[akula34]

Also note, every single image of a PRE that appears on this website is an express violation of copyright laws unless the original photographer, along with the graphic designer that did the unique UI, and the industrial designer that designed the device gave their express permission for it to be used on this website.

It gets sticky doesn't it?

As a photographer, I find your explanation laughable. I love it when those who have NO understanding of copyright and IP laws try to explain it to others. Keep posting. You're giving me a good chuckle.

[Xyg]

Exactly.

[berdinkerdickle]

I know this question was raised regarding the Pre, but I expect the answer is; Check With the SW Developer.

If the developer says you can only install it on one device, then legally, you can only install it on one device.

Some will offer the 2nd seat at a discount.

[hparsons]

Do you buy two CD's if you and your wife are in the car listening to the same music? Do you rent two DVD's if you stay home and watch a movie?

Totally differen scenarios. Both of those instances have licenses that allow you to do those activities.
I find it interesting the morality of "If I don't agree with what I already agreed to, I will do what I believe is fair, and there's nothing wrong with it..."

[akula34]

I know this question was raised regarding the Pre, but I expect the answer is; Check With the SW Developer.

If the developer says you can only install it on one device, then legally, you can only install it on one device.

Some will offer the 2nd seat at a discount.

And that's why he's the moderator.... keeps clowns like me in check...

I'll play nice now....

[hparsons]

..
I don't exactly buy multiple copies of Office to install on the 2 computers i own. Do you?

Regardless, i think its legit question. If i own an iphone and ipod, you can sync both to the same account. You don't buy apps for each. And that's really where the question comes from..

I purchase the number of copies I install on my computers.

Again, the example you are giving (likely) is a different situation. It really depends on the license of the software in question.

Bottom line is, the developer of the software has the right to dictate terms on how you use it. If you don't like the terms, you have the right to not buy it, you don't have the right to violate the terms.

[akula34]

I purchase the number of copies I install on my computers.

Bravo... I knew there were more of us out there!!

[hparsons]

Also note, every single image of a PRE that appears on this website is an express violation of copyright laws unless the original photographer, along with the graphic designer that did the unique UI, and the industrial designer that designed the device gave their express permission for it to be used on this website.

It gets sticky doesn't it?

Anyone who releases a photograph has to claim copyright on it. You are quite wrong on your "express permission" of photograph use.

[Mikest]

Anyone who releases a photograph has to claim copyright on it. You are quite wrong on your "express permission" of photograph use.

of course no ones going to sue over an internet forum but..

Honestly you're both partially correct. Under current copyright law (since 1978) the creator of a work instantly owns a copyright to whatever they've created from a photograph, a song, a poem, a graphic yada yada for a minimum of 70 years after the creators death automatically without registering the work. If that person wanted to claim infringement on that work they would be required to register the work in question with the federal copyright office before filing a lawsuit or it would get thrown out immediately.

Of course this all changes with the recent passing of the Orphans works act which is basically a photographers personal nightmare and a copyright infringers wet dream.

Why the heck am I arguing this. Carry on.

[Mikest]

As a photographer, I find your explanation laughable. I love it when those who have NO understanding of copyright and IP laws try to explain it to others. Keep posting. You're giving me a good chuckle.

Im just a graphic design student so correct me if Im wrong here but a photographer would have a signed release form for the content of the photograph whether it be model or a work release form and would sell his own rights to the photograph to his client as part of his contract with the client unless it were a case of licensing in which the rights to the photographs remain the photographers but he grants the client the right to publish/use those images.

wow that was poorly phrased and extremely general but am I more or less getting close?

[Soorma]

I think it depends on the app as to whether you can put in on multiple WebOS phones or not. As for the profile thing, I bet your phone number is involved, which makes it impossible for two WebOS phones to have the same profile

[cardfan]

Yes, I do buy two copies of Office to install on my computers. Why, because it's what is right.

The iPhone question is a moot point, that is ALLOWED under their their licensing agreement. We don't know what each developer will do for Palm, but they'll be allowed to set their own terms, unlike Apple's Draconian App Store.

My point was that you're stealing from developers, regardless of how you justify it. A thief who doesn't think he's a thief is still a criminal.

Geez..enough. The version of office i got says up to 3 computers.

Iphone apps are tied to the account which spawned my little question. Especially since Palm is about to run their own app store and has the apple spirit.

And only a few palm apps i bought required a hotsync name. For simplicity sake, all my palms have the same name.

Take your thief and criminal talk somewhere else. Especially in a forum where jailbreaking is common, hacking to tether is common, bending rules to gain carrier discounts is common, or whatever else.

Thanks to the others who answered. I think it'll be unique to the device too (or one device at a time) which i've no problem with. But i do wonder how it will affect changing devices especially as you acquire many. Imagine having to take care of 30 apps individually when upgrading. An app store encourages using more apps..

[cardfan]

I purchase the number of copies I install on my computers.

Again, the example you are giving (likely) is a different situation. It really depends on the license of the software in question.

Bottom line is, the developer of the software has the right to dictate terms on how you use it. If you don't like the terms, you have the right to not buy it, you don't have the right to violate the terms.

I believe you are right and i abide by the terms usually. But i'm not going to have time to differentiate between cheap mobile apps if i got like 30+ of them. Apple's app store spawned cheap throwaway apps. Palm's will do the same.

[hparsons]

...
Take your thief and criminal talk somewhere else. Especially in a forum where jailbreaking is common, hacking to tether is common, bending rules to gain carrier discounts is common, or whatever else.
...

Sorry, this is where we part ways on your post. When someone talks about stealing software, others don't have to take the talk about it "somewhere else".

[cardfan]

Sorry, this is where we part ways on your post. When someone talks about stealing software, others don't have to take the talk about it "somewhere else".

Noone talked about stealing software. Get a grip. You took that leap of logic.

[akula34]

Noone talked about stealing software. Get a grip. You took that leap of logic.

Man.... wow.... *loss of words*. You win...

I think this is the point where I find a new thread to participate in...

[hparsons]

Noone talked about stealing software. Get a grip. You took that leap of logic.

I believe you are right and i abide by the terms usually. But i'm not going to have time to differentiate between cheap mobile apps if i got like 30+ of them. Apple's app store spawned cheap throwaway apps. Palm's will do the same.

(my emphasis added)

1. Every instance that fell outside of the "usually" is theft.
2. You are incorrect about your MS Office license. Microsoft does not license any of their office products for multiple users on multiple computers on a single license. Want to prove me wrong? Go to "About" on your program, look at the license, and show the part that says differently. It doesn't.

[cardfan]

Man.... wow.... *loss of words*. You win...

I think this is the point where I find a new thread to participate in...

Ok kiddo, then enlighten me..

This is a cool game. I get the ***** police on me for asking a question basically if the Palm store will be like the Apple app store. Oops..nope, guess i stole those iphone apps for putting them on my ipod as well. Woe is me.

All those 100's of dollars spent on palm apps. Stolen. All of them. Yep you're right, i'm a dirty no good thief because i threw a couple of them on another phone i own.

[cardfan]

(my emphasis added)

1. Every instance that fell outside of the "usually" is theft.
2. You are incorrect about your MS Office license. Microsoft does not license any of their office products for multiple users on multiple computers on a single license. Want to prove me wrong? Go to "About" on your program, look at the license, and show the part that says differently. It doesn't.

Amazon.com: Microsoft Office Home and Student 2007: Software

Scroll down to end of product description.

May be installed on up to three non-commercial home computers.


I said "usually" because i'm not perfect. We're talking MANY apps purchased. I'm not about to say i'm the perfect saint here (noone is). But i don't think it deserves this level of criticism.

[SedahDrol]

It all depends on the licensing terms. Generally software licenses are not tied to a specific device. they are tied to a number of users (normally 1 license per user). Recently there are more licenses that are using unique identifiers to a device to ensure a person doesn't abuse there (ie Microsofts activiation), others are either tied to a device or specific media.

Let me start of by stating IANAL.
In all cases of copyright, fair use is allowed, so long as you do not circumvent any encryption. Fair use of music and movies allows you to give a copy to a friend. This includes DVD's. You can copy a DVD so long as you do not circumvent the encryption. A bit for bit copy (opening up the folder, doing a select all, and a copy and paste onto a harddrive, then mounting said harddrive as a dvd player or burning said information onto another storage medium) still keeps the CSS encryption in tact and does not violate the digital millenium act. Just like copying any other encrypted file, for example a pgp ecrypted file, one can copy it and move it around as often as they want and they are not violating the digital millenium act. This does not mean that you can share your cd's and with everyone in the world indiscriminantly nor sell for profit such copies. Neither the music nor movie studios have ever gone after anybody for fair use they only go after gross distributers trying to hide behind the guise of fair use.

Copyright infringement is not theft. Theft involves physical property. So a software pirate is not a thief because no one has been deprived of physical property. But they are still civilly liable and now criminals under current US laws.

And don't forget you can always make a copy for archival purposes. (please not this is in the US)