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?

"Fair" was a wrong word to use, I should have said "right", as in right vs wrong. He being wrong in pirating, makes it right to delete something else? We can say he had it coming, but right? That's more like jungle law to me.

 

Here to me it sounds like, so we can't go after the pirate, we don't even know where he lives , let's sabotage his stuff instead, knowingly very well that there's slim probability the pirate will come after you for sabotage. So we act knowing very well that there would be no adverse consequences.

 

As an analogue, consider we are driving on the road in the middle of the night and come across a red light. Ther is no other traffic in sight and no cameras around. Do we stop for the red light? Do we stop because it's the "right" thing to do or do we run the light because there is no adverse consequence possible since no one watching?

 

In your case, when you say "allowed to", what does that mean? Does that mean that you had to court order to enter the property or the Police just come over to you and say, hey we found it but you can recover it yourself to save the paperwork? Shouldn't it be trespassing generally or do you have specific rights where you live in such cases?

 

Edit: Anyone read the OJ Simpson Las Vegas theft case? He claimed he was recovering stolen goods and got 33 years. Something like that I think.

 

 

Sandeep K

Gents-

 

Well this was all very entertaining...

 

Via tech support, we get complaints from time to time from folks who claim to have suffered harm after installing pirated versions of our software.  Sometimes it is virus, other times malware, some even complain that the software doesn't function as expected even thought they "downloaded a working crack."

 

I can't say we bother trying to help them.  In fact- it borders on lunacy that they come to us for help at all.

 

We tend to ignore them- as we have actual customers who can benefit from our time and attention.