cracking given up software?

[james0tucson]

that´s sounds proficient and it will take a while for me to understand this (no native):D

I'll simplify it a bit.

In a copyright dispute, in the US, it's a completely different legal situation than a crime such as theft.

In a copyright infringement dispute, it's the copyright holder who must bring civil action, which is entirely distinct from a criminal case where the state is a party to the trial.

This is a widely misunderstood point. It's important though, because people seem to have an idea that US law equates copyright infringement directly with theft, which it does not. Basically, they want to pass the responsiblity for prosecution to someone else. In a copyright case, the copyright holder is responsible for prosecution, the state is only a mediator.

[diversheat]

Some developers provide their given up products for free like ReBirth, Impulse, Organ One and so on. Cracking cannot be the right way, for it lowers the threshold of "felt" crime. Be patient and wait for the things to happen.

[aMUSEd]

I don't usually get into these threads about cracking as it's all irrelevent to me but personally I think it's ethically acceptable to crack stuff produced by companies that screwed their customer base over like Bitheads did when they went down. Clearly they did not feel any obligation to their customers so why should their customers feel any for them? - it must go both ways. So this should not apply to those like SynC etc that treated their customers exceptionally well.

[[ xerocreep ]]

grave robbing

necrophillia

canibalism...

and all manner of sexual perversity

You rang?

[Z3R0T0N1N]

[vurt]

cannibalism is not a perversion
we have to eat you know

[Z3R0T0N1N]

grave robbing

necrophillia

I used to be a necrophiliac until some rotten c*nt split on me

split on ya?
that really stinks.
sounds like one cold woman.

[JerGoertz]

grave robbing

necrophillia

I used to be a necrophiliac until some rotten c*nt split on me

split on ya?
that really stinks.
sounds like one cold woman.

Oh goddammit...

[JerGoertz]

As long as you're not depriving an author of their requested compensation because they no longer sell the product, I don't see any harm in cracking "abandonware" and you'll almost certainly see no legal repercussions. (Hell, even cracking active software will probably get you no legal consequences, but that's another problem/topic.)

I'd be careful though, because sometimes what appears as abandonware is just one "dead end evolutionary path" of a currently active product that the developer/company is selling. For example, Dynamo->Reaktor.

[james0tucson]

Clearly they did not feel any obligation to their customers so why should their customers feel any for them?

Well...it's not about "feelings" or "loyalty", but rather about how copyright law is codified and enforced in your locale.

There should be no *obligation* on anyone to publish anything. The idea that a copyright holder should be compelled to release their material is as abhorrent as any other idea against freedom of speech.

My examples all point to a piece of software I buy today, which becomes abandonware in a decade from now, and I assert that I have the right to use it, because my own copyrights to my material are at *least* as important as the publisher.

But I don't assert that abandonware should be free before the regular lapse into the public domain occurs. Whether that ever occurs anymore is a whole other topic.

[aMUSEd]

Clearly they did not feel any obligation to their customers so why should their customers feel any for them?

Well...it's not about "feelings" or "loyalty", but rather about how copyright law is codified and enforced in your locale.

Yes but I don't care about that aspect. I'm talking about ethics, not laws. Laws are often unethical and often plain stupid and this is a case in point.

[james0tucson]

Clearly they did not feel any obligation to their customers so why should their customers feel any for them?

Well...it's not about "feelings" or "loyalty", but rather about how copyright law is codified and enforced in your locale.

Yes but I don't care about that aspect. I'm talking about ethics, not laws. Laws are often unethical and often plain stupid and this is a case in point.

If copyright doesn't protect a software author, it doesn't protect a songwriter either.


The ethical question depends entirely on your point of view. Can you make an unbiased argument that supports your ethical position?

[herodotus]

If copyright doesn't protect a software author, it doesn't protect a songwriter either.

True, it protects the songwriters management firm.

[Improv]

grave robbing

necrophillia

you two get a room

Think you meant to say crypt!

[aMUSEd]

Clearly they did not feel any obligation to their customers so why should their customers feel any for them?

Well...it's not about "feelings" or "loyalty", but rather about how copyright law is codified and enforced in your locale.

Yes but I don't care about that aspect. I'm talking about ethics, not laws. Laws are often unethical and often plain stupid and this is a case in point.

If copyright doesn't protect a software author, it doesn't protect a songwriter either.


The ethical question depends entirely on your point of view. Can you make an unbiased argument that supports your ethical position?

All I'm saying is if the law says it's OK for a software company to rip off it's paying customers by going bust without honouring their contractual obligations to them but it's not OK for those customers to then download cracks of the software they have paid for and are entitled too even if it is a crack then the law is an ass. There's supposed to be such a thing as justice and this ain't it.