Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Buying then Downloading, What do you Think?
- Thread starter monke
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I do agree, but I think we disagree over the definition of "imply" This is getting silly, have PM'd you.
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.
Unless it's changed significantly since my last FAST seminar (yeah, watch what you say chaps!! 
), 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.
), 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.
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.
Personally I couldn't care less and wish everyone would shut up about it and enjoy the screen shots and info being posted.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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"
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
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.
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...
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...
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
He's talking about newsgroups. once the file's uploaded by someone else, you're only leeching and not uploading at all.