Man, you're stretching for something to gaff over here, arntcha... :(
You can say whatever you want, and you'll undoubtedly be able to find
some product somewhere that has any specific set of licensing agreement
conditions you wish--folks are invariably creative that way.
For a simple copyright which is all that I <ever> even mentioned, all of
these extraneous conditions are of no bearing whatsoever, there just
crap you're making up to hear yourself type, I guess.
For your own use I don't think it actually defeats the intent of the
copyright to make a single Braille or audio copy--certainly I would
expect virtually any publisher would grant permission on the condition
you did not resell the copy anyway if you were to feel compelled.
Certainly there is a nation-wide organization which does precisely the
audio transcription for the hearing impaired at libraries and other
locations--I know as I have read for them. I'm not sure of what the
organization did precisely, but I suspect they have a blanket
arrangement w/ various publishers.
I'll reiterate--I was speaking <specifically> oa a simple copyright in
the context of the OP wishing to get a product for which rightfully he
would have ahd to pay. The only extent of significance is that one of
the purposes of copyright is specifically to prevent such copying. And,
more specifically, my comment was addressed to the OP in that the
purpose of internet from its origin as ARPAnet was <not> to spread
copyright work around willy-nilly--it was, in fact, a specific condition
of use when I first had access at University to <not> re-transmit such
You are correct, but we are argueing more then one point. A license
agreement is a a license agreement, the arguement was that the copyright
concerned only violating the software protection, that's not true....
Regarding ownership transfer my Windows XP EULA reads:
"Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the
Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to
another end user. The transfer has to include all
component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and
if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity."
On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 18:20:20 -0400, "no(SPAM)vasys"
The EULA for copies of Windows XP distributed with (at least some) new
computers prohibits transfer of the software.
Not that this has much to do with making and distributing copies of
NYW project plans, of course.
Okay, okay, the whole issue of copyright is VERY CLEAR.
But look at this from a woodworking standpoint. I'm going to be
redesigning my router table. Of course, I'll be looking at commercial
products. I'll be studying photos and videos-- whatever I get for free
on PBS or DIY, that is. I'll examine the photos of the router table
Rockler sells, which seems pretty nice. And if I don't buy _that_...
well, I will design and build my own.
I mean, I watched Norm's show on the router table, and liked the design.
But I knew that I didn't need to buy the plans: I could watch his show
and then design my own, with no problem, and it'd probably be closer to
my own needs.
Now, if this guy wants plans handed to him, that's nice (if a bit
infantile). But if this guys a woodworker, then _why doesn't he try to
design one for himself_? I mean, I have no problem designing my
workshop, my projects, jigs, etc. I like doing it. So why does this guy
_need to buy plans_? Is he so bereft of ideas or creativity or simple
engineering skill? Is he so lacking in imagination that he can't shape a
tool to his own needs?
To me, this is like a wannabe journalist coming to a newsgroup and
saying, "I want to write an article about third-world poverty. Can
someone give me an article I can put my name on?"
You have a really poor grasp of the concept of ownership. Copyright, patent
or whatever, someone else created it and that gives them certain rights to
protection. Just because you don't consider what someone has created to be a
work of art doesn't automatically dismiss their right to protecting it.
I'd like to see what you'd have to say if you created a piece of software or
made a movie and then watched as people downloaded it for free while you
lost money from poor sales.
Not saying I've never downloaded anything I shouldn't have, just that I'm
not going to advocate it or lobby for it online.
I have an excellent grasp, you didn't read it correctly.
I don't dismiss it you made that assumption.
If they want copyright privileges,then they should be held responsible for
providing owners with specific
product upgrades and support for the life of the product...
What this says is that, the owner has certain rights as do the creator.
Honestly if anybody is still using software that's 10 years old, I'd say
that they're having a tough time. If somebody wants copyright's for 20
years, then fine support that product for 20 years! You have to distinguish
from devices to software to music and movies! How many times have you bought
a product that didn't perform as it claims or have it break. The difficulty
in exchanging and repairing is at most difficult or cost prohibitive.
I have patents and certainly protect myself. I simply feel that owners/users
should be afforded rights attributed to those who choose to copyright.
Freeware is freeware user beware, but as for buying I think consumers should
be given equal footing and protection under the copyright laws. Ever buy
something that failed that actually cost you more to return, then it did to
buy? Happens everyday but there are no laws to protect you..............
Your on your own, they're protected and enforced by the Federal Government
wrote in message news:DLzye.29909
What's that got to do with using something you don't want to pay for?
And this justifies theft how, exactly?
And what does that have to do with some bozo wandering in asking us to
steal plans for him?
In other words, "some guy sold me crappy software so I'm going to steal
software from now on"? If it's crappy, don't use it. If you just say
it's crappy, and then use it anyway, you're just using an excuse to
steal it. Will I support software I wrote 25 years ago? Sure, but
you're gonna pay me by the hour, and if you expect something I wrote in
1980, or 1990, or even 2000 to still be under some sort of warranty,
well, you're delusional.
Jesus Where Are you Coming From? This has NOTHING to do with NOT PAYING FOR
EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW....................
Are you challenged, why are you so fixated on theft... I WASN'T TAKING OR
JUSTIFYING IT... ONLY STATING THAT CONSUMERS DESERVE EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER
THE EXTENT OF THE COPYRIGHT! You want you cake and eat it too, tough!
did you get left back in 5th grade or something? I don't think I'd pay you
very much for anything you've ever done.... Looks like it'd never work right
anyway! You can't even read....................
So the author of a book should keep re-writing it and sending you new
copies each year? The product may be complete garbage, but it is still
under copyright. Copyright says nothing about quality or usability, or
even if you can sue to get your money back, it simply says that *you*
can't make copies to sell or give away.
If the product sucks why would you want to make copies to give away
"We need to make a sacrifice to the gods, find me a young virgin... oh, and
bring something to kill"
Alarmist and irrelevant to the situation at hand. Guy wants a free copy
of something that is a commercial product. Just because I own a copy
doesn't mean I own the right to give away copies of it. Hardly the same
thing as a rummage sale.
I'm the _last_ person to defend how the MPAA and RIAA idiots do
business, but - if it's worth watching, it's worth paying for. If you
don't want to pay for it because it's 98% crap, well then, don't just
steal it because it's no good, just don't _get_ it because it's no good.
"I'm going to steal this because it's not worth what they're asking"
isn't gonna cut it - if it's not worth it, don't steal it.
Why? You buy something, you buy it with the terms and conditions it's
sold under. Some software is great about this, some software is not.
Their upgrade policy should be something you consider when you decide if
you want to buy a package or not. Again, stealing a package just
because you don't like how they do upgrades, is just pretending you're
making an ethical statement when you're really just stealing from the
software developer whose product you're using without paying for. Been
there, done that, stopped writing shareware because of that sort of
See who's talking about stealing anything............If you simply argue for
arguments sake...........then have at it!
I basically said that "Equal Protection" should be extended under the
Copyright law. Consumers Rights, should be as important as the copyright. I
can see you never paid 10K+ for a computer or software application.... that
didn't perform as sold. Don't get me wrong, just as there are good honest
company's and good honest people. Both deserve protection under the law! But
currently the laws weight protects many dishonest company's over an honest
persons. My point was the abuse of situations that company's claims are
unsupported and the difficulty or making things to costly to resolve happen
more and more frequently and in most cases it's buyer beware........
and don't tell me you never bought something, where the product line or
company was purchased, the Purchase Agreement thusly null and void, and they
still sell the same product now under a different name or even the same,
simply voiding the original contracts for the only purpose of evading
support for the sake of profit. I purchased a software firewall 5 months
ago, it was sold, I now need to pay (the current company) for support or get
it fixed, even to upgrade. Nothing about that in the License Agreement I
I said nothing about stealing but you really got stuck on that! You must
feel very guilty about something huh?
Have you ever noticed that when you top-post it makes it really hard to
quote the context of what you're talking about?
You have no idea of my technical experience and responsibilities. And
10K would be cheap for most of the software packages I deal with - that
wouldn't even pay yearly maintenance on most of them.
Just because you pay 6 figures for a software package, doesn't mean they
have to, or should, support you forever. And yet, you still don't have
the right to give their work away to someone else, because you bought
the right to use it, not to copy and distribute it.
So stop buying Microsoft, and 90% of your problems will go away.
Even though I feel strongly that they have set back the world of
computing by a decade or more, making people just accept security and
stability problems as "normal and expected", I _still_ won't steal from
them or help anyone else to do it.
What does that have to do with some guy wandering in here asking for one
of us to steal from Norm for him?
That was a really long....sentence? And I'm not sure what it's supposed
So don't give them any more money, and get a good firewall from someone
reputable. Or stop fooling yourself and get a hardware firewall.
No, I'm pissed off that I've found copies of programs that _I_ have
written being distributed by people who had no right to do so.
There's no difference, ethically, between stealing software from a
programmer, plans from Norm, or music from a musician. If you want to
use it, pay for it. If you don't like the terms and conditions of the
sale, don't buy it, and don't use it.
only anal retentive bottom feeders bottom post!
You talk shit, bcause if time was money you wouldn't be wasting it posting
your shit on rec.woodworking!
Find another kid to play in your sandbox!
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.