How can they get away with selling Warez on ebay ?????

[Rangtangtang]

[_starcraft_]

@JohnVulich (what happend to your post?)
anyway

Many physical objects can only be used by one person at a time. If one person
wears a pair of shoes, no one else can wear them at the same time. (The person who
wears them often also owns them, but not always.) This is not true of intellectual
property. Ideas can be copied over and over, but the person who had the original copy
still has full use of it. Suppose you write a poem. Even if a million other people
have copies and read the poem, you can still read the poem yourself. In other words,
more than one person can use an idea--a poem, a mathematical formula, a tune--without
reducing other people's use of the idea. Shoes and poems are fundamentally different
in this respect.

intangible products and intellectual property are not the same thing. thats what the
guy don't seem to undertand and thats why he can't exactly be considered a bright chap.
theres not necesarily ownership of an idea in creatin an intangible product. the
intagible product is not an idea in itself.( in case of softarwe is 0 and 1 and in
case of music is frequencies).
as in real life your building with bricks....in software u build with code. if u build something in real life which u think is an invention u might want to patent it.....and same goes in the software industry.if patenting its not fair in one case its not fair in the other case. theres no reason why it should be different for the tangible or intagible product .
intlectual property apllys absolutely in the same way to physical products as to intangible products.....a particular type of shoe can be replicated and distributed all other the world the same as software. the only differnce is that is more costly and slower to copy.
everyone can have a copy of those particular shoes if they pay....but noone is allowed to fabricate or sell copies of those shoes without the original manufacturer consent.
the phiscal product cannot be copied and replicated with the ease of software.....but intellectual property aply to both in the same exact way. nobody could start cloning and fabricating AMD cpus without being hit by law.
according to the reasoning of that guy AMD shouldn't have this right to protect the
illegal reproduction of their cpus.....cos their cpus are just the result of 100 years of previous research and inventions made by others. they should realy just charge 50 pence for production costs....not the 200 quid u will most likely pay.

let's try and reverse the original quote .

phisical products can be copied over and over, but the person who had the
original copy still has full use of it. Suppose u manufacture a car. Even if a
million other people have copies of that car and use it, you can still drive your car
(omg so amazing) . In other words, more than one person can use the same exact
product--a bmw 3.20,an armani suit, a minmoog --without reducing other people's use
of the product

as u can see it works over way round too....so the difference he was trying to make was pointless.
the true difference concerning physical and not physcal products ...is that one is
protected by law....and the other one still not. that cos the guys in politics are
still part fo the old manufactured economy and they don't have their livelyhood at stake in the new production industry.....which is on the screen infront of you.

" companies like Monsanto are patenting seeds for plants, which has really grim consequences: if
your farm gets cross-pollinated or invaded by Monsanto plants and they can prove it, they can seize part or all of your crop as stolen property. "

braj reinforces my point.....intellectual property is even stronger and more dangerous in case of phisical products!


to conclude .
most developers here don't really want to be paid cos of their copyright,intellectual
property,patent or whatever u wanna call it....but just cos of their work in creating
a product.just like u pay a guy that makes u a table ....your not payin him cos he
invented the idea of a table (in case your not askin a designer table ) but cos of the work and skill he needed to make one.
same way you r paying a devloper not for inventing a synth (most of 'em are all
copies of hardware synths)...but cos of the work and skill he has put into to make u one .

[braj]

Some commercial software has to have some registration or authorisation code, in order for you to use it, and as well, some have some type of dongle???that only allow you to use the software on the original purchases machine.
---------------------------
Shouldn't EBAY, have extra space provided, in regards to software, to inform potential buyers of the unlocking status of software. That is, what is required to unlock the software, and whether its provided as part of the deal. Though it might be a little bit more difficult in verifying with older software.

I don't think it's Ebay's responsibility to ensure a product isn't stolen any more than when someone lists a TV or a car in the newspaper. Ebay already goes further with their feedback system.

[Rangtangtang]

I agree with you, but the code for example is part of the software, so therefore without it, its not complete. It's like stating that you are selling a radio in perfect condition without the knobs????

[braj]

I agree with you, but the code for example is part of the software, so therefore without it, its not complete. It's like stating that you are selling a radio in perfect condition without the knobs????

If they are selling a cracked version, it will work with a substitute code or not need a key etc. The thing they aren't telling you is that it isn't theirs to sell. But Ebay can't police them. There's way too much going on there. Some law enforcement agency would need to do that. Just like if someone was selling stolen diamonds, how could Ebay be expected to know?

[_starcraft_]

___