Reasons for hacking DSOs

[Brumby]

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.

[kcbrown]

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?

[Brumby]

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?

[kcbrown]

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?

[tggzzz]

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.

[Zero999]

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.

[tggzzz]

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?

[kcbrown]

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?

[kcbrown]

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.

[Zero999]

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.

[hammy]

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

[Fungus]

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.

[Zero999]

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.

[tggzzz]

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.

[kcbrown]

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?

[Fungus]

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...)

[Zero999]

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.

[Fungus]

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?

[Zero999]

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.

[Brumby]

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.

[kcbrown]

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?

[Zero999]

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.

[mnementh]

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

[Brumby]

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.

[kcbrown]

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?