Home▸
Forums▸
How do you feel about old software licenses?▸
How do you feel about old software licenses?
Thread
How do you feel about old software licenses?
If it's impossible to find a piece of software you're looking for, and it's no longer for sale, how do you feel about finding it, or serial numbers, in the underworlds of the net? Do you just do it and not think twice, do you feel bad about it, or do you not do it at all and sometimes miss out?
I know some boards don't like new users starting polls or whatever, but I thought it could be interesting.
I know some boards don't like new users starting polls or whatever, but I thought it could be interesting.
Whatever one may think of the 'licence' system, as opposed to a much more rational patent system (and I admit unashamedly that I think that the licence system should never have been accepted by users and defended by governments), it is a fact that licences exist. No forum owner can afford to be seen to tolerate, let alone encourage, piracy of software.
de
de
What makes you think we have one of those? Some of the software patents are rediculous. You could get a patent for a "computing device that used base 2 arithmetic" if you tried.as opposed to a much more rational patent system
It's not piracy if the company is out of business and nobody bought or took over the old software. Then it becomes public domain.
If the company exists in any way and the software went with it - for example Maxis which is now Electronic Arts - it's technically piracy. You can buy SimCity Classic and stuff off eBay, hell, in sealed boxes even. So in that case you should buy it. But if you can't buy it anywhere within a reasonable distance or online at a reasonable price (at or below the original retail), just acquire it through "special means".
If the company exists in any way and the software went with it - for example Maxis which is now Electronic Arts - it's technically piracy. You can buy SimCity Classic and stuff off eBay, hell, in sealed boxes even. So in that case you should buy it. But if you can't buy it anywhere within a reasonable distance or online at a reasonable price (at or below the original retail), just acquire it through "special means".
Do I agree with the current laws and system in regards to old software? No. I think software copyright terms should be 12 years with the option to renew for another 8.
However, just because I don't agree doesn't mean I can go and do what I want. The law is the law and even if we don't agree with it we must follow it. This means that even ancient software must be acquired legally.
I buy all my software, including that from an out of business company. Yes, some say it's ridiculous to buy three copies of Battle Chess for my trio of Mac Classics but it's the only legal way to do it. And I must admit, it felt very rewarding to be able to hunt down those old Battle Chesses.
Yes, I am the one guy who voted for "never ever" because I obey the laws whether I like them or not.
However, just because I don't agree doesn't mean I can go and do what I want. The law is the law and even if we don't agree with it we must follow it. This means that even ancient software must be acquired legally.
I buy all my software, including that from an out of business company. Yes, some say it's ridiculous to buy three copies of Battle Chess for my trio of Mac Classics but it's the only legal way to do it. And I must admit, it felt very rewarding to be able to hunt down those old Battle Chesses.
Yes, I am the one guy who voted for "never ever" because I obey the laws whether I like them or not.
We should all attempt to find a legal copy before using a warez site, but sometimes it just isn't possible. Copyrights should be allowed to expire at some point when it is no longer profiting anyone to keep them. An old piece of software that hasn't been sold for 15 years and has no more modern equivalent should be free for all.
If (when!) I am elected to Congress, this is one aspect of US copyright law I intend to work on.
But once your family is given free-passes to Disneyland for life you magically forget all about it.If (when!) I am elected to Congress, this is one aspect of US copyright law I intend to work on.
Perhaps we differ as to the base premise of the patent process. In origin and application a patent is a (time-)limited monopoly. After n years, according to taste and legislation, the content passes into the public domain. It becomes a part of 'the prior art'. Modern (especially US) application of the concept is to try to stretch limited into perpetual, but that doesn't invalidate the utility of the base premise.What makes you think we have one of those? Some of the software patents are rediculous. You could get a patent for a "computing device that used base 2 arithmetic" if you tried.
de
It is also remarkably childish, "Hey, that's a good idea" - "No, you can't do that, I thought of it first!".Perhaps we differ as to the base premise of the patent process. In origin and application a patent is a (time-)limited monopoly.
Anything not currently available or supported I download without thinking about it. But I DO, try to get a legit copy of every old utility and app I use when they do come up even for the real old ones.
Beyond a certain point, I think "anything goes".
Run for Prime minister of Canada (Or as the recording industry calls us, cam-ada)! I would go door to door for that!If (when!) I am elected to Congress, this is one aspect of US copyright law I intend to work on.
As for my stance on this matter, I don't care. If it is abandoned, who gives a damn! Would EA games really break my door down and tell me to put my hands on my head because I uploaded SimCity Classic to my website for a small group of hobbiests to download? Most likely No.
If they are not making money off of me, why should they care. It isn't like they are making money off of ebay when someone buys a copy. Most of the time it is not cheap to get the original software, so you have to download it. Plus, you don't even know if you like the program you are buying! If you downloaded it and you don't like it, drag and drop it into the trash.
I do download current software sometimes, though most of the time it is because I want to know if I should buy the software without a silly "Trial" version with limted features.
There are some times that you do it that you just think it should be right, like say when I stuck Windows XP on my PC, I had to get a copy from questionable sources, though I should be able to get a copy since the computer came with XP in the first place, somebody paid for a licence and I should be able to use that licence. Or if you have lost a disk, with my SimCity 4, my second disk is gone, so I got a copy of that from questionable sources.
What I think the government should do is just run the current copyright laws through a paper shredder and start fresh from ideas from the taxpayers. The new copyright laws for Canada are just stupid, I USE TORRENTS, COME GET MY MR.ROBOTO...Ahem, Steven Harper.
The patent system has been established to aid spreading of technologic progress in the first place. As porter pointed out, the patent system is perverted to something protecting commercial interests, thus being an encumbrance to anyone who needs to make use of new technology. If there was an option for anyone to use the patent system for free, I might agree to a protection of commercial use of intellectual property up to a certain degree. But many individual persons can not afford patent fees, while some huge companies churn patents out as soon somebody got an idea about an idea. So one might dismiss the whole patent system without doing something bad, as mankind could freely use any improvement all over the world.It is also remarkably childish, "Hey, that's a good idea" - "No, you can't do that, I thought of it first!".
But I agree that there should be some protection for actually designed and manufactured products. A given piece of software may be protected from piracy, of course. As it comes to obsolete software products, there might be place for a law allowing to expire license restrictions when the product is not supported any more.
I download all my old software. Usually the disc is not available, and even if it were I wouldn't pay for it anyway. It's old, well past its prime and if the developer still exists, they're making money off their newest product. If not, they've given up on it a long time ago.
I'm sure that would infuriate quite a few, but that's my system.
I'm sure that would infuriate quite a few, but that's my system.
Again, patents, or more correctly 'letters patent', or 'an open licence to monopoly at the sovereign's pleasure' was intended to sanction a limited monopoly. In our time it can reasonably be interpreted as 'a reward for intellectual innovation, protected from competition for a limited time. Given the life of software, that fits the need. Patents also, at least nominally, reward and encourage innovation. Innovations are a bit long in the tooth 16 years later. Commercial interest has degraded the idea and the practice, especially in the C20, but far more disgusting than patent law is the change to copyright law, which now gives a meal-ticket to 'heirs, assigns and successors' for up to 70 years' after the death of the (original creator of the 'work') copyright owner. We consumers of software could be worse off than we are, in the same boat as lovers of music, literature, graphic art and so on.
de
de
And to answer the original question by the OP, I don't claim any special purity of thought or action in the matter, but my preference is always for s/w on original, functional medium. That's what I aim to get, but it doesn't stop me from paying for downloadable shareware, either.
de
de
Yeah, that wheel thing, its so passé.Innovations are a bit long in the tooth 16 years later.
I can't be bought. If I wanted it easy, I wouldn't belong to a 3rd party.But once your family is given free-passes to Disneyland for life you magically forget all about it.
I tend to avoid pirating old software for three reasons, only one of which has to do with the law:
1. Piracy almost never preserves the original software, documentation, and packaging in its original form.
2. I found that pirating software leads to hoarding. Hoarding meant that I was spending more time playing and managing my software collection, but accomplishing nothing of value.
3. It may just be against the wishes of the creator. Note that I'm saying wishes, not financial benefit of. Copyrights cover many types of work, not all of which are produced for financial gain. Note that I'm saying creators here, not publishers.
In my heart, I really do feel that there is something wrong with copyright, particularly from the pecuniary benefit end. I teach people for a living, and if I want to continue to eat I have to continue to teach. I don't get royalties from my students. Heck, sometimes they even take my job! But I wouldn't want it any other way, because the thought of someone working for 10 years then striking it lucky (big record deal, big book deal, or whatever) and making more money than I will in a lifetime strikes me as offensive. Not because of their wealth, but because they are a social parisite thereafter.
1. Piracy almost never preserves the original software, documentation, and packaging in its original form.
2. I found that pirating software leads to hoarding. Hoarding meant that I was spending more time playing and managing my software collection, but accomplishing nothing of value.
3. It may just be against the wishes of the creator. Note that I'm saying wishes, not financial benefit of. Copyrights cover many types of work, not all of which are produced for financial gain. Note that I'm saying creators here, not publishers.
In my heart, I really do feel that there is something wrong with copyright, particularly from the pecuniary benefit end. I teach people for a living, and if I want to continue to eat I have to continue to teach. I don't get royalties from my students. Heck, sometimes they even take my job! But I wouldn't want it any other way, because the thought of someone working for 10 years then striking it lucky (big record deal, big book deal, or whatever) and making more money than I will in a lifetime strikes me as offensive. Not because of their wealth, but because they are a social parisite thereafter.
I disagree quite strong with the idea that the law should be obeyed just because it's the law. Free men engaging in free relations with one another are quite capable of discerning reasonable from the unreasonable if it is within a framework of trust and coorporation, instead of present societies, whose law fetishism and love of competition caters to the most hateful impulses of man.
I've still yet to figure out the best way to compensate software developers, but it is quite obvious to me that it does not involve a system where one could be fined or even jailed from the completely victimless crime of copying 15 year old software out of curiosity or nostalgia.
I've still yet to figure out the best way to compensate software developers, but it is quite obvious to me that it does not involve a system where one could be fined or even jailed from the completely victimless crime of copying 15 year old software out of curiosity or nostalgia.
I have a hunch that, whatever it becomes, "public domain" isn't it.It's not piracy if the company is out of business and nobody bought or took over the old software. Then it becomes public domain.
I was oscillating between voting 1/ and 2/, until I re-read "and it's no longer available"
I try to buy whenever possible. A vintage software purchase is not just the bytes, but the manual and packaging. Often I get more pleasure from reading the manual than using the application. Apple II and early Mac developers were often quirky folks, and there can be a lot of humour and computing intelligence in a manual. Beagle Brothers are an obvious example.
I voted for option 3. I have the money to buy stuff and believe that anyone who has hoarded a copy of some useful software deserves compensation, however nominal. The existence of a second hand or NOS software market encourages sales and keeps the old apps alive. We all know that some software is impossible to locate, even on the darkest side of the internet: many people post here in search of drivers for early Mac hardware. If old software is universally considered as "free", the incentive to sell installation disks and software packs diminishes, and some software will be lost entirely. I don't know whether it is still online, but Herb Johnson wrote a great essay about how free copies of S-100 documentation could make it impossible to make money from manuals in which he had invested substantially.
On the other hand, if software is difficult to find, I'll run a pirate copy until a legitimate copy becomes available. And it is a difficult problem to balance, from both a moral or economic point of view. I publish a few scanned manuals on the web that are still subject to copyright. The copyright owners no longer have a commercial interest in the products, but the manuals may help a few hobbyists. Technically I have broken the law, but my actions are morally reasonable. And if somebody popped up to say that they own 50 manuals that they wish to sell and my action is affecting their business, I'd pull the download.
I voted for option 3. I have the money to buy stuff and believe that anyone who has hoarded a copy of some useful software deserves compensation, however nominal. The existence of a second hand or NOS software market encourages sales and keeps the old apps alive. We all know that some software is impossible to locate, even on the darkest side of the internet: many people post here in search of drivers for early Mac hardware. If old software is universally considered as "free", the incentive to sell installation disks and software packs diminishes, and some software will be lost entirely. I don't know whether it is still online, but Herb Johnson wrote a great essay about how free copies of S-100 documentation could make it impossible to make money from manuals in which he had invested substantially.
On the other hand, if software is difficult to find, I'll run a pirate copy until a legitimate copy becomes available. And it is a difficult problem to balance, from both a moral or economic point of view. I publish a few scanned manuals on the web that are still subject to copyright. The copyright owners no longer have a commercial interest in the products, but the manuals may help a few hobbyists. Technically I have broken the law, but my actions are morally reasonable. And if somebody popped up to say that they own 50 manuals that they wish to sell and my action is affecting their business, I'd pull the download.
We are not consumers of software, we are clients, customers or users.We consumers of software could be worse off than we are, in the same boat as lovers of music, literature, graphic art and so on.
We may consume media, electricity, hardware, ink, physical manuals, but not software.
Just like you can't be a "consumer of ideas".
Err, no, in most places in the world. Copyright is very different between nations: book publishers, for example, sell separate rights in geographical regions.It's not piracy if the company is out of business and nobody bought or took over the old software. Then it becomes public domain.
In the UK, you automatically gain copyright for any original work. You don't need to put provisos on your work; protection is just there, unless you provide a copying licence.
A few years ago, you could "establish your copyright" by posting a copy of your work to specified UK libraries and one of the Dublin colleges (the law was not ammended to cope with the idea of an independent Ireland). "Establishing copyright" just means judgement against the copier can be very quick. The publication of private letters has been successfully challenged in UK courts for breach of copyright, and everything is copyright. Even your hand written note to the cleaner.
If a UK software company goes out of business, who knows who owns what? The copyright is an asset and so it depends on who inherits it.
Uncertainty of ownership is a problem with many old software. Recently I tried to buy a software upgrade for a piece of classic Mac software. After finding the current address of the company and asking for an upgrade, the business manager told me neither an upgrade nor any license for this product will be available any more. They do not even have a copy of the source or a master disk. And often enough you will not even find an address to ask for a license.I have a hunch that, whatever it becomes, "public domain" isn't it.
To copy and recirculate such software most likely will break law. It is a juristic problem with jurassic software, not a commercial one. Some clarification from a lawyer's point of view would be most welcome.
I discovered something a while back: laws are often put into place for a reason. A person's failure to understand those reasons does not really negate the value of the law. As such, I don't like the idea of people indiscriminantly breaking laws (although it is hard to breath these days without breaking at least a few laws).I disagree quite strong with the idea that the law should be obeyed just because it's the law.
Now if you disagree with a law, have considered it thoroughly, and are breaking it as a political statement, that's something different. If you are breaking a law for purposes other than your own gain, that's something different. But the sad thing is, most people don't think about breaking laws for larger purposes. They usually just think about their own immediate needs.
We are unable to consume ideas because they only exist as a neurological entity. Somebody else can have the same idea or something like it. I have to agree because I have never eaten a dream.We are not consumers of software, we are clients, customers or users.
We may consume media, electricity, hardware, ink, physical manuals, but not software.
Just like you can't be a "consumer of ideas".
But software is more than an idea or an electronic entity. It is a machine created by a human and the machine has a purpose designed by the creator. The creator wrote many lines of code (a physical entity if you print them out), and then a machine called a compiler turned them into a new machine called an application. This process requires copyright protection in order to reward creators. The argument about copyright protection is "how long?"
BTW I have never consumed a computer manual, because so few are published on rice paper. And I don't think that manuals can be consumed in the same way as electricity or ink. They are like software.
Software is an idea that can be represented in ones and zeros on a computer.But software is more than an idea or an electronic entity.
If I eat a doughnut, then nobody else can eat that doughnut. I have consumed it. If I buy a computer, nobody else can have that physical computer.
If I have an arrangement of ones and zeroes on my machine, I am not preventing anybody else having that same arrangement of ones and zeroes on their machine.
Well, copyright violation has become a sort of political protest (however ineffective) when the spasms of violence that the software industry coax out of our governments are one of the best examples of how commercial interests are gaining an influence that they do not deserve.Now if you disagree with a law, have considered it thoroughly, and are breaking it as a political statement, that's something different. If you are breaking a law for purposes other than your own gain, that's something different. But the sad thing is, most people don't think about breaking laws for larger purposes. They usually just think about their own immediate needs.