Priclessware Promotes Copyright Infringement

  • Thread starter Thread starter T-Ray
  • Start date Start date
»Q« said:
I don't see how that follows. Those two apps will remove spyware
which has been inadvertently installed by a user, very different from
taking someone else's code and modifying and redistributing it
without permission.

And the end result is not the same either. E.g., using either of
those apps to get rid of the ad/spyware components of Kazaa will
cause Kazaa not to function anymore.




We must not take the website's content, modify it so that the stuff
we don't like is not gone, then redistribute it by hosting it in our
own webspace.




Well, I don't think it is ok to download spyware/adware and then
modify it so that the ads and spying are removed, as long as the EULA
does not give permission to do so. Even if that is ok, it has never
been ok in this group, and neutered spyware has never been considered
freeware. Back when spyware was relatively new, there were often
ways to circumvent its spying capabilities and still use it; that
was frowned on here then, though it was brought up quite a bit.

But this leaves out the question of redistribution.

If it's ok to take someone's code, modify and redistribute it without
their permission (and there are plenty of people who think that is
ok, that IP rights should not apply to software), then any piece of
software could be turned into "freeware" in that manner.
Click to expand...

I said:

These things are part of the *terms of use*. A web site owner could (and
no doubt would) argue that by viewing their site the user has agreed to
have a trojan installed, cookies implanted etc. etc.

I don't think we are always morally obligated to accept someone else's
terms of use. I think that's especially true when the consequences of
accepting those terms are not clearly spelled out.

IMO visiting a web site and using a program are two sides of the same
coin. To me your arguments against cracking imply that we must always
accept someone else's terms of use or abstain. I think that is overly
broad. IMO malware is the *primary* consideration - and judgements about
what is or is not acceptable should not ignore that aspect.

Companies collect personal information without my knowledge or consent.
Telemarketers argue that their free speech rights are being infringed by
the do-not-call act. (*Their* interpretation of free speech includes the
right to inflict unwanted phone calls on me.) Spammers flood my mailbox
with unwanted emails.

Companies put code into programs for their own benefit that can create
problems for the user and do not fully disclose what they have done.
(last year's TurboTax for example).

If a company adds code to software that is detrimental to my interests I
think the waters become very murky indeed - and the answers are not
always clearcut.

I agree with most of your conclusions. I *disagree* with the premise the
conclusions were based on.

Susan
 
I said:


These things are part of the *terms of use*. A web site owner
could (and no doubt would) argue that by viewing their site the
user has agreed to have a trojan installed, cookies implanted etc.
etc.

I don't think we are always morally obligated to accept someone
else's terms of use. I think that's especially true when the
consequences of accepting those terms are not clearly spelled out.

IMO visiting a web site and using a program are two sides of the
same coin. To me your arguments against cracking imply that we
must always accept someone else's terms of use or abstain. I think
that is overly broad. IMO malware is the *primary* consideration -
and judgements about what is or is not acceptable should not
ignore that aspect.

Companies collect personal information without my knowledge or
consent. Telemarketers argue that their free speech rights are
being infringed by the do-not-call act. (*Their* interpretation of
free speech includes the right to inflict unwanted phone calls on
me.) Spammers flood my mailbox with unwanted emails.

Companies put code into programs for their own benefit that can
create problems for the user and do not fully disclose what they
have done. (last year's TurboTax for example).

If a company adds code to software that is detrimental to my
interests I think the waters become very murky indeed - and the
answers are not always clearcut.

I agree with most of your conclusions. I *disagree* with the
premise the conclusions were based on.
Click to expand...

To me, your examples do not seem parallel to the situation of Kazaa
Lite. I am not concerned here with how end users thwart companies'
or individuals' attempts to do thinks they do not like. For me, the
part of a EULA that grants or denies the right to redistribute the
code (modified or not) is pretty important. None of your examples,
other than the case of Kazaa Lite, deal with that.

If it's ok to ignore the redistribution restrictions of some apps but
not others, how do we tell? "Malware" is too vague a term to give us
a yardstick.
 
»Q« said:
To me, your examples do not seem parallel to the situation of Kazaa
Lite. I am not concerned here with how end users thwart companies'
or individuals' attempts to do thinks they do not like. For me, the
part of a EULA that grants or denies the right to redistribute the
code (modified or not) is pretty important. None of your examples,
other than the case of Kazaa Lite, deal with that.

If it's ok to ignore the redistribution restrictions of some apps but
not others, how do we tell? "Malware" is too vague a term to give us
a yardstick.
Click to expand...

We seem to be at cross-purposes. I'm not discussing the rights and
wrongs of KaZaa Lite. I'm simply saying that a discussion of the rights
and wrongs should be in context - and IMO the context is malware.

IMO distibuting KaZaa Lite is not the same as ripping off a program with
the intention of profiting from it. IMO freely redistributing a malware
program with the malware removed is part of a continuum of reaction to
unfair practices. That continuum includes the use of popup blockers,
spyware removers etc. etc. IMO it's just pussyfooting around to say that
KaZaa Lite distribution is breaking a EULA but ad blocking, spyware
removal etc. is not.

IMO the bad guys want us to buy into something like Bill Crosby's
version of the American Revolution. Consumers, you will stand in a
straight line and proceed toward the corporations - and remember, you
must *never* break a EULA. Corporations, you will lie in the bushes and
ambush the consumer with ads, spyware, trojans, malware . . .

I think we should keep that in mind when we discuss rights and wrongs.

I've said all I have to say (more than once, I'm afraid). I'll let you
have the last word. :)

Susan
 
The http://www.pricelessware.org site is promoting copyright infringement
by listing Kazaa Lite on their site.
Click to expand...

I don't know if copyright infringement is the correct term but I do
think that Kazaa Lite should be removed from the pricelessware site.
Kazaa Lite is a cracked version of Kazaa and Kazaa sells an ad-free
version. It is really no different than listing a cracked version of
any other payware program..

Eudora provides a free ad-supported version and payware ad-free
version. If someone reverse-engineered the free version of Eudora to
remove the ads, would we list it on the pricelessware site?

Regardless of how you feel about Kazaa and spyware, they do have a
right to say how their intellectual property is used. They have a
payware version and an adware version. If you don't like those, you
can choose another product.

There are other alternatives for file-sharing programs which do not
contain spyware but even if there weren't, cracked software has no
place on the pricelessware list.

See here for a list of known clean and infected file-sharing programs
<http://www.spywareinfo.com/articles/p2p/>



_________
Suzanne
 
if you download an adware product and then block the adds with some
add blocker, this can be considered stealing in most cases,
Susan Bugher wrote
IMO freely redistributing a malware
program with the malware removed is part of a continuum of reaction to
unfair practices
Click to expand...

I wonder if you could legally add (Windows XP lite) to pricelessware,
its a free version of windows XP hacked to remove the spyware and
malware,
this would be very popular also,

I personally would remove kazaa lite without thinking twice about it..
but (windows xp lite) this would be great..lol
 
I don't know if copyright infringement is the correct term but I do
think that Kazaa Lite should be removed from the pricelessware site.
Kazaa Lite is a cracked version of Kazaa and Kazaa sells an ad-free
version. It is really no different than listing a cracked version of
any other payware program..
Click to expand...

< snip >

If all the above is true then I agree 100%. If one can buy an ad-free
Kazaa then a version to avoid paying should definitely NOT IMO be on
the Pricelessware page.

Regards, John.
 
Quote Suzanne(Kazaa Lite is a cracked version of Kazaa and Kazaa sells an
ad-free version. It is really no different than listing a cracked version
of any other payware program..)
I agree.
The fact that Kazaa does all kinds of nasty things with their free program
may be wrong, but it does not give others the right to crack the thing.
 
Back
Top