Page 3 of 3
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:11 pm
by biggziff
Smoking Gun wrote:biggziff wrote this suggestion:
biggziff wrote:Fines can be $25,000 for the first offense regardless of who you are or what you do with the software. Every person that downloaded the software had their IP address and DNS information recorded in the logs of the server at Respironics. Will they ever do anything with that data? I have no idea. I do know that I have seen people prosecuted for less.
but then biggziff wrote this:
biggziff wrote:No one is suggesting that anyone is "coming to get" anyone...
biggziff wrote this personal attack:
biggziff wrote:that you feel this way says volumes about your state of mind (add in the guest posting and it all seems clear)
but then biggziff wrote this:
biggziff wrote:When we start moving towards personal attacks its abundantly clear that the nerve has been hit and rational discussion is going out the window.
I have seen no personal attacks leveled in this thread (except yours). You volunteered the fact that you work in the area of IT security, which definitely brings a different perspective to this discussion. Software users, who are just trying to control their own therapy, are understandably sorry to see the free download disappear. IT security employees, who are just trying to do their job, are understandably happy to see it locked safely away. Whether or not you, or I, or anyone else thinks it should have ever been available for free, is a moot point.
Re: Agreement Achieved
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:12 pm
by sleepyJD
Take it for what its worth. Not meant to be anything more than explaining the law. If you felt it to be "ominous", well..thats not my problem. No one is suggesting that anyone is "coming to get" anyone...again...that you feel this way says volumes about your state of mind (add in the guest posting and it all seems clear)
Ah well...I think I'm done. When we start moving towards personal attacks its abundantly clear that the nerve has been hit and rational discussion is going out the window. Do what you believe is right and I'll do the same.
_________________
CPAPopedia Keywords Contained In This Post (Click For Definition):
respironics[/quote]
We are truly heading for doom when we take an IT security person's "explanation" of what the law is. As someone who makes their living representing both plaintiffs and defendants in copyright infringement litigation (particularly in the Internet and computer software arenas), it really bothers me to have someone (especially someone with no legal training or experience) making such absolute (and incorrect) statements about what the law is. Especially when it is done to cop a moral superiority attitude in a forum where people regularly and uniformly help each other in matters of grave importance. I am not about to get into giving legal advice in this forum, but suffice to say that the law in this area as applied to the situation with the Respironics website is complicated, highly fact specific and is simply not amenable to absloute statement such as those made by biggziff.
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 9:27 pm
by biggziff
Hmmmmmm...
Penalties
Software piracy can subject an individual to arrest and criminal prosecution, with fines up to US$250,000 and prison terms of up to five years. In civil cases, developers can obtain the higher of its lost profits plus the infringer's profits, or statutory damages of up to US$150,000 per product. In addition, developers may seek to recover their attorneys' fees. As many companies know, the press loves to cover when a company has had to pay significant fines for having illegal software. Don't be one of them.
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/iplaws.htm
http://www.bragg.army.mil/18abn/software_piracy.htm
My experience stands as expert witness in more than enough cases to know what the law is. It doesn't take a JD to be able to interpret the law as it applies in software litigation.
I think what you intended to post was "morally superior attitude". Before you pass judgement on your 3rd post, go back and see if I've made any contributions and what my general attitude has been here. The general lack of regard for the law in this case really bothers me. The attitude of "It's on the internet so it must be free" is so pervasive that you'd think I'd be used to it, but finding it here has really taken me by surprise. I guess by now I should know better, but I really try to believe that people are generally good, just often maligned. Education can often be the best route towards understanding so I usually try to take that route, but there are those that just don't have any interest in what is right and what is wrong. For them, morality is just a phrase. My moral standing is just that...my own. I answer to one authority and it isn't you. I chose to follow the legal method of obtaining this software. If you did the same then I commend you. If not, well..you have to live with that decision, not me.
I wish you well.
Re: Agreement Achieved
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 11:34 pm
by Smoking Gun
Joe_0206 wrote:Looks like you're talking about me! Nice of you to drop me a PM.
But if he'd simply sent you a PM we wouldn't have been privy to the posturing, lecturing, scare tactics and morality play. Where's the fun in that?
yardbird wrote:I live and work in the IT field (at a university). I am a reseller of computer hardware and software. It is NOT an unusual thing to find the exact same software freely downloadable from the manufacturer AND available for retail purchase. So this argument that just because it was for sale someplace automatically making it a no-no to download it from the manufacturer when that manufacturer made it plainly available just don't fly with me. Sorry. Now they've placed it in an area that requires a login and pass. What does that mean? It means it's no longer freely available from the manufacturer. End of story.
sleepyJD wrote:We are truly heading for doom when we take an IT security person's "explanation" of what the law is. As someone who makes their living representing both plaintiffs and defendants in copyright infringement litigation (particularly in the Internet and computer software arenas), it really bothers me to have someone (especially someone with no legal training or experience) making such absolute (and incorrect) statements about what the law is. Especially when it is done to cop a moral superiority attitude in a forum where people regularly and uniformly help each other in matters of grave importance.
I'm so glad you took the time to comment, yardbird and SleepyJD. It is refreshing to hear from someone who knows the facts.
I think the biggest loser in all this is poor Einstein. The guy's got to be rolling over in his grave.
Might want to read this...
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:03 am
by Guest
Is pirating illegal even if the software is being given away for free?
The unauthorized copying of software is illegal, regardless of whether it is done for sale, for free distribution or for the copier's own use. Moreover, those who copy are liable for the copyright infringement whether or not they knew they had violated federal law. Penalties include liability for damages suffered by the copyright owner, plus any profits from the copying or statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each work infringed.
http://www.siia.net/piracy/faq.asp
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:09 am
by Irony
biggziff wrote:Sorry, but you lose all credibility when you hide behind a guest post.
Have nice day!
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:21 am
by yardbird
I wasn't going to respond in this thread again, but...
Please don't take my earlier post as meaning I have a cavalier attitude towards software piracy. Making illegal copies is still illegal. However, for a time the software was made available for "electronic delivery" to anyone BY the manufacturer. There were no caveats posted on the download page at that time (I looked). That manufacturer has now changed that electronic delivery to require registration. If you were to now use a means to bypass their registration on the website to find and download the software, you'd be doing something bad.
The fact that a version was previously available still doesn't give anyone the right to redistribute that software, free or not, without permission of the copyright holder.
But the notion that someone's going to come knocking on your door for downloading the software previously probably isn't very realistic. Possible. But very unlikely given the availability previously.
You don't put something in a place on the web with no restrictions to access and no statements about who is allowed to use it and then go after people who DID use it and who weren't listed in the End User License Agreement which is only visible as it's being installed.
Please take software piracy seriously, but please put this one to bed (no pun intended).
Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2006 8:01 am
by snorzalot
It is clear this post has been growing for a number of days and it's equally clear this post is not going to have a 100% satisfaction resolution for all parties.
Like all forums, there comes a time when a thread needs to go "bye-bye."
The focus of this forum is to discuss sleep apnea, PAP technologies and personal experiences... i.e. to help and support one another.
The point about software piracy has been made and there are mixed feelings running the entire gamut of right or wrong. However, the end result is the main topic is now way off the intended discussion regarding sleep apnea, PAP technologies and personal experiences.
Thanks for posting opinions and standing up for what you believe, but let's move this forum back onto topic and start posting the support/help information that has made this site such a great resource!
Thanks!