7 hours ago, Murmur said:

For me it would be absolutely morally acceptable, provided that the original owner doesn't keep a copy.

If the company is still active, I would also consider morally acceptable that the new owner would buy another product of equivalent price without never installing it.

You're talking about transferring a licence which is still not permitted. There isn't another product of equivalent value. They're much more expensive.

2 hours ago, Lorby_SI said:

I was proud owner of a brand new Sinclair ZX81 right when it came out. "The first home computer for under 500 DM".

Best regards

That doesn't answer my question. Were you a politician in a former life? 😁

1 hour ago, pete_auau said:

thought  the  question  you asked  at the  relevant addon  you  had  asked  on their  forum,  was  already answered, posting  it  in here  is not  going  to change  the  outcome.

I did and please DO NOT mention the company. I'm throwing the discussion out here to gauge how people feel. Of course it's not going to change the outcome. This is just a debate.

20 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

That doesn't answer my question. Were you a politician in a former life? 😁

No. But I am old enough to know what cassettes, tapes and records are - in fact, I am more than a decade older than the Sony Walkman ;o)

Back in those days, software was delivered on cassettes too, and many of the seemingly payware products were actually pirated versions. Especially the "collections", when there was more than one title on one tape. As for copying the record library of a friend: that wasn't really my thing. I recorded from the radio mostly.

Best regards 

Edited October 22, 20196 yr by Lorby_SI

4 minutes ago, Lorby_SI said:

No. But I am old enough to know what cassettes, tapes and records are - in fact, I am more than a decade older than the Sony Walkman ;o)

Back in those days, software was delivered on cassettes too, any many of the seemingly payware products were actually pirated versions. Especially the "collections", when there was more than one title on one tape. As for copying the record library of a friend: that wasn't really my thing. I recorded from the radio mostly.

Best regards 

I was a teenager before I enjoyed the delights of stereophonic sound! 😁 I also recorded from the radio. Technically that was a breach of copyright but totally unenforceable.

20 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Is it morally or legally acceptable for someone who has purchased it to pass on the installer and registration details?

I don't believe any licence agreement between the developer and the original purchaser allows for onward distribution.

Anyone even contemplating receiving an installer and a registration code from another purchaser should know they are treading on thin ice (legally).  Whether it will be enforced is another story, but best you just step away and let it go

Edited October 22, 20196 yr by ErichB

21 minutes ago, ErichB said:

I don't believe any licence agreement between the developer and the original purchaser allows for onward distribution.

Anyone even contemplating receiving an installer and a registration code from another purchaser should know they are treading on thin ice (legally).  Whether it will be enforced is another story, but best you just step away and let it go

Thanks Erich. As I said at the outset this was more of a discussion than a request for guidance.

20 hours ago, w6kd said:

The owner of a copyright does not relinquish his rights by taking his work off the market...it's still his to license/sell--or not to--as he sees fit. 

Sharing a copyrighted work or a password/registration key, even though the product is no longer sold, is just as wrong (and in most cases illegal) as doing it with an actively-marketed product.

 

Do you have a citation for this?

41 minutes ago, pgde said:

Do you have a citation for this?

https://info.legalzoom.com/copyright-laws-out-print-books-23138.html

http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report.pdf

34 minutes ago, w6kd said:

https://info.legalzoom.com/copyright-laws-out-print-books-23138.html

http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/orphan-report.pdf

Thanks so much!

Infringement is not "theft" nor "piracy", though I get that there are entities which want to promote that idea. In the US copyright law, there is the concept of the "first sale" doctrine which limits the control of  rights-holders to the first sale of a work.  Software publishers wish to get around the doctrine through license terms and AFAIK have had success in some jurisdictions but not all.  I think Vernor v Autodesk in the US Ninth Circuit (dealing with re-sale of autocad software license) was a key decision.

 

scott s.

.

 

3 hours ago, scott967 said:

Infringement is not "theft" nor "piracy", though I get that there are entities which want to promote that idea. In the US copyright law, there is the concept of the "first sale" doctrine which limits the control of  rights-holders to the first sale of a work.  Software publishers wish to get around the doctrine through license terms and AFAIK have had success in some jurisdictions but not all.  I think Vernor v Autodesk in the US Ninth Circuit (dealing with re-sale of autocad software license) was a key decision.

 

scott s.

.

 

Terms like "theft" and "piracy" is propaganda; they are not really legal terms in this context.

Under most statutes, copyright infringement is not theft, because copyrights are not property, in any normal sense of the word.

Pirates are found on ships, typically have peg legs, a hook for a hand, a parrot on their shoulders and say "Aaaargh" a lot.

 

Sure, I used to make copies of all kinds of stuff that were for me, that I thought would not hurt anyone. . But I have reformed on all counts. Plus my adult daughter found the copies and threw them out. So it's very much a moral question. It's not a question of who gets hurt, or it's OK since I probably won't get caught, It's about right and wrong. (sigh)

Edited October 23, 20196 yr by 188AHC
Removed political reference

7 hours ago, tjstreak said:

Terms like "theft" and "piracy" is propaganda; they are not really legal terms in this context.

Under most statutes, copyright infringement is not theft, because copyrights are not property, in any normal sense of the word.

Pirates are found on ships, typically have peg legs, a hook for a hand, a parrot on their shoulders and say "Aaaargh" a lot.

 

A pirate walks into a bar and orders a beer. The bartender brings the beer and cant help notice a steering wheel in his pants and asks. "whats with the steering wheel in your pants "? The pirate responds “AARRRR its driving me nuts”

On 10/22/2019 at 8:47 PM, tjstreak said:

Terms like "theft" and "piracy" is propaganda; they are not really legal terms in this context.

Under most statutes, copyright infringement is not theft, because copyrights are not property, in any normal sense of the word.

Pirates are found on ships, typically have peg legs, a hook for a hand, a parrot on their shoulders and say "Aaaargh" a lot.

 

In the German UrhG the act itself is called "Verwertung", which translates as utilization or exploitation. §106 says, that duplication, distribution or public display without consent is punishable by 3 years in prison. (2) says that even only trying to do so is already seen as actually doing it. §108a says that doing this commercially gets you 5 years in prison.

@Ray, here is a good site about copyright in the UK: https://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/

Best regards

Edited October 23, 20196 yr by Lorby_SI

Yes, but try to get a prosecutor to prosecute such a case, especially when the defendant is located in another country, or even a different continent.  In fact, in practice, copyright laws traditionally have not been used against the casual consumer.  Usually these laws are deployed against the large commercial infringers.  That is, if someone makes hundreds of copies of a CD or DVD, or operates a website where they are selling the product, those are the people targeted by the law.

As far as the moral issue, keep in mind we are talking about an abandoned product.  The developer has lost interest in the product and is no longer selling it.  He is no longer offering updates or providing technical support.  There is no way to pay the developer for the product because it is not offered for sale anywhere.  In fact, it may not even be possible to locate the developer.  The developer may actually be dead.

In fact, the developer may have calculated that the cost of updating and providing technical support for the product exceeds the potential sales of the product.

It is analogous to an out of print book.  Sure, if you were to fire up the printing presses and start selling the book, the author might show up to protect his copyright.  But for the one off copy, he probably does not even care.

  On the other hand, many people on the left see IP laws as a means of promoting greater inequality and supporting monopoly rents.  Economists like Dan Baker have written about this.

I am thinking of a game rulebook I really liked.  It was published in the 1970s by a company which went bankrupt in 1980.  When the company was liquidated, apparently the rights were not sold.  I guess this means, the copyrights are still held by a company which no longer exists.  The actual author is dead, but even before his death never expressed any interest in his work.  The copyright still exists, and will continue to exist (I believe) until 75 years after the author's death.  Except no one knows who holds the copyright.  Where is the harm in copying this work?

Edited October 23, 20196 yr by 188AHC
Removed political reference