duplicating systems or disks 3

[edfair]

There are two recent threads (1-pc hardware) (1-sco unix) where users are requesting help in duplicating disks. the pc-hardware one is related to hardware upgrade on a network and the sco unix one is for creating a duplicate system even though that doesn't show in the thread. (I found this out via e-mail)
In both cases this can be considered software piracy although the pc-hardware can be more of a gray area.
At what point do we as a forum red flag these threads? And is a red flag appropriate? [sig]<p>Ed Fair<br><a href=mailto: efair@atlnet.com> efair@atlnet.com</a><br><a href= > </a><br>Any advice I give is my best judgement based on my interpretation of the facts you supply. <br>
Help increase my knowledge by providing some feedback, good or bad, on any advice I have given.<br>
[/sig]

 

[Alt255]

I Red Flag any post I find that seems to be a direct attempt to seek or offer assistance in violating a license agreement. I don't do so because software piracy is illegal in the USA. This is an international forum and the USA legal standards aren't shared by some other nations. I do it because it is the right thing to do.

I view that sort of discussion as conspiracy to steal. Theft occurs all around us but we tend to ignore it unless it affects &quot;us&quot; or people we care about. In this instance, piracy affects the people I care about. I don't care if they work for a mega-corporation like Microsoft or run a coding sweatshop out of somebody's garage. Somebody sacrificed sweat and blood to make computing a little easier for the rest of us and that &quot;somebody&quot; deserves full compensation.

Regarding those who want to skip the &quot;compensation&quot; formalities, in my view, Red Flag 'em all and let Tek-Tips management sort it out.

I'm sorry if strong opinions spoil the festivities here...

Ed, you opened a nasty can of worms. I hope nobody minds if I squish a few of them.

http://www.vorpalcom.com

A plain black box

Don't sit down. It's time to dig another one.

 

[edfair]

Thank you. Based on some other common ground we have covered I think we pretty well agree. Now , lets see what the rest think. [sig]<p>Ed Fair<br><a href=mailto: efair@atlnet.com> efair@atlnet.com</a><br><a href= > </a><br>Any advice I give is my best judgement based on my interpretation of the facts you supply. <br>
Help increase my knowledge by providing some feedback, good or bad, on any advice I have given.<br>
[/sig]

 

[jsauce]

Good call. [sig]<p>John D. Saucier<br><a href=mailto:jsauce@magicguild.com>jsauce@magicguild.com</a><br><a href=

http://www.magicguild.com>The

MagicGuild</a><br>A+ Certified Technician[/sig]

 

[jagilman]

Is it just my lack of information or isn't Napster leading the way for this type of thinking? [sig]<p>John A. Gilman<br><a href=mailto:gms@uslink.net>gms@uslink.net</a><br>[/sig]

 

[PhiloVance]

I bought my original 386 from a friend. He had the original MS-DOS disks and that was all. It had come with Windows 3.1 installed, but because I was not the original owner, I could not get support from Microsoft, other than what I could find from reading on the site. At that time, I was pretty much a newbie as far as PC's were concerned, and real support would have been appreciated. I had hardware problems and had to reformat the hard drive. I backed up everyting I could think of on floppies, it took about 60. Luckily I only had a 80 meg (yes meg) hard drive. I figured if anything went wrong, I could probably get a 3.1 install disk from work. Well, bottom line is nothing went wrong, but I, at the time, didn't see anything wrong with this. The software/hardware had been paid for (by my friend) and I bought it lock stock and barrel.

I think each case must be taken individually. Many times there are valid reasons for copying software, i.e., the dog ate my floppy! [sig]<p>PhiloVance<br>Other hobbies, interests: Travel, Model RR (HO Gauge), Genealogy.[/sig]

 

[edfair]

Philo,
You have hit on another gray area. This problem was created by Microsoft and their licensing agreements, along with a less than ethical distributor (IMHO) that sold an incomplete product. Since you are the owner of the system you have the right to original install disks. Your friend's supplier should have furnished them.
As far as support from Microsoft, you've found the other problem with manufacturer support of MS preinstalled software. But this is the price we pay for MS selling to manufacturers as a loss leader so the manufacturers can lower prices.
And don't feel defensive about the 80mb. lots of work is still being done on less than that. In fact my primary work machine has a boot partition of 16mb.
I have no problems with copied software. I have lots. I just don't have any of it installed, I don't use it, and I don't sell it as software.
As a professional I would support you in getting your software to work with your hardware but I wouldn't help duplicate the system without your having license to duplicate software. Duplication to upgrade to new hardware is not a problem if the original system is being scrapped out. My gray area here is running in parallel.
[sig]<p>Ed Fair<br><a href=mailto: efair@atlnet.com> efair@atlnet.com</a><br><a href= > </a><br>Any advice I give is my best judgement based on my interpretation of the facts you supply. <br>
Help increase my knowledge by providing some feedback, good or bad, on any advice I have given.<br>
[/sig]

 

[VB400]

I Agree with PhiloVance and Ed 100%.

I'm known in my circle of friends and colleagues to be anal about copying software (Pinocchio says that anal is short for analyst LOL) . If I want software, I'll buy it -- if I can't afford it, I'll wait until I can.

However, as with anything in life, there is always a gray area. For example, your company/client wants you to use a specific tool for a project that is needed ASAP. You need to learn that tool as quickly as possible so that you can be productive. Do you have the right to install that software on your personal computer at home for the sake of learning the product with the complete intention that you'll remove the software as soon as the project is done? Or that if you like the product for your own use, you will buy it later?

Does anyone who is truly honest have the right to copy software strictly for the sake of learning and not for personal use?

I think we all agree that copying games from friends so that we don't have to spend the money is wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt. How about copying SQL Server to your personal computer so that you can get some hands-on training -- most people have no other need for SQL Server for home use?

What about registering to attend a local college, get a student ID card, go to the bookstore and pick up Office/2000 for less than half the general price then cancelling the registeration even before classes begin -- all of this so that one does not pay the full price.

The most common argument I get, &quot;if you ever make a copy of a newspaper or magazine article then you're just as guilty&quot;.

I know I'm not solving any problems with this post, but I'm just glad that we're discussing the issue -- now I don't feel like a loner on this side of the fence, or am I?
[sig]<p> Tarek<br><a href= > </a><br>The more I learn, the more I need to learn![/sig]

 

[Alt255]

Some excellent points, Tarek, and I am wondering now if our personal sense of ethics and expecations for the behavior of others don't perform subtle shifts the moment we report for work. There are some things we would never consider in our personal lives. Are we really able to carry our personal identity into the workplace?

Let's say your work computer has taken a big hit. Hard drive wiped, whatever... some guy from IT walks in with some open boxes containing an OS and your favorite software. He says, &quot;I'm busy. Format your hard drive and reinstall everything.&quot; Are you going to say &quot;No! Not unless I'm sure these titles don't belong on another system!&quot;

Possibly, if you are truly analytical. The problem with getting this fussy is that it tends to endanger our future employment. The issue wouldn't have strong moral overtones, as would an order from the boss to burn down the warehouse to collect on the insurance. The temptation to install the spurious software would probably be overwhelming.

&quot;If you ever make a copy of a newspaper or magazine article then you're just as guilty&quot;. I like that argument. Reduced to a logical absurdity it becomes, &quot;I'm breaking the law every time forget to signal when I change lanes on the highway. Therefore, I can get drunk and commit vehicular homicide.&quot;

Tarek, not meaning to distract from your questions... I would like to hear some additional comments on the &quot;use and delete&quot; concept.. I would also be interested to hear from members who have been compelled to leave their ethics at the door and install illegal software &quot;for the good of the company&quot;.

How did you feel about it? Is there an effective but tactfull way to avoid this sort of pressure? Sign on as an anonymous guest if you don't feel comfortable posting under your Tek-Tips handle.
[sig]<p> <br><a href=mailto: > </a><br><a href=

http://www.vorpalcom.com>A

plain black box</a><br>"Suffice it to say that adding disk drives and a disk operating system to a personal microcomputer is guaranteed to increase its power dramatically."<br>
<u><b>CP/M and the Personal Computer</u></b>[/sig]

 

[bigscouse]

Software Licensing:
A large number of comercial applications are normally available with a free evaluation licenses on a 1 to 3 month trial basis, if you continue after that you buy a full license.
Alternatively ask around see if someone else has it and ask if you can play with it.
Failing that there is often a free or cheap home use version avaialable.
Personaly if I have to shell out more than a few quid to do a job then I would get the othr party to recompense me, the exception being if I was contracting in which case it would be a business expense.

If I get asked to load s/w it would require a written or email request to do so. If the firm starts kicking up a fuss then remind them that you are covering their backsides as well. Let's face it the &quot;software police&quot; take no prisoners the company could face severe financial penalties and it will damage their reputation.
[sig]<p>Ged Jones<br><a href= > </a><br>Top man[/sig]

 

[iza]

my personnal point is that i actually use some copied softwares - at home and NOT at work, unless as Ged says, i got a written request - and if i don't use them i finally delete them, if i do use them i finally buy them; and i don't feel &quot;bad&quot; or like breaking the laws ... i think we should have a right to check if we like a software or not *before* we buy it, but i'm conscious it's not very fair, and that for most things we buy we are not given the chance to test it before !! (but hey, i've never helped anyone to steal/copy any software ;]]] !) [sig][/sig]

 

[bigscouse]

It is extremely unlikely that you would het caight out at home but if you were then how could you prove your case?
If you contact the product manufacturer they might be prepared to give you a temporary license for the purpose of evalution then you could load it with impunity. [sig]<p>Ged Jones<br><a href= > </a><br>Top man[/sig]

 

[VB400]

Actually iza hit on a good point -- should we have the ability to try something before buying it?

In the US, you can practically buy anything, use it then return it because you're not satisfied, it used to be that way with software. Some manufactureres even tell you to return it with no questions asked! Should software be dealt with the same way?

As Ged mentioned, more and more companies (including MS) are making available a 30/60/90/120 day free trial version of the software. I personally have taken advantage of Backoffice 4.5 and SQL Server 7.0 120 day trials. That felt good since it was all legal.

One point I made earlier about the student discount. If a student buys a product, say VB6, he/she is not limited to using it only while he/she is a student. They can finish the class, write programs, sell them over the web and he/she only paid half of what the rest of us pay. Is that fair? Heck, for all we know, the student didn't sign up for a VB class to begin with -- maybe he/she signed up for a Golf class at the local college, got the student ID and bought the software.

Now here's an idea, I can actually lower my handicap to 2 digits and get 1/2 price on VB7, two birds with one stone -- where's that spring catalog? LOL

Alt,

I have never been forced to copy software, that's a fact. When I started working with PCs, I did copy software because everyone was doing it -- wrong I know, but back then (in the 80s) there were much fewer computers, software and license agreements. Eventually, I woke up and physically thew away all the copied software and rebuilt my computer with what software I bought. It's easy to say now, of course, but I don't think that I would ever fall under pressure to do something unethical just to keep my job. But the question here is &quot;what IS unethical?&quot;!!!

I was asked by my client to look into the possibility of setting up a small application on an intranet. I don't have FrontPage, but they do and additionally, it is still shrink-wrapped (i.e. no one at the client uses it). Should I be able to install it on my PC, learn it, develop the application for them and then delete it from my PC? keep in mind that most likely I'll end up buying it later for my own needs.

This application would also use SQL Server which they own and I'm not proficient in -- not yet anyway. My 120 day trial has expired. Can I copy their version on my equipement so that I'm not messing with their production environment (I know that I can load the Desktop version, but just humor me)? Can I reinstall my 120 trial to buy a few more months of freebies?

When a situation comes up, I always ask myself, if I was the vendor and that was my software, how would I feel about it?

I think that the true ethical thing to do is not to make a judgement on what &quot;should be&quot; and then act upon it. I think that we should strictly follow the rules set by the vendor who makes the product. If we don't like the vendor's rules then look elsewhere for products. Of course, a little understanding on the vendor's part wouldn't hurt!
[sig]<p> Tarek<br><a href= > </a><br>The more I learn, the more I need to learn![/sig]

 

[Ruairi]

There are a lot of good posts in this thread. I'm not sure where i stand on this issue so it's interesting to read how other programmers feel about it and why. Tarek, i would think that the frontpage question you discussed is cut and dried. The company purchased FrontPage, they have a right to use it how they see fit, including giving it to you to develop with. Even if the packaging was not still sealed, as long as they are only using it on one machine at a time its legal, isn't it? [sig]<p>Ruairi<br><a href=mailto:ruairi@logsoftware.com>ruairi@logsoftware.com</a><br>[/sig]

 

[sdb510]

Another gray area regarding installation of software for evaulation/training purposes:

Suppose I want to evaluate a piece of software that actually depends on another software package -- say, for example, a VB Add-in. I can't evaulate this add-in without having VB installed.
It's my company's policy, and my personal belief as well, that it is not a good idea to initially install software on a &quot;production machine&quot; (one that you cannot afford to reformat), so we usually install software on a test machine first. After deciding that the software will not corrupt the machine, or any other program on it, we will approve it for installation on production machines. This add-in can then be evaluated to see if it has the features we want.
Now, in order to make sure that this add-in will not corrupt the machine, we need to install it on a test machine (which will be reformatted after testing). But in order to test the add-in, we also have to install VB. So, is it reasonable to expect us to purchase a VB license for $500 or $1500 or whatever, just so we can install it for 2 days (or maybe even 2 hours) while we sure the add-in doesn't harm the machine, and then remove it?

My initial take on this (without having yet heard any other opinions) is that, ethically, a test installation is a different entity from a production installation. This test run will not be used to create any projects or applications; so it's not as if we are installing it, developing with it, and then removing it in order to avoid paying for the license. We are only installing it as a dependency of the add-in, so the VB installation could either be considered an evaulation installation as well (which would come with the 60/90/120 trial period, if there is one), or the license requirement should be overlooked by the manufacturer for this purpose.

Any other opinions?

Steve [sig][/sig]

 

[VB400]

Steve,

The problem with this is that when a vendor (say MS) sells you a product like VB, they don't care how you're using it. There is no place in the agreement (I don't think anyway) that specifies that they will sell you the product for the purpose of you (the consumer) creating programs.

There is always the argument that using VB (in your example) is beneficial to your company whether it is used for testing or development; thus, your need to have their product should equate to them getting compensated for it.

This is very similar to the hardware industry, as in saws, drills, nuts and bolts, etc. (not computer hardware). There are many times that I need a special tool to fix something around the house, but it is a $300 tool and I know that most likely I'll never use it again. I can buy it, use it then return it within 30 days saying that it didn't work well for me (basically lying) and get my money back -- voila, a freebie. This is bad. Luckily, there are hardware rental shops that do nothing but rent power tools by the hour/day that are affordable.

Maybe we can lobby the software industry to start programs like this. Visit a web site, see a few links:

Click here to download a free 30 day trial
Click here to Buy the product
Click here to Rent/Lease the product

Come to think of it, that sounds like a great idea -- why couldn't I think of that! [sig]<p> Tarek<br><a href= > </a><br>The more I learn, the more I need to learn![/sig]

 

[sdb510]

Tarek,

The Rent/Lease option is a good idea, and I agree that this should become a standard option for software products.

But I do see one more viewpoint to your hardware tool example that may apply to the test installation of software.
Suppose I have a saw that I bought and use regularly. I need a new saw blade, so I go up to the hardware store to buy a new one. I find a saw blade, but want to make sure that it fits my saw before I purchase it, so I ask the salesman if I can fit the blade on a saw at the store that matches the one at my house. Although they do have the option of saying &quot;If you use it for any reason, you have to pay for/rent it,&quot; salespeople usually have no problem with you doing this.
In the same sense, I am testing the add-in against the larger software (such as VB) to make sure it &quot;fits.&quot;

As has been stated, a licenses says what it says, and you can either take it or leave it.
But on that note, when it comes to extremely expensive software packages (such as Visual Studio Enterprise), people or companies that must purchase 2 licenses -- one for production, one for testing -- and massively increase the expense, may choose more often to &quot;leave it&quot; and find another package. But this is a business consequence that the manufacturer must face.

Of course, all this assumes that the test installation will be installed once and only once. Obviously, if you plan to test many add-ins, thus making the larger software (VB) a permanent installation for all intents and purposes, then you should purchase a license.

This starting to look more and more like my college Philosphy class!

Steve [sig][/sig]

 

[VB400]

I'm worn out thinking about this; however, the fact that we're talking about it is a sign that we have a conscience and that, my friends, I'm proud of!

When they say that programmers are expensive, maybe it's because we fork out a bunch of cash to learn our trade and keep our edge and we're just trying to recover that cost!!!
[sig]<p> Tarek<br><a href= > </a><br>The more I learn, the more I need to learn![/sig]

 

[NedLudd]

Implicit in alot of this discussion is that the software industry has a poor model of licensing and that is what leads to confusion and/or self justification of piracy.
For example, six years ago I bought an expensive statistical analysis software package (>$1000). There was no trial version available, although I had used an earlier version of the software. I needed to use this package for one (and only one) type of specific principal components analysis. I had a confirmation in writing from the sales rep that this package would do what I wanted. Needless to say, when I installed it and ran it, it did not. When I called the company on this, the answer was, &quot;you broke the seal, it's yours&quot;.
I could respond to that in a number of ways: I could sue the company in small claims court - that is perhaps iffy as I'm not sure that a judge would want to deal in such issues. I could respond by using this as an excuse to pirate software as a &quot;trial&quot; to be sure it did what was promised (and I'll admit I did that for a while), or I could think about it and realize that the model of software licensing is flawed and not support companies that don't try to get around that model by offering trial versions.

Now, about the issue of reselling unused software. There has been an issue of reselling unopened windows software disks on Ebay from people who have installed Linux or Solaris x86 on intel machines. Microsoft told Ebay that it was illegal for people to sell that unused, uninstalled, unopened software, because the computer purchaser (and I am paraphrasing here from memory) did not OWN the software, but only had a license to use it once on that machine.
Does this attitude change the arguments for or against copying? Does misrepresentation, anticompetitive acts, or poor support justify copying? Now that I work for a software company, my answer to all three questions is no - it's still stealing.

Sorry if this post rambles - there are three seperate threads of ideas in here.

 

[Chrisikins]

As a programmer, my personal feeling is that anyone who steals one's copyright probably wouldn't have purchased it in the first place. People are either honest and they pay or they are dishonest and they steal. Realistically, therefore, one is not going to get any money from the software thieves, whatever their excuse for stealing. If they can't steal it, they won't have it - end of story.
However, there is lost-leader advertising in there and it keeps the product in the public eye ... and could lead to purchase by another person or when that person is in a different social position and thus able to afford the software.

Therefore, to some extent, I don't mind if people steal my software, although I will personally only use genuinely licensed stuff.