Priclessware Promotes Copyright Infringement

[Gordon Darling]

Which just makes it more clear that what Kazaa Lite is doing is wrong.

No it doesn't. What it makes clear is that a bunch of lawyers have issued
proceedings. Innocent until proven guilty is the usual way these things
work.

By promoting Kazaa Lite Pricelessware is also wrong.

No it isn't. What it makes clear is that a bunch of lawyers have
issued proceedings. Innocent until proven guilty is the usual way these
things work.

They are clearly
endorsing Kazaa Lite and the practices they represent, copyright
infringement.

No they aren't. What it makes clear is that a bunch of lawyers
have issued proceedings. Innocent until proven guilty is the usual way
these things work.

By the way, read the DMCA. It is NOT about copyright.

Regards
Gordon

 

[Gordon Darling]

By the way, read the DMCA. It is NOT about copyright.

Should have been clearer. Although it says "Copyright" in the title it's
far more about preventing "reverse engineering" which is legal in most
jurisdictions.
See, for full text.
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf

And also see
http://anti-dmca.org/

Original comments still stand.
Innocent until proven guilty.

Regards
Gordon

 

[Bebop & Rocksteady]

|I'd agree with the sentiment of linking to something illegal. But let's
|wait and see if it *is* illegal before berating the PW list for the
|inclusion of a link to it.

What more proof is need to prove that it is illegal?

It's not illegal yet and hasn't broken any copyright law (YET)
Until it is fully prooven in a court of law.

All of a sudden we
don't take the word or the people who own the copyright?

Ummm no I don't... Microsoft, SCO, and many other compaines are all trying to
do the same thing saying someone has broken a copyright when they haven't
and... and it turns out that they themselves have (especially Mircosoft)
Microsoft is well know for using this tactic

If it truely is breaking any copyright infringment then I am sure it will be
removed... and I am sure you will not be able to download it



--
----------------------------------------
Quantum Illusions: http://quantum.2ya.com
Pegasus Mail Support Site: http://pegasus.quantum.2ya.com
Freeware Site: http://freeware.quantum.2ya.com
DATA Solutions: http://datasolutions.quantum.2ya.com

If you truly want to contact me click the link
http://quantum.2ya.com/email.htm

 

[BillR]

<http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/notice.cgi?NoticeID=861> The
complaint states that the makers of Kazaa Lite have violated the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). By listing Kazaa Lite Pricelessware.org
by default is aiding in the copyright infringement & are guilty of it as
well.

Think about the motivations for filing this suite now. Start with:
- How long has Kazaa Light been around?
- How much has the use of Kazaa dropped since the RIAA started filing
suites?
- How is Kazaa funded?
- What can Kazaa do to fight back?

This is about making some money off the RIAA and preventing them from
"harrassing" Kazaa's users so Kazaa's ad money continues.

One of the (many) intractable problems with the DMCA is that it is one
more tool that can be used to bludgeon otherwise innocent third
parties by those with deep(er) pockets.

Were Kazaa Light a commercial product, the name alone would be illegal
(in my non-lawyer opinion). Whether the program itself is illegal
remains to be seen.

I have no problem advocating original code that interfaces with other
programs. I also have no problem with reverse engineering to obtain
the necessary interface information.

BillR

 

[Mel]

Not that I care at all, but you've got me wondering.
If software is hacked to remove a nag, time limitation, or such
it is considered warez, and OT here unless I'm mistaken.
If this Kazaa lite is a hacked piece of software.
How is this different from warez?
Would Opera hacked to remove the ads be on topic, pricelessware?

According to http://doa2.host.sk/help/aboutkazaa.htm Kazaa lite is a
"modified version of the very popular Kazaa Media Desktop"

In my view, unless the copyright owner has granted permission,
I'd describe it as "warez".

As I would most software that's been hacked, cracked or distributed
without the owner's permission.

The only difference from regular warez that I can see is that the
"legitimate" program is, or so I'm told, full of spyware. So I wouldn't
describe Kazaa lite as priceless, but neither would I feel too guilty
about using it.

It does however seems very different from stolen freeware, where
some scum is seeking to gain credit or profit from an author's hard
work and generosity. I'd also be extremely concerned that any such
scumware might be a Trojan.

 

[Dan]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:24:18 +0000 (UTC), Gordon Darling
| Innocent until proven guilty is the usual way these things work.

In real world civil cases, it only works that way for the wealthy. You
have to be able to afford to defend yourself against the charges. And
that costs a *lot* of money (even should you eventually win - judges
almost never award "court costs"). If you cannot afford to hire
representation, then a judgement will be issued against you by
default. And getting "pro-bono" representation for a civil case ...
well let's just say you have a better chance of winning a lottery.

Most small-fry end up settling out of court, and paying both their own
lawyers and some negotiated amount to whoever brought the procedings.

Theoretically, it should work as you describe, but it doesn't (at
least in civil cases). And the various "reform" proposals offered by
all sides of the political spectrum do little to help. (end of rant)





- return address is altered slightly to reduce spam.

 

[Gordon Darling]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:24:18 +0000 (UTC), Gordon Darling
| Innocent until proven guilty is the usual way these things work.

In real world civil cases, it only works that way for the wealthy. You
have to be able to afford to defend yourself against the charges. And
that costs a *lot* of money (even should you eventually win - judges
almost never award "court costs"). If you cannot afford to hire
representation, then a judgement will be issued against you by
default. And getting "pro-bono" representation for a civil case ...
well let's just say you have a better chance of winning a lottery.

Most small-fry end up settling out of court, and paying both their own
lawyers and some negotiated amount to whoever brought the procedings.

Theoretically, it should work as you describe, but it doesn't (at
least in civil cases). And the various "reform" proposals offered by
all sides of the political spectrum do little to help. (end of rant)

I could have added much the comments, but you did it far more
eloquently than I would have done!!

Regards
Gordon

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

Not that I care at all, but you've got me wondering.
If software is hacked to remove a nag, time limitation, or such
it is considered warez, and OT here unless I'm mistaken.
If this Kazaa lite is a hacked piece of software.
How is this different from warez?

Yeah, Kazaa Lite is a version of Kazaa Media Desktop that has been
hacked to remove the spyware and adware components. IMO, it's not
different.

The conversation seems to be focusing the status of the Sharman lawsuit
and whether or not it will succeed, which IMO is largely irrelevant.
The question as I see it is whether or not it is ok to hack proprietary
code and then redistribute it.

Would Opera hacked to remove the ads be on topic, pricelessware?

Or how about posting registration keys for Kazaa Plus, the payware
version of Kazaa, which comes without ads and has a few more features
than the standard Kazaa Media Desktop?

 

[T-Ray]

[snip]
|The conversation seems to be focusing the status of the Sharman lawsuit
|and whether or not it will succeed, which IMO is largely irrelevant.
|The question as I see it is whether or not it is ok to hack proprietary
|code and then redistribute it.

A good point indeed. IMO it's wrong to do that. If you justify it for one
program like Kazaa Lite then others are right around the corner.

It's even worse that site like Pricelessware.org would be a part of it in
any way. I always thought that Pricelessware would be above such a thing.
They want to be known as place to get "pure" freeware. They want to be
[and are in some areas} respected for what they stand for. The lack of
action by Susan and or Genna is surprising and disheartening. It really
does come across like there is a double standard at Pricelessware.org

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

I always thought that Pricelessware would be above such a thing.
They want to be known as place to get "pure" freeware. They want
to be [and are in some areas} respected for what they stand for.
The lack of action by Susan and or Genna is surprising and
disheartening. It really does come across like there is a double
standard at Pricelessware.org

The PL is managed by vote and concensus, and concensus is not always so
easy to come by. It's not "they", it's "we." Susan and Genna did not
put the apps which are Pricelessware on the PL, and they do not take
them off without the consent of a.c.f. In the past, I can only recall
apps being removed between votes because the freeware versions of them
were no longer available, and in those cases no one in a.c.f objected
to their removal. If this case, there are people who would object, and
I don't see any way to resolve it without a vote. There's one coming
up in November anyway.

 

[Alan]

It's even worse that site like Pricelessware.org would be a part of
it in any way. I always thought that Pricelessware would be above
such a thing. They want to be known as place to get "pure" freeware.
They want to be [and are in some areas} respected for what they stand
for. The lack of action by Susan and or Genna is surprising and
disheartening. It really does come across like there is a double
standard at Pricelessware.org

IIRC, PW represents the very best of freeware, *as voted by the ACF
community*. There's no moral/ ethical aspects in its definition,
although if Kaaza Lite is shown to be illegal, and in the same category
as warez etc. then it will no doubt be removed from the listing. Susan,
Genna and others supporting the list are simply including what the vote
dictates - it's not their position or responsibility to decide what goes
up there and what doesn't.

 

[JanC]

Yeah, Kazaa Lite is a version of Kazaa Media Desktop that has been
hacked to remove the spyware and adware components. IMO, it's not
different.

The conversation seems to be focusing the status of the Sharman lawsuit
and whether or not it will succeed, which IMO is largely irrelevant.
The question as I see it is whether or not it is ok to hack proprietary
code and then redistribute it.

_If_ Kazaa Lite is a hacked version of the main commercial program (I never
used Kazaa or Kazaa Lite, so I have no idea), then IMO it should be removed
from the Pricelessware pages.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Yeah, Kazaa Lite is a version of Kazaa Media Desktop that has been
hacked to remove the spyware and adware components. IMO, it's not
different.

The conversation seems to be focusing the status of the Sharman lawsuit
and whether or not it will succeed, which IMO is largely irrelevant.
The question as I see it is whether or not it is ok to hack proprietary
code and then redistribute it.


Or how about posting registration keys for Kazaa Plus, the payware
version of Kazaa, which comes without ads and has a few more features
than the standard Kazaa Media Desktop?

It seems to me the logical conclusion of this line of reasoning is that
we must stop using AdAware and SpyBot Search & Destroy etc.

In addition we must not block popups, spyware and trojan installations
etc. at sites we visit. These things are the *price of admission* and we
must pay it or abstain.

*If* it's okay to remove ads and spyware by other means than why is it
wrong to remove them by hacking? Is the *means* used the proper scale in
which to weigh our judgements?

Susan

 

[Harvey Van Sickle]

On 17 Oct 2003, Susan Bugher wrote

»Q« wrote:
-snip-

*If* it's okay to remove ads and spyware by other means than why
is it wrong to remove them by hacking? Is the *means* used the
proper scale in which to weigh our judgements?

FWIW, I'd say the means used *is* relevant: blocking ads from
downloading and/or removing stuff which has been placed on your
computer -- your machine, your control -- are fundamentally different
activities than hacking somebody's proprietary code.

I'd compare the first (blocking ads/stopping the ring-home), at worst,
to slipping into a ticket-only event when the bouncer's not looking:
it's morally questionable, but if the venue (program) is concerned
about it, they should step up the entry patrols and make sure people
who don't pay don't get in.

The latter (hacking the code) is like using bolt-cutters to remove a
padlock so you can get in: it's moved on from opportunistic entry to
breaking-and-entering.

 

[Gary R. Schmidt]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 17:24:18 +0000 (UTC), Gordon Darling
| Innocent until proven guilty is the usual way these things work.

In real world civil cases, it only works that way for the wealthy. You

[SNIP]
Then I must be wealthy! That'll come as a surprise to the taxman!!!
(Not to mention my partner, the bank, etc.)

Cheers,
Gary B-)

 

[Mel]

It seems to me the logical conclusion of this line of reasoning is that
we must stop using AdAware and SpyBot Search & Destroy etc.

Ad-aware and Spybot have a legitimate use in removing spyware
that you didn't consent to installing, or which was deliberately left
behind when you uninstalled the host application.

If a user continues to use a host app after removing the spyware,
then that's down to their own moral judgement; and to the host
software's poor design in failing to check its payload.

Personally I would only choose to use an adware application if I felt
that it was really worth the price of putting up with its ads, in which
case it would be free enough for me.

Although I strongly dislike the method of payment for software like
Kazaa, I don't see it as a justification to describe a hacked version
as freeware.

And if as Q mentioned, that a spyware free, payware version exists
then there is no real difference to this and a hacked version of any
other commercial software. Could a hacked version of Windows
XP be pricelessware, or freeware - until MS has it banned?

 

[Dan]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:19:00 +1000, "Gary R. Schmidt"
| > In real world civil cases, it only works that way for the wealthy. You
| [SNIP]
| Then I must be wealthy! That'll come as a surprise to the taxman!!!
| (Not to mention my partner, the bank, etc.)

Or you may just be lucky, or fortunate enough to live in one of those
several nations where all legal costs are automatically awarded to the
victor in a civil lawsuit. That is not the situation everywhere, and
certainly not in the U.S.





- return address is altered slightly to reduce spam.

 

[BillR]

On 17 Oct 2003, Susan Bugher wrote

I'd compare the first (blocking ads/stopping the ring-home), at worst,
to slipping into a ticket-only event when the bouncer's not looking:

More like partially or completely muting blaring ads, going to the
refrigerator while watching commercial tv, or channel surfing -- at
least for static ads in original download and legitimate program
updates. Depending on the ad implementation, the proper analogy
escalates rapidly from a telephone call to a stranger knocking on the
door (either of which could be a survey), to peeping in the windows,
to rattling the doorknobs and trying the windows.

A few years ago I suddenly had some long distance calls show up on a
few monthly bills. Turns out someone had spliced a jack into the
wires on the side of my house. Then there was the prosecuted case
outside Washington, DC where someone planted a digital camera in a
home. Those analogies also apply in some situations.

I'll leave it to each person to decide which analogy applies in a
given case. I have no problem with recommending firewalls with
outgoing blacklists, FLASH togglers, pop-up stoppers, cookie removal
and blocking, etc. -- otherwise known as curtains, window locks, etc.

But then I also read magazines (after shaking out blowins and tearing
off foldouts) and watch tv (legs attached to torso & remote control in
reach). I use applications with static ads and "even" turn on
autoupdate.

BillR

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

It seems to me the logical conclusion of this line of reasoning is
that we must stop using AdAware and SpyBot Search & Destroy etc.

I don't see how that follows. Those two apps will remove spyware
which has been inadvertently installed by a user, very different from
taking someone else's code and modifying and redistributing it
without permission.

And the end result is not the same either. E.g., using either of
those apps to get rid of the ad/spyware components of Kazaa will
cause Kazaa not to function anymore.

In addition we must not block popups, spyware and trojan
installations etc. at sites we visit. These things are the *price
of admission* and we must pay it or abstain.

We must not take the website's content, modify it so that the stuff
we don't like is not gone, then redistribute it by hosting it in our
own webspace.

*If* it's okay to remove ads and spyware by other means than why
is it wrong to remove them by hacking? Is the *means* used the
proper scale in which to weigh our judgements?

Well, I don't think it is ok to download spyware/adware and then
modify it so that the ads and spying are removed, as long as the EULA
does not give permission to do so. Even if that is ok, it has never
been ok in this group, and neutered spyware has never been considered
freeware. Back when spyware was relatively new, there were often
ways to circumvent its spying capabilities and still use it; that
was frowned on here then, though it was brought up quite a bit.

But this leaves out the question of redistribution.

If it's ok to take someone's code, modify and redistribute it without
their permission (and there are plenty of people who think that is
ok, that IP rights should not apply to software), then any piece of
software could be turned into "freeware" in that manner.

 

[Gary R. Schmidt]

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 00:19:00 +1000, "Gary R. Schmidt"
| > In real world civil cases, it only works that way for the wealthy. You
| [SNIP]
| Then I must be wealthy! That'll come as a surprise to the taxman!!!
| (Not to mention my partner, the bank, etc.)

Or you may just be lucky, or fortunate enough to live in one of those
several nations where all legal costs are automatically awarded to the
victor in a civil lawsuit. That is not the situation everywhere, and
certainly not in the U.S.

Nothing "automatic" or "lucky" about it, I just had the law on my side,
and a good barrister, and the judge decided that I should not bear all
costs. In other words, I did my homework _before_ I started the suit.

Cheers,
Gary B-)