Well, here is another flame war starting...
Here is my $0.03 (yes that's three cents, the $0.02 has been overtaken due
to increased costs due to illegal use of $0.02, with people not paying for
the licenscing fees)
I don't advocate piracy.
However I am in bitter opposition of the following:
overpricedware
spinware
Overpriced and spinware fall in the same category, this is the type of
software that gets advertised extensively, and is released admist a fair
amount of spin. However the software fails to deliver it's advertised hype.
Some companies offer money-back guarantee's on software that fails to
deliver and fulfill the need expected by the consumer. The vast majority
however DO NOT.
If a company wants to charge another company $15,000 to provide a service,
and the service provider fails to provide the service expected, the
purchasing company can usually hold the provider in court on charges of
amoung other things, fraud, misrepresentation, and unethical business
practices. All penalties which usually recover the expense of the hiring
provider plus legal fees.
This however does not exist for software. You can go out and purchase some
$15,000 piece of software with no money back gaurantee. And no reasonable
time to discover if on the long run, the software will suffice the need.
Under these instances, if the software house is unwilling to provide a trial
copy, it's obvious that a consumer is left with overwheliming pressure to
pirate the software, and see if it will work, and if does, pay the software
maker for it's efforts.
Now, let's take it down to the $150.00 level. The kind of level that
mainstream consumer software lives at. I still disagree that this software
should have a no return policy. And that piracy geared torwards evaluating
the software without committment to purchase the software first will
continue to happen, and I would say at vigor. And I personally understand
it, however I contend that if a user derives benefit directly or indirectly
from the continued use of the software, that they should buy a licensed copy
and reward the maker for their efforts.
That the courts would say that you might have copied the software, and that
justifies the software maker's actions, means that you are being proven
guilty of the crime of theft without evidence or cause to pass down that
judgement, and violates the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.
Next time you buy a piece of junk software admist a bunch or marketting hype
at a local retailer, try to return it. Watch them tell you that you can't
due to the fact that you might have copied it. The sad thing is that most
of us comply with this gross infrigment of our constitutional rights and say
"oh ok". Consumers must quit taking this as the norm.
Again, I don't advocate piracy. However I would encourage evaluation of
software when there is no other way to determine if the licensing cost is
worth the investment, and that after a period of time, that the user either
completly remove the software or pay for it.
I had a friend once that sued a retailer on their no - return policy and had
them settle before it ever went to court. not a big settlement, but in my
opinion, an indication that the retailers KNOW it's wrong.
In this light, even though I disagree with continued illegal use of pirated
software when the software is providing a benefit, and the countries who
support it, it is my steadfast conclusion at this time that it has a place
in our society, until the rules are changed to restore constitutional rights
to the citizens of our country.
""Tom Lisa"" wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> No matter how you slice it, it is still piracy. When you steal, yes
steal,
> from one
> person/company/institution/etc it matters not what you do with it
afterwards
> (the Robin Hood complex), the original owner has still suffered a loss.
>
> However, since you appear to reside in Hong Kong, I am not surprised at
your
> attitude. Hong Kong has long been a source of pirated software and other
> copywrited material.
>
> To answer the original poster's question: You cannot install it on two
> machines at
> once. The CD comes with an installation diskette that tracks the
installs.
> You can
> however, uninstall it from one machine and then install it on another.
BTW,
> I understand that Ver 3.0 is much better than the previous versions, with
the
> previously unavailable ability to change the topology of the network.
>
> HTH,
> Prof. Tom Lisa, CCAI
> Community College of Southern Nevada
> Cisco Regional Networking Academy
>
>
> PHIMHONGKONG wrote:
>
> > contact me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] i have router sim 2.1 and switch sim +
ccno
> > sim
> > i can burn you one
> > :-d
> > i dont sell pirate software . i am helping you to study :-)
> >
> > poeple please dont say i am pirater
> >
> > wrote in message
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Hi to all,
> > > For anybody who own a RouterSim 3.0. I am planning to invest $250.00
> > buying
> > > RouterSim 3.0 router simulator to preopare for my CCNA certification.
> Can
> > I
> > > burn a copy of this as my back-up? Can I simultaneously install this
to
> > two
> > > hard drives (i.e, to a desk top and to a lap top)?
> > > Please educate me.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Val
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=11393&t=11342
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
