Related
Dear Microsoft,
I am writing this letter to ask permission for Xda-developers.com and it's users to officially use, develop, and share the new Wizard WM6 roms on this site. I know that you are currently not allowing us to do so. I believe it is in your best interest to let us. Here is why:
1) User Testing - allowing us to develop and share the WM6 rom for the wizard will open your product to a huge amount of testing. On this site, we don't just use our phones, we push them hard. We love to see the most we can get out of them. We get bored with what we have, so we load a new rom and see what it can do. 3 days later we load another. You will not find a better place on the Internet to test your roms.
Also, it will allow us to test compatibility with new and existing software. This site is already reference material for most software developers and even HTC. In our never-ending search for information about these devices we find things such as tricks to make them better, security holes, and all sorts of information that 3rd party companies can use.
All of this work is done by volunteers who, although they may gripe from time to time, feel a sense of satisfaction for doing this work. You can't buy their level of loyalty.
2) Goodwill - Allowing us to use, develop and share the WM6 rom will create a massive amount of goodwill on this site for your company. Since you are the biggest player in the game, you are currently subject to TONS of criticism everywhere you turn. People usually see you as this huge faceless corporation that wants to control people and take their money. I read the blogs of Microsoft employees and know this is really not the case. Allowing us to work on this rom openly will create goodwill that no ad campaign can buy.
3) Money - The bottom line is that you will save money. Money that might be spent on research will be saved by free research on this site. Money spent on ads to generate goodwill will be saved by the goodwill generated on this site.
I appreciate your consideration of this matter. Please let us know of your decision.
Sincerely,
texasaggie1
cool letter.. cant wait to see wat kind of responce you get.
Diddo.......Let's see if the big boss will let us play.
Great Letter Aggie. I would think the MS resposne would be pretty good about this. MS has been pretty good with other technologies lately in opening it up and taking feedbacks from users.
One thing is for sure. THERE IS NO OTHER PLACE BETTER THAN HERE TO TEST/TWEAK/BETTER WINDOWS MOBILE.
We do have a vast number of volunteers here that do a helluva job in making these roms faster and better.
What makes you think they aren't doing this already?
Where do you think this 'leaked' version originated from, anyway? And why is it literally painless to install?
MS has employees who actively troll this group (among others) to get feedback..good and bad...for their "pre-release" warez. They just lurk in the shadows (rightfully so, speaking up would make them the whipping boys of the forum...)
Since the hardware mfr and/or the service provider of the device is the one who decides whether or not to 'upgrade' your device with the latest and greatest OS (based heavily on whether or not they want to support multiple s/w versions) MS can't make any money off simply selling their product to the end user. Unlike the PC model of selling you a retail boxed version of a new operating system for your PC.
No money to be made = no money to be lost. Think about it.
All that being said, the most important thing to remember is that they will ACTIVELY shut down any site hosting their software without their permission. If they fail to enforce their copyrights by legal means, it further weakens any argument in future lawsuits regarding others who pirate their software. They will also quickly piss off the likes of t-mobile, cingular, and other service providers if they provide the end-user a means of bypassing their process of certifying the stability of their phones.
They will continue to operate in this way for a long time. They get free beta testing from 'hardcore users' while looking the other way. It's genius if you ask me!
!! Sweet !!
I would be very suprised if they gave this consideration, they will wait for the 'next gen' devices up to come to release it on in my opinion.
Besides we must face it, most people that are using these phones these days do not flash their device, nonetheless, know what it is.
We are the few flashing samurai that cannot live with a stock rom, and want to "juice" our hardware to get our money's worth. \m/
I will say If you live in the US now you will see that parents are buying their teenage kiddies smartphones/ppcs now for a couple reasons. 1) To ward off an appl music/video product, and of course. 2) To be able to reach them anywhere with the phone service.
It would have been funny to say that most people on this site are using/have used the wm6 leak already, so we might as well work together for free, for a learning purpose.
They need more of this for WM device settings...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2362050448778905490&q=steve+ballmer+remix
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5oGaZIKYvo
rizzo said:
What makes you think they aren't doing this already?
Where do you think this 'leaked' version originated from, anyway? And why is it literally painless to install?
MS has employees who actively troll this group (among others) to get feedback..good and bad...for their "pre-release" warez. They just lurk in the shadows (rightfully so, speaking up would make them the whipping boys of the forum...)
Since the hardware mfr and/or the service provider of the device is the one who decides whether or not to 'upgrade' your device with the latest and greatest OS (based heavily on whether or not they want to support multiple s/w versions) MS can't make any money off simply selling their product to the end user. Unlike the PC model of selling you a retail boxed version of a new operating system for your PC.
No money to be made = no money to be lost. Think about it.
All that being said, the most important thing to remember is that they will ACTIVELY shut down any site hosting their software without their permission. If they fail to enforce their copyrights by legal means, it further weakens any argument in future lawsuits regarding others who pirate their software. They will also quickly piss off the likes of t-mobile, cingular, and other service providers if they provide the end-user a means of bypassing their process of certifying the stability of their phones.
They will continue to operate in this way for a long time. They get free beta testing from 'hardcore users' while looking the other way. It's genius if you ask me!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, you might be right. But, aren't they allowing WM6 on the Universal? That may change the equation.
My gut feeling is that one or more of the ROM cookers in here works for M$. You don't know some of the things they do without having a lot more background knowledge than the average joe. There's nothing wrong with that, of course...that means better products for you and me.
I support Texasaggie1
Hi, i would like to support the request. It makes damn sense, I am an old-time Linux user and i think that Microsoft would show great marketing sense in allowing us to test it. I will not argue about the advantages and benefits,
and one simple question: Who would be negatively affected by it? HTC? Microsoft? other users? Network providers?
pzucchel said:
Hi, i would like to support the request. It makes damn sense, I am an old-time Linux user and i think that Microsoft would show great marketing sense in allowing us to test it. I will not argue about the advantages and benefits,
and one simple question: Who would be negatively affected by it? HTC? Microsoft? other users? Network providers?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My Thought is NO-ONE. As all we do is RUN these ROMS and Tweak them to perform in the best way that they can. All that everyone does here is readily available and can/could/HAS been adopted by Developers, Networks & Manufacturers alike.
jwzg said:
My gut feeling is that one or more of the ROM cookers in here works for M$. You don't know some of the things they do without having a lot more background knowledge than the average joe. There's nothing wrong with that, of course...that means better products for you and me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I doubt any of the 'cookers' work for Microsoft. Although difficult, it's fairly common to reverse-engineer someone elses code and mold it into something that you want. Once you get the hang of how things work and make the script kiddie tools to do it, it's fairly simple.
One thing that a cooker can't do is write an entire OS then 'leak' it onto the internet and call it WM6, this is done by someone entrusted with copies of it for legitimate purposes. Blame HTC or any of the ODM's if you want, but it my opinion, it would be a waste of your time.
If you want to infect the world, you must spread your disease. MS has come a long way in this regard with the likes of gaining on Palm, RIM, symbian, etc.
Microsoft has always leveraged piracy to work in their favor...those that can't get the disease (or otherwise can't afford it) will have access to it. If you can't make the sale, might as well get them hooked fo' free!
pzucchel said:
and one simple question: Who would be negatively affected by it? HTC? Microsoft? other users? Network providers?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, but I had to chime in on this one, too. Maybe some people don't see it, but we ARE actively beta testing their software.
If you develop software, and want to have beta testing do any good, there needs to be some kind of order. Visiting forums to find information is chaotic at best. Sifting through page after page of hijacked threads and RTFM type questions isn't going to yield the feedback a company needs to squash the bugs out of code. If enough people complain about a particular 'feature' then it might get the company to try and replicate it in-house, but its very unlikely that you'd ever hear anything back from them.
End-users modifying their devices by flashing it with unreleased firmware it wasn't originally designed for is dangerous, and can cause a ripple effect if it's not managed. As long as the company stands by its "hey, we never said this code was finished - not to mention you're not supposed to have it" stance, it can shield them from almost ALL liability in you bricking your phone. In the mean time, hardcore folks like us will continue shoving the bleeding-edge not-ready-ware into our phones in order to tell the tales of our adventures to all that will listen - and MS will continue "leaking" their warez into the wild.
The minute Microsoft starts bending these rules for folks like us, then they are going to have to answer to THEIR customers (HTC, network providers, etc) when the nOObs start flooding their call centers for warranty-return requests.
texasaggie1 said:
Dear Microsoft,
I am writing this letter to ask permission for Xda-developers.com and it's users to officially use, develop, and share the new Wizard WM6 roms on this site. I know that you are currently not allowing us to do so. I believe it is in your best interest to let us. Here is why:
1) User Testing - allowing us to develop and share the WM6 rom for the wizard will open your product to a huge amount of testing. On this site, we don't just use our phones, we push them hard. We love to see the most we can get out of them. We get bored with what we have, so we load a new rom and see what it can do. 3 days later we load another. You will not find a better place on the Internet to test your roms.
Also, it will allow us to test compatibility with new and existing software. This site is already reference material for most software developers and even HTC. In our never-ending search for information about these devices we find things such as tricks to make them better, security holes, and all sorts of information that 3rd party companies can use.
All of this work is done by volunteers who, although they may gripe from time to time, feel a sense of satisfaction for doing this work. You can't buy their level of loyalty.
2) Goodwill - Allowing us to use, develop and share the WM6 rom will create a massive amount of goodwill on this site for your company. Since you are the biggest player in the game, you are currently subject to TONS of criticism everywhere you turn. People usually see you as this huge faceless corporation that wants to control people and take their money. I read the blogs of Microsoft employees and know this is really not the case. Allowing us to work on this rom openly will create goodwill that no ad campaign can buy.
3) Money - The bottom line is that you will save money. Money that might be spent on research will be saved by free research on this site. Money spent on ads to generate goodwill will be saved by the goodwill generated on this site.
I appreciate your consideration of this matter. Please let us know of your decision.
Sincerely,
texasaggie1
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Totally agreed texasaggie1 said but dont forget in all devices rom ,MS just part of 70% of rom others 30% belong to HTC,T-mobile...etc, the reason we need to cook rom in here not really problem belong to MS that belong to HTC,
MS understand HTC was first OEM used Mobile window,but MS can understand why we need to cook rom in here ? do you hear anyone cook Window XP ? MS must understand device rom is different with Window XP,MS just proved PB and AKU ,device also need driver and some of OEM program otherwide device(phone) will not working,you can see in rom kithen had OS/LOC/OEM , SO belong to MS,LOC/OEM belong to HTC,T-Mobile..etc. this is different with window XP,if today all rom made by MS than no one can said anything,but not in this case ,we in here not only help MS also help HTC,T-Mobile...etc. too, they got how many free employees to worked with them,now Apple will come out IPhone ,I dont think MS want to lose market to them,we in here 100% support to MS , I dont understand what piont they refuse us ?
BA_Flash_GOD said:
I would be very suprised if they gave this consideration, they will wait for the 'next gen' devices up to come to release it on in my opinion.
Besides we must face it, most people that are using these phones these days do not flash their device, nonetheless, know what it is.
We are the few flashing samurai that cannot live with a stock rom, and want to "juice" our hardware to get our money's worth. \m/
I will say If you live in the US now you will see that parents are buying their teenage kiddies smartphones/ppcs now for a couple reasons. 1) To ward off an appl music/video product, and of course. 2) To be able to reach them anywhere with the phone service.
It would have been funny to say that most people on this site are using/have used the wm6 leak already, so we might as well work together for free, for a learning purpose.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree. Good reply.
I know all of this is a long shot. But it's been bugging me lately. I had to post this letter.
Flashing/Testing New OS = Good Experience
I think M$ should show more of the average users that yes, you can upgrade/downgrade your current rom very easily. This would let all users have the option to use any individual one to meet their needs. I'm guessing another big issue would be CID locking though, wouldn't that be another breech of contract for M$ to the original phone service providers? What you guys think
BA_Flash_GOD said:
I think M$ should show more of the average users that yes, you can upgrade/downgrade your current rom very easily. This would let all users have the option to use any individual one to meet their needs. I'm guessing another big issue would be CID locking though, wouldn't that be another breech of contract for M$ to the original phone service providers? What you guys think
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am sorry, please don't take this the wrong way. But this is one of the silliest ideas I have seen in a long time. Think for a moment about the support headaches from even 20% of their users playing with ROMS versus the 2-3% that do it now. And you think some of the NOOBS on here get annoying forget about regular users!!!
I think things are about perfect the way they are. A little "unofficial" help lets us hardcore users reap the benefits of upgrading with out the hassles. Trust me if ROM upgrades became more official they would kill groups like this. They would charge for the upgrades and they would want to control them like they do desktop OS upgrades. I say no thanks to that. It's like the early days of Napster, or more recently You Tube taking down tons of videos, those things were much better before they became mainstream and then they had to change.
I will say this. MS should figure out how to make the CID & SIM Lock a separate part of the rom like the radio and bootloader, make it totally separate from the Rom & Extended Rom itself. That would allow tweakers to change roms with out worrying about Locks and would make the phone companies happy too. And I am sure users that need unlocking would figure that out too
BA_Flash_GOD said:
I think M$ should show more of the average users that yes, you can upgrade/downgrade your current rom very easily. This would let all users have the option to use any individual one to meet their needs. I'm guessing another big issue would be CID locking though, wouldn't that be another breech of contract for M$ to the original phone service providers? What you guys think
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
anyone who wants to can use google. I seriously do not think that its neccesary to let the world know. they could know... if they wanted to. Bad idea imho.
rizzo said:
Sorry, but I had to chime in on this one, too. Maybe some people don't see it, but we ARE actively beta testing their software.
If you develop software, and want to have beta testing do any good, there needs to be some kind of order. Visiting forums to find information is chaotic at best. Sifting through page after page of hijacked threads and RTFM type questions isn't going to yield the feedback a company needs to squash the bugs out of code. If enough people complain about a particular 'feature' then it might get the company to try and replicate it in-house, but its very unlikely that you'd ever hear anything back from them.
End-users modifying their devices by flashing it with unreleased firmware it wasn't originally designed for is dangerous, and can cause a ripple effect if it's not managed. As long as the company stands by its "hey, we never said this code was finished - not to mention you're not supposed to have it" stance, it can shield them from almost ALL liability in you bricking your phone. In the mean time, hardcore folks like us will continue shoving the bleeding-edge not-ready-ware into our phones in order to tell the tales of our adventures to all that will listen - and MS will continue "leaking" their warez into the wild.
The minute Microsoft starts bending these rules for folks like us, then they are going to have to answer to THEIR customers (HTC, network providers, etc) when the nOObs start flooding their call centers for warranty-return requests.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sorry but I have to side with rizzo on this one. They will never officially come out and allow this because they can't. You are asking them to agree to a. Code leaking, b. Code theft, c. Software Piracy in a sense (since you have to not acquired a legal copy and have not paid licenses for it), d. Copyright infringement. What company in their right mind say yes to this and open up the flood gates? And like rizzo said allow them to be liable for consumer or partner lawsuits as well?
As much as I agree with the original heartfelt post, we say what we say for argument's sake. They have already responded numerous times by allowing this and turning a blind eye. Every now and then they complain, either because we did step on some toes or because they officially have to say this is not allowed. If they really tried, they could cause some serious legal trouble. They choose not to, for a all the reasons mentioned in the original post.
So don't ask the impossible. Don't expect windows to become an open source application or windows mobile to release official betas to the public (not for sometime anyway). Pigs just don't fly sorry.
I have to agree with Rizzo. Besides, Microsoft won't spend resources on releasing ROMs for old devices, giving them for free to users and then having no way to recover some of the investment, because the Wizard is being phased out. It doesn't make sense.
However Microsoft can open a program for betatesting their ROMs, that is completely possible. A program that involves registering every user that gets the ROM, once we agree not to ask for support and all the legal stuff. And provide the means to keep track of bug reporst, etc. But still if you want to beta test something, you want to do it on the device where it's intended to be used the final release, and I don't think our Wizards are going to get an official WM 6 upgrade.
It's a long shot
igalan said:
I have to agree with Rizzo. Besides, Microsoft won't spend resources on releasing ROMs for old devices, giving them for free to users and then having no way to recover some of the investment, because the Wizard is being phased out. It doesn't make sense.
However Microsoft can open a program for betatesting their ROMs, that is completely possible. A program that involves registering every user that gets the ROM, once we agree not to ask for support and all the legal stuff. And provide the means to keep track of bug reporst, etc. But still if you want to beta test something, you want to do it on the device where it's intended to be used the final release, and I don't think our Wizards are going to get an official WM 6 upgrade.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a long shot, but they do allow WM6 in the Universal thread. Maybe they will for us. Maybe we try again to post WM6 roms in a few weeks and see what happens??
I have seen people post on here comments that something is warez and warez is not tolerated on this site. For example, the maps needed for TomTom. So my question as mentioned in the title, how's it legal to rip roms from other devices and modify them to work on all devices? Or if it is not legal, why is it tolerated where warez is not?
Thanks
Yeah, there's a line there somewhere. I think.
Just depends if the moderators are interested in the software or not.......
atilt said:
I have seen people post on here comments that something is warez and warez is not tolerated on this site. For example, the maps needed for TomTom. So my question as mentioned in the title, how's it legal to rip roms from other devices and modify them to work on all devices? Or if it is not legal, why is it tolerated where warez is not?
Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AFAIK there is a kind of morality behind it - if you can buy the software, and you are using it for free, its considered Warez.
If you cant buy the software then its considered that you are not taking food from anyone's mouth, and its tolerated.
Of course you could say you are reducing the competitive advantage of the other devices e.g. taking Omnia's widgets and moving it to a HTC Touch Diamond, and thats when things get messy, but I think this is generally how its seen and how it works.
Surur
If it's HTC software and you're using it for an HTC phone, it's asssumed that it's licensed for use on your device and acceptable. A bit of a stretch, but HTC has never, to my knowledge, requested that files be removed from XDA-Devs servers, so there seems to be tacit permission or simply active non-enforcement.
Same for AT&T appz &c if it's an AT&T phone or you're using their service, I suppose (likewise for other carriers and their apps).
If a software being distributed is a redistribution of a freeware (which should have allowed for redistribution in the freeware license), it's acceptable. As well, sharewares should not come preregistered or with serials or any means to circumvent proper registration and doing so or requesting such things gets posts deleted and accounts banned.
So that applies to non-OS/OEM/Carrier apps distributed in ROMs.
Because of various reasons (e.g. the fact that WinMo never really took off as much as Bill & Co. would have liked, and because OEMs and carriers don't want to spend money to license and prepare distributions of the WinMo OS thereby making customers less likely to invest in soon-to-be-obsolete devices, and I like to think a bit of respect for the hackers who manage to port and distro better ROMs than the carriers and OEMs), Bill & Co have decided not to send their anti-piracy witch hunters after WinMo ROMs. It is actively NOT enforced. (Different meaning from 'not actively enforced' and that's intentional.)
Because of the greyness in this area you will notice that no MS products are hosted on XDA-Dev servers.
However, to allay any fears on your part, if your OEM or carrier has provided version n of an OS, or released a free upgrade, or you have paid for a ROm upgrade for your phone's model, your hardware is licensed to use that version.
So, if you are truly worried about breaching laws that aren't, in fact, being enforced, do not upgrade to an OS version not distributed by your carrier/OEM or that has not been licensed as free.
I personally think that while the developer of WinMo turns one eye blind to these activities, the porting of WinMo versions to different hardwares is something they keep their other eye on closely as it's to their advantage and an area of activity and innovation that they probably exploit. Because they aren't stupid.
Does that make things clearer for anyone?
P.S.
I should disclose that I am not, in fact, qualified as a legal counsellor or a lawyer. I only play one on TV.
;-)
IIRC, the thought is "If the software is offered already in the shipped ROM, it's paid for and OK. As long as that ROM is ported in whole to another device." I believe the mods look down upon pulling 3rd party software from ROM's to use in another ROM that the software was not originally offered.
I believe that's the general consensus, though I may be wrong.
from legal stand point. nothing that is done here is considered as stealing. Consider this , you use linux an open source format. you can modify to accomdate your needs. which these tools are suppled from the linux distributer. Or it is like adding speakers and a good radio to your new car how ever you want to look at it.
atilt said:
I have seen people post on here comments that something is warez and warez is not tolerated on this site. For example, the maps needed for TomTom. So my question as mentioned in the title, how's it legal to rip roms from other devices and modify them to work on all devices? Or if it is not legal, why is it tolerated where warez is not?
Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
if the software can be ripped out of a stock rom from AT&T, etc, then it can be shared here. If it is software you must buy, like the maps for tomtom, then you cannot post them here. You can rip the tomtom software from an AT&T rom, so it's posted here. You must buy the maps, so they're not. Does that help a little?
91004 said:
Just depends if the moderators are interested in the software or not.......
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it's really unfortunate that this is your first post. Not a good tone to start with.
scotchua said:
it's really unfortunate that this is your first post. Not a good tone to start with.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hello, just my opinion scotchua, but when it first read 91004 post and then the "smile" or grin posted, it made me laugh. had he not posted a "smile" or had he instead used this symbol "" ie sarcastic, then i think it would have been inappropriate. again just my opionion and i do value all the time you have invested here at XDA-Developers,
@91004 , welcome to XDA-Developers, this place is addicting and it rocks
thanks
Lupe
scotchua said:
it's really unfortunate that this is your first post. Not a good tone to start with.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First;
That was my first POST on here, not my first in life..... I'm not going to argue your point, other to state that I disagree with your position. I just happen to be a lurker more than anything else. I'm not here to start trouble and after being in the computer engineering field for 27 years I think I know a thing or two....
I was making a joke.... (See the Smiley faces?) Get it now?
Thank You Very Much
by owning a device that the ROM's are compatible with, you've already paid a license fee to M$ in a sense.
So, Downloading updated/patched/ported versions of the same product is allowed -- you already have a license.
If you post GameShoe#124 - well... everyone here is not ensured to have a license for the game. If the game is not a trial/freeware program, or otherwise checking to ensure you paid for the license to use it (such as a key).. then you're distributing content that is not owned or licensed & available to you.
BBM-Lee said:
by owning a device that the ROM's are compatible with, you've already paid a license fee to M$ in a sense.
So, Downloading updated/patched/ported versions of the same product is allowed -- you already have a license.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, here's something to think about then: I could get a number of WM 6.1 ROMs as an upgrade to my WM 6 Kaiser but checking HTC's official site, there are no upgrades offered for my IMEI #. If we go strictly by the rules, the availability of WM 6.1 for me could be considered warez. On the other hand, tolerating this kind of relatively harmless behavior would certainly boost an OS's popularity.
In fact, one of the main reasons for my choosing HTC WM was the availability of these great number of ROMs, migrating from UIQ3.
There is a fine line, my definition would be: as long as the specific post does not have a negative financial impact on sales, it should be allowed.
91004 said:
First;
That was my first POST on here, not my first in life..... I'm not going to argue your point, other to state that I disagree with your position. I just happen to be a lurker more than anything else. I'm not here to start trouble and after being in the computer engineering field for 27 years I think I know a thing or two....
I was making a joke.... (See the Smiley faces?) Get it now?
Thank You Very Much
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point is simply that it was unfortunate that your first post is to get a dig in on the moderators' objectivity. When you know how much people complain about them and to them for doing a mostly thankless job, which they get no compensation for i might add, you'll understand why I don't think those type of comments are funny. I definitely understand that not all jokes are taken in the light in which they were intended; however, some jokes are best left unsaid. I certainly won't hold it against you as, just like you, i'm merely sharing my opinion.
BBM-Lee said:
by owning a device that the ROM's are compatible with, you've already paid a license fee to M$ in a sense.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, you haven't. The device was licensed for use with the M$ product by the OEM. That license is restricted to a specific version, or versions on specific hardware
When the OEM or Carrier licenses an OS or an OS update that they are allowed to distribute, there is still an End User Licensing Agreement, and people have to read them to know what is allowed.
When one of our amazing XDA chefs cooks up a ROM or a new OS or a significant OS update and you install it on a device for which distribution was not licensed, this is warez. Read the EULA if in doubt.
Again, that's why XDA doesn't actually host those ROMs. Maybe official ROMs, but not hacked/ported ROMs.
However, it is currently an M$ policy to not enforce what is essentially warez distribution of the Win-Mobile OS. So I wouldn't worry about getting arrested or sued for installing one of these ROMs.
If M$ does decide to enforce, they don't go after the end users but the people distributing. So, end users, relax.
If you feel ethically bound to comply with EULAs and copyright laws, then you need to not use cooked ROMs that your device isn't licensed for or that the EULA doesn't permit you to use.
If you feel that laws that aren't enforced, or are unenforceable, are non-effective or lapsed, then you should do as your conscience directs you to do and be sure to stand up for yourself in court if lleh freezes over and M$ decides to enforce (and please do blog about it, I'll paypal you $5 bucks for your defence fund).
If you're a red-blooded rum-sodden pirate, you should say "Aaargh!" and do what you're going to do because you'd do it anyway.
Just please respect XDA Dev's policies whatever you choose to do and don't mess up a good thing.
BTW:
There is a policy listed in the site Rules or FAQ, so just read that and if you don't like it, don't leave angry, but please leave.
If you don't understand legal aspects and want to ask about it, PM the mods or admins and ask respectfully.
You can even PM me, but I cannot speak for XDA, I can only explain some legal basics and even then, my knowledge is based more in constitutional and criminal law.
I do think that threads like these call attention to the topic and it's best not to stir the pot, or rock the boat (pick your own metaphor of choice) and call the wrong kind of attention to the issues.
I'd like to see this thread closed down.
Exitao said:
...snip...
... don't leave angry, but please leave.
...snip...
I'd like to see this thread closed down.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HEY! That's my line.
Your Wish Is Granted.
Thread Closed The Answer Has been given in this thread.
@91004, Honestly I laughed at your joke too.
I'll close the thread then
Dave
DaveShaw said:
I'll close the thread then
Dave
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
D'oh! Message to the Kids: Don't drink and Moderate.
I am not a lawyer and I don't know too much about this... but isn't it illegal to sell apps such as sound boards and pictures that are copyrighted on the market or anywhere for that matter if they don't have the rights from the owners?
I am seeing a bunch of apps on the market with icons from other copyrighted pictures and apps such as soundboards that use copyrighted content. Doesn't it make it illegal for the devs to sell them w / out copyrights?
P.S im not complaining just inquiring.
mmafighter077 said:
I am not a lawyer and I don't know too much about this... but isn't it illegal to sell apps such as sound boards and pictures that are copyrighted on the market or anywhere for that matter if they don't have the rights from the owners?
I am seeing a bunch of apps on the market with icons from other copyrighted pictures and apps such as soundboards that use copyrighted content. Doesn't it make it illegal for the devs to sell them w / out copyrights?
P.S im not complaining just inquiring.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It probably is illegal, but until someone claims copyright, no one will do anything.
Karolis said:
It probably is illegal, but until someone claims copyright, no one will do anything.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, it would be a good way to clean up the market wouldn't it? =P
amgupt01 said:
Well, it would be a good way to clean up the market wouldn't it? =P
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but I don't think if anyone but the copyright holder will complain, Google will do anything.
Well, you could always mark the app as innappropriate and email the dev and stuff...
yea the sound boards are copyright infringement but the themes aren't. the themes use pictures you can find through google and most people dont care about it. You then have the sound boards that use trademark words and catchphrases. selling these would probably be considered illegal just like bootlegging. They take a sound thats supposed to be approved to be sold and sells it without the consent of the people or companies behind it.
If you complain about the paid ones then they'll be taken down along with the free ones because the companies will want to be compensated for the use of their property even in a free way.
whoops double post lol
wizern23 said:
yea the sound boards are copyright infringement but the themes aren't. the themes use pictures you can find through google and most people dont care about it. You then have the sound boards that use trademark words and catchphrases. selling these would probably be considered illegal just like bootlegging. They take a sound thats supposed to be approved to be sold and sells it without the consent of the people or companies behind it.
If you complain about the paid ones then they'll be taken down along with the free ones because the companies will want to be compensated for the use of their property even in a free way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just because you can find an image through Google or find it on a message board, or hanging on a wall in a mall does NOT mean you have any rights to it.
The second point to your argument is right though. Most people won't really care to pursue it.
Now, the things that piss me off are people posting things such as books (military guides for one) and CHARGING for it. It's not their book and if I recall correctly from way back in 1997 when I was in basic training, not supposed to be for the general public.
I've wondered about this as well.
My limited knowledge says that as long as they are using public domain images from the net without any posted copyright notices and they are free on the Market, then they are probably OK.
Those who are selling apps that use copyrighted material are opening themselves up for prosecution.
Now some apps that are for sale.....say Doom for example. You buy the Android port, but you download the proprietary doom.wad file separately after purchase. Now the gray area here is that the Doom app actually is setup to go ahead and download it for you right out of the box. But I think it's using the shareware version, so it's probably OK.
Ditto for MAME....you download the emulator....how and where you obtain the ROMs are your business. Many of the original copyright owners are no longer legal entities anymore, and others that *are* still around have graciously donated their ROMs legally. But there are still plenty of illegal ROMs floating around. I suspect it's just a drop in the bucket compared to music/movie illegal sharing.
In all actuality, as long as the material (photos, music, and video) are public domain you can use them and even charge for them. For instance look at things like South Park and Family Guy. These shows use a lot of copyrighted material as parodies, they pay little to no royalities on these materials. And you might think these TV shows are free to watch, but think where they started... on a paid cable network.
1) Images, sound clips, video, etc. available on the internet are NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN unless noted as such. Do we get away with a lot? Yes... However, it doesn't mean that if someone wanted to pursue the matter, they wouldn't win.
2) It's copyrighted, no such thing as copywritten.
3) The sound clips and video you see on TV are either paid for or they use the "celebrity likeness" legalities which if deemed necessary, we can go into further.
I don't think anyone ever said that things on the net are public domain. And not all parodies are paid for. It all depends on the situation.
neoobs said:
I don't think anyone ever said that things on the net are public domain. And not all parodies are paid for. It all depends on the situation.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I suppose you have completed law school as well. There are a lot of semantics on this topic.
Long story short, I take offense to people charging for information that isn't public domain (such as field manuals for soldiers).
neoobs said:
For instance look at things like South Park and Family Guy. These shows use a lot of copyrighted material as parodies, they pay little to no royalities on these materials.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WTF are you talking about? Unless you work in finance for the companies that produce South Park or Family guy you have NO IDEA what they do or don't pay for.
Someone in another forum made a good point. Sometimes the devs are selling the time and coding that allows the app or game to be used on the android. The actual app/ game is not what they are selling.
But I see where that can be a fine line to the owners of the apps. If I made a paid app for the pc and someone ported it to android and are making money off of it and not giving me royalties I would be upset. Even if he was selling his time and his coding. Its my app.
mmafighter077 said:
Someone in another forum made a good point. Sometimes the devs are selling the time and coding that allows the app or game to be used on the android. The actual app/ game is not what they are selling.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't see how that's a good point. If you photocopy a book or copy a CD, you can't sell "your time" that you took to make it. Otherwise people selling copies of DVDs on the street would never get busted. That has to be the most retarded argument I have heard thus far.
momentarylapseofreason said:
I don't see how that's a good point. If you photocopy a book or copy a CD, you can't sell "your time" that you took to make it. Otherwise people selling copies of DVDs on the street would never get busted. That has to be the most retarded argument I have heard thus far.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you serious?
Making a copy and making a code are two totally different things. I am not saying it is right sell the code for someone elses ported app but to compare simply making a copy to creating a code is like apples and oranges.
Making a photocopy is simply duplicating.... Creating a code so that an app can work for different platform takes time and effort. Its like taking someones invention and enhancing it.
I am also not saying this is legally correct. Its just a good point.
You have to realize that in the instance of a sound board, the copyright holders have no reason to complain especially if it's free.
We are basically looking at free publicity and distribution of the material in a non-profitable manner, meaning, the infringer isn't making money selling the copyrighted works- so why would the owners have a gripe about it?
Now if there were full episodes, or these were being sold, I'm sure they may stand up and say something.
Basically- it appears that it is, in fact, copyright infringement- but there is little to zero reason to file a complaint about it by the copyright holder, why complain about hundreds of thousands of people enjoying your work and all the free publicity with zero negative side effects?
mmafighter077 said:
Are you serious?
Making a copy and making a code are two totally different things. I am not saying it is right sell the code for someone elses ported app but to compare simply making a copy to creating a code is like apples and oranges.
Making a photocopy is simply duplicating.... Creating a code so that an app can work for different platform takes time and effort. Its like taking someones invention and enhancing it.
I am also not saying this is legally correct. Its just a good point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If there is one thing that I learned in my copyright law class, it's that you can be a stupid infringer. Meaning, just because something took more time and effort, and you get no profit from it, doesn't mean you aren't an infringer all the same- just a stupid one.
vr24 said:
If there is one thing that I learned in my copyright law class, it's that you can be a stupid infringer. Meaning, just because something took more time and effort, and you get no profit from it, doesn't mean you aren't an infringer all the same- just a stupid one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Stupid infringer or not, some of this stuff gets a bit ridiculous. I just found this app, Flash Keyboard, doing pretty much whatever they can to get installs. I've seen fake wallpapers (text bubbles like raindrops), video of a virtual keyboard (not available), and today a post using the images of Snoopy, Mickey & Minnie, and Hello Kitty.
(note: could not provide links, as I'm a new user, but they can be found with a simple facebook search)
Hi all,
I just had a brainwave. I am a reviled patent attorney and I have been flamed by the open source community for years because I support software patents.
The most common anti-software patent argument is that so many software patents were obvious but the Examiner didn't find the disputed software feature in the prior art and incorrectly granted the patent.
I have the solution within the current state of the law.
Statutory Invention Registrations.
Any time a open source supporter comes up with something they believe is innovative and should be shared with everyone, that person should file a SIR to their invention.
The SIR serves as a block to later attempts to patent the idea by any other AND thereby simultaneously dedicates the disclosed innovation to the public, to EVERYONE.
As long as the open source community comes up with it first and files the SIR, the software giants will be completely unable to obtain patents to the feature.
It couldn't be more simple really.
What do you say???!!!!!!
Rise up and use the system against itself.
Comments?
It's kind of a good idea against the giant corporations, BUT it would eventually lead to further corrupting the already corrupt system. People cannot be trusted with software patents, and neither can corporations (as has been proven).
If software implementations were patentable, we'd all be stuck in 1985.
Hey, look, I wrote this:
for i = 1 to 100
do stuff
next
Now no one else can do it, because I got a patent.
No. There are corporations that have been pulling this crap for decades. Look at the E-Bay "buy it now" issue. It's a prime example of abuse of the system.
Patents need to go away, and so do community design patents (as Apple blatantly proved to us). Copyright your work, sure, but patents were meant to encourage development, but all I've seen for the past decade is it being used to stifle entire communities.
In the software community, there is too broad of a user group. If I do one thing one way, and you just happen to do it the same/similar way, but you patent it, now I have to pay you royalties or lose my entire product. That's a BS system ripe for the picking by patent trolls. You can keep your patent system, tyvm.
Soo...being a patent attorney, why are you posting this advice to the open source community?
majorpay said:
If software implementations were patentable, we'd all be stuck in 1985.
. . .
If I do one thing one way, and you just happen to do it the same/similar way, but you patent it, now I have to pay you royalties or lose my entire product. That's a BS system ripe for the picking by patent trolls. You can keep your patent system, tyvm.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First, software is patentable and has been for a long long time.
Second, to patent something, it has to be NOVEL and NON-OBVIOUS. The Examiner's at the PTO take these requirements seriously.
Third, if you do something first, I cannot patent it. It is no longer NOVEL (new).
TheRomMistress said:
Soo...being a patent attorney, why are you posting this advice to the open source community?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I am giving this advice because its . . . reasonable advice. I don't want patents to be issued to my clients that are INVALID. Patents are very hard to obtain and if it gets invalidated anyway, (because of prior use of the claimed invention which is discovered later), that is bad for me and my client.
SIRs would provide a better prior art knowledge and might avoid situations in which something does get patented which were just obscure but documented.
Open Sourcers feel they have no way to effect the patent system. This is one way, under current law, that they can.
Also, I am tired of people claiming that patents are issued on things that have been around for forever. Such claims are made constantly but very seldom is there any proof (or even attempts to prove it).
Most things that get patented should be patented. Sometimes things get patented which shouldn't. There will always be stupid exceptions but that is reality.
Was reading this while getting ready for work and found it interesting.
http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere/
IMO I can see both sides but on one hand companies produce software for the betterment of the product and that I can see how they can say it is theirs. The software they create is their code and should be used for its standard and original purpose.
On the other hand these companies should realize that the software was made to be released to the consumer for it is about the product in its entirety that we buy not just the hardware aspect.
If one needs to alter the software for their personal use I believe we should but not to do so for monitory reasons.
Thank you Google for your open source software!!
The replies that may be post is a matter of opinion please respect it and let's not flame each other for it. If so please close this thread.
This type of licensing for software is usually because companies don't want you to think that you own the software and so can re-sell it. That's the main reason.
They don't usually lose profit when you modify it, so it's lower interest for them. But if you start re-selling the software, they'll lose profit.