posted
Like my grand daddy used to say, "posession is nine-tenths of the law."
I think the conversation has been lost in a quagmire of "what if's."
The software/fonts were legally purchased, the computer and it's contents were knowlingly sold.
One person, no more, is using the computer and it's contents. Purely change of ownership.
You can always contact them and ask what you need to do....but I see no moral reason why you should feel guilty about using what you purchased.
It's not like the guy gave you the computer and said, "I'm keeping the original software, but I put copies of it on the computer for you as a bonus." He no longer has it right?
Go on and live my man. I'd be more concerned about how you would react when someone cuts you off in traffic.
-------------------- Todd Gill Outside The Lines Potterville, MI Posts: 7792 | From: Potterville, MI | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
The Adobe copyright agreement mentions the "legal transfer", which includes the transfer of the software and serial numbers as well. Based on that, as long as you have registered copies of the software which include the fonts, you're legal. It's a valid transfer of legal copies.
The dicey part is where the computers, fonts, etc are not a direct transfer from the original purchaser of the software, but the sherrifs who siezed the materials from the bankruptcy proceedings.
I'm no legal expert, but I'm assuming the seizure would constitue a legal accquisition and would, at this point, constitute a "transfer" of the rights and ownership to use the software to the sherrif's department. Effectively, their decision to pass the same materials to the auctioneer is essentially creating a third party seller. Although it was bought at an auction, it was sold as sheriff department property, or property of those who instituted the siezure proceedings...the bankruptcy courts.
Again, the passing of usage rights for any of the fonts included with the auctioned software would be legal based on the rights of possesion of transfer.
If it were me, I would check the systems for software leaglly downloaded from the internet and stored on the hard drive. If found, they should be backed up and the software seller can be contacted as needed. I would then format the hard drives, reinstall the software included with them, and consider it a legal transfer of the copyrighted materials. Anything lost due to the lack of registered software would also insure that no pirated materials would remain on the computers.
My 2 bits... Rapid
-------------------- Ray Rheaume Rapidfire Design 543 Brushwood Road North Haverhill, NH 03774 rapidfiredesign@hotmail.com 603-787-6803
I like my paint shaken, not stirred. Posts: 5648 | From: North Haverhill, New Hampshire | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"What if" the kind of people getting their computers confiscated by the Sherrif may also be the kind of people that had never legally owned them in the first place? awww, what a quagmire... since others "see no moral reason why you should feel guilty "... why should you?
why "get lost in a quagmire of what if's" when you can eliminate that doubt by simply assuming that "the software/fonts were legally purchased, the computer and it's contents were knowlingly sold, & One person, no more, is using the computer and it's contents"
quote:They come with the operating system discs,license sticker on side of each computer, and all the software, books, disks, etc.
I think it's right to assume that since the computers came with original disks, software, books, etc as he has implied, that one could surmise they were legally purchased. If it was a case where the computers contained software and fonts with no supporting evidence of a legal purchase, then the materials legitimacy could be suspect.
Now here's a "what if" you might appreciate:
Since you state the computers were confiscated by the local sheriff as a result of the bankruptcy procedure, doesn't it stand to reason that the onus lies with the sheriff to assure the legitimacy of the computers contents prior to allowing transfer of ownership to a third party?
Let's say it was an office desk instead of a computer which they had confiscated. Don't you think they would open the drawers to ensure they didn't contain a loaded handgun, valuables, or even a cache of illicit drugs before they allowed the desk to be passed on to another party? Imagine the embarrassment when the headline reads, "County sheriff sells desk full of Cocaine to college student."
As an intermidiary agency assigned with court approved powers to take possession of the computers, it seems to me they bear part of the responsibility to ensure they are not passing along stolen property.
You say,
quote:but I'll admit that I used copied versions of most of that software for a short time before I bought it.
I would agree to "not worry" if you want to use software on a second hand computer
And I would say that we all have, or do. It sounds like William is making an attempt to do what's right....but tracking down the legitimacy of hundreds of fonts and installed software is very time consuming....perhaps to the point of costing him more in lost productivity than the purchase was worth.
My gut reaction is that if he has a majority of materials (as he states he does) to back up the notion that it appears as though the contents of the computer must have been purchased legitimately by the now defunct company....I personally see no reason to invest huge amounts of time running down every piece of software on the computer.
If that doesn't settle it for him, he can always delete it all and have a completely clear conscience.
At some point, it does become a quagmire of "what if's."
Would you alert a cashier if you discovered she gave you $5 change you weren't deserving of? Would you return it? Yes, I'm sure most of us would.
Now, say you found a 5 dollar bill on the sidewalk....would you diligently enter every store on the block and ask if someone lost the 5 dollar bill in search of the legitimate owner? Would you drive it down to the police department and turn it in to lost and found? Or would you stick it into your pocket?
At some point, the search becomes an exhaustive quagmire of futility.
-------------------- Todd Gill Outside The Lines Potterville, MI Posts: 7792 | From: Potterville, MI | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Todd, The $5 you just found on the ground was marked money - part of a sting operation. By picking it up, you've just implicated yourself... Now if you PROVE that you just received it in a stack of bills wrapped by the bank instead, is it any more legal? I know, strange, incorrect analogy. BUT, we have gone off on quite a few tangents here.
I would love to hear a definitive answer to William's original question BY A LAWYER. I doubt we'll get it, but it would be nice. It's been interesting to see where this thread has gone and the many ways people justify their decisions.
Anyway, William, USE IT!
-------------------- Gene Golden Gettysburg Signs Gettysburg PA 17325 717-334-0200 genegolden@gettysburgsigns.com
"Art is knowing when to stop." Posts: 1578 | From: Gettysburg, PA | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would use the fonts. I wouldn't keep $$ or a wallet that I found tho. Love...Jill
-------------------- That is like a Mr. Potato Head with all the pieces in the wrong place. -Russ McMullin Posts: 8834 | From: Butler, PA, USA | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked Gary's answer too . . about the wallet.
And Doug's answer too, because yeh, what's goin' on with this equipment . . .but I reckon that 'puter ain't hot if the Sheriff sold it to ya . . .
I'm also with who ever said call Adobe.
Still, here's another illustration, more like Mr. William's actual situation than Gary's cut & dried "wallet" illustration:
Don't you think this is more like buyin' a car full of CD's with copy righted music on them that the vehicle owner made off their previously purchased cassettes & albums??
In that case, I might call the car dealer and ask, "Did the previous owner get everything they wanted out of the car?"
I also agree that it was irresponsible of the computer owner AND the Sheriff's Dept. to not delete EVERTHING off the computer, just as they would have cleaned out a vehicle.
-------------------- Signs Sweet Home Alabama
oneshot on chat
"Look like a girl, act like a lady, think like a man, work like a dog" Posts: 5758 | From: "Sweet Home" Alabama | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay Sheila, So he deletes everything off the hard drive. Now he still owns the Windows XP disc, the Quickbooks disc and the Adobe fonts disc. Can he install them into his computer?
-------------------- Gene Golden Gettysburg Signs Gettysburg PA 17325 717-334-0200 genegolden@gettysburgsigns.com
"Art is knowing when to stop." Posts: 1578 | From: Gettysburg, PA | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gene, if he has the seriel number... yeah he can install it. Will it install? Yes! will it work? yes! Does that mean he is the licensed owner? To me that is the original question & your hypothetical version of the question would require 3 answers... one from M$, one from Intuit, & one from Adobe. My experience with Adobe graphics software (not fonts) would tell me the answer from them is no.
Todd, I wasn't willing to bump this up yesterday to further hypothesize on this quandary... but since it's been bumped...
quote:Now here's a "what if" you might appreciate:
Since you state the computers were confiscated by the local sheriff as a result of the bankruptcy procedure, doesn't it stand to reason that the onus lies with the sheriff to assure the legitimacy of the computers contents prior to allowing transfer of ownership to a third party?
Let's say it was an office desk instead of a computer which they had confiscated. Don't you think they would open the drawers to ensure they didn't contain a loaded handgun
Let's go a little less extreme then a handgun & say there is a fishing license in there... nobody is going to shoot themselves with it... it's not illegal to possess another persons fishing license... so the sgerrif leaves it in the desk & you buy it at the auction. Now go out & show it to the game warden after a good days haul of fish & tell him all your above logic about transfer of licensing to you being the sherrifs responsibility & let me know what he says.
At first, I thought, "hmmmm, Doug has made an argument that cannot be countered. Checkmate."
But after thinking about this, I believe that the argument has some flaws, thus making it a comparison between two dissimilar scenarios.
I would argue that in the case of the fishing licence, the person is using the license to catch fish that without the license is considered property of the state. The license allows you to in effect purchase fish if you're lucky enough to catch them. Fish being a state owned resource.
This is much different than the transfer of one working license from one owner to another. The software has been purchased, it has no expiration date as a fishing license does, and it is still ONLY being used by one person. It has not been copied and shared with all your neighbors.
The software company does not own the creations produced by their software....whereas the state not only has sold the license to have the priviledge of performing the act of fishing (which corresponds to the act of using the software) but they also own the result of the act of fishing (the fish). The software company can never make a claim to own the result of your using their software.
So your analogy doesn't totally work here. But I do get your point....and it is a good one....but I still believe that it is a product purchased and if it is a legitimately licensed product it should be permissable to transfer it from one person's ownership to another's....so long as there is still only a single user using it.
Don't forget that somewhere at the beginning of this post someone said that their is a provision for transfer of ownership.....
And morally, there should be an outlet for transfer of ownership with full rights maintained by the new owner.
posted
You buy a business, lets say a small storefront operation. You buy the building and it's contents. As you go throught the inventory, you find "questionable stock (bootleg items, possibly stolen goods, etc.)
The computer is much the same. You are entiled to use the place and inventory, but it basicly comes down to your conscience. If you use/sell the bootleg or stolen stuff, you run the risk of getting caught.
Remember, this is an ethical questin Bill has asked and responses will vary with each of us since our own levels of honesty, business practices and down right greed will play out in each of us.
Personally, anything that raises these questions (and usually the hairs on the back of my neck) usually result in my not involving myself in them, which is why I would do as I mentioned earlier...reformat the drives and ONLY install registered software with proper serial numbers.
Anything else probably isn't worth the ulcers. Rapid
-------------------- Ray Rheaume Rapidfire Design 543 Brushwood Road North Haverhill, NH 03774 rapidfiredesign@hotmail.com 603-787-6803
I like my paint shaken, not stirred. Posts: 5648 | From: North Haverhill, New Hampshire | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ray, you make good points here....but the gist of Bill's post leads me to believe that he has owner's manuals, original disks, etc which one would presume an equation of legally installed software.
Now if the computer came with only software installed and no form of backup materials....then I would be more apt to be suspicious of the software's legitimacy.
In the end, he can always contact the manufacturer's of every installed program and verify this....but I personally wouldn't feel it is necessary to do that....based on the description of the backup materials he listed.
I would do it with software that I would intend on upgrading....fonts, nope.
-------------------- Todd Gill Outside The Lines Potterville, MI Posts: 7792 | From: Potterville, MI | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I personally like oranges but every now and then a customer will give me apples? My dilemma, do I eat the apples because they were given to me or do they really belong to the tin man in the wizard of oz?
I now can't sleep over this quagmire so should I see a doctor about it or sue Microsoft and Adobe? It’s not always black and white. Guilt is a terrible thing to waste. You will be dead sooner than you think. Is there an afterlife or is this all you're going to get.
What if all the fonts have bogus names and aren't the original font foundry typefaces? Lets face it, we're all facked in the end.
-------------------- Bob Stephens Skywatch Signs Zephyrhills, FL
Corel is the program you find installed. It installs fonts by default. There are still thousands of fonts that can be installed, all a part of the legally accquired discs.
Heck, the Windows operating system includes fonts. Many others do as well.
Unless you have the discs, you can't reload them once the systems have been wiped. That's the only way to guarantee there's nothing being used that violates copyrights.
Rapid
-------------------- Ray Rheaume Rapidfire Design 543 Brushwood Road North Haverhill, NH 03774 rapidfiredesign@hotmail.com 603-787-6803
I like my paint shaken, not stirred. Posts: 5648 | From: North Haverhill, New Hampshire | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the nature of an "ethics question" (to quote part of the topic of this thread)is exactly as Ray has stated & subject to varied opinion based on varied points of view. (read: No right answer)
The possibility of a legal question to be debated tends to compete for our attention though. I believe the nature of a legal question boils down to an ethics question anyway when considered from a hypothetical viewpoint that is not bound in time & space to the legal statute or precedent existing in the jurisdiction where & when this quagmire began.
The beauty of our legal system is it's kinetic nature, & it's reflection of the democratic process by which ethical questions are debated, ruled upon, & subsequently over-ruled on occassion. The legal question may have one right answer, though it may not be "right" always, or everywhere.
It's no secret that I like to write, but often I have to work, so some of my earlier replies intended to hint at my rationalization for my opinions without spelling them out. For the sake of adding clarity to my earlier post questioning the character of the bankrupt former owner... or questioning the validity of recurring assumptions about "a single user" using the software... consider this hypothetical scenario:
I buy a laptop computer, & some software... learn a trade, open a business, lease some more computers & equipment, get bank loans, grow my business, get bored, stop working, default on loans, go bankrupt, then I move to Maui with my laptop & back-up copies of my software that I owned before opening the business.
William gets my old desktop computers with MY software (& CD's) that never got dealt with. (I got bored remember... never went back in the office)
Too far fetched ?
OK... I lend my junkie cousin a computer w/ software, CD's & manuals to help him rise up from his life of crime... he splits, runs a con, sets up a company, goes bankrupt... William gets my computer... meanwhile I'm still using (& upgrading) my software, never needing the manual or the old Version 1 CD's.
ethically, I completely agree that IF we can assume nobody else is using the software, it has been bought & paid for & can be used in good conscience... but I believe that assumption can not be made. You can wish & you can hope... but the leap of faith required to conclude that the original owner is not using the software is, IMHO, a suspension of ethics in favor of convenience.
Ok, let's say while I was sleeping, an alien spacecraft from mars hovers over my house and fires a duplication beam into my computer from within the belly of it's armored hulk.
The duplication beam not only copies the software, but the registration numbers as well while at the same time removing mine...the two little one-eyed, green filtchers grin broadly, exposing dagger-like teeth and serpentine tongues.
Next, they conduct a mind meld on me, convincing me that the software on my computer is bootlegged. The guilt is so overwhelming that I turn myself in to the authorities, who refer the case to the prosecuting attorney.
Incensed at my disregard for the rights of the software manufacturers, I am successfully prosecuted and sentenced to 10 years in maximum security prison, bunking with with Felix Rumpranger - a triple X chromosome convicted serial rapist of gigilos along California's Gold Coast. He resembles sasquatch and has removable dentures.
My life is ruined, and I'll never be able to sit on hard chairs again...meanwhile, Adobe feels justice has been done and continues working on bug laden software, slowly introducing new versions of Illustrator with features that CorelDraw has had for years.
Now this COULD happen,but common sense tells me otherwise. Sorry Doug, I just couldn't help but cross the line from macabre speculation to full-blown satire....
Kind of funny that Bill has jumped out of this one 30 posts ago isn't it?
I Stand by my theory that if the computer was corporate owned, and has all the manuals, original cd's, boxes and software that the chances are 90+% that there is no problems.
If Bill were to erase all the software that he feels could be legitimate, because a lingering subtle doubt gives him pause...then he probably took a screwing for the price he paid for the computer...as you can purchase a decent computer with new technology for as little as $400.
The fonts I don't question, because you can legally obtain versions of just about any font on the web for free...
I'd be curious and surprised to read of an instance where a private individual was successfully prosecuted by a software manufacturer for using it's programs on a computer aquired at a corporate bankruptcy auction. I'm not saying it hasn't happened...but it would be fun to research.
I'm worn out on this one...I'm gonna pack it in (the crowd explodes in applause)
quote: I Stand by my theory that if the computer was corporate owned, and has all the manuals, original cd's, boxes and software that the chances are 90+% that there is no problems.
Couple of factors to consider...
It may have been corporate owned, but that does not in any way rule out that the individual users (employees) did not have illegal or illicit materials on them.
90% sure is still 10% unsure.
Rapid
-------------------- Ray Rheaume Rapidfire Design 543 Brushwood Road North Haverhill, NH 03774 rapidfiredesign@hotmail.com 603-787-6803
I like my paint shaken, not stirred. Posts: 5648 | From: North Haverhill, New Hampshire | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the ethical thing to do is to track down every one of the software titles including each of the hundreds of fonts; doesn't it also stand to reason that an ethical society, believing in the "rule of law" should ensure Bill does the right thing, thereby protecting the sanctity of all our rights - by turning him in to the local authorities?
I mean, c'mon...after all...if you saw a kid stick a candy bar in his pocket, wouldn't you feel compelled to tell the store manager?
Or how about turning yourself in when you're driving home and you know you are .000001 over the legal alchohol limit?
And you probably turn yourself in when you toss a cigarette butt onto the pavement in violation of the local littering code?
Ok, I'm being stupid here...but the point is that I think Bill is smart enough to figure out what reasonable extent he needs to pursue legitimacy in regards to the contents of his purchase. Now, let's be really honest....what have YOU got on your computer, even if ever-so-insignificant that maybe doesn't belong there?
-------------------- Todd Gill Outside The Lines Potterville, MI Posts: 7792 | From: Potterville, MI | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
IMO ethics has nothing to do with getting or being "turned in" if yourethics are not compromised... there's NO ethical question... IF they are, then yer busted already anyway where it matters most!
..& just so nobody thinks I'm trying to take the moral high ground here... I never suggested "tracking down the legitimacy of hundreds of fonts and installed software"
...BUT if (when) I decided NOT TO... it would be more because, in an example like Williams, I percieve that the violation, if any, just may rank down there with the local littering code and NOT because I conveniently convince myself beyond all doubt that there is still only a single user using it.
posted
Amen Brother! Taking the moral high ground is nothing to be ashamed about though....
I think it's interesting (and I do it too) though how we as humans can direct our focus on a certain topic with moral clarity, yet there are so many other traits where we fall short of the ideal.
Try as I may,I can't live a perfect life, so I guess it's the best Gift of all that I'm saved by grace and nothing that I do myself - - If I relied on my own actions in totality, I'd be struck by lightening several times over.
I'm not sure there is much difference between using the stuff because you don't think you'll get caught, or convincing yourself that it is legit without exhaustively checking it out for sure...in either case, there is a certain measure of uncertainty and hopefully a tinge of guilt that accompanies the justification.
Now we know why all presidents who enter the presidency with dark hair, end up with solid white hair within their first term.....if we can debate a topic like this for days on end, then imagine the stress a president goes through trying to keep 295 million US residents happy - -all of whom has a different opinion!
Nations will not fall nor rise over Bill's 2nd hand computer....but this has been an interesting topic....and fun to see where everybody's personal line gets drawn in the sand.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Rolling On The Floor]](graemlins/rolf.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic