License to use for a period of time is quite legal and common here in the USA.
I am curious how trail versions of software are treated there in the UK based on what you have posted....
Printable View
License to use for a period of time is quite legal and common here in the USA.
I am curious how trail versions of software are treated there in the UK based on what you have posted....
Sorry, I should qualify that...Quote:
Originally posted by TheCPUWizard
License to use for a period of time is quite legal and common here in the USA.
I am curious how trail versions of software are treated there in the UK based on what you have posted....
It's illegal to mislead a buyer into assuming that something will carry on working when in fact, it will stop working after a preset time. As long as the buyer knows that it's time limited, that's legal. My argument with I-CD was that they didn't tell me that their CD was a time-limited product. I was led to believe that I was buying it outright.
That makes more sense...
Here in the USA, any of the following would be acceptable notification:
1) printed information, VISIBLE prior to purchase or commitment [small type is ok, minimal generally accepted is 6pt]
2) License agreement that you must agree to prior to using the program [privoded there is a return method is license has not been agreed to AND item #1 was not in effect.
A valid point. I will accept this as an exception to the rule, but in previous posts people had failed to distinguish between this and real (money-deserving) effort.Quote:
Originally posted by John E
If we assume that most of today’s pirated music is ‘pop’ music (as opposed to classical music) then you have to look at how much effort goes into the original work and what the artiste’s motivation is.
Right, but that's not what I meant. When the circumstances require that you break the law - any law - then it's okay to do it. This is one of those circumstances (replacing a broken CD because you already paid for the music that was on it). The purpose of a law is to give security and unity to the people it was made for (a bit Locke-ish, i suppose). If you are fulfilling the purpose of the law, then it is as if you are following it. The purpose of the law around which this thread is focused is to prevent artists from losing money to copying devices. In the situation you mentioned before, they have already received their share of the cash. So it's okay to break some laws (why follow a 100kph speed limit sign when traffic is doing 120? It's dangerous)Quote:
Originally posted by Amn
Oh, solarflare, THATS EXACTLY WHAT THE LAW FORBIDS. E-X-A-C-T-L-Y. I repeat: You cannot copy the CD you have bought to any other media, including CDR, harddisk, MP3 player or any other form so mentioned
Thanx solarflare ;) - I think the two endpoints of our opinions have joined together, and we for once agree with eachother ?! :D
Anyway, ANY CHIKOS AND NENAS WHO DIDN'T VOTE YET ?
Vote now !!! :mad:
:p
Okay then I think it's fair to summarize the conclusion we've come to. (unless you have any objections...?)Quote:
Originally posted by Amn
Thanx solarflare ;) - I think the two endpoints of our opinions have joined together, and we for once agree with eachother ?! :D
The law is in place for a reason - many valid reasons, in fact. There are times when it is necessary to break that law, however.
Would you still say that it's a bad law?
Yes, i am still of opinion that it is horrible and childish, for the reasons that are summarised in many previous posts.Quote:
Originally posted by solarflare
Would you still say that it's a bad law?
Still i agree with you that part of it is forwarded of 'pure' human reasons, and that artists will benefit from it. Also, i have to admit, I am gonna have to consequently break this law, simply because it is impractical in its current form, and leaves me little choice. I will ensure however, that I still stick to my moral values, which dont go well together with stealing artist's bread ;) So, in short, the law is stupid in its proposed form, but in situations where the copyrights are abused, it will help to bring criminals to justice, when otherwise left free because of lack of legal action base.
Quick! Where are our undercover FBI agents? :DQuote:
Originally posted by Amn
i have to admit, I am gonna have to consequently break this law
Well, to rehash old issues of mine...Quote:
The law is in place for a reason - many valid reasons, in fact. There are times when it is necessary to break that law, however.
Would you still say that it's a bad law?
Drug laws have a very good reason behind them. Abuse of drugs is a serious health issue. However, many cultures have sacraments that are also banned in many cultures, making practice of their religion impossible except through breaking the law. Even Tabernanthe iboga, an african sacrament that has never been a drug of abuse in the states is banned in the US. The major sacrament that is not banned is (surprise?) wine. I never think that pointing a gun at someone (which is what a law does) is ever necessary when no one elses rights are being violated (on drugs, health issues should be dealt with as health issues). And the point of this thread exemplifies that in a non-controversial realm.
Neo, wake up... ;)Quote:
Originally posted by solarflare
Quick! Where are our undercover FBI agents? :D
I am Morpheus. This is The Matrix. The reality is an illusion induced by machines. Swallow the red pill, and I will show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.
I don't think we should get into this, but the idea behind making some drugs illegal is that people who possess and intend to sell them are destroying kids' lives (or whomever they sell to) by making them available.Quote:
Originally posted by galathaea
I never think that pointing a gun at someone (which is what a law does) is ever necessary when no one elses rights are being violated (on drugs, health issues should be dealt with as health issues). And the point of this thread exemplifies that in a non-controversial realm.
... and fast food, too?
Should non-conforming religions just disappear?
What about adults? Its perfectly possible to protect children. What about prohibition = black market?
Quick. Don't hurt yourself or we'll shoot!
A point raised by many. Government should be about protecting freedoms, and some go way too far.Quote:
Originally posted by galathaea
... and fast food, too?
Should non-conforming religions just disappear?
What about adults? Its perfectly possible to protect children. What about prohibition = black market?
Quick. Don't hurt yourself or we'll shoot!
It's unfortunate that some governments try to impose laws on others as well, even though they may be detrimental in a different society.
Eh, Yves, if you are here, we are going off topic, so if you had a good day can you please move us starting from here to some thread ? :) Or if you had a bad day, please * Morpheus voice * Disconnect Us ! :D
I actually find the whole drug issue very fascinating. For many reasons really. I was interested in all this for quite some time now.
You know, how people have accepted the general attitude towards drugs, as something ultimately negative, as something that should not have existed in the first place. I think this is very subjective and limiting point of view. Indeed, the consume of drugs in its current manner and scale produces a whole underclass of society that are mislead in their senses, misunderstood by their fellowmen, destroyed physically, mentally and morally. This is horrible indeed. It is in our human physical nature however to CREATE HABITS. Without habits our own psychology and adaptation to the environment simply does not work. So, we DO need habits. But drugs are so immensely powerful into twisting our brain and body to believe we need them, they so brutely and carefully at the same time, make us believe in the better condition under their influence, we become drug addicts, just like we become coffee addicts, porno addicts, and money addicts. Ancient religions all speak of paradise, and it is also natural for every human to desire paradise or whatever feels like it for you. Buddhism teaches people eternal happines through radical physical and mental methods. The bottomline is, it is the most profound human need and desire - to be happy, as long and as deep and much possible. That's why drug affect us. Anyone who has been on drugs and has quite knows how pleasant he feels under thier influence, and how horrible it is to be without them. You see, once you have climbed the seventh sky, falling down makes you cry like a newborn.
So what is it we have laws against ? Against falling down and realising how painful, ordinary, sucky life is without drugs, or against trying to be happy by choosing the more destructive road ? And how do we deal with people that are so morally and physically strong that they are able to withstand long lasting drug-induced experience without actually getting hooked. The sort of drug-control people. Indian shamans are known to constantly be under some sort of drugs, and so are other minorities, and can we say with a good deal of confidence that it is of no benefit to them , and so indirectly to us ?
One good example of drugs helping is, of course, medicine. How many people BEG for them when surgery is needed.
What I wanted to say is, let's not look at drugs through blacknwhite filter, lets be objective. I have not tried any drugs, but that is only because I am afraid to get hooked. So, basically, i am not opposing usage of drugs, but their control over my psyche.
But I really want to try all drugs in the world, because i believe they open unrealised portions of self. They are like a very big but fragile door to unknown, where if you make a wrong step the whole door and the whole surrounding base collapses burying you with it.
Okay, since you asked, here's one reason that governments ban drug usage.
The government is (theoretically) made so that the society can be more productive and orderly. The people who do drugs, on average, are much less productive (many addicts don't have jobs) and orderly (in their distorted reality it is easier for them to get in a fight or destroy something, etc.). It is intuitively clear that to improve the average you must eliminate something below the average. People on drugs are not being the best they can be. If they didn't do drugs they would be more productive, leading to a "better" society. The emphasis is on the whole here, not the individual, because government is meant to improve the whole. Therefore, they ban drugs.