Buying then Downloading, What do you Think? [Archive]

monke

Oct 24, 2007, 05:25 PM

When you buy a product, do you believe it is legal to download it and use it until you get your actual product?

The idea came off this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=373637) in which petvas had bought Leopard, and then when it came out on torrents yesterday, he downloaded it.

What do you think?

(If this was supposed to be in the Politics, Religion, Social Issues forum, could a mod please move it there? Thanks.)

Much Ado

Oct 24, 2007, 05:27 PM

No. Just wait like everyone else, for God's sake.

Dagless

Oct 24, 2007, 05:30 PM

On the fence. On one hand there's nothing wrong. You're getting the software, they're getting your money. Just because it's from a different source shouldn't be important. After all Steam and other apps don't offer you boxed games, they have online versions which cost less and save on packaging.

I'd actually be happier if Apple did something like that. Packaging, whilst nice to look at, adds to the cost and they have to ship it out etc. A cheaper download version that you could pre-load, then unlock (a la Steam) the minute it's released would be worlds of awesome.

But they won't and it's another story so...

synth3tik

Oct 24, 2007, 05:32 PM

I guess more appropriate would be "Illegal, but couldn't care less" I think most people agree that downloading software from torrents is illegal, but many happily admit they don't care.

Blue Velvet

Oct 24, 2007, 05:35 PM

ntrigue

Oct 24, 2007, 05:37 PM

One license per one CPU. He can download as many reiterations as he pleases on that CPU. Senseless but not illegal.

Frozentoast

Oct 24, 2007, 05:37 PM

Although illegal, my personal belief is that it is morally acceptable having paid.

xUKHCx

Oct 24, 2007, 05:42 PM

Although illegal, my personal belief is that it is morally acceptable having paid.

That is pretty much my stance as well.

/off topic

monke that is an excellent avatar

monke

Oct 24, 2007, 08:16 PM

/off topic

monke that is an excellent avatar

Thanks. I got the idea from a Windows XP one (go figure) and couldn't put it that here, so I had to remake it. :D

Back on topic now...

If I really want the software/movie/cd, then I'll buy it. In most cases there's a trial version for software, and previews for movie's and cd's. Those are enough to get and idea for what you are buying. When you buy something and then download it, you are downloading it illegally. You haven't got your product yet, and thus shouldn't be able to use it. It would be like ordering a new iMac and using it before it got to your house. Don't ask me how that would happen, it's just an example. ;)

mrkramer

Oct 24, 2007, 10:09 PM

it is definitely illegal, plus if you are torrenting it then you are also uploading to other people who are probably less "honest" than you and have not paid for it.

CalBoy

Oct 24, 2007, 11:43 PM

I'm in the 'illegal' camp as well. Just because you've given your credit card number to Apple doesn't mean that the contract has been formalized yet. In addition, the method of obtaining the software implies that you were the third party in an on-going violation of contract law. Just because you didn't put it up to be torrented doesn't mean that you aren't just as guilty. You're enjoying the fruits of another violator's violation; still illegal.

Much Ado

Oct 25, 2007, 04:51 AM

One license per one CPU. He can download as many reiterations as he pleases on that CPU. Senseless but not illegal.

A) CPU means Central Processing Unit, so presumably if you have, say, a dual G5...

B) This aside, that's still not quite right is it?

motulist

Oct 25, 2007, 04:57 AM

I voted legal, but not because it actually is legal, but because I think you meant to ask a different question. There's no question about whether it is legal or illegal, according to the law it is definitely illegal, there's no shade of grey about it. I think the question you meant to ask is:

Is it okay to download software you've paid for while waiting for it to arrive?

() It's fine
() no, it's wrong
() not sure

cwedl

Oct 25, 2007, 05:03 AM

In the eyes of the software company its illegal, regardless of if you own it. or not

zap2

Oct 25, 2007, 05:10 AM

Illegal...do is really care?....no, but still illegal

yetanotherdave

Oct 25, 2007, 05:29 AM

motulist

Oct 25, 2007, 05:32 AM

Do remember that torrents are a two way street. You may have bought a box set and are just downloading out of impatience, but that means you are also uploading, and you have no idea who to. I can garuntee you that at least one of them has not bought leopard, so you are facilitating software piracy, even though technically you are not pirating it.

Although the particular user in this situation used torrents, the poll doesn't say a single thing about torrenting, that's not part of the poll question. There are a ton of ways to DL software without using p2p sharing.

yetanotherdave

Oct 25, 2007, 05:35 AM

Nobody said a single thing about torrenting in this poll, that's not part of the question. There are a ton of ways to DL software without using p2p sharing.

Yes, someone can host it and just have people download it straight off the server.
I bet it's not happening though. Every single leopard downloading will be happening via torrent or p2p, anyone that puts the iso or dmg on a server for direct download is going to have their server hosed within minutes.

juanm

Oct 25, 2007, 06:09 AM

I guess it's legally illegal, but the company, as long as you pay your license, and install it once shouldn't care whether you installed it from some torrent or from a authentic hologram cd. Another issue would be that you've downloaded it, installed, then bought, and you'd still be able to sell it unsealed. In this case, the company is losing money.

motulist

Oct 25, 2007, 06:17 AM

Yes, someone can host it and just have people download it straight off the server.
I bet it's not happening though. Every single leopard downloading will be happening via torrent or p2p, anyone that puts the iso or dmg on a server for direct download is going to have their server hosed within minutes.

I'm not talking about web servers either. I'm not gonna go into any details for obvious reasons, but a LOT of illegally downloaded material comes from sources other than p2p or web servers. Every single leopard download will NOT be happening via torrent or p2p. Just because a person downloads a piece software, it does not imply he is also sharing that software with others.

yetanotherdave

Oct 25, 2007, 06:24 AM

I'm not talking about web servers either. I'm not gonna go into any details for obvious reasons, but a LOT of illegally downloaded material comes from sources other than p2p or web servers. Every single leopard download will NOT be happening via torrent or p2p. Just because a person downloads a piece software, it does not imply he is also sharing that software with others.

Those routes are far from mainstream and usually invite only. The fact that the vast majority of downloads also involves an upload is a consideration for the majority of people who might be considering downloading their pre-order.
Downloading illegitimate software DOES imply an upload, although it doesn'y necessarily mean that is the case.

motulist

Oct 25, 2007, 06:32 AM

Those routes are far from mainstream and usually invite only. The fact that the vast majority of downloads also involves an upload is a consideration for the majority of people who might be considering downloading their pre-order.
Downloading illegitimate software DOES imply an upload, although it doesn'y necessarily mean that is the case.

You're wrong. Perhaps a majority is p2p, but not nearly as big a majority as you think. As I said, I'm not gonna go into details about these alternate routes here, but believe me, they are very significant, not invite only, and not web or p2p. Illegally downloading does NOT imply uploading as well.

twoodcc

Oct 25, 2007, 06:43 AM

Although illegal, my personal belief is that it is morally acceptable having paid.

same here. yeah it's clearly illegal, but should it be? that's the question

yetanotherdave

Oct 25, 2007, 06:49 AM

You're wrong. Perhaps a majority is p2p, but not nearly as big a majority as you think. As I said, I'm not gonna go into details about these alternate routes here, but believe me, they are very significant, not invite only, and not web or p2p. Illegally downloading does NOT imply uploading as well.

I'm no internet n00b, I keep up with stuff, digg.com slashdot etc. There may be a large non p2p filesharing community, but it is unknown to 99% of internet users. I came accross d****** ******t a few years ago. There were restrictions like a 10gig minimum limit on sharing and minimum bandwidth used, whch keeps it to a few hardcore users.
It may not imply uploading to you, but to the vast majority of people it does. What are the main filesharing methods people know? limewire, kazzaa & bittorrent. These are the main download networks and all involve p2p technology.

motulist

Oct 25, 2007, 07:02 AM

I'm no internet n00b, I keep up with stuff, digg.com slashdot etc. There may be a large non p2p filesharing community, but it is unknown to 99% of internet users. I came accross d****** ******t a few years ago.

YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG!!!!

I don't know why you're being so closed minded, but whether you accept it or not, your claims are totally wrong. I have no idea what the heck d****** ******t is, but it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. 99% of all illegal downloads are NOT taking place over p2p. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean that a ton of other people don't know about it.

I'm not gonna respond to you about this again because apparently you can't or are unwilling to accept the possibility that you're wrong and that there are things out there that are significant but that you don't know about. So I'm gonna say it just one more time.

Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant, a LOT of illegal downloading goes on via methods that are not p2p or any of the other methods you're referring to. Illegally downloading software DEFINITELY does NOT imply uploading it as well.

Blue Velvet

Oct 25, 2007, 07:05 AM

Easy now... tiger. ;)

yetanotherdave

Oct 25, 2007, 07:09 AM

YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG!!!!

I don't know why you're being so closed minded, but whether you accept it or not, your claims are totally wrong. I have no idea what the heck d****** ******t is, but it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. 99% of all illegal downloads are NOT taking place over p2p. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean that a ton of other people don't know about it.

I'm not gonna respond to you about this again because apparently you can't or are unwilling to accept the possibility that you're wrong and that there are things out there that are significant but that you don't know about. So I'm gonna say it just one more time.

Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant, a LOT of illegal downloading goes on via methods that are not p2p or any of the other methods you're referring to. Illegally downloading software DEFINITELY does NOT imply uploading it as well.

I do agree, but I think we disagree over the definition of "imply" This is getting silly, have PM'd you.

weckart

Oct 25, 2007, 07:10 AM

Clearly illegal: and to paraphrase CanadaRAM, it's because you haven't accepted the licensing agreement... you know, that annoying bit of pointless text that no-one bothers to read and everyone tries to fast forward through or get to the 'Accept' button. Sometimes, it's the tiny print that says 'all rights reserved'

Problem is, is that's the law and the terms of agreement you sign up to, to use the software, watch the video or listen to the CD.

Not clearly illegal at all. It depends from which jurisdiction you are judging this issue. Whilst enforceable in the US, EULAs in Europe are pretty much null and void (not sure if this have ever been brought to trial, although some legal mutterings apprarently came out of Denmark agin it) because they fall foul of the requirement for the supplier to allow the purchaser to agree to the terms BEFORE purchase. As these are either in the box or a click-through menu on the disk, the supplier cannot rely on this as a binding contractual agreement. Try returning software, once the packet is opened, for example. You are only entitled to a replacement disk if the disk is faulty, not because you disagree with the terms of the EULA.

Queso

Oct 25, 2007, 07:11 AM

Unless it's changed significantly since my last FAST seminar (yeah, watch what you say chaps!! :p), under the UK system it's the use of the software that is illegal rather than the download itself. Personally I would never use an OS that was downloaded from an unauthorised source. There's no certainty that it hasn't been tampered with.

edesignuk

Oct 25, 2007, 07:15 AM

weckart

Oct 25, 2007, 07:22 AM

Personally I would never use an OS that was downloaded from an unauthorised source. There's no certainty that it hasn't been tampered with.

More important than the moral question of whether you can justify getting your hands on goodies earlier than the supplier intended, the above statement unfortunately tends to get overlooked. The sources for a lot of the l33t war4z is often the same as those script-kiddies who like to launch the latest worm into the net.
Far more insidious is the use of zombie boxes to launch spam with control over these auctioned to the highest spam bidder. What better way of increasing your stock than by offering the most sought-after media and software infected with keyloggers and silent rootkit installers via the usual outlets.

CalBoy

Oct 25, 2007, 01:49 PM

Not clearly illegal at all. It depends from which jurisdiction you are judging this issue. Whilst enforceable in the US, EULAs in Europe are pretty much null and void (not sure if this have ever been brought to trial, although some legal mutterings apprarently came out of Denmark agin it) because they fall foul of the requirement for the supplier to allow the purchaser to agree to the terms BEFORE purchase. As these are either in the box or a click-through menu on the disk, the supplier cannot rely on this as a binding contractual agreement. Try returning software, once the packet is opened, for example. You are only entitled to a replacement disk if the disk is faulty, not because you disagree with the terms of the EULA.

I think with most countries with a common law heritage (UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc), what you mentioned presents an interesting problem, and one that I find to be flawed with the EULA system. Usually, a contract must be read BEFORE any transaction takes place. In this case, the terms of the contract are given to the buyer after the fact. However, one easy way to take care of this is to present the contract to online buyers before they're allowed to enter their CC numbers, and to have it clearly (in a reasonable size too) printed on the software box for retail buyers. I think this would easily get around the problem of having to agree to a contract before one can read it (which is usually one of the factors that will render a contract void).

monke

Oct 25, 2007, 08:46 PM

Personally I would never use an OS that was downloaded from an unauthorised source. There's no certainty that it hasn't been tampered with.

Same here. I would never download it but, you never know what happened to the OS/Software. They put viruses in songs now, imagine what they could do with an OS. :eek:

pseudobrit

Oct 25, 2007, 09:01 PM

It's not a question of if it's legal or illegal. We all know for fact that's it's illegal. It's more a question of if individuals in their own minds agree or disagree with doing it.

Personally I couldn't care less and wish everyone would shut up about it and enjoy the screen shots and info being posted.

I agree. If you've paid money for the product, why is there such moral outrage? Apple got their money, the guy got his software and everyone wins except the EULA nazis.

twoodcc

Oct 26, 2007, 06:26 AM

YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG!!!!

I don't know why you're being so closed minded, but whether you accept it or not, your claims are totally wrong. I have no idea what the heck d****** ******t is, but it has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. 99% of all illegal downloads are NOT taking place over p2p. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean that a ton of other people don't know about it.

I'm not gonna respond to you about this again because apparently you can't or are unwilling to accept the possibility that you're wrong and that there are things out there that are significant but that you don't know about. So I'm gonna say it just one more time.

Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant, a LOT of illegal downloading goes on via methods that are not p2p or any of the other methods you're referring to. Illegally downloading software DEFINITELY does NOT imply uploading it as well.

would it be against the board rules if you explained a little more on these other ways? don't show us how or anything, but explain how they work? or what's the difference between whatever you are talking about and torrents?

yetanotherdave

Oct 26, 2007, 07:07 AM

would it be against the board rules if you explained a little more on these other ways? don't show us how or anything, but explain how they work? or what's the difference between whatever you are talking about and torrents?

seconded, I like to be told why I'm wrong when I'm being told I'm wrong, if someone can show me that I'm wrong I'll accept it, learn something and get on with it, but I can't be told "you're wrong but I wont tell you why, you'll just have to unconditionally believe me"

twoodcc

Oct 26, 2007, 07:54 AM

seconded, I like to be told why I'm wrong when I'm being told I'm wrong, if someone can show me that I'm wrong I'll accept it, learn something and get on with it, but I can't be told "you're wrong but I wont tell you why, you'll just have to unconditionally believe me"

i can understand there, and agree with you. as long as you can accept that you're wrong. there are plently of people who can't

nbs2

Oct 26, 2007, 09:49 AM

Not clearly illegal at all. It depends from which jurisdiction you are judging this issue. Whilst enforceable in the US, EULAs in Europe are pretty much null and void (not sure if this have ever been brought to trial, although some legal mutterings apprarently came out of Denmark agin it) because they fall foul of the requirement for the supplier to allow the purchaser to agree to the terms BEFORE purchase. As these are either in the box or a click-through menu on the disk, the supplier cannot rely on this as a binding contractual agreement. Try returning software, once the packet is opened, for example. You are only entitled to a replacement disk if the disk is faulty, not because you disagree with the terms of the EULA.

This requirement varies from state to state. Legally, in MD, I can purchase software, take it home, begin the install, read the EULA, refuse to agree, and get my money back. I can't remember if you can demand it from the retailer or if you can be required to go back to the mfr., but there is recourse. Of course, it is almost impossible for the mfr. to know if you did or didn't install, but that's why MD law also permits (for example) MS to shut down your machine if it turns out you have stolen software. Now, how often does MS do that? I haven't heard of a case. I haven't heard of people returning software either.

wongulous

Oct 26, 2007, 09:52 AM

Well, I don't know. If you're not profiting from it, and it's not technically piracy (as said in the scenario, you have purchased your license), is it wrong to reproduce copyright information?

If I had purchased Britney's new album and it leaked and I downloaded it, am I committing copyright infringement? Sort of. It was definitely in breech of copyright for somebody to take it, since they aren't selling it, but I did buy it before I copied it. The fine line is between copying and stealing--pre-ordering a CD and then stealing it from Best Buy is obviously illegal, but is there a victim when it's only copied (reproduced) and the copyright holder has been paid? Grey area, to me. I personally think it's fine.

The whole haven't-agreed-to-EULA argument doesn't work because even if I download Leopard it still makes you agree to the EULA...

irmongoose

Oct 26, 2007, 10:19 AM

YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG, YOU'RE WRONG!!!!

http://homepage.mac.com/irmongoose/youlose.jpg

On topic - I cannot do much more than reiterate what others have said: it might be clearly illegal, but in every way in can be applied to morality, I have absolutely no problem with it.

irmongoose

pseudonymph

Nov 8, 2007, 02:04 PM

would it be against the board rules if you explained a little more on these other ways? don't show us how or anything, but explain how they work? or what's the difference between whatever you are talking about and torrents?

He's talking about newsgroups. once the file's uploaded by someone else, you're only leeching and not uploading at all.