>> Q. Is downloading full (trial) versions of software from the internet
or
>> CD provided by the author/company then cracking it yourself wrong?
>A. No.
>I believe you are wrong on this point. It is wrong and illegal. You
>can only do this by what can be called reverse engineering (yes
>guessing) is reverse engineering. Reverse engineering is a copyright
>infringement.
Reverse engineering as a copyright infringement is an ill conceived law
made probably by someone who had thier pockets padded by a coroporation
with too much money on thier hands.
Now, don't get me wrong, there are of course cases in which a company
will reverse engineer the competition's software (or hardware) for the
only purpose to destory the competition. And even in this case the
reverse engineering is not wrong, the act of destroying your competition
is the unjust act here.
Did you know that it is a federal offense to have a gun within 300ft of a
public school?
Another ill conceived law written no doubt by someone that has never had
a shotgun behind the seat in their truck for the SOLE purpose of hunting
small game. And NO, we're not talking about it being OK to have guns in
public schools, it's just that the author of the law didn't see all sides
before making the act (whether intentional or not) punishable.
Even if I have a legitimate copy of some software package I **WILL** do
whatever I d*mn well please with the software. Saying that I am not free
to (either randomly or not) change bytes with a hex editor or
disassembler is foolishness, especially for my own personal use.
Distribution on the other hand is a NO NO. Note a partial of my original
post as follows:
>> Q. Is downloading full versions of cracked software wrong?
>> A. Probably. (read: YES, it is only for the lazy and unimaginative)
Shall we have even more of our freedoms revoked?
>Also, the licensing agreements usually limit the time for the demos.
>Even if they had no protection, you are not allowed to use the s/w
>passed a certain point.
And you're not allowed to have cookies befor dinner either. A surefire
way to get someone to do something is to tell them not to do it. A "Do
not use my software after 30 days without buying it" stament is just
inviting trouble if you have nothing to back it up.
>Finally, you know that you are to pay for using the s/w. So, if you
>use it for without paying, 'in MY opinion', it is no different than
>using a CD that you got from a store 'without paying'. You know what
>that is called.
Your opinion is your own, and I encourage many others to state theirs as
well. But, if I acquire some software (whether by distributed CD, floppy
or internet download) and I change it to suit my needs, that is not only
ethical, but also enofrces Darwinism. I believe that if you are 'smart
enough' to do this all the power to you. Some poor bas*ard didn't have
clue how to either protect, or market his software well enough. "Here is
my full version of software on CD with a stupid time limit. Please take
my software and crack it in a couple of hours."
>Can you honestly say there is a difference? Using your logic; "If a
>person/company is too lazy or stupid to think through their" security
then it's ok to steal.
Since I think your original logic is flawed, it is NOT stealing by
reverse engineering a copy that was given to you on CD by the author, or
by some other means authorized by the author(s).
OK folks, let's face it hacking, cracking, blah, blah, blah will never
go out of style as long as there is motivation to do so.
Find a way to make your money otherwise.
Do like M$, charge outragoues prices for buggy, overbloated, unstable
software, then release the so called 'internet updates' later on.
(Not sarcastically) please someone refute my response to this message!
