as 50MHz units. Each chip is to be used according to the matching specification of the scope, so you would not expect a 100MHz capable chip to be fitted to a 50MHz scope.
Again the question - Is there anything wrong with that?
The manufacturer replaces the chip and returns the scope, which now operates perfectly under it's original specifications - but cannot handle any frequencies between 50MHz and 100MHz.
Again the question - Is there anything wrong with that?
Nope. The owner has no right to anything more than they paid for. The manufacturer is even doing them a favor by honoring the warranty.
When the DS1054Z was released there was some discussion about whether or not the 50MHz units were binned versions of the 100MHz units.
There's no evidence that they are ... OTOH there's no proof that they aren't.
Absolutely right, Fungus. In all honesty, the moment you open up the enclosure or the FW and start tinkering inside, you no longer have a warranty.
Out in the real world,purchasers of large amounts of equipment have an implied dispensation from this.
On quite a number of occasions over many years,my various Employers have received equipment which is non-functional.
The obvious reaction is to open the thing up-------if it is an easily fixable or even moderately difficult problem,it is fixed there & then with no cost to the manufacturer.
If it isn't,it is returned for warranty.
I've never seen a "knockbacK' in such situations,or even if a locally repaired device fails later for some reason unrelated to the original fault.
Even equipment which is modified in such a way as to not affect its normal operation has,in my experience been covered.
Of course,this has the caveat "purchasers of large amounts of equipment"
You,or I,would not be indulged to the same extent as,say, the Channel 7 Network,who just might decide to buy all its gear from someone else!
This is pretty much universal under both US and Chinese Export laws. They COULD charge you Parts & Labor for OOW Service PLUS return shipping; anything more than that which you receive is them doing you a favor. It is entirely reasonable for them to assume that your meddling is what caused the failure in the first place; it constitutes abuse of the product.
Taking on responsibility for the repair and maintenance of the unit is part of the cost of modding ANYTHING; if it breaks in half after you hack it, you now own two pieces. By returning a modded product for warranty service, you are in essence attempting to commit fraud.
So,Tektronix,HP,Ampex,Sony,& many others have been defrauded over the years by large customers?
-
OK - let me take the warranty issue a little further....
Let's say we have a scope - advertised and sold as a 50MHz unit - that's been modified to run as a 100MHz scope and it fails under warranty.
Upon return to the manufacturer, the fault is located in a particular chip, which has an upgraded replacement - however this chip is only capable of operating at a maximum of 50MHz.
The manufacturer replaces the chip and returns the scope, which now operates perfectly under it's original specifications - but cannot handle any frequencies between 50MHz and 100MHz.
Question: Has the manufacturer done anything wrong?
Extension: The same chip is used in the manufacturer's 100MHz version, but lower performance chips are tested and binned as 50MHz units. Each chip is to be used according to the matching specification of the scope, so you would not expect a 100MHz capable chip to be fitted to a 50MHz scope.
Again the question - Is there anything wrong with that?
The manufacturer replaces the chip and returns the scope, which now operates perfectly under it's original specifications - but cannot handle any frequencies between 50MHz and 100MHz.
Again the question - Is there anything wrong with that?
Nope. The owner has no right to anything more than they paid for. The manufacturer is even doing them a favor by honoring the warranty.
When the DS1054Z was released there was some discussion about whether or not the 50MHz units were binned versions of the 100MHz units.
There's no evidence that they are ... OTOH there's no proof that they aren't.
Absolutely right, Fungus. In all honesty, the moment you open up the enclosure or the FW and start tinkering inside, you no longer have a warranty.
Out in the real world,purchasers of large amounts of equipment have an implied dispensation from this.
On quite a number of occasions over many years,my various Employers have received equipment which is non-functional.
The obvious reaction is to open the thing up-------if it is an easily fixable or even moderately difficult problem,it is fixed there & then with no cost to the manufacturer.
If it isn't,it is returned for warranty.
I've never seen a "knockbacK' in such situations,or even if a locally repaired device fails later for some reason unrelated to the original fault.
Even equipment which is modified in such a way as to not affect its normal operation has,in my experience been covered.
Of course,this has the caveat "purchasers of large amounts of equipment"
You,or I,would not be indulged to the same extent as,say, the Channel 7 Network,who just might decide to buy all its gear from someone else!
This is pretty much universal under both US and Chinese Export laws. They COULD charge you Parts & Labor for OOW Service PLUS return shipping; anything more than that which you receive is them doing you a favor. It is entirely reasonable for them to assume that your meddling is what caused the failure in the first place; it constitutes abuse of the product.
Taking on responsibility for the repair and maintenance of the unit is part of the cost of modding ANYTHING; if it breaks in half after you hack it, you now own two pieces. By returning a modded product for warranty service, you are in essence attempting to commit fraud.
So,Tektronix,HP,Ampex,Sony,& many others have been defrauded over the years by large customers?
You've asked and answered your own question; your company enjoys a "working arrangement" that exceeds the letter of any applicable warranty. Many equipment suppliers operate this way with large corporate accounts. Speaking as an ASP for dozens of different brands over the decades, I can tell you there's a lot of latitude given in these situations, and I can't count the number of times I've been directed to do repairs on equipment that was clearly damaged by accident or long OOW and bill the WO out as if it were still active warranty.
Often, such latitude is given in the interest of keeping corporate buyers' loyalty, or to grease the wheels as your company attempt to transition them to more lucrative "as a service" contracts.
as I've said before, it's ridiculous to attempt to apply American mores and licensing law to a product made and sold in China.
The Chinese use exactly that argument when cloning foreign companies' (e.g. US) products and selling them for a fraction of the price.
Do you support them doing that?
Do you support reverse engineering?
Their laws regarding IP are not the same as ours; just as their laws regarding slave labor are not. American companies have long taken advantage of the disparity between the two coda.
Do I believe these things are right or just? In my personal opinion, no. However, it is not my place to judge their laws, just as I feel they have no right to judge our effed-up laws. OTOH, I also feel our laws regarding IP are ridiculously specific and granular; deliberately open to interpretation such that the client with the best lawyers can almost always buy a win. I don't see this as any form of justice either.
As for reverse-engineering... Yes, absolutely. Fair use is one of the few IP law principles I agree with, and it demands that you have the right to reverse-engineer pretty much anything you purchase short of some very specialized crypto tech kept privileged for very sound reasons. For your own use, and even for profit; under US law you have the right to take it apart and figure out how to make something that does the same thing. If you can make something similar without violating applicable Patents and their laws, you have the right to sell THAT for profit.
How close you skirt those boundaries vs what you can defend in court... THAT is where you run afoul of all those shades of grey; there is where it can get downright nauseating.
mnem
*Toddles off to ded*
-
The difference is that fiddling with the code of necessity requires making copies of the code, whether it be for the purpose of getting your code onto the computer for modification, or for inspection, or whatever, and certainly requires making a copy when flashing the firmware.
And if you don't copy any code? For example, you start the scope with a different set of boot parameters?
It depends on how you managed that.
If you managed that by changing the parameters through an interface on the scope itself (e.g., by giving it a different set of boot parameters through a SCPI command or something), then no copying of the firmware or any other copyrighted work occurred, and you're free and clear of copyright law.
But if you managed it by copying the firmware (be it the whole thing or a portion of it) off the scope, then modifying it, then uploading it back to the scope, then that would be copyright infringement. But that doesn't mean it's unethical.
It's not uncommon for manufacturers to provide a vendor documented boot-from-USB method often used for firmware upgrades or firmware recovery where they provide a bootable image that you put on a USB stick, so, at the explicit direction of the vendor, you are copying their code.
It sounds like we're now in the realms of semantics!
-
It depends on how you managed that.
If you managed that by changing the parameters through an interface on the scope itself (e.g., by giving it a different set of boot parameters through a SCPI command or something), then no copying of the firmware or any other copyrighted work occurred, and you're free and clear of copyright law.
But if you managed it by copying the firmware (be it the whole thing or a portion of it) off the scope, then modifying it, then uploading it back to the scope, then that would be copyright infringement. But that doesn't mean it's unethical.
It's not uncommon for manufacturers to provide a vendor documented boot-from-USB method often used for firmware upgrades or firmware recovery where they provide a bootable image that you put on a USB stick, so, at the explicit direction of the vendor, you are copying their code.
It sounds like we're now in the realms of semantics!
Sort of. If the manufacturer provides a documented boot-from-USB method and they provide a bootable image, chances are they also provide a legal statement of some kind that authorizes you to copy the boot image for the purpose of creating a bootable USB stick. That's not a semantic quibble of some kind, it's a necessary authorization to make it possible for you to legally do what the manufacturer intends that you be able to do.
But the important thing in that case is that the authorization determines your legal abilities in that case. If it contains no provision for modification, i.e. creation of derivative works, then you simply don't have the authorization under copyright law to modify the boot parameters. You could legitimately get that authorization by contacting the company and explaining what you're attempting to do and why, but until you get it, you can't legally make the modifications you're talking about.
Again, that's just how copyright law works, and it is wholly independent of whether or not performing those operations is ethical.
-
Their laws regarding IP are not the same as ours; just as their laws regarding slave labor are not. American companies have long taken advantage of the disparity between the two coda.
True as that may be, a stance is either internally consistent or it's not. His stance is internally inconsistent unless it is founded on something other than a reduction in profit potential. An internally inconsistent position is logically invalid regardless of what the law actually says, which means that one cannot justifiably adhere to it. Of course, people can, and do, adhere to internally inconsistent positions despite that, but the very internal inconsistency of the position takes reason off the table as the justification for adhering to it, which leaves only emotion as the impetus. Emotional reasons for adhering to a position, particularly when those reasons contradict logic, are reasons that most engineers will rightly be dismissive of, because engineers have to deal with the real world, which doesn't respond one whit to what people feel, only what they do. And there is good reason for engineers to be dismissive in that way: logic is well-tested to be a reliable predictor of the real world, while emotion is a highly unreliable (and often incorrect) one, which makes logic vastly more useful for engineering than emotion is.
-
Emotional reasons for adhering to a position, particularly when those reasons contradict logic, are reasons that most engineers will rightly be dismissive of, because engineers have to deal with the real world, which doesn't respond one whit to what people feel, only what they do. And there is good reason for engineers to be dismissive in that way: logic is well-tested to be a reliable predictor of the real world, while emotion is a highly unreliable (and often incorrect) one, which makes logic vastly more useful for engineering than emotion is.
It is part of being human to be able to hold internally inconsistent positions. E.g.
A) Nuclear & wind power is good, but I don't want one near me
B) I believe in Open Source ideals, except for when others make money off of my source. That's not fair.
C) I'm honest - I would never steal anything from anybody, but I will hack a scope
D) I sit in my car and wonder what I can do to reduce CO2 emissions
E) I would never want to interfere in another countries politics, but we have to do something about XYZ
F) There is only one true god, and it is the one I believe in
Politicians are exceptionally good at it.
-
It is part of being human to be able to hold internally inconsistent positions. E.g.
...
C) I'm honest - I would never steal anything from anybody, but I will hack a scope
The above suggests that hacking a scope and not stealing are mutually contradictory. Which requires that hacking a scope be a form of stealing (which has a specific meaning, i.e. that one is improperly deprived of something one previously legitimately possessed).
What is being stolen via the act of hacking a scope?
If hacking a scope is not stealing, then what, specifically, is dishonest (i.e., someone agreeing to something and then failing to adhere to that agreement, or someone saying something that is false) about hacking a scope?
-
It is part of being human to be able to hold internally inconsistent positions. E.g.
...
C) I'm honest - I would never steal anything from anybody, but I will hack a scope
The above suggests that hacking a scope and not stealing is a mutually contradictory position to take. Which suggests that hacking a scope is a form of stealing.
What is being stolen via the act of hacking a scope?
If hacking a scope is not stealing (which has a specific meaning, i.e. that one is improperly deprived of something one previously possessed), then what, specifically, is dishonest (i.e., someone agreeing to something and then failing to adhere to that agreement, or someone saying something that is false) about hacking a scope?
When somebody hacks the scope they usually mean gain access to features and/or function that they haven't paid for, and the manufacture clearly did not intend for them to be able to use.
A squeaky clean honest person would call that out as being dishonest, and tell them that they should have paid more for these extra features if they need to use them.
If it wasn't, it would just be called "using the scope", instructions would be in the manual, and it would be normal practice without any of these tricky moral and ethical dilemmas to solve. :)
-
If hacking a scope is not stealing, then what, specifically, is dishonest (i.e., someone agreeing to something and then failing to adhere to that agreement, or someone saying something that is false) about hacking a scope?
The upgrade options for oscilloscopes are sold in stores and have a price.
Going online and using a key generator instead of buying the code is the same sort of dishonesty as downloading mp3s instead of buying the CD. Technically nobody was deprived of anything (except profit), but that doesn't make it honest.
-
The upgrade options for oscilloscopes are sold in stores and have a price.
Going online and using a key generator instead of buying the code is the same sort of dishonesty as downloading mp3s instead of buying the CD. Technically nobody was deprived of anything (except profit), but that doesn't make it honest.
What agreement was made by the purchaser, save for the agreement on the part of the purchaser to pay a certain price for the unit they received and all it contains?
Downloading MP3s is a violation of copyright. Honesty doesn't enter into that picture, either, unless a person who does so insists that they are adhering to the law despite doing so.
-
When somebody hacks the scope they usually mean gain access to features and/or function that they haven't paid for, and the manufacture clearly did not intend for them to be able to use.
How do you explain that the manufacturer "clearly did not intend for them to be able to use" the features in question when the features in question exist in what they received? That is a contradictory position to take.
You cannot give someone something and simultaneously say you're not giving it to them. That is "dishonest".
A squeaky clean honest person would call that out as being dishonest, and tell them that they should have paid more for these extra features if they need to use them.
Honesty is an attribute that measures adherence to truth. What did the person who gained access to features that existed in the scope that was willfully transferred to him do that resulted in him failing to adhere to truth?
If it wasn't, it would just be called "using the scope", instructions would be in the manual, and it would be normal practice without any of these tricky moral and ethical dilemmas to solve. :)
People have a remarkable ability to turn nothingness into a moral/ethical dilemma. That they label something a moral/ethical dilemma doesn't make it one, except perhaps to them.
Ethics is about harm. But implicit in it is the notion that one will not do something so as to intentionally put himself in harm's way. Here, the manufacturers are clearly intentionally putting themselves in harm's way. We know this because we know (because I have shown how) that the manufacturers can trivially avoid any "harm" that may come from the actions we're discussing.
Not once has anyone made the argument that the manufacturer has any ownership over that which the customer possesses. In the absence of ownership on the part of the manufacturer, there is no legitimate claim of "harm" arising from the actions in question of the customers with respect to that which they own, especially when the manufacturer can trivially avoid the "harm".
-
Downloading MP3s is a violation of copyright.
That is just wrong.
I can honestly download MP3s and not violate copyright. I do that with The Amp Hour podcasts, and plenty of BBC World programs.
-
By the way, there is a way that a manufacturer can invoke copyright law in order to get around some of what we're discussing: place terms in a license that comes with a firmware update, that forbids the use of any keys that the customer has not obtained through a manufacturer-approved transaction with the manufacturer or one of the manufacturer's official distributors, and that forbids installation of the firmware onto a device on which keys which have not been obtained in the above way are active.
The end result would be that the owner of the scope would have to disable the keys in question on his scope before applying the firmware update, and would from that point forward be unable to activate any such keys without violating the license, in order to install any firmware updates.
But I've seen no such terms anywhere, certainly not with any of the firmware that is available for download.
-
Downloading MP3s is a violation of copyright.
That is just wrong.
I can honestly download MP3s and not violate copyright. I do that with The Amp Hour podcasts, and plenty of BBC World programs.
Apologies. I was insufficiently specific, because I (apparently incorrectly) presumed that my statement would be taken to be made in the same context you were implying by yours.
Downloading MP3s that one does not have explicit authorization from the copyright owner to download is a violation of copyright.
Regardless, honesty doesn't enter into that picture. And the ethical question is dependent upon circumstances (for instance, what if you own the CD? Download of an MP3 of the same contents would be a violation of copyright when it's not explicitly authorized, but how would doing so be unethical?).
-
How do you explain that the manufacturer "clearly did not intend for them to be able to use" the features in question when the features in question exist in what they received? That is a contradictory position to take.
I did not intend my washing machine to be used to brew beer, but it is a feature that does exist in it. Will they honor the warranty?
You cannot give someone something and simultaneously say you're not giving it to them. That is "dishonest".
Said like a man who has never purchased software :)
Honesty is an attribute that measures adherence to truth. What did the person who gained access to features that existed in the scope that was willfully transferred to him do that resulted in him failing to adhere to truth?
Honesty is also being free from deceit. Paying for a feature-limited product, then unlocking features could be called deceitful.
People have a remarkable ability to turn nothingness into a moral/ethical dilemma. That they label something a moral/ethical dilemma doesn't make it one, except perhaps to them.
People have a remarkable ability to avoid seeing a bit of sarcasm in a reply. :)
Ethics is about harm. But implicit in it is the notion that one will not do something so as to intentionally put himself in harm's way. Here, the manufacturers are clearly intentionally putting themselves in harm's way. We know this because we know (because I have shown how) that the manufacturers can trivially avoid any "harm" that may come from the actions we're discussing.
I though ethics was more about "a complex of moral precepts held or rules of conduct followed by an individual" (at least according to my dictionary). Harm doesn't make a mention, when did harm come into it?
-
I can honestly download MP3s and not violate copyright. I do that with The Amp Hour podcasts, and plenty of BBC World programs.
Apologies. I was insufficiently specific, because I (apparently incorrectly) presumed that my statement would be taken to be made in the same context you were implying by yours.
Downloading MP3s that one does not have explicit authorization from the copyright owner to download is a violation of copyright.
Regardless, honesty doesn't enter into that picture. And the ethical question is dependent upon circumstances (for instance, what if you own the CD? Download of an MP3 of the same contents would be a violation of copyright when it's not explicitly authorized, but how would doing so be unethical?).
Wow - that must be one really mucked up dictionary you have there.
In mine, honesty is defined as "the quality or fact of being honest; uprightness and fairness". Obtaining an artist's work for free, when they have asked that it be paid for, seems unfair (and therefore dishonest) to me. If you do so, then your honesty is in question.
-
How do you explain that the manufacturer "clearly did not intend for them to be able to use" the features in question when the features in question exist in what they received? That is a contradictory position to take.
I did not intend my washing machine to be used to brew beer, but it is a feature that does exist in it. Will they honor the warranty?
The question of warranty is independent of the question of ethics as applied to the use of the product.
The warranty is an offer from the manufacturer that has terms and conditions associated with it. Some of those terms are required by law, and some terms are forbidden by law. Nevertheless, the terms of the warranty are what govern whether or not the product will be covered by a warranty claim.
If the terms are not met by the purchaser, the manufacturer then has the option to decline the warranty claim, but that doesn't mean they must.
So, the answer to your question is that the manufacturer might honor their warranty under those circumstances, but if your use of the product violates the terms of the warranty, then they don't have to cover you.
You cannot give someone something and simultaneously say you're not giving it to them. That is "dishonest".
Said like a man who has never purchased software :)
My sarcasm detector is going off. :)
I have purchased software. The purchase of the software gives me two things: a copy of the software that I own (and, like any other copyrighted work, is covered by copyright law), and an authorization license to make copies of it under specific terms.
The installation of software onto a computer system is governed by copyright law, because installation of software onto a computer requires making a copy of the software, and there is no exemption in copyright law for that particular copy operation (there is an exemption in the law for actual operation of the software on the computer once it's there, even though normal operation also involves the computer making copies of the software as it operates), which means that it is forbidden except when explicitly authorized by the copyright holder. The aforementioned license is the exemption to copyright law's prohibitions, which would otherwise be in effect. That is what gives the license its power.
So in that case, I have not been given something while the copyright owner claims to not be giving it to me. What I have been given is very specific.
Honesty is an attribute that measures adherence to truth. What did the person who gained access to features that existed in the scope that was willfully transferred to him do that resulted in him failing to adhere to truth?
Honesty is also being free from deceit. Paying for a feature-limited product, then unlocking features could be called deceitful.
Deceitful how? What claim or guarantee did the customer make when purchasing the product, and when, and how? Honesty means doing what you say you will do, and not doing what you say you will not. It doesn't cover what you don't say!
If someone believes I will behave in a certain way, but I have made no statements to indicate that I will behave in that way, is it my fault that the other person is wrong when I don't behave in the way they believe I will? In what way? Can you imagine the amount of abuse such an expectation would eventually get if it were legitimized?
People have a remarkable ability to turn nothingness into a moral/ethical dilemma. That they label something a moral/ethical dilemma doesn't make it one, except perhaps to them.
People have a remarkable ability to avoid seeing a bit of sarcasm in a reply. :)
Well, yes, that is certainly true. :D
Ethics is about harm. But implicit in it is the notion that one will not do something so as to intentionally put himself in harm's way. Here, the manufacturers are clearly intentionally putting themselves in harm's way. We know this because we know (because I have shown how) that the manufacturers can trivially avoid any "harm" that may come from the actions we're discussing.
I though ethics was more about "a complex of moral precepts held or rules of conduct followed by an individual" (at least according to my dictionary). Harm doesn't make a mention, when did harm come into it?
If avoidance of harm to others isn't a necessary component of a code of ethics, then one can insist that any set of rules that one follows is a "code of ethics", up to and including the most harmful. And that would make the term devoid of any meaning that would set it apart from a random set of rules. One could say, then, that those who participated in the Holocaust were acting "ethically" because they were adhering to "rules of conduct", even though those rules were the most abhorrent.
If that's how you want to treat the term, then fine, I'll see if I can find a different term to use here. But as regards this discussion, that seems a necessary component of the term for it to be meaningful here.
-
Wow - that must be one really mucked up dictionary you have there.
In mine, honesty is defined as "the quality or fact of being honest; uprightness and fairness". Obtaining an artist's work for free, when they have asked that it be paid for, seems unfair (and therefore dishonest) to me. If you do so, then your honesty is in question.
And "honest" means "free from fraud or deception". So honesty is the "quality or fact of being free from fraud or deception".
In what way does that differ from how I have been interpreting the term here?
-
An thought on the aspect of Copyright...
As I understand it, Copyright is not fundamentally about third parties benefitting from the work of the author - but of the author being deprived of the benefit of their work.
These are all examples of copyright infringement:
* You sell a copyrighted MP3 track (for which you do not hold distribution rights)
* You give away a copyrighted MP3 track (for which you do not hold distribution rights)
* You download a copyrighted MP3 track for your own use - where you have not provided the benefit required by the copyright holder
As such, if you benefit from someone's copyrighted work without providing them with the benefit they require, then you are infringing copyright.
Not paying for the benefit of software that you gained access to (by whatever means) is denying the copyright holder of income. That's copyright infringement in my book.
-
An thought on the aspect of Copyright...
As I understand it, Copyright is not fundamentally about third parties benefitting from the work of the author - but of the author being deprived of the benefit of their work.
These are all examples of copyright infringement:
* You sell a copyrighted MP3 track (for which you do not hold distribution rights)
* You give away a copyrighted MP3 track (for which you do not hold distribution rights)
* You download a copyrighted MP3 track for your own use - where you have not provided the benefit required by the copyright holder
As such, if you benefit from someone's copyrighted work without providing them with the benefit they require, then you are infringing copyright.
Not paying for the benefit of software that you gained access to (by whatever means) is denying the copyright holder of income. That's copyright infringement in my book.
But copying is a necessary component of copyright infringement. One cannot be in violation of copyright if one is not actually copying the work in question.
There are other mechanisms, such as patents, which protect against other types of actions which can deprive creators of the benefits of their works.
OK, look. Are you guys going to insist that the manufacturer of a product can rightfully dictate to you everything you can and cannot do with the product they manufacture and which you subsequently purchase? After all, any action you might take with it could "deprive them of the benefits of their creative efforts". For instance, a competitor could purchase your products for the purpose of competing with you. Would that not "deprive" you of the benefits of your efforts that would exist were it not for the competition from them? You could, after all, charge a higher price if you were, say, the only manufacturer of oscilloscopes.
Where in the world do you stop with this?
If you're not going to insist that the manufacturer of a product can rightfully dictate to you everything you can and cannot do with the product they manufacture and which you subsequently purchase, then we're just quibbling over details, not over fundamental principles.
-
blah blah blah.... One could say, then, that those who participated in the Holocaust were acting "ethically" because they were adhering to "rules of conduct", even though those rules were the most abhorrent.
I really think your talent is wasted here and you should move on to politics. Your ability to recast and deflect what is trivial bit of dishonesty as a god-given right by recursively splitting hairs, and then redefining any word that gets in your way is without doubt the strongest I have seen in recent history.....
...but.....
.... now you are comparing the act of hacking a scope to the Holocaust.
So by the unwritten rules of the Internet I declare that I win!
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
-
I should point out something critical, because I get the impression that some here don't understand this.
The purpose of copyrights, patents, etc., is not to maximize the benefit that creators get for creating. Improving their ability to derive benefit from their works is the mechanism, not the goal.
No, the goal is to, as so eloquently put in the United States Constitution, promote progress in the sciences and useful arts. This is why copyright and patent terms are limited in length!
The way you guys are talking, you would have copyright and patent terms be unending, would have manufacturers be able to dictate terms to any and all purchasers of their products, and would have customers be subservient to those who manufacture the products they buy, at least as regards how those products are used.
No, that way lies madness.
You may disagree with the above, and that is of course your right. But if you do, then I'd be interested in what specifically in the above you disagree with, and why.
-
I really think your talent is wasted here and you should move on to politics. Your ability to recast and deflect what is trivial bit of dishonesty as a god-given right by recursively splitting hairs, and then redefining any word that gets in your way is without doubt the strongest I have seen in recent history.....
...but.....
.... now you are comparing the act of hacking a scope to the Holocaust.
So by the unwritten rules of the Internet I declare that I win!
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
:-DD
I knew I should have used a different example for that one reason alone. :D
No, I am not comparing an act of hacking a scope to the Holocaust. I am using the Holocaust as an extreme illustration of why the term "ethics" embodies the notion of avoiding harm to others, at least in the context of this discussion. Nothing more.
-
blah blah blah.... One could say, then, that those who participated in the Holocaust were acting "ethically" because they were adhering to "rules of conduct", even though those rules were the most abhorrent.
I really think your talent is wasted here and you should move on to politics. Your ability to recast and deflect what is trivial bit of dishonesty as a god-given right by recursively splitting hairs, and then redefining any word that gets in your way is without doubt the strongest I have seen in recent history.....
The specific meaning of words is important. Vagueness and misunderstanding is the result otherwise.
If we are to use your definition of "honest", then you must be specific in what you mean by "honest", and your meaning must make objective assessment possible. It will not do for that to be vague or subjective. So if your definition differs from mine, then you must be specific in saying how it differs, so that we can discuss the question without ambiguity or subjectivity.
I used the definition I did because it is specific and measurable. It is possible to objectively determine, using my definition, whether or not someone is "honest". Can you truly say the same of your definition?
-
The way you guys are talking, you would have copyright and patent terms be unending...
That has never been said or implied. Maybe you want it to be so, but saying it doesn't make it so.
-
The way you guys are talking, you would have copyright and patent terms be unending...
That has never been said or implied. Maybe you want it to be so, but saying it doesn't make it so.
No?
Is it not your desire to make it possible for a creator to maximize the benefit he receives from his works?
-
The way you guys are talking, you would have copyright and patent terms be unending...
That has never been said or implied. Maybe you want it to be so, but saying it doesn't make it so.
No?
Is it not your desire to make it possible for a creator to maximize the benefit he receives from his works?
Now you're adding inference into statements that was never made.
There has been no reference to time limits - you've just added that to try and bolster your argument. Come on - you're getting desperate.
While we're at it - no mention has been made of the consequences of taking out patents for the purpose of preventing development from others by blocking access to essential technology. Do we want to add that to the bonfire?
-
No?
Is it not your desire to make it possible for a creator to maximize the benefit he receives from his works?
Now you're adding inference into statements that was never made.
Statements have implications whether you like it or not, and whether you intend it or not. I cannot help that. I will add inferences where those inferences exist, because to do so is not only a valid thing to do, it's the proper way to fully explore the implications of an argument. One cannot know which argument has the greatest validity without also knowing the full implications of all the arguments being considered.
There has been no reference to time limits - you've just added that to try and bolster your argument. Come on - you're getting desperate.
Not really. Profit is something that accumulates over time, so time itself is actually highly relevant here (and unavoidable, actually). Were this not the case, the length of time of patents and copyrights would be irrelevant, and a copyright term that's only good for a day would thus be just as good as a copyright term that's good for 95 years.
While we're at it - no mention has been made of the consequences of taking out patents for the purpose of preventing development from others by blocking access to essential technology. Do we want to add that to the bonfire?
I don't have a problem with adding that if it'll add clarity to the discussion. If all it will do is reduce clarity, then I see little point in considering patents.
I'm attempting to argue at a more fundamental level than patents or copyrights specifically (though copyrights and patents are the mechanisms that have been chosen for implementing the fundamental purposes behind them). I think you guys are trying to do that, too, actually, so I don't think we're really talking at cross-purposes here or anything.
In any case, I reiterate my question: Is it not your desire to make it possible for a creator to maximize the benefit he receives from his works?
-
The purpose of copyrights, patents, etc., is not to maximize the benefit that creators get for creating. Improving their ability to derive benefit from their works is the mechanism, not the goal.
No, the goal is to, as so eloquently put in the United States Constitution, promote progress in the sciences and useful arts. This is why copyright and patent terms are limited in length!
Wrong.
Why are you referring to johnny-come-lately document? Especially as your statements are historically wrong!
Patents were introduced so that people would share information, techniques and advances. The background is that key information was kept secret within medieval guilds, because if the secret escaped then the guild members would suffer financially. Patents were designed as a means of encouraging and enabling people to make their discoveries more widely known and available.
The first modern UK patent was issued 150 years before the document you mention, in 1624. There were forerunners for a few centuries before that across Europe.
-
When somebody hacks the scope they usually mean gain access to features and/or function that they haven't paid for, and the manufacture clearly did not intend for them to be able to use.
A squeaky clean honest person would call that out as being dishonest, and tell them that they should have paid more for these extra features if they need to use them.
The thing is about morals and ethics is not everyone thinks the same way. I suppose it's universal that killing people and taking someone's property, without their permission, is wrong. However, there will be circumstances when the aforementioned will be justified my the majority of people, i.e. killing someone to defend one's family or seizure of illicit goods such as a pedophile's computer containing child abuse material.
Then there are other things such as abortion, adultery, contraception etc. which people have widely differing views on.
As far as hacking an oscilloscope is concerned. I believe it is perfectly ethical to do so. It is not stealing. On purchase of the item, the manufacture has surrendered all their rights to the new owner, who can do as they please with it, including unlocking hidden features. I think it's unethical for a manufacture to sell something, which is deliberately crippled and charge a ransom to unlock extra features. If the manufacture doesn't want you to unlock hidden features, without paying extra for them, then they should insist you agree to this before purchase of the item.
I believe hacking an oscilloscope is totally different to downloading music, software etc. without permission of the content creator, which I normally consider to be unethical, although may be circumstances when I think it's fair, even though it would be in breach of copyright.
Of course you're free to stick with your stance but don't expect others to change theirs.
-
On purchase of the item, the manufacture has surrendered all their rights to the new owner, who can do as they please with it,...
Which country and legal system are you referring to in that statement?
-
The purpose of copyrights, patents, etc., is not to maximize the benefit that creators get for creating. Improving their ability to derive benefit from their works is the mechanism, not the goal.
No, the goal is to, as so eloquently put in the United States Constitution, promote progress in the sciences and useful arts. This is why copyright and patent terms are limited in length!
Wrong.
Why are you referring to johnny-come-lately document? Especially as your statements are historically wrong!
Patents were introduced so that people would share information, techniques and advances.
Yes. And what purpose do you believe such sharing serves? Do you believe it has no purpose other than itself? If the sharing alone is the end purpose, then an unlimited patent term serves just as well as a limited patent term. Better, even, because it would mean that there would no longer be much, if any, tradeoff between sharing and not sharing, no longer much, if any, justification for not sharing, since anyone who ever attempted to use that which was found in a patent without the patent holder's permission would be doing so illegally.
The first modern UK patent was issued 150 years before the document you mention, in 1624. There were forerunners for a few centuries before that across Europe.
I never said that patents or copyright originate with the United States Constitution, and that you believe I did means that I wasn't sufficiently clear (though I'm at a loss to see how I wasn't sufficiently clear).
No, I'm only stating that the United States Constitution captures the purpose of patents, copyrights, and other such instruments very well.
Do you disagree with the purpose it states?
-
On purchase of the item, the manufacture has surrendered all their rights to the new owner, who can do as they please with it,...
Which country and legal system are you referring to in that statement?
Are you going to use the law itself as the axiomatic basis for your arguments here?
Or do you subscribe to some other more fundamental set of axioms from which the law that you agree with is a derivative of?
If the latter, then the country and legal system is irrelevant except for illustrative purposes.
-
On purchase of the item, the manufacture has surrendered all their rights to the new owner, who can do as they please with it,...
Which country and legal system are you referring to in that statement?
None. My post wasn't about the law but ethics so your comment is irrelevant.
-
The upgrade options for oscilloscopes are sold in stores and have a price.
Going online and using a key generator instead of buying the code is the same sort of dishonesty as [...]
What if this upgrade option is a piece of additional hardware? And what if this circuitry is easy to build by yourself and you can get the upgrade barely for free?
A lot of us are EE's and we are always happy to enhance circuitry or pimp whole devices. Sometimes to fix problems, sometimes to enhance the functionality.
In the hardware circuitry of such a scope are several possibilities included to enhance the functionality. On another thread a guy showed us how to build a Ethernet connector for the oscilloscope to get the network capabilities. Was this stealing? Or good engineering?
Where is the difference? The device is sold to me and I own it. I went to a shop, put money on the tabled, got a unopened box in my hand.
It is not a rented/leased device, I didn't signed extra paperwork. I didn't agreed in special terms.
If we talk in this forum about hacking hardware, everyone agrees and congratulates the ingenious work.
If we talk about software hacking, a lot of people start to talk about EULA and other paperwork.
EULA's are not the law. They are printed by a company, not the government. They are not legal binding in the most states of this world.
And people arguing they are developers and do this for their living ... they also know how easy it is to compile different versions of firmware with different sets of options.
tl;dr: EE's are fine to modify hardware, but are discussing a lot about software. But both we own inside the same device!
Cheers
hammy
-
Downloading MP3s is a violation of copyright.
I can honestly download MP3s and not violate copyright. I do that with The Amp Hour podcasts, and plenty of BBC World programs.
Apologies. I was insufficiently specific, because I (apparently incorrectly) presumed that my statement would be taken to be made in the same context you were implying by yours.
That would be a logical presumption anywhere but here, but nooooooo.
I've given up trying to argue morality with these people. It's pointless.
-
I've given up trying to argue morality with these people. It's pointless.
You're right. If your reason for engaging in this debate was to change other people's ethical position on hacking oscilloscopes, then you've wasted your time. All you can do is state your personal opinion but don't expect to convert others with the opposing view.
-
On purchase of the item, the manufacture has surrendered all their rights to the new owner, who can do as they please with it,...
Which country and legal system are you referring to in that statement?
None. My post wasn't about the law but ethics so your comment is irrelevant.
So you live in Erewhon, and your ethics are derived from 999oreh. I wish you had said so earlier, then those of us that live on Planet Earth and have ethical systems with a long pedigree could have ignored you.
-
So you live in Erewhon, and your ethics are derived from 999oreh. I wish you had said so earlier, then those of us that live on Planet Earth and have ethical systems with a long pedigree could have ignored you.
What consistent and objective metric do you propose to measure a system of ethics by, hmm?
-
I've given up trying to argue morality with these people. It's pointless.
You're right. If your reason for engaging in this debate was to change other people's ethical position on hacking oscilloscopes, then you've wasted your time. All you can do is state your personal opinion but don't expect to convert others with the opposing view.
I'm not attempting to convert anybody but when you write two whole page of well reasoned, thoughtful argument but accidentally write "download mp3s" instead of "download copyrighted mp3s" and the only replies you get are along the lines of "you're wrong because there's lots of mp3s I can download legally", then... :-//
A detailed instruction manual and schematic for morality isn't possible, sorry.
Which of these is morally right?
a) A home hobbyist unlocking the extra bandwidth/features of his DS1054Z
b) A small company buying 10 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
c) A government department buying 1,000 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
d) A corporation buying 10,000 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
((c) Is obviously OK because Rigols are Chinese and we shouldn't be sending any taxpayer money to China...)
-
Which of these is morally right?
a) A home hobbyist unlocking the extra bandwidth/features of his DS1054Z
b) A small company buying 10 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
c) A government department buying 1,000 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
d) A corporation buying 10,000 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
All of the above are morally right as far as I am concerned. The individual/organisation has purchased the item and are completely within their rights to enter a code to unlock all the features.
You may disagree with me and you're completely within your rights to do so.
-
Which of these is morally right?
a) A home hobbyist unlocking the extra bandwidth/features of his DS1054Z
b) A small company buying 10 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
c) A government department buying 1,000 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
d) A corporation buying 10,000 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
All of the above are morally right as far as I am concerned. The individual/organisation has purchased the item and are completely within their rights to enter a code to unlock all the features.
And if you ever manufacture anything similar, you'll be totally OK with people doing stuff like that?
-
Which of these is morally right?
a) A home hobbyist unlocking the extra bandwidth/features of his DS1054Z
b) A small company buying 10 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
c) A government department buying 1,000 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
d) A corporation buying 10,000 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
All of the above are morally right as far as I am concerned. The individual/organisation has purchased the item and are completely within their rights to enter a code to unlock all the features.
And if you ever manufacture anything similar, you'll be totally OK with people doing stuff like that?
Yes.
-
There has been no reference to time limits - you've just added that to try and bolster your argument. Come on - you're getting desperate.
Not really. Profit is something that accumulates over time, so time itself is actually highly relevant here (and unavoidable, actually). Were this not the case, the length of time of patents and copyrights would be irrelevant, and a copyright term that's only good for a day would thus be just as good as a copyright term that's good for 95 years.
GIVE IT A REST!
At no time has anyone said that IP should last indefinitely - not have they inferred anything of the sort. I, certainly, have no objections, concerns or reservations on that score. The time periods (in whatever jurisdiction) are part of law - and have been deliberated upon with fair opportunity for the creator to capitalise on their work.
This angle on your argument is nothing short of invention. If you wanted to introduce the time element into discussions, you would have been better off asking first, rather than just launching into an assumption as wide as the Gulf of Mexico.
Your continued stance on this thin ice simply underlines your lack of interest in an objective discussion. I can't take much of what you say as having merit when you lean on a point that simply doesn't support you - and yet you refuse to fall down.
-
There has been no reference to time limits - you've just added that to try and bolster your argument. Come on - you're getting desperate.
Not really. Profit is something that accumulates over time, so time itself is actually highly relevant here (and unavoidable, actually). Were this not the case, the length of time of patents and copyrights would be irrelevant, and a copyright term that's only good for a day would thus be just as good as a copyright term that's good for 95 years.
GIVE IT A REST!
At no time has anyone said that IP should last indefinitely - not have they inferred anything of the sort. I, certainly, have no objections, concerns or reservations on that score. The time periods (in whatever jurisdiction) are part of law - and have been deliberated upon with fair opportunity for the creator to capitalise on their work.
This angle on your argument is nothing short of invention. If you wanted to introduce the time element into discussions, you would have been better off asking first, rather than just launching into an assumption as wide as the Gulf of Mexico.
Your continued stance on this thin ice simply underlines your lack of interest in an objective discussion. I can't take much of what you say as having merit when you lean on a point that simply doesn't support you - and yet you refuse to fall down.
You are completely missing the point of the time element.
It is the litmus test of whether or not you truly believe the profit to the creator should be maximized.
If you believe the profit to the creator should be maximized, then it follows that you must also believe that the protections in question should not have a time limit. Conversely, if you believe the protections in question should have a time limit, then it follows that you cannot believe that profit to the creator should be maximized (though that doesn't prevent you from believing that it should be maximized within the time period in question).
Each stance has logical implications.
Since you've made your stance on the time period question plain, then my next question is: do you believe profit to the creator should be maximized during the period of time of the allowed protection?
Perhaps, rather than get at the end goal through a series of questions, I should go for it directly: what is the root set of axioms from which your beliefs about a creator's control over his created works are logically derived?
-
Copyright is moving towards an infinite period of time. It's already longer than the average human lifespan. In my opinion this is wrong, especially for things such as computer software which becomes outdated very quickly. For software, a copyright period of 25 years after creation of the work, is more than enough as far as I'm concerned.
Which of these is morally right?
a) A home hobbyist unlocking the extra bandwidth/features of his DS1054Z
b) A small company buying 10 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
c) A government department buying 1,000 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
d) A corporation buying 10,000 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
All of the above are morally right as far as I am concerned. The individual/organisation has purchased the item and are completely within their rights to enter a code to unlock all the features.
And if you ever manufacture anything similar, you'll be totally OK with people doing stuff like that?
Yes.
To expand further, as I believe the practise of crippling hardware, until the user pays a random, is inherently unethical, I wouldn't do it in the first place.
Of course this is an ethical position, not the law.
I don't work in the manufacturing sector at the moment. At my last job I designed powder filling machines and my employer was respectable enough not to practise such shady business tactics as crippleware. In fact, when they sold a machine, they gave the customer, a full schematic diagram, along with a copy of the source code, to help them repair and maintain it. Occasionally we'd encounter cheap Chinese copies of our machines but it didn't bother us, since they were inferior and we didn't attempt to compete on price. This model worked very well for us and we got a lot of repeat orders.
-
Downloading MP3s is a violation of copyright.
I can honestly download MP3s and not violate copyright. I do that with The Amp Hour podcasts, and plenty of BBC World programs.
Apologies. I was insufficiently specific, because I (apparently incorrectly) presumed that my statement would be taken to be made in the same context you were implying by yours.
That would be a logical presumption anywhere but here, but nooooooo.
I've given up trying to argue morality with these people. It's pointless.
FINALLY!!! The light dawns!!! Arguing morality on the internet is like trying to have sex with an alligator; a whole mess of thrashing about, and no good can come of it.* ;)
I've given up trying to argue morality with these people. It's pointless.
You're right. If your reason for engaging in this debate was to change other people's ethical position on hacking oscilloscopes, then you've wasted your time. All you can do is state your personal opinion but don't expect to convert others with the opposing view.
I'm not attempting to convert anybody but when you write two whole page of well reasoned, thoughtful argument but accidentally write "download mp3s" instead of "download copyrighted mp3s" and the only replies you get are along the lines of "you're wrong because there's lots of mp3s I can download legally", then... :-//
A detailed instruction manual and schematic for morality isn't possible, sorry.
Which of these is morally right?
a) A home hobbyist unlocking the extra bandwidth/features of his DS1054Z
b) A small company buying 10 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
c) A government department buying 1,000 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
d) A corporation buying 10,000 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
((c) Is obviously OK because Rigols are Chinese and we shouldn't be sending any taxpayer money to China...)
All of the above. There is no licensing agreement on the hardware in question, not even a punch-through on first turn on. Not even a real lock; just obfuscation of the location of the switch in the software. The rest of what y'all have been arguing the last couple days is just arguing over a line in the fog.
And why should we not be sending any Taxpayer Money to China? They own the vast majority of the loans that are funding our "Neverending War" over oil in the Mideast. Sooner or later we need to start paying them back. I certainly don't want to have to teach my children to speak Mandarin because they finally got tired of waiting and just took ownership of the USA. ::)
mnem
* Unless you're an alligator. :p
-
You are completely missing the point of the time element.
It is the litmus test of whether or not you truly believe the profit to the creator should be maximized.
If you believe the profit to the creator should be maximized, then it follows that you must also believe that the protections in question should not have a time limit. Conversely, if you believe the protections in question should have a time limit, then it follows that you cannot believe that profit to the creator should be maximized (though that doesn't prevent you from believing that it should be maximized within the time period in question).
Seriously?
Obfuscation, tangents, ignorance, irrelevance and invention are not legitimate discussion practices. These are the stuff of politicians, used car salesmen and trolls.
You accuse me of not 'getting' the point when it is you, yourself, who is travelling in directions that are less relevant than you make them out to be. If I were to refrain from further debate, you may want to claim victory - but that would only be a fabrication. You haven't convinced me.
Give my regards to the straw man. Sounds like an old friend of yours.
-
You are completely missing the point of the time element.
It is the litmus test of whether or not you truly believe the profit to the creator should be maximized.
If you believe the profit to the creator should be maximized, then it follows that you must also believe that the protections in question should not have a time limit. Conversely, if you believe the protections in question should have a time limit, then it follows that you cannot believe that profit to the creator should be maximized (though that doesn't prevent you from believing that it should be maximized within the time period in question).
Seriously?
Obfuscation,
What obfuscation? Where have I refused to define the terms I've been using? Where have I used one meaning of a word and then used a different meaning within the same discussion? Where have I been inconsistent in the use of terms? You've made the accusation, so it's on you to back your accusation with substance.
tangents,
These are necessary to explore the branches that inevitably occur during a discussion. Those branches occur precisely because not everything is clear from the beginning.
ignorance,
If I am failing to account for some set of facts, or have gotten some set of facts wrong, please point it out.
irrelevance
Which parts of what I have raised have been irrelevant to the discussion of intellectual property?
and invention
Logical consequence and invention are not the same thing. It is the former, not the latter, that I am invoking. If I "invent" anything here, it is inadvertent, not intended. So again, because you raise the accusation, it's on you to back it with evidence.
You accuse me of not 'getting' the point when it is you, yourself, who is travelling in directions that are less relevant than you make them out to be. If I were to refrain from further debate, you may want to claim victory - but that would only be a fabrication. You haven't convinced me.
I realize I haven't convinced you, nor did I expect that I had. If I fail to do so, then so be it. I am limited in what I can do.
So, back to the topic at hand. Are you going to answer my question about axioms or not?
-
Interesting.
I recognise the above technique - and know full well you are never going to concede any point I (or several others for that matter) make, no matter how well defined and demonstrated. At the risk of being tautological, in your world, I doubt any axioms can exist that are not congruent with your established thinking.
Here's an axiom for you: Arguing with a brick is pointless.
-
Interesting.
I recognise the above technique - and know full well you are never going to concede any point I (or several others for that matter) make, no matter how well defined and demonstrated.
You do not know that, and I flatly deny that such is the case.
Make a point backed by airtight logical argument (backed by solid evidence, where evidence is necessary), and I must concede the point.
At the risk of being tautological, in your world, I doubt any axioms can exist that are not congruent with your established thinking.
There are plenty such axioms. Axioms are something that people can disagree about, and because they are axioms, there is no way to resolve that kind of disagreement (well, except perhaps through demonstration of internal inconsistency, but that only works if the internal inconsistency is actually there).
For instance, the axiom of the existence of a divine creator is one I do not subscribe to. There are obviously many who do, however.
Here's an axiom for you: Arguing with a brick is pointless.
I agree with that. But a brick I am not. Difficult to convince, perhaps. But as long as the disagreement is not axiomatic in nature, then it will not be impossible if it can be shown, through evidence and logic, that I am incorrect. Indeed, flaws in my arguments, facts, etc., are things I want to know about because I do not tolerate incorrectness in myself. While perfect correctness is (I expect) impossible for me to achieve, that doesn't keep me from trying.
The subject we're talking about might be a rather poor one for demonstration of all that. :(
So, for the second time: are you going to answer my question about axioms or not? If not, would you at least answer the question I asked about maximizing profit during the limited time window afforded by law?
I can either attempt to determine the axiomatic basis for your views through a series of questions, or I can ask for it directly. I'm willing to go either way. You're probably wondering why I'm doing this. The answer is that I detect a potential internal inconsistency in your position, and wish to determine if it is there or not. If it is not there, then we must either disagree at an axiomatic level, or my position is somehow in error. And I cannot determine that without knowing what the axiomatic basis of your position is.
-
Which of these is morally right?
a) A home hobbyist unlocking the extra bandwidth/features of his DS1054Z
b) A small company buying 10 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
c) A government department buying 1,000 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
d) A corporation buying 10,000 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
All of the above. There is no licensing agreement on the hardware in question, not even a punch-through on first turn on. Not even a real lock; just obfuscation of the location of the switch in the software.
Who said anything about licensing agreements or how difficult it is to do? :-//
FINALLY!!! The light dawns!!! Arguing morality on the internet is like trying to have sex with an alligator; a whole mess of thrashing about, and no good can come of it.
Let me guess: You're the alligator and we're the humans, right?
-
Which of these is morally right?
a) A home hobbyist unlocking the extra bandwidth/features of his DS1054Z
b) A small company buying 10 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
c) A government department buying 1,000 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
d) A corporation buying 10,000 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
All of the above. There is no licensing agreement on the hardware in question, not even a punch-through on first turn on. Not even a real lock; just obfuscation of the location of the switch in the software.
Who said anything about licensing agreements or how difficult it is to do? :-//
Suppose license agreements are not in the mix at all.
What is the practical difference between hacking your scope by way of supplying a magic key to the firmware, and hacking your scope by way of modifying the hardware to make it more capable than it came from the factory?
Take the Siglent SDS2000X series scopes, for instance. Dave Jones' recent teardown strongly suggests that one can modify the bandwidth capabilities of the frontend simply by replacing a capacitor and a diode (if I'm remembering rightly). Suppose for the moment that one can modify it in that way in order to increase the bandwidth of the scope. If one does so, how is that any different than supplying a magic key to the firmware to achieve the same thing?
If they are no different from each other, then you must believe that hacking the hardware of your scope to improve its capabilities is just as unethical as supplying a magic key to the firmware. In both cases, you are turning the scope into something more capable than what you paid for. Therefore, what in the world justifies any ethical difference between the two?
-
Therefore, what in the world justifies any ethical difference between the two?
One of them requires breaking the "warranty void if removed" sticker.
-
Therefore, what in the world justifies any ethical difference between the two?
One of them requires breaking the "warranty void if removed" sticker.
I void warranties with extreme prejudice.
Which of these is morally right?
a) A home hobbyist unlocking the extra bandwidth/features of his DS1054Z
b) A small company buying 10 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
c) A government department buying 1,000 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
d) A corporation buying 10,000 DS1054Zs and unlocking them all
All of the above. There is no licensing agreement on the hardware in question, not even a punch-through on first turn on. Not even a real lock; just obfuscation of the location of the switch in the software.
Who said anything about licensing agreements or how difficult it is to do? :-//
FINALLY!!! The light dawns!!! Arguing morality on the internet is like trying to have sex with an alligator; a whole mess of thrashing about, and no good can come of it.
Let me guess: You're the alligator and we're the humans, right?
Is that a proposition? Because, quite frankly, I don't think you're the alligator's type. ;)
The "licensing" and how it's locked down have everything to do with this because I BOUGHT the damned thing, I DID NOT RENT IT.
I OWN IT. Even under US Law, if it were applicable, I have the right to disassemble it, EVEN THE COPY OF SOFTWARE THAT IS ON IT, to see how it works and if I have the skills, I have the right to modify that hardware or software. If I can figure out HOW, I have the right to make an archive copy of that software to protect the functionality of my investment in that hardware. If I have the technical capability to reverse engineer the hardware and create my own schematic, I legally have the right to duplicate the entire device for my own use.
As this device is manufactured and sold in China, which protections are even less stringent than here, I could also probably go into business SELLING that reverse-engineered hardware/software product.
MORALITY has nothing to do with it. I OWN the fu**ing thing, because that is my minimum right under any applicable law, and because the ONLY protection that MIGHT apply is a "break-seal" or "punch-through" license on the software, and the manufacturer didn't care enough about preventing me from using those "un-paid-for features" to protect the device with these most elemental safeguards, so why should I hold myself to some mythic higher standard than even the company who made and sold it to me?
Even Superman would laugh in your face over this... and I'm not talking Zack Snyder's "SuperAssholeMan", I'm talking full-tilt "Last Boy Scout" Christopher Reeve Superman here.
Jeezus H. Christ A-Hoppin' on a pogo stick; some folks are thick.
mnem
That's one bouncy Jeezus.
-
Therefore, what in the world justifies any ethical difference between the two?
One of them requires breaking the "warranty void if removed" sticker.
In the absence of a warranty claim, on what grounds is there any ethical difference?
(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)
-
I OWN IT. Even under US Law, if it were applicable, I have the right to disassemble it, EVEN THE COPY OF SOFTWARE THAT IS ON IT, to see how it works and if I have the skills, I have the right to modify that hardware or software. If I can figure out HOW, I have the right to make an archive copy of that software to protect the functionality of my investment in that hardware. If I have the technical capability to reverse engineer the hardware and create my own schematic, I legally have the right to duplicate the entire device for my own use.
Have you ever heard of the DMCA? N.B. it doesn't matter a pig's whistle whether or not you like or agree with the DMCA. - it still applies to you. And, if the b*****s negotiating the TPP and TTIP get their way, everybody else.
I OWN the fu**ing thing,
Before you "own" something, you have to buy it. When you <expletive deleted> buy anything, you enter into a contract with a supplier, in which they offer and supply "something" in exchange for your "monetary consideration". The "something" is defined in advance, as is the "monetary consideration". Added into that mix is whatever is stated in the local laws. N.B. not, as the naive presume, local justice (and not even the naive consider morality/ethics in that context).
If the manufacturer wasn't offering "something", you cannot have bought "something" and therefore cannot "own" "something".
So, if you don't like what is offered for sale, don't buy it.
-
Have you ever heard of the DMCA? N.B. it doesn't matter a pig's whistle whether or not you like or agree with the DMCA. - it still applies to you. And, if the b*****s negotiating the TPP and TTIP get their way, everybody else.
Yes, the DMCA applies.
The DMCA has a reverse engineering exception built into it, but it's pretty limited.
Even so, the basis of the DMCA is copyright. It protects copying of the work. Since reverse engineering of software generally involves copying of some form, that means that you generally can't perform reverse engineering of it without violating copyright.
Such is not true of hardware.
And such is not true when one enters a magic key into an oscilloscope, either. No copying of the software in the oscilloscope takes place.
However, having read up on some case law on the subject, it does appear that the DMCA comes into play with respect to "access to the work". While Congress did not define what it meant, a number of cases have interpreted that to include access to functionality, which means that an interpretation that says "entering keys into the oscilloscope without getting the prior permission of the manufacturer is a violation of the DMCA" is apparently a reasonable one in the eyes of at least some of the courts.
Before you "own" something, you have to buy it. When you <expletive deleted> buy anything, you enter into a contract with a supplier, in which they offer and supply "something" in exchange for your "monetary consideration". The "something" is defined in advance, as is the "monetary consideration".
Usually the "something" is defined by the thing itself. Which is to say, you're buying the object you receive and everything it contains, whatever that might be. It happens to come configured by the manufacturer in the way the manufacturer intends, but that does not make configuration changes by the purchaser "wrong". Such changes would be "wrong" if the purchaser agrees in advance to not make such changes, but absent such an agreement, what exactly is the justification for the claim that making those changes is "wrong"?
So, if you don't like what is offered for sale, don't buy it.
What is offered for sale is often perceived by the buyer as not just what he's receiving at the time of purchase, but what it can become after he modifies it to suit his tastes. Which is to say, it is not uncommon for someone to buy something with the intention of changing it to make it more capable. What is wrong with that?
If you insist that it is wrong for someone to modify, alter the configuration of, etc., something that he buys without the explicit permission of the manufacturer, then all I can say is that such an opinion may not be as widely shared as you think. There are multitudes of people who modify their cars to make them substantially more capable than how they come from the manufacturer. Those people would be amused to hear that what they've done is "wrong".
-
There are multitudes of people who modify their cars to make them substantially more capable than how they come from the manufacturer. Those people would be amused to hear that what they've done is "wrong".
What they do costs them time and money. They're not just cutting open the secret compartment under the car and pressing a magic button. This car analogy doesn't work, does it?
Let's try a different tack. Suppose Rigol sold upgrade keys that worked on any oscilloscope, not locked to serial numbers.
a) If you bought an unlock code would you be happy to give it to your friends?
b) Should a company buy 1,000 DS1054Zs from Rigol and one unlock code then apply the code to all of them?
(Yes, we get that Mr rootin-tootin-crocodile would give his license away - it don't cost him nuthin' to do that, so why not...?)
-
There are multitudes of people who modify their cars to make them substantially more capable than how they come from the manufacturer. Those people would be amused to hear that what they've done is "wrong".
What they do costs them time and money. They're not just cutting open the secret compartment under the car and pressing a magic button. This car analogy doesn't work, does it?
It doesn't always work, certainly, but all modifications require time, even if minimal.
For instance, if I remove an air restrictor from my engine, that could take a minimal amount of time and yield a larger amount of power. That would qualify as the sort of modification that some here seem to think is "wrong", would it not?
In any case, if time and/or money is the litmus test, then reverse engineering software and modifying it to make it more capable, which can take quite a lot of time and may even take a decent amount of money for the necessary software tools, hardware interface tools, etc., would certainly be more equivalent to the sorts of car modifications that you're probably thinking of, no? And yet, do you not regard such efforts as "wrong"?
Note that I am not arguing that such reverse engineering is not a violation of copyright law! It almost certainly is. But as long as the person in question does not distribute his modifications, the analogy would be sound, no?
Where do you draw the line as regards time, effort, and/or money, and why? How is that line, if you draw it at all, not arbitrary?
Furthermore, the modification you make to your car may well give it the same capabilities as a more expensive model from the same manufacturer, but for a substantially smaller cash outlay (example: 2014 Mustang GT with supercharger modifications versus 2014 GT500). Since the manufacturer in that case has made it clear that they intend you to pay a certain amount for the larger amount of capability, is it not wrong for you to modify your car to achieve that capability at a substantially lower price?
Let's try a different tack. Suppose Rigol sold upgrade keys that worked on any oscilloscope, not locked to serial numbers.
a) If you bought an unlock code would you be happy to give it to your friends?
That is actually a great question.
If there was no stipulation in the transaction that the code was to be used on only one oscilloscope, and absent the below consideration, then sure. That which is not forbidden is allowed. But that presumes that the code isn't covered under copyright (it probably is, under the DMCA if nothing else).
If your question is whether or not I would consider it wrong to give the resulting code away, well, that would depend on whether or not it is something that could be discovered independently. If it is something that is not discoverable (e.g., it is generated from the private key half of a public/private key pair), then I would consider it wrong to give it away -- because it would mean that the manufacturer has done its due diligence to ensure that the functionality it wishes to protect is protected by the mechanism it chose to use. If it is something that is independently discoverable, then I would not consider it wrong to give it away -- because it would mean that the manufacturer chose to use an independently discoverable code despite the ease with which an undiscoverable code could have been used. The latter means that I would have to presume that the manufacturer intended to gain a marketing edge through the use of such a means, in which case who am I to argue with them on that?
b) Should a company buy 1,000 DS1054Zs from Rigol and one unlock code then apply the code to all of them?
I'd say my reply above covers this as well, though there are likely additional legal considerations which change the balance in favor of buying one code per device. That said, we both know that many companies generally act as if the only thing that matters is their profits, so I would expect Rigol to explicitly state the terms of use of the unlock code in that case, simply because they're not naive enough to expect a company to act in any sort of ethical fashion.
Now it's my turn.
If you discover that your scope's bandwidth can be tripled simply by changing out a few capacitors and resistors, is it wrong for you to make that modification? After all, in doing so, you have spent much less money and time to acquire a scope with capabilities that command a much higher price in the form of a higher bandwidth model in the same line, which means that the manufacturer clearly intends you to spend much more than you did in order to acquire a scope with the bandwidth you achieved. Therefore, have you not deprived the manufacturer of deserved profits? Have you not thwarted the manufacturer's market segmentation intent?
Is it wrong for you to describe the details of that modification on a public forum like this one? How about to supply parts kits with instructions?
-
There are multitudes of people who modify their cars to make them substantially more capable than how they come from the manufacturer. Those people would be amused to hear that what they've done is "wrong".
What they do costs them time and money. They're not just cutting open the secret compartment under the car and pressing a magic button.
Not necessarily. Sometimes upgrading the performance of a car is as simple as changing the ECU settings. Warranty aside, I believe the only legal issues are insurance as the car is now faster, so may require a higher premium and liability i.e. if such a modification makes the vehicle dangerous but that should be covered under insurance and if it still passes the emissions tests. Other than that, it's not much different to hacking one's oscilloscope.
-
Furthermore, the modification you make to your car may well give it the same capabilities as a more expensive model from the same manufacturer, but for a substantially smaller cash outlay (example: 2014 Mustang GT with supercharger modifications versus 2014 GT500). Since the manufacturer in that case has made it clear that they intend you to pay a certain amount for the larger amount of capability, is it not wrong for you to modify your car to achieve that capability at a substantially lower price?
Normally the more expensive model has more stuff - better brakes, better steering, better interior, more gadgets. I don't think there's any cars where the only difference is the engine.
But let's suppose the only difference is the engine power.
Take a look around at the sort of person who actually remaps their ECU. What personality type are they? I think the answer is in there somewhere.
b) Should a company buy 1,000 DS1054Zs from Rigol and one unlock code then apply the code to all of them?
I'd say my reply above covers this as well, though there are likely additional legal considerations which change the balance in favor of buying one code per device.
Legal/technical considerations aside, would anybody here feel totally comfortable walking into a Rigol sales office and asking for a quote for 1000 DS1054Zs plus an upgrade key for one of them.
If you discover that your scope's bandwidth can be tripled simply by changing out a few capacitors and resistors, is it wrong for you to make that modification?
If it requires rescinding your warranty, then... at least you're giving something back.
Plus: This one is a sliding scale. What if there were aftermarket motherboards that could give you then times the bandwidth? Is it OK to use the DS1054Z case/screen/power supply with those boards? I'd say "yes".
-
Take a look around at the sort of person who actually remaps their ECU. What personality type are they? I think the answer is in there somewhere.
Not sure what you mean here but about 12+ years ago I bought a spare ECU for my car and took it apart and reverse engineered it.
I went on to reverse engineer a few more and I got down as far as producing block diagrams for how the fuelling and timing and knock sensor system worked in the more advanced ECUs. eg how it measured and stored data from the knock sensor and how it used this data to modify the fuelling and timing. I basically reverse engineered all of the code in the ECU and knew how every map was used with respect to incoming sensor data. I even modified the code (and the hardware) to allow the car to be remapped in real time on a rolling road with a PC by exploiting hidden functionality within the ECU. i.e. stuff I found in the code that was left there in the ROM by the original ECU developers.
I'm not sure how legal this was but I really don't care. It was my car, my property. I learned a lot about how to write efficient code (especially wrt 3D mapping) and how to put failsafe measures into a system.
-
Take a look around at the sort of person who actually remaps their ECU. What personality type are they? I think the answer is in there somewhere.
Not sure what you mean here but about 12+ years ago I bought a spare ECU for my car and took it apart and reverse engineered it.
I went on to reverse engineer a few more and I got down as far as producing block diagrams for how the fuelling and timing and knock sensor system worked in the more advanced ECUs. eg how it measured and stored data from the knock sensor and how it used this data to modify the fuelling and timing. I basically reverse engineered all of the code in the ECU and knew how every map was used with respect to incoming sensor data. I even modified the code (and the hardware) to allow the car to be remapped in real time on a rolling road with a PC by exploiting hidden functionality within the ECU. i.e. stuff I found in the code that was left there in the ROM by the original ECU developers.
I'm not sure how legal this was but I really don't care. It was my car, my property. I learned a lot about how to write efficient code (especially wrt 3D mapping) and how to put failsafe measures into a system.
OK, you;re the hacker. I'm referring to the script-kiddies.
-
Furthermore, the modification you make to your car may well give it the same capabilities as a more expensive model from the same manufacturer, but for a substantially smaller cash outlay (example: 2014 Mustang GT with supercharger modifications versus 2014 GT500). Since the manufacturer in that case has made it clear that they intend you to pay a certain amount for the larger amount of capability, is it not wrong for you to modify your car to achieve that capability at a substantially lower price?
Normally the more expensive model has more stuff - better brakes, better steering, better interior, more gadgets. I don't think there's any cars where the only difference is the engine.
True as that may be, it doesn't have to be. It's up to the manufacturer, right?
Regardless, the aftermarket supplies much more than just engine improvements. On top of that, it is possible to purchase replacement parts from the manufacturer for the upscale model. If you then put those parts on your lower end model, is that unethical, since the manufacturer didn't explicitly authorize that?
The Mustang GT versus GT500 example is an excellent one because all of the GT500 parts will fit on the GT (as far as I know). It's the same platform.
But let's suppose the only difference is the engine power.
Take a look around at the sort of person who actually remaps their ECU. What personality type are they? I think the answer is in there somewhere.
It's not clear to me where you're going with that. The personality type of someone who remaps their ECU is that of someone who wants to maximize the performance of what they have without necessarily spending a whole lot of effort doing so. Why should it matter to them whether or not the manufacturer "intended" them to do so, as long as they're willing to give up warranty coverage?
Legal/technical considerations aside, would anybody here feel totally comfortable walking into a Rigol sales office and asking for a quote for 1000 DS1054Zs plus an upgrade key for one of them.
Why not? That can be easily justified even if one has no intention of using the upgrade key on more than one unit.
If you discover that your scope's bandwidth can be tripled simply by changing out a few capacitors and resistors, is it wrong for you to make that modification?
If it requires rescinding your warranty, then... at least you're giving something back.
What if you intend in both cases (firmware code and hardware modification) to give up warranty protection? Indeed, what says that the manufacturer has to honor the warranty of a scope that's been hacked with a firmware code?
If the warranty question is the only issue, then eliminating that as a concern should ethically green light modification of the scope via a firmware code if modification through hardware is okay under the same conditions, right?
Plus: This one is a sliding scale. What if there were aftermarket motherboards that could give you then times the bandwidth? Is it OK to use the DS1054Z case/screen/power supply with those boards? I'd say "yes".
Does that mean, then, that you believe it would be wrong to modify your scope to give it more bandwidth if the only modification necessary involved replacement of a few capacitors and resistors?
-
My take on this subject is that it is too complicated to ever hope to reach agreement on a forum like this.
I'm not a legal expert so I don't pretend to understand the legal implications. However, I think that within a modern, large company there will be internal ethical rules/reasons why this sort of thing wouldn't be tolerated anyway. So there's no way TE would be hacked at my place of work for example. It would cause an internal shitstorm (to the delight of certain corporate types within the company) and a fair bit of fallout.
But for home/hobby use I offer this youtube video link as a guide as to how I see things. I hope you can all see the funny side of it :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbWg-mozGsU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbWg-mozGsU)
-
Have you ever heard of the DMCA? N.B. it doesn't matter a pig's whistle whether or not you like or agree with the DMCA. - it still applies to you. And, if the b*****s negotiating the TPP and TTIP get their way, everybody else.
Yes, the DMCA applies.
The DMCA has a reverse engineering exception built into it, but it's pretty limited.
Even so, the basis of the DMCA is copyright. It protects copying of the work. Since reverse engineering of software generally involves copying of some form, that means that you generally can't perform reverse engineering of it without violating copyright.
Such is not true of hardware.
And such is not true when one enters a magic key into an oscilloscope, either. No copying of the software in the oscilloscope takes place.
However, having read up on some case law on the subject, it does appear that the DMCA comes into play with respect to "access to the work". While Congress did not define what it meant, a number of cases have interpreted that to include access to functionality, which means that an interpretation that says "entering keys into the oscilloscope without getting the prior permission of the manufacturer is a violation of the DMCA" is apparently a reasonable one in the eyes of at least some of the courts.
Before you "own" something, you have to buy it. When you <expletive deleted> buy anything, you enter into a contract with a supplier, in which they offer and supply "something" in exchange for your "monetary consideration". The "something" is defined in advance, as is the "monetary consideration".
Usually the "something" is defined by the thing itself. Which is to say, you're buying the object you receive and everything it contains, whatever that might be. It happens to come configured by the manufacturer in the way the manufacturer intends, but that does not make configuration changes by the purchaser "wrong". Such changes would be "wrong" if the purchaser agrees in advance to not make such changes, but absent such an agreement, what exactly is the justification for the claim that making those changes is "wrong"?
So, if you don't like what is offered for sale, don't buy it.
What is offered for sale is often perceived by the buyer as not just what he's receiving at the time of purchase, but what it can become after he modifies it to suit his tastes. Which is to say, it is not uncommon for someone to buy something with the intention of changing it to make it more capable. What is wrong with that?
If you insist that it is wrong for someone to modify, alter the configuration of, etc., something that he buys without the explicit permission of the manufacturer, then all I can say is that such an opinion may not be as widely shared as you think. There are multitudes of people who modify their cars to make them substantially more capable than how they come from the manufacturer. Those people would be amused to hear that what they've done is "wrong".
The DMCA is limited JUST EXACTLY as I described it. Where did you get the idea that it removes the right to COPY software? It only removes the right to share a copy with someone ELSE.
EVEN UNDER THE DMCA, aside from certain crypto software, I STILL have the right to make an archive copy FOR MY OWN USE of ANY SOFTWARE that comes as part of a HARDWARE device that I purchase, and I STILL have the right to dismantle that code if I can figure out how. I just cannot SHARE that SOFTWARE with anybody. I CAN share the knowledge I discover about HOW the software works, and even share instructions on how to dismantle it.
THIS is what had everybody up in arms about DVD playback; the dingdongs who created the CODEC weren't prepared for it to be dismantled literally months after it was released. TOO EFFING BAD. VLC is still around, and MicroSuck DVD CODEC is an amusing footnote in history.
The licensing BS y'all are talking about DOES NOT EXIST. For licensing to be in effect, THERE HAS TO BE A LICENSING AGREEMENT, even here in the US there has to be a "break-seal" or "punch-through" licensing agreement somewhere in the course of the purchase. There is none here, and even if there were it wouldn't apply to an item made and sold in China, whose laws DO NOT SUPPORT such licensing.
mnem
|O
-
However, I think that within a modern, large company there will be internal ethical rules/reasons why this sort of thing wouldn't be tolerated anyway. So there's no way TE would be hacked at my place of work for example. It would cause an internal shitstorm (to the delight of certain corporate types within the company) and a fair bit of fallout.
It's funny you should mention this.
We're looking to buy a new low cost oscilloscope where I work. I mentioned the DS1054Z, along with the hack and my manager liked my thinking :) , although I think we'll probably go for the OWON SDS7102V with the battery option because it's more portable and costs the same. Some of the other managers where I work might not like the idea of using hacked test equipment, but they'll never know about it and probably wouldn't understand what it really means if they did.
-
The DMCA is limited JUST EXACTLY as I described it. Where did you get the idea that it removes the right to COPY software? It only removes the right to share a copy with someone ELSE.
I wish that were the case. It's not. You need to read the actual text of the law.
If copyright law did not (with some specific exemptions) remove the right to copy software, and only covered sharing, then there would not need to be an exemption in it for the purpose of execution of the code on the computer, or anything else for that matter.
The DMCA is an addition to general copyright law. It imposes additional prohibitions with respect to measures that control access and/or copying.
EVEN UNDER THE DMCA, aside from certain crypto software, I STILL have the right to make an archive copy FOR MY OWN USE of ANY SOFTWARE that comes as part of a HARDWARE device that I purchase, and I STILL have the right to dismantle that code if I can figure out how.
The exemption for making an archival copy is correct. As for reverse engineering, see below.
I just cannot SHARE that SOFTWARE with anybody. I CAN share the knowledge I discover about HOW the software works, and even share instructions on how to dismantle it.
That is true, but you will be in violation of the law with respect to the reverse engineering required to acquire that knowledge unless:
- you have permission from the copyright holder to perform it, or
- there is no "technological measure" controlling access, and the software is not controlled by a license agreement that you have (implicitly or explicitly) agreed to, and you live in a jurisdiction where reverse engineering is regarded as "fair use", or
- there is a "technological measure" controlling access, and the software is not controlled by a license agreement that you have (implicitly or explicitly) agreed to, and you live in a jurisdiction where reverse engineering is regarded as "fair use", and your reverse engineering effort is for the purposes of interoperability.
The 9th Circuit is one such jurisdiction that considers reverse engineering to be "fair use", but I don't see anything where the Supreme Court has weighed in on the subject, which is why jurisdiction matters.
I strongly suggest you read this: https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq (https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq)
As applied to the Rigol oscilloscope's firmware, if you live in the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, then you'll be able to reverse engineer the firmware without running afoul of copyright law because the firmware isn't guarded by a "technological measure" which controls copying or access, and there is no license associated with the firmware.
The licensing BS y'all are talking about DOES NOT EXIST. For licensing to be in effect, THERE HAS TO BE A LICENSING AGREEMENT, even here in the US there has to be a "break-seal" or "punch-through" licensing agreement somewhere in the course of the purchase. There is none here, and even if there were it wouldn't apply to an item made and sold in China, whose laws DO NOT SUPPORT such licensing.
Yes. Do you realize why there's no license agreement here? It's simple: because there is no software installation step. There is no step that requires copying of the software/firmware that is not covered by the exemption in 17 USC 117(a) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117), which is:
(a)Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
Now, you could say that you should be able to do whatever you want with the software once it's in your possession, provided that you do not share it or derivatives of it with others, and I would agree with you on that, but as regards the law, it goes much further than to cover mere sharing.
-
The DMCA is limited JUST EXACTLY as I described it. Where did you get the idea that it removes the right to COPY software? It only removes the right to share a copy with someone ELSE.
I wish that were the case. It's not. You need to read the actual text of the law.
If copyright law did not (with some specific exemptions) remove the right to copy software, and only covered sharing, then there would not need to be an exemption in it for the purpose of execution of the code on the computer, or anything else for that matter.
The DMCA is an addition to general copyright law. It imposes additional prohibitions with respect to measures that control access and/or copying.
EVEN UNDER THE DMCA, aside from certain crypto software, I STILL have the right to make an archive copy FOR MY OWN USE of ANY SOFTWARE that comes as part of a HARDWARE device that I purchase, and I STILL have the right to dismantle that code if I can figure out how.
The exemption for making an archival copy is correct. As for reverse engineering, see below.
I just cannot SHARE that SOFTWARE with anybody. I CAN share the knowledge I discover about HOW the software works, and even share instructions on how to dismantle it.
That is true, but you will be in violation of the law with respect to the reverse engineering required to acquire that knowledge unless:
- you have permission from the copyright holder to perform it, or
- there is no "technological measure" controlling access, and the software is not controlled by a license agreement that you have (implicitly or explicitly) agreed to, and you live in a jurisdiction where reverse engineering is regarded as "fair use", or
- there is a "technological measure" controlling access, and the software is not controlled by a license agreement that you have (implicitly or explicitly) agreed to, and you live in a jurisdiction where reverse engineering is regarded as "fair use", and your reverse engineering effort is for the purposes of interoperability.
The 9th Circuit is one such jurisdiction that considers reverse engineering to be "fair use", but I don't see anything where the Supreme Court has weighed in on the subject, which is why jurisdiction matters.
I strongly suggest you read this: https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq (https://www.eff.org/issues/coders/reverse-engineering-faq)
As applied to the Rigol oscilloscope's firmware, if you live in the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, then you'll be able to reverse engineer the firmware without running afoul of copyright law because the firmware isn't guarded by a "technological measure" which controls copying or access, and there is no license associated with the firmware.
The licensing BS y'all are talking about DOES NOT EXIST. For licensing to be in effect, THERE HAS TO BE A LICENSING AGREEMENT, even here in the US there has to be a "break-seal" or "punch-through" licensing agreement somewhere in the course of the purchase. There is none here, and even if there were it wouldn't apply to an item made and sold in China, whose laws DO NOT SUPPORT such licensing.
Yes. Do you realize why there's no license agreement here? It's simple: because there is no software installation step. There is no step that requires copying of the software/firmware that is not covered by the exemption in 17 USC 117(a) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/117), which is:
(a)Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.—Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
Now, you could say that you should be able to do whatever you want with the software once it's in your possession, provided that you do not share it or derivatives of it with others, and I would agree with you on that, but as regards the law, it goes much further than to cover mere sharing.
It doesn't matter where I live. It matters where the sale was made, and if any portion of the sales agreement includes a software license. The software installation has to include a "punch-through" licensing agreement, or there's no licensing THERE, either. Even if it did, I could buy the item used at a flea market and do any damned thing I want with it, aside from those very special "crypto" softwares I was talking about.
NONE OF THIS APPLIES HERE. PERIOD. It is a tool made and sold in China. THEIR laws at the time of the sale apply. PERIOD.
mnem
Not without my crundoscope!
-
It may be bad form to reply to my own message, but even so, this is one of those cases where it makes sense to do so.
However, having read up on some case law on the subject, it does appear that the DMCA comes into play with respect to "access to the work". While Congress did not define what it meant, a number of cases have interpreted that to include access to functionality, which means that an interpretation that says "entering keys into the oscilloscope without getting the prior permission of the manufacturer is a violation of the DMCA" is apparently a reasonable one in the eyes of at least some of the courts.
There's a very interesting case, LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16859592332175262551), which bears directly on the above question. And it indicates that the codes we've been discussing do not fall under the DMCA's prohibitions, that for it to do so, what is protected must itself be copyrightable expression, not merely function. See for yourself:
In the essential setting where the DMCA applies, the copyright protection operates on two planes: in the literal code governing the work and in the visual or audio manifestation generated by the code's execution. For example, the encoded data on CDs translates into music and on DVDs into motion pictures, while the program commands in software for video games or computers translate into some other visual and audio manifestation. In the cases upon which Lexmark relies, restricting "use" of the work means restricting consumers from making use of the copyrightable expression in the work. See 321 Studios, 307 F. Supp. 2d at 1095 (movies contained on DVDs protected by an encryption algorithm cannot be watched without a player that contains an access key); Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d at 303 (same); Gamemasters, 87 F. Supp. 2d at 981 (Sony's game console prevented operation of unauthorized video games). As shown above, the DMCA applies in these settings when the product manufacturer prevents all access to the copyrightable material and the alleged infringer responds by marketing a device that circumvents the technological measure designed to guard access to the copyrightable material.
The copyrightable expression in the Printer Engine Program, by contrast, operates on only one plane: in the literal elements of the program, its source and object code. Unlike the code underlying video games or DVDs, "using" or executing the Printer Engine Program does not in turn create any protected expression. Instead, the program's output is purely functional: the Printer Engine Program "controls a number of operations" in the Lexmark printer such as "paper feed[,] paper movement[,] [and] motor control." Lexmark Br. at 9; cf. Lotus Dev., 49 F.3d at 815 (determining that menu command hierarchy is an "uncopyrightable method of operation"). And unlike the code underlying video games or DVDs, no encryption or other technological measure prevents access to the Printer Engine Program. Presumably, it is precisely because the Printer Engine Program is not a conduit to protectable expression that explains why Lexmark (or any other printer company) would not block access to the computer software that makes the printer work. Because Lexmark's authentication sequence does not restrict access to this literal code, the DMCA does not apply.
(emphasis mine in the above)
It is not functionality that the DMCA protects, it is copyrightable material. Copyrightable material is expression, not function.
Importantly, Lexmark did not appeal the above decision, which almost certainly means they believed they wouldn't be able to prevail on the merits at the Supreme Court.
So it appears that my prior assessment is likely incorrect, that the use of the magic codes in conjunction with the scope's firmware is not a violation of copyright or of the DMCA, precisely because the magic codes do not protect copyrightable material, but only function, and do not result in any unauthorized copying of or access to copyrighted works.
So: ethical or not, using these magic codes to unlock the functionality in these scopes is not illegal in the United States. Those of you who use the law itself as the basis for ethical judgments would do well to think on that.
-
It doesn't matter where I live. It matters where the sale was made, and if any portion of the sales agreement includes a software license. The software installation has to include a "punch-through" licensing agreement, or there's no licensing THERE, either. Even if it did, I could buy the item used at a flea market and do any damned thing I want with it, aside from those very special "crypto" softwares I was talking about.
NONE OF THIS APPLIES HERE. PERIOD. It is a tool made and sold in China. THEIR laws at the time of the sale apply. PERIOD.
No. If that were the case, you'd be able to legally purchase a DVD copy of a movie in, say, Afghanistan, then bring it back here to the United States, then make an arbitrary number of copies of it and distribute those copies to whomever you like, and not run afoul of U.S. copyright law.
Law governs actions that are taken while under the jurisdiction of the law in question. Copyright limits copying and access to copyrighted expression. If you make a copy of a copyrighted work while in the United States, then United States copyright law is controlling. The origination point of the sale of the work is meaningless with respect to actions you later take with what you purchased.
But because there is no license agreement involved ("click through" or otherwise), the firmware was legally obtained through the sale, and the exemptions in U.S. copyright law are applicable (those exemptions include "fair use" and copying necessary for operation of the software), you would be in the clear with respect to reverse engineering.
-
It doesn't matter where I live. It matters where the sale was made, and if any portion of the sales agreement includes a software license. The software installation has to include a "punch-through" licensing agreement, or there's no licensing THERE, either. Even if it did, I could buy the item used at a flea market and do any damned thing I want with it, aside from those very special "crypto" softwares I was talking about.
NONE OF THIS APPLIES HERE. PERIOD. It is a tool made and sold in China. THEIR laws at the time of the sale apply. PERIOD.
No. If that were the case, you'd be able to legally purchase a DVD copy of a movie in, say, Afghanistan, then bring it back here to the United States, then make an arbitrary number of copies of it and distribute those copies to whomever you like, and not run afoul of U.S. copyright law.
Law governs actions that are taken while under the jurisdiction of the law in question. Copyright limits copying and access to copyrighted expression. If you make a copy of a copyrighted work while in the United States, then United States copyright law is controlling. The origination point of the sale of the work is meaningless with respect to actions you later take with what you purchased.
But because there is no license agreement involved ("click through" or otherwise), the firmware was legally obtained through the sale, and the exemptions in U.S. copyright law are applicable (those exemptions include "fair use" and copying necessary for operation of the software), you would be in the clear with respect to reverse engineering.
This is precisely what I've been saying... that BECAUSE THE SOFTWARE IS INTEGRAL to the function of the machine, I OWN it. THAT is also why the laws at the time of sale also are the only ones that apply.
ONLY in America do we pervert this simple concept with stupidity such as "break-seal" licensing, which the rest of the world considers to be a legal atrocity.
And you can still make as many archive copies of that Afghani-sourced movie as you like, as long as you keep them locked away and out of the hands of others. It is the DISTRIBUTION of said copyrighted materials that will land you in jail. And the fact that they have treaties with us regarding reciprocal CopyRight. So far, to my knowledge, China has no such treaties with us. There is even ongoing litigation RIGHT NOW in the US that will probably win, and will effectively legalize downloading of copyrighted materials PROVIDED you already own that material on some read-only media that paid royalties to the copyright holder.
Pirate Bay will be back, stronger than ever. ;)
mnem
Frabjous.
-
This is precisely what I've been saying... that BECAUSE THE SOFTWARE IS INTEGRAL to the function of the machine, I OWN it. THAT is also why the laws at the time of sale also are the only ones that apply.
No. Again, the law which governs an action is determined by where the action was taken, not where the object involved in the action was purchased. Were this not the case, then you'd end up with absurd results, such as being able to purchase a weapon while abroad, use it to kill someone while in the United States, and be subject to the law of the country you purchased the weapon in as opposed to the law in the United States.
ONLY in America do we pervert this simple concept with stupidity such as "break-seal" licensing, which the rest of the world considers to be a legal atrocity.
Oh, I agree with you that such licensing is absurd. But neither logic nor ethics governs what the law says or means. Why else do you think I attempt to make a clear distinction between those in these discussions?
And you can still make as many archive copies of that Afghani-sourced movie as you like, as long as you keep them locked away and out of the hands of others. It is the DISTRIBUTION of said copyrighted materials that will land you in jail.
Distribution will land you in jail, certainly, but it is not the only right that is exclusively held by the copyright owner. Right alongside that is the right to copy. Don't believe me? See for yourself:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
(emphasis mine)
Were this not the case, format shifting of copyrighted works you own copies of would automatically be legal. Additionally, it would be perfectly legal for you to modify the contents of the click-through license agreement by copying the bits off the installation medium, modifying them so as to change the license agreement to whatever you want, then invoking the modified installer to install the software, thus causing you to agree to the modified agreement. Right? Do you really think doing that is legal if you can legally copy and modify whatever you acquire as long as you don't distribute?
And the fact that they have treaties with us regarding reciprocal CopyRight. So far, to my knowledge, China has no such treaties with us.
I picked Afghanistan for a reason (though in looking at the actual laws, it appears that Ethiopia might have been a better pick as its law doesn't appear to cover computer programs at all). It doesn't have any such treaty with the United States, but from what I can tell, China does (degree of enforcement within the country in question is another matter altogether, however).
There is even ongoing litigation RIGHT NOW in the US that will probably win, and will effectively legalize downloading of copyrighted materials PROVIDED you already own that material on some read-only media that paid royalties to the copyright holder.
Interesting. That would be a nice outcome. Which case is that?
-
And you can still make as many archive copies of that Afghani-sourced movie as you like, as long as you keep them locked away and out of the hands of others. It is the DISTRIBUTION of said copyrighted materials that will land you in jail.
Distribution will land you in jail, certainly, but it is not the only right that is exclusively held by the copyright owner. Right alongside that is the right to copy.
Herein lies a fundamental problem with interpretation of the law - separating observation from legislation.
As it has been pointed out, merely copying copyrighted material (outside of any provisions, such as archival copy) IS illegal. The issue of going to jail or not is a matter of DISCOVERY. The copyright owner won't prosecute if they don't know it's happening. If you distribute, you attract their attention - but if a nosey neighbour dobs you in, you are still eligible for a change of wardrobe - something in a bright orange, perhaps.
As for throwing in Afghanistan as a qualifier for the argument, that is a rather weak tactic. You know why - so don't plead ignorance.
-
As for throwing in Afghanistan as a qualifier for the argument, that is a rather weak tactic. You know why - so don't plead ignorance.
I used Afghanistan in order to satisfy mnementh's conditions, to illustrate that even if the copyrighted work is initially obtained in a country with the most lax copyright laws, it is the laws of the country in which the copying is taking place that count.
Which is to say, I did that in order to give his side of the argument the maximum strength possible, since if his argument cannot prevail when it is under conditions most favorable to him, then it clearly cannot prevail under any weaker conditions.
I did not use it as a means to justify any claims of legality of copying. :palm:
If you were talking to mnementh in the above, then my apologies for the confusion on my part.
-
And you can still make as many archive copies of that Afghani-sourced movie as you like, as long as you keep them locked away and out of the hands of others. It is the DISTRIBUTION of said copyrighted materials that will land you in jail.
Distribution will land you in jail, certainly, but it is not the only right that is exclusively held by the copyright owner. Right alongside that is the right to copy.
Herein lies a fundamental problem with interpretation of the law - separating observation from legislation.
As it has been pointed out, merely copying copyrighted material (outside of any provisions, such as archival copy) IS illegal. The issue of going to jail or not is a matter of DISCOVERY. The copyright owner won't prosecute if they don't know it's happening. If you distribute, you attract their attention - but if a nosey neighbour dobs you in, you are still eligible for a change of wardrobe - something in a bright orange, perhaps.
As for throwing in Afghanistan as a qualifier for the argument, that is a rather weak tactic. You know why - so don't plead ignorance.
Umm, NO. You STILL have the right to make an archive copy for your own use, even of Copyrighted material, under the Fair Use act. The DMCA does NOT take that away. That is what I'm saying. If you like to play your DVDs and smash them on the floor afterwards, you have the right to make two dozen copies and smash one every night for a fortnight to protect your original, as long as you keep them all safely out of the hands of others. It is DISTRIBUTION that turns your "Fair Use" into "Copyright Infringement". You've been listening to too much RIAA/MPAA propaganda. SERIOUSLY.
MicroSpunk fought this for over a decade before getting spanked in nearly every court on 7 continents. THAT is why they stopped making controlled media their primary means of copyright protection, rather delivering digitally and actually making it the end-user's responsibility to make archive copies of install media for archive. They turned a money sucking product weakness into the customers' problem.
There is even more; you have the right to copy AND DISTRIBUTE "Excerpts" of a copyrighted property for review and parody purposers. If you are an educator, you can copy entire properties and distribute them to your students as part of your instruction; my wife is an educator and does this all the time.
I'll agree that throwing the Afghan-sourced movie was a bit skewed, but it was relevant given my prior argument that copyright didn't apply as these 'scopes were made and sold in China. My argument revolves around understanding that these are NOT "Copyrightable" softwares, as they are INTRINSIC to the function of a hard good sold for a particular purpose. This is ALSO why you have the right to copy and dismantle that code; no licensing agreement is present, because that kind of licensing right has to be EXPRESS, as opposed to IMPLIED or INTRINSIC rights in the case of CopyRight. And in this case, no such licensing has been made express in the purchase agreement or the use of the device.
DMCA does NOT invalidate Fair Use, no matter how much the music and movie industries wish it could.
mnem
ZZZzzZZZzzz...
-
Umm, NO. You STILL have the right to make an archive copy for your own use, even of Copyrighted material, under the Fair Use act. The DMCA does NOT take that away.
That is correct. However, the DMCA might end up preventing you from being able to legally make that archival copy if the original software is protected by an access/copy control measure.
That is what I'm saying. If you like to play your DVDs and smash them on the floor afterwards, you have the right to make two dozen copies and smash one every night for a fortnight to protect your original, as long as you keep them all safely out of the hands of others. It is DISTRIBUTION that turns your "Fair Use" into "Copyright Infringement". You've been listening to too much RIAA/MPAA propaganda. SERIOUSLY.
Look, you keep making these claims about the law. Why don't you actually cite the exemptions you claim exist here? DVDs fall under the DMCA because they are protected by an access control mechanism.
The DMCA contains no exemption in its text for archival copies, nor does the Library of Congress exemption mechanism cover it, because the Library of Congress has not seen fit to include archival copies in its list of exemptions. Here's the latest list of LoC exemptions: http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/fedreg-publicinspectionFR.pdf (http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/fedreg-publicinspectionFR.pdf)
There is even more; you have the right to copy AND DISTRIBUTE "Excerpts" of a copyrighted property for review and parody purposers. If you are an educator, you can copy entire properties and distribute them to your students as part of your instruction; my wife is an educator and does this all the time.
Yes, and through the Library of Congress exemption mechanism, your wife is exempt from the DMCA for that.
I'll agree that throwing the Afghan-sourced movie was a bit skewed, but it was relevant given my prior argument that copyright didn't apply as these 'scopes were made and sold in China. My argument revolves around understanding that these are NOT "Copyrightable" softwares, as they are INTRINSIC to the function of a hard good sold for a particular purpose.
Really? Where in the law is an exemption to copyright law made for that kind of software? Indeed, if such software were exempt from copyright law, then cases such as LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. Static Control Components, Inc. would have been lost on the basis that the software itself was not a copyrightable work, and the court there wouldn't have even had to reach to the question of DMCA protection.
No, you're flat wrong on this. The firmware is just as copyrightable as any other piece of software.
Where in the world do you get these ideas from???
This is ALSO why you have the right to copy and dismantle that code; no licensing agreement is present, because that kind of licensing right has to be EXPRESS, as opposed to IMPLIED or INTRINSIC rights in the case of CopyRight. And in this case, no such licensing has been made express in the purchase agreement or the use of the device.
Right. Which means that standard copyright law controls. And standard copyright law has a Fair Use exemption which the courts have interpreted to include reverse engineering!
In the absence of a license agreement, or an explicit statement from the copyright holder placing the work into the public domain, it is copyright law that determines what circumstances you can make copies. It forbids all copies except those made under one or more of the exempting provisions.
DMCA does NOT invalidate Fair Use, no matter how much the music and movie industries wish it could.
I think you may be confused about what the DMCA is.
The DMCA is legislation that makes circumvention of access and copy control mechanisms illegal, as well as making illegal distribution, etc., of tools that have such circumvention as their primary purpose. It does not address copying directly at all.
The DMCA's provisions do not contain a fair use exemption, which means that even though you may be able to copy excerpts of a copyrighted work for fair use purposes, if you must circumvent an access or copy protection mechanism in order to do that, you cannot legally accomplish that -- unless you happen to fall into one of the DMCA's exemptions. Those are a separate set of exemptions. Were that not the case, then the fair use doctrine would control DMCA as well as normal copyright, but it doesn't.
-
And you can still make as many archive copies of that Afghani-sourced movie as you like, as long as you keep them locked away and out of the hands of others. It is the DISTRIBUTION of said copyrighted materials that will land you in jail.
Distribution will land you in jail, certainly, but it is not the only right that is exclusively held by the copyright owner. Right alongside that is the right to copy.
Herein lies a fundamental problem with interpretation of the law - separating observation from legislation.
As it has been pointed out, merely copying copyrighted material (outside of any provisions, such as archival copy) IS illegal. The issue of going to jail or not is a matter of DISCOVERY. The copyright owner won't prosecute if they don't know it's happening. If you distribute, you attract their attention - but if a nosey neighbour dobs you in, you are still eligible for a change of wardrobe - something in a bright orange, perhaps.
As for throwing in Afghanistan as a qualifier for the argument, that is a rather weak tactic. You know why - so don't plead ignorance.
Umm, NO. You STILL have the right to make an archive copy for your own use, even of Copyrighted material, under the Fair Use act.
ZZZzzZZZzzz...
Seriously ... I mean SERIOUSLY?
You can't even read what's right there in front of you.
-
As for throwing in Afghanistan as a qualifier for the argument, that is a rather weak tactic. You know why - so don't plead ignorance.
I used Afghanistan in order to satisfy mnementh's conditions, to illustrate that even if the copyrighted work is initially obtained in a country with the most lax copyright laws, it is the laws of the country in which the copying is taking place that count.
Which is to say, I did that in order to give his side of the argument the maximum strength possible, since if his argument cannot prevail when it is under conditions most favorable to him, then it clearly cannot prevail under any weaker conditions.
I did not use it as a means to justify any claims of legality of copying. :palm:
If you were talking to mnementh in the above, then my apologies for the confusion on my part.
I must accept responsibility for the confusion and for that I do apologise. My comment was not phrased clearly - but considering the lack of comprehension skills exhibited by another party, I can't see a clarification being worth the effort. For that, too, I apologise.
-
If you were talking to mnementh in the above, then my apologies for the confusion on my part.
I must accept responsibility for the confusion and for that I do apologise. My comment was not phrased clearly - but considering the lack of comprehension skills exhibited by another party, I can't see a clarification being worth the effort. For that, too, I apologise.
No worries!
Since my discussion with mnementh has centered around U.S. law, I'm curious what the law in your part of the world is like. Here in the U.S., the DMCA clearly has a disconnect from copyright law, in that even copies that are authorized by copyright law itself might be forbidden if they hide behind an access control mechanism.
Are the laws in your country disconnected in that way? You'd think that if the law authorizes a copy, it would also authorize circumvention of access/copy control mechanisms for the purpose of making those copies. But that would be expecting the law to actually be logical, which is probably too much to ask for. :)
-
I'm not aware of the exact state of affairs at this point in time, but I do believe we got the DMCA stick - without the carrot. Something that came out of the 2004 FTA. Our position is one where our limitations have become more concrete, but things like 'fair use' that the US enjoys still elude us.
I've no doubt oversimplified, but I don't have my finger on the pulse.
-
You'd think that if the law authorizes a copy, it would also authorize circumvention of access/copy control mechanisms for the purpose of making those copies. But that would be expecting the law to actually be logical, which is probably too much to ask for. :)
"Making the copy is fine, but circumventing the copy protection is not" seems comparable to "It's not the volts that kill you; it's the amps."
-
I'm not aware of the exact state of affairs at this point in time, but I do believe we got the DMCA stick - without the carrot. Something that came out of the 2004 FTA. Our position is one where our limitations have become more concrete, but things like 'fair use' that the US enjoys still elude us.
I've no doubt oversimplified, but I don't have my finger on the pulse.
Australia has fair dealing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing
-
Originally Patents & copyright were different,if related,ideas.
Patents were in the realm of real hardware,in that you couldn't Patent an idea,like,say,Ohm's Law.
It had to be a way to create a real product.
Copyright,on the other hand,dealt with products of the creator's imagination,such as literature,music,works of Art,& similar things.
In the early days of Electronics strenuous efforts were made by some large manufacturers to tie up new developments by Patent litigation.
Oddly enough,sometimes companies were on both sides of the divide,claiming Patent infringement,whilst at the same time,publishing "application notes" on the use of new devices.
Ultimately,this form of restriction was unsuccessful,due to the wide publication of details of any new circuitry via "Radio" magazines which sprung up like weeds throughout the world.
Hardware folk have,thus,grown up in a world where hardware circuitry,was defacto,if not de jure--"open source".
Software,because it is "sort of " written,fell roughly into the copyright category.
Literary works supposedly are made of "full cloth" by the writer's imagination,with no prior use.
It wouldn't be hard to question this-----how many writers use the "Necronomicon" in Fantasy works?
Do they licence this use from HP Lovecraft's heirs & successors?
Poor old HP's Copyright has probably expired.though!
We can also question Software/Firmware.
Is this the sole product of the creator's mental processes?
Are there any precursors?
To be completely free of outside influences,surely the creator would have to devise their own programming language,use alternative "short cuts " within the program,& so on.
-
Umm, NO. You STILL have the right to make an archive copy for your own use, even of Copyrighted material, under the Fair Use act. The DMCA does NOT take that away.
That is correct. However, the DMCA might end up preventing you from being able to legally make that archival copy if the original software is protected by an access/copy control measure.
That is what I'm saying. If you like to play your DVDs and smash them on the floor afterwards, you have the right to make two dozen copies and smash one every night for a fortnight to protect your original, as long as you keep them all safely out of the hands of others. It is DISTRIBUTION that turns your "Fair Use" into "Copyright Infringement". You've been listening to too much RIAA/MPAA propaganda. SERIOUSLY.
Look, you keep making these claims about the law. Why don't you actually cite the exemptions you claim exist here? DVDs fall under the DMCA because they are protected by an access control mechanism.
The DMCA contains no exemption in its text for archival copies, nor does the Library of Congress exemption mechanism cover it, because the Library of Congress has not seen fit to include archival copies in its list of exemptions. Here's the latest list of LoC exemptions: http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/fedreg-publicinspectionFR.pdf (http://copyright.gov/1201/2015/fedreg-publicinspectionFR.pdf)
There is even more; you have the right to copy AND DISTRIBUTE "Excerpts" of a copyrighted property for review and parody purposers. If you are an educator, you can copy entire properties and distribute them to your students as part of your instruction; my wife is an educator and does this all the time.
Yes, and through the Library of Congress exemption mechanism, your wife is exempt from the DMCA for that.
I'll agree that throwing the Afghan-sourced movie was a bit skewed, but it was relevant given my prior argument that copyright didn't apply as these 'scopes were made and sold in China. My argument revolves around understanding that these are NOT "Copyrightable" softwares, as they are INTRINSIC to the function of a hard good sold for a particular purpose.
Really? Where in the law is an exemption to copyright law made for that kind of software? Indeed, if such software were exempt from copyright law, then cases such as LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. Static Control Components, Inc. would have been lost on the basis that the software itself was not a copyrightable work, and the court there wouldn't have even had to reach to the question of DMCA protection.
No, you're flat wrong on this. The firmware is just as copyrightable as any other piece of software.
Where in the world do you get these ideas from???
This is ALSO why you have the right to copy and dismantle that code; no licensing agreement is present, because that kind of licensing right has to be EXPRESS, as opposed to IMPLIED or INTRINSIC rights in the case of CopyRight. And in this case, no such licensing has been made express in the purchase agreement or the use of the device.
Right. Which means that standard copyright law controls. And standard copyright law has a Fair Use exemption which the courts have interpreted to include reverse engineering!
In the absence of a license agreement, or an explicit statement from the copyright holder placing the work into the public domain, it is copyright law that determines what circumstances you can make copies. It forbids all copies except those made under one or more of the exempting provisions.
DMCA does NOT invalidate Fair Use, no matter how much the music and movie industries wish it could.
I think you may be confused about what the DMCA is.
The DMCA is legislation that makes circumvention of access and copy control mechanisms illegal, as well as making illegal distribution, etc., of tools that have such circumvention as their primary purpose. It does not address copying directly at all.
The DMCA's provisions do not contain a fair use exemption, which means that even though you may be able to copy excerpts of a copyrighted work for fair use purposes, if you must circumvent an access or copy protection mechanism in order to do that, you cannot legally accomplish that -- unless you happen to fall into one of the DMCA's exemptions. Those are a separate set of exemptions. Were that not the case, then the fair use doctrine would control DMCA as well as normal copyright, but it doesn't.
The only reason there was any question was because of the use of "Shrinkwrap" or "break-seal" licensure in the product. This is one of those really over-reaching legal concepts that I referred to earlier, and that pretty much the entire rest of the civilized world has already killed and buried. There is no such licensure in the case of these scopes, therefore no copyright infringement. For something to be protected under copyright law, one HAS to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the general public... anybody who might be considered an end-user... is aware that one holds a property as copyrighted. One has to make a legal effort to RESERVE those rights; one does NOT have them automatically.
Also... even Scalia, that black-hearted corporate-owned SOB, admitted this was a case that could go on forever under a number of different guises, even though it was eventually decided in favor of SCC.
I find your interpretation of the DMCA interesting; there are a number of open-source programs available that allow one to record any video playing on your screen and whatever audio is also playing at the time to an H264 video file in user-defined level of resolution. Do you suppose this is legally considered "circumventing" that anti-copy process? If I actually watch the movie while recording it, I wonder if my First Amendment rights to chronicle my own experiences apply here?
Probably not... but an interesting tangent.
mnem
I didn't see that.
-
The only reason there was any question was because of the use of "Shrinkwrap" or "break-seal" licensure in the product. This is one of those really over-reaching legal concepts that I referred to earlier, and that pretty much the entire rest of the civilized world has already killed and buried.
True as that may be, it still has force here in the United States. The law is not what either of us would like it to be (indeed, I doubt you'll find but perhaps a few who think that all of the law is as it should be).
There is no such licensure in the case of these scopes, therefore no copyright infringement.
The first is true. The second is true only if nothing is copied in violation of copyright law.
Copyright law remains in effect unless a license supersedes it. Indeed, it is because of copyright law that licenses can be imposed in the first place! Licenses are authorization from the copyright holder to do things with the copyrighted content that otherwise would be forbidden by copyright law, plus other terms and conditions of that use.
Were that not the case, then people could simply modify the text of the click-through license agreement itself before "agreeing" to it, and be in the clear. But because the agreement itself is a copyrighted work, or is embedded within a copyrighted work, copyright is in force there as well, and one thus cannot legally modify the license agreement before agreeing to it.
Additionally, it is because copyright law is in effect by default that one has to explicitly say that their work is being placed in the public domain for it to actually land there. The default state of a work is that it is copyrighted at the time of creation (works for hire and anonymous/pseudonymous works can begin at time of publication). Copyright is something you get automatically and by default on every expressive work you create unless you explicitly disclaim it.
Has it occurred to you to ask why the Free Software Foundation's license, and other free software licenses, exist? Why the BSD license exists? It's precisely because of things like the above.
For something to be protected under copyright law, one HAS to make reasonable efforts to ensure that the general public... anybody who might be considered an end-user... is aware that one holds a property as copyrighted. One has to make a legal effort to RESERVE those rights; one does NOT have them automatically.
This is incorrect. You're confusing copyright and trademark. With trademarks, one has to make a reasonable effort to enforce them, at the risk of otherwise losing them. There is no such requirement for copyright. Again, were this not the case, then there would be no need to explicitly say that one is placing a work in the public domain. One would need only to release the work, and that would be that.
I can see how you can be confused about these things. Many people think of all of these things in terms of a single overarching "intellectual property" law, when the law is not nearly as coherent as all that.
I find your interpretation of the DMCA interesting;
My interpretation of the DMCA is based on a plain reading of the law itself, combined with what relevant case law I can find. The same is true of copyright law.
I strongly encourage you to actually read the law for yourself, plus statements made by organizations, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which are active in the arena of copyright.
there are a number of open-source programs available that allow one to record any video playing on your screen and whatever audio is also playing at the time to an H264 video file in user-defined level of resolution. Do you suppose this is legally considered "circumventing" that anti-copy process?
If you're doing that while, say, watching a DVD on your computer, and the copyright holder hasn't given permission to do that, then yes, that is a violation of copyright. How could it not be, when there is no format shifting exemption in copyright law? And that goes for any other copying that isn't explicitly authorized by the copyright holder, save for copying that is explicitly exempted by copyright law. And remember: the archival copy exemption is for computer programs only. It is not a general exemption.
Look, just because you don't get caught at something doesn't make that something legal. And just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong. Law and ethics are entirely different.
I am entirely in agreement with you that copyright law is far too draconian, especially with respect to durations. But few value liberty the way I do.
If I actually watch the movie while recording it, I wonder if my First Amendment rights to chronicle my own experiences apply here?
A more interesting case would be if you use a video recorder to record your reactions and the screen and sound contents simultaneously. That might be covered under fair use. And because you're playing the DVD in an authorized manner, you wouldn't be running afoul of the DMCA, either. However, it would most certainly be classified a derivative work, as it would incorporate the copyrighted work of another, so a fair use exemption would be your only hope.
There have been First Amendment challenges to some portions of copyright law, but they have failed, so I wouldn't count on that saving you, or for fair use to save you, either. See, e.g., Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, as a case that may well be relevant here.
-
The problem here is that we're arguing laws that are even now in a state of flux, and that have different meaning depending on where you are. These laws even now are being argued up and down and in a week or a month or a year or two, they may mean something completely different, and really... here it's a moot point anyways.
Bottom line is we CAN do it, we ARE doing it, and if we are evil bastards for doing it, we are the least of the evil bastards on the planet right now AND we have the manufacturer's tacit approval TO do it.
I have IRL to get back to, where I was just given a 3D printer to play with. When I get a good-enough paying job (or when I need it to troubleshoot this flipping printer) I'll buy one of the 'scopes in question and hack it. Then I'll get on with my life. :D
mnem
Because I can.
-
Bottom line is we CAN do it, we ARE doing it, and if we are evil bastards for doing it, we are the least of the evil bastards on the planet right now AND we have the manufacturer's tacit approval TO do it.
Strawman points, of course, since nobody is saying that. Multiple people do, however, think any arguments to the effect of "I can do it, They haven't prevented me, therefore it is right" are fallacious self-serving hypocritical nonsense.
When I get a good-enough paying job ... I'll buy one of the 'scopes in question and hack it.
Why am I not surprised by what that reveals.
-
AND we have the manufacturer's tacit approval TO do it.
Yes We can.
For Rigol it was a little more than Tacit!
After Dave showed everyone how to Hack the DS1052 , Rigol(distributor) sends Dave all new DSOs to demo.
It is all part of marketing.
Not so with Agilent.
ps . I enjoyed the legal points
a token approval received as shown in picture
-
Same here; the legal aspects were very interesting.
-
Strawman points, of course, since nobody is saying that. Multiple people do, however, think any arguments to the effect of "I can do it, They haven't prevented me, therefore it is right" are fallacious self-serving hypocritical nonsense.
The same could be said for the argument that lots of companies deliberately cripple their customer's hardware and charge them a ransom to unlock it, so it makes it right.
-
The same could be said for the argument that lots of companies deliberately cripple their customer's hardware and charge them a ransom to unlock it, so it makes it right.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or genuinely confused.
-
The same could be said for the argument that lots of companies deliberately cripple their customer's hardware and charge them a ransom to unlock it, so it makes it right.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or genuinely confused.
Perhaps I'm confused. Do you know what he meant by they statement which just seemed trollish to me?
-
The same could be said for the argument that lots of companies deliberately cripple their customer's hardware and charge them a ransom to unlock it, so it makes it right.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or genuinely confused.
Perhaps I'm confused. Do you know what he meant by they statement which just seemed trollish to me?
Perhaps you would understand if you hadn't snipped the context in which I made the remaining.
That type of misdirection is a typical tactic employed by trolls that want heat and don't want light.
-
The same could be said for the argument that lots of companies deliberately cripple their customer's hardware and charge them a ransom to unlock it, so it makes it right.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or genuinely confused.
Perhaps I'm confused. Do you know what he meant by they statement which just seemed trollish to me?
Perhaps you would understand if you hadn't snipped the context in which I made the remaining.
That type of misdirection is a typical tactic employed by trolls that want heat and don't want light.
I still don't know what you were going on about? After all isn't that what you did? Taking snippets of posts out of context.
-
Multiple people do, however, think any arguments to the effect of "I can do it, They haven't prevented me, therefore it is right" are fallacious self-serving hypocritical nonsense.
I'll raise the same point I think Hero999 is attempting to raise, but in a slightly different way.
Don't the companies that deliberately cripple their customer's hardware and charge them a ransom to unlock it adopt precisely the same argument as the one you reference above?
Companies are generally amoral actors. Many seem to find that acceptable (even going so far as to justify it on the basis that "companies only have a responsibility to maximize the profits of their shareholders") while simultaneously not finding it acceptable for individuals to act in the same amoral fashion. Isn't that latter a hypocritical stance to take?
-
Now, let's go back. There are differing opinions here regarding morality of hacking oscilloscopes.
There are two parties:
The manufacturer:
1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.
2) It is immoral for manufactures to lock parts of their customer's hardware and expect them to pay extra to unlock them.
And the consumer:
1) A customer who buys a product unlocks a feature they've not paid for is immoral because it deprives the manufacture of revenue.
2) When a customer buys a product, they can do with it what they please, including modify it to improve the performance and unlock whatever features they like.
Personally I side with the consumer on both accounts (they can modify and unlock features and crippleware is immoral) because the manufacturer wouldn't exist without them. If you want to disagree with me, that's fine but if you start accusing me of stealing or whatever because of my point of view then you're trolling.
-
1) A customer who buys a product unlocks a feature they've not paid for is immoral because it deprives the manufacture of revenue.
I would suggest that this kind of hacking activity is 'priced in' to the business model for the product by the manufacturer anyway.
If the hacking got to the point where the business model breaks down then they would change the way they control hardware and software features. But the business model may reveal that moderate levels of hacking may actually be of benefit to the business. Who here really knows?
2) When a customer buys a product, they can do with it what they please, including modify it to improve the performance and unlock whatever features they like.
For home/hobby use that's the way I see things.
-
1) A customer who buys a product unlocks a feature they've not paid for is immoral because it deprives the manufacture of revenue.
I would suggest that this kind of hacking activity is 'priced in' to the business model for the product by the manufacturer anyway.
It has to be priced in regardless of whether or not they do so explicitly. If it isn't, then they end up undercharging or overcharging for their products, and will eventually go out of business unless they first strike the right price versus sales balance. Put another way, the market automatically takes care of this one way or another.
If the hacking got to the point where the business model breaks down then they would change the way they control hardware and software features. But the business model may reveal that moderate levels of hacking may actually be of benefit to the business. Who here really knows?
It is logical that hacking on the part of hobbyists would be of benefit to the manufacturer, especially if that isn't available with other brands, because it would make the hackable products more desirable than those of the competitors (since the capability to price ratio of the hackable brand ends up being higher than that of the nonhackable brand). And since most businesses won't hack their instruments because those instruments are mission critical to the business and therefore the business can't risk loss of support for them, the end result is that the hackability of an instrument only really makes a difference in the hobbyist market -- and the difference there is a positive one for the manufacturer.
2) When a customer buys a product, they can do with it what they please, including modify it to improve the performance and unlock whatever features they like.
For home/hobby use that's the way I see things.
I don't see why it would (or should) be any different when the customer is a business. Whether it's a home/hobby user or a business, as long as the customer isn't actively harming someone else with what they purchased, why should they be restricted in what they do with what they purchased?
I think vk6zgo has it right on: people are used to the notion of being able to do what they please with hardware, but have grown up in a culture where doing what you please with software has rarely been allowed. So they automatically come to view the two as completely different things, when they are exactly the same save for one thing: hardware cannot be copied at will and at no cost, while software can. Supply and demand automatically applies to hardware, so the standard economic mechanisms (along with patents) provide sufficient incentive for people to build hardware devices for sale. But because software can be copied at will at no cost, the standard economic mechanisms are insufficient to maintain a healthy software market.
This is why copyright applies to software, and why unilateral contractual terms and conditions arising from it should be no more acceptable than the same would be when applied to hardware. Most people here would be outraged if the manufacturers of the hardware they buy forbade them from reverse engineering it or modifying it, and would be up in arms if they were forbidden from opening that hardware up at all, but they not only have no problem with those things as regards software, they support it!! That is hypocrisy, pure and simple. And I haven't even touched on the additional contractual terms and conditions those people will support on the software side of things (look at this thread!), when they almost certainly wouldn't support any such thing on the hardware side of things.
Software is already covered by patents as well. That and simple prohibitions on distributing copies (be it of the original or of derivatives) would be sufficient to make software identical to hardware as regards the health of the market. At that point, it would operate in the same way. But software vendors (e.g., Microsoft) got greedy and used their influence to warp the law, and the end result is the ultra-restrictive software market we have today, where even reverse engineering is generally forbidden by unilaterally-imposed contract.
-
The manufacturer:
1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.
a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.
If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.
The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".
b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.
So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over? :-//
-
The manufacturer:
1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.
a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.
If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.
The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".
b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.
So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over? :-//
Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.
https://www.rigol-uk.co.uk/Rigol-BW2T5-MSO-DS4000-Bandwidth-Upgrade-p/bw2t5-mso-ds4000.htm (https://www.rigol-uk.co.uk/Rigol-BW2T5-MSO-DS4000-Bandwidth-Upgrade-p/bw2t5-mso-ds4000.htm)
Of course if you disagree and believe it's good value for money you're entitled to your opinion, just don't expect persuade others.
-
Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades
Oh, for one model (MSO4000) they do. Pardon me for not knowing the entire Rigol product range in detail.
:palm:
-
The manufacturer:
1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.
a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.
If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.
The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".
b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.
So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over? :-//
Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.
When that is an accurate reflection of reality, I agree with you.
In this case, your point is internally inconsistent and therefore valueless. It isn't that difficult... If a customer needs a bandwidth upgrade, then they don't already possess it - in which case they aren't charging the customer for something they already have. They are charging for an upgrade to something the customer already has.
-
1) A customer who buys a product unlocks a feature they've not paid for is immoral because it deprives the manufacture of revenue.
I would suggest that this kind of hacking activity is 'priced in' to the business model for the product by the manufacturer anyway.
It has to be priced in regardless of whether or not they do so explicitly. If it isn't, then they end up undercharging or overcharging for their products, and will eventually go out of business until they strike the right price versus sales balance. Put another way, the market automatically takes care of this one way or another.
If the hacking got to the point where the business model breaks down then they would change the way they control hardware and software features. But the business model may reveal that moderate levels of hacking may actually be of benefit to the business. Who here really knows?
It is logical that hacking on the part of hobbyists would be of benefit to the manufacturer, especially if that isn't available with other brands, because it would make the hackable products more desirable than those of the competitors (since the capability to price ratio of the hackable brand ends up being higher than that of the nonhackable brand). And since most businesses won't hack their instruments because those instruments are mission critical to the business and therefore the business can't risk loss of support for them, the end result is that the hackability of an instrument only really makes a difference in the hobbyist market -- and the difference there is a positive one for the manufacturer.
2) When a customer buys a product, they can do with it what they please, including modify it to improve the performance and unlock whatever features they like.
For home/hobby use that's the way I see things.
I don't see why it would (or should) be any different when the customer is a business. Whether it's a home/hobby user or a business, as long as the customer isn't actively harming someone else with what they purchased, why should they be restricted in what they do with what they purchased?
I think vk6zgo has it right on: people are used to the notion of being able to do what they please with hardware, but have grown up in a culture where doing what you please with software has rarely been allowed. So they automatically come to view the two as completely different things, when they are exactly the same save for one thing: hardware cannot be copied at will and at no cost, while software can. Supply and demand automatically applies to hardware, so the standard economic mechanisms (along with patents) provide sufficient incentive for people to build hardware devices for sale. But because software can be copied at will at no cost, the standard economic mechanisms are insufficient to maintain a healthy software market.
This is why copyright applies to software, and why unilateral contractual terms and conditions arising from it should be no more acceptable than the same would be when applied to hardware. Most people here would be outraged if the manufacturers of the hardware they buy forbade them from reverse engineering it or modifying it, and would be up in arms if they were forbidden from opening that hardware up at all, but they not only have no problem with those things as regards software, they support it!! That is hypocrisy, pure and simple. And I haven't even touched on the additional contractual terms and conditions those people will support on the software side of things (look at this thread!), when they almost certainly wouldn't support any such thing on the hardware side of things.
Software is already covered by patents as well. That and simple prohibitions on distributing copies (be it of the original or of derivatives) would be sufficient to make software identical to hardware as regards the health of the market. At that point, it would operate in the same way. But software vendors (e.g., Microsoft) got greedy and used their influence to warp the law, and the end result is the ultra-restrictive software market we have today, where even reverse engineering is generally forbidden by unilaterally-imposed contract.
This is almost precisely what I was arguing earlier... the only thing we disagree upon is interpretation of the law as it now. I based my arguments on what I knew the law to be last time I looked into it, and upon how the relevant law is evolving in the rest of the world, which I see as inevitable here as well, just taking longer because of the socially retarded Calvinist pro-corporate culture that is prevalent in the USA. I too agree that the law here is in general ridiculously warped in favor of corporate greed rather than any real interest in protecting IP rights in any way.
That said... I think the whole moral and legal debate is only tangentially relevant to the original point of this thread, which was "WHY do we choose to hack these 'scopes?"
The base premise of the question is that we DID or DO or WOULD... and the actual question was "WHY?"
Don't get me wrong; I've enjoyed the spirited debates on both angles... and I'd be a fool to imagine anybody could get us all to stop. But I think we've beaten this particular (https://www.eevblog.com/forum/testgear/reasons-for-hacking-dsos/?action=dlattach;attach=214980;image) into a fine paste, and I'd really like to see SOME time... a few posts at least... spent on the ORIGINAL question TOO, which I've already answered from my own perspective.
Anybody?
Bueller...?
Bueller...?
Bueller...?
mnem
Not gonna say it... nope, nope, nope... ya cain't make me...
-
1) A customer who buys a product unlocks a feature they've not paid for is immoral because it deprives the manufacture of revenue.
I would suggest that this kind of hacking activity is 'priced in' to the business model for the product by the manufacturer anyway.
It has to be priced in regardless of whether or not they do so explicitly. If it isn't, then they end up undercharging or overcharging for their products, and will eventually go out of business until they strike the right price versus sales balance. Put another way, the market automatically takes care of this one way or another.
As you said, in the early days this was most probably not factored into the product price, but nowadays I would expect Rigol, Keysight, Tek to be already doing that while LeCroy, Siglent, Hantek, Owon are not - but we can only guess.
In any case, in my experience the hackability will certainly have consequences for further product development given the lower margins to be spent in R&D.
If the hacking got to the point where the business model breaks down then they would change the way they control hardware and software features. But the business model may reveal that moderate levels of hacking may actually be of benefit to the business. Who here really knows?
It is logical that hacking on the part of hobbyists would be of benefit to the manufacturer, especially if that isn't available with other brands, because it would make the hackable products more desirable than those of the competitors (since the capability to price ratio of the hackable brand ends up being higher than that of the nonhackable brand). And since most businesses won't hack their instruments because those instruments are mission critical to the business and therefore the business can't risk loss of support for them, the end result is that the hackability of an instrument only really makes a difference in the hobbyist market -- and the difference there is a positive one for the manufacturer.
In my experience desirability on itself is an aspect that goes further than hobbyists, but it probably has the hardest influence on this market as well as small businesses that don't have much capital expenditure. In general desirability can come in several different ways: Rigol with the possibility for "free" upgrades, Keysight with their scopemonth or LeCroy with the lavish posts by Wuerstchenhund :) For larger corporations the desirability is lowered as "free" upgrades are sometimes already incorporated into the negotiations (ask Wuerstchenhund about it).
2) When a customer buys a product, they can do with it what they please, including modify it to improve the performance and unlock whatever features they like.
For home/hobby use that's the way I see things.
I don't see why it would (or should) be any different when the customer is a business. Whether it's a home/hobby user or a business, as long as the customer isn't actively harming someone else with what they purchased, why should they be restricted in what they do with what they purchased?
People don't see businesses completely "amoral": the perception is they have at least a minimum code of honor: I am making money with your product and expect my customers don't try to torpedo my business strategy. In turn, I will not torpedo your business strategy by circumventing your offers.
I think vk6zgo has it right on: people are used to the notion of being able to do what they please with hardware, but have grown up in a culture where doing what you please with software has rarely been allowed. So they automatically come to view the two as completely different things, when they are exactly the same save for one thing: hardware cannot be copied at will and at no cost, while software can. Supply and demand automatically applies to hardware, so the standard economic mechanisms (along with patents) provide sufficient incentive for people to build hardware devices for sale. But because software can be copied at will at no cost, the standard economic mechanisms are insufficient to maintain a healthy software market.
This is why copyright applies to software, and why unilateral contractual terms and conditions arising from it should be no more acceptable than the same would be when applied to hardware. Most people here would be outraged if the manufacturers of the hardware they buy forbade them from reverse engineering it or modifying it, and would be up in arms if they were forbidden from opening that hardware up at all, but they not only have no problem with those things as regards software, they support it!! That is hypocrisy, pure and simple. And I haven't even touched on the additional contractual terms and conditions those people will support on the software side of things (look at this thread!), when they almost certainly wouldn't support any such thing on the hardware side of things.
And that is precisely why there is a strong differentiation between the HW and SW: you may consider hypocritical, but the influence the hacking activity imposes on each is widely different. Modified SW has orders of magnitude more potential for financial damage to a business when compared to HW given the speed and ease of distribution. Is greed the sole reason why the laws were created or modified? Not sure, but stay afloat in a pure SW company is a tough business.
Software is already covered by patents as well. That and simple prohibitions on distributing copies (be it of the original or of derivatives) would be sufficient to make software identical to hardware as regards the health of the market. At that point, it would operate in the same way. But software vendors (e.g., Microsoft) got greedy and used their influence to warp the law, and the end result is the ultra-restrictive software market we have today, where even reverse engineering is generally forbidden by unilaterally-imposed contract.
I disagree. Again, the SW market is more sensitive to enforcement gaps. To clone a HW product it takes quite some investment and time but SW is orders of magnitude more easier to modify and replicate, thus the system is easier to circumvent regarding pure patents. Also, prohibiting copy is something that never worked.
All that said, my stance on "why" people hack scopes? In my opinion it is because they can, because they are not willing to afford a larger sum of money for a non-profit activity (hobbyists) or they are struggling to keep their business and decide to take this route with minimum expenditure.
-
The manufacturer:
1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.
a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.
If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.
The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".
b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.
So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over? :-//
Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.
When that is an accurate reflection of reality, I agree with you.
In this case, your point is internally inconsistent and therefore valueless. It isn't that difficult... If a customer needs a bandwidth upgrade, then they don't already possess it - in which case they aren't charging the customer for something they already have. They are charging for an upgrade to something the customer already has.
Incorrect. The customer already has both the hardware and software to increase the bandwidth of their oscilloscope and the manufacture is demanding money to provide a code to unlock it. Again if you think this is right/fair/good value for the customer, then that's your opinion but don't expect others to agree.
To those who believe it is immoral to hack an oscilloscope: Do you think it's right for someone have a website, along with videos showing people how hack Rigol oscilloscopes and gain advertising revenue from it?
If it's that bad, then why not stop visiting this site?
-
The manufacturer:
1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.
a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.
If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.
The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".
b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.
So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over? :-//
Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.
When that is an accurate reflection of reality, I agree with you.
In this case, your point is internally inconsistent and therefore valueless. It isn't that difficult... If a customer needs a bandwidth upgrade, then they don't already possess it - in which case they aren't charging the customer for something they already have. They are charging for an upgrade to something the customer already has.
Incorrect. The customer already has both the hardware and software to increase the bandwidth of their oscilloscope and the manufacture is demanding money to provide a code to unlock it. Again if you think this is right/fair/good value for the customer, then that's your opinion but don't expect others to agree.
No, they don't. They have different software. Now it may be that there are only a few bytes difference, but that is sufficient. After all, in most processors it is only necessary to have a single bit difference in order to completely change the operation of the computer - just think what you can achieve by changing a JNZ instruction into a JZ instruction.
-
The manufacturer:
1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.
a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.
If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.
The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".
b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.
So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over? :-//
Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.
When that is an accurate reflection of reality, I agree with you.
In this case, your point is internally inconsistent and therefore valueless. It isn't that difficult... If a customer needs a bandwidth upgrade, then they don't already possess it - in which case they aren't charging the customer for something they already have. They are charging for an upgrade to something the customer already has.
Incorrect. The customer already has both the hardware and software to increase the bandwidth of their oscilloscope and the manufacture is demanding money to provide a code to unlock it. Again if you think this is right/fair/good value for the customer, then that's your opinion but don't expect others to agree.
No, they don't. They have different software. Now it may be that there are only a few bytes difference, but that is sufficient. After all, in most processors it is only necessary to have a single bit difference in order to completely change the operation of the computer - just think what you can achieve by changing a JNZ instruction into a JZ instruction.
No they do not. They have exactly the same software. No code has changed. Only a variable which the user enters and are able to easily do so, with or without paying the manufacturer.
-
No they do not. They have exactly the same software. No code has changed. Only a variable which the user enters and are able to easily do so, with or without paying the manufacturer.
I can't believe I am bothering to post on this thread again, but....
So are you also saying that you have the right to 'unlock' Microsoft Office trials that ship on a new PC or Laptop? or the right to upgrade from Windows Home for free, or to 'unlock' anything else that is controlled by license keys? After all, it is after all it is only a bit of data, and the manufacture provides the feature.
Oh, and how about entering forged prepay vouchers into your cell phone?, or use a cloned pay-TV smartcard - where does your "it is only data" rule of thumb stop?
-
The manufacturer:
1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.
a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.
If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.
The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".
b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.
So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over? :-//
Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.
When that is an accurate reflection of reality, I agree with you.
In this case, your point is internally inconsistent and therefore valueless. It isn't that difficult... If a customer needs a bandwidth upgrade, then they don't already possess it - in which case they aren't charging the customer for something they already have. They are charging for an upgrade to something the customer already has.
Incorrect. The customer already has both the hardware and software to increase the bandwidth of their oscilloscope and the manufacture is demanding money to provide a code to unlock it. Again if you think this is right/fair/good value for the customer, then that's your opinion but don't expect others to agree.
No, they don't. They have different software. Now it may be that there are only a few bytes difference, but that is sufficient. After all, in most processors it is only necessary to have a single bit difference in order to completely change the operation of the computer - just think what you can achieve by changing a JNZ instruction into a JZ instruction.
No they do not. They have exactly the same software. No code has changed. Only a variable which the user enters and are able to easily do so, with or without paying the manufacturer.
Nonsense.
There are no "variables" in the customer's purchase - there are only bit patterns in a EPROM. Those bit patterns are interpreted by a hardware "universal machine" to perform a function. There might have been concepts that could be identifed as "variables" in the source code, but that is irrelevant since the customer has not bought the source code.
There is no difference between changing a few of the bits in the EPROM (which are interpreted as a JNZ or a JZ instruction) or a few other bits in the EPROM (which are interpreted by the hardware as input to a JNZ or JZ instruction).
The key is instructions that determines the machines function. The source code is an instruction that determines the source code instruction.
The machines' operation is the interpretation of bits, all the way down (with apologies to Terry Pratchett).
-
I don't see why it would (or should) be any different when the customer is a business. Whether it's a home/hobby user or a business, as long as the customer isn't actively harming someone else with what they purchased, why should they be restricted in what they do with what they purchased?
I feel like there is a difference. Not that it's based on ethics or law. The distinction here is that an oscilloscope is essentially a tool. Now music and movies and video games are often "consumed" by the end-user for their own sole pleasure. Unless that music or movie is played in a place of business or illegally shared/sold to other parties, it is simply a consumption item, not a tool.
Very few people (outside of say the members of this forum, which is a very small and unique demographic) purchase an oscilloscope for fun or hobby use. The vast majority of purchasers use a scope as a tool. To make money. 99.9 percent of the world wouldn't buy a scope as a "comsumption item" anymore than they would buy a colonoscope.
It's like if you use a free version of a software for your own personal use... because you don't make money/living with it, that's fine. They distributed the software for free so you could SEE if it helped you before paying. And if you are making money with it (using it for business purposes), you could maybe pay back to the guy who made your work easier? I mean it's your own call.
There are many "free" softwares that are supported by essentially "donations." Such as, say, WinZip. Sure, you can just keep on clicking that tab to make it continue working for free. But once I started to use it for business, it struck me that this software is very useful. And now that I have a business and am using it for said business, it is in fact helping me to make money. And someone spent a lot of time and resources to make it. The price was reasonable. So I bought it. Does anyone at WinZip know me? Do I get "credit" in some way? No, I'm just happy to have this program and I like the fact that I could fully evaluate it before I bought it. And I want to support that business model.
If the retail cost of a scope with the specs you require is priced reasonably for one's business, a lot of people will buy it. If it's "expensive" for you, you probably don't need it. Because it's a competitive market, and the market sets the correct price. But your circumstances might be unique, of course.
-
The manufacturer:
1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.
a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.
If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.
The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".
b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.
So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over? :-//
Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.
When that is an accurate reflection of reality, I agree with you.
In this case, your point is internally inconsistent and therefore valueless. It isn't that difficult... If a customer needs a bandwidth upgrade, then they don't already possess it - in which case they aren't charging the customer for something they already have. They are charging for an upgrade to something the customer already has.
Incorrect. The customer already has both the hardware and software to increase the bandwidth of their oscilloscope and the manufacture is demanding money to provide a code to unlock it. Again if you think this is right/fair/good value for the customer, then that's your opinion but don't expect others to agree.
No, they don't. They have different software. Now it may be that there are only a few bytes difference, but that is sufficient. After all, in most processors it is only necessary to have a single bit difference in order to completely change the operation of the computer - just think what you can achieve by changing a JNZ instruction into a JZ instruction.
No they do not. They have exactly the same software. No code has changed. Only a variable which the user enters and are able to easily do so, with or without paying the manufacturer.
Nonsense.
There are no "variables" in the customer's purchase - there are only bit patterns in a EPROM. Those bit patterns are interpreted by a hardware "universal machine" to perform a function. There might have been concepts that could be identifed as "variables" in the source code, but that is irrelevant since the customer has not bought the source code.
There is no difference between changing a few of the bits in the EPROM (which are interpreted as a JNZ or a JZ instruction) or a few other bits in the EPROM (which are interpreted by the hardware as input to a JNZ or JZ instruction).
The key is instructions that determines the machines function. The source code is an instruction that determines the source code instruction.
The machines' operation is the interpretation of bits, all the way down (with apologies to Terry Pratchett).
No there is a big difference. Changing an instruction would require modification of the software. Entering a code to unlock features which both the software and hardware are already capable of does not. It just needs the correct code to be entered, via the user interface. From the firmware's point of view it is no different to changing any other setting on the oscilloscope.
When you unlock more bandwidth on your oscilloscope, you're just enabling functionality which already exists within it.
-
Entering a code to unlock features which both the software and hardware are already capable of does not. It just needs the correct code to be entered, via the user interface
Please add some context here. Because to unlock any software (Windows, games, et al) that is distributed through CD's or downloads (and doesn't require constant internet connection/verification, anyway), all you need to do is enter the right code.... it's just a hell of a lot harder to crack in most cases.
you're just enabling functionality which already exists within it.
This might be true in one way of looking at it. But it's overly simplistic.
I'll give an example of, say, healthcare equipment. There are a lot of instances where a machine's cost is charged by number of uses. The number of uses are recorded electronically. When you "run out," you have to buy more. The intrinsic functionality of the machine is locked. And punching in the right "code" (or in some cases simply resetting a fuse!) will make the machine work again. It has nothing to do with "wear and tear" or operating costs. It's purely a business model.But if you make MONEY using the machine, you will probably just continue to pay. Because if you are caught tampering with the machine, maybe you will lose your support. Or maybe you will continue to pay, simply because this business went out of their way to find you and sell you something that is paying for itself plus more. And you're happy with the arrangement. I'm sure there's a difference in EULA and contract and all, but you do make some broad sweeping statements like they're fact.
Now that company probably won't care at all if you buy the machine for $30,000.00 and hack it for personal use. They do care if you are billing a patient or insurance company $500.00 per use and not paying your tribute. So if you hack your scope because it gets your jollies off, then that's fine to me. IMO. But if you are using it for business, I think you're in some way biting the hand that feeds you.
-
Entering a code to unlock features which both the software and hardware are already capable of does not. It just needs the correct code to be entered, via the user interface
Please add some context here. Because to unlock any software (Windows, games, et al) that is distributed through CD's or downloads (and doesn't require constant internet connection/verification, anyway), all you need to do is enter the right code.... it's just a hell of a lot harder to crack in most cases.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Rigol+hack (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Rigol+hack)
-
So if I stumble on the right unlock code, I'm good? If I stumble on the right combination on someone else's locker, I guess I can take their stuff. I'm just unlocking the feautures that were already in there. :)
If I put my key in another person's car and it happens to fit, I can take it?
Locks are there to prevent deter theft. If you bypass the lock, no matter how simple, what does that make you?
Sure, if you bought the scope because you KNEW how to unlock it, and that's the only reason you bought it, and the only reason you are unlocking it is for personal use, then I see no problem. Again not legal or ethical. Just common sense. This is a small minority of customers, and it won't make a difference to anyone. I wonder if this discussion would be different if the company in question were HP or Tek.
-
The manufacturer:
1) Manufactures have the right to lock parts of the hardware they sell and charge customers any price they like to unlock them.
a) Manufacturers have the right to make different models at different price points.
If they choose to do it via firmware instead of manufacturing different PCBs, that's up to them. The reason they usually do it that way is that it simplifies manufacturing/distribution and that makes it cheaper for the customer.
The is the the complete opposite of "ripping them off".
b) Rigol do not sell bandwidth upgrades. You can't go to Rigol and ask for an upgrade because the don't sell them. The only upgrades they sell are for advanced triggering, serial decoders, etc. NOT bandwidth. Bandwidth is fixed.
So ... how can they be "ransoming" you when they don't actually sell the thing you're complaining they're ransoming you over? :-//
Incorrect Rigol do sell bandwidth upgrades and if charging the customer over £3000 to unlock something they already have is not ripping them off, I don't know what is.
When that is an accurate reflection of reality, I agree with you.
In this case, your point is internally inconsistent and therefore valueless. It isn't that difficult... If a customer needs a bandwidth upgrade, then they don't already possess it - in which case they aren't charging the customer for something they already have. They are charging for an upgrade to something the customer already has.
Incorrect. The customer already has both the hardware and software to increase the bandwidth of their oscilloscope and the manufacture is demanding money to provide a code to unlock it. Again if you think this is right/fair/good value for the customer, then that's your opinion but don't expect others to agree.
No, they don't. They have different software. Now it may be that there are only a few bytes difference, but that is sufficient. After all, in most processors it is only necessary to have a single bit difference in order to completely change the operation of the computer - just think what you can achieve by changing a JNZ instruction into a JZ instruction.
No they do not. They have exactly the same software. No code has changed. Only a variable which the user enters and are able to easily do so, with or without paying the manufacturer.
Nonsense.
There are no "variables" in the customer's purchase - there are only bit patterns in a EPROM. Those bit patterns are interpreted by a hardware "universal machine" to perform a function. There might have been concepts that could be identifed as "variables" in the source code, but that is irrelevant since the customer has not bought the source code.
There is no difference between changing a few of the bits in the EPROM (which are interpreted as a JNZ or a JZ instruction) or a few other bits in the EPROM (which are interpreted by the hardware as input to a JNZ or JZ instruction).
The key is instructions that determines the machines function. The source code is an instruction that determines the source code instruction.
The machines' operation is the interpretation of bits, all the way down (with apologies to Terry Pratchett).
No there is a big difference. Changing an instruction would require modification of the software. Entering a code to unlock features which both the software and hardware are already capable of does not. It just needs the correct code to be entered, via the user interface. From the firmware's point of view it is no different to changing any other setting on the oscilloscope.
When you unlock more bandwidth on your oscilloscope, you're just enabling functionality which already exists within it.
It is all software! it is all bits. The two are, in very very deep philosophical and practical ways, completely identical.
What's the difference between
- changing one EPROM location from 0x1234 to 0xabcd - where 0x1234 is the key that causes the lower bandwidth parameters to be poked into the hardware and 0xabcd is the key that causes the higher bandwidth parameters to be poked into the hardware
- changing another EPROM location from 0x1234 to 0xabcd - where 0x1234 is a JZ opcode that causes the lower bandwidth parameters to be poked into the hardware and 0xabcd is the JNZ opcode that causes the higher bandwidth parameters to be poked into the hardware
Answer: in very deep practical ways, absolutely none.
There are no "special" bits. There are only bits. And any of those bits can be changed by an editor.
-
So if I stumble on the right unlock code, I'm good? If I stumble on the right combination on someone else's locker, I guess I can take their stuff. I'm just unlocking the feautures that were already in there. :)
If I put my key in another person's car and it happens to fit, I can take it?
Locks are there to prevent deter theft. If you bypass the lock, no matter how simple, what does that make you?
Sure, if you bought the scope because you KNEW how to unlock it, and that's the only reason you bought it, and the only reason you are unlocking it is for personal use, then I see no problem. Again not legal or ethical. Just common sense. This is a small minority of customers, and it won't make a difference to anyone. I wonder if this discussion would be different if the company in question were HP or Tek.
Sorry,that doesn't quite work!
It would be more like:-
I buy a car in which for some reason the seller has locked the glovebox.
I discover that I really need the glovebox,& also that the same glovebox key fits all of that model.
I borrow my neighbour's key,unlock the glovebox & leave it unlocked.
Have I unlocked functionality?
Of course I have,but seeing I own the car,is it still the manufacturer's glovebox?
If the Manufacturer is a drug addict & has left his paraphernalia in the locked glovebox,is that a defence in law if the cops search my car?
Can I charge the Manufacturer rent for keeping "his" glovebox in my car?
See how quickly these things become silly?
The number of corporate users who unlock their Oscilloscopes is likely to be vanishingly small.
If they want a 100MHz Rigol,they'll buy the thing---the manhours used to unlock them would have been used for much more productive things.
Hobbyists & "quasi-hobbyists" will spend the time,but they probably are too poor to buy the full-featured one anyway.
-
I don't see why it would (or should) be any different when the customer is a business. Whether it's a home/hobby user or a business, as long as the customer isn't actively harming someone else with what they purchased, why should they be restricted in what they do with what they purchased?
I feel like there is a difference. Not that it's based on ethics or law. The distinction here is that an oscilloscope is essentially a tool. Now music and movies and video games are often "consumed" by the end-user for their own sole pleasure. Unless that music or movie is played in a place of business or illegally shared/sold to other parties, it is simply a consumption item, not a tool.
I think you misunderstood my meaning. I wasn't referring to the difference between a tool (something used for productivity) and a toy (something used for fun). I was referring to the difference between a business customer and a home/hobby customer. While it is true that the former is using the tool strictly for business productivity while the latter is using the tool for education or entertainment, that doesn't change the fundamental point that, aside from the fact that creators of easily-copied works could not survive in a marketplace that allowed unfettered and immediate copying of those works, the only truly legitimate justification for preventing either of them from doing what they want with what they purchased is active harm that may result from that use. Put another way, there is no justification for treating the two differently that isn't arbitrary.
-
So if I stumble on the right unlock code, I'm good? If I stumble on the right combination on someone else's locker, I guess I can take their stuff. I'm just unlocking the feautures that were already in there. :)
If I put my key in another person's car and it happens to fit, I can take it?
Locks are there to prevent deter theft. If you bypass the lock, no matter how simple, what does that make you?
This logic is unsound. "A purpose of a lock is to prevent/deter theft, therefore all uses of a lock are for the purpose of preventing/deterring theft, and therefore to bypass the lock indicates intent to steal".
No. Locks are tools. Like anything else, they serve multiple purposes. At their heart, they control access. Whether the access is desired by someone who has a right to it or not is an independent variable. And whether or not the person who lacks the access is one who should lack the access is yet another variable.
Sure, if you bought the scope because you KNEW how to unlock it, and that's the only reason you bought it, and the only reason you are unlocking it is for personal use, then I see no problem. Again not legal or ethical. Just common sense. This is a small minority of customers, and it won't make a difference to anyone. I wonder if this discussion would be different if the company in question were HP or Tek.
So the question is: why is that particular set of circumstances one you do not object to?
Why does it matter whether you are unlocking it for personal use or for business use? Sure, it may matter as regards the support you can expect afterwards, but whether or not that serves as sufficient reason to refrain is dependent solely on the circumstances of the individual.
-
It is all software! it is all bits. The two are, in very very deep philosophical and practical ways, completely identical.
Well, strictly speaking, that's not true. It depends on the architecture of the machine.
On most modern personal computer class hardware, code executes in regions of memory that are protected from writes, while data lives in regions of memory that are not protected from writes. Of course, the operating system arranges things so that the hardware is configured in that way.
>:D
At the end of the day, what the computer executes is instructions. The gating control we're talking about can be implemented either through instructions or through data. The important thing isn't how that gating control is implemented, it's that it's a gating control we're talking about, not actual functionality beyond that.
What's the difference between
- changing one EPROM location from 0x1234 to 0xabcd - where 0x1234 is the key that causes the lower bandwidth parameters to be poked into the hardware and 0xabcd is the key that causes the higher bandwidth parameters to be poked into the hardware
- changing another EPROM location from 0x1234 to 0xabcd - where 0x1234 is a JZ opcode that causes the lower bandwidth parameters to be poked into the hardware and 0xabcd is the JNZ opcode that causes the higher bandwidth parameters to be poked into the hardware
Answer: in very deep practical ways, absolutely none.
Perhaps so, but what we're talking about here isn't that. What we're talking about is the difference between changing an EEPROM location and an NVRAM location. But as I mentioned above, in the end, that's not what really matters.
There are no "special" bits. There are only bits. And any of those bits can be changed by an editor.
Oh, this is most definitely not the case. The "specialness" of the bit isn't (necessarily) defined by where it lives during execution of the code, but (if anything at all) where it lives when the machine is turned off. But that is only an indicator, really.
That line will continue to blur, however, as nonvolatile storage improves and continues to gain the desirable attributes of volatile storage.
Regardless, what we're talking about is whether or not the system is configured to execute the code that implements the functionality in question.
Tell me something. If you had an oscilloscope that had a jumper on it, and that jumper controlled whether or not the oscilloscope's MSO functionality was enabled, and the scope you purchased had it set so that the functionality was disabled, would you believe it to be unethical to open the scope up and change the jumper to enable the functionality? If so, on what basis?
At the end of the day, the fundamental justification you're using for supporting such arbitrary constraints on the purchaser is to make it possible for the manufacturer to employ arbitrary schemes to control what functionality is available so that the manufacturer may profit from those schemes, and to fully control the conditions under which that functionality is made available even when what is supplied to the customer is fully capable of performing the functions in question. That is the same as insisting that a car manufacturer should be able to dictate to you how fast you can drive your car, with the only thing preventing you from going any faster is a switch that you can flip. You are insisting that it would be wrong for the purchaser to flip that switch. In essence, you are insisting that the manufacturer reserves every right to unilaterally tell you what to do with what you purchase from them, as long as that control results in greater profit for them. On what basis do you claim that my characterization here is incorrect?
-
Why does it matter whether you are unlocking it for personal use or for business use? Sure, it may matter as regards the support you can expect afterwards, but whether or not that serves as sufficient reason to refrain is dependent solely on the circumstances of the individual.
Like I said, it's just an opinion. Not based on law or ethics. Maybe it's based on the fact that when your business is reliant on other businesses, and your business also relies on respect of IP, then you might be more inclined to respect the IP of those other businesses on which you are reliant?
I think you misunderstood my meaning. I wasn't referring to the difference between a tool (something used for productivity) and a toy (something used for fun). I was referring to the difference between a business customer and a home/hobby customer.
Well, I made this connection myself. Home/hobby = fun/entertainment. Learning. Experimenting/playing. Fixing the occasional thing. Designing the occasional thing (for personal use). Whereas business customer is earning money through the use of the tool.
Music and movies can be a business tool, too... whether you are charging people or playing media in a place of business for the enjoyment of your customers.
This logic is unsound. "A purpose of a lock is to prevent/deter theft, therefore all uses of a lock are for the purpose of preventing/deterring theft, and therefore to bypass the lock indicates intent to steal".
:-// :-// :-// :-//
I don't think this is a great leap at all. If the code on the Rigol was not there to deter theft of IP, why not just have a menu setting "Press 1 for 50MHz. Press 2 for 100MHz."
Whether the access is desired by someone who has a right to it or not is an independent variable.
I think this ties in somehow, as well. I mean, if a lock pick hobbyist buys a lock, of course he can pick it if he wants to. In this scenario, I see no problem with a hobbyist to unlock a scope for no other reason that simply because he wants to. But to pick a lock to get what's on the other side, something which the manufacturer charges money for (in the case of Rigol, they DO sell a higher bandwidth model, but this can easily apply to Agilent or Siglent or Keysight or Lecroi, or w/e company you want to insert there, which sells upgraded features, including locking out scope input channels, entirely!), for commercial use, then I personally feel that's different.
the only truly legitimate justification for preventing either of them from doing what they want with what they purchased is active harm that may result from that use.
Ok, now I'm picturing a scope that is booby trapped to permanently brick itself if the wrong code is entered, lol. Yeah, I know you meant legal/financial consequences.
Why does it matter whether you are unlocking it for personal use or for business use? Sure, it may matter as regards the support you can expect afterwards, but whether or not that serves as sufficient reason to refrain is dependent solely on the circumstances of the individual.
I brought up the example of WinZip. I wonder what you think of it. Do you think anyone who pays for WinZip is a dickhead, because there are no consequences for not paying? On the one hand, you have casual users who open their email and someone sent them a zipped file full of funny cat pictures. OTOH, a law firm regularly zips large documents to organize and distribute large documents. Maybe look at the reverse? On the one hand, if WinZip takes away your cat pictures, you don't lose anything. If they take away an important tool from a business, they hurt them financially.
Another example is free student versions of software. Or free device samples. The entire point of giving away this free stuff is so that if/when that 1 in 1000 people who get this free stuff actually starts to use this stuff in a commercial/business enterprise, then they will start to pay for it!
I am not making a legal/ethical argument. This is just my own feeling.
I buy a car in which for some reason the seller has locked the glovebox.
I discover that I really need the glovebox,& also that the same glovebox key fits all of that model.
I borrow my neighbour's key,unlock the glovebox & leave it unlocked.
No one here is so dense that they cannot understand this. This has been repeated in varying forms many times in the thread. This is not a clear cut analogy to me. If you write software for a living, you might see this differently. (And besides, you did not "discover" that the seller locked the glovebox. You purchased the car knowing it did not come with a glovebox; you were also offered a car WITH a glovebox, but you were too cheap to buy it.:))
You can make a case that Kim Dot Com didn't do anything illegal. He only profited on a system (allegedly) designed to allow other people to break the law. And oddly, the FBI went after HIM, and not the people who were breaking the law with the help of his severs and website. (Business/profiter vs hobbyist/consumer). I'm not a lawyer, but I am not too concerned with the potentially wrongful shutting down of his business. For no other reason than I would rather the global economy remain healthy for my own personal benefit. And for the fact I rather the future of movies not be low budget crap because no one can get paid for their investment. :)
-
I think you misunderstood my meaning. I wasn't referring to the difference between a tool (something used for productivity) and a toy (something used for fun). I was referring to the difference between a business customer and a home/hobby customer.
Well, I made this connection myself. Home/hobby = fun/entertainment. Learning. Experimenting/playing. Fixing the occasional thing. Designing the occasional thing (for personal use). Whereas business customer is earning money through the use of the tool.
Indeed!---see my comments on the likelihood of a corporate customer bothering to "buy a bit cheaper & unlock".
This might happen with office software,where it would be a "do it once,then use everywhere" situation,but to have to mess with every instrument--Nah!
I buy a car in which for some reason the seller has locked the glovebox.
I discover that I really need the glovebox,& also that the same glovebox key fits all of that model.
I borrow my neighbour's key,unlock the glovebox & leave it unlocked.
No one here is so dense that they cannot understand this. This has been repeated in varying forms many times in the thread. This is not a clear cut analogy to me. If you write software for a living, you might see this differently. (And besides, you did not "discover" that the seller locked the glovebox. You purchased the car knowing it did not come with a glovebox; you were also offered a car WITH a glovebox, but you were too cheap to buy it.:))
You have missed my point:-
I was commenting on your analogy.
"If I put my key in another person's car and it happens to fit, I can take it?"
And,I did not "discover" the glove box was locked--I knew that from the start.
What I said was: "I discover that I really need the glovebox," ,which you will agree is something else,again---perhaps I should have said "realise",or "found" instead of "discover".
I was sold a car with a glovebox,otherwise there would be a big hole in the dash!
My whole comment was really to point out how easy it is for analogies to go astray---like the drug stuff & rent bit!
-
At the end of the day, the fundamental justification you're using for supporting such arbitrary constraints on the purchaser is to make it possible for the manufacturer to employ arbitrary schemes to control what functionality is available so that the manufacturer may profit from those schemes, and to fully control the conditions under which that functionality is made available even when what is supplied to the customer is fully capable of performing the functions in question. That is the same as insisting that a car manufacturer should be able to dictate to you how fast you can drive your car, with the only thing preventing you from going any faster is a switch that you can flip. You are insisting that it would be wrong for the purchaser to flip that switch. In essence, you are insisting that the manufacturer reserves every right to unilaterally tell you what to do with what you purchase from them, as long as that control results in greater profit for them. On what basis do you claim that my characterization here is incorrect?
Why you only look at the consumer end? Are you born with the right that someone creates and delivers an oscilloscope you to with the features you desire and at the price you want? Nope. Eventually someone WILL do that.... as long as it is profitable to do so.
employ arbitrary schemes to control what functionality is available
What functions are even available to begin with are somewhat arbitrary. While developing this product, they invested capital to create features that they figured might be desired and profitable to specific segments of the market (and tech nerds), but which were not necessarily highly desirable or must-have features for a broader market. But these features required an initial investment AND ONGOING MAINTENANCE COST (i.e. debugging/support). But you desire they should give these features to everyone.... Why? Does that not increase the cost for those guys that just want "a basic wrench" in order to do their job? In order to earn their income and pay for the roof over their head? Now these customers need to buy the top of the line product, so that the evil company doesn't profit as much????
Why do you think "higher profits" for the company means a lower cost to you? This is not the same thing. Unless you happen to specifically need all the features that they arbitrarily chose to develop. If you can independently develop as good a scope with all the features and profitably sell it for the cost of a base model Rigol, then you would do it, and Rigol would be forced to change their pricing structure and/or go out of business. No one needs to stop them from their evil ways. The market will do that.
There are approximately 69,000 arbitrary decisions that had to be made to even create the product. Why do most people prefer the firmware/hardware/layout of Rigol over Owon? Is their an unlock code to make the Owon interface less shitty?
car manufacturer should be able to dictate to you how fast you can drive your car, with the only thing preventing you from going any faster is a switch that you can flip.
And yet, this is exactly the case. Car manufacturers routinely "detune" motors for lower end model cars and motorcycles. In addition, In the US, the government can and does also limit the top speed of vehicles that operate on US streets. That top speed is 189 miles per hour, IIRC.* (How arbitrary does that sound? :)) This arbitrary limit must be put on a vehicle by the manufacturer for any vehicle that needs to be street legal, but which could otherwise exceed this limit. It seems silly that this is even necessary, since we have speed limits. Who needs a car to go faster than 120mph? (a little more than the average speed of some or our highways, lol.) Same can be said for a scope that goes to 100MHz. I fail to see a big market for that vs 50MHz. High speed video signals, maybe? What else will fit in that bandwidth? Anything higher than a couple MHz is exotic territory for a switching PSU. 5x 2MHz is 10MHz.. which is going to cover a lot of peoples' needs for an oscilloscope. Need more, you probably need a lot more.
You can also complain that evil companies are making things that break in 3 years in order to increase their own profit. And you'd be right. But look at it from a wider perspective, and you will see that this is in fact necessary in today's economy. If you try to break that mold, you are welcome to try... and go broke. Making one great product that lasts for generations is fine, but you won't have any repeat customers. You won't have a next product cycle to design. You won't be able to keep your workforce employed. You'll sell out your one hit wonder, then sit on your ass with your money. And no one will have a job, lol, so you will have nothing to buy with your profits. You'll be the only person that can afford bread, though, so there's that. If people in your country are healthy and not starving, you have nothing to complain about regarding evil corporations trying to make profit. If you are concerned for the quality of life for the laborers in third world countries, then you have somewhere to start, at least. You and I, spending leisure time debating stuff on the internet, on our personal computers, under our (bank-owned) roofs, we are the ones benefiting from the system. :)
*I think it might be some manufacturers that are arbitrarily limiting top speeds, rather than the government, actually.
-
Why does it matter whether you are unlocking it for personal use or for business use? Sure, it may matter as regards the support you can expect afterwards, but whether or not that serves as sufficient reason to refrain is dependent solely on the circumstances of the individual.
Like I said, it's just an opinion. Not based on law or ethics. Maybe it's based on the fact that when your business is reliant on other businesses, and your business also relies on respect of IP, then you might be more inclined to respect the IP of those other businesses on which you are reliant?
That may be true, but we're talking about what justifies restrictions on their actions, not what actions they would refrain from of their own volition.
I agree: a business is much more likely to simply leave the device as it is, and there's good reason for that: the desire for maximized after-the-sale support. They depend on the instruments in question for their business, after all, so after-the-sale support is much more important to them than it would be to a hobbyist who would not be affected by the unavailability of such support to nearly the same degree.
This logic is unsound. "A purpose of a lock is to prevent/deter theft, therefore all uses of a lock are for the purpose of preventing/deterring theft, and therefore to bypass the lock indicates intent to steal".
:-// :-// :-// :-//
I don't think this is a great leap at all. If the code on the Rigol was not there to deter theft of IP, why not just have a menu setting "Press 1 for 50MHz. Press 2 for 100MHz."
"Theft" is not the same as "doing something that someone else doesn't want you to". "Theft" has a very specific meaning: taking something that belongs to someone else without that other person's authorization.
Here, the copy of the code in question belongs to the owner of the device (to insist otherwise is to insist that the DVD you purchased is not owned by you, that you do not have the right to experience its contents even though you purchased those contents, and that the originator of the work therein has the right to unilaterally dictate to you everything you can and cannot do with that copy even though copyright law has already imposed scarcity). The original code belongs to the manufacturer. Copyright laws prevent lawful copying of the code without the authorization of the copyright holder, but that is not in play here at all, because no unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work is taking place when someone enters a magic key into their scope. Nor is there any theft of "intellectual property", because "intellectual property" is a person's creative expression, not the forms it is fixed in. Patents and copyrights exist not to protect from theft, but to provide greater incentive for creative people to release their creations to the world. They do this by imposing artificial scarcity on things that otherwise would be freely available to all. That's a necessary imposition in order to give creators sufficient ability to survive on the basis of the sale of their works, but it is also a sufficient imposition, as it makes the world of "intellectual property" roughly equivalent to the world of physical goods. To go any further than that is to taint the market in favor of "intellectual property" holders in the same way it would taint the market for physical goods. Few here argue that manufacturers of purely physical goods should be able to dictate arbitrary terms of use to purchasers, but that is precisely what they are arguing in favor of here with respect to anything else.
The term "theft" has been usurped by people who insist on treating everything that could possibly derive in any way from "intellectual property" as if it had the same scarcity properties as real property. It's one thing to insist that the arena of "intellectual property" be governed so as to give it the scarcity properties of physical objects. But as this thread illustrates, some go far beyond that in their insistence of how "intellectual property" should be treated. They act as if "intellectual property" is some sacrosanct thing that would not exist at all if we didn't simply give creators whatever they wanted in exchange for use of instantiations of their "intellectual property". The history of the world shows how incorrect that is -- people have been creating, inventing, etc., for far longer than "intellectual property" laws have been around, which proves that intellectual property laws do not exist to make creating, inventing, etc., possible, they exist to make it easier.
Whether the access is desired by someone who has a right to it or not is an independent variable.
I think this ties in somehow, as well. I mean, if a lock pick hobbyist buys a lock, of course he can pick it if he wants to. In this scenario, I see no problem with a hobbyist to unlock a scope for no other reason that simply because he wants to. But to pick a lock to get what's on the other side, something which the manufacturer charges money for (in the case of Rigol, they DO sell a higher bandwidth model, but this can easily apply to Agilent or Siglent or Keysight or Lecroi, or w/e company you want to insert there, which sells upgraded features, including locking out scope input channels, entirely!), for commercial use, then I personally feel that's different.
Then the question becomes: why do you believe the manufacturer should be free to implement whatever mechanisms they choose to control how the device is used, while simultaneously insisting that the purchaser is not entitled to do what they will with the device they purchased with their hard earned money? More precisely, why do some insist on eliminating market forces for the former, while insisting that market forces must control the latter? To insist that the purchaser buy something else instead of maximizing what they have is to insist that the manufacturer should control the market. But markets operate best when the controls placed on them are minimized, when actors on both sides are free to choose what to do and are forced by the nature of the market to deal with the consequences of their choices.
the only truly legitimate justification for preventing either of them from doing what they want with what they purchased is active harm that may result from that use.
Ok, now I'm picturing a scope that is booby trapped to permanently brick itself if the wrong code is entered, lol. Yeah, I know you meant legal/financial consequences.
Well, actually, I had intent on physical harm (which includes things like theft of physical items) in mind with that.
A scope that is booby trapped to permanently brick itself would not last long in the marketplace. The market nicely takes care of things like that. Indeed, it is the reasoning of some of those here that would allow such a thing to survive in the marketplace.
Why does it matter whether you are unlocking it for personal use or for business use? Sure, it may matter as regards the support you can expect afterwards, but whether or not that serves as sufficient reason to refrain is dependent solely on the circumstances of the individual.
I brought up the example of WinZip. I wonder what you think of it. Do you think anyone who pays for WinZip is a dickhead, because there are no consequences for not paying?
I've no problem with "donate-ware" or anything else. Look, I'm not arguing against copyright law itself. I'm arguing against unilaterally imposed contracts. And I'm arguing that they are just as ethically unsound in the world of copyright as they are in the world of physical objects. Not one person here has raised a logically consistent, non-arbitrary defense of them in the arena of copyrights that would not be equally applicable in the arena of physical objects.
Another example is free student versions of software. Or free device samples. The entire point of giving away this free stuff is so that if/when that 1 in 1000 people who get this free stuff actually starts to use this stuff in a commercial/business enterprise, then they will start to pay for it!
Right. Again, I do not argue against copyright. I do not argue against right of refusal of sale. As a vendor, you can choose whom you sell to, and what you sell to them. Other vendors can choose differently. The market ends up taking care of the inefficiencies that might otherwise arise. But that is not what is being argued here. What is being argued here is that the right to choose what you sell extends to the right to unilaterally, without prior agreement of the buyer, dictate to the buyer what they may and may not do with what they purchase from you. And that requires the assent of the buyer when what is being sold is a physical good. Somehow, non-physical goods, or even physical goods that operate with a non-physical component (firmware), are being treated as magically exempt from the expectations we impose on the sale of physical goods.
All I'm doing is calling people out on their hypocrisy.
I am not making a legal/ethical argument. This is just my own feeling.
Fair enough. We're all entitled to our own opinions. I'm entitled to my opinion that an opinion isn't valid unless it is logically internally consistent. :D
If you write software for a living, you might see this differently. (And besides, you did not "discover" that the seller locked the glovebox. You purchased the car knowing it did not come with a glovebox; you were also offered a car WITH a glovebox, but you were too cheap to buy it.:))
For the record, I have written software for a living, and the company I work for does software as its sole business. And my stance is what it is in large part because I have been in the software industry in one way or another for 30 years. I've seen the damage caused by overzealousness in the use of the power of copyright to unilaterally impose contracts. It took people working for years for free to even begin to unseat Microsoft from their position, a position that wouldn't exist were it not for the power to unilaterally impose contract terms due to copyright.
I've also seen some of the consequences of going entirely in the other direction.
It is not an accident that our general understanding of what it means to "own" an item is what it is. That understanding is the result of hundreds (if not thousands) of years of development of the laws and culture surrounding property and the markets that function for its supply and transfer. History repeatedly shows that control over the actions of others is a power to be given away sparingly, because it will inevitably be horribly abused otherwise. As regards physical goods, the general market has shown itself to be quite good at providing for the needs of buyers and sellers alike. Why in the world would anyone in their right mind want to throw away those characteristics for things which the law already imposes the same sort of scarcity as physical goods?
-
At the end of the day, the fundamental justification you're using for supporting such arbitrary constraints on the purchaser is to make it possible for the manufacturer to employ arbitrary schemes to control what functionality is available so that the manufacturer may profit from those schemes, and to fully control the conditions under which that functionality is made available even when what is supplied to the customer is fully capable of performing the functions in question. That is the same as insisting that a car manufacturer should be able to dictate to you how fast you can drive your car, with the only thing preventing you from going any faster is a switch that you can flip. You are insisting that it would be wrong for the purchaser to flip that switch. In essence, you are insisting that the manufacturer reserves every right to unilaterally tell you what to do with what you purchase from them, as long as that control results in greater profit for them. On what basis do you claim that my characterization here is incorrect?
Why you only look at the consumer end? Are you born with the right that someone creates and delivers an oscilloscope you to with the features you desire and at the price you want? Nope. Eventually someone WILL do that.... as long as it is profitable to do so.
I'm not looking at this strictly from the point of view of the buyer. I'm looking at it from the point of view of both. The seller is already free to build his goods any way he chooses. I am not arguing that the seller isn't free to do that. What I am arguing is that the buyer must have no less liberty than the seller. Just as the seller can build whatever he wants in whatever way he wants, the buyer must be able to do whatever he wants with what he purchases. Neither should be able to unilaterally dictate to the other what he may and may not do after the sale.
What people are arguing here, however, is that the seller should be able to unilaterally dictate to the buyer what he may and may not do with what he purchased, while the buyer has no equivalent power. I am challenging the entire basis of that notion. It is a corrupt and evil notion, for it unnecessarily gives control over others to entities that have proven they do not deserve it (if you think they do, then you'd better read up on the history of monopolies and the abuses that have occurred at their hands. A monopoly inherently gives the seller the ability to dictate terms).
employ arbitrary schemes to control what functionality is available
What functions are even available to begin with are somewhat arbitrary. While developing this product, they invested capital to create features that they figured might be desired and profitable to specific segments of the market (and tech nerds), but which were not necessarily highly desirable or must-have features for a broader market. But these features required an initial investment AND ONGOING MAINTENANCE COST (i.e. debugging/support). But you desire they should give these features to everyone.... Why?
I don't desire that they should give those features to everyone. Whether they do or not is their choice. What I do insist on is that they not demand that the customer artificially limit his actions in order to satisfy the manufacturer's desire to do things a certain way.
All of these things must be subject to the marketplace. If the manufacturer insists on building his product in a certain way, he takes full responsibility for the consequences of doing so. What people are insisting on here is that the manufacturer should be artificially shielded from the consequences of being lazy, of putting the same capabilities into all of their products, "protecting" that in any arbitrary way they wish, and then making up for doing that sloppily by imposing artificial limits on the actions of the buyer.
Does that not increase the cost for those guys that just want "a basic wrench" in order to do their job? In order to earn their income and pay for the roof over their head? Now these customers need to buy the top of the line product, so that the evil company doesn't profit as much????
Well, seeing how I've already outlined exactly how the manufacturers can do what they want without imposing artificial limits on the actions of their customers, this objection doesn't fly.
Put another way, just because a customer can attempt to take actions to bypass a lock doesn't mean he has the right to succeed in that. I do not argue that customers have the right to succeed in their attempts, only that they have the right to make the attempt.
car manufacturer should be able to dictate to you how fast you can drive your car, with the only thing preventing you from going any faster is a switch that you can flip.
And yet, this is exactly the case. Car manufacturers routinely "detune" motors for lower end model cars and motorcycles.
Yes, they do. But importantly, customers of those cars and motorcycles aren't forbidden by unilaterally imposed contract from altering the tune of those engines.
What we're talking about here, on the other hand, is the notion that the manufacturer has the right to dictate to the purchaser that they not modify the tune of the car. I'm not talking about something where the purchaser would lose warranty support if they were to take that action. I'm talking about something where the purchaser would be in breach of law for doing so.
In addition, In the US, the government can and does also limit the top speed of vehicles that operate on US streets. That top speed is 189 miles per hour, IIRC. (How arbitrary does that sound? :))
I don't believe purchasers are prevented from removing those limits. In fact, I know they're not prevented in that way. The cars that run the Texas Mile go far faster than that, and are still street legal.
This arbitrary limit must be put on a vehicle by the manufacturer for any vehicle that needs to be street legal, but which could otherwise exceed this limit. It seems silly that this is even necessary, since we have speed limits. Who needs a car to go faster than 120mph? (a little more than the average speed of some or our highways, lol.)
If that arbitrary government-imposed limit really is there, then yes, I agree it's utterly silly and worthless.
Same can be said for a scope that goes to 100MHz. I fail to see a big market for that vs 50MHz. High speed video signals, maybe? What else will fit in that bandwidth? Anything higher than a couple MHz is exotic territory for a switching PSU. 5x 2MHz is 10MHz.. which is going to cover a lot of peoples' needs for an oscilloscope. Need more, you probably need a lot more.
What about software defined radio? Or radio in general? What about microcontrollers running with 50 MHz crystal oscillators as their timebase?
Keep in mind, the bandwidth of a scope defines the maximum visible frequency in a waveform. But waveforms are generally composed of a conglomerate of frequencies. That square wave will have (as a practical matter) Fourier components at least an order of magnitude higher than its base frequency.
Much of your message assumes that I have some fundamental disagreement with the free market. Far from it. I'm actually arguing in favor of a freer market than what some her would have us operate under. A free market requires free actors (both before and after the sale) and a balance of power between them. Someone is not free in the use of that which they purchase when the person they are executing a transaction with has the power of unilateral imposition of terms.
-
(SNIP)
All that said, my stance on "why" people hack scopes? In my opinion it is because they can, because they are not willing to afford a larger sum of money for a non-profit activity (hobbyists) or they are struggling to keep their business and decide to take this route with minimum expenditure.
Thank you! for being the one person who offers 2 whole sentences in the last two pages that actually relate to the original post. :D
mnem
And for being the exception that proves the rule. ;)
-
What people are arguing here, however, is that the seller should be able to unilaterally dictate to the buyer what he may and may not do with what he purchased, while the buyer has no equivalent power.
He can do w/e he wants with it, sure.
you'd better read up on the history of monopolies and the abuses that have occurred at their hands. A monopoly inherently gives the seller the ability to dictate terms).
What is the monopoly, here?
I don't desire that they should give those features to everyone. Whether they do or not is their choice. What I do insist on is that they not demand that the customer artificially limit his actions in order to satisfy the manufacturer's desire to do things a certain way.
Which actions are you talking about, here, being artificially limited?
What people are insisting on here is that the manufacturer should be artificially shielded from the consequences of being lazy
Not at all... WinZip is pretty lazy about how they charge for their software. And I'd venture that the majority of users do not pay for it. I don't think anyone should burn in hell for it, anymore than anyone would care about hobbyists unlocking a Rigol scope! I don't think anyone cares! I just don't agree that unlocking features, using the manufacturers own software, is "hacking" or "improving" something you own the same way as changing/modifying a physical good. Tweaking an ECU with a custom firmware to get more horsepower, that's hacking.
Well, seeing how I've already outlined exactly how the manufacturers can do what they want without imposing artificial limits on the actions of their customers, this objection doesn't fly.
Well, I think it is obvious that this increases the cost to other customers who just want the base model. So it's a tradeoff. And I already said I don't object to you hacking your scope.
Put another way, just because a customer can attempt to take actions to bypass a lock doesn't mean he has the right to succeed in that. I do not argue that customers have the right to succeed in their attempts, only that they have the right to make the attempt.
This is one of the most curious things about your post. Very curious. I'll have to think on that. I'm thinking of Kwikset locks. They are the most common house/door/deadbolt lock in the US. And you can pick them with a couple of bobby pins in under a minute. But that doesn't matter, because the lock is just there to keep honest people honest. * In some way I think unlocking the Rigol for business use is not exactly honest, since there are other easy options to get what you need from Rigol and from other companies. Just an opinion.
I'm also thinking back to my childhood where you could stick a pin in the bottom of the cable box and get the pay channels for free, lol.
-
What people are arguing here, however, is that the seller should be able to unilaterally dictate to the buyer what he may and may not do with what he purchased, while the buyer has no equivalent power.
He can do w/e he wants with it, sure.
If it's the buyer you're talking about in the above (we've already established that the seller can do whatever he wants), well in that case, we have no disagreement.
That was easy. :D
you'd better read up on the history of monopolies and the abuses that have occurred at their hands. A monopoly inherently gives the seller the ability to dictate terms).
What is the monopoly, here?
The point wasn't to say that a monopoly exists now, but to illustrate that businesses that have been given the power to dictate terms have used that power to ill effect. It's an illustrative warning of what will happen if some people here were to have their preferences implemented.
I don't desire that they should give those features to everyone. Whether they do or not is their choice. What I do insist on is that they not demand that the customer artificially limit his actions in order to satisfy the manufacturer's desire to do things a certain way.
Which actions are you talking about, here, being artificially limited?
The action under discussion, that would be artificially limited if some had their way, is the ability to enter a magic code into the oscilloscope one owns so as to enable the features that were not enabled prior to that, even if he didn't obtain the code from the seller or one of the seller's authorized representatives.
What people are insisting on here is that the manufacturer should be artificially shielded from the consequences of being lazy
Not at all... WinZip is pretty lazy about how they charge for their software. And I'd venture that the majority of users do not pay for it. I don't think anyone should burn in hell for it, anymore than anyone would care about hobbyists unlocking a Rigol scope! I don't think anyone cares! I just don't agree that unlocking features, using the manufacturers own software, is "hacking" or "improving" something you own the same way as changing/modifying a physical good. Tweaking an ECU with a custom firmware to get more horsepower, that's hacking.
I fully agree that "hacking" is really a misnomer. What we're talking about is not really any different than someone following directions to perform a simple modification to their car.
Well, seeing how I've already outlined exactly how the manufacturers can do what they want without imposing artificial limits on the actions of their customers, this objection doesn't fly.
Well, I think it is obvious that this increases the cost to other customers who just want the base model. So it's a tradeoff. And I already said I don't object to you hacking your scope.
If it really increased the cost of the base model to other customers, then how do you explain how Rigol manages to sell their DS1054Z for such a low price when they have arguably the most "hackable" (sorry, "easily modifiable") scope on the market?
No, you're looking at only one side of the economic equation. The other side is that the customer base who have no problem with enabling the features in their scopes in this way will view a scope they can do that with as a better value for their money, and they'll thus buy the scope without hesitation. The end result is that the manufacturer gets greater sales than their competitors, and thus more profit.
As I already said, a manufacturer will either price their goods in such a way as to take what customers are actually doing with them into account, or they'll have trouble staying in business. It doesn't necessarily follow that their prices will be higher and, indeed, they may end up being lower due to better return on the mass production investment.
And additionally, you presume that implementing the locking system in the way I previously described is so much more costly that it'll have a significant effect on the prices. But that's not the case at all. The method of implementation is trivial. Given that the Rigol codes clearly are derived from the serial number, it's even possible that Rigol's approach is more expensive than the method I outlined, because the approach I outlined is a standard one that is implemented throughout the software industry, as it is used as part of the SSL key verification mechanism in every browser in existence, and any other piece of software that has to do key verification.
Put another way, just because a customer can attempt to take actions to bypass a lock doesn't mean he has the right to succeed in that. I do not argue that customers have the right to succeed in their attempts, only that they have the right to make the attempt.
This is one of the most curious things about your post. Very curious. I'll have to think on that. I'm thinking of Kwikset locks. They are the most common house/door/deadbolt lock in the US. And you can pick them with a couple of bobby pins in under a minute. But that doesn't matter, because the lock is just there to keep honest people honest. * In some way I think unlocking the Rigol for business use is not exactly honest, since there are other easy options to get what you need from Rigol and from other companies. Just an opinion.
Well, "honest" or not, it's not something most companies will find is worth doing, because they tend to value support more highly than the temporary financial benefits they might gain by unlocking the scope.
I'm also thinking back to my childhood where you could stick a pin in the bottom of the cable box and get the pay channels for free, lol.
Heh. Yep. Is it your fault the cable companies contracted with a hardware company that clearly didn't know what it was doing (or didn't care)? Nope. :)
At the end of the day, the deal is this: buyers are not responsible for the sellers' actions, and sellers are not responsible for the buyers' actions. They each have to respond to the actions of the other, however, in whatever way suits their needs. If they think of a mutually beneficial arrangement, they are free to make that arrangement, just as they are free to back out of it if it suits them. There is no reason actors in the market cannot be (generally -- there are a few narrow exceptions, as with anything else) completely free in what they do, save for limits on distribution of trivially-copied works. The latter limits exist to equalize the market in trivially-copied works with the market of physical goods, so as to encourage people to create trivially-copied works.
-
It is all software! it is all bits. The two are, in very very deep philosophical and practical ways, completely identical.
Well, strictly speaking, that's not true. It depends on the architecture of the machine.
On most modern personal computer class hardware, code executes in regions of memory that are protected from writes, while data lives in regions of memory that are not protected from writes. Of course, the operating system arranges things so that the hardware is configured in that way.
At the end of the day, what the computer executes is instructions. The gating control we're talking about can be implemented either through instructions or through data. The important thing isn't how that gating control is implemented, it's that it's a gating control we're talking about, not actual functionality beyond that.
Oh, look more closely at processor implementation, and you will see that is far too black and white!
Remember the old implementation technique of microprogramming, e.g. with the AMD2900 series of bitslice processors. There what you are thinking of as "code" and "data" are sucked from RAM into the processor and are then interpreted and decomposed into a sequence of simpler wider microinstructions that cause bits in hardware registers to change. In some machines, e.g. the Research Machines Orion, the user could change the microprogramming, thus making the machine faster at executing different compiled languages.
That technique is still used in intel's latest processors, and microcode is loaded during the booting process. Often it is used to cover up bugs in the silicon. And don't forget the Transmeta class processors.
If you want to see a pure software equivalent, learn about HP's Dynamo compiler and Java's HotSpot runtime system.
Fundamentally the familiar "universal machines" (i.e. computers+programs) is one enormous finite state machine (FSM). It is so enormous that it cannot be designed as such, and is composed of many interacting smaller FSMs. The common feature is all the operations and functions are controlled by bits located in familiar and less familiar places.
All control is by bit patterns, wherever they are located and however they act.
What's the difference between
- changing one EPROM location from 0x1234 to 0xabcd - where 0x1234 is the key that causes the lower bandwidth parameters to be poked into the hardware and 0xabcd is the key that causes the higher bandwidth parameters to be poked into the hardware
- changing another EPROM location from 0x1234 to 0xabcd - where 0x1234 is a JZ opcode that causes the lower bandwidth parameters to be poked into the hardware and 0xabcd is the JNZ opcode that causes the higher bandwidth parameters to be poked into the hardware
Answer: in very deep practical ways, absolutely none.
Perhaps so, but what we're talking about here isn't that. What we're talking about is the difference between changing an EEPROM location and an NVRAM location. But as I mentioned above, in the end, that's not what really matters.
I wrote EPROM, and NVRAM and EEPROMs are both types of EPROM. But as you acknowledge, the difference between different types is irrelevant.
There are no "special" bits. There are only bits. And any of those bits can be changed by an editor.
Oh, this is most definitely not the case. The "specialness" of the bit isn't (necessarily) defined by where it lives during execution of the code, but (if anything at all) where it lives when the machine is turned off. But that is only an indicator, really.
That line will continue to blur, however, as nonvolatile storage improves and continues to gain the desirable attributes of volatile storage.
Again, too simplistic, so simplistic that it ignores practical techniques.
Youngsters forget past generations of memory. It was normal to turn off a computer in the factory, ship it to the customer, plug it in, and it continued executing from the instruction where it had been turned off. Speeded up the on-site acceptance tests :) Core memory (you know, the origin of the "core dumps"!) was non-volatile.
For the future, HP is claiming that Samsung will manufacture their memresistor memory which will reenable the same benefits.
Regardless, what we're talking about is whether or not the system is configured to execute the code that implements the functionality in question.
And such configuration includes, without distinction, "repair" microcode, instructions derived from compilation, constants entered in an editor (stored in one place), constants entered in an editor (and stored in another place), wires on a PCB, tracks inside a processor, etc.
Tell me something. If you had an oscilloscope that had a jumper on it, and that jumper controlled whether or not the oscilloscope's MSO functionality was enabled, and the scope you purchased had it set so that the functionality was disabled, would you believe it to be unethical to open the scope up and change the jumper to enable the functionality? If so, on what basis?
That is known to be illegal, as IBM's customers found out when they were caught doing it to increase the speed of their mainframes. (I presume you aren't going to make an arbitrary distinction between a jumper on a board and a wire jumper on a backplane).
At the end of the day, the fundamental justification you're using for supporting such arbitrary constraints on the purchaser is to make it possible for the manufacturer to employ arbitrary schemes to control what functionality is available so that the manufacturer may profit from those schemes, and to fully control the conditions under which that functionality is made available even when what is supplied to the customer is fully capable of performing the functions in question. That is the same as insisting that a car manufacturer should be able to dictate to you how fast you can drive your car, with the only thing preventing you from going any faster is a switch that you can flip. You are insisting that it would be wrong for the purchaser to flip that switch. In essence, you are insisting that the manufacturer reserves every right to unilaterally tell you what to do with what you purchase from them, as long as that control results in greater profit for them. On what basis do you claim that my characterization here is incorrect?
All analogies are dangerous, and there are so many significant differences between that and the current discussion that it would be unprofitable to go down that rathole. There's too much heat and too little light in this discussion as it is!
-
I suppose I should answer the original poster's question as well. :)
People "hack" scopes for any number of reasons:
- They like knowing that their scope is as capable as possible, that there are no artificial limitations in it.
- They like knowing that if they need a capability that exists after the "hack" but not before, it'll instantly be there for them.
- They want to experiment with the scope's optional features for longer than the trial period allows (assuming there's a trial period at all!), and don't want to go through the hassle of asking for permission to do so.
- They actually have a use for one or more of the additional capabilities, and would rather put what remains of their budget towards other things than towards those capabilities.
There are probably quite a few more than that.
-
Tell me something. If you had an oscilloscope that had a jumper on it, and that jumper controlled whether or not the oscilloscope's MSO functionality was enabled, and the scope you purchased had it set so that the functionality was disabled, would you believe it to be unethical to open the scope up and change the jumper to enable the functionality? If so, on what basis?
That is known to be illegal, as IBM's customers found out when they were caught doing it to increase the speed of their mainframes. (I presume you aren't going to make an arbitrary distinction between a jumper on a board and a wire jumper on a backplane).
Illegal? I doubt it. I'd bet money it was a breach of contract. There's a huge difference between the two.
Actually, it could be that the hardware in question was rented from IBM, not owned by the customer. That was pretty standard practice back then if I'm not mistaken, and that would make the modification technically illegal as the customer would be modifying property that didn't belong to them. But purchase was possible, so it would be either that, or breach of contract.
Neither of those situations is applicable here.
At the end of the day, the fundamental justification you're using for supporting such arbitrary constraints on the purchaser is to make it possible for the manufacturer to employ arbitrary schemes to control what functionality is available so that the manufacturer may profit from those schemes, and to fully control the conditions under which that functionality is made available even when what is supplied to the customer is fully capable of performing the functions in question. That is the same as insisting that a car manufacturer should be able to dictate to you how fast you can drive your car, with the only thing preventing you from going any faster is a switch that you can flip. You are insisting that it would be wrong for the purchaser to flip that switch. In essence, you are insisting that the manufacturer reserves every right to unilaterally tell you what to do with what you purchase from them, as long as that control results in greater profit for them. On what basis do you claim that my characterization here is incorrect?
All analogies are dangerous, and there are so many significant differences between that and the current discussion that it would be unprofitable to go down that rathole. There's too much heat and too little light in this discussion as it is!
Well, fair enough, but at the end of the day, what we're talking about is the difference between a software switch and a hardware switch, each of which controls whether or not a capability is available.
If flipping the hardware switch isn't unethical, then neither is flipping the software switch. And vice versa.
If a contract is in play, then the contact determines what can and can't be done. Doesn't matter if it's software or hardware that's in play. If a contract is not in play, then normal law is what determines what can and can't be done. When copying is not in play, the ethics are identical.
-
All control is by bit patterns, wherever they are located and however they act.
Yep. In the end, this is what it comes down to. The rest is a matter of convention and implementation.
Youngsters forget past generations of memory. It was normal to turn off a computer in the factory, ship it to the customer, plug it in, and it continued executing from the instruction where it had been turned off. Speeded up the on-site acceptance tests :) Core memory (you know, the origin of the "core dumps"!) was non-volatile.
That is admittedly before my time. But I do know of core memory, and core dumps.
Sounds like you may have some mainframe experience, in which case I'd bet you have some interesting stories to tell!
One thing that I think a lot of people fail to realize is that a lot of what we think of as somewhat recent developments were actually done way back during the mainframe era. Virtualization, for example.
For the future, HP is claiming that Samsung will manufacture their memresistor memory which will reenable the same benefits.
I've heard of that, but haven't yet read up on the details. Now I'm going to have to. :D
-
Youngsters forget past generations of memory. It was normal to turn off a computer in the factory, ship it to the customer, plug it in, and it continued executing from the instruction where it had been turned off. Speeded up the on-site acceptance tests :) Core memory (you know, the origin of the "core dumps"!) was non-volatile.
That is admittedly before my time. But I do know of core memory, and core dumps.
Sounds like you may have some mainframe experience, in which case I'd bet you have some interesting stories to tell!
No I didn't. But the first machine I used while at school was a 39bit computer with an architectural max of 8k words, and a 276us instruction cycle time. Programming was Algol-60 on 10cps teleprinters with 5 channel paper tape. There's one still operational in the National Museum of Computing in Bletchley Park. I must go sometime.
I still remember the light going on when I realised what a compiler actually did.
My first machine code program was to convert between two 5 channel paper tape codes. Without realising it, I coded it as an FSM and, unlike another person's, it worked first time.
When thinking about how I could make a processor (when 8080s were still new), I re-invented the concept of microcoding. A few years later I designed a microcoded system, but it was never implemented since the project was declared a success too early :)
And that's why I have a deep understanding that "it is bits all the way down".
One thing that I think a lot of people fail to realize is that a lot of what we think of as somewhat recent developments were actually done way back during the mainframe era. Virtualization, for example.
And many of the advances were in the UK; the Atlas and Titan machines were seminal.
Hollywood has a history of peverting history in that regard; "Operation Burma" and "U571" are infamous examples.
-
"Why do people hack DSOs?"
My humble opinion:
it is bullshit to pay for one product that already has all the features inside it (dave even shows us that the rigol fron panel pcbs are always populated! even if the plastic cover don't have the buttons/leds holes)
but it's crippled by software unless i pay the salesman to say "abracadabra" to unlock it.
Everything is already there, you only need the magic words. don't you see a problem in that?
I Understand it is much more convenient for the manufacturer to make one single product, my job is to design boards and write software anyway, but as an end user just i feel screwed over.
I have already paid for the full thing and what's inside it. Hacking the scope will void the warranty? I'm 100% okay with that, I respect that and it's in your rights because i actualy modified the thing.
I wouldn't be okay with "pirating" the scope software if you'd have to install the addon features from an external source, so if it wasn't already there.
What would be the difference for them to make a usb drive with the additional software tied to your scope serial number? Pennies? It would still be more convenient than sending the scope back to factory or sending a technician and they could enforce copyright laws with a clear conscience
-
this thread never stop? is it hard to see that rigol freely let us hack their scope? :palm:
-
... but as an end user just i feel screwed over....
I can understand that, in the same way that if I pay £10 for a theatre seat "in the gods", I feel screwed over because there are £100 "front stall" seats that see exactly the same performance.
I have already paid for the full thing and what's inside it.
No, you haven't. You have paid for a different (enormous) finite state machine (FSM). Now it is true that the difference is small and it is easy to edit one FSM into another, but they are still different FSMs.
Hacking the scope will void the warranty? I'm 100% okay with that, I respect that and it's in your rights because i actualy modified the thing.
Quite reasonable and internally consistent.
I wouldn't be okay with "pirating" the scope software if you'd have to install the addon features from an external source, so if it wasn't already there.
But you are installing features from an external source - the feature being a single number (which happens to beneficially change the FSMs operation). In other cases installing external features involves changing many numbers in the FSM (traditionally termed "installing software", even when that's not entirely correct).
Don't forget that all aspects of the FSM are controlled by numbers in the first place, and changing other might not be beneficial. Where are these numbers? Just look in the non-volatile memories to see them (all of them, e.g. including any that configure FPGAs).
-
"Why do people hack DSOs?"
My humble opinion:
it is bullshit to pay for one product that already has all the features inside it (dave even shows us that the rigol fron panel pcbs are always populated! even if the plastic cover don't have the buttons/leds holes)
but it's crippled by software unless i pay the salesman to say "abracadabra" to unlock it.
Everything is already there, you only need the magic words. don't you see a problem in that?
No.
What if it wasn't already there? What if the prices/models/specs were exactly the same as they are now but the DS1054Z had a cheaper chip inside compared to the DS1104Z?
Would you still feel "ripped off", even though you pay the same and get the same?
-
The action under discussion, that would be artificially limited if some had their way, is the ability to enter a magic code into the oscilloscope one owns so as to enable the features that were not enabled prior to that, even if he didn't obtain the code from the seller or one of the seller's authorized representatives.
Wow, this is really hamstringing the customers' ability to use the device as they see fit! :-// Who'd a thunk on my list of features when buying a scope I would be specifically looking for "the ability to enter a magic code... so as to enable features [that many customers willingly pay for]."
No, you're looking at only one side of the economic equation. The other side is that the customer base who have no problem with enabling the features in their scopes in this way will view a scope they can do that with as a better value for their money, and they'll thus buy the scope without hesitation. The end result is that the manufacturer gets greater sales than their competitors, and thus more profit.
I disagree. There is no way you can make this conclusion. The margin on the 100MHz version could be >10000% higher. Just as a hypothetical example, the net on the 100MHz version could represent over 75% of their profits between those two models, even if the percentage of sales is only 5% of the total. IOW, they might make as much selling a single 100MHz version as 20+ of the lower end models. You really have no clue what their profit is (or if they even make a profit) or how it would be affected. And the market is only so big. No matter how cheap they sell the base model, it is not going to make the average consumer want to buy it, once that market is saturated. This isn't a fad product that half the continent would buy on a whim as a birthday present or something.
If it really increased the cost of the base model to other customers, then how do you explain how Rigol manages to sell their DS1054Z for such a low price when they have arguably the most "hackable" (sorry, "easily modifiable") scope on the market?
What does one have to do with the other? "Increased" cost is relative. Yes, they sell the DS1054Z at a very attractive price, even if you leave out the "hackability." For a 4 channel 50MHz DSO, you will be shocked at how cheap this is compared to the competition. How cheap they sell it has no bearing on the fact that introducing a stronger key lock will increase their cost..... and how they distribute that cost is up them, but the most likely scenario, IMO, is an increase to the cost of the base unit.
Rigol is great for hobbyists. Hobbyists can buy and hack their Rigol. No one cares. But I don't agree with some of the reasoning/justifications that are being used.
-
Rigol is great for hobbyists. Hobbyists can buy and hack their Rigol. No one cares. But I don't agree with some of the reasoning/justifications that are being used.
Precisely.
-
"Why do people hack DSOs?"
My humble opinion:
it is bullshit to pay for one product that already has all the features inside it (dave even shows us that the rigol fron panel pcbs are always populated! even if the plastic cover don't have the buttons/leds holes)
but it's crippled by software unless i pay the salesman to say "abracadabra" to unlock it.
Everything is already there, you only need the magic words. don't you see a problem in that?
No.
What if it wasn't already there? What if the prices/models/specs were exactly the same as they are now but the DS1054Z had a cheaper chip inside compared to the DS1104Z?
Would you still feel "ripped off", even though you pay the same and get the same?
You mean you pay less, you get less?
I wouldn't be getting the same because i would have a different, inferior scope in the series for the lesser price, which requires REAL modifications to become the better spec'd model. And that would be ok.
I'll say that again: if i had to pay X to get a medium which has the additional software features i then have to install into my scope, that can only be installed on my scope because it's associated with my scope serial number, i would be firmly against people pirating it.
But I am paying for something that already have everything inside it, that already is the best model, it only need the magic words to become it. And i have to pay for the magic? bullshit, i say.
-
"Why do people hack DSOs?"
My humble opinion:
it is bullshit to pay for one product that already has all the features inside it (dave even shows us that the rigol fron panel pcbs are always populated! even if the plastic cover don't have the buttons/leds holes)
but it's crippled by software unless i pay the salesman to say "abracadabra" to unlock it.
Everything is already there, you only need the magic words. don't you see a problem in that?
No.
What if it wasn't already there? What if the prices/models/specs were exactly the same as they are now but the DS1054Z had a cheaper chip inside compared to the DS1104Z?
Would you still feel "ripped off", even though you pay the same and get the same?
You mean you pay less, you get less?
I wouldn't be getting the same because i would have a different, inferior scope in the series for the lesser price, which requires REAL modifications to become the better spec'd model. And that would be ok.
So software somehow isn't "REAL"? What is it? Imaginary? Magic?
I worked for a company that destroyed an entire product line that way, the idiots!
I'll say that again: if i had to pay X to get a medium which has the additional software features i then have to install into my scope, that can only be installed on my scope because it's associated with my scope serial number, i would be firmly against people pirating it.
But I am paying for something that already have everything inside it, that already is the best model, it only need the magic words to become it. And i have to pay for the magic? bullshit, i say.
Of course you should pay for magic. It takes a lot of hard work to develop magic.
Standard engineering story...
- customer calls engineer to fix their boiler
- engineer hits it, it starts working, presents bill for $100 to the customer
- customer complains that is far too much for a single thump
- engineer thinks, and agrees with the customer
- engineer presents bill of $1 for the hit, and $99 for knowing where to hit
- customer realises what they have bought, and pays
Knowledge is power. Experience is power. Power is money. If you ever get significant knowledge or significant power, I look forward to your giving it away to other people for free.
-
On the one hand, we have people saying that what you purchased is what the seller claimed to be selling you. On the other hand, we have people saying that what you purchased is what you actually received, including everything that was embedded within it, whether activated at the time or not, such that you have the right to attempt to activate something that doesn't come activated if you choose.
So let's say that the seller claims to be selling you a 50 MHz scope, and you find something in the UI that lets you change the bandwidth to 100 MHz. It doesn't require a magic key. It's just a checkbox that says "Enable 100MHz bandwidth". Are you committing some sort of violation if you change that setting?
After all, the seller claimed to be selling you a 50 MHz scope, and as it was configured when you received it, it behaved like a 50 MHz scope. By changing the setting in the UI, you are changing the configuration of the scope in a way that conflicts with what the seller claimed to be selling you. So by the reasoning in this thread, you would be in the wrong to change that setting without, at least, paying the difference between what the seller charges for the 50 MHz version and what he charges for the 100 MHz version.
Right?
Now replace that UI setting with a jumper on the scope's motherboard. If you change that jumper, and it results in the bandwidth of the scope going from 50 MHz to 100 MHz, are you committing some sort of violation against the manufacturer?
My position on this is simple: the scope is yours once you receive it. If it is possible for you to configure it to give it greater capability, you have the right to attempt to do so. You do not have the right to succeed in that attempt, of course. If you lack the needed technical prowess, or lack the proper tools, or whatever, then you will fail at your attempt. The seller can make it as difficult as he pleases for you to configure your scope differently than how you received it. But at the same time, you can rightfully take whatever actions you deem fit in order to change the configuration so that it operates with more (or less, if that is your desire) capability.
The bottom line is this: if the seller really doesn't want you to have a certain capability in the instrument you buy, he is perfectly capable of giving you an instrument that lacks that capability, and is fully within his rights to do so (as long as he isn't claiming to be selling you an instrument with that capability -- that would be a violation of the law on his part). But if the seller puts a capability in the instrument you buy, you are fully within your rights to enable that capability if you can, whether or not the seller likes it. The seller can claim to be selling you something with less capability than it actually has (Agilent does this all the time -- much of what they sell meets specs that are better than what they advertise). He cannot claim to be selling you something with more capability than it has.
One other thing. We know that Rigol scopes can be configured through keys that are available to enable functions they don't originally come configured to enable. Nothing prevents Rigol from changing that. We have no right to expect Rigol to continue to sell scopes that make such easy reconfiguration possible. They do so of their own volition.
-
Now let's take configuration out of the equation entirely.
Suppose the manufacturer sells you a scope that he claims is a 50 MHz bandwidth scope. Suppose you discover that it actually has a bandwidth of 100 MHz.
If you use the scope to perform tasks that require a 100 MHz bandwidth, are you in the wrong to do so? After all, the seller sold you a 50 MHz scope. Aren't you violating his "trust" by using it for things that a 50 MHz scope wouldn't be capable of?
-
The action under discussion, that would be artificially limited if some had their way, is the ability to enter a magic code into the oscilloscope one owns so as to enable the features that were not enabled prior to that, even if he didn't obtain the code from the seller or one of the seller's authorized representatives.
Wow, this is really hamstringing the customers' ability to use the device as they see fit! :-// Who'd a thunk on my list of features when buying a scope I would be specifically looking for "the ability to enter a magic code... so as to enable features [that many customers willingly pay for]."
The action is a gating function. It makes possible other actions. So through prevention of this one action, other actions are also being prevented.
But even if the action itself were the only one being considered, being artificially restrained from performing it is still a restraint, a limitation on your freedom. And limitations on freedom demand good reason.
No, you're looking at only one side of the economic equation. The other side is that the customer base who have no problem with enabling the features in their scopes in this way will view a scope they can do that with as a better value for their money, and they'll thus buy the scope without hesitation. The end result is that the manufacturer gets greater sales than their competitors, and thus more profit.
I disagree. There is no way you can make this conclusion.
My sincere apologies!
I wrote that really badly, because I didn't mean to say that I disagreed with you. I only meant to add an additional possibility, not replace your possibility with mine!
Which is to say, it's entirely possible for both factors to be in play at the same time.
Which factor ends up dominating the equation is a very interesting question in its own right, and probably depends on the circumstances.
If it really increased the cost of the base model to other customers, then how do you explain how Rigol manages to sell their DS1054Z for such a low price when they have arguably the most "hackable" (sorry, "easily modifiable") scope on the market?
What does one have to do with the other? "Increased" cost is relative.
But it is also absolute, because we're talking about a competitive marketplace where other manufacturers are making roughly equivalent products and selling them in competition, and the cost of development adds to the floor on the price one can charge for what one is building. Since R&D costs are spread across the number of units sold, it follows that one will get a greater return on R&D dollars if one sells a larger number of units, and therefore one can sell at a lower price and realize the same amount of profit from the same R&D if one sells a larger number of units. And yes, there are many other factors involved, including the ones you mentioned.
If the "hackability" of a scope makes it more appealing to a large segment of the customer base, that represents the opportunity for greater sales and thus a greater return on investment. That is counterbalanced by the potential of larger per-unit profit for models configured to be more capable, of course, so there is tension between the two approaches. Each represents the possibility of greater profit. And as these scopes are competing against those from other manufacturers, it may well be that the additional appeal from "hackability" is what makes the difference in which manufacturer dominates. As Rigol appears to now be dominating the low-end market (I haven't seen any evidence that they were prior to the DS1054Z) and their scopes are more "hackable", there is every reason to suspect a link between the two. But it may also be that the value proposition of the DS1054Z as it comes configured is sufficient to explain that, too. And yet a third explanation is that Rigol got there with the DS1054Z first.
Yes, they sell the DS1054Z at a very attractive price, even if you leave out the "hackability." For a 4 channel 50MHz DSO, you will be shocked at how cheap this is compared to the competition. How cheap they sell it has no bearing on the fact that introducing a stronger key lock will increase their cost..... and how they distribute that cost is up them, but the most likely scenario, IMO, is an increase to the cost of the base unit.
That may be. I'll put it plainly: if "hacking" of these scopes represented a significant financial downside relative to the profit the manufacturer could be making without it, then the manufacturer would easily make up the difference in implementation costs, and would therefore have plenty of incentive to implement the system I referred to.
So: either Rigol is being stupid in making it possible for their scopes to be "hacked" in this way, and as a result will suffer financially for it, or they aren't. I submit that they aren't, and that the popularity of their low-end scopes is evidence of that.
Rigol is great for hobbyists. Hobbyists can buy and hack their Rigol. No one cares. But I don't agree with some of the reasoning/justifications that are being used.
Sure, I get that. But the question can be framed one of two ways:
- Why should people "hack" their Rigol scope the way they are?
- Why shouldn't people "hack" their Rigol scope the way they are?
People have been focusing primarily on arguments around the latter.
-
but it's crippled by software unless i pay the salesman to say "abracadabra" to unlock it.
Everything is already there, you only need the magic words. don't you see a problem in that?
Personally, no. I respect your opinion, but mine is not the same.
I can buy a car that has Navstar capability. But perhaps I don't want to pay for the service and don't use it.
I can buy a smart phone with a GPS. But perhaps, I don't wish to agree to the EULA to use free nav software, and I don't wish to buy a paid app.
I can buy a milling machine with certain upgrades built in, and if/when I need them maybe I'll pay the money for the additional features. I'm not sour grapes, because I wouldn't have bought the machine if the existing functionality did not represent a positive functionality:cost ratio to begin with. I WILL appreciate the ability to pay another $10,000 to get the 5th axis functional, AFTER my company wins a multi-million dollar NASA contract for making diddly doos that require it.
If I think I can make my own [insert equipment/tool/product] myself that is better, cheaper, and with no locked/hidden features, then I will do so!
Again, I respect your opinion, but to me hardware in a DSO is absolutely NOTHING by itself. I am not in the least bothered if the hardware COULD do more with a different firmware. I do not feel "cheated" in the least. The way I see it, the fact that some people BUY the unlocked model, because they want to, this makes the base model cheaper. Why/where/how the money gets passed around does not matter to me.
Regarding a DSO, there is no artificial or arbitrary limit. The entire thing is arbitrary and artificial to begin with. Just because the ADC datasheet says such and such, there is no reason why the firmware needs to take advantage of all of it. (Anyone ever use only 8 bits of a 10bit ADC to make the coding easier and/or more compact, for instance?) Say you buy a microwave oven, and the microcontroller in it has 4kB of program memory. But only 2kB are used. Would you complain that this unused "hardware" is being wasted? That they could have crammed in a world clock and split timer for counting laps around the kitchen? That this is an artificial limitation?
As I said before, it is quite possible that Rigol makes next to nothing on the base model. As in, they would need to sell an unrealistic number of units in order to make back their initial investment. But the sales of the "unlocked" variety enable them to sell at that price. There is nothing, anywhere, that says that what you pay for has to be equivalent to some value of what you get, regarding the hardware. In fact, why aren't you miffed buying pure software? What a ripoff! I mean, a bunch of numbers burned on a CD does not cost $500.00 to make!!!
I see your side, and I respect your opinion. I disagree.
-
but it's crippled by software unless i pay the salesman to say "abracadabra" to unlock it.
Everything is already there, you only need the magic words. don't you see a problem in that?
Personally, no. I respect your opinion, but mine is not the same.
I can buy a car that has Navstar capability. But perhaps I don't want to pay for the service and don't use it.
And you are well within your rights to decide that way.
I can buy a smart phone with a GPS. But perhaps, I don't wish to agree to the EULA to use free nav software, and I don't wish to buy a paid app.
And you're well within your rights there, too.
I can buy a milling machine with certain upgrades built in, and if/when I need them maybe I'll pay the money for the additional features. I'm not sour grapes, because I wouldn't have bought the machine if the existing functionality did not represent a positive functionality:cost ratio to begin with.
And that's your choice, too. Nobody is saying you don't have the right to choose that way. Nobody is saying you don't have the right to choose not to hack the device you purchased to enable additional capability.
What we are (or I am, at least -- the person you're responding to seems to be objecting to the notion of getting potentially more than he paid for, which is odd. :D ) saying is this: you have the right to try if you so desire. That there is nothing intrinsically wrong in doing so.
Again, I respect your opinion, but to me hardware in a DSO is absolutely NOTHING by itself. I am not in the least bothered if the hardware COULD do more with a different firmware. I do not feel "cheated" in the least. The way I see it, the fact that some people BUY the unlocked model, because they want to, this makes the base model cheaper. Why/where/how the money gets passed around does not matter to me.
Agreed. And as for the person who buys the model with the capabilities already enabled, they may well have good reason to do that instead of buying the less expensive version and enabling the functionality themselves. Such as after-the-sale support.
As I said before, it is quite possible that Rigol makes next to nothing on the base model. As in, they would need to sell an unrealistic number of units in order to make back their initial investment. But the sales of the "unlocked" variety enable them to sell at that price.
Or it may be that they make a reasonable profit on the base model, are able to sell more because of its "hackability", and therefore derive greater profit from doing things the way they are.
Tough to say. But as things are right now, they serve both the cheap hobbyist market very well, while also serving the market that requires support for the product and would thus refrain from modifying it.
-
Agreed. And as for the person who buys the model with the capabilities already enabled, they may well have good reason to do that instead of buying the less expensive version and enabling the functionality themselves. Such as after-the-sale support.
I have another reason. It's because they can afford it and they want it. It's that simple. (I would say that it's because they NEED it, and it's going to be paid back in spades through the increased utility in commercial enterprise, but I would venture that 1% of the people that even buy the 100MHz model ever found a use for the 50MHz-100MHz range or the double sample memory.)
-
Agreed. And as for the person who buys the model with the capabilities already enabled, they may well have good reason to do that instead of buying the less expensive version and enabling the functionality themselves. Such as after-the-sale support.
I have another reason. It's because they can afford it and they want it. It's that simple.
Well, yes, that kind of goes without saying.
But suppose for the moment that what a hobbyist wants/needs is a 100 MHz scope, and he knows this going into it, such that he will automatically eliminate scopes that are permanently limited to 50 MHz from consideration. He can purchase the DS1054Z and "hack" it to 100 MHz, or he can purchase the more expensive DS1104Z. The latter is more than twice the price of the former.
Even if he can afford the latter, he may well end up buying the former because he'd then have $400 that he could use for something else. He'd likely be giving up warranty support as a result, but it's an option anyway. Under those conditions, I'd say there's a quite decent chance that he'll go with the DS1054Z.
The point is that just because a person wants/needs a certain set of capabilities, that doesn't automatically mean he'll go for the option that's directly advertised as having those capabilities. Yes, he'll go for something that does have the capabilities he needs, but what will actually meet his needs and what is advertised to meet his needs are not necessarily the same thing. His choices are guaranteed to be from among the former set, but are not guaranteed to always be limited to the latter set.
That doesn't mean he won't buy the more expensive (but otherwise functionally identical) scope -- he might well. But he has a lot of incentive not to in this case.
(I would say that it's because they NEED it, and it's going to be paid back in spades through the increased utility in commercial enterprise, but I would venture that 1% of the people that even buy the 100MHz model ever found a use for the 50MHz-100MHz range or the double sample memory.)
That's possible, but when you buy a tool like that, you buy it not just for the things you know you need to do with it, but for the things you think you might need to do with it. It's better to have a tool and not need it, than to need it and not have it. And if the incremental cost is minimal to nonexistent, then there's really little reason to buy the tool with less capability.
-
he will automatically eliminate scopes that are permanently limited to 50
I suppose all manufacturers will have to start implementing bandwidth limits with a weak code lock in order to be able to put this feature on the spec sheet. :-DD
50MHz
1GS/S
50kB memory
600x480 VGA
Ethernet
USB
unlock code to hack the bandwidth to 100MHz (code might be the last 72594 + the last 3 digits of the serial number x 2 *wink wink*!)
-
he will automatically eliminate scopes that are permanently limited to 50
I suppose all manufacturers will have to start implementing bandwidth limits with a weak code lock in order to be able to put this feature on the spec sheet. :-DD
50MHz
1GS/S
50kB memory
600x480 VGA
Ethernet
USB
unlock code to hack the bandwidth to 100MHz (code might be the last 72594 + the last 3 digits of the serial number x 2 *wink wink*!)
LOL! They could even put "hacker friendly!" in the marketing material. :-DD
Or, better yet, just advertise the scope as having 50 MHz bandwidth, then anonymously "leak" the code generation method so that someone would have to use the "unauthorized" method to enable more capabilities, while people who need support will stay far away from all of that. That would mean you get the advantage in the bottom end of the market while simultaneously being able to preserve some demand for the higher end models in the line, all the while never letting on that you're intentionally taking advantage of the "hacker" market. Bonus! :D
No, I don't think that's how it went down, of course. Don't be silly. It appears that a collaborative effort amongst a number of people yielded them figuring out how to generate the codes for these things and they published it on the internet, and Rigol ended up discovering that it wasn't having enough of a negative effect on their bottom line to make it worth reengineering their code generation mechanism (easy as it might be). They might even have discovered that it resulted in greater sales than they were getting before, but we know that it didn't have enough of an effect on their bottom line to make them care, because if it had then they would have fixed it.
-
...something in the UI that lets you change the bandwidth to 100 MHz. It doesn't require a magic key. It's just a checkbox that says "Enable 100MHz bandwidth"
Now replace that UI setting with a jumper on the scope's motherboard.
...a jumper which requires you to break the "warranty void" sticker and unscrew all that metal shielding to get access it.
Not the same thing at all.
-
I have another reason. It's because they can afford it and they want it. It's that simple. (I would say that it's because they NEED it, and it's going to be paid back in spades through the increased utility in commercial enterprise, but I would venture that 1% of the people that even buy the 100MHz model ever found a use for the 50MHz-100MHz range or the double sample memory.)
True, but things like the serial decoders are definitely useful.
-
...something in the UI that lets you change the bandwidth to 100 MHz. It doesn't require a magic key. It's just a checkbox that says "Enable 100MHz bandwidth"
Now replace that UI setting with a jumper on the scope's motherboard.
...a jumper which requires you to break the "warranty void" sticker and unscrew all that metal shielding to get access it.
Who says? The manufacturer could easily put the jumper behind a removable panel. Not that he would, mind you, but he could.
Not the same thing at all.
So you judge the rightness or wrongness of the act on the basis of how involved it is?? I'm skeptical.
In any case, I keep raising my question under the condition that the buyer is willing to give up warranty coverage. In fact, I assume that such is the case when he "hacks" the scope with a code. The manufacturer has every right to deny warranty coverage if the scope is "hacked", though the manufacturer may have to put a clause to the effect that the warranty is void if the scope is altered from its original configuration in order to make that denial stick.
So: why do you keep bringing up the issue of warranty when I keep mentioning that giving that up is a reason for the buyer to not modify the scope?
For some reason, it seems you keep trying to avoid answering the essence of the argument, which is that whether the configuration change is made through a software switch or a hardware switch, they are fundamentally the same and therefore the ethics of both are identical.
-
Not the same thing at all.
So you judge the rightness or wrongness of the act on the basis of how involved it is?? I'm skeptical.
Nope.
A selectable menu option is clearly intended for people to use. The manufacturer is showing intent.
Opening up the case? Not so much. The manufacturer is clearly showing they don't intend for people to do it.
Similarly: Entering a proprietary code to unlock features also shows manufacturer intent.
...and now we go full circle back to "manufacturers have no right to tell customers what to do" and "if they don't intend for people to do something, they shouldn't build it into the hardware". :palm:
-
Not the same thing at all.
So you judge the rightness or wrongness of the act on the basis of how involved it is?? I'm skeptical.
Nope.
A selectable menu option is clearly intended for people to use. The manufacturer is showing intent.
Opening up the case? Not so much. The manufacturer is clearly showing they don't intend for people to do it.
How exactly are they showing that? The warranty void sticker shows that they don't intend to honor the warranty if people open up the case, but that's a different thing. The fact that they put the sticker on there at all clearly means they expect that some people will open up the case. One doesn't bother to prepare for a possibility that won't happen.
If they actually insisted on people not opening up the case at all, then they would build the case in such a way that it can't be opened by anyone other than the manufacturer, e.g. by glueing the case halves together after final assembly.
Regardless, are you attempting to argue here that it is somehow wrong for someone to open up their scope and change the jumper?
And you still haven't answered the fundamental question: what's the ethical difference between a software switch and a hardware switch, when there's no copying of copyrighted content involved in flipping the software switch?
Similarly: Entering a proprietary code to unlock features also shows manufacturer intent.
...and now we go full circle back to "manufacturers have no right to tell customers what to do" and "if they don't intend for people to do something, they shouldn't build it into the hardware". :palm:
Oh, manufacturers have the right to tell customers what to do, certainly -- but customers have the right to summarily ignore them. :D
And it's not "if they don't intend people to do something, then they shouldn't build it into the hardware", it's "if they really don't want people to be able to do something, then they shouldn't make it possible in the first place". Nobody in their right mind intentionally makes something possible and then cries about it when someone actually does it! :palm:
-
This thread runs in circles. :scared:
-
And you still haven't answered the fundamental question: what's the ethical difference between a software switch and a hardware switch, when there's no copying of copyrighted content involved in flipping the software switch?
This isn't the question that I personally care about. I don't see any difference. There, I said it. And you can make a case that by law, you are doing nothing wrong, since Rigol didn't make you agree to a EULA or anything like that.
Look, I'm not arguing against copyright law itself. I'm arguing against unilaterally imposed contracts.
This is the part that I personally care about. The fact you think it's wrong that they try, at all (and in the case of Rigol, apparently not very hard.) You are free to haggle with a manufacturer if you have a novel use for their product. If you are a big enough purchaser, you can negotiate your own terms. You can have features added or removed. If you are a single end user, you can choose other devices?
It seems like a lot of the other people who are arguing along a somewhat similar vein don't seem to have any problem with Agilent locking features (both software and hardware) on their scopes. I am not sure why it makes a difference. It's like in one breath I am hearing:
"It's wrong that manufacturers artificially limit my device. I refuse to pay for upgraded features that are "artificial," because the boards/electronics in both devices are identical!" It doesn't matter if the software engineers were asked to make different versions of the software. Or that they don't do this for free. It doesn't matter that different versions were specifically made to appeal to different customers at different price brackets. If the hardware is the same, I should own it all (for the cost of the most basic model plus a couple bucks, because let's face it, software is FREE after the very minimal initial work; the HARDWARE design is MUCH more difficult!; and the manufacturer will make MORE profit by selling MORE scopes, obviously, duh!)
Again, let's go back to hardware vs software switch. I see no difference. Similarly, I see no real difference between two devices that are differentiated by hardware and two devices that are differentiated by firmware. In either case, you are paying for the NRE that went into the product. Whether that's hardware or firmware, it doesn't matter to me, personally. I do not see any problem with having two different products with the same hardware.
And in the other ear "But if they took the time to use unique EEPROM and a serial code database and paid service reps to take my order and look up a unique secure code and passed all that cost onto the consumers, (i.e., I can't google a hack and do it in 10 minutes), I wouldn't mind. Because they're obviously trying harder." Despite the same thing, just a better lock. I promise if a hack for Siglent or Agilent was posted, the argument would now shift. Agilent/Siglent would use a better lock if they TRULY didn't want us to hack their scopes!
*I also have not yet been convinced that there were not significant engineering hurdles in reaching beyond the 50MHz limit to the 100MHz limit. Whether hardware or software. It's not like "now there's a faster ADC available, so we just plop it in and we have a faster scope!" The fact that IN THE END, it costs the same to produce either model doesn't mean there is malicious/greedy intent to (try) to charge more for the higher model. In fact, I find it somewhat unlikely that the firmware engineers were paid to figure out how to actively attenuate/degrade the displayed signal based on frequency, just so, in order to emulate a lower bandwidth scope through firmware.
-
I promise if a hack for Siglent or Agilent was posted, the argument would now shift. Agilent/Siglent would use a better lock if they TRULY didn't want us to hack their scopes!
It's all about the diminishing rate of returns. We'd rather spend the R&D time implementing new features or creating new products than the rigor required for a really, really strong lock. There has been a hack or three here for our scopes, but the number of people actually hacking the scope is (we think) pretty low when looking at the total number of scopes out there. Generally (very generally), companies and schools aren't going to be hacking our scopes; it's more likely a maker/hobbyist or very-budget-limited user. It's not that we don't care, it's that the revenue loss isn't big enough for us to act on it. Also, as one other vendor know quite well, hackable software can lead to higher quantities of hardware sales. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it.
Just please don't be dumb and make a business of buy -> hack -> sell for more $. That's how you get a cease and desist letter.
-
I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine. Nobody can tell me what I can or cannot do with it. If I want to add parts, remove parts, improve it, change software, it is mine to do so. There is nothing anyone can say or do that should be able to prevent me from doing what I want with my property, with the possible exception below.
If there is some kind of contract I have to enter into that I agree to not do certain things to an item that I buy and before I buy, then I have the decision to make as to whether I will buy it or not, or ignore the agreement as not being valid for my morals. This is a case outside of the consideration of buying and modifying a Rigol scope and modifying it as there are no user agreements to consider before you put your money down and buy one. If an item has a hidden user agreement that you don't see and can't agree to before paying your money, then too bad for the agreement because it is immoral to take someone's money and then force them to agree to a contract after the fact.
Last thing. A company should not be able to refuse a warranty unless the warranty is available to read at the purchase point and if the warranty excludes certain types of use or modifications if the modifications are not a direct or indirect cause of a failure.
Anyone who argues opposite of what I have asserted here are forgetting who is the customer and who should have rights. Companies should not be able to dictate the rights of humans.
If the agreement or contract is made clear before buying a product and is not hidden before paying for the product then there might be a valid reason to go after the purchaser if they do not follow the contract. Only in this case I might consider any kind EULA or contract valid as the purchaser has the decision to make before making the purchase. Anything else, too bad for the company that sells things without making the agreement part of the specification and requirement to purchase, before accepting your money.
How can this be any clearer?
-
I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine.
I agree.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 50MHz, then it is yours.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is yours.
If you have not bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is not yours.
How can this be any clearer?
I agree; it can't be any clearer.
-
I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine.
I agree.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 50MHz, then it is yours.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is yours.
If you have not bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is not yours.
And what says what you have bought? What the seller claims to have sold you, or the totality of what you actually possess?
I claim it's the latter, not the former.
-
And you still haven't answered the fundamental question: what's the ethical difference between a software switch and a hardware switch, when there's no copying of copyrighted content involved in flipping the software switch?
This isn't the question that I personally care about. I don't see any difference. There, I said it. And you can make a case that by law, you are doing nothing wrong, since Rigol didn't make you agree to a EULA or anything like that.
Right. OK, good. So we can look at the other issues. Excellent! :)
Look, I'm not arguing against copyright law itself. I'm arguing against unilaterally imposed contracts.
This is the part that I personally care about. The fact you think it's wrong that they try, at all (and in the case of Rigol, apparently not very hard.) You are free to haggle with a manufacturer if you have a novel use for their product. If you are a big enough purchaser, you can negotiate your own terms. You can have features added or removed. If you are a single end user, you can choose other devices?
Have you ever examined software licenses? Have you noticed how, with respect to software licenses that are not free software licenses, they almost always contain the same set of restrictions? Are you familiar with what an oligopoly is?
Have you ever asked yourself why Microsoft achieved its position of operating system dominance in the marketplace? Did you ever find an answer?
It is not an accident that software license contracts tend to contain the same set of restrictions, even going so far as to contain the same wording. It is not an accident that such contracts are not imposed upon buyers of pure hardware devices.
Obviously a unilaterally imposed contract has little coercive power if the buyer has other substantial options available to him. But because what matters in the contract is the set of terms, the buyer has no other substantial options available to him if all of the sellers employ the same contractual terms.
My real objection to unilaterally imposed contracts is the coercive power that they imply. And coercion is something I very strongly object to as a matter of principle.
It seems like a lot of the other people who are arguing along a somewhat similar vein don't seem to have any problem with Agilent locking features (both software and hardware) on their scopes. I am not sure why it makes a difference.
I'll say this plainly. I don't have a problem with manufacturers locking features. I have a problem with people claiming that buyers cannot attempt to bypass the locks. I have a problem with such locks when the locks themselves have force of law behind them.
It actually sounds like we're essentially in agreement. Manufacturers are free to implement whatever mechanisms they like to attempt to prevent buyers from accessing features the manufacturers want to lock away. Buyers are free to attempt to bypass the locks. If the manufacturer gets that wrong (for whatever reasons), then they have to deal with the consequences. Those consequences may be detrimental to the manufacturer, or they may prove to be beneficial. But the manufacturer has to deal with them either way.
And since there is no ethical difference between a hardware switch and a software switch, if it is not ethically objectionable for the customer to throw the hardware switch, then it cannot be ethically objectionable for him to throw the software switch.
-
I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine.
I agree.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 50MHz, then it is yours.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is yours.
If you have not bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is not yours.
And what says what you have bought? What the seller claims to have sold you, or the totality of what you actually possess?
I claim it's the latter, not the former.
I agree - you own the totality of the specific FSM that you bought. You do not own a different FSM that you did not buy.
Simple really.
-
I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine.
I agree.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 50MHz, then it is yours.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is yours.
If you have not bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is not yours.
And what says what you have bought? What the seller claims to have sold you, or the totality of what you actually possess?
I claim it's the latter, not the former.
I agree - you own the totality of the specific FSM that you bought. You do not own a different FSM that you did not buy.
Simple really.
You own the totality of what you actually possess.
With the Rigol 1054Z, what you possess is a piece of hardware with a software-controllable bandwidth limit, and firmware that controls that bandwidth limit and that implements other features, with the firmware initially configured to tell the hardware to limit the bandwidth to 50 MHz and configured to enable the aforementioned features for a finite period of time. The firmware also implements a couple of different interfaces that make it possible to tell the firmware to change the configured bandwidth, and to enable other features indefinitely, by entering one or more magic codes via any of those interfaces.
You possess all of the above. What you do not necessarily possess at the time of purchase are the specific codes referenced.
There is no contract governing the acquisition of the codes, or of their application to the scope. You are free to acquire or discover those codes for yourself through whatever legal means are at your disposal, and apply them as you see fit.
Now, then: what of the above do you disagree with?
(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)
-
I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine.
I agree.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 50MHz, then it is yours.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is yours.
If you have not bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is not yours.
How can this be any clearer?
I agree; it can't be any clearer.
Nice quote mining.... :palm:
-
I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine.
I agree.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 50MHz, then it is yours.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is yours.
If you have not bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is not yours.
And what says what you have bought? What the seller claims to have sold you, or the totality of what you actually possess?
I claim it's the latter, not the former.
I agree - you own the totality of the specific FSM that you bought. You do not own a different FSM that you did not buy.
Simple really.
You own the totality of what you actually possess.
With the Rigol 1054Z, what you possess is a piece of hardware with a software-controllable bandwidth limit, and firmware that controls that bandwidth limit and that implements other features, with the firmware initially configured to tell the hardware to limit the bandwidth to 50 MHz and configured to enable the aforementioned features for a finite period of time. The firmware also implements a couple of different interfaces that make it possible to tell the firmware to change the configured bandwidth, and to enable other features indefinitely, by entering one or more magic codes via any of those interfaces.
You possess all of the above. What you do not necessarily possess at the time of purchase are the specific codes referenced.
There is no contract governing the acquisition of the codes, or of their application to the scope. You are free to acquire or discover those codes for yourself through whatever legal means are at your disposal, and apply them as you see fit.
Now, then: what of the above do you disagree with?
Very little, since it is more accurate.
I will, however note two key words in your post: "legal means". I will also note two additional constraints: moral and ethical behaviour. Both are dependent on geography/culture and the individual's preference.
(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)
Good to see someone negatively advertising thumpapost; shame if you gave them them something in order to do it :)
-
"It's wrong that manufacturers artificially limit my device. I refuse to pay for upgraded features that are "artificial," because the boards/electronics in both devices are identical!" It doesn't matter if the software engineers were asked to make different versions of the software. Or that they don't do this for free. It doesn't matter that different versions were specifically made to appeal to different customers at different price brackets. If the hardware is the same, I should own it all (for the cost of the most basic model plus a couple bucks, because let's face it, software is FREE after the very minimal initial work; the HARDWARE design is MUCH more difficult!; and the manufacturer will make MORE profit by selling MORE scopes, obviously, duh!)
Again, let's go back to hardware vs software switch. I see no difference. Similarly, I see no real difference between two devices that are differentiated by hardware and two devices that are differentiated by firmware. In either case, you are paying for the NRE that went into the product. Whether that's hardware or firmware, it doesn't matter to me, personally. I do not see any problem with having two different products with the same hardware.
I agree with having copyright and don't believe that all software should be free but there's a very big difference between hardware and software, especially when scale is concerned.. It is true that both software cost money in non-recurring engineering costs. The difference is how the cost reduces vs the number of units produced: as the number of units rises towards infinity, the cost of the hardware reaches the lower limit of the cost of the raw materials, energy, labour, transport etc. but with software, the cost per unit falls towards zero. I feel that this point is often neglected, when people think about software vs hardware.
-
You own the totality of what you actually possess.
With the Rigol 1054Z, what you possess is a piece of hardware with a software-controllable bandwidth limit, and firmware that controls that bandwidth limit and that implements other features, with the firmware initially configured to tell the hardware to limit the bandwidth to 50 MHz and configured to enable the aforementioned features for a finite period of time. The firmware also implements a couple of different interfaces that make it possible to tell the firmware to change the configured bandwidth, and to enable other features indefinitely, by entering one or more magic codes via any of those interfaces.
You possess all of the above. What you do not necessarily possess at the time of purchase are the specific codes referenced.
There is no contract governing the acquisition of the codes, or of their application to the scope. You are free to acquire or discover those codes for yourself through whatever legal means are at your disposal, and apply them as you see fit.
Now, then: what of the above do you disagree with?
Very little, since it is more accurate.
I will, however note two key words in your post: "legal means". I will also note two additional constraints: moral and ethical behaviour. Both are dependent on geography/culture and the individual's preference.
Yes. Legal means. Because there is no copyright involved in acquiring the keys or in using them, if you or someone else can legally reverse engineer the product and figure out how to generate those codes, then those codes are free game.
And such appears to be what has happened with the Rigol scopes.
As to moral and ethical behavior, those are self-imposed restraints. Therefore, the action in question is something you're still free to take, but you can choose not to. Your ethical compass can cause you to refrain, but again, it is ultimately a choice you are making for yourself, not one that is imposed upon you against your will by others. That is an immensely important distinction: prohibiting something by law amounts to pointing a gun at someone's head and telling them not to perform the action in question, because if you do perform the illegal action and get caught, people with guns will show up to cart you away, or at least to make you surrender some of your assets to them.
Never forget that law is the imposition of will at gunpoint.
(Sent with Tapatalk, so apologies for the lackluster formatting)
Good to see someone negatively advertising thumpapost; shame if you gave them them something in order to do it :)
Nope, didn't give them a dime. I'm running a version that was released before the atrocity they now call "Tapatalk". Aside from not rendering quotes properly all the time, it works nicely. The reason formatting is lackluster with it has little to do with it and has everything to do with how to get to the square brackets and slash characters on my phone. It's annoying enough that I don't bother. When I want to emphasize something when using Tapatalk, I'll just type it in all caps, and I end up having to avoid creating lists and such for the same reason. Because some understandably find all caps objectionable (it's sort of like shouting), I put the above message in to make it clear that the formatting is not the way I'd have done it with a real keyboard.
-
"It's wrong that manufacturers artificially limit my device. I refuse to pay for upgraded features that are "artificial," because the boards/electronics in both devices are identical!" It doesn't matter if the software engineers were asked to make different versions of the software. Or that they don't do this for free. It doesn't matter that different versions were specifically made to appeal to different customers at different price brackets. If the hardware is the same, I should own it all (for the cost of the most basic model plus a couple bucks, because let's face it, software is FREE after the very minimal initial work; the HARDWARE design is MUCH more difficult!; and the manufacturer will make MORE profit by selling MORE scopes, obviously, duh!)
Again, let's go back to hardware vs software switch. I see no difference. Similarly, I see no real difference between two devices that are differentiated by hardware and two devices that are differentiated by firmware. In either case, you are paying for the NRE that went into the product. Whether that's hardware or firmware, it doesn't matter to me, personally. I do not see any problem with having two different products with the same hardware.
I agree with having copyright and don't believe that all software should be free but there's a very big difference between hardware and software, especially when scale is concerned.. It is true that both software cost money in non-recurring engineering costs. The difference is how the cost reduces vs the number of units produced: as the number of units rises towards infinity, the cost of the hardware reaches the lower limit of the cost of the raw materials, energy, labour, transport etc. but with software, the cost per unit falls towards zero. I feel that this point is often neglected, when people think about software vs hardware.
Oh, they think about it, call it "amortised NRE costs", and come to the conclusion - while there is some truth in it - that it is an academic chain of thought, irrelevant, or wrong.
Academic: most products are not sold in sufficiently large numbers for it to be useful, i.e. the amortised NRE costs are still a significant part of the product's price.
Irrelevant: laws and legal systems are involved, and they trump any such argument.
Wrong: because of the above, and because of some ethical/moral considerations.
-
You own the totality of what you actually possess.
With the Rigol 1054Z, what you possess is a piece of hardware with a software-controllable bandwidth limit, and firmware that controls that bandwidth limit and that implements other features, with the firmware initially configured to tell the hardware to limit the bandwidth to 50 MHz and configured to enable the aforementioned features for a finite period of time. The firmware also implements a couple of different interfaces that make it possible to tell the firmware to change the configured bandwidth, and to enable other features indefinitely, by entering one or more magic codes via any of those interfaces.
You possess all of the above. What you do not necessarily possess at the time of purchase are the specific codes referenced.
There is no contract governing the acquisition of the codes, or of their application to the scope. You are free to acquire or discover those codes for yourself through whatever legal means are at your disposal, and apply them as you see fit.
Now, then: what of the above do you disagree with?
Very little, since it is more accurate.
I will, however note two key words in your post: "legal means". I will also note two additional constraints: moral and ethical behaviour. Both are dependent on geography/culture and the individual's preference.
Yes. Legal means. Because there is no copyright involved in acquiring the keys or in using them, if you or someone else can legally reverse engineer the product and figure out how to generate those codes, then those codes are free game.
Two mistakes: you are assuming that the position in the USA is the same everywhere (I explicitly noted "geography"), and that those are the only laws that might be brought to bear. The first mistake is a classic Merkin mistake, the second also has elements of geography in it.
-
Yes. Legal means. Because there is no copyright involved in acquiring the keys or in using them, if you or someone else can legally reverse engineer the product and figure out how to generate those codes, then those codes are free game.
Two mistakes: you are assuming that the position in the USA is the same everywhere (I explicitly noted "geography"), and that those are the only laws that might be brought to bear. The first mistake is a classic Merkin mistake, the second also has elements of geography in it.
The laws that are brought to bear are imposed upon people within the jurisdiction of the laws in question. I did not mention geographic location because it was not necessary. My statement already accounts for it, at least as regards reverse engineering and acquisition of the codes. If someone can legally reverse engineer the product (meaning, the laws they operate on in their geographic location allow for it) and figure out how to generate those codes, then the codes end up being free game. The same is true of acquisition of the codes.
Of course that presumes that the use of the resulting method to acquire the codes is legal, as well as the actual application of the codes. I suppose I was imprecise in what I said. I should have said that if you can legally acquire and apply the codes, then you can use them as you see fit.
Better?
In what jurisdictions is the generation or acquisition and use of these codes illegal? It certainly isn't in the United States. The DMCA doesn't apply to this, as I've already described previously.
-
In what jurisdictions is the generation or acquisition and use of these codes illegal? It certainly isn't in the United States. The DMCA doesn't apply to this, as I've already described previously.
IANAL, so I would be foolish to presume. As for the DMCA, read the news reports and comp.risks for many many examples of where it had been invoked - and it seems that it is regularly invoked and causes heartache even when it does not apply.
It will be interesting to see what the TTP and TTIP mean for the future, as and when the results escaped from smoke-filled back rooms far from the glare of publicity.
-
"It's wrong that manufacturers artificially limit my device. I refuse to pay for upgraded features that are "artificial," because the boards/electronics in both devices are identical!" It doesn't matter if the software engineers were asked to make different versions of the software. Or that they don't do this for free. It doesn't matter that different versions were specifically made to appeal to different customers at different price brackets. If the hardware is the same, I should own it all (for the cost of the most basic model plus a couple bucks, because let's face it, software is FREE after the very minimal initial work; the HARDWARE design is MUCH more difficult!; and the manufacturer will make MORE profit by selling MORE scopes, obviously, duh!)
Again, let's go back to hardware vs software switch. I see no difference. Similarly, I see no real difference between two devices that are differentiated by hardware and two devices that are differentiated by firmware. In either case, you are paying for the NRE that went into the product. Whether that's hardware or firmware, it doesn't matter to me, personally. I do not see any problem with having two different products with the same hardware.
I agree with having copyright and don't believe that all software should be free but there's a very big difference between hardware and software, especially when scale is concerned.. It is true that both software cost money in non-recurring engineering costs. The difference is how the cost reduces vs the number of units produced: as the number of units rises towards infinity, the cost of the hardware reaches the lower limit of the cost of the raw materials, energy, labour, transport etc. but with software, the cost per unit falls towards zero. I feel that this point is often neglected, when people think about software vs hardware.
Oh, they think about it, call it "amortised NRE costs", and come to the conclusion - while there is some truth in it - that it is an academic chain of thought, irrelevant, or wrong.
Academic: most products are not sold in sufficiently large numbers for it to be useful, i.e. the amortised NRE costs are still a significant part of the product's price.
As soon as the benefits of volume manufacturing or mass distribution come into play, it becomes relevant, how much so, depends on the numbers.
Irrelevant: laws and legal systems are involved, and they trump any such argument.
Wrong: because of the above, and because of some ethical/moral considerations.
Laws and morals are irrelevant to the argument. I'm purely referring to the cost to produce something, nothing else.
Some software may cost 10 million pounds to develop, but if there're 10 million users, the cost per user of developing the software is only £1.
Take the situation above for a piece of hardware, which doesn't contain any software at all: the cost of providing it to each user will be £1 + the cost to make it.
Of course, there will be other business costs, such as marketing legal, technical support etc. which are not taken into account here and everything the company sells needs to be marked up to pay for it.
My main point is: in this case we don't know what the engineering costs, the cost of making the physical item or the markup per item are, so the real cost of the hardware and software are unknown. All we know is how much Rigol is charging for them. Whether you believe it represents value for money is your opinion.
-
How can this be any clearer?
There's a whole thread here to correct your mistaken view. Feel free to read it.
-
I really should have become a writer of books and/or lyrics. I do some work once and me and my offspring earn money from it until eternity. I'd rather not be a baker who needs to work everyday to make new products to sell.
-
How can this be any clearer?
There's a whole thread here to correct your mistaken view. Feel free to read it.
That is a rather ambiguous and back handed insult. What specific point of view are you referring to? How can you assert that I am mistaken? You are the arbiter of truth and justice?
-
How can this be any clearer?
There's a whole thread here to correct your mistaken view. Feel free to read it.
That is a rather ambiguous and back handed insult. What specific point of view are you referring to? How can you assert that I am mistaken? You are the arbiter of truth and justice?
Yes, there are some highly arrogant people around here, who believe they are the only ones with a valid point of view. In my opinion, all sides of the debate have been expressed quite well in this thread. I'd go far as even suggesting it should be made a sticky so people can refer to it.
If anyone here really thinks hacking an oscilloscope is that bad, then perhaps they should go elsewhere, to some other site, where the webmaster doesn't gain advertising revenue from showing people how to hack oscilloscopes?
I really should have become a writer of books and/or lyrics. I do some work once and me and my offspring earn money from it until eternity. I'd rather not be a baker who needs to work everyday to make new products to sell.
Even if that isn't strictly true: copyright does expire, after a certain period of time, depending on the jurisdiction, I feel you do have a valid point there. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any copyright laws. People who create books, music, software etc. do need some kind of legal mechanism to ensure they get paid. However, I believe it's gone too far. The idea that someone can write one very good song, which shoots to number 1 or is used in a popular film or advert and they not longer have to earn an income is absurd. It doesn't benefit the market at all. Short copyright terms would help the market a lot, especially for things such as computer software, which become outdated very quickly.
-
The difference is how the cost reduces vs the number of units produced: as the number of units rises towards infinity
Some software may cost 10 million pounds to develop, but if there're 10 million users, the cost per user of developing the software is only £1.
Take the situation above for a piece of hardware, which doesn't contain any software at all: the cost of providing it to each user will be £1 + the cost to make it.
... Plus the customer support. Plus the tech support. Plus the website and advertising. (And Rigol does advertise, because I get adverts for Rigol all the time. :)) Now take the hardware; there's also an NRE to design the hardware to begin with. Then also to setup manufacturing. And to run the assembly. I.e., making two different versions with only minor differences will cost way more than just including everything and using firmware to differentiate.
But besides all that, how many scopes of a particular model is any given company going to sell by the time it's obsolete/superceeded/undercut by the competition? They have a very limited market/demand, and a competitive life cycle of around 6-8 years, maybe, plus or minus a couple. There will be no "approaching infinity." Not even close.
And besides even that, why the hell would someone invest $10 million dollars in software, project the demand of 10 million units (over the entire lifetime of the product), and then aim to break even, eventually? There is NO breaking even at those volumes. You win or you lose. When a company has a winner, they should collect. They will have losers, too! By the time you're ready to ship product, you can find out that someone else also had the same idea. But they executed it better. And now you are just going eat dirt for the next 6 years.
I thought of a curious example of firmware vs software in a product: Picaxe chips. They cost 3-4x as much as a PIC. Same hardware. What a rip, amirite!? I can't believe PIC doesn't include Picaxe firmware on every chip they make, since at inifinity, it would be completely free!
-
The difference is how the cost reduces vs the number of units produced: as the number of units rises towards infinity
Some software may cost 10 million pounds to develop, but if there're 10 million users, the cost per user of developing the software is only £1.
Take the situation above for a piece of hardware, which doesn't contain any software at all: the cost of providing it to each user will be £1 + the cost to make it.
... Plus the customer support. Plus the tech support.
Well only licensed users/those who don't hack get that.
Plus the website and advertising. (And Rigol does advertise, because I get adverts for Rigol all the time. :)) Now take the hardware; there's also an NRE to design the hardware to begin with. Then also to setup manufacturing. And to run the assembly. I.e., making two different versions with only minor differences will cost way more than just including everything and using firmware to differentiate.
But besides all that, how many scopes of a particular model is any given company going to sell by the time it's obsolete/superceeded/undercut by the competition? They have a very limited market/demand, and a competitive life cycle of around 6-8 years, maybe, plus or minus a couple. There will be no "approaching infinity." Not even close.
And besides even that, why the hell would someone invest $10 million dollars in software, project the demand of 10 million units (over the entire lifetime of the product), and then aim to break even, eventually? There is NO breaking even at those volumes. You win or you lose. When a company has a winner, they should collect. They will have losers, too! By the time you're ready to ship product, you can find out that someone else also had the same idea. But they executed it better. And now you are just going eat dirt for the next 6 years.
Oh, I agree with you. There are costs for software and hardware. It's how they scale that differs. Also note how everything is moving towards the direction of microcontrollers and FPGAs? Because it's cheaper easier to just produce one piece of hardware and do most of the detailed design in software.
I thought of a curious example of firmware vs software in a product: Picaxe chips. They cost 3-4x as much as a PIC. Same hardware. What a rip, amirite!? I can't believe PIC doesn't include Picaxe firmware on every chip they make, since at inifinity, it would be completely free!
I've never seen the point with Picaxe. It's always seemed expensive to me and pretty pointless.
-
I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine.
I agree.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 50MHz, then it is yours.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is yours.
If you have not bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is not yours.
I believe this to be a false analogy. If I buy something, I am being promised a certain specification. The specification asserts what the machine is able to do, not what I can do or not do to alter it. It comes in beige, there I can never paint it another color?
I purchase a car and I want to change the tires to another size to suit what I want. I am not allowed to do this because it was not part of the original specification?
I buy a multimeter and I want to have a higher current measurement capacity. I install a higher rated fuse and take my chances. Not legal?
I buy a computer, but can't change the hard drive size because it wasn't part of the specification when I purchased the computer?
I buy an oscilloscope and the bandwidth is rated to be 50MHz. I can change the bandwidth by changing a couple of small parts. I must break a warranty seal to do this but I am willing to void my warranty. You are literally saying that I am not allowed to do this because the manufacturer did not specify any other bandwidth and that is not what I purchased?
You have never altered anything that you own from its original specification?
-
I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine.
I agree.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 50MHz, then it is yours.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is yours.
If you have not bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is not yours.
I believe this to be a false analogy.
It is not an analogy. It is a precise description.
Your predicate to your points ("If I buy something, it is mine.") does not represent the case under discussion, as I explained above.
-
In what jurisdictions is the generation or acquisition and use of these codes illegal? It certainly isn't in the United States. The DMCA doesn't apply to this, as I've already described previously.
IANAL, so I would be foolish to presume. As for the DMCA, read the news reports and comp.risks for many many examples of where it had been invoked - and it seems that it is regularly invoked and causes heartache even when it does not apply.
People in the U.S. can sue anyone for anything, whether or not they actually have cause to do so.
The courts are the ultimate arbiters of the law. They decide what the law means, how it applies, etc. And as I've already pointed out, case law clearly shows that the DMCA's protection of access controls applies to expression, not function. In fact, this point was so compellingly made by the appellate court in Lexmark v Static Controls that Lexmark didn't even bother to appeal that decision. When a large corporation like Lexmark has been litigating a case under a specific legal theory up to the appellate level, and decides not to even bother appealing a decision against that theory to the Supreme Court, it logically means that the legal team believed they would not prevail with that legal theory. They would at least have appealed the case otherwise.
If a large company like Lexmark is unwilling to challenge the court's decision that the DMCA's protections do not extend to protecting function, and are willing to concede the case as a result of that unwillingness and to deal with the clear implications to their business of that court decision, then it means that the court's reasoning is very likely to prevail at the Supreme Court level. Other courts will take notice of that. While circuit court decisions are "persuasive" precedent to other circuit courts, and not "binding", I've seen nothing that suggests that the circuit court's decision here would not have a lot of weight in any further litigation.
So yes, there is always risk when it comes to this stuff, but based on the above, it appears that risk is pretty minimal.
It will be interesting to see what the TTP and TTIP mean for the future, as and when the results escaped from smoke-filled back rooms far from the glare of publicity.
Ain't that the truth. Backroom dealings like that are rarely good for liberty. :(
-
I buy an oscilloscope and the bandwidth is rated to be 50MHz. I can change the bandwidth by changing a couple of small parts. I must break a warranty seal to do this but I am willing to void my warranty. You are literally saying that I am not allowed to do this because the manufacturer did not specify any other bandwidth and that is not what I purchased?
You have never altered anything that you own from its original specification?
Yes, I agree you can do this and the police aren't going to come and get you. You can sleep fine.
The debate I am seeing is between
1. The manufacturer should not be able to charge extra for different features if the hardware is the same, because that's being greedy and unilateral and it's going to screw up the world and blur the lines between real and imaginary. I am entitled to get the best performance out of my property; but by that I don't mean to write/improve upon the firmware myself, I mean to use the manufacturer's own firmware (for a different model) thru w/e backdoor or other means necessary to unlock it, because what they did was wrong in the first place.
vs
2. I can do it because the manufacturer left the backdoor open. Yea! Thanks, manufacturer!
I've never seen the point with Picaxe. It's always seemed expensive to me and pretty pointless.
I would say the same thing between a 100MHz scope and a 50MHz scope. I am still waiting to hear how someone benefited in practice from their scope hack. :popcorn: I'm genuinely curious. I have seen a hack thread for my own scope to raise the bandwidth from 70MHz to 200MHz, and I never even clicked on it. I don't have anything to look at in that frequency range, so it doesn't concern me.
-
I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine.
I agree.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 50MHz, then it is yours.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is yours.
If you have not bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is not yours.
I believe this to be a false analogy.
It is not an analogy. It is a precise description.
Your predicate to your points ("If I buy something, it is mine.") does not represent the case under discussion, as I explained above.
Yes I stand corrected, it is not an analogy. I should have it is false logic. If I buy something, it is mine. How that something is defined is unimportant once it is mine. I can define it any way I want. And if you want to be consistent with your arguments, you should not be so selective in your quoting of other people. I seem to remember someone else saying that actually:
Perhaps you would understand if you hadn't snipped the context in which I made the remaining.
That type of misdirection is a typical tactic employed by trolls that want heat and don't want light.
-
I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine.
I agree.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 50MHz, then it is yours.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is yours.
If you have not bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is not yours.
I believe this to be a false analogy.
It is not an analogy. It is a precise description.
Your predicate to your points ("If I buy something, it is mine.") does not represent the case under discussion, as I explained above.
You seem to be under the impression that what you own is what the manufacturer wants you to own. But what you own is actually the totality of whatever you've actually been handed, whether or not that is what the manufacturer wants you to own and whether or not the manufacturer is comfortable with you making changes to what you have been handed.
What you have been handed isn't a bunch of specifications. Those are relevant only with respect to whether or not what you've been handed is at least as capable as what the manufacturer advertises it to be.
What you've been handed is hardware and firmware that has whatever capabilities it actually has. That includes any capability of being modified. As applied here, the base capabilities are initially determined by the configuration of the unit as you received it. That configuration can be changed. Because the configuration can be changed, so can the capabilities. Because changing the configuration is itself a capability that is present in what you have purchased, it follows that what you own includes the ability to change the capabilities of the unit. This is true whether or not the manufacturer prefers that you change the configuration. It is true whether the change of capability occurs through a change of firmware configuration or a change of hardware configuration, or both.
Because we're talking about what you own, and what you own is everything that is in your possession after the transaction, and because what you possess includes all of the above, it follows that you can make the unit more capable within the limits of the hardware and firmware that you possess, and there is nothing external stopping you as long as how you do so is not in violation of the law. Obviously, the relevant law is that which is in your geographic location.
Because you did not enter into a contract with the manufacturer that imposes conditions with respect to changing the capabilities of the unit you purchased, the law you operate under is the only thing that matters as regards what you're free to do. For people in the United States, that law doesn't apply to the situation we're talking about, and therefore it is legal for them to modify their units to improve their capabilities by applying the magic codes that result in changes to the firmware and hardware configuration.
-
The debate I am seeing is between
1. The manufacturer should not be able to charge extra for different features if the hardware is the same, because that's being greedy and unilateral and it's going to screw up the world and blur the lines between real and imaginary. I am entitled to get the best performance out of my property; but by that I don't mean to write/improve upon the firmware myself, I mean to use the manufacturer's own firmware (for a different model) thru w/e backdoor or other means necessary to unlock it, because what they did was wrong in the first place.
vs
2. I can do it because the manufacturer left the backdoor open. Yea! Thanks, manufacturer!
I can't speak for others, only for myself.
I have no problem with the manufacturer attempting to use the same hardware and firmware as the basis for a line of instruments with different capabilities. That's on them.
They can even attempt, through technological means, to keep people from changing what they purchased so as to give it capabilities that it didn't originally come configured for.
But just as manufacturers have every right to do all of the above, so too do customers have every right to attempt to change what they purchased to give it the capabilities that other instruments in the line have without the authorization of the manufacturer. The manufacturer has the right to void the warranty in the event such an attempt succeeds, because the warranty can be predicated on the instrument retaining its original configuration. The purchaser is free to attempt to change the capabilities or not, as he sees fit.
It is incorrect to insist that the purchaser does not have the above right. You don't seem to be insisting such, but others are.
I've never seen the point with Picaxe. It's always seemed expensive to me and pretty pointless.
I would say the same thing between a 100MHz scope and a 50MHz scope. I am still waiting to hear how someone benefited in practice from their scope hack.
I thought I'd already addressed this. The frequency characteristics of the waveform are not strictly that of the base frequency. The shape of the waveform determines the frequency components within it. The scope's bandwidth limits the highest component frequency that is visible to the user. Anytime you see a waveform that is composed of frequencies higher than 50 MHz, you will benefit from the 100 MHz scope hack, because the resulting waveform shape will be clearer than before.
Now, that may or may not make any difference. But you have to know in advance what the waveform looks like in order to know in advance whether or not the extra bandwidth will make a difference. One of the reasons you have a scope in the first place is to view waveforms whose characteristics you do not know in advance, so you won't know whether or not you'll benefit from the 100 MHz bandwidth until you see the waveform. I'd argue that having the extra capability is a benefit if only because you can see what you otherwise might not.
:popcorn: I'm genuinely curious. I have seen a hack thread for my own scope to raise the bandwidth from 70MHz to 200MHz, and I never even clicked on it. I don't have anything to look at in that frequency range, so it doesn't concern me.
You never look at square waves higher than 7 MHz or so?
-
You never look at square waves higher than 7 MHz or so?
Me? Not that I can recall, other than testing a signal generator, lol. If ever, certainly not where the 5th harmonic resonant wave matters. Just to see it's there or not. Well, once I had a problem with some 12MHz resonators going tits up from too much heat during assembly. But all I had at the time was a 25MHz scope, and I don't recall having any problem debugging the issue. I don't remember if I even needed a scope. And FWIW, I use a lot of 50MHz microcontrollers.
What about software defined radio? Or radio in general? What about microcontrollers running with 50 MHz crystal oscillators as their timebase?
Well, a 50MHz clock micro can practically produce a max signal frequency of... what? I mean with the most basic of ISR's and code, you are still looking at a max frequency of 10ish MHz. Practically speaking, probably much less. You can still see this with a 50MHz scope. So unless you are debugging a problem with your crystal which requires more than seeing if it's oscillating... ??
Keep in mind, the bandwidth of a scope defines the maximum visible frequency in a waveform. But waveforms are generally composed of a conglomerate of frequencies. That square wave will have (as a practical matter) Fourier components at least an order of magnitude higher than its base frequency.
Still not seeing where this particular band is of any significant interest to myself or most hobbyists other than hams. Other than parts of the lower VHFish band or some really exotic high speed switching supplies?
Again, I can look up theory on google. I'm sure there's an application. I'm wondering how broadly useful is this application. I am curious when someone will say 'Today I ran into [insert problem], and my 50MHz scope couldn't resolve it. So I hacked it to 100MHz, and woohoo, bob's my uncle." Or, "my 50MHz scope wasn't cutting it, so I upgraded specifically to a <=100MHz scope (not a 400+MHZ scope)."
If I overclock my computer, it runs all my programs faster. If I have better optic in my microscope, I can see everything better. If I increase the bandwidth of a scope so that there's less signal attenuation in a narrow part of the VHF bandwidth that might never concern me... I have improved my ability to tune a low frequency VHF radio transmitter or an exotic power supply, just in case? Again, I'm curious for practical examples. It seems to me if I double my bandwidth, in this case, I'm not doubling my utility. It's useful for me if I happen to have a very specific application/project. (And in that case, I, personally, will be more than happy to buy the proper tool for that job, at that time. Excuse to buy a new scope? Yes, please.)
-
How can this be any clearer?
There's a whole thread here to correct your mistaken view. Feel free to read it.
How can you assert that I am mistaken?
There's 500-odd posts on the subject just in this thread. That proves it isn't "clear".
You are the arbiter of truth and justice?
Did I claim to know the truth? All I said was: Your point of view is provably wrong (ie. it isn't clear).
Clue: There's "legal" and "moral" in the world.
Just because there's no written law against something doesn't automatically make it "right" (and just because there's a written law against something doesn't automatically make it "wrong" either).
-
How can this be any clearer?
There's a whole thread here to correct your mistaken view. Feel free to read it.
How can you assert that I am mistaken?
There's 500-odd posts on the subject just in this thread. That proves it isn't "clear".
Although there was no poll conducted, going from the responses, it seems as though there are just as many people who think it's moral to hack an oscilloscope as not. Of course it's not so black and white as that: there are those who believe it's 100% fine, some say it's OK as long as you're not a business, then there are others to think the manufactures are acting unethically by crippling the 'scope in the first place and it's there to be totally hacked and owned, not mentioning all the shades of grey in between.
You are the arbiter of truth and justice?
Did I claim to know the truth? All I said was: Your point of view is provably wrong (ie. it isn't clear).
Clue: There's "legal" and "moral" in the world.
Just because there's no written law against something doesn't automatically make it "right" (and just because there's a written law against something doesn't automatically make it "wrong" either).
Sigh. What's moral or not varies from person to person, country to country, culture to culture etc. As I said many posts ago: arguing about morals on the Internet is pointless.
-
What's moral or not varies from person to person, country to country, culture to culture etc.
Yep, so somebody coming in here claiming "it's clear" is mistaken.
If you want a very clear example of something you're not allowed to do with your 'property': You're not allowed to put a "DS1104Z" sticker on it and sell it for a markup.
-
I've never seen the point with Picaxe. It's always seemed expensive to me and pretty pointless.
I would say the same thing between a 100MHz scope and a 50MHz scope. I am still waiting to hear how someone benefited in practice from their scope hack. :popcorn: I'm genuinely curious. I have seen a hack thread for my own scope to raise the bandwidth from 70MHz to 200MHz, and I never even clicked on it. I don't have anything to look at in that frequency range, so it doesn't concern me.
So you've never used it to check a digital logic signal is behaving properly (i.e. signal integrity) from any logic family since the late 70s? You have unusually limited requirements.
-
I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine.
I agree.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 50MHz, then it is yours.
If you have bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is yours.
If you have not bought a machine (including an enormous finite state machine) that shows you up to 100MHz, then it is not yours.
I believe this to be a false analogy.
It is not an analogy. It is a precise description.
Your predicate to your points ("If I buy something, it is mine.") does not represent the case under discussion, as I explained above.
You seem to be under the impression that what you own is what the manufacturer wants you to own. But what you own is actually the totality of whatever you've actually been handed, whether or not that is what the manufacturer wants you to own and whether or not the manufacturer is comfortable with you making changes to what you have been handed.
Correct. You entered into a contract to purchase one FSM+, the manufacturer gave you that FSM+, that is what you "were handed", that is what "you own". Contract satiisfied.
Not a different FSM+ that you could have contracted to buy at a higher price - but chose not to because you didn't like the price.
-
You never look at square waves higher than 7 MHz or so?
What does frequency have to do with it? All square waves are infinite.
-
How can this be any clearer?
There's a whole thread here to correct your mistaken view. Feel free to read it.
How can you assert that I am mistaken?
There's 500-odd posts on the subject just in this thread. That proves it isn't "clear".
You are the arbiter of truth and justice?
Did I claim to know the truth? All I said was: Your point of view is provably wrong (ie. it isn't clear).
Clue: There's "legal" and "moral" in the world.
Just because there's no written law against something doesn't automatically make it "right" (and just because there's a written law against something doesn't automatically make it "wrong" either).
OK, it is clear now what you were trying to say. Yes, I agree that the issue isn't clear and the arguments made by many are not even to the direct point of the issue, ie. false logic and analogies. Sorry, your post was rather vague as to what you were referring to.
To me it is rather interesting, and frustrating, to see the huge disparity in logic and consistent thinking over this issue.
-
I don't claim to be a legal expert, my knowledge of the law is only average but I tried to think of an example of illegal hacking and legal? hacking on a consumer item.
In this case, I haven't chosen test equipment as an example of the consumer equipment. Also, I'm in the UK and maybe things are different elsewhere.
But... if someone bought a pay per view TV box and hacked it such that they could watch subscription TV for free then I think this is illegal in the UK because they are illegally downloading/decrypting/watching programme material such as films and music etc.
However, I don't think it's illegal to take the box apart and reverse engineer it and modify it. But the act of using it in this state and obtaining the programmes with it 'is' illegal. So you could be in trouble with the law if you attempted this.
However, what if the pay per view TV box came in two flavours?
The deluxe £300 box with extra menus and bigger storage space on the HDD.
The standard £200 box with the same hardware inside but crippled by a keycode or jumper link to restrict the HDD space and enhanced menu features.
I would consider it extremely unlikely that it is illegal to modify the standard box (at home) to become the deluxe box. I would draw a parallel here with a 50MHz/100MHz scope that has a similar keycode or jumper link system. It would only be illegal if it was actually illegal for a consumer to 'own' a 100MHz scope in the UK.
-
Correct. You entered into a contract to purchase one FSM+, the manufacturer gave you that FSM+, that is what you "were handed", that is what "you own". Contract satiisfied.
This is not quite correct.
Yes, you entered into an implied contract to exchange a certain amount of money for a device with certain specific characteristics. What you were handed was a device that, as configured, has those specific characteristics. The implied contract covers the exchange only. It does not cover anything beyond that.
But as regards the scopes we're talking about, what you were actually handed has the built-in potential to be more than what the manufacturer specified. Since you own what you actually were handed, including all of the built-in potential for greater capability (whether or not you are capable of configuring the device so that it reaches its potential is a different question), it follows that what you own, in fact, has the potential to be better than what the manufacturer stated. This represents a possibly greater value than what you can rightly expect based on the implied contract.
Note that what you receive does not necessarily include everything you need in order to get the device to reach its potential. And in the case we're talking about here, that is indeed the case: you're not given the codes necessary to configure the device to its maximum potential. But the potential itself is still there.
In this case, you have to take some additional steps in order to configure the device so that it can achieve its full potential. But because that additional potential exists within what you were handed, we're now talking about whether or not you have access to whatever is necessary (which can include hardware, software, skills, or whatever) in order to make the device realize its full potential.
Not a different FSM+ that you could have contracted to buy at a higher price - but chose not to because you didn't like the price.
What you received at the time is something that was configured to have the advertised characteristics, but nothing prevents the manufacturer from giving you something with greater potential than that. And in this case, the manufacturer handed you something with greater potential than what you implicitly contracted for.
The manufacturer is perfectly within its rights to give you something that can't be reconfigured for greater capability (i.e. that has no greater potential than what it is capable of at the time of sale) but that still meets the original specifications. Whether the manufacturer chooses to do that or chooses to give you something with greater potential capability than what the implied contract specifies is up to the manufacturer.
Now, if you went into the transaction with the expectation that what you'd be getting is something with greater potential than what your implied contract specifies, then the error would be yours. So if, for instance, Rigol implements a hardware change in the DS1054Z that causes the front end to be limited to 50 MHz, with the end result being that an attempt to use a magic code to bring the unit to 100 MHz fails, then there is no foul there -- you're still getting a 50 MHz scope, just as the implied contract specifies, and thus you'd have no cause to complain even if your original desire was to configure it for 100 MHz operation.
But if what you receive does, in fact, have greater potential than what the implied contract states you're getting, then you are entirely within your rights to attempt to reconfigure the device to reach that potential. Nothing says that you have a right to succeed in that attempt, obviously, but you are entirely within your rights to try (this assumes, of course, that the attempt isn't forbidden by the laws you operate under).
What of the above do you disagree with, and on what basis?
-
I don't claim to be a legal expert, my knowledge of the law is only average but I tried to think of an example of illegal hacking and legal? hacking on a consumer item.
In this case, I haven't chosen test equipment as an example of the consumer equipment. Also, I'm in the UK and maybe things are different elsewhere.
But... if someone bought a pay per view TV box and hacked it such that they could watch subscription TV for free then I think this is illegal in the UK because they are illegally downloading/decrypting/watching programme material such as films and music etc.
However, I don't think it's illegal to take the box apart and reverse engineer it and modify it. But the act of using it in this state and obtaining the programmes with it 'is' illegal. So you could be in trouble with the law if you attempted this.
That's because the programs in question are copyrighted material, and the modifications you're making are bypassing an access control mechanism that protects access to copyrighted material. This is very different from the situation with the oscilloscope, where the access control mechanism protects access to functionality, not copyrighted material.
However, what if the pay per view TV box came in two flavours?
The deluxe £300 box with extra menus and bigger storage space on the HDD.
The standard £200 box with the same hardware inside but crippled by a keycode or jumper link to restrict the HDD space and enhanced menu features.
I would consider it extremely unlikely that it is illegal to modify the standard box (at home) to become the deluxe box. I would draw a parallel here with a 50MHz/100MHz scope that has a similar keycode or jumper link system. It would only be illegal if it was actually illegal for a consumer to 'own' a 100MHz scope in the UK.
Exactly. And this is all because you're not violating any laws, particularly copyright laws. There is no copyrightable content that you'd be accessing that you didn't have rightful access to before.
-
You never look at square waves higher than 7 MHz or so?
What does frequency have to do with it? All square waves are infinite.
Square waves are infinite but the ability of your oscilloscope to display them is not. That limitation is due not just to the frontend bandwidth, but also to things like the display itself.
The factor of 10 thing is a somewhat arbitrary cutoff. It may be that you actually want to examine irregularities in the square wave that have a frequency characteristic greater than 10x of the primary frequency. 10x is just an easy frequency to still see in a square wave when you're viewing a few cycles of the wave on the scope, whilst 100x probably isn't (even if the scope has the bandwidth and sampling rate for that, the display's resolution probably prevents you from seeing frequencies that high as anything more than vertical lines until you zoom into the waveform).
The slower the base frequency of the wave, the more component frequencies you'll be able to see on the screen before you run into bandwidth limits. Of course, you might run into display resolution limits first.
-
Is painting your 'scope a different color exactly equivalent to unlocking extra bandwidth and features from a legal and/or moral point of view?
-
You never look at square waves higher than 7 MHz or so?
What does frequency have to do with it? All square waves are infinite.
Square waves are infinite but the ability of your oscilloscope to display them is not. That limitation is due not just to the frontend bandwidth, but also to things like the display itself.
The factor of 10 thing is a somewhat arbitrary cutoff. It may be that you actually want to examine irregularities in the square wave that have a frequency characteristic greater than 10x of the primary frequency. 10x is just an easy frequency to still see in a square wave when you're viewing a few cycles of the wave on the scope, whilst 100x probably isn't (even if the scope has the bandwidth and sampling rate for that, the display's resolution probably prevents you from seeing frequencies that high as anything more than vertical lines until you zoom into the waveform).
The slower the base frequency of the wave, the more component frequencies you'll be able to see on the screen before you run into bandwidth limits. Of course, you might run into display resolution limits first.
Let me guess, you come from an RF or audio background.
The frequency is completely irrelevant.
Consider, for example, a very realistic and practical digital waveform that you can find in virtually any digital circuit since the late 1970s: a waveform with 1MHz frequency (i.e. << your 7MHz) and a 1% duty cycle, i.e. a 10ns wide pulse.
In digital circuits the only relevant parameter is risetime and the ability to observe it. A 100MHz scope will enable you to see the 3.5ns transitions and the pulse top. A 50MHz scope won't.
-
Let me guess, you come from an RF or audio background.
Actually, I come from a software background. :D
I'm actually relatively new at this. In college, I started out going for a EE degree but switched to computer science because I found that I was spending all my free time messing around with computers. Best decision I ever made, except that in hindsight, I think it may be easier to learn computer science stuff on the side than EE, so I often wonder if I would have been better off sticking with EE and pursuing computer interests on the side. Dunno.
The frequency is completely irrelevant.
Consider, for example, a very realistic and practical digital waveform that you can find in virtually any digital circuit since the late 1970s: a waveform with 1MHz frequency (i.e. << your 7MHz) and a 1% duty cycle, i.e. a 10ns wide pulse.
In digital circuits the only relevant parameter is risetime and the ability to observe it. A 100MHz scope will enable you to see the 3.5ns transitions and the pulse top. A 50MHz scope won't.
Suppose your square wave is unstable. If the instabilities have a base frequency characteristic greater than 50 MHz, will the 50 MHz scope show them?
Digital still operates in the analog domain -- it's just an abstraction based on a convention that specifies the analog characteristics that implement the abstraction. If you're looking at a digital signal with a scope, isn't there a good chance that you're doing so because the digital abstraction has broken down and you're trying to figure out what's going on?
-
Let me guess, you come from an RF or audio background.
Actually, I come from a software background. :D
I'm actually relatively new at this. In college, I started out going for a EE degree but switched to computer science because I found that I was spending all my free time messing around with computers. Best decision I ever made, except that in hindsight, I think it may be easier to learn computer science stuff on the side than EE, so I often wonder if I would have been better off sticking with EE and pursuing computer interests on the side. Dunno.
That was the way I did it, and I agree with your assessment. Most software is glorified CRUD, and hence very very boring.
The frequency is completely irrelevant.
Consider, for example, a very realistic and practical digital waveform that you can find in virtually any digital circuit since the late 1970s: a waveform with 1MHz frequency (i.e. << your 7MHz) and a 1% duty cycle, i.e. a 10ns wide pulse.
In digital circuits the only relevant parameter is risetime and the ability to observe it. A 100MHz scope will enable you to see the 3.5ns transitions and the pulse top. A 50MHz scope won't.
Suppose your square wave is unstable. If the instabilities have a base frequency characteristic greater than 50 MHz, will the 50 MHz scope show them?
A spectrum analyser would be the right tool to analyse such phase noise.
-
Suppose your square wave is unstable. If the instabilities have a base frequency characteristic greater than 50 MHz, will the 50 MHz scope show them?
A spectrum analyser would be the right tool to analyse such phase noise.
Hmm...Perhaps so. I guess it would depend on how reliable the instability is. If it's an occasional glitch that you want to capture, then a scope's mask feature could well be just the thing to catch the instability in the act, but that only works if the scope can see the glitch in the first place, which is really what's in question here.
And the spectrum analyzer would be able to tell you that the instability is there, and perhaps to help you characterize its shape. It wouldn't help you in the slightest to detect when the instability is occurring, at least, not in any way that I can think would be useful. I'm actually not sure about that last. If spectrum analyzers have the ability to perform a mask test sort of like how the oscilloscopes can, and are able to sample the relevant portion of the spectrum quickly enough, I suppose it might be able to trigger a scope to capture other signals that could be relevant to the diagnosis of the problem. Are spectrum analyzers capable in that way? I've never used one myself, so I'm rather in the dark about what they can do these days.
-
Actually, I come from a software background. :D
I'm actually relatively new at this. In college, I started out going for a EE degree but switched to computer science because I found that I was spending all my free time messing around with computers. Best decision I ever made, except that in hindsight, I think it may be easier to learn computer science stuff on the side than EE, so I often wonder if I would have been better off sticking with EE and pursuing computer interests on the side. Dunno.
That was the way I did it, and I agree with your assessment. Most software is glorified CRUD, and hence very very boring.
The problems that can arise from it being crud in the first place can be quite interesting, actually, but I think one has to be something of a generalist in order to derive any real satisfaction from that. And I happen to be a generalist (I've done a fairly diverse set of things in the computing world), so I'm able to solve a reasonably wide range of problems. That keeps things interesting for me.
I recently regained my interest in the hardware side of things, and nowadays is possibly a better time to pick that up than ever before, what with the easy availability of inexpensive test equipment (that such segways nicely into this thread is pure coincidence, I assure you. :D ), forums such as this, etc.
-
I would consider it extremely unlikely that it is illegal to modify the standard box (at home) to become the deluxe box. I would draw a parallel here with a 50MHz/100MHz scope that has a similar keycode or jumper link system. It would only be illegal if it was actually illegal for a consumer to 'own' a 100MHz scope in the UK.
Exactly. And this is all because you're not violating any laws, particularly copyright laws. There is no copyrightable content that you'd be accessing that you didn't have rightful access to before.
Arguing what today's written laws say is pointless.
If something becomes widespread enough to affect a large company's business model then laws will appear. Bet on it.
-
At 99% times when you bought a software or hardware, the EULA is inside the box or it shows when you are installing the software . So Is it legal hide EULA or Conditional Contract?
I believe that no, i think that this kind contracts are a FRAUD OF LAW, by two motives:
The first motive , the corporation imposed to consumer a series rules or norms that the consumer can't negociate, so at my country(Spain) will be a abusive clausule for foul the reciprocity.
Second motive, to hide a EULA or Conditional contract without the customer knowledge it can be considered a scam,beside with agravating for foul proportionality, because the corporation
with great resources have abused to consumer with low resources. So this too is a CLAUSIVE ABUSIVE.
I am pro to hack the electronic items, when the corporations try to put chains to the neck and make me a captive customer furthermore to abuse of his position power for appling me unfair rules .
When i bought an electronic item , i have all the rights. And anybody can't say me as i must to use.
-
I would consider it extremely unlikely that it is illegal to modify the standard box (at home) to become the deluxe box. I would draw a parallel here with a 50MHz/100MHz scope that has a similar keycode or jumper link system. It would only be illegal if it was actually illegal for a consumer to 'own' a 100MHz scope in the UK.
Exactly. And this is all because you're not violating any laws, particularly copyright laws. There is no copyrightable content that you'd be accessing that you didn't have rightful access to before.
Arguing what today's written laws say is pointless.
If something becomes widespread enough to affect a large company's business model then laws will appear. Bet on it.
Are you sure about that? I seriously doubt that large companies can change the law if they mess up a business model for a product like an oscilloscope. This thread is getting silly again...
-
Is painting your 'scope a different color exactly equivalent to unlocking extra bandwidth and features from a legal and/or moral point of view?
It is a change from what was originally purchased. What if painting your scope silver made it more tolerant of being used in sunlight so it didn't overheat as badly. This would be an increase in capability, no? What if you cut a circuit trace and added a better voltage regulation circuit to reduce the nose in the input amplifiers? More capability and moral and legal. What if you change the cooling fan to make the scope less noisy? Again not part of the original specification. What if you hack away a bit inside and add a 50ohm switchable resistor so you can have 50ohm impedance inputs when wanted? Again, no problem right? What if you erased the original firmware and wrote your own from scratch that makes the scope work the way you want? Any problems there?
If anyone has any problems with any of these modifications I have just mentioned then you truly believe that when you buy something it is not yours. You have a boss or many bosses, the company(ies) that manufactured it, that tell you how to use your things and how to live.
-
Actually, I come from a software background. :D
I'm actually relatively new at this. In college, I started out going for a EE degree but switched to computer science because I found that I was spending all my free time messing around with computers. Best decision I ever made, except that in hindsight, I think it may be easier to learn computer science stuff on the side than EE, so I often wonder if I would have been better off sticking with EE and pursuing computer interests on the side. Dunno.
That was the way I did it, and I agree with your assessment. Most software is glorified CRUD, and hence very very boring.
The problems that can arise from it being crud in the first place can be quite interesting, actually, but I think one has to be something of a generalist in order to derive any real satisfaction from that. And I happen to be a generalist (I've done a fairly diverse set of things in the computing world), so I'm able to solve a reasonably wide range of problems. That keeps things interesting for me.
My background ranges from low noise optoelectronic systems, through generic digital and semi-custom arrays, to networking stacks WLANs and cellular systems, by way of hard real-time, soft real-time and generic modelling software, and e-commerce systems.
When graduating I made a policy decision to avoid databases, and very largely kept to it - to the extent of removing trad databases from some product lines.
I recently regained my interest in the hardware side of things, and nowadays is possibly a better time to pick that up than ever before, what with the easy availability of inexpensive test equipment (that such segways nicely into this thread is pure coincidence, I assure you. :D ), forums such as this, etc.
I'm simultaneously delighted and appalled that so little has changed since the early 80s. The major differences are that high-end industrial embedded development systems now cost tens of pounds, and the recent emergence of nanopower systems and GS/s ADCs and DACs.
-
What's moral or not varies from person to person, country to country, culture to culture etc.
Yep, so somebody coming in here claiming "it's clear" is mistaken.
If you want a very clear example of something you're not allowed to do with your 'property': You're not allowed to put a "DS1104Z" sticker on it and sell it for a markup.
Just out of curiosity. If someone did that, then what law would they be falling foul of? Probably trademark.
What if someone hacked their oscilloscope, then decided to put it on ebay? Would it be fine, as long as they listed it as the DS1054Z and nothing else?
I know someone who hacked their Rigol DS1052 from 50MHz to 100MHz and sold it as a Rigol DS1052 but listed 100MHz in the specification: is this legal?
-
So you've never used it to check a digital logic signal is behaving properly (i.e. signal integrity) from any logic family since the late 70s?
Truthfully, no. I have played very little with any sort of logic chips.
You have unusually limited requirements.
Yes, my requirement are limited. (I use my scope maybe 10 times a year, even.) But maybe not so unusually so. Even 10 MHz and 25MHz scopes were very popular 5 years ago. Or even in the 70's. I wonder why it's necessary to have a 100MHz scope to use logic chips? Back when I actually used them, I didn't even have a scope.
If you scoped a TTL logic circuit on a 50MHz scope, you would see nothing useful, then?
-
If you scoped a TTL logic circuit on a 50MHz scope, you would see nothing useful, then?
The original question was whether or not you'd see a difference between 50MHz and 100MHz.
The answer is yes, you would see a difference on any square wave. The rise time for a square wave on the DS1054Z is 7ns. The rise time is 3.5ns on a 1104Z.
-
Arguing what today's written laws say is pointless.
If something becomes widespread enough to affect a large company's business model then laws will appear. Bet on it.
Today's laws make the framework we currently operate under. If you want to pretend that you operate under a more restrictive framework than that, you can certainly do so, but if you do that, then how far are you going to take it? Are you going to make no modifications to your automobile, for instance, to improve its capability? Are you going to refrain from improving anything you have, just because a future framework of law might forbid it?
It's your call, but I'd advise living for today (while ensuring, of course, that what you have remains sufficient for tomorrow). Get the most of what you have while you can, because in all of this, time is your most precious and limited resource.
-
My background ranges from low noise optoelectronic systems, through generic digital and semi-custom arrays, to networking stacks WLANs and cellular systems, by way of hard real-time, soft real-time and generic modelling software, and e-commerce systems.
When graduating I made a policy decision to avoid databases, and very largely kept to it - to the extent of removing trad databases from some product lines.
Actually, databases are very interesting things IMO, and incredibly useful for organizing data and accessing it efficiently, as well as enforcing integrity. Some are better at it than others, of course, and I guess it's not much of a surprise that one of the worst ones out there is also the most popular. :(
Using a database properly takes some skill and understanding. A lot of people who make use of them just use them as containers without really considering what the real relationships within their data are and how best to model them in the database, and the end result is a mess that is inefficient at best, and often makes the data difficult to get at through anything but code.
I'm simultaneously delighted and appalled that so little has changed since the early 80s. The major differences are that high-end industrial embedded development systems now cost tens of pounds, and the recent emergence of nanopower systems and GS/s ADCs and DACs.
There seems to be one thing that has changed significantly, thanks to the massive increase in processing power: radio. It's now software defined in large part, which seems like it should make things very interesting in that area. I suppose we've had DSPs since the 80s so there's always been some element of that, but I'm under the impression that the key difference is that we now have what amounts to direct control over the output waveform itself, and that has to open up some very interesting possibilities, no?
Because I'm just now getting into this, I haven't studied any of that in great detail. I'm just sort of letting my imagination run wild with the concept. :)
-
The original question was whether or not you'd see a difference between 50MHz and 100MHz.
The answer is yes, you would see a difference on any square wave. The rise time for a square wave on the DS1054Z is 7ns. The rise time is 3.5ns on a 1104Z.
Well, my question was where you have actually seen a practical difference. Between 3.5ns and 7ns rise time, this obviously makes a difference... but at what frequency/clock speeds does this difference become significant? Certainly at a specific frequency, this difference could result in a 10 fold difference in efficiency... or erroneous signal transmission. But at lower frequency, this could be as meaningless as the 10th significant digit of the voltage of a logic signal. And is not the ultimate goal increased efficiency and/or signal integrity, rather than what the signal looks like on a scope, in which case even without the most perfect representation of the wave form possible, it is still more than enough information/starting point to achieve the desired result?
Aside from what little I have come up with, now I have logic chips added to this list... at what speeds of operation does the difference between 3.5ns and 7ns make a significant difference in the ability to tune/debug/develop such a circuit?
IOW, in which specific applications that you work on would you give two shits about this difference? Because to me it seems like in the specific bandwidth where this matters there is not a whole lot of practical use. Going much higher in frequency, the 100MHz model will be as blind as the 50MHz model. Going much lower, there is no practical difference. So there is a specific range of frequency/application where it does, indeed, make a big difference. To who and for what is where my curiosity lies.
If it sounds like I'm being intentionally obtuse, please consider the simpler explanation that I am actually ignorant.
-
I agree with having copyright and don't believe that all software should be free but there's a very big difference between hardware and software, especially when scale is concerned.. It is true that both software cost money in non-recurring engineering costs. The difference is how the cost reduces vs the number of units produced: as the number of units rises towards infinity, the cost of the hardware reaches the lower limit of the cost of the raw materials, energy, labour, transport etc. but with software, the cost per unit falls towards zero. I feel that this point is often neglected, when people think about software vs hardware.
This is all true. This is exactly why it's critical to point out that copyright is not being violated by entering any of these magic codes into these scopes. Because there is no copying of copyrighted material going on, nor violation of the DMCA, there is no violation of law (at least in the U.S. -- other jurisdictions may have laws that would prohibit these things). More importantly, there is no compromise of the value of the code by way of the creation of additional copies of it, because no additional copies are being created in the first place.
Copyright's purpose is to make it possible for creators of copyrightable works to impose artificial scarcity of the works themselves, thereby causing their works to be subject to the normal laws of supply and demand. That is the only legitimate purpose it has. Anything beyond that is an unjustifiable restraint upon the free market, and amounts to a claim that creators of copyrightable works are somehow more special than anyone else who creates things, and that results in higher prices and a less efficient market for all. Because copyright law goes beyond mere prevention of unauthorized distribution of copies, a less efficient market with higher prices is exactly what we've gotten in a number of cases. That is exactly what occurred with Microsoft -- they leveraged copyright law to impose themselves into the operating system market in such a way that other entities could not reasonably compete with them, even when those entities released their products for free (note how Linux, to name but one example, still does not come close to Microsoft in terms of adoption on the desktop).
-
So you've never used it to check a digital logic signal is behaving properly (i.e. signal integrity) from any logic family since the late 70s?
Truthfully, no. I have played very little with any sort of logic chips.
You have unusually limited requirements.
Yes, my requirement are limited. (I use my scope maybe 10 times a year, even.) But maybe not so unusually so. Even 10 MHz and 25MHz scopes were very popular 5 years ago. Or even in the 70's. I wonder why it's necessary to have a 100MHz scope to use logic chips? Back when I actually used them, I didn't even have a scope.
If you scoped a TTL logic circuit on a 50MHz scope, you would see nothing useful, then?
You would see some useful things, but miss important ones such as voltage overshoot, bad edges, and runt pulses. Collectively known as signal integrity.
Modern logic is faster, even jellybean components have >700MHz components.
-
The original question was whether or not you'd see a difference between 50MHz and 100MHz.
The answer is yes, you would see a difference on any square wave. The rise time for a square wave on the DS1054Z is 7ns. The rise time is 3.5ns on a 1104Z.
Well, my question was where you have actually seen a practical difference. Between 3.5ns and 7ns rise time, this obviously makes a difference... but at what frequency/clock speeds does this difference become significant? Certainly at a high enough speed, differences here could result in 2 fold differences in efficiency... or erroneous signal transmission. But at lower frequency, this could be as meaningless as the 10th significant digit of the voltage of a logic signal. And is not the ultimate goal increased efficiency and/or signal integrity, rather than what the signal looks like on a scope, in which case even without the most perfect representation of the wave form possible, it is still more than enough information/starting point to achieve the desired result?
Aside from what little I have come up with, now I have logic chips added to this list... at what speeds of operation does the difference between 3.5ns and 7ns make a significant difference in the ability to tune/debug/develop such a circuit?
I might be able to answer this question.
Suppose you're trying to figure out why your logic circuit isn't working. What you see on your 50 MHz scope is a rise time of about 7 ns, and everything looks normal, so you end up failing to determine what the root cause is.
Turns out that the root cause is ringing in the signal, that the actual rise time of the waveform is less than 7 ns, and the reason for the ringing is that your board layout causes the digital connection to be improperly terminated. Because your 50 MHz scope can't see frequency components smaller than 7 ns, it can't see the ringing that has a frequency characteristic of 3.5 ns.
A bit contrived, certainly, and I might actually be wrong about what a 50 MHz scope would see in that case (and perhaps about what a 100 MHz scope would see as well). But it seems to me you'd have a better chance of seeing such artifacts with a faster scope (the faster the better, of course).
If it sounds like I'm being intentionally obtuse, please consider the simpler explanation that I am actually ignorant.
You and me both. :)
-
The original question was whether or not you'd see a difference between 50MHz and 100MHz.
The answer is yes, you would see a difference on any square wave. The rise time for a square wave on the DS1054Z is 7ns. The rise time is 3.5ns on a 1104Z.
Well, my question was where you have actually seen a practical difference. Between 3.5ns and 7ns rise time, this obviously makes a difference... but at what frequency/clock speeds does this difference become significant? Certainly at a specific frequency, this difference could result in a 10 fold difference in efficiency... or erroneous signal transmission. But at lower frequency, this could be as meaningless as the 10th significant digit of the voltage of a logic signal. And is not the ultimate goal increased efficiency and/or signal integrity, rather than what the signal looks like on a scope, in which case even without the most perfect representation of the wave form possible, it is still more than enough information/starting point to achieve the desired result?
Aside from what little I have come up with, now I have logic chips added to this list... at what speeds of operation does the difference between 3.5ns and 7ns make a significant difference in the ability to tune/debug/develop such a circuit?
At any clock rate whatsoever.
If there are runt pulses, or if signal integrity problems cause poor transitions or voltage overshoot, or if there is setup or hold time violation, then the circuit may malfunction. It doesn't matter a fig if the next transition is in 1ns, 1us, 1ms, 1s, or 1 year. The clock frequency is completely irrelevant.
IOW, in which specific applications that you work on would you give two shits about this difference? Because to me it seems like in the specific bandwidth where this matters there is not a whole lot of practical use. Going much higher in frequency, the 100MHz model will be as blind as the 50MHz model. Going much lower, there is no practical difference. So there is a specific range of frequency/application where it does, indeed, make a big difference. To who and for what is where my curiosity lies.
If it sounds like I'm being intentionally obtuse, please consider the simpler explanation that I am actually ignorant.
See above. Even in 1980 a 100MHz scope was the minimum necessary. For jellybean modern logic even 350MHz is slow. Even amateur products can have clock rates of 1ns bit periods and need 10GS/s sample rates to verify signal integrity.
-
Are you sure about that? I seriously doubt that large companies can change the law if they mess up a business model for a product like an oscilloscope. This thread is getting silly again...
You're not been paying attention to copyright law lately, have you?
...or all those secret trade agreements they're working on ("TTIP" or whatever the latest version is called).
-
Are you sure about that? I seriously doubt that large companies can change the law if they mess up a business model for a product like an oscilloscope. This thread is getting silly again...
You're not been paying attention to copyright law lately, have you?
...or all those secret trade agreements they're working on ("TTIP" or whatever the latest version is called).
Show me an example where a scope manufacturer has managed to 'change the law' because people are hacking the unlock codes on their scopes and I'll take you seriously.
-
Show me an example where a scope manufacturer has managed to 'change the law' because people are hacking the unlock codes on their scopes and I'll take you seriously.
Here: http://bit.ly/4kb77v (http://bit.ly/4kb77v)
-
The original question was whether or not you'd see a difference between 50MHz and 100MHz.
Even in 1980 a 100MHz scope was the minimum necessary.
If you wound the clock back to 1980 and looked at something like a typical MC6800 microprocessor PCB layout then I can't imagine you would see much difference. The PCB layout would probably be quite poor and I doubt there would be any PCB tracks with controlled impedances.
The timing requirements for these things was fairly lax and the risetimes slow so I would expect that a 50MHz scope would have been fine.
If a hobbyist was playing with one of these chips then you could probably be looking at a bird's nest arrangement for the wiring rather than a proper PCB.
Where are you going to attach the scope ground to monitor those all important (3.5ns ??? :P ) risetimes?
-
Arguing what today's written laws say is pointless.
If something becomes widespread enough to affect a large company's business model then laws will appear. Bet on it.
I should note that this is an invalid argument.
It amounts to an argument that says "you shouldn't do X, because if you do X, then it will be made illegal and you won't be able to do X anymore".
But someone who is refraining from doing X because it might otherwise become illegal can't possibly be concerned about the legality of doing X, because at that point the legality of doing X makes absolutely no difference -- their behavior is already the same as it would be if X were illegal.
If you are concerned about some action becoming illegal, then you have to suggest something else other than refraining from the action as a means of preserving its legality. Something that is legal but that nobody does for fear of it becoming illegal is something for which its legality is already irrelevant.
-
You have unusually limited requirements.
Yes, my requirement are limited. (I use my scope maybe 10 times a year, even.) But maybe not so unusually so. Even 10 MHz and 25MHz scopes were very popular 5 years ago. Or even in the 70's. I wonder why it's necessary to have a 100MHz scope to use logic chips? Back when I actually used them, I didn't even have a scope.
If you scoped a TTL logic circuit on a 50MHz scope, you would see nothing useful, then?
You would see some useful things, but miss important ones such as voltage overshoot, bad edges, and runt pulses. Collectively known as signal integrity.
Modern logic is faster, even jellybean components have >700MHz components.
The next logical question would then be: what would a 100 MHz scope allow you to see in that a 50 MHz one wouldn't, in the modern digital domain? A related question might be: what's the minimum scope bandwidth necessary to see artifacts like ringing, overshoot, etc., with modern digital components, assuming that the base clock frequency you're using is well under 50 MHz (I realize that isn't really relevant to the artifacts themselves, but I mention it because a 50 MHz scope probably won't be useful for much if the base clock frequency exceeds that).
All of which is to say: under what circumstances with modern digital components would 100 MHz be useful where 50 MHz wouldn't be?
-
You have unusually limited requirements.
Yes, my requirement are limited. (I use my scope maybe 10 times a year, even.) But maybe not so unusually so. Even 10 MHz and 25MHz scopes were very popular 5 years ago. Or even in the 70's. I wonder why it's necessary to have a 100MHz scope to use logic chips? Back when I actually used them, I didn't even have a scope.
If you scoped a TTL logic circuit on a 50MHz scope, you would see nothing useful, then?
You would see some useful things, but miss important ones such as voltage overshoot, bad edges, and runt pulses. Collectively known as signal integrity.
Modern logic is faster, even jellybean components have >700MHz components.
The next logical question would then be: what would a 100 MHz scope allow you to see in that a 50 MHz one wouldn't, in the modern digital domain? A related question might be: what's the minimum scope bandwidth necessary to see artifacts like ringing, overshoot, etc., with modern digital components, assuming that the base clock frequency you're using is well under 50 MHz (I realize that isn't really relevant to the artifacts themselves, but I mention it because a 50 MHz scope probably won't be useful for much if the base clock frequency exceeds that).
All of which is to say: under what circumstances with modern digital components would 100 MHz be useful where 50 MHz wouldn't be?
This is well documented; Google is your friend. " Bogotin rule of thumb" is a good starting point.
Start from the rule of thumb that the transition time is 0.35/BW.
-
All of which is to say: under what circumstances with modern digital components would 100 MHz be useful where 50 MHz wouldn't be?
This is well documented; Google is your friend. " Bogotin rule of thumb" is a good starting point.
Start from the rule of thumb that the transition time is 0.35/BW.
That ... is a gold mine! Thanks! :-+
-
+1 Thanks. kcbrown, too, for the practical illustration. :-+
-
Consider, for example, a very realistic and practical digital waveform that you can find in virtually any digital circuit since the late 1970s: a waveform with 1MHz frequency (i.e. << your 7MHz) and a 1% duty cycle, i.e. a 10ns wide pulse.
In digital circuits the only relevant parameter is risetime and the ability to observe it. A 100MHz scope will enable you to see the 3.5ns transitions and the pulse top. A 50MHz scope won't.
Even with a 100 MHz scope a 10 ns the wide pulse would be poorly represented, to the point of having very little useful information apart from "oh - a glitch?". 100 MHz is the -3db frequency (at least for the Rigol datasheet I looked at).
I could do the actual math (e.g. a FFT on 1000 points (10 high, 990 low), clip the high frequency stuff, attenuate around 100MHz and IFFT), but it will be more truthful if I try it at home tonight on an actual scope (e.g. 5ns vs 10ns pulses on a 100MHz scope).
If I get a chance I will try it and post results...
-
Consider, for example, a very realistic and practical digital waveform that you can find in virtually any digital circuit since the late 1970s: a waveform with 1MHz frequency (i.e. << your 7MHz) and a 1% duty cycle, i.e. a 10ns wide pulse.
In digital circuits the only relevant parameter is risetime and the ability to observe it. A 100MHz scope will enable you to see the 3.5ns transitions and the pulse top. A 50MHz scope won't.
Even with a 100 MHz scope a 10 ns the wide pulse would be poorly represented, to the point of having very little useful information apart from "oh - a glitch?". 100 MHz is the -3db frequency (at least for the Rigol datasheet I looked at).
Agreed, but my simplification should be read in the context of the person's question - and subsequent questions for that matter.
-
All of which is to say: under what circumstances with modern digital components would 100 MHz be useful where 50 MHz wouldn't be?
This is well documented; Google is your friend. " Bogotin rule of thumb" is a good starting point.
Start from the rule of thumb that the transition time is 0.35/BW.
That ... is a gold mine! Thanks! :-+
You're welcome.
Don't forget that the most important rule of thumb is number 0.
-
Consider, for example, a very realistic and practical digital waveform that you can find in virtually any digital circuit since the late 1970s: a waveform with 1MHz frequency (i.e. << your 7MHz) and a 1% duty cycle, i.e. a 10ns wide pulse.
In digital circuits the only relevant parameter is risetime and the ability to observe it. A 100MHz scope will enable you to see the 3.5ns transitions and the pulse top. A 50MHz scope won't.
Even with a 100 MHz scope a 10 ns the wide pulse would be poorly represented, to the point of having very little useful information apart from "oh - a glitch?". 100 MHz is the -3db frequency (at least for the Rigol datasheet I looked at).
I could do the actual math (e.g. a FFT on 1000 points (10 high, 990 low), clip the high frequency stuff, attenuate around 100MHz and IFFT), but it will be more truthful if I try it at home tonight on an actual scope (e.g. 5ns vs 10ns pulses on a 100MHz scope).
If I get a chance I will try it and post results...
Yet he defines it as a practical digital waveform found in virtually any digital circuit since the late 1970s. :-DD
Many hobbyists today will tinker with MCUs from AVR or PIC and they will do it on poorly laid out breadboards or PCBs. A 50MHz scope will often be fine for stuff like this.
-
You never look at square waves higher than 7 MHz or so?
What does frequency have to do with it? All square waves are infinite.
Square waves are infinite but the ability of your oscilloscope to display them is not. That limitation is due not just to the frontend bandwidth, but also to things like the display itself.
The factor of 10 thing is a somewhat arbitrary cutoff. It may be that you actually want to examine irregularities in the square wave that have a frequency characteristic greater than 10x of the primary frequency. 10x is just an easy frequency to still see in a square wave when you're viewing a few cycles of the wave on the scope, whilst 100x probably isn't (even if the scope has the bandwidth and sampling rate for that, the display's resolution probably prevents you from seeing frequencies that high as anything more than vertical lines until you zoom into the waveform).
The slower the base frequency of the wave, the more component frequencies you'll be able to see on the screen before you run into bandwidth limits. Of course, you might run into display resolution limits first.
Ideal square waves are infinite,but the ones we deal with already have limits on their frequency composition caused by imperfections in real generators.
From memory,a square wave can be regarded as reasonable it it contains up to & including the 7th harmonic of the fundamental frequency.
This agrees with an earlier poster's comment about a 50Mhz 'scope & a 7MHz square wave.
If the 'scope response at 49MHz is already close to 3dB down,it will round off the waveform a bit.
70MHz would be a better choice,hence the "10x fundamental"rule.
-
Square waves are infinite but the ability of your oscilloscope to display them is not. That limitation is due not just to the frontend bandwidth, but also to things like the display itself.
...
Ideal square waves are infinite,but the ones we deal with already have limits on their frequency composition caused by imperfections in real generators.
That's true, but in order to know what those limits are, you have to have something with enough bandwidth to examine them, or I guess the data sheet will tell you.
In any case, because that's basically a variable, and because (near as I can tell -- I might be mistaken) the primary frequency of ringing seems to be related to the rising edge time, you'd want a scope with enough bandwidth to handle the rising edge time at least.
From memory,a square wave can be regarded as reasonable it it contains up to & including the 7th harmonic of the fundamental frequency.
This agrees with an earlier poster's comment about a 50Mhz 'scope & a 7MHz square wave.
If the 'scope response at 49MHz is already close to 3dB down,it will round off the waveform a bit.
70MHz would be a better choice,hence the "10x fundamental"rule.
Yeah, makes sense for seeing that the square wave reasonably looks like a square wave. But what about catching artifacts that could be screwing with your circuit (or be evidence of a problem)?
Don't get me wrong, I suspect that 50 MHz is pretty decent for a lot of hobbyist work. Those scopes probably wouldn't sell all that well otherwise. But it seems to me that bandwidth is kinda like horsepower: there's no such thing as too much. :D
-
Arguing what today's written laws say is pointless.
If something becomes widespread enough to affect a large company's business model then laws will appear. Bet on it.
I should note that this is an invalid argument.
It's not an argument, it's an observation.
Large companies can (and do) buy laws for themselves. Laws that can harm consumers.
Ask yourself why TTIP is being "negotiated" in secret with no public input.
Today's laws make the framework we currently operate under. If you want to pretend that you operate under a more restrictive framework than that, you can certainly do so, but if you do that, then how far are you going to take it? Are you going to make no modifications to your automobile, for instance, to improve its capability? Are you going to refrain from improving anything you have, just because a future framework of law might forbid it?
It's your call, but I'd advise living for today (while ensuring, of course, that what you have remains sufficient for tomorrow). Get the most of what you have while you can, because in all of this, time is your most precious and limited resource.
Thanks for the sympathy and kind words over my imaginary condition.
But ... save them for those who think that today's written laws are what define morality/right/wrong. Laws are bought and sold by the rich. People who believe this system is right/moral need your sympathy more than me.
-
Even with a 100 MHz scope a 10 ns the wide pulse would be poorly represented, to the point of having very little useful information apart from "oh - a glitch?". 100 MHz is the -3db frequency (at least for the Rigol datasheet I looked at).
I could do the actual math (e.g. a FFT on 1000 points (10 high, 990 low), clip the high frequency stuff, attenuate around 100MHz and IFFT), but it will be more truthful if I try it at home tonight on an actual scope (e.g. 5ns vs 10ns pulses on a 100MHz scope).
If I get a chance I will try it and post results...
Setup.
UUT: Digilent Arty FPGA board.
Scope- Rigol DS1102D.
Probe - standard 100 MHz
Test point : 'High speed' PMOD connector (no series resistor on the trace). with spring clip on the probe to the PMOD's GND
Signal - LVCMOS33, 1% at 10 MHz (10 ns pulse).
Results:
NewFile0 - no filter.
NewFile1 - digital LP filter set to 50MHz (as I assume it would be seen on an unhacked 50MHz scope)
NewFile2 - digital LP filter set to 25MHz.
Conclusion:
Yeah, as expected 50MHz can see the pulse, but not much detail, The 100MHz isn't significantly better. But it would still be detectable on a 25MHz scope, just smeared out
This is pretty much to be - with a 50Mhz square wave (50% duty cycle - 10ns on 10ns off) the harmonics would be 50MHz, 150MHz, 250MHz, and on a 50 MHz or 100MHz scope you will only really see much detail in the first harmonic.
-
Square waves are infinite but the ability of your oscilloscope to display them is not. That limitation is due not just to the frontend bandwidth, but also to things like the display itself.
...
Ideal square waves are infinite,but the ones we deal with already have limits on their frequency composition caused by imperfections in real generators.
That's true, but in order to know what those limits are, you have to have something with enough bandwidth to examine them, or I guess the data sheet will tell you.
In any case, because that's basically a variable, and because (near as I can tell -- I might be mistaken) the primary frequency of ringing seems to be related to the rising edge time, you'd want a scope with enough bandwidth to handle the rising edge time at least.
Not the ringing frequency, since that is determined by the circuit elements, particularly parasitics. The possibility of exciting the ringing frequency, or of suffering bad effects, yes.
Having said that, a scope which doesn't have quite that frequency response can still be useful - providing you have enough theoretical and practical experience. But if you do then you will probably avoid such problems in the first place. "Catch 22" and the Dunning Krueger effect both apply :)
The next point to understand is that you can't consider the scope on its own: you have to consider the scope+probe as one unit and consider the effect of the probes on the UUT. That's why probes can cost >$10000, and the latest Tek probe tips cost $5 each time they touch a circuit ($250 for 5, each with a lifetime of 10 applications). See https://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/library-2/scope-probe-reference-material/ for theory, practice, safety and DIY probes.
Finally understand that a 6" ground lead is A Bad Thing when probing logic. See https://entertaininghacks.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/scope-probe-accessory-improves-signal-fidelity/ for the effect and a DIY workaround.
From memory,a square wave can be regarded as reasonable it it contains up to & including the 7th harmonic of the fundamental frequency.
This agrees with an earlier poster's comment about a 50Mhz 'scope & a 7MHz square wave.
If the 'scope response at 49MHz is already close to 3dB down,it will round off the waveform a bit.
70MHz would be a better choice,hence the "10x fundamental"rule.
Yeah, makes sense for seeing that the square wave reasonably looks like a square wave. But what about catching artifacts that could be screwing with your circuit (or be evidence of a problem)?
Precisely.
And on poorly constructed circuits, e.g. on solderless breadboards with long leads, there may well be subtle problems. Doubly so if "high" currents are being switched. "Subtle" is any or all of infrequent, pattern sensitive, temperature/voltage dependent, parametretric degredation. Such things waste a lot of time and are very discouraging to beginners.
As can be seen from my link above, even a 6" ground lead in an otherwise perfect circuit can lead to surprisingly large damped oscillations. I learned that lesson the hard way in 1977, when building a 6800-based computer inspired by the Altair 8080.
Don't get me wrong, I suspect that 50 MHz is pretty decent for a lot of hobbyist work. Those scopes probably wouldn't sell all that well otherwise. But it seems to me that bandwidth is kinda like horsepower: there's no such thing as too much. :D
Basically yes, unless ruthless pursuit of that parameter compromises something else that is important. Engineering is all about compromises. But you already knew that!
-
Arguing what today's written laws say is pointless.
If something becomes widespread enough to affect a large company's business model then laws will appear. Bet on it.
I should note that this is an invalid argument.
It's not an argument, it's an observation.
Large companies can (and do) buy laws for themselves. Laws that can harm consumers.
Ask yourself why TTIP is being "negotiated" in secret with no public input.
The observation is correct. It's not the observation that's at issue, it's the implication that one should therefore refrain from taking the action in question that is. I presumed you raised the observation for a reason, and that the reason you raised it (and thus the implied argument) was for the purpose of making clear what should be done (or, here, not done) to avoid it.
If that is not the implication of the observation, then what was the point of raising the observation in the first place?
Today's laws make the framework we currently operate under. If you want to pretend that you operate under a more restrictive framework than that, you can certainly do so, but if you do that, then how far are you going to take it? Are you going to make no modifications to your automobile, for instance, to improve its capability? Are you going to refrain from improving anything you have, just because a future framework of law might forbid it?
It's your call, but I'd advise living for today (while ensuring, of course, that what you have remains sufficient for tomorrow). Get the most of what you have while you can, because in all of this, time is your most precious and limited resource.
Thanks for the sympathy and kind words over my imaginary condition.
Well, okay, then I guess that means you don't have a problem with taking the action in question, or, at least, you don't hesitate to take it on the basis of the changes to the law that may occur.
Apologies, but that wasn't clear to me on the basis of what you said.
But ... save them for those who think that today's written laws are what define morality/right/wrong. Laws are bought and sold by the rich. People who believe this system is right/moral need your sympathy more than me.
Oh, I completely agree with you on that. What I said wasn't for the purpose of expressing sympathy, it was for the purpose of highlighting a potentially more fulfilling approach than to refrain from an action because taking it might make it illegal in the future.
Do with it what you will.
-
What people are arguing here, however, is that the seller should be able to unilaterally dictate to the buyer what he may and may not do with what he purchased, while the buyer has no equivalent power.
He can do w/e he wants with it, sure.
If it's the buyer you're talking about in the above (we've already established that the seller can do whatever he wants), well in that case, we have no disagreement.
That was easy. :D
you'd better read up on the history of monopolies and the abuses that have occurred at their hands. A monopoly inherently gives the seller the ability to dictate terms).
What is the monopoly, here?
The point wasn't to say that a monopoly exists now, but to illustrate that businesses that have been given the power to dictate terms have used that power to ill effect. It's an illustrative warning of what will happen if some people here were to have their preferences implemented.
I don't desire that they should give those features to everyone. Whether they do or not is their choice. What I do insist on is that they not demand that the customer artificially limit his actions in order to satisfy the manufacturer's desire to do things a certain way.
Which actions are you talking about, here, being artificially limited?
The action under discussion, that would be artificially limited if some had their way, is the ability to enter a magic code into the oscilloscope one owns so as to enable the features that were not enabled prior to that, even if he didn't obtain the code from the seller or one of the seller's authorized representatives.
What people are insisting on here is that the manufacturer should be artificially shielded from the consequences of being lazy
Not at all... WinZip is pretty lazy about how they charge for their software. And I'd venture that the majority of users do not pay for it. I don't think anyone should burn in hell for it, anymore than anyone would care about hobbyists unlocking a Rigol scope! I don't think anyone cares! I just don't agree that unlocking features, using the manufacturers own software, is "hacking" or "improving" something you own the same way as changing/modifying a physical good. Tweaking an ECU with a custom firmware to get more horsepower, that's hacking.
I fully agree that "hacking" is really a misnomer. What we're talking about is not really any different than someone following directions to perform a simple modification to their car.
Well, seeing how I've already outlined exactly how the manufacturers can do what they want without imposing artificial limits on the actions of their customers, this objection doesn't fly.
Well, I think it is obvious that this increases the cost to other customers who just want the base model. So it's a tradeoff. And I already said I don't object to you hacking your scope.
If it really increased the cost of the base model to other customers, then how do you explain how Rigol manages to sell their DS1054Z for such a low price when they have arguably the most "hackable" (sorry, "easily modifiable") scope on the market?
No, you're looking at only one side of the economic equation. The other side is that the customer base who have no problem with enabling the features in their scopes in this way will view a scope they can do that with as a better value for their money, and they'll thus buy the scope without hesitation. The end result is that the manufacturer gets greater sales than their competitors, and thus more profit.
As I already said, a manufacturer will either price their goods in such a way as to take what customers are actually doing with them into account, or they'll have trouble staying in business. It doesn't necessarily follow that their prices will be higher and, indeed, they may end up being lower due to better return on the mass production investment.
And additionally, you presume that implementing the locking system in the way I previously described is so much more costly that it'll have a significant effect on the prices. But that's not the case at all. The method of implementation is trivial. Given that the Rigol codes clearly are derived from the serial number, it's even possible that Rigol's approach is more expensive than the method I outlined, because the approach I outlined is a standard one that is implemented throughout the software industry, as it is used as part of the SSL key verification mechanism in every browser in existence, and any other piece of software that has to do key verification.
Put another way, just because a customer can attempt to take actions to bypass a lock doesn't mean he has the right to succeed in that. I do not argue that customers have the right to succeed in their attempts, only that they have the right to make the attempt.
This is one of the most curious things about your post. Very curious. I'll have to think on that. I'm thinking of Kwikset locks. They are the most common house/door/deadbolt lock in the US. And you can pick them with a couple of bobby pins in under a minute. But that doesn't matter, because the lock is just there to keep honest people honest. * In some way I think unlocking the Rigol for business use is not exactly honest, since there are other easy options to get what you need from Rigol and from other companies. Just an opinion.
Well, "honest" or not, it's not something most companies will find is worth doing, because they tend to value support more highly than the temporary financial benefits they might gain by unlocking the scope.
I'm also thinking back to my childhood where you could stick a pin in the bottom of the cable box and get the pay channels for free, lol.
Heh. Yep. Is it your fault the cable companies contracted with a hardware company that clearly didn't know what it was doing (or didn't care)? Nope. :)
At the end of the day, the deal is this: buyers are not responsible for the sellers' actions, and sellers are not responsible for the buyers' actions. They each have to respond to the actions of the other, however, in whatever way suits their needs. If they think of a mutually beneficial arrangement, they are free to make that arrangement, just as they are free to back out of it if it suits them. There is no reason actors in the market cannot be (generally -- there are a few narrow exceptions, as with anything else) completely free in what they do, save for limits on distribution of trivially-copied works. The latter limits exist to equalize the market in trivially-copied works with the market of physical goods, so as to encourage people to create trivially-copied works.
The action under discussion, that would be artificially limited if some had their way, is the ability to enter a magic code into the oscilloscope one owns so as to enable the features that were not enabled prior to that, even if he didn't obtain the code from the seller or one of the seller's authorized representatives.
Wow, this is really hamstringing the customers' ability to use the device as they see fit! :-// Who'd a thunk on my list of features when buying a scope I would be specifically looking for "the ability to enter a magic code... so as to enable features [that many customers willingly pay for]."
The action is a gating function. It makes possible other actions. So through prevention of this one action, other actions are also being prevented.
But even if the action itself were the only one being considered, being artificially restrained from performing it is still a restraint, a limitation on your freedom. And limitations on freedom demand good reason.
No, you're looking at only one side of the economic equation. The other side is that the customer base who have no problem with enabling the features in their scopes in this way will view a scope they can do that with as a better value for their money, and they'll thus buy the scope without hesitation. The end result is that the manufacturer gets greater sales than their competitors, and thus more profit.
I disagree. There is no way you can make this conclusion.
My sincere apologies!
I wrote that really badly, because I didn't mean to say that I disagreed with you. I only meant to add an additional possibility, not replace your possibility with mine!
Which is to say, it's entirely possible for both factors to be in play at the same time.
Which factor ends up dominating the equation is a very interesting question in its own right, and probably depends on the circumstances.
If it really increased the cost of the base model to other customers, then how do you explain how Rigol manages to sell their DS1054Z for such a low price when they have arguably the most "hackable" (sorry, "easily modifiable") scope on the market?
What does one have to do with the other? "Increased" cost is relative.
But it is also absolute, because we're talking about a competitive marketplace where other manufacturers are making roughly equivalent products and selling them in competition, and the cost of development adds to the floor on the price one can charge for what one is building. Since R&D costs are spread across the number of units sold, it follows that one will get a greater return on R&D dollars if one sells a larger number of units, and therefore one can sell at a lower price and realize the same amount of profit from the same R&D if one sells a larger number of units. And yes, there are many other factors involved, including the ones you mentioned.
If the "hackability" of a scope makes it more appealing to a large segment of the customer base, that represents the opportunity for greater sales and thus a greater return on investment. That is counterbalanced by the potential of larger per-unit profit for models configured to be more capable, of course, so there is tension between the two approaches. Each represents the possibility of greater profit. And as these scopes are competing against those from other manufacturers, it may well be that the additional appeal from "hackability" is what makes the difference in which manufacturer dominates. As Rigol appears to now be dominating the low-end market (I haven't seen any evidence that they were prior to the DS1054Z) and their scopes are more "hackable", there is every reason to suspect a link between the two. But it may also be that the value proposition of the DS1054Z as it comes configured is sufficient to explain that, too. And yet a third explanation is that Rigol got there with the DS1054Z first.
Yes, they sell the DS1054Z at a very attractive price, even if you leave out the "hackability." For a 4 channel 50MHz DSO, you will be shocked at how cheap this is compared to the competition. How cheap they sell it has no bearing on the fact that introducing a stronger key lock will increase their cost..... and how they distribute that cost is up them, but the most likely scenario, IMO, is an increase to the cost of the base unit.
That may be. I'll put it plainly: if "hacking" of these scopes represented a significant financial downside relative to the profit the manufacturer could be making without it, then the manufacturer would easily make up the difference in implementation costs, and would therefore have plenty of incentive to implement the system I referred to.
So: either Rigol is being stupid in making it possible for their scopes to be "hacked" in this way, and as a result will suffer financially for it, or they aren't. I submit that they aren't, and that the popularity of their low-end scopes is evidence of that.
Rigol is great for hobbyists. Hobbyists can buy and hack their Rigol. No one cares. But I don't agree with some of the reasoning/justifications that are being used.
Sure, I get that. But the question can be framed one of two ways:
- Why should people "hack" their Rigol scope the way they are?
- Why shouldn't people "hack" their Rigol scope the way they are?
People have been focusing primarily on arguments around the latter.
I come back 6 days later, expecting to see the thread has died without me stirring sh** up; and I find YOU of all people making exactly the same arguments I was making. Why again were we arguing? :P
I ESPECIALLY agree with THESE POINTS.
Please forgive me if I mistakenly attribute any of my highlighted points; in all honesty, even with the computer as a scorecard, this discussion has become so complicated and recursive it is hard to keep track. ;)
I repeatedly used the word "lazy" in description of how Rigol chose to apply their "product limitations", and for GOOD REASON. If they WEREN'T being lazy, then they were either being downright STUPID, or they were deliberately "leaving the treasure map lying around" by not altering their security on the device after all these years. We're talking 7 years now, since the original "hack" was discovered, I believe.
If one argues that they haven't made their R&D back on this product by NOW, one is outright delusional. I know from my own time in the hot seat that if a company doesn't expect to recoup those costs and SEE PROFIT from the first one or two production runs, upper management is going to pull the plug on your project in a heartbeat. These people are NOTORIOUS for being interested in one thing: SHORT TERM PROFIT. Over and Over again. They have the attention span of gnats, and WILL NOT PLAN more than a few quarters ahead even if you tie them up and hold their feet to the fire. |O
The only place this isn't true is in Military Contracting; where we the Taxpayer get to foot the R&D bill on a cost-plus basis. You know, that business model that pays Halliburton cost-plus to set fire to a $50K truck because they don't have spare tires or the motor blows up because they don't stock oil & filters for regular maintenance. :o
I don't believe there's a lot of THAT Business Model happening in China-Direct electronics manufacturing. :D
If a manufacturer chooses to make a single product to cover numerous different product segments, they have the right to do so. If they choose to implement that choice in a manner that makes the product easy to modify into the higher-priced priced model, they have the right to do THAT as well. But they HAVE TO accept the consequences of that choice; namely, that some people are going to try and figure out HOW.
If a user chooses to mod their product into a more capable product, whether by dint of applying their own skills and knowledge to do so, or by using a tool devised by someone with the knowledge, they HAVE THAT RIGHT, provided they are willing to accept the consequences of their actions; namely that by choosing to do so, they GIVE UP the right to warranty service. PERIOD. Even if there is a failure that is rightly the responsibility of the manufacturer, it is unreasonable to expect them to fix it AFTER you have modified the product. You and they both have no way of knowing FOR SURE that you didn't cause the failure by modding the product or by accident WHILE modding the product; and truthfully, the manufacturer should NOT be expected to expend resources trying to figure that out.
Arguing that the user should be able to expect Warranty Service after attempting to mod their product is, in a way, arguing that they should be able to expect to succeed in that attempt.
Arguing what today's written laws say is pointless.
If something becomes widespread enough to affect a large company's business model then laws will appear. Bet on it.
I should note that this is an invalid argument.
It's not an argument, it's an observation.
Large companies can (and do) buy laws for themselves. Laws that can harm consumers.
Ask yourself why TTIP is being "negotiated" in secret with no public input.
Today's laws make the framework we currently operate under. If you want to pretend that you operate under a more restrictive framework than that, you can certainly do so, but if you do that, then how far are you going to take it? Are you going to make no modifications to your automobile, for instance, to improve its capability? Are you going to refrain from improving anything you have, just because a future framework of law might forbid it?
It's your call, but I'd advise living for today (while ensuring, of course, that what you have remains sufficient for tomorrow). Get the most of what you have while you can, because in all of this, time is your most precious and limited resource.
Thanks for the sympathy and kind words over my imaginary condition.
But ... save them for those who think that today's written laws are what define morality/right/wrong. Laws are bought and sold by the rich. People who believe this system is right/moral need your sympathy more than me.
Ummm... yup.
I made these very same points, expressed slightly differently, on several occasions. Law doesn't make right, and laws are bought and sold every day. Our Corporate Overlords have done such a good job of selling their right to their position of superiority that even intelligent, informed, and reasonably independent-minded folks possessed of all their faculties and reason tend to think FIRST of the Corporations' rights under the law (Or worse yet, what those Corporations WISH their rights were, whether so or not) rather than THEIR OWN rights.
Kindof sad, really. :-//
mnem
6 days later...
-
Do with it what you will.
My point of view, written on the first or second page is that somewhere in this is a social contract. You say you're free to do whatever you like with your oscilloscope. Adults will recognize that society taught you to read and write, made you what you are and gave you that freedom, therefore you owe a debt to that society.
eg. If everybody paid Rigol for the features they use then maybe Rigol could sell the DS1054Z for $300 instead of $400. This would benefit society as a whole because oscilloscopes would be available to more people.
OTOH I recognize that almost nobody does that. Most people think of themselves first, society second, and the future of the planet as a whole somewhere near the bottom.
As a consequence almost everything you buy is marked up. Everything you buy in a big store has a markup included to compensate for the theft they suffer (about 20%, apparently), because of all the people who take big TVs home to watch The Superbowl then return them under the 30-day money-back garantee, etc. You give most people an inch and they'll happily take a mile.
It's sad, but it's a reality of life that isn't likely to change. To unilaterally decide to be the one of the few that does everything "correctly" seems foolish.
(and you can give back to society in other ways than paying extra for everything).
-
I repeatedly used the word "lazy" in description of how Rigol chose to apply their "product limitations", and for GOOD REASON. If they WEREN'T being lazy, then they were either being downright STUPID, or they were deliberately "leaving the treasure map lying around" by not altering their security on the device after all these years. We're talking 7 years now, since the original "hack" was discovered, I believe.
True enough. The thing is, though, that even at 50MHz, this scope is still the cheapest 4 channel DSO available when it came out. And I think it still holds true today. So I don't see how this would be stupid (if they used better security). Even at 50MHz with no free upgrade, I would have bought this scope (if I hadn't already bought a 4 channel scope a few months earlier!)
They have no close competition in this particular arena. Their price is already fantastic. (Arguably less attractive pricing on the 100MHz variant, albeit).
-
Re: reply #537
NZ Hamsters, thanks for this! I don't have a whole lot to comment, here. I think the pics speak for themselves. I just wanted to bump this before it gets lost in the endless circular argument that is this thread. :)
This is pretty much to be - with a 50Mhz square wave (50% duty cycle - 10ns on 10ns off) the harmonics would be 50MHz, 150MHz, 250MHz, and on a 50 MHz or 100MHz scope you will only really see much detail in the first harmonic.
I find it curious that it is easily seen with the 25MHz filter, but the second harmonic can't be seen on the 100MHz setting. I guess it's just the lower amplitude plus all the extra noise without the filter. I wonder as you decreased the pulse width, where the 50MHz would no longer see the first harmonic, but the 100MHz would still show it. Or if it would also get lost in the noise at the same time the 50MHz loses sight.
At any rate, considering the differences in noise, I find the objection to "arbitrary manufacturer gimping" to be further weakened. The 50MHz filter obviously does something more than just arbitrarily lower the bandwidth of the scope. I am still not quite convinced of a significantly increased utility (other than theoretical) for the hacked version, if your model's filters are representative.
I'm obviously not deep into hardware design as many others, here. I more of a read the datasheet and follow the manufacturer's guidelines and things will usually work fine, kind of guy. The designers of the devices I am using are the ones that maybe really need the fancy scopes!
Basically, I have yet to run into the problem where doubling of my scope's already lowly bandwidth would have saved a week's worth of hair-pulling. Looking at NZ Hamster's pics, I think I am probably in good company.
-
Re: reply #537
NZ Hamsters, thanks for this! I don't have a whole lot to comment, here. I think the pics speak for themselves. I just wanted to bump this before it gets lost in the endless circular argument that is this thread. :)
It's visible on the 25 MHz scope as the signal is a periodic at 1 MHz, so the first 25 harmonics (1 MHz,2 MHz, 3 MHz), can all contribute some power in the final waveform that is seen on the screen. If it repeated more often (e.g. 10 ns pulses at 4MHz) then it would look different - when you get to about 15 Mhz it will look like a lot like sine wave, as the second harmonic of 30MHz and all those above should be removed by the front end's filters.
-
Ok, thanks.
Anyhow, to me it seems like the max observable frequency of a glitch/harmonic/ringing has much less to do with rise time, in this specific case, than it does max sampling rate. Obviously, the relative slope/amplitude will be affected, especially compared/relative to any signal that has a lower than max rise time, but it would be comparably observable. It is even debatable, for this specific signal, whether the 100MHz setting is even more useful than the 50MHz setting, in detecting/observing the first harmonic. One click of the voltage/division knob, and even the 25MHz setting might be more easy to "read." Also, the signal-to-noise ratio is obviously a factor, and it appears in "the hack," this ratio is not necessarily preserved.
Where the rise time of a signal will specifically matter, as I am envisioning it, is where your signal frequency, itself, is relatively high to where it matters in order to tune the signal (say the switching speed of a FET driver running at high frequency - in the lower end of FCC territory where switching losses start to be impractical and mostly low frequency RF signal transmission and high-speed data transmission might be of interest). Maybe I'm just showing my ignorance.
So am I the Dunning-Krueger poster boy, or is the opposing side using an over-abundance of theoretical information while missing the practical difference?
I feel like perhaps the Rigol has good performance at 50MHz, and maybe they could technically achieve -3dB at 100MHz, but with a resultant signal:noise that is borderline. Which will still be useful to someone with that specific need. But which won't affect the majority of users. So by charging double the price, those that actually are working on applications where this is helpful are happy, because they needed it. Those that are buying it because higher number iz betta are happy, because they don't know the difference. And those that are hacking the low end scope are happy, because more numbers iz betta, and look I got $400.00 worth of awesomeness for freez.
Of course, the double memory is obviously a joke. So are you going to really waste time scrolling through several windows of signal, just in case there's something interesting on the tail ends? Or are you going to maybe find it at least 20x faster to simply recapture until you find what you are looking for?
-
As a consequence almost everything you buy is marked up. Everything you buy in a big store has a markup included to compensate for the theft they suffer (about 20%, apparently), because of all the My point of view, written on the first or second page is that somewhere in this is a social contract. You say you're free to do whatever you like with your oscilloscope. Adults will recognize that society taught you to read and write, made you what you are and gave you that freedom, therefore you owe a debt to that society.
eg. If everybody paid Rigol for the features they use then maybe Rigol could sell the DS1054Z for $300 instead of $400. This would benefit society as a whole because oscilloscopes would be available to more people.
OTOH I recognize that almost nobody does that. Most people think of themselves first, society second, and the future of the planet as a whole somewhere near the bottom.
As a consequence almost everything you buy is marked up. Everything you buy in a big store has a markup included to compensate for the theft they suffer (about 20%, apparently), because of all the people who take big TVs home to watch The Superbowl then return them under the 30-day money-back garantee, etc. You give most people an inch and they'll happily take a mile.
It's sad, but it's a reality of life that isn't likely to change. To unilaterally decide to be the one of the few that does everything "correctly" seems foolish.
(and you can give back to society in other ways than paying extra for everything).
Everything you buy is marked up to pay for the company's costs (theft is only one) and they of course need to make a profit.
As far as Rigol is concerned: the hackability seems to benefit hardware sales and it's ironic you talk about people being selfish, putting themselves before society, when it's very likely Rigol, like most other companies, are guilty of that too.
-
As far as Rigol is concerned: the hackability seems to benefit hardware sales and it's ironic you talk about people being selfish, putting themselves before society, when it's very likely Rigol, like most other companies, are guilty of that too.
Two wrongs make a right?
-
My point of view, written on the first or second page is that somewhere in this is a social contract. You say you're free to do whatever you like with your oscilloscope. Adults will recognize that society taught you to read and write, made you what you are and gave you that freedom, therefore you owe a debt to that society.
Freedom is what you have absent external constraints. Society takes away liberty at least as much as it protects it.
The "debt" I owe to society as a result of being taught to read and write, etc., was exacted from my parents, and is exacted from me every year, at gunpoint. That's what taxes are. Why should I believe I owe any debt greater than that?
eg. If everybody paid Rigol for the features they use then maybe Rigol could sell the DS1054Z for $300 instead of $400. This would benefit society as a whole because oscilloscopes would be available to more people.
OTOH I recognize that almost nobody does that. Most people think of themselves first, society second, and the future of the planet as a whole somewhere near the bottom.
As a consequence almost everything you buy is marked up. Everything you buy in a big store has a markup included to compensate for the theft they suffer (about 20%, apparently), because of all the people who take big TVs home to watch The Superbowl then return them under the 30-day money-back garantee, etc. You give most people an inch and they'll happily take a mile.
It's sad, but it's a reality of life that isn't likely to change. To unilaterally decide to be the one of the few that does everything "correctly" seems foolish.
Yes, that is the way of the world.
It's that way because we are products of evolution, and being generally selfish is the most effective way to maximize the probability of gene propagation.
The voluntarily cooperative situation you believe would be ideal is one that crumbles if anyone decides to not behave in a cooperative manner. That person would suddenly find himself at a substantial advantage relative to the rest, which would be good for his genetic posterity and bad for everyone else's. Others would take notice and, because they want to maximize their genetic propagation potential, do the same. The situation would quickly devolve to one that looks similar to the one we're already in, except that it would be a lot more chaotic.
So: you can either achieve something resembling what you're after by insisting that everyone be voluntarily cooperative, so as to yield global optimization at the expense of local optimization, or you can do it by taking advantage of the innate desire of people to locally optimize. The system we have operates on the latter principle.
I don't see any corporation out there attempting to minimize shareholder profits so as to be able to lower the prices to their customers even further than they already are. I don't see any scope manufacturers (to use but one example) voluntarily publishing the source code to their firmware so as to allow people to make improvements to it and thus increase the utility of what they have. I don't see corporations doing much of anything, in fact, that is in the same spirit that you seem to believe this "debt to society" demands (there are exceptions to everything, however, so I'm sure it's possible to find some examples of that sort of thing. But they do not dominate).
When the very corporations that you have already said have the power to change law end up changing the law for the benefit of their customers instead of for their own benefit, then, and only then, will I believe that what you apparently desire is achievable. But it seems unreasonable to complain that one group of people should act in a certain way without insisting that the group of people on the opposite end of the transaction do the same.
-
Arguing what today's written laws say is pointless.
If something becomes widespread enough to affect a large company's business model then laws will appear. Bet on it.
I should note that this is an invalid argument.
It amounts to an argument that says "you shouldn't do X, because if you do X, then it will be made illegal and you won't be able to do X anymore".
But someone who is refraining from doing X because it might otherwise become illegal can't possibly be concerned about the legality of doing X, because at that point the legality of doing X makes absolutely no difference -- their behavior is already the same as it would be if X were illegal.
If you are concerned about some action becoming illegal, then you have to suggest something else other than refraining from the action as a means of preserving its legality. Something that is legal but that nobody does for fear of it becoming illegal is something for which its legality is already irrelevant.
I should note that this is an invalid argument.
It completely ignores the reasoning for 'Not doing X because it might become illegal'.
One simple example is for someone developing a process which relies on a particular set of operations, would be unwise to base any critical components on an operation that could become unavailable. While there may be circumstance that are powerful enough to accept that risk, I would be looking for less risky alternatives that could achieve the desired outcome.
-
It completely ignores the reasoning for 'Not doing X because it might become illegal'.
One simple example is for someone developing a process which relies on a particular set of operations, would be unwise to base any critical components on an operation that could become unavailable. While there may be circumstance that are powerful enough to accept that risk, I would be looking for less risky alternatives that could achieve the desired outcome.
How does that apply to the question of an individual hacking their scope, which is what I understood as the context of the original statement to which I was replying?
That said, this is a good point as regards the general case.
-
I was speaking to the general case - but having said that, the implication for hacking a scope can still fall under the general case.
-
I was speaking to the general case - but having said that, the implication for hacking a scope can still fall under the general case.
Okay, how does (or can) the situational logic you mention apply to the case of an individual hacking a scope for private use? I don't see that at all. He can either hack the scope or not. If he hacks the scope, he now has a hacked scope. A law that passes after the fact doesn't change the fact that he has a hacked scope, it only prevents him from being able to hack a future scope. If he refrains from hacking his scope both now and in the future, then he's behaving as if the law already exists.
What is he doing that is dependent on the ability to later hack his scope (or some equivalent that yields the same result), such that refraining from hacking his scope now preserves some necessary capability in the event a law forbidding hacking one's scope passes? Put another way, what incentive could he possibly have for refraining from hacking his scope that isn't rooted in the false logic I called out before, but is dependent upon the possibility of a law against hacking the scope being passed?
-
I am laughing on the inside at the idea of someone logging into the forum for the first time in weeks and tuning into the thread at this very moment. :-DD
-
A law that passes after the fact doesn't change the fact that he has a hacked scope, it only prevents him from being able to hack a future scope.
You make the assumption that his already hacked scope is not a problem for him to possess.
If he refrains from hacking his scope both now and in the future, then he's behaving as if the law already exists.
Tenuous logic IMO - but I understand the point.
As for trying to define a scenario where such a situation applies, there is no need. It's the principle at the heart of this point and trying to build up an example will only result in a tangential argument about its merits.
-
The "debt" I owe to society is exacted from me every year, at gunpoint. That's what taxes are. Why should I believe I owe any debt greater than that?
I dunno. Every American I ever met told me America was the greatest country in the world. :-//
-
The "debt" I owe to society as a result of being taught to read and write, etc., was exacted from my parents, and is exacted from me every year, at gunpoint. That's what taxes are. Why should I believe I owe any debt greater than that?
If that is all your society is, then I'm sad for you.
Note that my family does have some knowledge of the USA: I emigrated to the US when I was 5 weeks old, but my parents decided to return. Their decision was influenced by my being showered with glass when a bullet shattered the glass of the Pittsburgh streetcar we were riding in. They didn't think it was a good place to raise children.
-
The "debt" I owe to society as a result of being taught to read and write, etc., was exacted from my parents, and is exacted from me every year, at gunpoint. That's what taxes are. Why should I believe I owe any debt greater than that?
If that is all your society is, then I'm sad for you.
Note that my family does have some knowledge of the USA: I emigrated to the US when I was 5 weeks old, but my parents decided to return. Their decision was influenced by my being showered with glass when a bullet shattered the glass of the Pittsburgh streetcar we were riding in. They didn't think it was a good place to raise children.
Stop trolling and accept that the same argument kcbrown makes applies equally well here in the UK. I'm a high rate taxpayer here in the UK and get fleeced every year by taxation. There's so many stealth taxes here that affect so many people and it all helps to pour money in to the governments public spending budget. This pays for education, schools, roads health etc etc.
-
I'm a high rate taxpayer here in the UK and get fleeced every year by taxation.
So...where did you earn that money that you're being "fleeced" on? That's right - in the UK.
Try going to a third world country and see if you can earn that much money doing what you do.
-
I am laughing on the inside at the idea of someone logging into the forum for the first time in weeks and tuning into the thread at this very moment. :-DD
On THAT, I can wholeheartedly agree. :-DD We are fast devolving into "How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin" territory. :wtf: Which depends, of course... before or after they moved to Anaheim? ;)
The "debt" I owe to society is exacted from me every year, at gunpoint. That's what taxes are. Why should I believe I owe any debt greater than that?
I dunno. Every American I ever met told me America was the greatest country in the world. :-//
We are not the greatest country in the world; more than 50 years of institutionalized corruption working its way from the top down has seen to that. ::) We are now simply the wealthiest 3rd world nation on the planet. BIG difference. :-\ Such is the rise and fall of all great societies, only every iteration happens faster. What took the Romans 5000 years took Great Britain 700; and now we've managed to cut that down to 200-300, depending on whose yardstick you use. Even worse, this is our 2nd attempt at this wholesale collapse; you'd think we would have learned our lesson from 1929. We can't even FAIL without fu**ing it up, loudly and messily. |O
mnem
Nothin' to see here folks, move along...
-
The "debt" I owe to society as a result of being taught to read and write, etc., was exacted from my parents, and is exacted from me every year, at gunpoint. That's what taxes are. Why should I believe I owe any debt greater than that?
If that is all your society is, then I'm sad for you.
Society itself is a framework that governs interactions between its members. It provides advantages and disadvantages. The advantages generally outweigh the disadvantages, but the disadvantages are still there (mainly in the form of the removal of liberty, something that is happening continuously such that liberty is an ever shrinking thing).
A debt is something that is imposed from the outside. And as I noted, the debt you speak of is paid at gunpoint. But that does not mean I care nothing about my fellow man or anything. Quite the opposite. My behavior is driven not by some debt that people think I owe, but by my desire to see others bettered.
I would have a better opinion of the society I live in, and of other societies, if they weren't continuously trying to remove ever more liberty from its members.
-
The "debt" I owe to society is exacted from me every year, at gunpoint. That's what taxes are. Why should I believe I owe any debt greater than that?
I dunno. Every American I ever met told me America was the greatest country in the world. :-//
"Was" is the keyword here. The desire to keep people free (that has never been implemented well, really) seems to have long vanished. It's now a race between two major political parties to control people, the antithesis of liberty. The advertised purpose of the country is essentially dead, existing only in a few remaining embers scattered across the country. There is no place left in the world that reveres liberty.
Don't believe me? Then tell me where in the world laws, which are restrictions upon liberty, are being repealed more quickly than they are made.
-
There is no place left in the world that reveres liberty.
There never was.
Or more accurately, each generation believes that things were better in The Good Old Days when they were young (and naive). Don't you remember what was being said in the 60s and 70s by the unhip square generation?
-
I'm a high rate taxpayer here in the UK and get fleeced every year by taxation.
So...where did you earn that money that you're being "fleeced" on? That's right - in the UK.
Try going to a third world country and see if you can earn that much money doing what you do.
Strawman or trolling?
-
There is no place left in the world that reveres liberty.
There never was.
Well, the U.S. has from time to time claimed to cherish liberty, but I suspect it was largely just advertising. There might have been a brief period in the early years of the United States where it was relatively highly valued, but I suspect that only the people who were there could really say.
Or more accurately, each generation believes that things were better in The Good Old Days when they were young (and naive). Don't you remember what was being said in the 60s and 70s by the unhip square generation?
I'm not saying that things were better back in my youth than they are now (the 60s and 70s are slightly before my time). My situation today is much better than it was back then. But it is unwise to casually dismiss the lamentations of old timers, just as it would be to assume that those lamentations aren't at least somewhat fuzzy due to the mists of time.
It cannot be denied that people today have less freedom than they did before. We know this, because there are far more laws in place now than ever before, and each law is a restriction on someone's freedom.
That noose has been tightening for a long time. Liberty is generally never regained except through violent revolution. The cost of that is so high that nobody in their right mind desires it. And so we are left with our liberty ever dwindling. Enjoy it while you can. And remember this conversation when you are telling your grandkids about all the things you were able to to that they will never be able to do.
-
I'm a high rate taxpayer here in the UK and get fleeced every year by taxation.
So...where did you earn that money that you're being "fleeced" on? That's right - in the UK.
Try going to a third world country and see if you can earn that much money doing what you do.
LOL, obviously trolling....though I might be being generous. I suppose it is possible to that simple.
-
A law that passes after the fact doesn't change the fact that he has a hacked scope, it only prevents him from being able to hack a future scope.
You make the assumption that his already hacked scope is not a problem for him to possess.
This is true, but it seems a pretty reasonable assumption. Most laws govern actions, not possession. There are laws which govern possession, of course, but they are comparatively rare, and many of the ones that do exist have a grandfathering clause of some kind.
If he refrains from hacking his scope both now and in the future, then he's behaving as if the law already exists.
Tenuous logic IMO - but I understand the point.
As for trying to define a scenario where such a situation applies, there is no need. It's the principle at the heart of this point and trying to build up an example will only result in a tangential argument about its merits.
Perhaps so, but the reason I raised the question is that, while I'm willing to grant the possibility that the principle you outlined is generally applicable, I'm not (yet) willing to grant that it is universally applicable. In particular, it seems that there are certain conditions that must be present for the principle you outline to be true, and the situation that I mentioned as an example seems to not adhere to all of those conditions.
The conditions in particular are:
- There must be a substitute action which yields the same end result that one is attempting to achieve (since, if there is no such substitute action, the risk/reward calculation probably favors taking the original action, with preserving the possibility of taking the action later being the only reason for refraining at that point).
- The purpose of the result of the action is such that there is substantial value in being able to achieve it in the future as well as in the present (if this is not the case, then there is no reason to concern oneself with future illegality). Which is to say, the outcome you're trying to achieve through your action has to be, if not a necessity, highly desirable (otherwise, why care that you might not be able to take the action later?).
- There is sufficient expense in changing the action between the time the action is legal and the time it becomes illegal that there is substantial incentive to use alternative actions in the present (otherwise, why not just take the action now and, if it becomes illegal, take a different action at that point?).
The situation I outlined seemingly violates the third condition at a minimum, and probably also the second condition.
A single counterexample is sufficient to disprove the universal applicability of a principle. That does not imply that the principle doesn't remain generally applicable -- it only means there are exceptions. And since the situation I outlined is exactly the situation that we're actually discussing in this thread, it seems quite relevant.
-
Or more accurately, each generation believes that things were better in The Good Old Days when they were young (and naive). Don't you remember what was being said in the 60s and 70s by the unhip square generation?
I'm not saying that things were better back in my youth than they are now (the 60s and 70s are slightly before my time). My situation today is much better than it was back then. But it is unwise to casually dismiss the lamentations of old timers, just as it would be to assume that those lamentations aren't at least somewhat fuzzy due to the mists of time.
The point is that over time things become different. Some things become worse, some become better. Swings and roundabouts. "The past is a foreign place, they do things differently there": LP Hartley in "The Go-between"
It cannot be denied that people today have less freedom than they did before. We know this, because there are far more laws in place now than ever before, and each law is a restriction on someone's freedom.
That is a grossly blinkered view. Many law are to ensure people have freedom and are not oppressed by other people.
If you want to live in a place where there are no (enforced) laws, go and live in Somalia or Sierra Leone. You'll soon appreciate that laws give you freedom to do as you wish.
-
It cannot be denied that people today have less freedom than they did before. We know this, because there are far more laws in place now than ever before, and each law is a restriction on someone's freedom.
That is a grossly blinkered view. Many law are to ensure people have freedom and are not oppressed by other people.
There are some laws like that, certainly. Those are the most basic ones, and have existed for centuries. They don't seem to be anywhere near the dominant form. We long ago moved on from laws which do prevent harm to laws that might prevent harm. And as societies get ever more risk averse, liberty will suffer at the hands of people who insist on achieving the ideal of living free of risks.
If you want to live in a place where there are no (enforced) laws, go and live in Somalia or Sierra Leone. You'll soon appreciate that laws give you freedom to do as you wish.
Lawlessness is not what I'm arguing for. I realize that laws which forbid intentional acts of harm to others are a necessity (not to prevent the acts of harm -- people intent on harm will perform those acts regardless -- but to make it possible to remove people who insist on intentionally harming others from our midst so as to minimize their presence). What we have goes well beyond that, however, extending even to laws that have as their one purpose the prevention of harm solely to the person who would otherwise take the forbidden action (or not take the required action).
-
The point is that over time things become different. Some things become worse, some become better. Swings and roundabouts. "The past is a foreign place, they do things differently there": LP Hartley in "The Go-between"
Sure. But my view here is not with respect to things like technological capability, but rather with respect to liberty itself.
That, too, ebbs and flows, of course. But the general direction is towards the extinguishment of liberty, until some violent event restores some of it.
There are many things that affect quality of life. Liberty is but one of them, but it's a big one. And it is perhaps the most relevant one for this particular discussion, seeing how we're talking about an action that I'm sure some people believe should be made illegal.
-
It cannot be denied that people today have less freedom than they did before. We know this, because there are far more laws in place now than ever before, and each law is a restriction on someone's freedom.
That is a grossly blinkered view. Many law are to ensure people have freedom and are not oppressed by other people.
There are some laws like that, certainly. Those are the most basic ones, and have existed for centuries. They don't seem to be anywhere near the dominant form. We long ago moved on from laws which do prevent harm to laws that might prevent harm. And as societies get ever more risk averse, liberty will suffer at the hands of people who insist on achieving the ideal of living free of risks.
And at that point you are incorrectly eliding many independent concerns.
If you want to live in a place where there are no (enforced) laws, go and live in Somalia or Sierra Leone. You'll soon appreciate that laws give you freedom to do as you wish.
Lawlessness is not what I'm arguing for.
Oddly enough I didn't think you were arguing for that! But lawless anarchy is the natural consequence of your loose thinking and wishes. Be careful what you wish for; you might get it.
-
There are some laws like that, certainly. Those are the most basic ones, and have existed for centuries. They don't seem to be anywhere near the dominant form. We long ago moved on from laws which do prevent harm to laws that might prevent harm. And as societies get ever more risk averse, liberty will suffer at the hands of people who insist on achieving the ideal of living free of risks.
And at that point you are incorrectly eliding many independent concerns.
Perhaps so. But the existence of a concern does not automatically justify a restriction on liberty. In fact, liberty is so difficult and expensive to recover once it's gone that I argue that a restriction should not be placed on liberty unless there literally is no other choice.
Of course, few value liberty in that way, because they're so used to not having it. It gets worse with each generation.
You do realize, of course, that tyranny is the historical norm, right?
Lawlessness is not what I'm arguing for.
Oddly enough I didn't think you were arguing for that! But lawless anarchy is the natural consequence of your loose thinking and wishes. Be careful what you wish for; you might get it.
Apologies in advance for the long-windedness. I don't know how to properly address this with greater brevity.
Lawlessness is not the natural consequence of my wishes. What I wish is for liberty of the variety of "your right to swing your fist ends at my face" or some analog thereof. What I wish for is an at worst stable amount of liberty, where those liberties that are removed have been removed because there really was no other choice, and not merely because some amount of the population (and especially not because some people who regard themselves as leaders) wanted it. It is not enough that there merely be "good reason" for a restriction on liberty. "Good reason" is sufficient to justify all restrictions on liberty, most especially if it includes what might happen as opposed to what will happen.
In this view, the purpose of government is to ensure that liberty is maximized, and to act as an arbiter whenever liberties collide. Clearly, liberty is reduced when some people are forcibly imposed upon by others, which means that the government's purpose is to ensure that such imposition is minimized. And yes, that clearly must include the imposition by the government itself.
Most laws are not of that variety anymore. It may be that at one time, that was the type of law that was prevalent. Most certainly, laws of that type tend to be the oldest ones. But people seem to have this desire to simultaneously do what they want while controlling others, and the latter is what usually wins because they control others by proxy, through the leadership that exists (whether elected, appointed, or through force), and generally don't realize or don't care that their pleas to control others are also being made by others who have the same desire to control them. The end result is that everyone is forcibly restrained through the wishes of everyone else, and this goes on for centuries before some influential group of people (such as the founders of the United States) decides they've had enough of it, and manage to recover some of that lost liberty through force of arms. And then the cycle repeats, because nobody has been bright enough (or, alternatively, influential enough) to design and implement a system with the necessary feedback mechanisms to prevent it.
That role of government I mentioned is quite clearly something of a contradiction, which is why people with the views I have generally tend to believe that government size and power must be kept to the absolute minimum necessary. It's precisely because that role is something of a contradiction that failure to zealously keep the government in check (either through active management or through a systemic feedback mechanism) will inevitably result in the government acquiring ever more power and control, and the loss of liberty that is inescapably tied to it. Whether it is government power or the desire of the population to control others that comes first doesn't matter. That feeds back into itself, and the end result is that people in every generation end up telling their grandkids about the things they could do that are now forbidden.
What I wish for in the above is not achievable in a stable fashion with a typical government structure, even ones that initially respond to the wishes of the minority. It can only be achieved through proper engineering of the government structure itself, so that it includes feedback mechanisms that ensure that even tyranny of the majority cannot prevail.
You realize, of course, that the liberty that is left after imposition of the union of all restrictions that people would impose upon others is something approaching the null set, right?
-
You do realize, of course, that tyranny is the historical norm, right?
And you do realise that they way of curbing such tyranny is through laws, right?
Without laws monarchs and the aristocracy are free to physically plunder the little people. Nowadays, of course, plundering is done electronically by people like Bernie Madoff and some people named in the "Panama Papers". And many US local police departments don't exactly have a stellar reputation.
No, more laws are needed to prevent those bastards screwing the likes of thee and me. The bastards will, of course, defend their position using sleight of hand to deflect the little people's attention away from their activities onto something, anything else.
Lawlessness is not what I'm arguing for.
Oddly enough I didn't think you were arguing for that! But lawless anarchy is the natural consequence of your loose thinking and wishes. Be careful what you wish for; you might get it.
...
You realize, of course, that the liberty that is left after imposition of the union of all restrictions that people would impose upon others is something approaching the null set, right?
Your arguments amount to wanting to ignore laws you don't like. If that is acceptable, then it is also acceptable for everybody else to do the same. And at that point the restrictions approach the null set, you are living in hell on earth. See various (failed) countries around the world for evidence.
-
You do realize, of course, that tyranny is the historical norm, right?
And you do realise that they way of curbing such tyranny is through laws, right?
No, the way of curbing such tyranny is through systems of government that do not allow government actors to gather power. Law is imposed by tyrants and just systems of government alike. It is a tool that can serve to protect or to enslave.
Without laws monarchs and the aristocracy are free to physically plunder the little people.
This doesn't follow. Monarchs are not subject to the law except voluntarily, because monarchs make the law (generally. There have been systems where the law was made by a parliamentary body, and the monarch was symbolic only, but those are irrelevant to this discussion). Name one monarch who was removed because he violated the law.
The aristocracy follow the law only because it is imposed upon them by the monarch.
Nowadays, of course, plundering is done electronically by people like Bernie Madoff and some people named in the "Panama Papers". And many US local police departments don't exactly have a stellar reputation.
No, more laws are needed to prevent those bastards screwing the likes of thee and me.
Really? So you think the people in question are not already violating the law?
The bastards will, of course, defend their position using sleight of hand to deflect the little people's attention away from their activities onto something, anything else.
Most certainly.
You realize, of course, that the liberty that is left after imposition of the union of all restrictions that people would impose upon others is something approaching the null set, right?
Your arguments amount to wanting to ignore laws you don't like.
No. My arguments amount to advocacy for a reduction in the burden of law to that which is minimally necessary, precisely because laws are impositions upon liberty.
If that is acceptable, then it is also acceptable for everybody else to do the same. And at that point the restrictions approach the null set, you are living in hell on earth. See various (failed) countries around the world for evidence.
Again, I'm not arguing for lawlessness. A minimum set of laws is necessary to ensure that liberty is retained by the people, that it is not removed through coercion by other people, and so that people who intentionally harm others are removed from our midst.
But we have gone well beyond that.
-
If that is acceptable, then it is also acceptable for everybody else to do the same. And at that point the restrictions approach the null set, you are living in hell on earth. See various (failed) countries around the world for evidence.
Again, I'm not arguing for lawlessness. A minimum set of laws is necessary to ensure that liberty is retained by the people, that it is not removed through coercion by other people, and so that people who intentionally harm others are removed from our midst.
So ... there should be no laws against public drunkenness, dangerous driving, gambling, etc. Building codes are a waste of time, so are environmental laws. See a tree? Cut it down. Nobody was harmed. Who cares if I go out and dump my trash in the country? Nobody lives there. When I go out I should be able to shoot all the animals, too. I enjoy doing that. So what if my car is old and needs new tires? It gets me where I'm going. I always drive carefully so why do I need car insurance?
-
kcbrown: This doesn't follow. Monarchs are not subject to the law except voluntarily, because monarchs make the law (generally. There have been systems where the law was made by a parliamentary body, and the monarch was symbolic only, but those are irrelevant to this discussion). Name one monarch who was removed because he violated the law.
Not sure what you mean by removed. If you mean name a monarch who had their 'head' removed then you could include Charles the 1st or Mary Queen of Scots or Lady Jane Grey. They were tried and executed for treason about 500 years ago.
kcbrown: Monarchs are not subject to the law except voluntarily
I doubt they volunteered for this...
-
Again, I'm not arguing for lawlessness. A minimum set of laws is necessary to ensure that liberty is retained by the people, that it is not removed through coercion by other people, and so that people who intentionally harm others are removed from our midst.
So ... there should be no laws against public drunkenness,
Nope, there shouldn't be. Who is being harmed by someone being drunk in public?
But if someone who is drunk does something harmful, then they are responsible for that. Their drunken state is immaterial to that.
dangerous driving,
Same as being drunk in public.
Why do we bother to make exceptions for these things? If you do something harmful to someone else, you own the responsibility for it. Are you going to insist that we have a law against every possible thing that might put someone else in danger? Are you going to insist that we must live in a world free of risk from the actions of others? To live is to risk, and to live with others is to risk being inadvertently harmed by others. It has always been that way, and no amount of laws will stop it.
gambling,
Gambling? Seriously? That is most certainly something that should not be illegal. If someone wants to throw away their money on a foolish game, why should we tell them they can't? Are you going to also prevent "investing" in the stock market? That, too, is gambling -- it's just less obvious.
etc. Building codes are a waste of time,
These days, many building codes are a waste of time. What matters there is not the building code, but rather complete and honest representation during the sale. If I want to build my own home in some certain way, who is anyone to tell me I can't? Why should they have any say in the matter whatsoever? We're talking about something I'm doing on my own property that isn't harming anyone else. But if I misrepresent what I'm selling to someone else, either directly or by omission, such that what they're getting is less than what I have represented it to be, then I have harmed them and am responsible for it.
so are environmental laws.
You own what you do. If you want to dump garbage onto your property, that's your right. But if there's any runoff from that, any leakage, or anything else (including odors) that intrudes upon someone else's property, then you have brought harm to that other person, if only because you have done something to their property that they didn't authorize.
See a tree? Cut it down. Nobody was harmed. Who cares if I go out and dump my trash in the country? Nobody lives there. When I go out I should be able to shoot all the animals, too. I enjoy doing that.
And if you do all of those things on your own property, such that in doing so you don't affect anyone else's property or harm anyone else, then knock yourself out. Who is anyone to tell you otherwise? Why should they have authority over what you do with your own things as long as what you do doesn't harm them?
But if you're talking about someone doing those things on someone else's property without authorization, that's a very different thing.
So what if my car is old and needs new tires? It gets me where I'm going.
What of it? If your car is old and needs new tires, and you refuse to replace them and as a result you cause harm to someone else, then you own the consequences of that just as surely as if you had intentionally harmed them (it's actually in between intentional harm and unintentional harm -- you didn't intentionally take an action to harm someone else, but you intentionally made a decision that was the deciding factor in the harm that resulted).
We have laws against such things already. One example is called "involuntary manslaughter".
If you end up harming only yourself as a result, well, you have nobody but yourself to blame.
I always drive carefully so why do I need car insurance?
Why indeed? By driving on the roads, you take the risk that someone else will hit you. If they do, it's their responsibility to make amends. That is already the case right now. If someone hits you accidentally, then it's on them to make amends as best as they can, and the rest is on you because you knowingly took the risk of driving in public in the first place. If someone hits you intentionally, then that's assault, and the longstanding laws already deal with it.
See a pattern here yet? All of these laws you bring up are unnecessary. The longstanding laws that have been on the books for centuries are more than adequate to deal with it. There are some exceptions to that (e.g., emission laws, and some laws that govern shared resources), as there are with anything, but the bulk of the laws we have on the books appear unnecessary.
And how do we know they're unnecessary? Simple: because we managed to survive without them, and quite well at that, before they were passed, and they don't address something that was suddenly so new, so different, and so harmful that it demanded a new law. No, these laws were passed because someone noticed that something "could be made better or safer than it already is". Not, generally, because of the invention of some new magic type of harm that didn't previously exist.
I'll ask you plainly: at what point are you going to believe that we have enough laws? Are we already there? If so, then why aren't you advocating for a shutdown of the lawmaking bodies? If not, then when does it ever end? If "never", then it follows that liberty will continue to be extinguished until someone with sufficient influence has had it, and overthrows the existing regime through immense violence. That is, after all, exactly what has happened historically.
Do you want to avoid the inevitable violent confrontation that will result if we keep extinguishing liberty, or not?
-
kcbrown: This doesn't follow. Monarchs are not subject to the law except voluntarily, because monarchs make the law (generally. There have been systems where the law was made by a parliamentary body, and the monarch was symbolic only, but those are irrelevant to this discussion). Name one monarch who was removed because he violated the law.
Not sure what you mean by removed.
As in, forced to abandon their position as a result of being arrested, put through the same legal process that already existed and which is used for all others, and convicted of violating one or more laws that were already in effect that they imposed upon others, under the very same system that they were in power over. Because the claim is, after all, that these people are operating under the same law that they administered over everyone else (really, that it is the law itself that keeps them in check). If that's the case, then there should be examples of these people being arrested and jailed just like the rest of us mere mortals would be, for violations of the same laws that the rest of us mere mortals are arrested and jailed for.
If you mean name a monarch who had their 'head' removed then you could include Charles the 1st
Yep, that counts. It's actually a decent example in support of what tggzzz was saying, but it is muted somewhat by the fact that the monarch wasn't the lawmaking entity in that government, an exception I noted (though here, Charles had more than mere symbolic power). In this case, Charles intentionally took up arms against that very lawmaking arm.
or Mary Queen of Scots
This, I'm not sure about. I can't tell if she was actually monarch over the country that she was executed in. Looks like it was hotly contested, at the very least.
or Lady Jane Grey. They were tried and executed for treason about 500 years ago.
This seems even stranger (and weaker) than Mary's case. It looks entirely political, with no actual justification for the charge.
Regardless, those latter two executions seem to have been political in nature, rather than due to actual violation of the law. :-//
The invocation of some law after the fact to "justify" the removal of a monarch for political purposes isn't exactly evidence that it is the law that keeps monarchs in check. There, it is not the law that caused removal of the monarch, it is the political desires of others who gained an upper hand.
kcbrown: Monarchs are not subject to the law except voluntarily
I doubt they volunteered for this...
True, that.
The Charles I example is a very good one, actually. I guess it goes to show there are exceptions to just about everything. :D
Regardless, it appears to be incredibly rare (if ever) that monarchs are held to all of the same laws that everyone else is, thus rendering the claim that monarchs are held in check by the laws themselves (as opposed to through political wrangling) a questionable one at best.
-
Oh, angels and saints preserve us!
Again, I'm not arguing for lawlessness. A minimum set of laws is necessary to ensure that liberty is retained by the people, that it is not removed through coercion by other people, and so that people who intentionally harm others are removed from our midst.
So ... there should be no laws against public drunkenness,
Nope, there shouldn't be. Who is being harmed by someone being drunk in public?
But if someone who is drunk does something harmful, then they are responsible for that. Their drunken state is immaterial to that.
Aside from the fact that it is all too often the CAUSE of them doing something harmful.
Why not apply the same logic to drink driving? They haven't killed anyone until they do - so let's not impede their right to drive ... and just hold them accountable should they happen to end someone's life. Same logic. Identical logic. The only difference is risk factor. (That hasn't been relevant to the discussion to this point - but watch it appear now...)
This thread has descended to absurdity. Argument for the sake of argument. It makes inane rhetoric look like Wisdom of the Ages.
-
gambling,
Gambling? Seriously? That is most certainly something that should not be illegal. If someone wants to throw away their money on a foolish game, why should we tell them they can't?
a) There's people that will invent games that look like you can win.
b) They might have families who need food. It harms them (should we throw the gambler in jail for harming them?)
etc.
so are environmental laws.
You own what you do. If you want to dump garbage onto your property, that's your right. But if there's any runoff from that, any leakage, or anything else (including odors) that intrudes upon someone else's property, then you have brought harm to that other person, if only because you have done something to their property that they didn't authorize.
And...locking you up will instantly fix the ground water (or whatever), right?
You seem to be assuming that everybody knows the consequences of what they do. All those people up there in the woods are chemists, physicists and statisticians. They know exactly what's happening in that pile of sludge they're creating.
See a tree? Cut it down. Nobody was harmed. Who cares if I go out and dump my trash in the country? Nobody lives there. When I go out I should be able to shoot all the animals, too. I enjoy doing that.
And if you do all of those things on your own property, such that in doing so you don't affect anyone else's property or harm anyone else, then knock yourself out. Who is anyone to tell you otherwise? Why should they have authority over what you do with your own things as long as what you do doesn't harm them?
I buy a house, rape the land for profit. Buy another house, do the same...
It's easier than working and who cares if houses aren't infinite, I've got beer!
I always drive carefully so why do I need car insurance?
Why indeed? By driving on the roads, you take the risk that someone else will hit you. If they do, it's their responsibility to make amends.
By unkilling your wife and children? My next-door neighbor was in a crash where his wife and one of his kids died. He ended up pretty bad himself, with spinal injuries. The other driver was over twice the drink-drive limit and speeding.
Yes, the other guy did to jail. He probably felt bad about what he'd done, too, but... did that fix anything? :-//
I'm not going to refute you one by one, It's obvious you don't get it.
-
Same as being drunk in public.
Why do we bother to make exceptions for these things?
a) Statistics
b) Locking somebody up won't bring back the family he/she wiped out
Locking someone up won't bring back the family he/she wiped out whether or not it is made illegal. Otherwise, you have to explain to all the people who died at the hands of bad guys how the law against what the bad guys did helped them to not be dead.
The law's main purpose is make it possible to justly remove people who would harm us from our midst.
As for statistics, well, now you're left with having to answer how one statistical risk cutoff is better than some other one, when the people who make these laws generally don't know the first thing about statistics to begin with.
Gambling? Seriously? That is most certainly something that should not be illegal. If someone wants to throw away their money on a foolish game, why should we tell them they can't?
a) There's people that will invent games that look like you can win.
Then, if you insist on making anything illegal at all, you should make illegal the creation of games that falsely advertise how "winnable" they are. Or make the false advertising itself illegal.
So again, why should we make gambling itself illegal?
b) They might have families who need food. It harms them (should we throw the gambler in jail for harming them?)
Let me get this straight. You think it's a good idea to create laws that prevent people from spending their money foolishly in case their families suffer for their bad choices?
Rather big can of worms you're opening up there. Sure you want to go down that road?
Are you going to also prevent "investing" in the stock market? That, too, is gambling -- it's just less obvious.
Maybe it should be more regulated. People who "invest" usually aren't doing it with welfare checks, etc.
How does it matter what money they're using to do it with? If you really insist on controlling the use of welfare checks, then control that directly. After all, welfare checks are money forcibly transferred at gunpoint from people who pay taxes to people who claim to need it. (That's not to say I don't believe in the usefulness of such a safety net. But if someone is going to be paid money by the government, they should be doing work in exchange for it).
You own what you do. If you want to dump garbage onto your property, that's your right. But if there's any runoff from that, any leakage, or anything else (including odors) that intrudes upon someone else's property, then you have brought harm to that other person, if only because you have done something to their property that they didn't authorize.
And...locking you up will immediately fix the ground water (or whatever), right?
Nope. Nor will the imposition of environmental laws. Laws only control what happens to someone after the damage is done. Some laws may make it easier to catch the damage earlier, and some laws may actually sway people from doing things that they don't otherwise know are harmful, but if people are interested in not causing harm, they don't need a law to tell them how! If people can look up laws, they can look up other things. And if people violate the law and cause harm as a result, the harm is already done anyway.
If you really want people to know these things, then make them part of the school curriculum, so that everyone knows about it.
Also, you assume everybody knows the consequences of what they do. All those people up there in the woods are chemists, physicists and statisticians. They know exactly what's happening in that pile of sludge they're creating.
No, I assume that people will act on the basis of what they know, and that includes knowledge of the law itself. Whether the dangers are made plain through the law or through education, the end result is the same: those who have the knowledge will avoid taking the dangerous actions unless they don't care (in which case the law doesn't matter), while those who don't have the knowledge will take the action whether or not it is illegal.
And if you do all of those things on your own property, such that in doing so you don't affect anyone else's property or harm anyone else, then knock yourself out. Who is anyone to tell you otherwise? Why should they have authority over what you do with your own things as long as what you do doesn't harm them?
So... I buy a house, rape the land for profit. Buy another house, do the same...
It's easier than working and who cares if houses aren't infinite so long as I've got enough beer?
You can rape the land for profit. But if the person who buys it from you finds out that you misrepresented it either by omission or directly, then you're in trouble. If you want to take that risk, that's up to you.
Oh, you're raping the land and you actually tell the person you're selling the land to about it? Now you've compromised the value of your land and the amount you'll be able to sell it for will reflect that, unless you're selling it to someone who doesn't care about that, in which case who is anyone else to say that you've damaged the "value" of your land?
I always drive carefully so why do I need car insurance?
Why indeed? By driving on the roads, you take the risk that someone else will hit you. If they do, it's their responsibility to make amends.
By unkilling your wife and children? My next-door neighbor was in a crash where his wife and one of his kids died. He ended up pretty bad himself, with spinal injuries. The other driver was speeding and over twice the drink-drive limit.
And having car insurance helps to bring back your wife and children how, again?
I'm really sorry to hear about what happened to your next door neighbor. That's just horrible. :(
Wanna tell me how the laws against drunk driving prevented what happened to him, and caused his wife and kid to be alive now? Oh, that's right, they didn't.
You're not exactly making a good case here (but see below).
So we put the other guy in jail, and... then what? :-//
What then indeed? Life is risk. And we all die, one way or the other. If you really don't want to take the risk, then don't drive in the first place. Take public transportation or something. Your quality of life will suffer as a result, but at least you'll be alive, right?
I'm not going to refute you one by one, It's obvious you don't get it.
You're right, I don't. I don't get why we have to have laws that generally do nothing but have the effect of making something that's already illegal "more illegal" by forbidding something that is not itself harmful. Put another way, I don't see the point in victimless crimes. That strikes me as a major abuse of power.
Now, I can't deny that the drunk driving laws have probably had a noticeable effect on driving fatalities. MADD's site shows a decline of drunk driving deaths from 21,113 in 1982 to 9,967 in 2014. During that same period, total traffic deaths went from 43,945 to 32,675. The latter's fraction of the population went from 19 per 100K to about 10 per 100K.
Was it worth it? Perhaps. How much of that is due to the laws, and how much is due to greater recognition of the problem, education, etc.? I don't know how to go about separating out those effects. And I don't know how much has been spent on enforcement that might have been better spent on going after guys who are out to intentionally harm people.
One other thing: the roads are a shared resource. Laws governing their use are a necessity regardless, so I don't have nearly the objection to drunk driving laws as I do to laws that govern what you can do on your own property.
So again I ask: where does it end? Do you truly want to face the inevitable violent conflict that will result if people's liberties keep getting taken away from them?
-
You're right, I don't.
Obviously.
OK, let's go back to the "building code" laws...which are obvious to you.
The problem about "not misrepresenting" is that you assume the buyer understands the risks being represented by the seller. In many (most?) cases they don't, they just see "it's cheap!".
Similarly drunk drivers. They don't know the risks. They don't read drunk driving statistics and they all assume they're incredibly good drivers so they'll be fine (it's only the idiot drivers who shouldn't drink, not them).
Your argument assumes perfect education, perfect knowledge, perfect risk assessment by everybody. Real life experience has shown this isn't the case. The risks they take are far higher that the paybacks, hence laws.
You think you're perfectly informed? I bet I can come up with gambling games that look like you can always win.
Here's an easy one: You make a bet and throw three dice. If you get one six I give you your money back. If you get two sixes I give you five times your money. If you get three sixes I give you ten times your money.
Wanna play? :popcorn:
(Clue: The house makes about 25% profit on that game)
Second: If nothing else, laws specify the punishments. How would you judge people's responsibility for their damages without any written guidelines?
eg. Is drunk driving worse than selling an unsafe house? How much punishment is appropriate for each? Surely you need a written code for that.
-
You're right, I don't.
Obviously.
OK, let's go back to the "building code" laws...which are obvious to you.
The problem about "not misrepresenting" is that you assume the buyer understands the risks being represented by the seller. In many (most?) cases they don't, they just see "it's cheap!".
If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then how can we simultaneously insist with a straight face that ignorance of what you're intentionally paying money for is?
This gets us to the entire notion of "due diligence". Are you going to insist that someone who buys an oscilloscope because "it's cheap!" but which doesn't meet his needs is somehow wronged in the transaction when the capabilities of the thing were made available ahead of time? Really?
Similarly drunk drivers. They don't know the risks. They don't read drunk driving statistics and they all assume they're incredibly good drivers so they'll be fine (it's only the idiot drivers who shouldn't drink, not them).
"They don't know the risks". Really? If it's just an education problem, then do the education and be done with it. That's what schools are for.
If it's more than an education problem, then address that as well. But put the law in only if all your other efforts have failed and you're left with no choice, and the problem is so bad that it really demands taking away people's liberty.
Your argument assumes perfect education, perfect knowledge, perfect risk assessment by everybody. Real life experience has shown this isn't the case. The risks they take are far higher that the paybacks, hence laws.
That's the nature of risk, though. You're talking as if you expect the law to coddle us, to protect us from that evil, bad world, and to make it so that only the risks that have a net beneficial risk:reward ratio are the ones we take.
Do that, and you end up with everyone living in a padded room.
You think you're perfectly informed? I bet I can come up with gambling games that look like you can always win.
Maybe you could. But this reveals a legitimate role of government: to make such things plain. If we as a society are so concerned about people not being informed, then the proper remedy is to deal with the lack of information, not to forbid actions that are harmful only to those who take those actions (and, sometimes, those they are responsible for. That's the very nature of responsibility for others: the risks you take are distributed to those you're responsible for).
Here's an easy one: You make a bet and throw three dice. If you get one six I give you your money back. If you get two sixes I give you five times your money. If you get three sixes I give you ten times your money.
Wanna play? :popcorn:
Lessee ... assuming 6 sided dice (you didn't specify the size, so these figures are the best possible case for me) I have a probability of gaining 5x of 1/72 (3/216), a probability of gaining 10x of 1/216, and a probability of losing nothing of 1/72 (3/216). The rest (209/216) is a loss of 1x. So that works out to a probability of winning at all of 1/54 (4/216), with the average winning in that case being 6.25x ((5 * 3 + 10) / 4).
Looks to me like the weights are such that I will lose roughly 85% ((25 - 209) / 216) on average.
(Clue: The house makes about 25% profit on that game)
Looks to me like the house has a much greater advantage than that.
Second: If nothing else, laws specify the punishments. How would you judge people's responsibility for their damages without any written guidelines? Is drunk driving worse than selling an unsafe house? How much punishment is appropriate for each? :-//
You mean kinda like how judges or juries have to decide damages when one person sues another? There's one answer. But I have no problem with the law specifying penalty guidelines for different types of acts of harm (in fact, that's one of the main functions of the law). The key here, however, is that there must be actual harm (or the law must govern the use of a shared resource, as the law against drunk driving does).
-
"They don't know the risks". Really?
No, they mis-judge the risks. Not the same thing at all.
"They don't know the risks". Really? If it's just an education problem, then do the education and be done with it. That's what schools are for.
I'd like to put you in a classroom for a couple of weeks. See how much "education" you can impart.
Here's an easy one: You make a bet and throw three dice. If you get one six I give you your money back. If you get two sixes I give you five times your money. If you get three sixes I give you ten times your money.
Wanna play? :popcorn:
Lessee ... assuming 6 sided dice (you didn't specify the size,
(yes, I mean six-sided dice - ordinary ones)
so these figures are the best possible case for me) I have a probability of gaining 5x of 1/72 (3/216), a probability of gaining 10x of 1/216, and a probability of losing nothing of 1/72 (3/216). The rest (209/216) is a loss of 1x. So that works out to a probability of winning at all of 1/54 (4/216), with the average winning in that case being 6.25x ((5 * 3 + 10) / 4).
Looks to me like the weights are such that I will lose roughly 85% ((25 - 209) / 216) on average.
Ummm.... that answer fails even the common sense check. :palm:
Think: What's the chance of rolling a six with a single die? 16.6% (1/6), right?
I've given you three dice to play with so your chances are three times better than with a single die, much higher than the 15% in your math.
You mean kinda like how judges or juries have to decide damages when one person sues another? There's one answer. But I have no problem with the law specifying penalty guidelines for different types of acts of harm (in fact, that's one of the main functions of the law).
And then you need to hire a police force to go after the bad people, jails to put them in, courts to try them... and it's not really much different than what we have now.
The key here, however, is that there must be actual harm (or the law must govern the use of a shared resource, as the law against drunk driving does).
So... it's completely acceptable to drive drunk though the middle of town at 100mph, so long as you don't hit anything?
And you can just drive away if you do it at night when there's nobody around to see who it was?
Uhuh.
-
See a pattern here yet? All of these laws you bring up are unnecessary. The longstanding laws that have been on the books for centuries are more than adequate to deal with it. There are some exceptions to that (e.g., emission laws, and some laws that govern shared resources), as there are with anything, but the bulk of the laws we have on the books appear unnecessary.
And how do we know they're unnecessary? Simple: because we managed to survive without them, and quite well at that, before they were passed, and they don't address something that was suddenly so new, so different, and so harmful that it demanded a new law. No, these laws were passed because someone noticed that something "could be made better or safer than it already is". Not, generally, because of the invention of some new magic type of harm that didn't previously exist.
Yeah, right. :palm: Modern societies don't work like that (excluding the exceptions where the state crumbled and gave way to militias/paramilitary rulers). Liberties are not clipped until someone screws up badly and then society starts discussing how to address/restrict that. Anyone could drive as fast as they could until "uncle Bob" caused a big wreck and speed limits were enforced. Anyone could drink as much as they could until "uncle Bob's gang" thrashed a place or assassinated or raped someone until drinking limits started to be discussed/enforced. Anyone could carry a gun anywhere until some kids started shooting their peers in school and this started a whole slew of discussion in the US (and worldwide).
-
Yeah, right. :palm: Modern societies don't work like that (excluding the exceptions where the state crumbled and gave way to militias/paramilitary rulers). Liberties are not clipped until someone screws up badly and then society starts discussing how to address/restrict that.
Yep. I don't believe there's many people sitting around in offices just thinking of liberties to take away for no particular reason.
-
"They don't know the risks". Really?
No, they mis-judge the risks. Not the same thing at all.
And you think that legislators are any better at that?
"They don't know the risks". Really? If it's just an education problem, then do the education and be done with it. That's what schools are for.
I'd like to put you in a classroom for a couple of weeks. See how much "education" you can impart.
If it's the school curriculum, then you have far longer than that to get the job done.
so these figures are the best possible case for me) I have a probability of gaining 5x of 1/72 (3/216), a probability of gaining 10x of 1/216, and a probability of losing nothing of 1/72 (3/216). The rest (209/216) is a loss of 1x. So that works out to a probability of winning at all of 1/54 (4/216), with the average winning in that case being 6.25x ((5 * 3 + 10) / 4).
Looks to me like the weights are such that I will lose roughly 85% ((25 - 209) / 216) on average.
Ummm.... that answer fails even the common sense check. :palm:
Which is why I knew I should have waited until the morning before posting it -- so my brain wouldn't be completely nonfunctional. |O
The chance for losing nothing is 75 / 216 (3 * 5 * 5 / 216). The chance for gaining 5x is 15 / 216 (3 * 5 / 216). The chance for gaining 10x is 1/216. Which means the chance of losing is (216 - 75 - 15 - 1) / 216 = 125 / 216. With weighting, that gives me ((85 - 125) / 216), or a loss of about 19%.
Think: What's the chance of rolling a six with a single die? 16.6% (1/6), right?
I've given you three dice to play with so your chances are three times better than with a single die, much higher than the 15% in your math.
Remind me not to attempt to do statistics right before I go to sleep. :( |O |O :palm:
You mean kinda like how judges or juries have to decide damages when one person sues another? There's one answer. But I have no problem with the law specifying penalty guidelines for different types of acts of harm (in fact, that's one of the main functions of the law).
And then you need to hire a police force to go after the bad people, jails to put them in, courts to try them... and it's not really much different than what we have now.
Right. You seem to think I'm advocating doing away with the entire infrastructure, which isn't the case at all.
The difference wouldn't be in the infrastructure, it would be in what actions one could legally take.
The key here, however, is that there must be actual harm (or the law must govern the use of a shared resource, as the law against drunk driving does).
So... it's completely acceptable to drive drunk though the middle of town at 100mph, so long as you don't hit anything?
Ignoring for the moment that laws governing shared resources are an exception to the general approach I'm talking about, basically, yes. No harm, no foul.
If you start to forbid actions merely because they might bring harm to someone, then where does it end? When do you decide enough is enough? When someone gets so fed up with it that they overthrow the government?
And you can just drive away if you do it at night when there's nobody around to see who it was?
You mean, like you can already?
The law just imposes penalties on performing certain actions. Those penalties clearly don't come into effect if nobody sees you perform the actions.
-
Ignoring for the moment that laws governing shared resources are an exception to the general approach I'm talking about, basically, yes. No harm, no foul.
Whilst I agree that the legal system needs to be simplified, there is a need for laws against behaviours which pose a high risk to others.
Suppose someone gets caught drink driving at 100mph? Even though they haven't harmed anyone, they're banned from driving, dealt a hefty fine and a prison sentence. Now you may see this as unfair as no one was harmed due to their actions but by taking them off the road they won't do it again (at least for awhile), which will prevent them from harming anyone else.
I'm quite sure the family of someone who was killed when they were hit by a drunk driver would be extremely angry with the police, if the driver had previously been caught for drink driving on numerous occasions, yet it went unpunished and they kept doing it. If they were imprisoned before, then a life would have been saved.
Building regulations are not only for the benefit of the owner but for the nearby properties too and when they don't exist then bad things happen, such as in the Great Fire of London.
-
Building codes also serve to protect people in public buildings, like offices, hospitals, government buildings, hotels, apartments etc.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't get in an elevator if there weren't laws governing maintenance and mandatory safety features (the Otis brake, etc.), would you?
The reasons for having building codes on private residences goes deeper, too. Unless you built your house yourself, with no outside help, you have no way of absolutely guaranteeing things were done right. You wouldn't even know what to look for! That's the point of building inspectors. If a contractor can save money by cutting corners, he will. You need someone to make sure that the wiring is up to spec, for example. Because once the walls go up, it's not something I can easily verify.
That said, some places do take it to extremes. I heard that in Oz, you can't even replace a light switch or receptacle yourself. You have to get a certified electrician to do it. That's insane.
-
The chance for losing nothing is 75 / 216 (3 * 5 * 5 / 216). The chance for gaining 5x is 15 / 216 (3 * 5 / 216). The chance for gaining 10x is 1/216. Which means the chance of losing is (216 - 75 - 15 - 1) / 216 = 125 / 216. With weighting, that gives me ((85 - 125) / 216), or a loss of about 19%.
Nope.
-
That said, some places do take it to extremes. I heard that in Oz, you can't even replace a light switch or receptacle yourself. You have to get a certified electrician to do it. That's insane.
Whether it's insane or not is debatable. I've seen some people that make me nervous when changing a light globe ... but the statement is correct. Only a licenced electrician is legally permitted to work on any fixed wiring. It goes a step further, too.... if an electrician does work on somebody else's building, they must hold an electrical contractor's licence, or be employed by someone who does. IIRC, they are, however, permitted to work on their own home.
-
That said, some places do take it to extremes. I heard that in Oz, you can't even replace a light switch or receptacle yourself. You have to get a certified electrician to do it. That's insane.
Whether it's insane or not is debatable. I've seen some people that make me nervous when changing a light globe ... but the statement is correct. Only a licenced electrician is legally permitted to work on any fixed wiring. It goes a step further, too.... if an electrician does work on somebody else's building, they must hold an electrical contractor's licence, or be employed by someone who does. IIRC, they are, however, permitted to work on their own home.
And I've seen some really piss poor work by licensed electricians here in the US. A lot of it, actually.
I've also seen some people who shouldn't even change a lightbulb, too.
Here in the US, you can wire your own house if you want. As long as it passes inspection, you're fine. (You do need a licensed electrician to actually install the feed from outside *to* the main breaker. But you can install breakers, run wires, etc.)
-
The chance for losing nothing is 75 / 216 (3 * 5 * 5 / 216). The chance for gaining 5x is 15 / 216 (3 * 5 / 216). The chance for gaining 10x is 1/216. Which means the chance of losing is (216 - 75 - 15 - 1) / 216 = 125 / 216. With weighting, that gives me ((85 - 125) / 216), or a loss of about 19%.
Nope.
What? Really?
Let's go through this step by step.
There are 3 six-sided dice involved. Call them A, B, and C. There are 6^3 = 216 possible combinations from those three dice.
There are four scenarios we're concerned about:
- One die has a value of 6 while the others do not
- Two dies have a value of 6 while the other does not
- All three dies have a value of 6
- None of the dies have a value of 6
In the first case, one of the dies is fixed with a value of 6, while the other two can have values of 1 through 5. That means that there are 5 * 5 = 25 possible combinations when one specific die is held at 6 and the rest have a value other than 6, and there are three different dies (A, B, or C) that can be held at 6, for a total of 75 combinations for which this condition is satisfied.
In the second case, two of the dies are fixed with a value of 6, while the third can have values 1 through 5. That means there are 5 possible combinations when two specific dies are held at 6 and the third has a value other than 6, and there are three different combinations of dies that can be held at 6 (AB, AC, and BC), for a total of 15 combinations for which this condition is satisfied.
In the third case, there is only one possible combination that satisfies the conditions.
In the fourth case, none of the dies can be 6, which means each die can have values 1 through 5, for a total of 5^3 = 125 combinations that satisfy this criteria.
125 + 1 + 15 + 75 = 216, so there are no combinations missing and nothing is overrepresented.
So now it's a question of how each possibility is weighted. The first represents no gain and no loss, i.e. a return of zero (zero return on investment means you neither gained nor lost). The second represents a return of 5x (which is to say you put x in, and have 5x after). The third represents a return of 10x. The fourth represents a return of -1x (which is to say, you put x in, and have -1x after).
The total of those weights across all the combinations is 0 * 75 + 5 * 15 + 10 * 1 + 125 * -1 = -40. But that value is across 216 combinations, so it represents a return fraction of -.185, or an average loss of 18.5% (since each combination is equally probable).
What in the above is incorrect?
-
Lots of good points about building codes. I'll respond in more depth when my brain is working again, to what little degree that might be... :D
-
The total of those weights across all the combinations is 0 * 75 + 5 * 15 + 10 * 1 + 125 * -1 = -40. But that value is across 216 combinations, so it represents a return fraction of -.185, or an average loss of 18.5% (since each combination is equally probable).
What in the above is incorrect?
When you get two sixes you only win $4 - one of the $ on the table was already yours.
-
If it costs $1 to play then it would cost you $216 to explore all possibilities.
So I think 125 times you will lose, 75 times you will get one 6, 15 times you will get two and you will get three sixes once.
So I think if you went into a room with $216 and played 216 times to explore all outcomes you would come out of the room with $160.
(75x1) + (15x5) + (1 x10) = 160
Is that correct?
-
*Walks in and looks around the thread*
*Turns around and walks right back out, shaking head slowly*
mnem
I'm going home to mutter.
-
(http://www.polygon-wrangler.com/gallery_images/prob_engine.jpg)
-
I'm assuming the idea was to calculate/prove the long term trend as a percentage... So for every $216 the punter brings into the room I think the house can expect to take 216-160 = $56 which is about 26%. Obviously, you won't actually hit this long term trend reliably until you play the game a lot more times than 216.
Fungus said it was about 25% so I'd be interested to see if there's a twist to this that I've missed.
-
So I think if you went into a room with $216 and played 216 times to explore all outcomes you would come out of the room with $160.
(75x1) + (15x5) + (1 x10) = 160
Is that correct?
Yep. The house wins $56 of every $216 played (25.9%)
I'm assuming the idea was to calculate/prove the long term trend as a percentage... So for every $216 the punter brings into the room I think the house can expect to take 216-160 = $56 which is about 26%. Obviously, you won't actually hit this long term trend reliably until you play the game a lot more times than 216.
The house plays all night long.
Fungus said it was about 25% so I'd be interested to see if there's a twist to this that I've missed.
The interesting twist is that if you throw a single die three times there's a 50:50 chance of getting a six but if you throw three dice simultaneously it becomes a (heavily) losing game despite bigger payouts every now and again.
Can you explain why in simple terms? Common sense (not doing the math) says it's a winning game. Why are you losing?
If you think your explanation would actually convince people, google "Monty Hall Paradox" and read a few pages.
-
If you think your explanation would actually convince people, google "Monty Hall Paradox" and read a few pages.
It probably isn't wise for me to try and explain it (I'd rather just work out the answer) but I'm aware of the Monty Hall thing because a load of us discussed it at work about a year ago. i.e. the 'should you change your choice' once the first door is opened by the host. Someone used it in a presentation and it kicked off a LOT of arguing/confusion :)
-
The total of those weights across all the combinations is 0 * 75 + 5 * 15 + 10 * 1 + 125 * -1 = -40. But that value is across 216 combinations, so it represents a return fraction of -.185, or an average loss of 18.5% (since each combination is equally probable).
What in the above is incorrect?
When you get two sixes you only win $4 - one of the $ on the table was already yours.
Yeah, that's my error. |O Instead of 5x, I should be using 4x. Instead of 10x, I should be using 9x. The rest of the multipliers are correct.
When I calculate it out that way, I get 0 * 75 + 4 * 15 + 9 * 1 + 125 * -1 = -56, which gets me a loss fraction of -.259, or 25.9%.
-
Someone used it in a presentation and it kicked off a LOT of arguing/confusion :)
I assume all the Powerpoint slides after that one were left blank...
-
Been thinking about the building codes thing some, and a series of questions come out of all of it:
Do you guys believe the free market is incapable of handling issues of safety? When, if ever, can the free market properly handle that? Assume that you have things like safety testing and other things that can make people aware of what safety characteristics whatever they're buying has. Assume also that there exists a law that says that it is illegal to advertise something as having certain safety characteristics (or passing certain safety tests) when that something does not actually have those characteristics (or meet those tests).
This segways pretty nicely into things like multimeters and other test equipment. Do you believe the free market has failed in that market, and thus there must be laws that mandate that test equipment be built to certain standards? Why is it acceptable for test equipment manufacturers to simply advertise what safety rating their equipment has, rather than insist through force of law that they meet whatever the highest safety rating happens to be?
Why are we somehow magically "safe enough" now, and we weren't "safe enough" before?
-
Do you guys believe the free market is incapable of handling issues of safety?
No, it can't. Or at least it can't do it efficiently.
Theory: understand what economists call "externalities", i.e. where the consequences are suffered by third parties and don't cost the perpetrator anything. Therefore why should they bother to care? If consequences do catch up with a company, the standard practice in the building trade is the company simply folds - and the perps restart a new company.
Practice: there are many countries where the building codes are weak or ignored. Building collapses are common, and of course there are many less extreme examples.
I'm not surprised if you haven't noticed those. The standard wry observation made by Europeans that have spent time in the USA is that over there "foreign news" means out-of-state news, not news from a foreign country.
When, if ever, can the free market properly handle that? Assume that you have things like safety testing and other things that can make people aware of what safety characteristics whatever they're buying has. Assume also that there exists a law that says that it is illegal to advertise something as having certain safety characteristics (or passing certain safety tests) and for that something to not actually have those characteristics (or meet those tests).
None of that would make any difference - the buggers will always cut corners, and then cut and run - leaving others to suffer the consequences. Always have, always will.
Laywers (the US "solution") are insufficient: they can't put people and lives back together again.
-
Do you guys believe the free market is incapable of handling issues of safety?
No, it can't. Or at least it can't do it efficiently.
...
When, if ever, can the free market properly handle that? Assume that you have things like safety testing and other things that can make people aware of what safety characteristics whatever they're buying has. Assume also that there exists a law that says that it is illegal to advertise something as having certain safety characteristics (or passing certain safety tests) and for that something to not actually have those characteristics (or meet those tests).
None of that would make any difference - the buggers will always cut corners, and then cut and run - leaving others to suffer the consequences. Always have, always will.
Then it follows that test equipment must be built to the highest available standards, since anything less is insufficient as customers cannot properly choose between devices on the basis of their safety ratings.
Right?
Laywers (the US "solution") are insufficient: they can't put people and lives back together again.
So nothing less than the threat of jail or business shutdown is sufficient to prevent harm?
Is this because people don't sufficiently value their own safety? If that isn't it, then what is the reason that a free market in which the sellers are forced by law to be honest about their wares is insufficient?
-
What is the practical difference between a free market in which sellers are forced by law to be honest about the safety characteristics of their wares, and a "free market" in which manufacturers are forced to build their goods to a minimum safety standard, but which allows them to build to a higher standard than the minimum and to advertise those improved characteristics?
-
Do you guys believe the free market is incapable of handling issues of safety?
No, it can't. Or at least it can't do it efficiently.
...
When, if ever, can the free market properly handle that? Assume that you have things like safety testing and other things that can make people aware of what safety characteristics whatever they're buying has. Assume also that there exists a law that says that it is illegal to advertise something as having certain safety characteristics (or passing certain safety tests) and for that something to not actually have those characteristics (or meet those tests).
None of that would make any difference - the buggers will always cut corners, and then cut and run - leaving others to suffer the consequences. Always have, always will.
Then it follows that test equipment must be built to the highest available standards, since anything less is insufficient as customers cannot properly choose between devices on the basis of their safety ratings.
Right?
You are either a troll or an idiot, or both.
Testing is irrelevant to the bit you deliberately snipped.
Laywers (the US "solution") are insufficient: they can't put people and lives back together again.
So nothing less than the threat of jail or business shutdown is sufficient to prevent harm?
That is the practical experience from everywhere around the world.
Is this because people don't sufficiently value their own safety? If that isn't it, then what is the reason that a free market in which the sellers are forced by law to be honest about their wares is insufficient?
The perpetrators don't suffer the financial consequences of their actions: they simply close their company and walk away. The only way the market is involved is via insurance premiums - but the closed company isn't going to be paying any premiums anyway. Thus everybody pays for the actions of the delinquents, and that is inefficient: the delinquents should pay.
-
What is the practical difference between a free market in which sellers are forced by law to be honest about the safety characteristics of their wares, and a "free market" in which manufacturers are forced to build their goods to a minimum safety standard, but which allows them to build to a higher standard than the minimum and to advertise those improved characteristics?
None, if there aren't laws that enforce standards.
Please think before you type, and don't introduce strawman arguments.
-
What is the practical difference between a free market in which sellers are forced by law to be honest about the safety characteristics of their wares, and a "free market" in which manufacturers are forced to build their goods to a minimum safety standard, but which allows them to build to a higher standard than the minimum and to advertise those improved characteristics?
None, if there aren't laws that enforce standards.
Please think before you type, and don't introduce strawman arguments.
I did think. You obviously missed it in the part above that you quoted (I bolded the relevant part), as well as in the part in the message that kicked this part of the discussion off (bolded in the below):
When, if ever, can the free market properly handle that? Assume that you have things like safety testing and other things that can make people aware of what safety characteristics whatever they're buying has. Assume also that there exists a law that says that it is illegal to advertise something as having certain safety characteristics (or passing certain safety tests) and for that something to not actually have those characteristics (or meet those tests).
There is a law involved here. This law imposes a condition the government can test at will.
What is the difference between enforcing safety standards (which are, at their core, conveniently packaged and published safety characteristics) and enforcing truth in claims of safety characteristics?
As for your objection to companies folding and the perpetrators going somewhere else, I agree that is a flaw with the U.S. model that has to be addressed. The owners of the company (the board members when it's a public company, the direct owners when it's not) need to be directly accountable to the law.
When the company can, as you say, just fold and open up shop as a different company, how does the law matter at all? A company can just as easily claim to adhere to a law-imposed safety standard as it can claim to adhere to a safety standard that isn't imposed by the law (but where the law insists that if such a claim is made, then it must be true for the company to not be in violation of the law). Whether the standard is imposed by law or not makes no difference as to whether or not the company can fold and reopen as a different company. How, then, is your reply relevant to my question?
-
You are deliberately and continually mixing up many different thoughts (laws, enforcement, morality, ethics, economics) without bothering to distinguish which you are discussing. (And also by deliberately deleting any context that is inconvenient to you).
Your thoughts continually flip/metamorphise when the "limitations" of your thoughts are pointed out to you, in a way that is indistinguishable from trolls.
At the very least you need to learn to present a single coherant argument at one time.
Until then, this conversation will continue to be a waste of time.
-
Until then, this conversation will continue to be a waste of time.
Logic and anarchy do not play well together.
-
Then it follows that test equipment must be built to the highest available standards, since anything less is insufficient as customers cannot properly choose between devices on the basis of their safety ratings.
Right?
The "customers" of test equipment are supposed to know what electrons are.
But yes, if the people who buy hairdryers start buying multimeters en masse then new laws will probably appear.
And ... you'll be able to come on here and complain about that - "always more laws, never less!"
-
Until then, this conversation will continue to be a waste of time.
Logic and anarchy do not play well together.
Well, they can play together, but that requires that the consequences are understood and accepted. I object to people arguing for X without being prepared to defend and accept the consequences of X.
Most people that argue in favour of anarchy are young and immature, and for that they can be forgiven.
-
You are either a troll or an idiot, or both.
Testing is irrelevant to the bit you deliberately snipped.
Why is everyone you dissagree with a troll ? This would not be the first time a person accuses everyone he dissagrees with as a troll. If you can't have a debat then stop posting!
-
You are either a troll or an idiot, or both.
Testing is irrelevant to the bit you deliberately snipped.
Why is everyone you dissagree with a troll ? This would not be the first time a person accuses everyone he dissagrees with as a troll.
I regard very few people I disagree with as exhibiting troll-like behaviour. I outlined at the reasons for my exasperation at 10:54:54 today.
If you can't have a debat then stop posting!
If you wish to spend your time disinterring history, then you will see that it has been less of a debate than it appears at first glance. (But then neither do I regard most of the current cringe-worthy "newsworthy" Brexit in/out statements as a debate).
I draw your attention to the last line of my 10:54:54 post, by which I implied (but did not explicitly state) that I do not intend to continue conversing with kcbrown.
-
Well quite if you have decided that people are exibiting troll like behaviour then don'y feed them. You say that people ignoring the point and diverting elsewhere are trolls, but you do the same in bringing up a non related political item.
-
Well quite if you have decided that people are exibiting troll like behaviour then don'y feed them. You say that people ignoring the point and diverting elsewhere are trolls, but you do the same in bringing up a non related political item.
As I said, I don't intend to.
I directly addressed your point, and then the Brexit-debate statement amplified and provided context to my point. The parenthesis clearly denoted that I regarded it as a side issue.
-
You are either a troll or an idiot, or both.
Testing is irrelevant to the bit you deliberately snipped.
Why is everyone you dissagree with a troll ? This would not be the first time a person accuses everyone he dissagrees with as a troll.
I regard very few people I disagree with as exhibiting troll-like behaviour. I outlined at the reasons for my exasperation at 10:54:54 today.
You're guilty of the same behaviours, as those who you accuse of trolling.
You also accuse more people of trolling than anyone else here and were the first person to used the T-word in this thread.
Perhaps you should avoid using that word in future? If you think someone is trolling, don't respond and if it's that bad, report the post.
Go on calling people trolls and you'll be labelled as one yourself.
-
You are either a troll or an idiot, or both.
Testing is irrelevant to the bit you deliberately snipped.
Why is everyone you dissagree with a troll ? This would not be the first time a person accuses everyone he dissagrees with as a troll.
I regard very few people I disagree with as exhibiting troll-like behaviour. I outlined at the reasons for my exasperation at 10:54:54 today.
You're guilty of the same behaviours, as those who you accuse of trolling.
We have continuously disagreed in this thread, and we continue to disagree. I'll note that quite a few other people have also repeatedly disagreed with you.
You also accuse more people of trolling than anyone else here
Evidence for that statement, please.
and were the first person to used the T-word in this thread.
I believe so, although I haven't checked.
Perhaps you should avoid using that word in future? If you think someone is trolling, don't respond and if it's that bad, report the post.
Perhaps, and there was nothing in this thread that warrants reporting.
What do I regard as worth reporting? Someone that encourages people to do dangerous things by denying that they are dangerous, e.g. use 1W lasers without ensuring everybody that might be in the vicinity is protected from being blinded. Alternatively "mojo-chan"; enough said.
Go on calling people trolls and you'll be labelled as one yourself.
Er, no. I'm using the standard internet definition of trolling: http://catb.org/jargon/html/T/troll.html (http://catb.org/jargon/html/T/troll.html) and widely quoted/copied elsewhere. For the avoidance of doubt, this thread has not exhibited the flame-bait troll behaviour.
I guess you are using some other definition.
-
Er, no. I'm using the standard internet definition of trolling: http://catb.org/jargon/html/T/troll.html (http://catb.org/jargon/html/T/troll.html) and widely quoted/copied elsewhere. For the avoidance of doubt, this thread has not exhibited the flame-bait troll behaviour.
I guess you are using some other definition.
By the definition of trolling that you are using such behaviour if you deem it to be taking place should be reported. If a topic has gone on for this long then it's obvious that nobody is going to wholly agree with everybody else. Calling people trolls every time they don't respond the way you want them to is in effect going to generate the behaviour that by your definition is classed as trolling.
I can't deal with things that are not reported to me and the longer they are left the more difficult they are to unravel.
You say that this thread has not exhibited the flame bait troll behaviour yet you have called 3 people trolls 5 times that I'm aware of (to be clear that's one person once and 2 people twice). So which one is it, are you yourself just trying to stir up a flame war? Oh hang on that's called trolling isn't it? By your own definition of course.
-
Er, no. I'm using the standard internet definition of trolling: http://catb.org/jargon/html/T/troll.html (http://catb.org/jargon/html/T/troll.html) and widely quoted/copied elsewhere. For the avoidance of doubt, this thread has not exhibited the flame-bait troll behaviour.
I guess you are using some other definition.
By the definition of trolling that you are using such behaviour if you deem it to be taking place should be reported. If a topic has gone on for this long then it's obvious that nobody is going to wholly agree with everybody else. Calling people trolls every time they don't respond the way you want them to is in effect going to generate the behaviour that by your definition is classed as trolling.
I can't deal with things that are not reported to me and the longer they are left the more difficult they are to unravel.
You say that this thread has not exhibited the flame bait troll behaviour yet you have called 3 people trolls 5 times that I'm aware of (to be clear that's one person once and 2 people twice). So which one is it, are you yourself just trying to stir up a flame war? Oh hang on that's called trolling isn't it? By your own definition of course.
Well, I have never and would never regard disagreeing with me as trolling - for the simple reason that I learn a lot from well-argued disagreements.
I agree that this thread is, by now, impossible to unravel unless a large amount of fruitless time were to be spent.
I will agree that in retrospect my statements were ill judged; for that I apologise.
-
Well lets leave it there then. Thank you.
-
I agree that this thread is, by now, impossible to unravel unless a large amount of fruitless time were to be spent.
Seconded! IMHO this thread could end up very high on the 'most useless thread on EEVblog' list. I tried to follow it but there seems to be no consensus at all. Perhaps someone could forward it to a forum frequented by lawyers.
-
What is the practical difference between a free market in which sellers are forced by law to be honest about the safety characteristics of their wares, and a "free market" in which manufacturers are forced to build their goods to a minimum safety standard, but which allows them to build to a higher standard than the minimum and to advertise those improved characteristics?
None, if there aren't laws that enforce standards.
What? In the first case, a law exists to force sellers to be honest about the safety characteristics of their wares. In the second, how else are manufacturers going to be forced to build their goods to a minimum safety standard unless it's through the law?
Fine, I'll spell it out explicitly: what is the practical difference between a free market in which sellers are forced by law to be honest about the safety characteristics of their wares, and a "free market" in which manufacturers are forced by law to build their goods to a minimum safety standard, but which allows them to build to a higher standard than the minimum and to advertise those improved characteristics?
Please think before you type, and don't introduce strawman arguments.
Might I suggest you look in the mirror on this one?
How is it that we're talking past each other like this? Makes for a frustrating experience for both of us, I'm sure.
For my part, I'm doing my best (however much that may be) to read and consider everything you're saying. You're probably doing the same. Neither of us is perfect, so I guess this kind of thing will happen from time to time.
By the way, if something is a strawman argument, I would appreciate it if you would point out how and why that is the case. I don't intentionally put forth invalid arguments like that. If/when I do so, it's the result of a misunderstanding or mistake on my part.
-
because people like to have the best and no one is ever gonna accept the fact that they got sold something that they can make better and not do it.
its human nature. no one will ever value something that can be copied for no cost. just look at how much people like to gossip.
you gotta fight every day to keep your property and feed yourself. until that changes, no one is going to ever respect some kind of "lock" put on something they bought when they need to worry about paying bills and shit, especially when the people putting the locks on things live large, eat 50 dollar meals daily and pay for their kids college + have a retirement setup for them etc
not to mention it provides a relatively harmless "rush", without the consequence of rape, stealing things that cannot be replicated instantly, bullying people, vandalism, etc.
its just like work, people steal/take credit for your ideas all the time. :clap:
-
Fine, I'll spell it out explicitly: what is the practical difference between a free market in which sellers are forced by law to be honest about the safety characteristics of their wares, and a "free market" in which manufacturers are forced by law to build their goods to a minimum safety standard
One requires the buyer to be educated/informed about every single thing they ever buy and places all the responsibility on them for failure to know enough math/physics/chemistry/statistics/history/biology/etc. Experience has shown that this doesn't work (buyers aren't educated, sellers aren't transparent, unfit wares are sold).
Remember: These are the same buyers who believe all that new age woo-woo crystal energy crap is "science". You're expecting them to understand building safety standards?
The other system places responsibility on the seller. The seller will produce a better ware simply to cover his ass when the lawyers turn up ("I demonstrably built it to code, so... :-//").
I dunno but option (b) seems more likely to produce safe goods for the general public.
(and the two things aren't equivalent at all, I don't how anybody could think they are... :palm: )
-
Fine, I'll spell it out explicitly: what is the practical difference between a free market in which sellers are forced by law to be honest about the safety characteristics of their wares, and a "free market" in which manufacturers are forced by law to build their goods to a minimum safety standard
One requires the buyer to be educated/informed about every single thing they ever buy and places all the responsibility on them for failure to know enough math/physics/chemistry/statistics/history/biology/etc. Experience has shown that this doesn't work (buyers aren't educated, sellers aren't transparent, unfit wares are sold).
Then what prevents the person in question from buying something that meets the minimum safety standard, but doesn't meet his safety needs as a result of those needs exceeding the minimum that the standard targets?
Remember: These are the same buyers who believe all that new age woo-woo crystal energy crap is "science". You're expecting them to understand building safety standards?
Not necessarily, but I do expect them to realize when they're in over their heads and to seek help when they are.
When did the whole notion of personal responsibility (which clearly includes responsibility for one's family) go out the window like this? I understand the notion of protecting people from the actions of others, but that seems really valid only when the people being protected have no responsibility relationship with the people they're being protected from.
If you go all the way down that road, then you effectively take away all responsibility one has for those that would otherwise be his responsibility, right? After all, what's left to be responsible for when the state dictates everything you can and cannot do with respect to those things that can endanger those you would otherwise be responsible for?
The other system places responsibility on the seller. The seller will produce a better ware simply to cover his ass when the lawyers turn up ("I demonstrably built it to code, so... :-//").
Why would the lawyers show up in the case of an enforced minimum standard but not when there's the absence of one? And remember that lawsuits are always decided case by case, on the basis of the facts presented in the case itself, which means that the actual standards that the product was built to will come up and be evaluated whether or not there's an enforced minimum standard involved.
I dunno but option (b) seems more likely to produce safe goods for the general public.
That is more likely than not to be the case, of course, if only because option B would set a safety floor. But if the goal were to maximize safety, then there would be one allowed, enforced standard and it would be the maximum one possible, would it not? After all, you can't guarantee that the product in question will be always used under conditions that some lower-than-maximum standard would be sufficient for, right?
(and the two things aren't equivalent at all, I don't how anybody could think they are... :palm: )
Well, in the presence of only one safety standard covering the same thing, that the supplier could neither fall below nor exceed, then yeah, they wouldn't be. But since we're talking about a situation where, when a minimum safety standard is mandated, suppliers can exceed those standards and advertise that fact (if only to differentiate their products from the ones that only meet the minimums), then the buyer is still faced with having to make safety-related choices. And being faced with multiple choices introduces the possibility of making the wrong choice, at least if there exist conditions that exceed the protective abilities of the minimum safety standard (if there are no such conditions, then what's the point in building to any higher standard than the minimum? In that case, the minimum and the maximum are the same in terms of necessity).
When you put all of that together, I don't see how those things aren't equivalent, at least as regards the problems the buyer will face. The potential for harm is still there even with the minimum safety standard in place, right?
-
I agree that this thread is, by now, impossible to unravel unless a large amount of fruitless time were to be spent.
Seconded! IMHO this thread could end up very high on the 'most useless thread on EEVblog' list. I tried to follow it but there seems to be no consensus at all. Perhaps someone could forward it to a forum frequented by lawyers.
I wouldn't say the thread is pointless, just because there's no consensus. In the first 22 or so pages, just about every ethical/moral and legal aspect of hacking an oscilloscope is debated quite well on both sides of the argument, along with a bit about why a higher bandwidth is useful.
Now it's gone off topic because the arguments, both for and against seem to have been exhausted.
There will never be a consensus on this kind of topic and if there was, it would be pretty boring.
-
I wouldn't say the thread is pointless, just because there's no consensus. In the first 22 or so pages, just about every ethical/moral and legal aspect of hacking an oscilloscope is debated quite well on both sides of the argument, along with a bit about why a higher bandwidth is useful.
Now it's gone off topic because the arguments, both for and against seem to have been exhausted.
There will never be a consensus on this kind of topic and if there was, it would be pretty boring.
It started off well... but it does appear to have devolved a bit. ;)
(http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/9-29-2015/kats1X.gif)
Carry on!
mnem
*Distracting-ily*
-
Lets face it in the specific case of Rigol I think the hackability has helped them become the success that they are. If they wanted to they could get the keygen site shut down but I suspect they quietly smile on it. They certainly aren't giving away the hardware that is being bought but unused, they still make a profit from people who would have not bought the top of the range anyway.
-
If they wanted to they could get the keygen site shut down but I suspect they quietly smile on it.
I doubt they'd be able to do that, since the kegen site isn't actually distributing any of their copyrighted material.
-
Lets face it in the specific case of Rigol I think the hackability has helped them become the success that they are. If they wanted to they could get the keygen site shut down but I suspect they quietly smile on it. They certainly aren't giving away the hardware that is being bought but unused, they still make a profit from people who would have not bought the top of the range anyway.
My $0.02:
I'm not sure how widespread the knowledge of the hack is. Around here it seems like everybody knows but in the real world there's probably a high percentage of people who have no idea they're hackable. There's probably also a lot of people who think that all the ones labelled "DS1054Z" are the ones that failed the 100Mhz bandwidth test at the factory, etc.
The fact that other manufacturers haven't responded with hackable scopes of their own suggests that Rigol hasn't completely taken the low end market away from them with this tactic.
Also: This is the second generation of hackable low-end 'scopes from Rigol. When they released the DS1054Z they already had some data on how much hacking happens and how it affects their sales. If they decided to release a hackable 'scope then it probably has a positive effect on sales (or at least, not a measurable negative effect).
-
If they decided to release a hackable 'scope then it probably has a positive effect on sales (or at least, not a measurable negative effect).
That's what I meant. Lets face it any business user will buy the correct model particularly if it's a company involving more than one person. Hobbyists will only buy what they can afford and if Rigol get to sell the same hardware and make a little less money then it's still money they would not have had anyway plus it increases the volume manufacturing and brings down prices.
-
Also: This is the second generation of hackable low-end 'scopes from Rigol. When they released the DS1054Z they already had some data on how much hacking happens and how it affects their sales. If they decided to release a hackable 'scope then it probably has a positive effect on sales (or at least, not a measurable negative effect).
Note the DS1054Z is the 3rd , 1st the DS1052, 2nd the DS2000,
And the Rigol hack transfered to the DG4000 and the DSA815, but those were shutdown by new firmware.
And Simon is correct many Hobbyist bought and Rigol benefits from the hobbyist reports of bugs.
I repeat , as a hobbyist I have reported bugs, then fixes came, and Rigol has sent me FW to beta test.
I like to think everyone benefits. :). My 2 cents (Canadian)
-
Somewhat related to this topic is are Morals and feeling guilty.
Check out this research.
https://torrentfreak.com/scientists-discover-why-internet-pirates-dont-feel-guilty-160509/
-
Somewhat related to this topic is are Morals and feeling guilty.
Check out this research.
https://torrentfreak.com/scientists-discover-why-internet-pirates-dont-feel-guilty-160509/
That's not surprising, since although violating copyright may be illegal, it's not the same as stealing and certainly isn't as immoral as theft. The music, film software etc. industries my try to convince people otherwise but they can't beat human nature.
-
Somewhat related to this topic is are Morals and feeling guilty.
Check out this research.
https://torrentfreak.com/scientists-discover-why-internet-pirates-dont-feel-guilty-160509/
That's not surprising, since although violating copyright may be illegal, it's not the same as stealing and certainly isn't as immoral as theft. The music, film software etc. industries my try to convince people otherwise but they can't beat human nature.
Actually their comparison using downloading music/films/tv series is fundamentally flawed. You can receive everything on your TV and radio because you are already paying for it. How on earth can you steal something you are paying for?
-
I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine. Nobody can tell me what I can or cannot do with it. If I want to add parts, remove parts, improve it, change software, it is mine to do so. There is nothing anyone can say or do that should be able to prevent me from doing what I want with my property, with the possible exception below.
My DS1074Z is hacked.
But what you are doing is not modifying your oscilloscope with, say, your own implementation of some feature, but violating a software license. The first thing would clearly be within your rights. The second, well, no.
Conversely, I don't think that the "hacked" excuse will hold in an European court if they refuse warranty. If the hack required swapping a component maybe they could refuse it, and even in that case it could be proven that a manufacturing defect was unrelated to the "modification".
-
I don't understand how this gets so complicated for people. If I buy something, it is mine. Nobody can tell me what I can or cannot do with it. If I want to add parts, remove parts, improve it, change software, it is mine to do so. There is nothing anyone can say or do that should be able to prevent me from doing what I want with my property, with the possible exception below.
My DS1074Z is hacked.
But what you are doing is not modifying your oscilloscope with, say, your own implementation of some feature, but violating a software license. The first thing would clearly be within your rights. The second, well, no.
A software license is a license agreement, and is something that has to exist in the first place, and when it exists, it has to be agreed to in order to have force (I know of no copyright law which says that a license agreement is automatically in force by its mere existence. Certainly there is no such thing in the United States). There are lots of mechanisms that accomplish that latter (opening the shrinkwrap being one of them in the United States), but the mechanism that signals agreement is something that is stipulated in the license agreement. It is not specified in law.
As such, Lightages' message is absolutely correct. He already mentioned the case of an agreement such as the above, but there is no such agreement with the Rigol scopes.
Now, when such a license is not in play, copyright law takes over, and one is thus limited in what one can lawfully do on that basis.
In the case of many pieces of test equipment, there is no license agreement in the first place (certainly there isn't with Rigol scopes). So copyright law takes effect as regards the firmware.
Conversely, I don't think that the "hacked" excuse will hold in an European court if they refuse warranty. If the hack required swapping a component maybe they could refuse it, and even in that case it could be proven that a manufacturing defect was unrelated to the "modification".
That might be the case. It'll depend entirely on what the law in that jurisdiction specifies as to what must be offered in a warranty, what may be excluded in the warranty, etc. If the manufacturer explicitly specifies that the warranty coverage is void if the product is altered by anyone other than an explicitly authorized entity, and the law allows such an exemption, then the court would have no basis to decide against the manufacturer. That said, we're talking about courts here, and nothing stops the courts from ruling as they please regardless of what the law actually says.
-
In the US there's the DMCA act, Title 17, § 1201: read that and you can make your conclusion. Note that there's no point into playing with words: there are mostly two things that are considered:
1. the willingness of the legislator
2. the semantic of the statements
Fortunately, in the US if you are ignorant to a law can be used as a defence. (it's impossible to do so in most of other countries)...
The laws tell also the rules about reverse engineering and all that stuff. So, definitely implementing a software license is a way to circumvent a software protection and as a result that hacking is illegal in the US, without the owner's approval.
The "license agreement" is given by default whenever you buy a product.
Anyway am I going to hack my next oscilloscope? No, because I don't have the confidence and the skills needed to hack a $3K oscilloscope. Then another thing: hacking is like playing with fire, especially for those who don't know what they are doing: if something goes wrong you get yourself burned and the oscilloscope is bricked. This means that the hack is probably going to be used on < 3% of the forum members. So, definitely not that deal...
Im my opinion everyone has the right to do what the hell he want with anything he bought (software or hardware both are products), provided it is not meant to cause harm or any kind of revenue about it. We haven't been paid to post on these threads, nor who made the hack did it with the intention to cause harm to the manufacturer: if he want to re-sell it, is like selling something non genuine and if found, this is a scam and so you are liable about it. But there's no problem if you want to increase your bandwidth on your oscilloscope... Also, I hardly doubt that if you are a hobbyist you actually NEED a 500Mhz oscilloscope... this is my personal point of view
-
You are from Italy and quoting US laws? :palm:
-
I am curious. What does it cost to unlock a DS1054Z legally?
The cost of a DS1104Z
-
I am curious. What does it cost to unlock a DS1054Z legally?
The cost of a DS1104Z
That gets the bandwidth (buying a 100 MHz scope) but it might not get the decoding - add $480 to price of DS1054Z because the DS1104Z Plus lists at $879. At TEquipment decoding option sells for $174 The expanded memory option is another $195 and there may still be a couple of options missing. So, scope is $900 and options are $370 (and there may still be options I have forgotten about) so, $1300 versus $400.
Pretty clear choice...
-
Anyway am I going to hack my next oscilloscope? No, because I don't have the confidence and the skills needed to hack a $3K oscilloscope. Then another thing: hacking is like playing with fire, especially for those who don't know what they are doing: if something goes wrong you get yourself burned and the oscilloscope is bricked. This means that the hack is probably going to be used on < 3% of the forum members. So, definitely not that deal...
So, I eventually brick a $400 scope. Who cares? Chump change in the bigger scheme of things. In fact, I can brick 2 units and buy a 3rd for the cost of a competitive scope. Even with my limited skills, I don't see bricking TWO of them!
I would venture the guess that far more than 3% of DS1054Z owners have unlocked their scopes. I wouldn't be surprised if it is close to 100%. Run a poll and find out!
I'm pretty sure Rigol knows what is going on and has decided to dominate the low end scope market. If they were concerned about it, the next firmware upgrade would change the encryption scheme. That might no re-lock the scopes already in the field but they could certainly prevent it from happening on new units.
TEquipment sells about 1000 of these scopes a week. We were looking at their inventory a couple of weeks back and I calculated they shipped 1000 scopes in the subsequent 7 days. In fact, they have added another couple of thousand to the inventory in the last few days. These things are selling like hotcakes!
And, no, I wouldn't mess around with a $3k scope either! But $400 just isn't a big deal...
-
Im my opinion everyone has the right to do what the hell he want with anything he bought (software or hardware both are products), provided it is not meant to cause harm or any kind of revenue about it. We haven't been paid to post on these threads, nor who made the hack did it with the intention to cause harm to the manufacturer: if he want to re-sell it, is like selling something non genuine and if found, this is a scam and so you are liable about it. But there's no problem if you want to increase your bandwidth on your oscilloscope... Also, I hardly doubt that if you are a hobbyist you actually NEED a 500Mhz oscilloscope... this is my personal point of view
Although I can't afford a 500 MHz scope, that doesn't mean I don't need it. If I want to show the 5th harmonic of a 100 MHz square wave (FPGA projects), 500 MHz is just about right. The thing is, only displaying up to the fifth harmonic doesn't show a very nice waveform. It's better to get up to the 11th or so and, for the 500 MHz scope, that would limit the input to a little under 50 MHz.
So, I have a 350 MHz Tek 485 for the high end stuff and the DS1054Z for the decoding and measurement stuff (plus, of course, the 'gee whiz' stuff).
Alas, I can't afford a 500 MHz scope for a hobby.
-
That gets the bandwidth (buying a 100 MHz scope) but it might not get the decoding - add $480 to price of DS1054Z because the DS1104Z Plus lists at $879. At TEquipment decoding option sells for $174 The expanded memory option is another $195 and there may still be a couple of options missing. So, scope is $900 and options are $370 (and there may still be options I have forgotten about) so, $1300 versus $400.
Pretty clear choice...
So to get what I have right now on a trial basis, an extra $900 on top of the $400 cost of the scope? Maybe I should send this thing back and get a used Tektronix.
Yup!
I had been using that Tek 485 for a dozen years before buying the DS1054Z. I wanted more channels and I have come to appreciate the serial decoding but, for quite a long time, the 485 worked just fine.
When you look at other $1200 scopes, you will certainly be able to match the bandwidth but they may not include decoding or expanded memory either. Every manufacturer has some kind of gimmick. I see that some of the manufacturers are having 'sales' where you can get some of the options for free.
The thing about buying used scopes is that you have no idea how well they work. It shows up in a box and that's about all you know. Maybe you got a good one, maybe not... Maybe you have the skills to fix an old analog scope, I don't. Or, rather, I don't have the interest.