[DenverRalphy]

I didn't get the Audible .apk file from Google. The site where I got it undoubtedly violated Google's Terms of Service in making it available. Whether that makes me culpable in some way is an interesting question, and I don't know the answer.

Oh c'mon now. I've seen your posts. Those posts present a relatively accurate demonstration of your awareness in the mobile industry.

You know the answer to that question. To profess ignorance is just an insult to yourself. Own it.


SwiftKeyed/Flowed via Tapatalk 4 Beta

[ubizmo]

Oh c'mon now. I've seen your posts. Those posts present a relatively accurate demonstration of your awareness in the mobile industry.

You know the answer to that question. To profess ignorance is just an insult to yourself. Own it.


SwiftKeyed/Flowed via Tapatalk 4 Beta

So, would you say it's tantamount to knowingly accepting stolen goods? I can see that analogy.


Sent from Tapatalk.

[Omnitech]

So, would you say it's tantamount to knowingly accepting stolen goods? I can see that analogy.

Yeah, I would agree with that. Although in general I think you are a reasonable person, it always amazes me the lengths people in general will go to to rationalize something they know d*mn well is not socially acceptable or legal behaviour, particularly when it comes to things they think they can nick for free when they usually cost money.

And the funny thing is, I'm a big fan of civil disobedience and subverting the dominant paradigm, I just don't think much of people who buck the system and then try to simultaneously claim it's unfair if they get caught/prosecuted/ostracized for it.

[DenverRalphy]

So, would you say it's tantamount to knowingly accepting stolen goods? I can see that analogy.


Sent from Tapatalk.

I'd not judge either way. :-D

SwiftKeyed/Flowed via Tapatalk 4 Beta

[Gator99]

So what if I send money to a developer, and then sideload their free app? Is that criminal? Do I need their personal expressed /written consent, even when it's not required through the play store? I'm not sure if the same precedent would apply, compared to illegally downloading MP3's.

Sent from the future on my Z10.

[KermEd]

So what if I send money to a developer, and then sideload their free app? Is that criminal? Do I need their personal expressed /written consent, even when it's not required through the play store? I'm not sure if the same precedent would apply, compared to illegally downloading MP3's.

Sent from the future on my Z10.

Sending someone money without an agreement is a donation - you get nothing.

Side loading - too generic. If you buy the app I'm Google Play then yes it is illegal to move it to Blackberry.

Consent is required BECAUSE you are removing it from the play store to a second device. A Google Play install is intended only for that one android device. Copying it to a second type of phone is illegal as they reserve a right to charge you a second time, at a different amount, on a new platform. Yes, Google Play allows installs to additional android devices but it tracks those device ID'S and technically the installs are for an intended ID. Don't you wonder why they don't let you download an apk normally?

Converting the file does apply to MP3 copyright in that you are repacking someone's work. That person could be licensed for the soundtrack and graphics for Android use in their app only - you are not licensed as a second developer for those. I have several graphic artists and musicians who I purchase a "license" to use their work - but it is limited limited to a single developer (me) and to a specific range of platforms.

Again as we have said countless times... can you work around this? I imagine yes. But that doesn't mean it's legal.

Posted via CB from my LE

[Dave Bourque]

But we will do it anyways. It's not like our governments legally spy on us...

Posted via CB10

[ubizmo]

Yeah, I would agree with that. Although in general I think you are a reasonable person, it always amazes me the lengths people in general will go to to rationalize something they know d*mn well is not socially acceptable or legal behaviour, particularly when it comes to things they think they can nick for free when they usually cost money.

I'm thinking specifically of the Audible situation here. In this case, I have written permission to use the app sideloaded, so I'm satisfied that I'm not crossing any line with Audible. But the situation with Google really is less clear to me. It's an Android app that goodereader presumably got from Google Play. This isn't a copyright violation, but a Terms of Service violation. That violation, however, wasn't committed by me. The copyright travels with the app, so to speak; it's not clear to me that Google's Terms of Service do. But I'm using the "stolen goods" analogy as follows: If goodereader had no right to distribute the app, then I have no right to use it, even with the permission of the developer. Because the developer doesn't have the authority to release anyone from Google's Terms of Service. Does that sound right?

And the funny thing is, I'm a big fan of civil disobedience and subverting the dominant paradigm, I just don't think much of people who buck the system and then try to simultaneously claim it's unfair if they get caught/prosecuted/ostracized for it.

Yeah, this has nothing to do with civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is about making a statement of protest against unfair/unjust laws. I'm not claiming that copyrights and terms of service are unjust. And if I were, the whole point of the civil disobedience would be to accept the penalty, in order to call attention to the injustice of the laws. I don't think anyone sideloading is actually doing this.

[Omnitech]

In this case, I have written permission to use the app sideloaded, so I'm satisfied that I'm not crossing any line with Audible. But the situation with Google really is less clear to me. It's an Android app that goodereader presumably got from Google Play. This isn't a copyright violation, but a Terms of Service violation. That violation, however, wasn't committed by me. The copyright travels with the app, so to speak; it's not clear to me that Google's Terms of Service do. But I'm using the "stolen goods" analogy as follows: If goodereader had no right to distribute the app, then I have no right to use it, even with the permission of the developer. Because the developer doesn't have the authority to release anyone from Google's Terms of Service. Does that sound right?

Could be. But I've said before here that I think you are mostly in good shape given your good-faith effort to bring the issue up with the developer and ask for permission.

I may do the same thing for a couple of apps I wouldn't mind having on my Z10s that I can't get any other way. One company, given what I know about their management and staff because I have been acquainted with them for years, I would give a 99% probability that they don't give a flying leap about sideloading their Android app, and as a matter of fact would probably encourage that sort of tinkering because it just increases their userbase. (They already don't provide much in the way of technical support so that issue can't be much of a burden to them. )

The other one I don't have much idea about but it's an app which A) hasn't been updated in a year or so and B) the in-app advertising seems to work sideloaded on a Z10. I would be inclined to ask them if I can pay for a "pro" license (they make free and paid android versions) and see if they would authorize me to sideload it. It's an RSS app that is 10x better than anything on BB10. I've tried all the BB10 options (and paid for some of them) and they are all junk in comparison.

Yeah, this has nothing to do with civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is about making a statement of protest against unfair/unjust laws. I'm not claiming that copyrights and terms of service are unjust. And if I were, the whole point of the civil disobedience would be to accept the penalty, in order to call attention to the injustice of the laws. I don't think anyone sideloading is actually doing this.

Exactly. But of course that doesn't stop such people from habitually trying to cloak themselves as some sort of Intellectual Property Robin Hoods to prop up their rationale for doing something which is essentially just self-serving in the vast majority of cases.