Sorry to see the PSS theft thread locked

[Guest]

not in Europe. In the case of traffic citations here suspicion is guilt. The burden of proof for speeding (and parking) tickets is reversed here.If you've ever been the victim of a false licenseplate here you'd know that...People have lost their driver's license and their car because false plates with their number turned up on a similar car to theirs and they didn't have a watertight alibi.

[Guest]

By violating the license to the software the pirate automatically gave up all his rights under any privacy policy as well as any rights under that license.As far as I'm concerned pirates are fair game for anyone wanting to take a shot at them in whatever way.

[Guest]

they're probably trying to protect their own interest in software piracy by attempting to make enforcement of licenses into an unethical act.

[Guest wathomas777]

You are so wrong on so many levels that it's hard to know where to begin.First of all, in Europe, although you claim suspicion is "guilt", that is not the case. The "alleged" traffic violator still has the opportunity to fight the ticket and have his case judged by a traffic judge or magistrate.Suspicion=guilt would only apply if the accused did not have a chance to defend themselves. Just because the person who receives a ticket is "expected" to pay for it, the fact is, paying for the ticket is either A: Acknowledgement of guiltB: Acknowledgement that fighting the ticket is not worth the hassle to defend oneself. Either way, the accuser always has the decision on whether or not to pay immediately, or have their "day in court".PSS did neither of this, as they publically disclosed this persons information without his permission or without following due process.As far as "agreements" the privacy agreement and EULA are mutually exclusive. No where in the EULA does it mention that the company is free to violate it's own privacy policy, nor in the Privacy Policy is it mentioned that this policy is only in place as long as the EULA is in place. That's like saying that if I make a product, and the person is late on their payment, that my warranty is null and void. It's ridiculous. Finally. Those of us who live in so called "free" societies know that there must be a balance between "crime enforcement" and a persons civil liberties. Most of us would love to live in a 100% crime free world, but scoff at gestapo type methods to achieve it.I take great offense that you would stereotype all of us who disagre with PSS's actions in this matter as somehow supporting piracy. That's like saying that if I don't agree that someone accused of murder should be shot on sight, that I condone murder.I am happy that I don't live in your "world-view" because even though I may "feel" safer, I could not live with a world of illegal search and seizure, punishment without trial, and assumption of guilt, simply based on allegation.PSS has the right to do what they want to. And they have exercised that right. But in the meantime, if they are brought into court by some "pirate" who's rights they've stomped, they will get no sympathy from me. And if their childish and unprofessional attitude towards their own customers, and potential customers leads to their financial ruin, well, then that's the house they've chosen to live in.

[Guest wathomas777]

But the important thing was, they had the OPPORTUNITY to defend themselves. Judging from the content of the letter posted by PSS, the defendant, in this case was not given such opportunity.In fact, what you claim, is true everywhere. Guilt is established beyond a "reasonable" doubt. If the defendant can't provide "reasonable" doubt, and sufficient evidence shows otherwise, then he is considered guilty.The burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the accuser. In your "traffic" scenario, the prosecutor provides proof in the form of a photo or other evidence showing the defendant's car at "x" location at "y" time.PSS I am sure also has "evidence" that the accused pirated the software. And, in fact, the accused, may have done just that. But guilt/innocence is determined upon a preponderance of evidence.If the burden of "proof" were to lie with the defendant, as you say, then the simple allegation would be sufficient for prosecution. Again, even in traffic violations, evidence must be presented by the accuser. Without the submission of such evidence, the charge is thrown out. If in Europe, as you say, the burden of proof rested with the "defendant" then the police could merely state that "everyone" on that road speeds, and issue blanket citations. It would then be up to everyone to prove they were either not on the road or not speeding.This is not the case. The citations are only issued after the prosecution has enough evidence that it feels is sufficient for conviction (in the form of a photograph, radar report, eyewitness testimony). Just because you are "expected" to pay the citation does not mean the burden of proof has shifted to you. It simply means that the prosecution has met their burden of proof, and you must offer reasonable doubt to such evidence.

[Guest IanP]

This is going to be my final post on this thread, because nothing new is being added to it, that I can see.You posted:>> The burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the accuser. In>> your "traffic" scenario, the prosecutor provides proof in the >> form of a photo or other evidence showing the defendant's car >> at "x" location at "y" time.>> PSS I am sure also has "evidence" that the accused pirated the >> software. And, in fact, the accused, may have done just that. But >> guilt/innocence is determined upon a preponderance of evidence.The person who PSS stated had broken their copyright had *HIS OWN PERSONAL CODE* uploaded to a P2P site. That, in anyone's book, is the same level of proof as a photograph showing your car breaking the speed limit.How it got there is potentially open to debate. Whether PSS should have reacted as they did is potentially open to debate. That the person whose code was on the P2P site is reponsible for his code is most definately not. The licensee is responsible for the security of their personally licensed software.Ian P.

[Guest]

according to the apologisers here it's PSS's responsibility to make sure their software isn't pirated.They seem to think that a software company is to be blamed if its users break the law.Of course that's a very similar attitude to the typical pirate excuse of "I'm just punishing companies for overcharging for poor quality software", "The record companies are illegally charging too much for music so I'm getting back at them", etc. etc. all of which is a vigilante style approach which is apparently just fine if end users do it but if companies do something similar (and without damage to anyone except a known criminal according to applicable law and even then only to his pride...) it's suddenly a BAD THING.Maybe Avsim should turn over the names and addresses of every one of the apologisers for the pirates here to every software company they can reach to prevent any further goods from reaching those people as most of it may well end up pirated...

[bob.bernstein 0]

JW<>This is the thinking that brings down democracy, hushes the voice of dissent not thru honest choice to not disent, but thru fear. I find your thinking quite scary. Its kind of "might makes right". If I can't convince others to think like me, I'll bring the power of the interests I represent to force them.Hopefully you don't really mean you want to eliminate dissent by branding the dissenters to be criminals.Bob Bernstein

[Guest wathomas777]

JWenting: Do you LIVE in a democracy??? Do you have the slightest clue about civil rights? How about free speech?In the United States, should everyone who voted for John Kerry be locked up because they voted against Bush, and in such, attempted to overthrow the existing government???That would be crazy, but it is the same faulty logic that you just provided in your previous post.I have not seen ANYONE here claim that piracy is OK or that it is justified in any way. What I do see, is that people feel that the company, in "enforcing" it's piracy laws went beyond the pale. And of course those who label anyone who disagree's with this method as being criminals themselves.PSS could have gotten the same result, AND maintained the persons anonimity. PSS did not do so. And those actions are felt to be excessive by a great many people. This thread would not even have existed, had PSS decided to handle things internally. But they did not, and as a result, have shaken the confidence of many of it's customers or potential customers, in their ability or willingnes to keep a persons privacy intact.I don't "sympathize" with the pirate. However, I do question the tactics of a company who would post my private information on a public website and subject me and my family to ridcule, to salve their perverted view of justice.I thought we had moved beyond the era of vigilante justice.I DON'T KNOW the full specifics of this case, and because of this refuse to pass judgement. Yet you seem to know all the specifics in the case. What if it was a 10 year old kid? My kids share my computer all the time. What if one of my files showed up on a P2P site because my kid was file sharing unbeknownst to me. Yes, I am responsible for my child's actions and to make ammends. But does that give the company the right to label me as a thief?Yet, because I side on maintaining a persons privacy, and using already legal and responsible methods for handling crime or suspected crime, I am equal to a criminal and thus should not be trusted?I agree with you on a good many things, but I have never personally attacked you nor have I questioned your character. Yet you seem to think that because I believe in due process, that I should some how be thrown in the same cell. I'm sorry, but I expected a bit more from you. All I ask of you is to take off your blinders and look around. There is more than enough room for proper enforcement of piracy, while at the same time, maintaining a person's dignity until ALL the facts are known.The brand of "justice" you proposed went out of style when most of us graduated from "elementary school". Perhaps it's time you grow up.

[Azapata87 173]

I must say I regret having purchased many of PSS's products after seeing the Unprofessional manner in which a certain PSS staff member(s) are behaving. It seems that if you so much as slightly disagree with what pss did you are all of a sudden supporting piracy and that is incorrect. "you don't like someone posting a "pirates" personal information on a forum? well then you must support piracy!" :-roll plain stupid if you ask me. Andrew

[n4gix 4,947]

>That would be crazy, but it is the same faulty logic that you>just provided in your previous post.>>I have not seen ANYONE here claim that piracy is OK or that it>is justified in any way. What I do see, is that people feel>that the company, in "enforcing" it's piracy laws went beyond>the pale. And of course those who label anyone who disagree's>with this method as being criminals themselves."Argumentum ad absurdum" seems to be this gentleman's only weapon of choice. Unlike yourself, I've yet to see a single useful post from his keyboard in all the years I've been active here and elsewhere.In no way do I agree with, condone or support theft of property, whether it be tangible or intangible.On the other hand, there is no way anyone can justify the deliberate malignment of another person without due process, which begins by affording the suspect an opportunity to mount a defense.As far as as I'm concerned, the posting of someone's email address and encouraging others to spam that person's account is a more egregious and reprehensible act, and is nearly tantamount to terrorism.

[Wolfko 0]

I really do not care, how PSS or other companies deal with pirates and this also will not influence my decission if I buy products of such a company or not.PSS products are generally very good value for money. These are the only facts, which I consider, when buying a product.Wolfgang

[Guest wathomas777]

PSS may make the greatest stuff in the world. But if I can't trust them to maintain my personal information in a professional and secure manner, then the only way I can safeguard that, is to not let them have it.And should I have to give that information to make a purchase, than I won't be making a purchase.

[Guest ba747heavy]

I am going to exercise my discretion and lock this thread now. It is starting to degerneate into attacks, and the discussion has outlived its useful life.