[Ecm]

Well written Shane. Clear, understandable and in plain English. I think this is the first time I've understood something written by a lawyer...

[canuckbear]

Chatting in parentheses is exhausting.

Z30. " I'm back in black. Yes I'm back in black!!! "

[Kriilin Namek]

I think a lot of people think Android is the device. No, the device is hardware, Android, like IOS, BB10, and WP are OPERATING SYSTEMS, nothing more. BB just chooses to run Android as a type of VM, on top of BB10. With the right HALs,(hardware abstraction layer) one could conceivably run any OS on any device.

[kbz1960]

So the issue is with the source, like 1mobile and not users of any device.

[SkaterGuy2k]

All that and no name calling or swearing, Thanks for the education

[mrfreeze]

It is considered piracy if user install a paid apps apk for free.

Posted via CB10

Uhhh. Duh. It's piracy if you install a paid app for free on an Android device too. Piracy of paid Android apps is more common on official Android devices than on BlackBerry.

Posted via CB10

[mikeo007]

I saw the title and was a bit put off by what the content of the post may be, but after reading Shane's post I see exactly the point he was trying to make, and I agree with it (the piracy part at least).

Installing Android APKs through a means other than one that has been sanctioned by the developer/publisher is piracy. This would be something like downloading the APK as a torrent file, from an "unsavoury" website (or a large archive thread on a respected website *cough*), or extracting it from an Android device. If you don't obtain it through an official means, you are pirating it. An official means would be an app store that the developer/publisher knowingly and willingly submitted the app to, or perhaps even the developer's own website where they offer the APK for download (although this is a grey area and it depends on the EULA attached to the application at this point). But when I submit my app to Google Play, or to Amazon, I'm acknowledging that my app can be downloaded and used by any device that Amazon or Google choose to support. If Amazon chooses to support BlackBerry 10 (or more specifically, chooses not to exclude BlackBerry 10 via their license agreement) then there is absolutely no piracy happening.

The only point of contention I have is with defining BB10 as an Android device. But that really doesn't matter if the licensing agreements for the stores doesn't specifically state that ONLY Android devices are supported. The Play store is pretty strict, which is why we don't have it on BB10 at this point. Only OHA members have legitimate access to Google Play at this point. But other stores like Amazon would seem to be more relaxed (although I haven't read their TOS to be sure).

I know you said there'd be tons of opinions on this, and I don't want to derail the thread because of it, just wanted to throw in my opinion. For anyone not interested, read no further

----------------------------------------------------------------

You likened what BB has done with Android to what other companies (Dell, Samsung, etc) have done, but in fact what BB has done is significantly different. What BB has done is much closer to (although still significantly different again from) what Amazon has done. Amazon actually forked Android, and as a result, is not recognized as a member of the OHA, and therefore not classified as an Android device for the purposes of using the Google Play store (but why would they want to use it when they're a content distributor themselves, right?) I think the fact that BB10 devices are missing even more of Android than Amazon's devices are (no Linux kernel, etc) would make it an awful stretch to call them Android devices. I would define an Android device as a device that runs Android in its entirety as defined by the OHA. BB10 devices would not fit into this category. I submit that BB10 devices are "Android-Like" devices, similar to how QNX is a Unix-Like operating system.

[SCrid2000]

Thanks Mike That's a very excellent summation, and I don't think it at all derails from the conversation.
I would like to address your final comments, specifically

You likened what BB has done with Android to what other companies (Dell, Samsung, etc) have done, but in fact what BB has done is significantly different. What BB has done is much closer to (although still significantly different again from) what Amazon has done. Amazon actually forked Android, and as a result, is not recognized as a member of the OHA, and therefore not classified as an Android device for the purposes of using the Google Play store (but why would they want to use it when they're a content distributor themselves, right?) I think the fact that BB10 devices are missing even more of Android than Amazon's devices are (no Linux kernel, etc) would make it an awful stretch to call them Android devices. I would define an Android device as a device that runs Android in its entirety as defined by the OHA. BB10 devices would not fit into this category. I submit that BB10 devices are "Android-Like" devices, similar to how QNX is a Unix-Like operating system.

To be "Android-like", an OS would have to fundamentally be not-Android. Much how Linux is a Unix-like OS, but ultimately is a not-Unix OS (as the name Linux Is Not UniX intends to make clear).
Actually, your comments made me think of Jurassic Park (the novel, not the movie (although they're the same thing lol)). Just as the scientists who cloned the dinosaurs gave them life could not control what the dinosaurs were or became, just because OHA created Android doesn't mean that OHA can control what Android is or what it becomes. I would contend that Kindle OS is indeed still Android, despite being a fork. OHA is merely an alliance of vendors who use Android in a certain way, likely to secure access to Google Services (some tangential background information: Cyanogen Custom Android Builds Will Live On, Sans Google Apps)

However, I understand that this subject is likely up for interpretation, and respect your disagreement ultimately, our disagreement seems to be more regarding proper definitions than the core substance of the matter.

[Raestloz]

A forked Android is still an Android. Maybe not by name, but by the core.

I do not see how not obtaining OHA certification makes something not Android. Not "OHA-certified Android", but still Android.

Kind of like Google Chrome and Opera 15: both are Chromium. Sure, they look totally different up front, and named differently, but they're still Chromium.

Posted via CB10

[paper_monkey]

Completely agree with OP, one point I will add to the terms hereunder is that "licences" are already in place between Google and BlackBerry, how you ask? The browser that's on the devices is proof enough. Under the terms it's considered "open source" they however state that "some services may not be able to function " therefore they dont hold themselves liable in that event. Re: paid apps that don't work or "permission " needs to be granted, additionally the very developers who post "free" apps with GP or Amazon cannot make "piracy " an issue as they had developed their product "free" for use, you cannot pirate something that's free or open source. The issue of "piracy" would come about if someone downloads a "paid app" without "paying" for it.

About Software in our Services

When a Service requires or includes downloadable software, this software may update automatically on your device once a new version or feature is available. Some Services may let you adjust your automatic update settings.

Google gives you a personal, worldwide, royalty-free, non-assignable and non-exclusive license to use the software provided to you by Google as part of the Services. This license is for the sole purpose of enabling you to use and enjoy the benefit of the Services as provided by Google, in the manner permitted by these terms. You may not copy, modify, distribute, sell, or lease any part of our Services or included software, nor may you reverse engineer or attempt to extract the source code of that software, unless laws prohibit those restrictions or you have our written permission.

Open source software is important to us. Some software used in our Services may be offered under an open source license that we will make available to you. There may be provisions in the open source license that expressly override some of these terms.



Posted via CB10

The OP covered this in his post. Not charching for the app has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of piracy. If the app is used in a manner other than the dev intended or on a device other than the dev intended then their app has been pirated and their copyright violated. They may choose not to act on it but that does not mean it hasn't happened.

I take issue with the OP claiming that a BlackBerry Device is an Android Device because it implements a virtual machine as an isolated entity running within the BB10 OS. Even at that, that is an issue that relates almost directly to the Play Store as Google specifically limits devices that can access it in their TOS.

[SCrid2000]

The OP covered this in his post. Not charching for the app has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of piracy. If the app is used in a manner other than the dev intended or on a device other than the dev intended then their app has been pirated and their copyright violated. They may choose not to act on it but that does not mean it hasn't happened.

I take issue with the OP claiming that a BlackBerry Device is an Android Device because it implements a virtual machine as an isolated entity running within the BB10 OS. Even at that, that is an issue that relates almost directly to the Play Store as Google specifically limits devices that can access it in their TOS.

That's not entirely true. Merely using the app on an unintended device or in an unintended manner is NOT piracy, although it may be a violation of the app's Terms of Use.

Piracy has to do with the way an item is obtained, not how it's used.

Android on BB10 is far tighter integrated than a normal virtual machine. The file system is actually extracted at the root of the BlackBerry device. You can see that if you open the browser and navigate to file:///. Also, my understanding of Virtual Machines is that they generally include a kernel as part of the machine (virtual box in Windows sure doesn't run Linux on a Windows kernel ) whereas the Android file system in BB10 runs on the QNX kernel, just like any other module.

Also, I don't believe Google limits what devices can run Google Services; although I could be mistaken there (that would necessitate a LOT of updates to their TOS lol). I do know that they limit which manufacturers can preload them. I'm actually planning to do a mini post on that in a few days. Maybe.

Sorry for the multiple edits lol, hope no one misses too much of this post due to that. Happy Thanksgiving CrackBerryHeads

[crackbrry fan]

The OP covered this in his post. Not charching for the app has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of piracy. If the app is used in a manner other than the dev intended or on a device other than the dev intended then their app has been pirated and their copyright violated. They may choose not to act on it but that does not mean it hasn't happened.

I take issue with the OP claiming that a BlackBerry Device is an Android Device because it implements a virtual machine as an isolated entity running within the BB10 OS. Even at that, that is an issue that relates almost directly to the Play Store as Google specifically limits devices that can access it in their TOS.

Happy Thanksgiving ,please have a read as it relates to "free apps " issue of "piracy" and GPU /GPLThis relates to "Free apps "and CopyLeft vs Copyright.

The GNU General Public License (GNU GPL or GPL) is the most widely used free software license, which guarantees end users (individuals, organizations, companies) the freedoms to use, study, share (copy), and modify the software. Software that ensures that these rights are retained is called free software. The license was originally written by Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) for the GNU project.

The GPL grants the recipients of a computer program the rights of the Free Software Definition and uses copyleft to ensure the freedoms are preserved whenever the work is distributed, even when the work is changed or added to. The GPL is a copyleft license, which means that derived works can only be distributed under the same license terms. This is in distinction to permissive free software licenses, of which the BSD licenses are the standard examples. GPL was the first copyleft license for general use.

As of August 2007, the GPL accounted for nearly 65% of the 43,442 free software projects listed on Freecode, and as of January 2006, about 68% of the projects listed on SourceForge.net.Similarly, a 2001 survey of Red Hat Linux 7.1 found that 50% of the source code was licensed under the GPL and a 1997 survey of MetaLab, then the largest free software archive, showed that the GPL accounted for about half of the software licensed therein. Prominent free software programs licensed under the GPL include the Linux kernel and the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC). Some other free software programs (MySQL is a prominent example) are dual-licensed under multiple licenses, often with one of the licenses being the GPL.

It is believed that the copyleft provided by the GPL was crucial to the success of Linux-based systems, giving the programmers who contributed to the kernel the assurance that their work would benefit the whole world and remain free, rather than being exploited by software companies that would not have to give anything back to the community.

On 29 June 2007, the third version of the license (GNU GPLv3) was released to address some perceived problems with the second version (GNU GPLv2) that were discovered during its long-time usage. To keep the license up to date the GPL license includes an optional "any later version" clause, allowing users to choose between the original terms or the terms in new versions as updated by the FSF. Developers can omit it when licensing their software; for instance the Linux kernel is licensed under GPLv2 without the "any later version" clause.

The terms and conditions of the GPL must be made available to anybody receiving a copy of the work that has a GPL applied to it ("the licensee"). Any licensee who adheres to the terms and conditions is given permission to modify the work, as well as to copy and redistribute the work or any derivative version. The licensee is allowed to charge a fee for this service, or do this free of charge. This latter point distinguishes the GPL from software licenses that prohibit commercial redistribution. The FSF argues that free software should not place restrictions on commercial use, and the GPL explicitly states that GPL works may be sold at any price.

The GPL additionally states that a distributor may not impose "further restrictions on the rights granted by the GPL". This forbids activities such as distributing of the software under a non-disclosure agreement or contract. Distributors under the GPL also grant a license for any of their patents practiced by the software, to practice those patents in GPL software.

The fourth section for version 2 of the license and the seventh section of version 3 require that programs distributed as pre-compiled binaries are accompanied by a copy of the source code, a written offer to distribute the source code via the same mechanism as the pre-compiled binary, or the written offer to obtain the source code that the user got when they received the pre-compiled binary under the GPL. The second section of version 2 and the fifth section of version 3 also require giving "all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program". Version 3 of the license allows making the source code available in additional ways in fulfillment of the seventh section. These include downloading source code from an adjacent network server or by peer-to-peer transmission, provided that is how the compiled code was available and there are "clear directions" on where to find the source code.

The FSF does not hold the copyright for a work released under the GPL, unless an author explicitly assigns copyrights to the FSF (which seldom happens except for programs that are part of the GNU project). Only the individual copyright holders have the authority to sue when a license violation takes place.

Use of licensed software
Software under the GPL may be run for all purposes, including commercial purposes and even as a tool for creating proprietary software, for example when using GPL-licensed compilers.Users or companies who distribute GPL-licensed works (e.g. software), may charge a fee for copies or give them free of charge. This distinguishes the GPL from shareware software licenses that allow copying for personal use but prohibit commercial distribution, or proprietary licenses where copying is prohibited by copyright law. The FSF argues that freedom-respecting free software should also not restrict commercial use and distribution (including redistribution):the GPL explicitly states that GPL works may be sold at any price.

In purely private (or internal) use ?with no sales and no distribution? the software code may be modified and parts reused without requiring the source code to be released. For sales or distribution, the entire source code need to be made available to end users, including any code changes and additions? in that case, copyleft is applied to ensure that end users retain the freedoms defined above.

However, software running as an application program under a GPL-licensed operating system such as Linux is not required to be licensed under GPL or to be distributed with source-code availability?the licensing depends only on the used libraries and software components and not on the underlying platform. For example if a program consists only of own original custom software, or is combined with source code from other software components, then the own custom software components need not be licensed under GPL and need not make their code available; even if the underlying operating system used is licensed under the GPL, applications running on it are not considered derivative works. Only if GPLed parts are used in a program (and the program is distributed), then all other source code of the program needs to be made available under the same license terms. The GNU Lesser General Public license (LGPL) was created to have a weaker copyleft than the GPL, in that it does not require own custom-developed source code (distinct from the LGPLed parts) to be made available under the same license terms.

Copyleft

The distribution rights granted by the GPL for modified versions of the work are not unconditional. When someone distributes a GPL'd work plus his/her own modifications, the requirements for distributing the whole work cannot be any greater than the requirements that are in the GPL.

This requirement is known as copyleft. It earns its legal power from the use of copyright on software programs. Because a GPL work is copyrighted, a licensee has no right to redistribute it, not even in modified form (barring fair use), except under the terms of the license. One is only required to adhere to the terms of the GPL if one wishes to exercise rights normally restricted by copyright law, such as redistribution. Conversely, if one distributes copies of the work without abiding by the terms of the GPL (for instance, by keeping the source code secret), he or she can be sued by the original author under copyright law.

Copyleft thus uses copyright law to accomplish the opposite of its usual purpose: instead of imposing restrictions, it grants rights to other people, in a way that ensures the rights cannot subsequently be taken away. It also ensures that unlimited redistribution rights are not granted, should any legal flaw be found in the copyleft statement.

Many distributors of GPL'ed programs bundle the source code with the executables. An alternative method of satisfying the copyleft is to provide a written offer to provide the source code on a physical medium (such as a CD) upon request. In practice, many GPL'ed programs are distributed over the Internet, and the source code is made available over FTP or HTTP. For Internet distribution, this complies with the license.

Copyleft applies only when a person seeks to redistribute the program. One is allowed to make private modified versions, without any obligation to divulge the modifications as long as the modified software is not distributed to anyone else. Note that the copyleft applies only to the software and not to its output (unless that output is itself a derivative work of the program. For example, a public web portal running a modified derivative of a GPL'ed content management system is not required to distribute its changes to the underlying software because its output is not a derivative.

There has been debate on whether it is a violation of the GPL to release the source code in obfuscated form, such as in cases in which the author is less willing to make the source code available. The general consensus was that while unethical, it was not considered a violation. The issue was clarified when the license was altered to require that the "preferred" version of the source code be made available.

License versus contract

The GPL was designed as a license, rather than a contract.] In some Common Law jurisdictions, the legal distinction between a license and a contract is an important one: contracts are enforceable by contract law, whereas licenses are enforced under copyright law. However, this distinction is not useful in the many jurisdictions where there are no differences between contracts and licenses, such as Civil Law systems.

Those who do not accept the GPL's terms and conditions do not have permission, under copyright law, to copy or distribute GPL licensed software or derivative works. However, if they do not redistribute the GPL'd program, they may still use the software within their organization however they like, and works (including programs) constructed by the use of the program are not required to be covered by this license.

Piracy :
Piracy traditionally refers to acts of copyright infringement intentionally committed for financial gain, though more recently, copyright holders have described online copyright infringement, particularly in relation to peer-to-peer file sharing networks, as "piracy".It can be argued that "monetary gain " is derived by BlackBerry through use of the free apps as they BlackBerry would be obtaining profits indirectly, by the sales of devices with the ability to download and use of the apps which in defacto enhances the selling point of the very Device. BB10 being a "non Android" device Technically.The issues aren't black and white and there are gray areas that can be open to interpretation.

I have not gone into Digital Rights management (DRM) and the laws as it relates to digital industry and infringement but suffice it to say that utilising that option the app developer could have the option to have his / her work locked and distributed accordingly, if under copyright ,there are concerns with use/ misuse of his work but DRM has not been yet universally accepted and proponents on both sides of the spectrum have been butting heads on the issues on an ongoing basis.

Posted via CB10

[SCrid2000]

An interesting post on Open Source, but I don't think that's particularly relevant to the topic. No offense intended
I believe that technically open source software *could* be pirated, because the source itself is what must be freely distributed, not the binaries. I can't imagine a real world scenario where that would actually happen.

[crackbrry fan]

An interesting post on Open Source, but I don't think that's particularly relevant to the topic. No offense intended
I believe that technically open source software *could* be pirated, because the source itself is what must be freely distributed, not the binaries. I can't imagine a real world scenario where that would actually happen.

Happy Thanksgiving, No offense taken whatsoever, sorry for the long winded post, I am really into the discussion,however as I pointed out the definition of the use of the word "piracy" means there is some monetary gain to be had. If in so far as I have seen the apps in question that are usable in most part are of the "free" variety. I could be wrong but I submit that the only infringement would arise if and when someone obtains a "paid app" for use "free". That would be where "Piracy "would be an issue. Additionally infringement of copyrighted material in this case "apps" there would have to be modification done to alter the original work as to change or modify it's original use, I do agree with your post ,Sorry again for straying off point.


Posted via CB10

[Jerry A]

That's not entirely true. Merely using the app on an unintended device or in an unintended manner is NOT piracy, although it may be a violation of the app's Terms of Use.

Piracy has to do with the way an item is obtained, not how it's used.

Android on BB10 is far tighter integrated than a normal virtual machine. The file system is actually extracted at the root of the BlackBerry device. You can see that if you open the browser and navigate to file:///. Also, my understanding of Virtual Machines is that they generally include a kernel as part of the machine (virtual box in Windows sure doesn't run Linux on a Windows kernel ) whereas the Android file system in BB10 runs on the QNX kernel, just like any other module.

Also, I don't believe Google limits what devices can run Google Services; although I could be mistaken there (that would necessitate a LOT of updates to their TOS lol). I do know that they limit which manufacturers can preload them. I'm actually planning to do a mini post on that in a few days. Maybe.

Sorry for the multiple edits lol, hope no one misses too much of this post due to that. Happy Thanksgiving CrackBerryHeads

Google does limit Play Store access to those devices manufactured by members of the OHA.

Google also enforces it's Play Store IP by sending C&D letters to the grey market stores that scrape the Play Store.

Check with Google on whether grabbing the APK for a Google Play item by any manner other than the Play Store is considered a violation of their TOS.

Be warned, we may not like the answer.

[jelp2]

Great write up and pretty solid reasoning. The only weakness is in your definition of 'an authorized device'.



Technically, BB10 devices *still* cannot access the Google Play store.

So, I guess my question is: what is the definition of "the Market"



: /

Technically, my Z10 does access the market and it took some technical configuring to do it, but it does.

[jelp2]

Correct right now there is an API that is being used to get the market from an external app/webpage/etc. And tomorrow google could disable that API and then lots of things are broken. Just have to see what happens

You know they won't though. They obviously don't care or there wouldn't be so many other sources/stores to acquire apps from either.

[SCrid2000]

Happy Thanksgiving, No offense taken whatsoever, sorry for the long winded post, I am really into the discussion,however as I pointed out the definition of the use of the word "piracy" means there is some monetary gain to be had. If in so far as I have seen the apps in question that are usable in most part are of the "free" variety. I could be wrong but I submit that the only infringement would arise if and when someone obtains a "paid app" for use "free". That would be where "Piracy "would be an issue. Additionally infringement of copyrighted material in this case "apps" there would have to be modification done to alter the original work as to change or modify it's original use, I do agree with your post ,Sorry again for straying off point.


Posted via CB10

I want to say that free software can be pirated too, but for the life of me I can't figure out how that would work lol. It could certainly be a violation of the terms to distribute it.

Google does limit Play Store access to those devices manufactured by members of the OHA.

Google also enforces it's Play Store IP by sending C&D letters to the grey market stores that scrape the Play Store.

Check with Google on whether grabbing the APK for a Google Play item by any manner other than the Play Store is considered a violation of their TOS.

Be warned, we may not like the answer.

True, but a violation of their TOS isn't the same as piracy. That's a whole other conversation

[Nharzhool]

This is probably a bit more involved than most posts I make, but I wanted to weigh in on the conversation and garner myself some thanks and likes (because that's what the interwebs are all about) and post my two cents on whether or not installing an Android app on a BlackBerry device is piracy. This post will no doubt de(volv)lve into the innermost nether regions of my somewhat convoluted psyche, so I ask that you take a seat, perhaps don some 3D glasses, and enjoy the ride.

But first, some words of warning: I'm a developer by passion and self-education, but only because no real developers have stopped me from referring to myself as one (attempts to do so may be productive). I'm an attorney by trade, but I'm not a digital rights attorney (I'm also not your attorney). Therefore, I am not fully qualified to discuss what I'm about to discuss with you, or with others, or probably even myself. That's why I'm taking to my digital pen and its 114 mechanical inputs, and carving my thoughts on the irreversible and over-saturated canvas.

With that incomprehensible disclaimer of artistic claim behind us, let us first delve into the meatier sections of our metaphysical discussion.

First, what is piracy?
I inquired of the Oracle of Mountain View, and was informed that piracy is "the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea." Strange that the hallmark of the 21st century answers modern questions in a bent more properly aligned with the 18th century. However, my good friends Merriam and Webster were able to set me straight: Piracy is "the unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright." So there we go, that's our baseline for determining whether Android apps on BlackBerry 10 is piracy. Our next question would have to be, what is an "unauthorized use" of an Android app?

To answer that question, we must first answer the question: what is Android? I again inquired of the Oracle, and was informed that Android is "(in science fiction) a robot with a human appearance." Ok, strike two, but you have to admire the self-deprecation. Despite my lack of verifiable qualifications, I think I may be able to take a stab at defining what Android is. Android is an 1. open source (I would argue that its openness is debatable (I'm looking at you, Honeycomb), but its creators claim its open source and so we'll leave it at that) 2. mobile 3. operating system developed by 4. Google. To sum that up: Android is a freely available, publicly accessible, highly configurable mobile OS that anyone can take and do anything they want with.

What did BlackBerry do with Android? They did the same thing Samsung, LG, Asus, Dell, etc etc etc have done with it: they took it, configured it to work with specific hardware, and began using it as part of a commercial product.

It's worth noting that although BlackBerry did something significantly different (that is, making it a modular part of another OS rather than the sole OS on a specific pierce of hardware), they in no way violated any conditions of Android's Terms of Use. Google may not have foreseen* or expected (or approve of) BlackBerry's usage of Android, but when you release something as Open Source, you don't get to dictate what people use your code for.

BlackBerry 10 contains an Android filesystem, Android libraries, all the components of Android. For all intents and purposes, BlackBerry 10 is an Android Device.

I expect howls of protest from both the Android and BlackBerry faithful at a comment of that nature; however, it's an inescapable logical conclusion. As uncomfortable as I and others may be regarding this somewhat awkward marriage, it's logically sound and anyone of sound mind (read: anyone except trolls) must admit that it's true.

So we've established that Android's presence on a BlackBerry device is in itself not piracy. We're getting close to our conclusion here, as half the question is resolved. There remains only one group who might still claim to be the victims of piracy: the developers of Android apps. We next must therefore ask, what is an unauthorized use of an Android app? The best place to answer that question is the Google Play Developer Distribution Agreement (GPDDA), located at https://forums.crackberry.com/e?link...token=f1DdPRfy

First, some definitions from the GPDDA:
Device: Any device that can access the Market, as defined herein.
Products: Software, content and digital materials distributed via the Market.

Now, section 5.4 (License Grants):
5.4 You grant to the user a non-exclusive, worldwide, and perpetual license to perform, display, and use the Product on the Device. If you choose, you may include a separate end user license agreement (EULA) in your Product that will govern the user's rights to the Product in lieu of the previous sentence.

Similarly, from the Amazon App Store App Distribution and Services Agreement (AASADSA) located at https://developer.amazon.com/help/da.html:

AASADSA 1(a): Our Program supports the sale, distribution, and promotion of Apps for multiple platforms. A �Mobile App� is an App that is designed to operate on Android or another mobile operating system or in a mobile browser.
AASADSA 3(a): You hereby grant us the nonexclusive, irrevocable (subject to Sections 6 and 7 of this Schedule), royalty-free right to sell, distribute, and make available your Apps through the Program to end users in the Territory by all means of electronic distribution available now or in the future.

Notice the language that specifically excludes BlackBerry devices (or, more accurately, Android Devices that are also BlackBerry Devices)? See, right there? Don't you see it?

Here's the long and the short of it: despite the above rambling (which I originally intended to be far more entertaining than it actually turned out to be, so my apologies, full refunds are available at the counter), it's really fairly simple.
Developers who submit their app to Google Play and the Amazon App Store are submitting it to any Android device that can access those services. It seems somewhat ridiculous to me that anyone would believe anything differently, but that's the way it is. Will piracy of Android apps on BlackBerry occur? Of course it will, in the exact same way that it happens on Android.

But to argue that the act of installing an Android .apk on a BlackBerry 10 device via an app store is in and of itself piracy is absolutely incorrect.
At the very least, it is no more piracy than installing Microsoft Office on Bootcamp, Notepad++ in Wine, or any Android app on Cyanogenmod.

Lively discussion of my typos and logical fallacies is more than welcome, but I'm not going to be actively participating in any commentary that comes as a result of this post.
Thank you and Goodnight.

*Like this article? Check in next week for the next posting by SCrid2000, "How To Attract Every Troll on CrackBerry"*

*While "foresaw" is not incorrect; with the rest of the wording in the sentence, "foreseen" is seen to work better.

Wow...Let me start off by saying how great a pleasure it was to read the OP to a thread that wasn't wrought with terrible language (though I MAY have taken my highlighter to your post)!

I appreciate you bringing across the information in a thread. I actually brought some of these points up on the AC site comments.

However, I must disagree with your claim that BB10 is an Android device. I would posit that neither are the same as each other while both have the same roots.

Android is based off of Linux which is in turn, based off of Unix. QNX is also based off of Unix. Now, I'm well aware that these are broad definitions. However, they are not incorrect.

I would say that both are Unix devices, which is why Dalvik can be slapped on BB10 as it is on Jelly Bean. Though, because of the differences in the way that QNX and the Android kernels handle the code, the RIM(at the time) engineers had to performs some black magic to get it all working.

However, since these two engineers were burnt at the stake (you know, because one doesn't abide a witch), some other engineers went to them and explained that it wasn't ACTUALLY magic, they're just rather good at their jobs. So now they are getting the code sifted through and getting these features working, slowly but surely.

Back on topic: I don't feel that accessing the Amazon store and installing apps from there is piracy...because it isn't. I'm not going to bother justifying that because it already has been.

The line for the Google Play Store is a fine line, indeed. Because Google has stated that we may not access their services in any manner except the ones specified by them, it is most likely illegal to access the Play Store unless it is from an authorised device...

That being said, I don't care. I'm still going to do it. People can call me a pirate as much as they want. Frankly, I don't care. I will torrent and download songs because I don't earn enough to do it legally. Besides, to me, it is a victimless crime.

Anyway, thanks for the perspective of an attorney, SCrid2000. It is much appreciated. :-)

[igotberryfever]

That has been my argument the whole time. AC people have no problem with blue stacks running Android apps on a PC but have a problem with BlackBerry having the same thing (a Android runtime) Phil and the AC folks need to get over themselves.

Posted via CB10

[R Field]

That has been my argument the whole time. AC people have no problem with blue stacks running Android apps on a PC but have a problem with BlackBerry having the same thing (a Android runtime) Phil and the AC folks need to get over themselves.

Posted via CB10

This like I've stated before pot calling the kettle black hypocritical.

CB10 - Z10 -10.2.1.1055

[R Field]

Thank you for that write up OP.

Ghost commander in 10.2.1 show BB10 sure has a lot of Android components under the hood installed in the system files to back that up.







CB10 - Z10 -10.2.1.1055

[Toodeurep]

I think the other important word to defined is discrimination. Just like piracy has been redefined over the last few years discrimination will be as well.

As a consumer, piracy to me is when I steal from someone goods or services that take value from them and they don't accept those terms. Discrimination to me is when they refuse to offer those same goods to me me simply because they don't like the color of my shirt, the type of shoes I wear or the phone I choose to use.


Discrimination is a worse offense than piracy when there is no loss of income.

[paper_monkey]

Happy Thanksgiving, No offense taken whatsoever, sorry for the long winded post, I am really into the discussion,however as I pointed out the definition of the use of the word "piracy" means there is some monetary gain to be had. If in so far as I have seen the apps in question that are usable in most part are of the "free" variety. I could be wrong but I submit that the only infringement would arise if and when someone obtains a "paid app" for use "free". That would be where "Piracy "would be an issue. Additionally infringement of copyrighted material in this case "apps" there would have to be modification done to alter the original work as to change or modify it's original use, I do agree with your post ,Sorry again for straying off point.


Posted via CB10

I guess you did stray off point a little but I think the intent of it and the clarification it provided (for me at least) was very much on point and very greatfully received. It is a lot to digest and I will agree that I was a little too liberal with my use of piracy. As you noted, it really could become a case by case issue and your post definitely provides food for thought. To be honest, I'm not willing to take the time to go back over my posts to see where I am at odds with everything you have said but I clearly stand corrected on several points and can't thank you enough for your input into the discussion.

I guess what I can take away from this is that there are a number of unknowns still that will likely all become clear when an official release is dropped and we can see exactly how they implement both the runtime and any agreements/partnerships that they may have been working on.

I'm still torn as to how good I think this is for BlackBerry but I'm clear in my mind that they don't have the flexability left to try too much else. Time will ultimately tell if it was the right decision but I am hard pressed to say that it is a _bad_ decision given what is happening with the market in general and BBRY specifically.

Now if only you had weighed in with this near the start of the other thread(s) ;P

[paper_monkey]

I want to say that free software can be pirated too, but for the life of me I can't figure out how that would work lol. It could certainly be a violation of the terms to distribute it.



True, but a violation of their TOS isn't the same as piracy. That's a whole other conversation

Definitely for another conversation but I wonder if by using a free app on a different device, it somehow broke their ad serving or at least the tracking thereof and resulted in a loss of revanue (well arguably loss of potential revanue but again, different discussion) what that would end up classified if tested before the courts. And I guess more germain to where the topic has taken us, if it might be possible to not violate the EULA, and any associated rights(or lefts), and still break the intended relationship with an ad server? Ok.. pulling the train back up on the rails, this is getting into completely different territory but definitely given me plenty to muse over...