CLA on using cracks

[gideon352]

Originally Posted by Cursed Lemon

Please read my last post.

You didn't even attempt to touch on the point of devaluation.

[Tangible]

Originally Posted by gideon352

Luckily in the United States of America we do not need to concern ourselves with where a single individual's moral compass points to. We are a nation a laws, fortunately.

Yes, luckily we live in a nation where lobbyists hand over legislation to the politicians that are in their back pocket

[Cursed Lemon]

Originally Posted by gideon352

You didn't even attempt to touch on the point of devaluation.

No, I admitted that piracy results in some lost sales, which by proxy agrees with the devaluation.

My point is that not all "pirates" are "thieves".

[Dean Roddey]

So, if not making any commercial use of it means it's ok, then what if the software is, say, a media player, or a game. That has no commercial value. So, if everyone can download that and use it because they aren't using it for commercial gain, then that means that no one would have to ever pay for such a product, and they'd all just go broke trying to create any such product.

That's inherently silly, and I assume you wouldn't think that makes any sense. Therefore, why do you feel that you should be able to do it with something just because it has the potential to be used commercially but you never do? Why is that ok? Just because some, much smaller, number of people will use it that way and therefore they have to pay so that you can get to use it for free?

[antstudio]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

How can hardware be reverse engineered by software? it can be modelled, but it is not a duplication of the original. You are correct that it is derivitive work....

Reverse engineering does not refer to creating a duplication. That's cloning. Reverse engineering is knowledge gathering by studying the innards of a system (where the intellectual property lies), e.g. decompiling, taking apart, studying the logic board, sending tones and impulses through and capturing them, etc. It's the "learning how they did it" part.

The derivative work is where you create a new product based on the learning in the reverse engineering phase.

So the techniques most software plugin emulators use is to reverse engineer the hardware to figure out how to create a derivative work based in software. All things that are "banned" in the Waves EULA, ironically.

If you get a chance to read the SOS article it describes in detail the techniques used, including studying the logic board and individually modeling the components, desoldering individual components to learn the effects each has on the sound, etc.

..ant

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by Tangible

Yes, luckily we live in a nation where lobbyists hand over legislation to the politicians that are in their back pocket

You keep making this silly argument. It just shows that you are a conspiracy theorist who believes that the government is evil and that corporations own it. But, as I've pointed out and you just ignore, the music and movie industries have lost major and highly public cases which limited their rights. How could this be if they own the government? It couldn't ever happen, which demonstrates that your argument is just wingnut anti-corporate silliness.

[gideon352]

Originally Posted by Tangible

Yes, luckily we live in a nation where lobbyists hand over legislation to the politicians that are in their back pocket

This happens to a degree. What is your point? What are you getting at regarding piracy?

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by charles maynes

China....

As I pointed out earlier, that's not a valid example. They make almost none of their money on innovation, they make it by manufacturering the things that other people design. They have no real indigenous intellectual property industry to speak of, certainly nothing relative to their economic size. So, if that's an example of how having really lax intellectual property makes for innovation it's a bad one. They mainly just steal other country's intellectual property.