Reasons for hacking DSOs

[kcbrown]

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.

[vk6zgo]

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?

[mnementh]

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*

[Howardlong]

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!

[kcbrown]

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.

[kcbrown]

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.

[hamster_nz]

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.

[kcbrown]

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?

[hamster_nz]

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.

[Fungus]

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.

[kcbrown]

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.

[kcbrown]

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".

[hamster_nz]

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.

[kcbrown]

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.

[kcbrown]

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?).

[hamster_nz]

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?

[hamster_nz]

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.

[kcbrown]

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.   

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.

[kcbrown]

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?

[Brumby]

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.

[kcbrown]

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.

[hamster_nz]

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!

[kcbrown]

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.

[kcbrown]

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!

 

I knew I should have used a different example for that one reason alone. 

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.

[kcbrown]

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?