Don wrote:
You're opening a can of worms on this one. Go elsewhere on the web and you find all kind of debating and blogging on "digital rights" and there is no agreed upon answer to the question who owns the software you buy. For instance if you have windows on your computer, who owns it? It's certainly not you.
I bought the windows and they are 'mine' the same as I bought the bicycle and that bicycle is mine. I can use that bicycle for racing.
The same applies to the bought software I can use it for my needs i.e. for playing the tournament.
My other big reason for backing copyright laws is the increasing feeling of entitlement that people have regarding music, books(digital), chess engines, other software, etc. etc.
Once again the creator should have the right to sell or give away. I get paid to play music, write music and teach music. I have been a volunteer teacher at a community music school for about 13 years. My choice! I also charge a nice fee for my normal private lessons. Again, my choice.
.
i am for securing author rights too, but here the situation is diferrent.
I.E>
i have bought CD with music, do you want me to hear it in my house only or can i use it in my car, garden ? do i need the next paid allowance to hear it in the: garden, car, aeroplane, ship ?
I am for sure allowed to use engine in playchess tournaments why not in the other one ? When i bought engine there were not any restrictions where i can use it.
Father wrote:Robert and Harvey,
I wrotte on "Rybka 4 is a mith" post, three days ago an absulute, normal and respectable post but it has desapeared. I am very confused about that. I have not understood what about that
What have been happening here in ?
Hello Pablo,
I think it was probably moved out of this forum, to a thread now called "Clone discussion" in the other forum. You can go there clicking
That is one of the reasons I disagree completely with the moderation philosophy of the current group. Rather than move threads, simply add a post that says "this topic is more appropriate in XXX'. This group has to move things around which causes more than a little confusion. Why this is deemed to be the best way to handle things is way beyond my ability to understand. Probably because there is nothing to understand about it, it's not the way to do things.
Things get posted in the General Topics forum just to prove a point, out of annoyance with being declared a clone or clone developer or as a protest against the moderation policy. Maybe not by the original poster but it is easy to hijack a thread named "Rybka 4 is a myth". It is not a thread I followed but I believe Graham mentioned that at that time there were more things going on? It makes absolutely no point at least I don't see it just to add such a warning if you don't put a sanction on it in case it happens again. So what is right in such a case, because then just banning repeat posters, I assume you would prefer that Robert as the second step, will not be felt as non-interference either.
A thread with a title like that could be outright deleted but now that we have a forum for that, at least there is a place to discuss this if you want. Moving threads to a more suitable subforum is not unusual policy as forums go or else what is really the point of dividing a forum up in the first place?
Eelco
There are several reasons for moving a thread. Most are bad. One might move it to a more appropriate sub-forum if it is not getting any responses. But a more diabolical reason is to quash a topic. After all, who wants to hunt around for a thread? Gets old and they die. I disagree with the "secret" origins idea. Why "members-only?" To quash discussions? To hide discussions? I happen to not believe that any post with the characters "Robo" should be moved.
if someone has bought Junior or Hiarcs programs how he could be not allowed (blocked) to use his version in the private tournament ?
rgds h
You're opening a can of worms on this one. Go elsewhere on the web and you find all kind of debating and blogging on "digital rights" and there is no agreed upon answer to the question who owns the software you buy. For instance if you have windows on your computer, who owns it? It's certainly not you.
It's superbly complicated by the fact that it is not easy to own something so easily copied. If you by Shredder for example is it really yours? It cannot be "really" yours otherwise you would be free to package it up and sell as many copies as you want.
Over the past few years (personal opinion warning here) I've come to the conclusion that there should be no such thing as copyright, patents or protection of ideas in any way that is decreed by law. And if you sell some software you should be allowed to "try" to protect it, but not in a legal way. If someone cracks your scheme, too bad. Of course that would completely change the economy and how things are done and if this was implemented it would cause huge disruption to the economy and jobs would be gained and jobs would be lost.
In such a system, you could still write software, but it would be difficult if not impossible to directly make money from the sale of such software. I'm sure anyone who makes money that way is going to believe this is clearly bad but it's difficult for me to believe that making artificial rules so that I can sell software is the right thing to do. Imagine that I sold seed to a farmer but stipulated that they could only plant the seed and use the resulting food products for their own personal consumption - and that they were forbidden to replant next year with new seed that resulted from the food product. It's just insane isn't it?
It may be insane, but it is done. Read about Monsanto.
My other big reason for backing copyright laws is the increasing feeling of entitlement that people have regarding music, books(digital), chess engines, other software, etc. etc.
Once again the creator should have the right to sell or give away. I get paid to play music, write music and teach music. I have been a volunteer teacher at a community music school for about 13 years. My choice! I also charge a nice fee for my normal private lessons. Again, my choice.
.
i am for securing author rights too, but here the situation is diferrent.
I.E>
i have bought CD with music, do you want me to hear it in my house only or can i use it in my car, garden ? do i need the next paid allowance to hear it in the: garden, car, aeroplane, ship ?
I am for sure allowed to use engine in playchess tournaments why not in the other one ? When i bought engine there were not any restrictions where i can use it.
rgds
h
On this I agree with you! You should be allowed to use the product (the chess engine) you purchased. And if someone buys music they should be allowed to listen to it on any and all devices they have for their convenience. So on this I agree with you.
Whether you agree with this or not, the idea here is that when you "buy" software, you are in fact paying for a license to "use" the software, subject to the terms of that license agreement. You don't own the _software_, you own a _license_ to "use" the software.
In principle, that license agreement can stipulate just about anything, with certain exceptions dictated by various laws, such as "fair use" laws. My chess program's EULA states that the software can only be used while standing on your head. This was challenged by someone that said that it discriminates against people with cone shaped heads. So I added the option to stand on your feet while holding the monitor directly over your head. Now the arm-less are up in arms. But I digress...
So, again, this is the idea, whether or not you like it, agree with it, or wish it was different. Note: I am simply providing a description of the idea, not my own personal feelings about it.
"The foundation of morality is to have done, once for all, with lying; to give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibilities of knowledge." - T. H. Huxley
Buying the chessengine i got the executable code, i do not know if it is the licence or not. I think that i can use that licence not only at home but in the garden too.
What is your opinion ?
rgds h
Whether you agree with this or not, the idea here is that when you "buy" software, you are in fact paying for a license to "use" the software, subject to the terms of that license agreement. You don't own the _software_, you own a _license_ to "use" the software.
In principle, that license agreement can stipulate just about anything, with certain exceptions dictated by various laws, such as "fair use" laws. My chess program's EULA states that the software can only be used while standing on your head. This was challenged by someone that said that it discriminates against people with cone shaped heads. So I added the option to stand on your feet while holding the monitor directly over your head. Now the arm-less are up in arms. But I digress...
So, again, this is the idea, whether or not you like it, agree with it, or wish it was different. Note: I am simply providing a description of the idea, not my own personal feelings about it.
Presuming that the customer has the opportunity to read and agree to the license previous to purchase, I suppose any license is fair game, as long as it's legally valid (not sure in this case, but I suppose that it probably is).
Consumers are encouraged to vote with their wallets for license terms they deem reasonable. I personally won't be voting for this version of Junior (but I've ordered my Naum 4.2 update).
Whether you agree with this or not, the idea here is that when you "buy" software, you are in fact paying for a license to "use" the software, subject to the terms of that license agreement. You don't own the _software_, you own a _license_ to "use" the software.
In principle, that license agreement can stipulate just about anything, with certain exceptions dictated by various laws, such as "fair use" laws. My chess program's EULA states that the software can only be used while standing on your head. This was challenged by someone that said that it discriminates against people with cone shaped heads. So I added the option to stand on your feet while holding the monitor directly over your head. Now the arm-less are up in arms. But I digress...
So, again, this is the idea, whether or not you like it, agree with it, or wish it was different. Note: I am simply providing a description of the idea, not my own personal feelings about it.
Presuming that the customer has the opportunity to read and agree to the license previous to purchase, I suppose any license is fair game, as long as it's legally valid (not sure in this case, but I suppose that it probably is).
Consumers are encouraged to vote with their wallets for license terms they deem reasonable. I personally won't be voting for this version of Junior (but I've ordered my Naum 4.2 update).
Jeremy
You can also vote with your wallet even for free software. Some it has a provision for make a donation. I sometimes donate when I use free software.
Don wrote:
You're opening a can of worms on this one. Go elsewhere on the web and you find all kind of debating and blogging on "digital rights" and there is no agreed upon answer to the question who owns the software you buy. For instance if you have windows on your computer, who owns it? It's certainly not you.
I bought the windows and they are 'mine' the same as I bought the bicycle and that bicycle is mine. I can use that bicycle for racing.
The same applies to the bought software I can use it for my needs i.e. for playing the tournament.
That was what i meant.
rgds
H.
It's not yours. Try putting this OS on another computer. Certainly, this should be a reasonable test of ownership - shouldn't I be able to buy a second computer and still use the software I already purchased on it?
I think you have to admit that you are not buying the software, you are "renting" it.
