[paper_monkey]

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. :-)

And think about it... what's more badass than a scull with an eye patch?

[paper_monkey]

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

Just out of curiosity and for my own edification, could some of those componants have been installed as a result of installing android apps/app stores or is that utter nonsense?

[paper_monkey]

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.

While I generally agree with your definition of discrimination, it is the developer's right to provide their app/IP on whatever platform they choose. If you don't like that they don't support your platform you can give them feedback but ultimately (as BlackBerry has demonstrated all too well) if they don't want to develop for your platform they don't have to. You can't force them to learn a new language or development environment any more than you can force them to make what they may perceive as a poor business decision to spend money on supporting their product on a platform they don't think will result in cost recovery.

[cgk]

I'm sorry... are I reading this right? discrimination?, discrimination?

Discrimination is where you are murdered between you are a Muslim in a Christian country or a Christian in a Muslim country, discrimination is when you are paid less because you are a woman, discrimination is when you are targeted for genocide because of your racial origins, discrimination is when you are told to sit on the back of the bus because of the colour of your skin, discrimination is when you are riddlicused because you are transsexual.

Discrimination is not when a commercial entity decided there is no economic value in supply you with candy crush because the revenue potential and return on investment for supporting your platform is so low.

I know this forum gets carried away in its warped persecution complexes at times but if people are starting to advance the idea that they are subject to discrimination then I would suggest they need to disconnect their computer and go outside and talk to persecuted groups and explain to them how they are also a persecuted group because their favourite apps are not available on BB10 - ask if they will join you on a march to end this heinous attack on your rights. Please film and upload the responses you get.

[paper_monkey]

I'm sorry... are I reading this right? discrimination?, discrimination?

Discrimination is where you are murdered between you are a Muslim in a Christian country or a Christian in a Muslim country, discrimination is when you are paid less because you are a woman, discrimination is when you are targeted for genocide because of your racial origins, discrimination is when you are told to sit on the back of the bus because of the colour of your skin, discrimination is when you are riddlicused because you are transsexual.

Discrimination is not when a commercial entity decided there is no economic value in supply you with candy crush because the revenue potential and return on investment for supporting your platform is so low.

I know this forum gets carried away in its warped persecution complexes at times but if people are starting to advance the idea that they are subject to discrimination then I would suggest they need to disconnect their computer and go outside and talk to persecuted groups and explain to them how they are also a persecuted group because their favourite apps are not available on BB10 - ask if they will join you on a march to end this heinous attack on your rights. Please film and upload the responses you get.

You do understand that there are varying levels of discrimination and that persecution and discrimination are not synonymous right? I don't agree that Tood's analogy demonstrates discrimination as I indicated in my reply but this seems a rather impassioned response to Tood's post and I don't think it was intended to suggest that discrimination and persecution are synonymous.

[Richard Buckley]

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.

That is dependent on implementation. Many virtual machine system do not have a separate kernel for clients. Usually that limits the clients to running the same OS, or at least the same kernel as the host.

From the information that is coming out, however, it appears that the Android runtime in 10.2.1 doesn't actually use the Android kernel. I suspect this is true of previous versions as well, but they could not run JNI libraries. This article in the Register seems to indicate that Android system calls are actually being serviced by the corresponding QNX service routine. Which is downright brilliant since all the overhead of running a second kernel is gone.

[Richard Buckley]

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.

That would be quite simple:

1) An add supported program that depends on APIs accessing the original market to generate revenue. Run on a system that doesn't support the API would deny income to the developer. (You could argue that the developer could exit when the adds could not be loaded, but that would prevent the app from running where connectivity was not available forcing the developer into deciding to support legitimate users, or protected himself from illegitimate users.)

2) A program supported by in-app purchases, as above removed from the environment where the purchases may be made.

3) A program that accesses add supported content on the internet, the revenue of which is determined, in part, by the download count in a reputable market.

[Toodeurep]

I'm sorry... are I reading this right? discrimination?, discrimination?

Discrimination is where you are murdered between you are a Muslim in a Christian country or a Christian in a Muslim country, discrimination is when you are paid less because you are a woman, discrimination is when you are targeted for genocide because of your racial origins, discrimination is when you are told to sit on the back of the bus because of the colour of your skin, discrimination is when you are riddlicused because you are transsexual.

Discrimination is not when a commercial entity decided there is no economic value in supply you with candy crush because the revenue potential and return on investment for supporting your platform is so low.

I know this forum gets carried away in its warped persecution complexes at times but if people are starting to advance the idea that they are subject to discrimination then I would suggest they need to disconnect their computer and go outside and talk to persecuted groups and explain to them how they are also a persecuted group because their favourite apps are not available on BB10 - ask if they will join you on a march to end this heinous attack on your rights. Please film and upload the responses you get.

Um, okay I guess. What about the people that were robbed, raped and murdered by pirates? Are you going to go off when a developer complains that their free app was pirated to another platform?

[SCrid2000]

So many good points above I'd love to respond to all of them, but my free time is limited and I bought some new games on Steam today so...
I would like to point out that discriminate merely means to identify differences between two things. Discrimination isn't bad, but what with the cultural rise of Newspeak, bigotry has been rolled into the definition of discrimination in many people's minds.

Um, okay I guess. What about the people that were robbed, raped and murdered by pirates? Are you going to go off when a developer complains that their free app was pirated to another platform?

I feel bad for chuckling at that but I did.

[in_loco_nomen]

So many good points above I'd love to respond to all of them, but my free time is limited and I bought some new games on Steam today so...
I would like to point out that discriminate merely means to identify differences between two things. Discrimination isn't bad, but what with the cultural rise of Newspeak, bigotry has been rolled into the definition of discrimination in many people's minds.

I feel bad for chuckling at that but I did.

I swear I have not heard anyone use the word "bigotry" in 20+ years. I don?t think they teach anyone the meaning of it anymore.

But this one extremely great thread, thanks everyone.


Squricle of Trust Group Co-Founder | Owner In_loco_nomen Squricle of Trust Channel | Channel PIN C00120C87

[Omnitech]

The fact that we can install an Android .apk designed to run on an Android is, therefore, not an act of Piracy whatsoever. This is like complaining that you can run an .exe on a Windows installed in Bootcamp.

That's correct, as long as the Windows OS running in Bootcamp is licensed per Microsoft T's and C's. (I'll bet it often is NOT) And those terms include specific limitations for virtual environments. (IE you can't just run 100 instances of the same copy of Windows simply because your hypervisor has the technical ability to do so.)

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.

You are wrong. A developer of free software can still restrict its usage, as a matter of fact it is precisely that which has angered various companies and entities who simply want to exploit "free stuff" for their own enrichment, but who don't like the fact that the Gnu Public License (GPL) for example requires that anyone who uses that "free stuff" must, among other things, credit the source of the code, and publicly publish their own additions to it as source code in order for the rest of the world to continue receiving the benefit of that "free" stuff.

Richard Stallman and the rest of the people behind the open-source movement have a very legitimate concern that a bunch of people toiling around the world on their free time to produce something for the benefit of everyone will end up being co-opted by entities that simply want to profit from it, and turn around and charge everyone for the privilege of using it.

Other open-source licenses (such as the BSD license) are not quite as restrictive in that way. But the GPL is the most common open-source license.

Google is a company which while it has undoubtedly done much to help further and support the open-source cause, has also benefitted massively financially from it.

For example, the single largest source of money for Mozilla Corporation (the people who make Firefox) is Google. In turn, you won't see Mozilla doing much to attack anything Google is doing. That's actually a fairly direct benefit for Google. So when you get all excited about the new, free "open source" Firefox OS that is vying for your attention in the smartphone OS market, keep in mind who is actually the primary financial backer of that platform as of the moment.

[mnc76]

BB10 is an Android device. There is much more than a an "app player" inside it. There is interapplicatoon communication between Android apps, multitasking of Android apps, and a whole slew of support services and apps (like dialers, a browser, video player, etc...)

The Open Source Android license allows users to modify the code of Android. BB10 supports the Android APIs (the software -level "interface"), it simply implements some of them using the equivalent QNX system calls.

It's no different than if Samsung modifies some stock Android code to run better on its particular hardware, or if changes are made to better support Intel CPUs (versus ARM chips). These modifications do not take away any "Androidness" (so to speak).

It's Android on an Intel based tablet, and it's still Android on an ARM based Samsung, even though the OS's on each may have significant differences.



Posted via CB10

[R Field]

Just out of curiosity and for my own edification, could some of those componants have been installed as a result of installing android apps/app stores or is that utter nonsense?

Possibly some but a lot of it is built in you just don't see it often as its buried in the system files one doesn't typically have access to.

CB10 - Z10 -10.2.1.1055 - C0006E212

[crackbrry fan]

That's correct, as long as the Windows OS running in Bootcamp is licensed per Microsoft T's and C's. (I'll bet it often is NOT) And those terms include specific limitations for virtual environments. (IE you can't just run 100 instances of the same copy of Windows simply because your hypervisor has the technical ability to do so.)





You are wrong. A developer of free software can still restrict its usage, as a matter of fact it is precisely that which has angered various companies and entities who simply want to exploit "free stuff" for their own enrichment, but who don't like the fact that the Gnu Public License (GPL) for example requires that anyone who uses that "free stuff" must, among other things, credit the source of the code, and publicly publish their own additions to it as source code in order for the rest of the world to continue receiving the benefit of that "free" stuff.

Richard Stallman and the rest of the people behind the open-source movement have a very legitimate concern that a bunch of people toiling around the world on their free time to produce something for the benefit of everyone will end up being co-opted by entities that simply want to profit from it, and turn around and charge everyone for the privilege of using it.

Other open-source licenses (such as the BSD license) are not quite as restrictive in that way. But the GPL is the most common open-source license.

Google is a company which while it has undoubtedly done much to help further and support the open-source cause, has also benefitted massively financially from it.

For example, the single largest source of money for Mozilla Corporation (the people who make Firefox) is Google. In turn, you won't see Mozilla doing much to attack anything Google is doing. That's actually a fairly direct benefit for Google. So when you get all excited about the new, free "open source" Firefox OS that is vying for your attention in the smartphone OS market, keep in mind who is actually the primary financial backer of that platform as of the moment.

I'm sorry I think you are mistaken I agree with you, I have covered the issue of GPL and open source copy right/ left etc in this thread. I again maintain that "free software " can't be pirated, as in a court of law the complainant will have to prove how revenue was "lost" from providing a "free" service. The law is quite clear on what constitutes piracy. Although recently it's been given a gray area with respect to peer to peer sharing. As for your other part that I stated a developer couldn't restrict his work, you are mistaken, I have stated that he can choose to do so, DRM for example but I didn't go into it too much as I wish to respect the forum and not go into long winded responses .

Posted via CB10

[Omnitech]

I'm sorry I think you are mistaken I agree with you, I have covered the issue of GPL and open source copy right/ left etc in this thread. I again maintain that "free software " can't be pirated, as in a court of law the complainant will have to prove how revenue was "lost" from providing a "free" service. The law is quite clear on what constitutes piracy.

I would be very surprised if any US laws actually use a term like "piracy", because it isn't a term that has any specific legal meaning in the commercial software context. More likely the terms would be "license violation", "copyright violation", "commercial fraud" and so on.

It is the license terms that specify that you are supposed to pay for a product, by way of pointing-out that the developer has sole disgression about who they issue or grant licenses to, and if you use but fail to pay for a product which requires payment to receive a license, you are likely not a licensee and thus are violating the terms of the license if you use it without paying.

What you are missing is that software licenses can also impose all sorts of other restrictions which have nothing to do with a requirement for remuneration, that is precisely what the GPL does. Various companies have gotten in hot-water for this, ie companies that use open-source software in home-networking products like routers but who "accidentally forgot" to comply with the GPL, which requires them to notify the public of the presence of GPL-licensed software in their product and publish their extensions to it as publicly-downloadable source-code.

[crackbrry fan]

I would be very surprised if any US laws actually use a term like "piracy", because it isn't a term that has any specific legal meaning in the commercial software context. More likely the terms would be "license violation", "copyright violation", "commercial fraud" and so on.

It is the license terms that specify that you are supposed to pay for a product, by way of pointing-out that the developer has sole disgression about who they issue or grant licenses to, and if you use but fail to pay for a product which requires payment to receive a license, you are likely not a licensee and thus are violating the terms of the license if you use it without paying.

What you are missing is that software licenses can also impose all sorts of other restrictions which have nothing to do with a requirement for remuneration, that is precisely what the GPL does. Various companies have gotten in hot-water for this, ie companies that use open-source software in home-networking products like routers but who "accidentally forgot" to comply with the GPL, which requires them to notify the public of the presence of GPL-licensed software in their product and publish their extensions to it as publicly-downloadable source-code.

I respectfully state. The issue or topic is "piracy " and yes US Jurisdictions do acknowledge the term, there is a difference between "Infringement"of terms and conditions and "Piracy" , there is also a difference between License and Contract.
In the United States, piracy laws allow for up to five years in prison and $250,000 US Dollars (USD) in fines. You can also face civil penalties that can run into thousands of dollars, even if you did not charge for the copies. Simply by sharing copyrighted content with others, you prevented the rightful owner from profiting from the sale of his/her intellectual property. "Profiteering " being the Key word. Again I state this cannot be applied to "free apps"..

Posted via CB10

[SCrid2000]

The US Code does indeed define piracy: 18 USC Chapter 81 - PIRACY AND PRIVATEERING | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
But I believe that you're looking for is 17 USC � 506 - Criminal offenses | Title 17 - Copyrights | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

[crackbrry fan]

I respectfully state. The issue or topic is "piracy " and yes US Jurisdictions do acknowledge the term, there is a difference between "Infringement"of terms and conditions and "Piracy" , there is also a difference between License and Contract.
In the United States, piracy laws allow for up to five years in prison and $250,000 US Dollars (USD) in fines. You can also face civil penalties that can run into thousands of dollars, even if you did not charge for the copies. Simply by sharing copyrighted content with others, you prevented the rightful owner from profiting from the SALE of his/her intellectual property. "Profiteering " being the Key word. Again I state this cannot be applied to "free apps"..
Nowadays, the scope of the term has been narrowed; most courts, scholars, and commentators use piracy to refer to only a specific type of copyright infringement rather than all infringement.
The Supreme Court in Goldstein v. California explained that the petitioners were engaged in what has commonly been called piracy or tape piracy,the unauthorized duplication of recordings of performances by major musical artists.Though a patent case, the Court in (Graver v. Linde) implied that pirating a copyrighted work is an act of unscrupulous copying, where any variations are made not out of a creative nature, but only to conceal and shelter the piracy.

Posted via CB10

Posted via CB10

[Wigley458]

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"*

Great job in this post buddy. Love it. And totally agree. Also. Quite entertaining as well

Z10STL100-3/10.2.1.xxxx member/co-founder Berryleaks. From CB10. My channel C000B3B57. Team channel C00032537

[Omnitech]

The US Code does indeed define piracy: 18 USC Chapter 81 - PIRACY AND PRIVATEERING | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute
But I believe that you're looking for is 17 USC � 506 - Criminal offenses | Title 17 - Copyrights | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

Yes, pretty much what I was saying, see bolded text below. I'm well aware that there are actual piracy laws that deal with people like this. Avast you scurvy dogs!!!@!

I would be very surprised if any US laws actually use a term like "piracy", because it isn't a term that has any specific legal meaning in the commercial software context. More likely the terms would be "license violation", "copyright violation", "commercial fraud" and so on.

[SCrid2000]

Yes, pretty much what I was saying, see bolded text below. I'm well aware that there are actual piracy laws that deal with people like this. Avast you scurvy dogs!!!@!

Although the common vernacular "piracy" may not be specifically defined, I think it's pretty undeniable that the crime of unlicensed software distribution is what people mean. Sort of like how "selfie" isn't shouldn't be defined in a dictionary, but most people know what it is.