You're kidding me, right?  My reply to said admin would be to check to see which commerical entity funds most of his forum and same said entity has estabilished protocols. Maybe said admin needs to have off record discussion with Tom.

+++1 Dan!

This incident does raise an important point for all of the legitimate simmers as well.....backup your hard drive.  I have had two incidents where various installs/uninstalls and mods have messed up my FSX install and it was unusable.  Thankfully my trusty (and recent) Acronis backup saved the day.....and my wife and kids didn't have to hear me screaming at a machine for two days while I went through the pain of a rebuild.

 

 

pcubine, on 25 Oct 2014 - 05:20 AM, said:Welcome to the club.
Do we get nametags?

+1 on that, im a member too.

I believe that in EU spreading malware is a crime, no matter if it is a revenge for the pirate.

 

Ismo Nurmi

I believe that in EU spreading malware is a crime, no matter if it is a revenge for the pirate.

 

Ismo Nurmi

 

The UK Computer Misuse act 1990 9and EU?) makes it a criminal offence to;

 

1 Unauthorised access to computer material

2 Unauthorised access with intent to commit or facilitate commission of further offences

3 Unauthorised acts with intent to impair, or with recklessness as to impairing, operation of computer, etc

3A Making, supplying or obtaining articles for use in offence under section 1 or 3

 

 

Don't other countries have similar laws?

Yes, but the crucial word is "unauthorised".

As voske pointed out, the key word is "unauthorized".

 

Computer software is property - just as much as tangible assets like cars, boats, houses or smart phones - and the ownership of the software itself remains with the publisher.

 

Just as the owner of tangible physical property has broad rights to recover that property if it is stolen, the owner of a commercial software program (the publisher) has broad rights to recover, delete or deactivate its property if it is found in an unauthorized location - and it is not rquired to be particulary "dainty" in how it goes about performing such deactivation. If the deactivation (by deleting folders where the unauthorized files are found) happens to cause other software on the same system to malfunction - that is simply too bad.

 

I once worked for a major U.S.-based manufacturer of avionics systems who sold (and still sell) an extremely expensive and widely-used flight-planning system that used precisely that kind of "slash and burn" deactivation system if a "known" illegal activation key was used.

 

The company in question sells their products all over the world - including Europe, and has, I am sure, a stable of highly competent lawyers. I doubt very much that they would have used such a system unless they were very, very sure that they were on firm legal ground in doing so.

Thankfully my trusty (and recent) Acronis backup saved the day

 

+1 on that Mark.  Earlier in the year I had an unexplained error that popped up preventing FSX from starting.  After reinstalling everything, I purchased Acronis True Image.  I hope I never have to use it, but I look at it like an insurance policy.  Backups are priceless!

 

 

I believe that in EU spreading malware is a crime, no matter if it is a revenge for the pirate.

 

The one spreading malware here is whoever uploaded the pirated software to the internet, not PMDG as they distribute the program only to valid, legal users who won't encounter any problems. 

 

Regards,

 

Joona L

Yes, but the crucial word is "unauthorised".

 

Yes, but the Act says it is "unauthorised if the person doing the act (or causing it to be done) is  not himself a person who has responsibility for the computer and is entitled to determine whether the act may be done; and does not have consent to the act from any such person."

 

In other words, only the computer owner can authorise it - not a 3rd party. That's common sense.

 

LOL! Fantastic 

Some of the arguments here are hard to believe.

 

So your neighbour steals your laptop, and that gives you the right to break into his house to recover it and break his TV in the process?

 

If the police did this collateral damage in the process of recovery, maybe that's all within law, after all they are doing their job. But I doubt any individual would have any protection in doing so.

 

One can only do so knowing that pirate would not come after them for obvious reasons, but that does'nt make it fair or lawful, all IMHO.

 

Sandeep K

 

Yes, but the Act says it is "unauthorised if the person doing the act (or causing it to be done) is not himself a person who has responsibility for the computer and is entitled to determine whether the act may be done; and does not have consent to the act from any such person."

 

In other words, only the computer owner can authorise it - not a 3rd party. That's common sense.

The legal owner of stolen computer software does not need the permission of a third party, or the permission of the owner of the computer on which the software has been installed), to remove, recover or disable said software. Especially not when the stolen software ITSELF has the ability to detect that it has been installed illegally and to self-delete its own components.

 

In a case like that, the stolen software did not worm its way onto the computer by stealth, as most true malware often does. The computer owner himself installed it - and did so knowing full well that the installation was a violation of the license terms of the legitimate owner of the software. People who enter illegal activation keys do NOT do so "by accident".

 

Here is a real-world example that illustrates a similar principle. I was once the victim of auto theft. My car was broken into, hot wired and driven right out my driveway.

 

Two weeks later, the police found my car in a locked garage in another part of town as part of an unrelated criminal investigation. Once I was informed that my car had been found, I was allowed to: (1) enter private property where the car was located, (2) to cut down a section of chain link fence that was blocking free access to the garage, and (3) to break open the hasp holding the padlock on the garage door with a crowbar.

 

All of these actions - entering private property, cutting open a fence, and breaking open a locked door would have been highly illegal if I had done them "just for the hell of it" with malicious intent. I certainly could have been arrested by the police, and sued by the garage owner for damages.

 

But, because these actions were done as part of the legitimate recovery of stolen property of which I was the legal owner, the actions were NOT illegal in the slightest. In fact, I was accompanied by a sheriff's deputy who assisted me in pulling the fence back after I cut it, and braced the garage door while I pried the lock off.

 

I certainly did not have to ask the owner of the garage (who stole my car in the first place), for "permission" to enter the garage, and if the individual had tried to sue me for the damage I caused (because of the lock) his lawsuit would have been tossed out of court.

Some of the arguments here are hard to believe.

 

So your neighbour steals your laptop, and that gives you the right to break into his house to recover it and break his TV in the process?

 

If the police did this collateral damage in the process of recovery, maybe that's all within law, after all they are doing their job. But I doubt any individual would have any protection in doing so.

 

One can only do so knowing that pirate would not come after them for obvious reasons, but that does'nt make it fair or lawful, all IMHO.

 

Sandeep K

In the case of the stolen laptop, (relating it to self-deleting software), it would be more like if the laptop itself had the ability to "know" it was stolen, and to fly out of the window (on its own), breaking the window in the process. Obviously not something which could actually happen.

 

I just gave a real-world example in another post where I was indeed allowed to break a locked garage door to recover my stolen car. The police were present - but more to prevent the family of the car thief from interfering with my recovery of my own property, than to prevent ME from going overboard in the process. But that is probably not the best example to use, because it is really NOT a correct analogy for what a self-deleting program actually does.

 

You speak of being "unfair". Sorry, but I absolutely can not agree. If an individual installs stolen property on his computer - knowing full well that doing so is both morally and legally wrong - as far as I am concerned, that individual has abrogated any expectation or right he may have being treated "fairly". If the stolen software happens to break other software in the process of removing itself, too bad. If the thief had not installed a stolen program in the first place, he wouldn't BE in that situation, now would he?

You'd make a damn good legal eagle, Jim, besides being a Licensed Avionics ace!