What ethical problems? Decompiling is perfectly moral and ethical. Whether it is illegal is a seperate and, for me, almost irelevant issue. If I legally own a copyrighted work I am allowed to read it, period and end of story. Corporate licences excepted, software is SOLD, not licensed despite the scary words on the box and the dread click through EULA.
Hell, I learned assembly by writing a disassembler (in BASIC) and reading the Microsoft BASIC roms, then l
What ethical problems? Decompiling is perfectly moral and ethical.... If I legally own a copyrighted work I am allowed to read it, period and end of story. Corporate licences excepted, software is SOLD, not licensed despite the scary words on the box and the dread click through EULA.
I disagree here. I am a strong believer that people should be able to trade goods/services for prices/conditions they mutually agree upon. If I write software and say I will sell it to you for $x on condition that you do Y
> I think it is morally repugnant of you to break our agreement and decompile.
While you are welcome to your delusions, but out here in the real world we have some things called laws. Specifically the Uniform Commercial Code and the Copyright laws.
You will note that I excepted commercial licenses, since those are actual signed contracts and are legally binding.
According to the Uniform Commercial Code if goods are exchanged in regular trade there can't be strings attached; i.e. if it looks like a sale
But think about it, what you are saying is that you can sell me a copyrighted work that I am forbidden to read myself
Sure. I was thinking of this as an example when I wrote my last post. I could write a book, and say to you, "Here's my book, it's $5, but if you buy it you can't read chapters 3, 7, or 9." And I'd have no problem with that. If you don't want to pay money for a book whose full contents I say you can't read, then fine - don't buy it. But don't buy it, knowing what terms I've laid out, and
"Here's my book, it's $5, but if you buy it you can't read chapters 3, 7, or 9." And I'd have no problem with that.
You're serious, aren't you? I just don't understand people with your greedy, assbackwards, mindset. You really think that that kind of unenforcable agreement for artificial restriction on your "Intellectual Property" is morally correct and promotes innovation? (Don't answer that.)
(It's not moral or legal to sign yourself into slavery; the same will one day be said of "IP" artificial scarcit
I just don't understand people with your greedy, assbackwards, mindset.
I don't understand people with your mindset, a mindset that strips individuals of their rights. Listen, if I have created something, and want to sell it to you with conditions, why shouldn't I be able to do that? If you don't want to abide by those conditions: DON'T FREAKING BUY WHAT I'M SELLING. Have a little restraint, Mr. Consumer. Jebus.
I am 100% for free trade between people. You, on the other hand, are against that, since you don't think a seller should be able to make a condition, and a buyer free to choose to accept or deny the sale based on that condition.
Finally, capitalism works. In a true capitalistic marketplace, having unnecessary, artificial conditions wouldn't be benefitial to the seller, since other sellers could enter the market without such fluff conditions and make the sale. Going back to the author denying readers to read certain chapters, who would buy those books? Rather, the authors who granted full access would far outsell those who did not.
Finally, capitalism works. In a true capitalistic marketplace, having unnecessary, artificial conditions wouldn't be benefitial to the seller, since other sellers could enter the market without such fluff conditions and make the sale.
Wow. Your talking about copyright law, which is an artificial monopoly. Your 100% free trade would work just fine if copyright did not create an artificial monopoly which is why there are laws spelling out what can and can't be done with copyrighted works If people enter in
Wow. Your[sic] talking about copyright law, which is an artificial monopoly.
He actually didn't start out talking about the law at all. He simply said that if two parties agree to something, then morally they should do what they said they would do. That's all. A simple and reasonable idea. And he's saying that if one party doesn't want to do what they say, then morally they shouldn't enter into the agreement in the first place.
You know, when I bought a boxed copy of Windows XP Professional, I don't remember signing anything. In fact, it wasn't until I was installing it on my computer in order to use it that I was presented with a legal contract to which I was asked to affix my 'digital signature' to agree to certain conditions for its use.
Now what if I bought the CD, took it home, and set about decompiling or reverse engineering this copy of Windows I just bought. Well, there's this clause in that EULA that says I can't do th
The point I'm trying to make is that while the EULA may be a contract, it's only required that I agree to its terms before installing and using it, not at the point of sale before purchasing it. Now naturally, IANAL, but tell me, am I wrong?
You said that you need to agree to the term to continue the installation... BUT... What is freaking forcing you to agree to the terms to continue the installation ? If you don't agree to the term, nothing stop you from installing this program, since you don't agree w
Actually any installer program that has a licence agreement step in it will generally cancel installation if you don't accept the agreement. So, you have to accept the agreement to go through with installation of the software, or the installer stops you from installing it.;)
What I was getting at originally was that if you never even run the installer but rather just skip ahead to decompiling the software, you've never agreed to the licence terms, including the part about not decompiling it.
What I mean is that if you don't agree to the agreement, nothing stop you from clicking on the I accept button, since it means nothing because you haven't agreed to it and nothing force you not to click on that button.. Is that clearer now ??
Um, yeah, I guess it's clearer. The thing is, though, that the licence agreement is a contract and if you click the accept button you're bound by its terms.
What binds the actual button as being an acceptance of the contract ? The contract itself.. and if you don't accept it, I don't see any law anywhere that would force it down on you;) this is just like clicking next..
If you think I'm bad, then just get a program that click randomly on the screen for you, and launch it until it get the install right =)
You can't impose unlawful conditions. Freedom is nothing without laws. The fundamental principle here is that no one can freely contract to contravene the law. Does that help?
I don't understand people with your mindset, a mindset that strips individuals of their rights.
*YOUR* mindset is the one that strips inviduals of their rights.
Listen, if I have created something, and want to sell it to you with conditions, why shouldn't I be able to do that?
You should, and you are able to do that. Make a sales contract with me. If you want to take away some of my rights, you need to give me the agreement on a paper and then we go over it, agree that those restrictions are valid ones a
Their idea of an offer you can't refuse is an offer... and you'd better
not refuse.
What ethical problems? (Score:5, Insightful)
What ethical problems? Decompiling is perfectly moral and ethical. Whether it is illegal is a seperate and, for me, almost irelevant issue. If I legally own a copyrighted work I am allowed to read it, period and end of story. Corporate licences excepted, software is SOLD, not licensed despite the scary words on the box and the dread click through EULA.
Hell, I learned assembly by writing a disassembler (in BASIC) and reading the Microsoft BASIC roms, then l
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree here. I am a strong believer that people should be able to trade goods/services for prices/conditions they mutually agree upon. If I write software and say I will sell it to you for $x on condition that you do Y
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:5, Interesting)
While you are welcome to your delusions, but out here in the real world we have some things called laws. Specifically the Uniform Commercial Code and the Copyright laws.
You will note that I excepted commercial licenses, since those are actual signed contracts and are legally binding.
According to the Uniform Commercial Code if goods are exchanged in regular trade there can't be strings attached; i.e. if it looks like a sale
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure. I was thinking of this as an example when I wrote my last post. I could write a book, and say to you, "Here's my book, it's $5, but if you buy it you can't read chapters 3, 7, or 9." And I'd have no problem with that. If you don't want to pay money for a book whose full contents I say you can't read, then fine - don't buy it. But don't buy it, knowing what terms I've laid out, and
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1, Flamebait)
You're serious, aren't you? I just don't understand people with your greedy, assbackwards, mindset. You really think that that kind of unenforcable agreement for artificial restriction on your "Intellectual Property" is morally correct and promotes innovation? (Don't answer that.)
(It's not moral or legal to sign yourself into slavery; the same will one day be said of "IP" artificial scarcit
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:3, Insightful)
Very.
I just don't understand people with your greedy, assbackwards, mindset.
I don't understand people with your mindset, a mindset that strips individuals of their rights. Listen, if I have created something, and want to sell it to you with conditions, why shouldn't I be able to do that? If you don't want to abide by those conditions: DON'T FREAKING BUY WHAT I'M SELLING. Have a little restraint, Mr. Consumer. Jebus.
I am 100% for free trade between people. You, on the other hand, are against that, since you don't think a seller should be able to make a condition, and a buyer free to choose to accept or deny the sale based on that condition.
Finally, capitalism works. In a true capitalistic marketplace, having unnecessary, artificial conditions wouldn't be benefitial to the seller, since other sellers could enter the market without such fluff conditions and make the sale. Going back to the author denying readers to read certain chapters, who would buy those books? Rather, the authors who granted full access would far outsell those who did not.
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
Wow. Your talking about copyright law, which is an artificial monopoly. Your 100% free trade would work just fine if copyright did not create an artificial monopoly which is why there are laws spelling out what can and can't be done with copyrighted works If people enter in
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
He actually didn't start out talking about the law at all. He simply said that if two parties agree to something, then morally they should do what they said they would do. That's all. A simple and reasonable idea. And he's saying that if one party doesn't want to do what they say, then morally they shouldn't enter into the agreement in the first place.
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
You know, when I bought a boxed copy of Windows XP Professional, I don't remember signing anything. In fact, it wasn't until I was installing it on my computer in order to use it that I was presented with a legal contract to which I was asked to affix my 'digital signature' to agree to certain conditions for its use.
Now what if I bought the CD, took it home, and set about decompiling or reverse engineering this copy of Windows I just bought. Well, there's this clause in that EULA that says I can't do th
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
You said that you need to agree to the term to continue the installation... BUT... What is freaking forcing you to agree to the terms to continue the installation ? If you don't agree to the term, nothing stop you from installing this program, since you don't agree w
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
Actually any installer program that has a licence agreement step in it will generally cancel installation if you don't accept the agreement. So, you have to accept the agreement to go through with installation of the software, or the installer stops you from installing it. ;)
What I was getting at originally was that if you never even run the installer but rather just skip ahead to decompiling the software, you've never agreed to the licence terms, including the part about not decompiling it.
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:1)
If you think I'm bad, then just get a program that click randomly on the screen for you, and launch it until it get the install right =)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What ethical problems? (Score:2)
*YOUR* mindset is the one that strips inviduals of their rights.
Listen, if I have created something, and want to sell it to you with conditions, why shouldn't I be able to do that?
You should, and you are able to do that. Make a sales contract with me. If you want to take away some of my rights, you need to give me the agreement on a paper and then we go over it, agree that those restrictions are valid ones a