Interesting speech

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

First, I've already pointed out that if a finance company has a vested interest in a car I buy I cannot do exactly as I please with it. That's a reasonable compromise, as they are taking a portion of the financial risk too.

Also, nobody is saying that a proprietary company doesn't have the right to create proprietary software. However, they do not have the right to trample on your rights or on mine. That is just as wrong as me stealing some developer's code, be it open source or proprietary, and trying to profit from selling it as my own.

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

I still think this is a bogus argument and here's why.

1. There will always be someone who tries to get away with something as long as dishonesty is a part of human nature. That means there will always be a risk associated with producing content, or any kind of product, that will be sold to the public at large. You can not get away from it. It is part and parcel of doing business in a crazy world.

2. The legitimate user is not the one doing the wrong thing. The legitimate purchaser/user should not then have their rights limited just because of the actions of someone else. IOW's misappropriation of content is not the responsibility of the legit user, and it is not their problem. Trying to take away their rights is the wrong way to go about things. That's punishing the people who live by the rules simply because evil exists.

I think I can pretty safely say that if 1, or even 2, out of your 3 children break the behavioral rules that you and your wife have set up for your children neither of you punish the innocent one/s because of the the behavior of the guilty child/children. That's not right, just, nor fair. The same principle is at stake in both situations.

3. Your argument could also be made by car companies, or any other type of manufacturer. Using your logic the car manufacturers could say it should be illegal to sell or purchase a used car, or loan a car to someone who doesn't own one, because it is "stealing" a sale from them.... I don't know of anyone who would accept that as a sane solution to stopping car thefts and/or increase falling automobile sales during hard times. Do you? If not, why do you think it's a sane solution for software or test exams? Because you have a financial interest at stake?

 

To move Freddys analogy a little more into reality
your car is more like an OS
You have purchased that single instance of it, it has numerous parts and components
many of which you can change, swap out, replace

you can replace the media player with a 3rd party one, the browser with another one, skin the windows to look differently (paint job)
install a new application (spoiler mod, spinning wheeeeels)
you can rip the engine out and replace it, if you want, but you don't have access to GM/Ford IP to actually make massive improvements to the engine without using your own knowledge / equipment / parts
you COULD take the whole thing out and replace it with a decent engine, but you could also uninstall office and replace it with open office

I'm unsure how you are using the argument of one of the most IP hoarding industries to try and prove the open source point, the motor industry for decades has sat on thousands of pieces of IP that could of made huge improvements to automobile efficiency, longevity and economy but you know what, it was never in there best interests
and in its not in most software developers best interests to give there code away open source
it might well be in the end users best interest, but the end user isn't writing the code are they?

 

No argument there. I dont have the right to trample on your rights.

But a license agreement IS a contract, and contracts are allowed to modify your rights to a certain extent. For example, over here we have the right of free speech as, I believe, do you. Yet the MS (and other companies) NDA for their exams forbids you from exercising your right of free speech with regards to the contents of the exam. This is a modification of your rights, at least as far as I'm concerned. Its considered perfectly legal. Bottom line, contracts exist to lay down terms between you and the supplier. Anyone can raise a contract for anything (any service/product/etc), and your choice is simple accept or go elsewhere.

If no-one is happy with the conditions in the contract, it will be changed. As a businessman, Im not going to stubbornly refuse to remove the clause that says I own your firstborn, if no-one is buying my product. I want to make as much money as I can from my service, if a clause hampers that, I'll change it so it does.

But by using the product, you ARE accepting the terms of the contract. If they say in their contract that they want to retain a list of all the licenses for every product you own, and that they will collect this in the background whilst you work, and you accept it (usually without reading), then tough in my opinion. If you dont like it, stop using it.

On the Car example, if a manufacturer released a line of cars with exactly that setup. You entered into a contract forbidding you from having non-authorised dealers do work on the car, and you couldnt modify it except in specifically listed ways, they would be well within their rights to do so. Would people buy the car? maybe, maybe not. In a situation like that they would likely charge less than standard for the car - with the idea that they would make more money in repairs in the long-term. Maybe they would appeal to the first-time buyers wanting a reasonable car for cheap. I would certainly consider buying a car with those conditions attached (at the end of the day, the car takes me from a to b. Im not interested in a big spoiler on mine. Again, though, at the end of the day, either enough people will buy it that its not a problem for them, or not enough will buy it, at which point they will either discontinue the line, or change the contract. The example you make with cars makes them an Open Source parallel. Fair enough - but the proprietary parallel for cars doesnt exist at this moment. That doesnt mean it cant exist. Just that it doesnt right now.

For me, its about ethics I suppose. Software developers have every right to have their software in a closed system, preventing users from accessing their source code or modifying their program if they so desire. Users have the right to not be spied upon. I personally disagree with (as I've previously stated, a couple of times) taking information that is not necessary to the functioning of the program - at least not without express consent (A good example of this would be with emailed error logs - A program I use takes information about the computer setup - but it asks if you want to send the information, and also shows you (if you want to look) exactly what is being sent. Not general information, the actual data about to be piped over the internet)).

I do believe that any developer should be ethical in their design and programming. I personally believe that you have the right to privacy, both in regards to other data on your machine, and any data you produce through my Application.

 

I agree with your statement.

 

I think many very interesting points have been raised. The main point to me is software is now covered by contract law, the software license can cover many pages and have many 1000's of words for just one product, nobody reads these anymore they just blankly accept them, the only real defence they have is their other rights in law which will hopefully be upheld. Many products are now machine locked, in 10 years time you cannot run them on your new machine when the old one blows up ! Even if the distributor has gone out of business !

These are some of the issues at the core of the Open Source vs Commerical model, either model can damage your business potentially, depending on the circumstances. Nearly everyone involved has an agenda and obviously a lot of money is at stake.

To draw analogies to other fields I'd look at science, a lot of research is publically funded and made available to the greater good. I think this is very laudable and is close to the Open Source philosophy. I am also glad however I have a paid job as a programmer due to largely to commerce, however these days this is often down to consulting and not commercial off the shelf software. Musics often the same now, bands make more money touring than from their albums.

To sum up I think the balance has gone too far and people should be wary of this, freddy is right, the people that pay the most for disruptive licensing practices are generally genuine users, if simply negotiating a contract and licensing takes you a week maybe its time to reconsider open source ?

 

It's an interesting subject.

Has anyone read 'Next' by Michael Crichton?

It discusses issues raised by medical/scientific groups which patent genes as they are discovered.

The consequences of this is that it prevents some useful research into illness etc because in order to carry out the studies,
the company needs to use a gene which has been patented by someone else.

It also raises the rather amusing (or frightning) situation where a company patents a gene found in a living individual,
as it is found that it makes him resistant to cancer.

From a legal point of view, they own that gene.
When they lose their stocks, they send out a bounty hunter to recover 'their' property, with the full backing of the courts.
This involves taking tissue samples by force from an unwilling participant.

I can see parallels with what we are talking about here.
It's all about 'ownership' in some way.

Crichton argues that all genetic information should be 'open source' for the benefit of mankind - but of course while there are lots of organizations out there making billions of monies, it's unlikely to happen.

He goes on to ask, what next?
Somebody will patent the human nose.

That will put those who make eye glasses, suntan cream and paper tissues at their mercy - as their product depends in some way on the human nose.

Getting a bit silly there...

 

You are correct about that. But with licensing that is spelled out, I have legal recourse to pursue those who distribute my software illegally. Without licensing, there's not much I can do about it.

That's not the point. I still want ALL of my children to follow my rules. The licensing is my rules to my customers. If they don't want to abide by my limitations, they don't have to buy or use my product. As Fergal stated, your choice is simple to accept the terms or to go elsewhere. The market itself will determine whether my licensing is unfair or not.

That said... there's a reason why every legitimate training software provider contains similar licensing restrictions... because the market has determined that it IS fair.

But it's not the same business model. You have something physical with a car... you don't have something physical with software. Plus, a car maintains its usefulness; training software does not... you use training software to get certified, then you never use it again.

 

I'm going to comment on only part of this.

There is a very similar business model in textbooks. A person takes a class, buys a textbook, and then never uses it again. In your view of things that textbook ought to be burned after they are used once so no one else could use it again. That's just foolishness. The author has copyrighted his book. He gets paid once for the sale of the book, yet the book can be sold 20 or 30 times after that, and used by many different people. Your exam software is no different in principle. In my view, your industry is ripping people off through unreasonable licensing schemes. Has the market accepted it? Yes, but only because there is no alternative. If there were alternatives you would see your industry's market share go to nothing due to the licensing schemes.

Just because someone gets away with something doesn't mean it's right or ethical. Do authors make money writing text books? Yes. Are they getting ripped off because people sell their used books? No. Your industry just wants to take away the right of ownership and eliminate the doctrine of first sale, at least that's how I see things, because that is in essence what it is doing. It is the increasing pressure on removing the rights of the individual by corporations who have only one thing in mind: more profit. You're very much a part of it, and think you should be able to eliminate long established personal rights due to your desire to make money.

I take great offense at this kind of behavior. Your right to make money stops at the borders of my individual rights. Your right to profit does not outweigh my rights of ownership and the long held right of "first sale" over what I have purchased.

If this crap keeps up none of us will have the right to own anything. Its a very dangerous road that you advocate. But, that's where unbridled greed leads. The very people who push these concepts are cutting their own throats, and the throats of their own children, in the process, and too greedy to recognize what they are doing.

 

But a textbook can continue to be useful as a reference after the book has been read. A practice exam, not so much. It's usefulness is generally limited to helping you pass the exam. Once you've passed the exam... that's about all you need the product for. Has nothing to do with greed. It costs quite a lot to produce a high-quality practice exam. Without that licensing model, we'd not be able to stay in business. Then who would create high-quality training products? If it were possible to do otherwise... why hasn't someone done it? Because they're all greedy? No... I don't think that's it... free exams have been available for a long time, but they're extremely poor quality.

Actually, IT book sales are down to about 5% of what they were 5 years ago... and they're suffering because of it. Or have you not noticed publishing companies like Sybex, Wrox, and Que being sold, or the original Exam Cram going under? Plus, there are not ANY books for some of the certifications out there. When it's not fiscally feasible to publish them, companies simply stop publishing them.

You can take great offense at these licensing methods. That's fine. You are making your voice heard by not buying the product. That's great. But many, many, many others have no problem with it. Perhaps you think they're naive, but they *really* don't have a problem with it... or they wouldn't buy it either.

I advocate only the path of letting the market determine what the customer will and won't allow. When they have a problem with terms of a sale... they will decide with their wallets and pocketbooks.

 

The end result of conditioning people to the idea of signing away their rights via contract is someplace I don't think any one of us want to end up in. What's next? The old indentured servant contracts? Selling our children's rights for profits? This is a very slippery slope, and our individual rights are under attack as never before.

The fact that this is being done for nothing more than profit is reprehensible in my mind. I have nothing against profit, but I do have a problem with profits that come from this type of behavior. I don't think anyone has the moral right to ask anyone else to do this. The fact that there are people foolish enough to give up their freedoms for nothing more than software doesn't make taking advantage of their foolishness moral or ethical.

 

If you don't want to sign a contract that forces you to serve in a particular capacity for a certain period of time (medical students in exchange for student loan payments, IT personnel in exchange for training, military service obligations, etc.), then don't sign one. If you don't want to sell your children's rights for profits, then don't do it. YOU make the choices for you. And I make the choices for me.

I guess I should work for free, then.

Man, you're a riot.