OK --- a question of ethics

Discussion in 'Dell' started by MB_, Oct 11, 2005.

  1. MB_

    MZB Guest

    Ben:

    Interesting. That would put a new wrinkle in this scenario, if the store
    refused to accept a return.
    Circuit City, where I bought the product, said I could return the item
    within 30 days.

    If they didn't allow this, then as far as I'm concerned the license would be
    null and void. How could it be a valid contract in any sense of the word???
    Seriously, it would be unenforceable, I would think.

    Mel
     
    MZB, Oct 13, 2005
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. MB_

    Leythos Guest

    If you purchase a computer with Microsoft XP on it, don't agree to the
    License when you boot the computer up, you can return XP to the vendor
    OR Microsoft and get your refund. The same is true of many licensed
    products that you agree/disagree to when you boot-up, while the vendor
    you bought it from may not accept open returns, the software vendor
    does.
     
    Leythos, Oct 13, 2005
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. MB_

    Tom Scales Guest

    Mel,

    All you can do is make your own choice. All the arguments have merit.
    Shrink wrap licenses are a real problem.

    Tom
     
    Tom Scales, Oct 13, 2005
    #23
  4. MB_

    Leythos Guest

    The proper choice would be to NOT purchase something where you can't
    real the license, or to ask the sales person to open the package so that
    you can read the license, or to visit the vendors website and read about
    licensing.

    Using a product against the license is no better than theft.
     
    Leythos, Oct 13, 2005
    #24
  5. MB_

    Colin Wilson Guest

    Using a product against the license is no better than theft.

    Whereas selling a product without terms and conditions, then imposing
    terms and conditions only after you`ve paid for and opened the product
    isn`t.
     
    Colin Wilson, Oct 13, 2005
    #25
  6. MB_

    Ben Myers Guest

    Well, it's not exactly theft. Fraud? Possibly. Misrepresentation? I'd say
    so, but I'm not a lawyer. Unethical? Oh, yes! ... Ben Myers
     
    Ben Myers, Oct 13, 2005
    #26
  7. MB_

    Tom Scales Guest

    But let's be realistic. I suspect the docs are on Western Digital's website
    (although I have not looked).

    Where exactly would you put them on the box so that they could be read
    first?

    Tom
     
    Tom Scales, Oct 13, 2005
    #27
  8. MB_

    Notan Guest

    I'm not sure that selling a product, whose license exists somewhere other
    than on/with the product, is legal. Not if the manufacturer is going to
    hold the buyer to the terms of that license.

    Notan
     
    Notan, Oct 13, 2005
    #28
  9. MB_

    Colin Wilson Guest

    But let's be realistic. I suspect the docs are on Western Digital's website
    If they want to impose onerous conditions that`s their problem.
     
    Colin Wilson, Oct 13, 2005
    #29
  10. MB_

    Tom Scales Guest

    The legality of the shrink wrap license has been fought and fought in court
    and has been upheld.
     
    Tom Scales, Oct 13, 2005
    #30
  11. MB_

    bullseye Guest

    I wish to complicate this discussion. There was a time when women were
    forbidden from voting and certain citizens were forbidden from sitting
    in the front of the bus. Prior to being forbidden from sitting in the
    front of buses, some of these people (or their grandparents) were owned
    by others.

    Whenever I am called for jury duty I tell the judge, if the law were to
    say that certain people were forbidden from sitting in the front of the
    bus, and I were to judge one of these people charged for sitting in the
    bus, I would vote innocent. And if the law were to allow the ownership
    of one man by another, and if I were to judge one of these people for
    having escaped from their owner's confines, I would vote innocent.

    Morality, the law, and commerce have a strange relationship. And if we
    all were to adhere to morality and the law, the natives in this land are
    within their rights to sue and evict the residents of most Western
    states as those treaties they signed give them rights to their land.
    Those treaties are in effect, but only ignored. With Washington's
    active encouragement, Americans dislocated the natives from their land
    and settled them. According to those posting about the law, THE LAW,
    make way for one big evacuation west of the Mississipi.

    What does all this have to do with a software license? I read the words
    stealing, and ethics, and the law, and.....
     
    bullseye, Oct 14, 2005
    #31
  12. As long as they can claim informed consent with the option to decline to
    accept the license, the license can be up held in court.

    KC
     
    Kevin Childers, Oct 14, 2005
    #32
  13. MB_

    Tom Morton Guest

    Can I use a Media Center, Dual-option Combo, or Dual-option USB
    external hard drive and Retrospect Express on multiple computers?

    Answer
    Note: WD Dual Option Backup drives are external hard drives bundled
    with backup software. Retrospect Express is not required to be installed for
    the drive to be used as an additional storage device.

    You can use a Media Center, Dual-option Combo, or Dual-option USB
    external hard drive on multiple computers. However, the Retrospect software
    is licensed for one computer. If you install Retrospect on another computer,
    the Backup on Demand and Automatic Backup buttons will work, but will
    overwrite the existing duplication from the previous computer when run.

    It is recommended that you cut or copy, and then paste the folders
    and/or files that you wish to move to the external drive, rather than trying
    to do another duplication from the second computer. That way, you will not
    accidentally overwrite the duplication from the first PC.

    For more information about how to move files to the drive in Windows,
    please see Answer ID 1198

     
    Tom Morton, Oct 14, 2005
    #33
  14. MB_

    Ben Myers Guest

    I'm trying to be realistic. How about a one page summary of the license printed
    on a sheet of paper outside the shrink-wrap, or completely readable from inside
    the shrink-wrap? Oh, I know, this would drive up WD's cost per copy of software
    by fractions of a penny in any reasonable volume.

    Remember Borland's no-nonsense license agreement years ago? Real simple stuff,
    listed out in plain English. Why not a summary like that? My gosh! How
    revolutionary! Telling people what they are actually buying! Who knows? The
    concept may spread to the US Federal Goverment within our lifetimes.

    .... Ben Myers

     
    Ben Myers, Oct 14, 2005
    #34
  15. MB_

    Tom Scales Guest

    The last thing you want is a summary. It's not legally binding and by
    definition leaves things out!
     
    Tom Scales, Oct 14, 2005
    #35
  16. What difference does the number of drives make? They're hardware, we're
    discussing software & the software's EULA.
     
    Sparky Spartacus, Oct 14, 2005
    #36
  17. What next, "everyone does it"?
     
    Sparky Spartacus, Oct 14, 2005
    #37
  18. MB_

    Jim Higgins Guest

    You can't separate the two in this case. Unless I missed something
    earlier, the guy bought an external backup drive. The key word being
    "external." The nature of use for external drives is to back up any
    number of machines belonging to the owner of the backup drive. To
    spring a EULA such as the one being discussed on the purchaser *AFTER*
    the drive has been purchased negates a good part of the utility of the
    purchase and can render the product unfit for use.

    If the seller won't give a full refund, including all shipping costs
    and any other reasonable out of pocket expenses related to the sale
    and return, then I see no reason the purchaser should feel obliged to
    honor their EULA as long as the drive and software are only used on
    computer(s) owned by the original purchaser.
     
    Jim Higgins, Oct 15, 2005
    #38
  19. MB_

    Tom Scales Guest


    More rationalization. Shrink wrap licenses have been upheld in court. The
    purchaser could have done the research on the web prior to purchasing the
    drive.

    I understand everyone's point, but the legality is very, very clear.
     
    Tom Scales, Oct 15, 2005
    #39
  20. I understand your point, but it seems also to be a rationalization of some
    sort to me. We probably all agree that ethics and legality are not the
    same. In certain circumstances, it may be unethical to follow the law. I'm
    not implying that it is here, but still... it shows that proving the
    (il)legality of an action doesn't say much about the ethics involved.

    But despite the clear question "is it ethical?" (see the subject, if you
    need a reminder), you post over and over again that you think it is
    illegal, and that you think it's proven to be so. Is this just a result of
    you not seeing the difference, or is it because of a difficulty to stay on
    topic, or is it that you can't deal with the complexities of life, in the
    sense that just "going legal" doesn't make things ethical?

    It's of course easier to say "I'm legal, therefore I'm ethical", but that
    doesn't cut it. In order to be ethical, one has to dig into the deep
    darkness inside and find out what's really in there -- no law and no
    legality helps you with that. Thinking it does /is/ some sort of
    rationalization...

    Gerhard
     
    Gerhard Fiedler, Oct 15, 2005
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.