J
John Fitzsimons
< snip >
If someone else does something wrong it doesn't mean that you
are morally-justified in doing something wrong too.
< snip >
If someone else does something wrong it doesn't mean that you
are morally-justified in doing something wrong too.
F
Franklin
It's not really a question of two wrongs don't make a right.
It is more to do with getting redress. And what might be more
appropriate than ensuring you got what you had reasonably thought you
had been supplied with?
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=
From your OP, ISTM that it had to do with revenge for things that
make you "ANNOYED, REALLY ANNOYED and SUPER-REALLY ANNOYED".
Almost anything that's actually legal might be more appropriate.
Others have requested specific examples which you'd consider it ok
to crack. Can you point to any?
T
thunder7
I think I understand what you are saying here.
You download a program that says "its FREEWARE" yet once downloaded and
installed you find out it is not freeware but "SHAREWARE."
I think if you go to the gas station and it says 'FREE GAS FOR YOUR
LIFE-TIME." It is free gas till the day you die!.
It is not free till tommorrow,..."It is FREE!."
And I have downloaded and installed A LOT of programs that claim to be
freeware, yet only to find out it is nag-ware, or Shareware.
It makes you pretty mad this is for sure and I have emailed plenty of
programmers and websites to complain.
I do understand programmers have the right to be paid for there effort.
However, when it is 'FREEWARE" it should be FREE.!"
And cost the downloader nothing, that is what FREE means,..like Duh!.
You download a program that says "its FREEWARE" yet once downloaded and
installed you find out it is not freeware but "SHAREWARE."
I think if you go to the gas station and it says 'FREE GAS FOR YOUR
LIFE-TIME." It is free gas till the day you die!.
It is not free till tommorrow,..."It is FREE!."
And I have downloaded and installed A LOT of programs that claim to be
freeware, yet only to find out it is nag-ware, or Shareware.
It makes you pretty mad this is for sure and I have emailed plenty of
programmers and websites to complain.
I do understand programmers have the right to be paid for there effort.
However, when it is 'FREEWARE" it should be FREE.!"
And cost the downloader nothing, that is what FREE means,..like Duh!.
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=
Though you replied to my message, I don't think you do understand any
of what I said. I didn't download any such program, and I didn't say
anything like that.
S
Susan Bugher
thunder7 said:
There's something you can do that might be more effective. Name names
and tell us what the problem is (ISTM you're unlikely to change the
hearts and minds of authors who are set on deception). ACF is a good
place to let people know what the true situation is.
The ware descriptions on the ACF program information pages are as
accurate as I can make them. I ESPECIALLY try to include the "gottchas"
- the hidden catches. But. . . SOMEBODY has to TELL me - I am often
unaware of the gottchas until that happens. IOW - if there is a catch
why not do your best to make sure it doesn't remain hidden.
Another *effective* way of protesting deceptive advertising - if the
author lists the app on a Freeware/Shareware site let them know too -
good sites will remove apps that claim to be free but are actually
Shareware.
Making the truth known should hit these developers in the pocketbook -
where it really hurts. . .
Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)
F
Franklin
From your OP, ISTM that it had to do with revenge for things
that make you "ANNOYED, REALLY ANNOYED and SUPER-REALLY
ANNOYED".
It's not revenge. Revenge might be easier if went and posted
disparaging comments about the software and its author all over
the net. It is redress. I want what I was offered.
Can I point to any examples?
One of the most obvious is Kazaa which started off as genuine
freeware and then with no notification started to include spyware
which was tucked away in the 'automatic' installation option.
If you missed the Kazaa phenomenon then see "If you have been
duped by spyware from Kazaa, you are not alone."
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=551
I deliberately did not say there was no notice whatsoever of the
software's status. I posted "sometimes that info is hidden in an
obscure corner". So of course an exceptionally thorough person
conducting an in-depth search would spot a lot of the false
freeware.
But I am not referring to an exceptionally thorough person or an
in-depth search. I wrote that I am thinking of someone who takes
"reasonable steps to inform oneself" and that does not include an
obsessional inspection of the web site.
I refer to the sort of web site which deliberately hides away the
true status of the software so that a reasonable downloader misses
it and installs what he mistakenly, and quite understandably,
thinks is freeware.
And that is what I consider to be deliberate deception.
that make you "ANNOYED, REALLY ANNOYED and SUPER-REALLY
ANNOYED".
It's not revenge. Revenge might be easier if went and posted
disparaging comments about the software and its author all over
the net. It is redress. I want what I was offered.
Can I point to any examples?
One of the most obvious is Kazaa which started off as genuine
freeware and then with no notification started to include spyware
which was tucked away in the 'automatic' installation option.
If you missed the Kazaa phenomenon then see "If you have been
duped by spyware from Kazaa, you are not alone."
http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=551
I deliberately did not say there was no notice whatsoever of the
software's status. I posted "sometimes that info is hidden in an
obscure corner". So of course an exceptionally thorough person
conducting an in-depth search would spot a lot of the false
freeware.
But I am not referring to an exceptionally thorough person or an
in-depth search. I wrote that I am thinking of someone who takes
"reasonable steps to inform oneself" and that does not include an
obsessional inspection of the web site.
I refer to the sort of web site which deliberately hides away the
true status of the software so that a reasonable downloader misses
it and installs what he mistakenly, and quite understandably,
thinks is freeware.
And that is what I consider to be deliberate deception.
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=
This is very different from what you were talking about in your OP.
Your OP didn't address software which installs unwanted crap, but
software which requires monetary payment and hides that requirement
from you until after you have started using it. Can you point to
examples of such software?
R
Ron May
The example you give doesn't relate to your original post, which I
just finished re-reading. You weren't concerned with adware or
spyware. Your complaint had to do with shareware, trialware or
commercial software deliberately misrepresenting the product as
freeware, then expecting payment for it. In that regard, you said:
You then asked:
At this point, my thoughts are:
(1) I think it's pointless to try to crack spyware, adware or malware.
(2) You need to re-read your own post and give a better example that
relates to the original complaint.
(3) If you can't provide at least one good example, then perhaps it's
not the software authors who are the ones flying false colors.
T
thunder7
Like no-nags does. Yes I know what you mean "Susan."
I guess we have to start a 'database' of these authors to let everyone
know its "gotcha ware."
I guess we have to start a 'database' of these authors to let everyone
know its "gotcha ware."
S
Susan Bugher
thunder7 said:
Unfortunately many deceptive/temporary/managed "Freeware" apps have
one-off corporate owners - program "ABC" copyrighted by "ABC.com". If
the author has a second app it's probably program "DEF" copyrighted by
"DEF.com" and so forth and so on. . .
hmmm. . . just thought of this - the author's name is one of the items
of information in a PAD file. . . if a PAD file can be found it might
yield some useful info.
Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)
F
Franklin
Hello Ron, thank you for your rather premature comments which
unfortunately illustrate to me how you're able to read my post the
wrong way despite me spelling out the thrust of it at the beginning
in block capitals.
Try re-reading it while thinking, "What other ways are there to read
this?"
F
Franklin
The answer to your question is yes.
F
Franklin
Surely you mean "common or garden"?
And I'm not sure you mean "patina" either. Maybe something like
"veil" instead?
Sorry, but am not too sure about the crook/villainy bit either as I
wrote:
"Am I morally justified in taking this so-called 'freeware'
and cracking it and then using it? ... What do you think?"
Is it really "crooked" or "villainous" to merely THINK or ASK about
the morality of something? Last time I looked, thinking about
anything was not a crime. Nor was asking for views.
?
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=
The fact that you have not done so, despite several requests, makes
this hard to believe.
R
Ron May
I quoted your original post in its entirety below. Your Kazaa example
has NOTHING to do with your original complaint. I suggest YOU re-read
it and then let us know what specific program or programs gave rise to
your screed.
If your original complaint was NOT about shareware or commercial
software MASQUERADING as freeware, then I have no IDEA what you were
talking about and I'm certainly not alone.
If I am INCORRECT in my interpretation, please quote the specific text
in your original post that explains why I'm wrong.
If I'm CORRECT in interpreting your complaint as being "SUPER-REALLY
ANNOYED" when you believe something was "clearly provided as
'freeware' with no conditions" "and it turns out not to be free," "but
the usage is chargeable." then please provide provide an example that
fits that description rather than changing the paramaters after the
fact into a complaint about adware or spyware.
On the other hand, if this is a matter that the source of your
complaint really was due to your not understanding the difference
between "freeware" and "free download" (which nearly ALWAYS has a
catch) then just learn from the experience and move on. To do
otherwise is only to dig a deeper hole to climb out of.
--
Ron M.
====================== ORIGINAL POST ============================
Subject: Robin Hood and freeware
From: Franklin <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:25:18 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
==================================================================
What's this Robin Hood in the subject all about?
You're probably busy and don't have time to read worthless rants
to a.c.f. In a nutshell, this post explains what makes me
ANNOYED, REALLY ANNOYED and SUPER-REALLY ANNOYED;
I mention how SUPER-REALLY ANNOYED sparks off my Robin Hood mode
and how I'm interested to know if others respond like me.
That's the summary.
If it's not for you then move on. That's OK; I don't want to make
you waste your time.
========================
SHAREWARE
I tend to think of "shareware" as being shared either for a
nominal charge (say $5) or for no charge (a sort of freeware).
So I get ANNOYED when I come across "shareware" which is really
commercial software being licensed at full commercial prices of
perhaps $30 or $40 perhaps.
In this case I'm annoyed at the marketing hype but life's like
that and I kind of accept it and live with it.
FREEWARE
Now I get REALLY annoyed when something calls itself "freeware"
and it's free to download but after a trial period it must be paid
for.
Somewhere on the download web site or on the author's web site it
will tell you that this is deal. Sometimes that info is there
openly openly and sometimes that info is hidden in an obscure
corner. This is not freeware at all.
In rare cases the pay-after-trial info is completely missing.
It's not in the web site and it's not readily visible in the
installation screens. And this gets me SUPER-REALLY ANNOYED.
This pushes marketing hype too far.
I don't know where you live but the law around here says that a
verbal contract is as good as a paper contract although proving a
verbal contract is often hard. Well, I feel a bit like that: the
web site says, "Here mate, have some freeware" and I say "Yes,
OK" and I take it and it turns out not to be free. Whoa! "You
said it was free". No reply. "Well the obtaining is free but the
usage is chargeable." Right. etc.
You can see what I am getting at. In this case the big question
is ...
If one took all the reasonable steps to inform
oneself of the software's status and it was
clearly provided as "freeware" with no conditions
then wouldn't one feel SUPER-REALLY ANNOYED?
Now it's a matter of falsely supplying software.
Legally, maybe the case is one of misselling. And I might seek
costs for the time it took me to install and check out the
software plus costs for using my hardware and system software.
Excuse me a moment ... http://tinyurl.com/ahrbm. Puts on hat.
Am I morally justified in taking this so-called "freeware" and
cracking it and then using it? This might be seen as a whole lot
more of a practical solution than visiting the law courts over
such a thing.
It's sort of a Robin Hood moral solution but with the difference
that one is not taking from the exploitative rich to give to the
poor but from exploitative software con merchants to give to those
they tried to scam.
What do you think?
F
Franklin
To google for a definition we all can do, and get several
different meanings. More good definitions is available here:
http://www.asp-shareware.org/users/about-shareware.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware
You have seen the light!The term has evolved, so stop "I
tend to think..."
It's no more difficult than that. And to remember: shareware is
just the distribution form some commercial software use.
Your Google quotations give more of a current definition of
shareware. I said the current definition had evolved from an earlier
definition. I suspect we might be in agreement but we will have to
be careful of using terms which are open to more than one
interpretation. An example of this is ...
your refernce to shareware as a way of distributimg commercial
software. The ambigiuty here is "commercial software".
The term "commercial software" can be interpreted very strictly as
something which applies to all software for which money is paid; it
would embrace $1, $2, $5 payments as well as $50 or $80 payments.
People like »Q« and other people who are content with highly factual
approaches and statements would probably be quite happy with this
description.
However to me "commercial software" is something which sold for a
price closer to a commercially viable price sufficient for the
software author to make a living by writing such software. So a
student who knocks up a handy utility and sells it for $5 is not
really what I would mean when I say "commercial software".
Hence you and I would differ perhaps quite substantially over a
simple term like "commercial software".
Before you start disagreeing with my view of the phrase "commercial
software" I would suggest that we could take it to an extreme to see
the point I am making more clearly. Consider a hypothetical
application package sold for 10 cents. You would include that in
your definition of "commercial software" but I would not. Then we
can reduce this to the absurd and consider what happens to the term
we might apply to the software when the price is 2 cents or 1 cent.
And so I would contend that "a small fee" is central to my
understanding of what shareware started out as. And "a large fee"
which is more like the full price is not what I consider to be the
true (original) meaning of shareware. Using the term shareware to
sell full-priced commercial software is just marketing hype.
F
Franklin
Bernard, I think you subscribe to the modern definition of
"shareware" which includes the hype used by suppliers of
commercial software.
I tend to subscribe to the sort of definition here:
http://isp.webopedia.com/TERM/S/shareware.html
and this sort of statement taken from the "shareware" entry
Wikipedia (which you can offer to edit if you feel it is
incorrect):
In the 1980s and early-to-mid 1990s shareware was
considered to be a concept for independent software
writers to receive a degree of remuneration for their
labor. However, after that the shareware model began
to degrade as the term was used by commercial
startups offering (sometimes substandard) commercial
software and labelling non-functional or limited demo
versions (known as crippleware) as "shareware".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareware
F
Franklin
Wot!!!
So you want me to hang out with near-criminals in crackz groups
because it might prove a happier home for my ideas!
<LOL> Just kidding.
S
Susan Bugher
Franklin said:
We all have *personal* definitions that may or may not be shared by
others. How-some-ever. . . you are *posting* to the alt.comp.freeware
newsgroup. When in Rome please do as the Romans do => use ACF terminology:
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/acf/WareGlossary.php
The Ware Glossary is reviewed annually. If you think the terminology
needs revision please watch for that thread.
Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)