[ubizmo]

We've had enough threads on the legality of sideloading. I just thought I'd share this.

I think sideloading is a violation of copyright law, but I do it anyway. I have two sideloaded apps, Words With Friends and Audible. Although I make no pretense that this alters the legality of what I'm doing, I sent emails, with screen shots, to both companies telling them that I've sideloaded the apps onto me Z10. I got no response from either. Possibly, the person screening the emails just didn't bother with it.

So last week I tried tweeting the same to Audible and ZyngaSupport, asking if this practice is okay with them. Both Audible and Zynga are very active on their Twitter feeds, answering lots of questions and providing support with many tweets per day. Neither one responded to me in any way.

Since I'm actually asking permission to sideload, in a highly public manner, you'd think they would answer, wouldn't you? I take the silence to mean they're not about to approve the practice officially but they're not bothered enough to stop me. What do you think?

[howarmat]

I would probably agree. They wont outright tell you "no we dont mind, have at it" but they probably dont want to tell you to stop because its against the law.

[Omnitech]

I'd think that asking publicly like that puts them in a bind of sorts:

• If they say "No you can't do that, stop now", they will look like the bad guy to a lot of people.
• If they say "NP, go right ahead", then it encourages piracy of their work and widespread dismissal of their terms of service and copyright.

So in that sense it doesn't particularly surprise me that they didn't publicly answer you.

[Omnitech]

"About 3 million computers get sold every year in China, but people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade." -- Bill Gates, speech at University of Washington, 1998.

[aha]

Yeah, stopping you only makes them look bad... but giving you the consent would effectively give everyone else the right to do the same. They want to keep the option to stop this, which is understandable.

[Bluline79]

Its a free app on ios and android...it isn't like you are making money off side loading the app.

Posted via CB10

[Omnitech]

Its a free app on ios and android...it isn't like you are making money off side loading the app.

That certainly reduces the likelihood that the app developer cares, but it by no means either eliminates that possibility, nor gives anyone some sort of legal or moral carte-blanche to do it without considering whether the developer would approve.

There are many reasons that an app developer may not want their app being deployed into environments that it was not designed to function in, including damage to their company's reputation due to unforseeable problems running in such an unapproved environment, as well as support questions or security problems originating from customers or partners that have made unauthorized installations.

For example: in a standard Android environment, if a serious security flaw is discovered in an Android app, it can be quickly patched via a Google Play update. For a variety of valid reasons, there is no Google Play available in BB10, and users are 100% responsible for staying up to date with security vulnerabilities in apps they take it upon themselves to sideload onto their devices, as well as producing updated installers to fix those vulnerabilities.

If I were an Android app developer that had a serious security vulnerability discovered in one of my products a year ago - for which I quickly issued a patch for it at the time - but then discover a bunch of security exploits emanating from newly-sideloaded copies of one of the old unpatched versions, I would NOT be happy about that.

[northernpuppy]

Its a free app on ios and android...it isn't like you are making money off side loading the app.

Posted via CB10

Except in situations where the Android app has imbedded ads or in-app purchases through things like fb/zynga/paypal etc. Ads may still appear yet, but I can't buy items/packs when I'm playing Candy Crush on my Z10 (note: I wouldn't purchase anything anyways haha, but the point still exists).

[ubizmo]

I'd think that asking publicly like that puts them in a bind of sorts:

• If they say "No you can't do that, stop now", they will look like the bad guy to a lot of people.
• If they say "NP, go right ahead", then it encourages piracy of their work and widespread dismissal of their terms of service and copyright.

So in that sense it doesn't particularly surprise me that they didn't publicly answer you.

Yet they could send a private direct message, if they wanted to. They haven't done so yet.

Of course it's only been about five days. Their lawyers may be chewing on it and I'll get a response eventually.


Posted via CB10

[Cozz4ever]

We've had enough threads on the legality of sideloading. I just thought I'd share this.

I think sideloading is a violation of copyright law, but I do it anyway. I have two sideloaded apps, Words With Friends and Audible. Although I make no pretense that this alters the legality of what I'm doing, I sent emails, with screen shots, to both companies telling them that I've sideloaded the apps onto me Z10. I got no response from either. Possibly, the person screening the emails just didn't bother with it.

So last week I tried tweeting the same to Audible and ZyngaSupport, asking if this practice is okay with them. Both Audible and Zynga are very active on their Twitter feeds, answering lots of questions and providing support with many tweets per day. Neither one responded to me in any way.

Since I'm actually asking permission to sideload, in a highly public manner, you'd think they would answer, wouldn't you? I take the silence to mean they're not about to approve the practice officially but they're not bothered enough to stop me. What do you think?

Don't worry about it and continue to sideload all you want. And please continue to ask those questions on twitter. That should get their attention. It's cheaper to port over an app to Blackberry than to bother with lawyers.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

It's wrong because BBRY relied too much on this being a way users would get apps they don't have.

Posted via CB10

[nabil114]

We've had enough threads on the legality of sideloading. I just thought I'd share this.

I think sideloading is a violation of copyright law, but I do it anyway. I have two sideloaded apps, Words With Friends and Audible. Although I make no pretense that this alters the legality of what I'm doing, I sent emails, with screen shots, to both companies telling them that I've sideloaded the apps onto me Z10. I got no response from either. Possibly, the person screening the emails just didn't bother with it.

So last week I tried tweeting the same to Audible and ZyngaSupport, asking if this practice is okay with them. Both Audible and Zynga are very active on their Twitter feeds, answering lots of questions and providing support with many tweets per day. Neither one responded to me in any way.

Since I'm actually asking permission to sideload, in a highly public manner, you'd think they would answer, wouldn't you? I take the silence to mean they're not about to approve the practice officially but they're not bothered enough to stop me. What do you think?

It can be used as Parallels in Mac OS X.

[robin11]

Now that you are on the record informing them of your sideloading, I would take their silence as tacit approval.

[dpeters11]

They need to know how easy it is to port their apps. I asked the developer of Runpee if he ever considered porting his app, he responded that he should do it and gave me a link to his apk file and asked me to try it out. Worked fine as he thought. In this case that is a paid app.

For Audible, I don't really see an issue as you are a paying customer. But also they should have the app available.

Back in college, I was brought before the Dean on copyright violation. I had put together a web page for the computer lab systems with links to major websites. I had not considered asking for their permission to link to them. I was told to get written permission from each site and they would let it slide, or else face a disciplinary hearing. Fortunately it didn't actually go that far, as the sites never did respond.

[BBThemes]

Now that you are on the record informing them of your sideloading, I would take their silence as tacit approval.

wouldn't the law state the opposite? that unless or until the moment occurs where permission is granted, then its obviously not.

Firstly on social media you have no idea if its even been read, and unless there was a read recepiet on the email theyd say they didn't see it anyways. then you have the OP`s open admission to them that he is violating their copyright, if they wanted to, its an open and shut case, the OP has publicly admitted committing a crime.

but again, its not agro they need in PR terms so theyd likely not reply anyways, but no, them being silent is not them giving approval, for approval you would need it from them legally.

[BBThemes]

just a thought, and im not pointing fingers or nothing, just musing as the thread topic is very relevant.

As a developer, if someone said they were using your app on another platform, would that incetivize you to bring that app to that platform, would it put you off the platform, or, and this is one people might not of considered, would you maybe then not worry about the platform, heck their users have it sorted, theres no need to mess about with porting when others are doing it now is there.

Its just a thought, but if enough users said to me `iv ported your app` id be sat there thinking `well, thanks for doing my job for me for free, now I don't even need to bother`.

like I say, just musing as its relevant, but maybe some apps will never come because they are ported and devs don't feel the need to port it again, heck they might not even know its personal use only and has to be sideloaded from a pc and not ota.

[CrackedBarry]

Now that you are on the record informing them of your sideloading, I would take their silence as tacit approval.

Eh, no. But let me get this right... You seriously think, that if you first break the law and completely ignore their copyright, and THEN after the fact contact them, and they don't get back to you, THAT is anything close to approval, tacit or otherwise?

What kind of logic is that? You broke the law and their copyright the minute you side loaded it. End of story.

If you went out and shoplifted in Walmart, and then afterwards emailed them about it, that would also be ok, if they didnt get back to you?

Of course not.

Ironically enough, I suspect that this kind of lack of morals among BB10 owners will keep plenty of developers off the platform.

If you have no problem breaking their copyright in the first place, what would be the reason for them to develop for BB10 at all? What would stop you from "side loading" pirated BB10 apps, when you have made it abundantly clear before they even were ported, that you have little to no regard for copyright law?

[Omnitech]

Ironically enough, I suspect that this kind of lack of morals among BB10 owners will keep plenty of developers off the platform.

"Those kinds of morals" are extremely widespread these days, I'm sorry to say. Lots of people with a sense of entitlement. Probably worse on other platforms (ie Android) than here.

What is primarily keeping developers off the platform is perceived lack of paying customers and unwillingness of many devs to spread themselves beyond 2 platforms. We are in the deathgrip of a Catch-22.

[BBThemes]

"Those kinds of morals" are extremely widespread these days, I'm sorry to say. Lots of people with a sense of entitlement. Probably worse on other platforms (ie Android) than here.

What is primarily keeping developers off the platform is perceived lack of paying customers and unwillingness of many devs to spread themselves beyond 2 platforms. We are in the deathgrip of a Catch-22.

in fairness if ya go on XDA they are in the majority massively vocal against actions like that, so (and I know we`re both generalising here) I think your off the mark there,

as for the catch 22, see my previous post with my musings, its a viable scenario, especially if they hold people in the same view of `those kind of morals are extremely widespread`

[Bluline79]

Except in situations where the Android app has imbedded ads or in-app purchases through things like fb/zynga/paypal etc. Ads may still appear yet, but I can't buy items/packs when I'm playing Candy Crush on my Z10 (note: I wouldn't purchase anything anyways haha, but the point still exists).

How often do you purchase the items that pop up as ads when you do use the app? If you had used it on ios or android.

Posted via CB10

[Bluline79]

That certainly reduces the likelihood that the app developer cares, but it by no means either eliminates that possibility, nor gives anyone some sort of legal or moral carte-blanche to do it without considering whether the developer would approve.

There are many reasons that an app developer may not want their app being deployed into environments that it was not designed to function in, including damage to their company's reputation due to unforseeable problems running in such an unapproved environment, as well as support questions or security problems originating from customers or partners that have made unauthorized installations.

For example: in a standard Android environment, if a serious security flaw is discovered in an Android app, it can be quickly patched via a Google Play update. For a variety of valid reasons, there is no Google Play available in BB10, and users are 100% responsible for staying up to date with security vulnerabilities in apps they take it upon themselves to sideload onto their devices, as well as producing updated installers to fix those vulnerabilities.

If I were an Android app developer that had a serious security vulnerability discovered in one of my products a year ago - for which I quickly issued a patch for it at the time - but then discover a bunch of security exploits emanating from newly-sideloaded copies of one of the old unpatched versions, I would NOT be happy about that.

I'd assume it's like when someone sideloads a leak. Install at your own risk.

Posted via CB10

[BBThemes]

I'd assume it's like when someone sideloads a leak. Install at your own risk.

Posted via CB10

id actually say its closer to when someone downloads a pirate copy of (purely example) game of thrones.

its free to watch, yet illegally downloading it is illegal however you paint it, so more `break the law at your own risk` is the reality

[Omnitech]

in fairness if ya go on XDA they are in the majority massively vocal against actions like that, so (and I know we`re both generalising here) I think your off the mark there,

No because I was not referring to ROM tweakers, I was referring to the entire userbase.

I have followed the tech industry for decades. In recent years it seems like we have more and more people who seem to think that all bandwidth should be free, all software should be free, and all content should be free. Honestly most of these people come across as either pre-teens, or someone whose cognitive and emotional development was stunted at the pre-teen stage.

[Omnitech]

I'd assume it's like when someone sideloads a leak. Install at your own risk.

This might come as a shock to some, but there is actually a reason why you must put a device into a special "development mode" to sideload apps.

It was NEVER designed to be something for mainstream users to use. And now that the platform is getting more mature and (I assume) more and more app developers are letting BlackBerry know what they think about that feature and how it impacts their inclination to develop for the platform, BlackBerry seems to be increasingly locking it down.

Sideloaders often forget that there is a massive benefit to the Android runtime being in BB10 that has NOTHING to do with sideloading. Probably 60-70% of the apps in BlackBerry World right now are ported or lightly-modified Android apps. That is the main benefit it provides the platform, and when an Android app or port is made available through BBW then at least BlackBerry has the opportunity to test and vet the app before allowing it to be made available, and the developer is then on the hook to maintain it and update it. (see security vulnerability example I posted previously)

The sideloading thing is great for hardcore tweakers and people who absolutely have to have some popular app not yet available for the platform, but AFAIK BlackBerry has never actively promoted it for any purpose other than developer testing.

Given the copyright and other legal issues, it's not hard to understand why.

[ubizmo]

wouldn't the law state the opposite? that unless or until the moment occurs where permission is granted, then its obviously not.

I think this is correct in general, but in copyright law things can get rather confusing. Note that copyright infringement is a tort, a matter of civil law rather than criminal law, unless the violator attempts to profit by it. If I were selling the sideloaded files somehow, that would be a criminal violation. But I'm not. In civil cases, the plaintiff would need to show damages. In the Audible case, this would be difficult to do, since as a user of the app I'm actually spending money and Audible is making a profit from my infringement. In contrast, Words With Friends is adware. The ad links do work, i.e., they open browser pages, but it's not clear (to me anyway) whether sideloading reduces anyone's revenue.

Again, let me make it crystal clear that I'm not arguing that sideloading these programs is not a violation of copyright law. But the fact that it's a violation does not entail that the copyright holders would find it worthwhile to enforce the copyright in this sort of case. I think that the fact that I've notified the copyright owners and asked permission, and received no answer (yet) makes my actions at least not unethical, since I'm giving them opportunity to tell me to stop, and I'm in no sense sideloading "behind their back."

Firstly on social media you have no idea if its even been read, and unless there was a read recepiet on the email theyd say they didn't see it anyways.

In the case of the email, it's possible that it wasn't read, but I don't think that's believable with respect to the tweets. These Twitter feeds exist for the specific purpose of communication with and support for end users. They are both active feeds, with many tweets per day, many of which are replies to specific user questions. In the event of a legal challenge, I don't think they could plausibly claim they didn't see the tweets.

then you have the OP`s open admission to them that he is violating their copyright, if they wanted to, its an open and shut case, the OP has publicly admitted committing a crime.

Not quite. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know for sure the legal status of sideloading these apps. I didn't write or tweet, "Hello, I'm violating your copyright; is that okay?" Yes, I believe it's a violation, as I've argued here on CB, but that's only my layman's opinion. What I wrote to the copyright owners is simply that I've sideloaded the apps and I'm using them, and I've asked whether that's allowed. In asking this question, I'm requesting clarification of the legality of what I'm doing, and instruction on whether I should continue to do it. If they tell me it's not allowed, I'll delete the apps immediately.

In the unlikely event of litigation over this, the judge's first question to the plaintiff would be, "The defendant asked whether sideloading is allowed. Why didn't you answer?" The defense, "We didn't see the email/tweet" would be extremely weak, especially with their Twitter feeds showing them to be quite conscientious about answering user questions.

but again, its not agro they need in PR terms so theyd likely not reply anyways, but no, them being silent is not them giving approval, for approval you would need it from them legally.

Personally, I expected a private direct message stating that what I'm doing is a copyright violation and would I please cease doing it. That would avoid the PR issue, but they'd be on record as making a good faith effort to enforce their copyright. I'm surprised that neither has replied yet.

I'll add this: If Zynga tells me to stop, it's no big deal. Most of the time I play WWF on a PC anyway. I have one old friend from high school with whom I play; we've been playing continuously for over a year. It's a way of keeping in touch (making another point that the line between games and "communication" can be blurry), but I don't need to do it on my phone. If Audible tells me to stop, I'll stop, but I'll probably leave the BB10 platform. Listening to audiobooks is something I only do on my phone. When I got my Z10 I knew Audible wasn't available but I thought I'd put up with that. Months later, I'm no longer willing to put up with it.