dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
98
share rss forum feed


IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

Software rights

Like I've said before, the locking algorithm is in the software and the software licensing agreement prohibits this type of modification.

Remember, even though you own the device, you don't own the software on the device, the developer owns it.



a333
A hot cup of integrals please

join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
·Verizon Online DSL
·Cingular Wireless

If the owner of a piece of software wishes to pursue legal action because Joe Schmoe unlocked his precious new iPhone, they are currently quite free to do so without any new laws... through CIVIL action. What Congress and various special interest groups are trying to do now is take a matter that was previously up to civil courts to decide, and criminalize it. The fact that we are even considering something like unlocking a phone to be a criminal act when it's not even an issue in the rest of the world merely illustrates just how broken and corrupt our legal and legislative system have become lately...
--
Physics: Will you break the laws of physics, or will the laws of physics break you?
If physicists stand on each other's shoulders, computer scientists stand on each other's toes, and computer programmers dig each other's graves.


Androidian

join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast

Only "lately"?

It seems like we've been beyond the level that rational people would consider absurd for at least a couple decades. Extending copyright beyond the copyright holder's death, allowing the MPAA and RIAA to act in a threatening manner toward citizens who are not proven guilty of any crime, allowing patents for things like "squares with rounded corners" (yes, Apple got a patent from the PTO for this stupidity)...

I could go on, but I'm sure you get my point.

And just exactly why does the MPAA need the FBI's help in tracking down someone who copies a movie? I wonder how much our government officials got paid off to add those FBI warnings at the start of each movie. There's nothing like a private industry stealing from the citizens by employing a law enforcement agency funded with public tax dollars to do their private bidding.


Androidian

join:2012-12-14
Purcellville, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to IowaCowboy

said by IowaCowboy:

Remember, even though you own the device, you don't own the software on the device, the developer owns it.

This sounds like it would then be a private matter between the developer who owns the software and the person who reverse engineers it. Hence, no government involvement is warranted unless the developer discovers the infraction and decides to file a lawsuit in civil court on his or her own. Use of public agencies and personnel to locate and/or criminally prosecute people who hack this software is, in my opinion, a misappropriation of public funds.


plencnerb
Premium
join:2000-09-25
Carpentersville, IL
kudos:3

Along the same lines, I would think then couldn't Microsoft go after all those 3rd party app developers like Start 8 that put functionally back into Windows 8 that Microsoft removed?

If you say its illegal to "unlock" your phone, would it also be "illegal" to modify Windows 8 to give you the start menu back?

Another example: You buy a desktop from Dell with Windows 8 on it. Once you get it home, you format the drive, and install Linux because you do not like Windows 8. Is Dell going to hunt you down and throw you in jail, because you choose to install another OS? I don't think so.

Regardless if the hardware is a phone, tablet, laptop, or desktop. You as a consumer have paid for said device. Its your hardware, and you should be allowed to install or modify the software on it however you see fit.

--Brian
--
============================
--Brian Plencner

E-Mail: CoasterBrian72Cancer@gmail.com
Note: Kill Cancer to Reply via e-mail



Bruzote

@comcast.net
reply to Androidian

Extending copyright after death has a benefit to in that it helps to discourage parties with deep pockets from stealing your copyrighted material. If you took the parties to court in a world without post mortem copyright, that party could keep you locked up in court 'til you die. (Sometimes, crime does pay.) Copyright extension beyone death ensures every stealer has to pay. I'm not saying the idea of post-mortem copyright is a good one, but it has a benefit.