Wonder how legal this is?

[CES020]

I reported them to the BSA.

I didn't know they got merit badges for that..........

 

[WrapperX]

How sad it is that Jiarby and others are being rediculed and singled out for doing the right thing. Whether you want to believe it or not, agree with it or not, the fact remains that Adobe owns the lisence on that software and for someone to try and sell it to make money is, ethically wrong. Now I can't say that I am without sin to piracy. I have my fair share of pottentially pirated software to music. But I am not taking that pirated software and selling it to others to make money for myself. I use it for my own personal use in my free time. That doesn't make it right, but I think it's sad that we would persicute someone who is doing the right thing.

Jiarby - I commend you for doing the right thing. Whether or not you get that reward, I can tell you are decent human being. And that in itself is to be rewarded. There are so few of you out there.

 

[Graphics2u]

Where does the "He who is without Sin" thing end? I mean surely you can't continue to apply that logic to all situations can you? Or do you only turn in those that have done worse things than youreself? I feel that is just a cop out to not feel guilty about your own things you do wrong. It eases a persons conscience when you can point at someone else and say "yeah I may have done wrong, but look at them, at least I'm not that bad!"

I'm not saying a person needs to go out and look for people to turn in. But using the "without Sin" line of reasoning only let's a person feel better about the things the're doing wrong, rather than trying to see how we can be better person ourselves.

 

[WrapperX]

The saying "He who is without sin" is a trick situation. As all humans are sinful it is impossible for any of us to start throwing stones. And it certainly is not He who is without THIS particular sin. But the grander meaning is to not Judge someone for what they do. That does not, however, mean that you shouldn't do the right thing at every chance you get. That is not what that statement says. That statement simply refers to judgement of another for their behavior, when there's a good possibility that the judger is just as guilty of said actions being judged.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

The saying "He who is without sin" is a trick situation. As all humans are sinful it is impossible for any of us to start throwing stones. And it certainly is not He who is without THIS particular sin. But the grander meaning is to not Judge someone for what they do. That does not, however, mean that you shouldn't do the right thing at every chance you get. That is not what that statement says. That statement simply refers to judgement of another for their behavior, when there's a good possibility that the judger is just as guilty of said actions being judged.

I love the irony that those that actually use that line are more then likely quilty of violating it themselves while they use it.

 

[WrapperX]

However this is not a thread of Biblical theology. It is a matter of right and wrong. Which is a portion of biblical teachings. But that could lead this in a terrible direction.

 

[WrapperX]

I love the irony that those that actually use that line are more then likely quilty of violating it themselves while they use it.

Absolutley!

 

[Gino]

Although it's not legal to do..... I think what bob meant is.... Nobody likes a 'Snitch'..... at any level.

 

[2972renfro]

Go for it Jiarby. For those of you that say no one likes a snitch... at one point when is it ok or not ok to snitch? Everyone has something that bothers them for whatever reason.

Does someone have to be physically harmed in order to make it ok to snitch? Or is the software piracy not hurting anyone? Is Adobe so large that it does not matter to you? So if I were to post Steves fonts on here or Fred's clipart you won't "snitch" on me. What if I found a link to either of the above and posted a link for all to download to their hearts content? I don't know of either, I am just using it as an example

 

[bob]

So you are okay with someone stealing your work and selling it for a profit for them and you get nothing in return. Turning someone in for doing something illegal is what you are suppose to do. Ethically it is the right thing to do.

My previous comments were addressed to the demonstrated vigilantism, not the ethics of the event that fomented it. That is another matter altogether.

Nonetheless, we're not talking about some stealing my stuff and doing whatever with it. We're talking about someone selling something, something of as yet unknown origins, for whatever price it wants to ask for it. We're talking about the self-righteous presumption of malfeasance and denouncement of this yet to be shown guilty of anything seller. You can suspect, you can infer, but you do not and cannot know.

Denouncing others for what you perceive as being some sort of nefarious act is something that others say that you 'should' do. Here's a newsflash; there's only two categories of action: Things that you want to do and things that you have to do in order to do those things that you want to do. There is no category of action labeled 'Things You Should Do' to which any adult being should pay any attention. Things you 'should do' are those things that others want you to do in order to accommodate their agendas and prejudices.

The ethical thing to do is run your own life well and not be overly concerned with how others run theirs. Ethics is not a collective phenomenon.

 

[spur]

Although it's not legal to do..... I think what bob meant is.... Nobody likes a 'Snitch'..... at any level.

Tell that to the 16 y.o. kids mother who's son got capped in my town just last week. Witnesses scattered like cockroaches.

 

[2972renfro]

Bob is always right and uses such really big large and also gigantic adult words that you cannot tell what he is saying. It confuses us lower bottom feeders

 

[WrapperX]

Although it's not legal to do..... I think what bob meant is.... Nobody likes a 'Snitch'..... at any level.

Nobody likes a snitch at any level because it tends to get the person snitched on in TROUBLE. Which no one really likes to be in. Whether or not they know the actions is wrong, people have a tendancy to justify it in their own heads to the point where they don't see it as wrong. But it's still wrong. People don't like to be told that what they do is wrong. And when a snitch actually does the right thing and turns someone in, of course they're not going to like them. But they should be mad at themselves for doing the wrong thing.

 

[jiarby]

The people that do not like snitches are the people particiating in, or benefiting from, the illegal activity.

Television, movies, and pop culture (think Grand Theft Auto) have overly glamorized the culture of criminality.

It is REALLY bad in the younger generation (my wife teaches a section on copyright in HS)... They think there is nothing wrong with downloading anything (music, movies, graphics, fonts, etc...) or modding their XBox to play "backed up games". They think Google Images is a free version of iStockPhoto.

Why do they feel that way??

Mostly greed I think.. they are personally benefitting. They want something for nothing.

 

[WrapperX]

A false sense of entitledment

 

[btropical.com]

warning the f bomb is this vid Tony montana

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjQMzW4KaaQ&feature=related

Nobody likes a tattle tail ! I just don't trust religious Preachers or anyone who says I have these super high untouchable moral standards . Freddie got fingered

 

[Techman]

Originally Posted by Techman View Post
make sure you have not one single instance of unauthorized music on your machine. That includes music you ripped from your CD collection.
That isn't illegal to rip music from your own CD collection. You are able to make copies of your own collection, it is only allowing others access to copies of your collection that it becomes illegal, doesn't matter if you got paid or not for it.

Same thing goes with software. You are able to make a copy of said software as a backup as long as it is a backup for your own use not to sell or give to someone else.

There is a significant difference of making copies as backups for your own use, compared to making copies for someone else's use.

It's that intent to distribute is where they get you.

If making copies of anything that you don't own the exclusive rights too is illegal, then think of everyone that is breaking the law when they backup their hard drives to make sure that they have backups. Fonts, software, vector images that they received from the owners in order to do print jobs etc.

It's the intent to distribute that is the illegal action. Doesn't matter if it's for profit, but that you distributed it to other people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Techman View Post
And make sure you do not have one single instance of some avatar you downed from the internet.
Depends on the avatar. Some avatars are given freely from people that own the rights for you to use as an avatar. It might be better to say "a single questionable instance" or something like that. There are instances to where people that own rights to pictures that give other people free access to use those pictures as wallpaper, avatars etc.

Split hairs all you want.

I did not say illegal. I said unauthorized. You are not authorized to rip music from your CD. According to their terms of service you are not authorized to do that. They consider that stealing.

Avatars. Yes some are free. Many are not. Who is to know for sure. I know for sure mine is legal because I made it myself.

The definition of a squealer verses telling for the right reason.

Those who squeal to do so just to get someone in trouble is a squealer, rat, fink, stool pigeon etc.
IE:
Little jonny,, MOM billy is making faces at me.

Those who tell do so to inform to protect the safety or welfare of others.
Mom little jonny is in the street.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

Nonetheless, we're not talking about some stealing my stuff and doing whatever with it. We're talking about someone selling something, something of as yet unknown origins, for whatever price it wants to ask for it. We're talking about the self-righteous presumption of malfeasance and denouncement of this yet to be shown guilty of anything seller. You can suspect, you can infer, but you do not and cannot know.

Actually, the original post was about wondering how legal that it was, so they weren't not assumption complete guilt or not, at least from the original OP's statement.

Also, for the one that supposedly sent a letter(email) to have it checked out, said that they should look into it, also intimating a certain "iffy" status about it, not that they were saying it wasn't totally on the up and up.

Denouncing others for what you perceive as being some sort of nefarious act is something that others say that you 'should' do.

Looking into first, then go forward. Not straightforward to "convicting" the person.

Here's a newsflash; there's only two categories of action: Things that you want to do and things that you have to do in order to do those things that you want to do. There is no category of action labeled 'Things You Should Do' to which any adult being should pay any attention. Things you 'should do' are those things that others want you to do in order to accommodate their agendas and prejudices.

That sounds an awful lot like it shouldn't matter about laws. If there are only two catagories of action: 1. What you want to do and 2. Things you do to get to do want you want to do.

I can think of a whole lof of instances that would fit those scenerios that I don't think you would like, but would fall under those two courses of actions.

The ethical thing to do is run your own life well and not be overly concerned with how others run theirs. Ethics is not a collective phenomenon.

According to that are you saying that is if you are aware of let's say abuse(physical, verbal or both), you don't say a word and you let it go? I'm not saying you think, but you know. You just run your own life don't say anything to anyone? Or you know someone killed someone, you don't say a word, because you'r not in danger or it's not directly related to you?

I don't know if that's what you meant to say, but that is the vibe that I'm getting and if that's true, then we might as well not have any laws, because there wouldn't be anybody that is able to enforce them. Overly concerned to me would mean that a person actually reports something to somebody. They have to take that effort. That's a slipper slope "my friend".

In fact, you really shouldn't be over concerned with how this thread is going as the ethical (right thing) would be to do your own thing and let us do ours. So why even get involved with the thread?

 

[petepaz]

sorry got to the post late , it was removed
what was the post on CL

 

[2972renfro]

Split hairs all you want.

I did not say illegal. I said unauthorized. You are not authorized to rip music from your CD. According to their terms of service you are not authorized to do that. They consider that stealing.

Avatars. Yes some are free. Many are not. Who is to know for sure. I know for sure mine is legal because I made it myself.

The definition of a squealer verses telling for the right reason.

Those who squeal to do so just to get someone in trouble is a squealer, rat, fink, stool pigeon etc.
IE:
Little jonny,, MOM billy is making faces at me.

Those who tell do so to inform to protect the safety or welfare of others.
Mom little jonny is in the street.

Then by your definition it is ok to "squeal" because in this case the "welfare" of someone at Adobe is being affected by pirated software