X51v hacked ROM prohibited - Page 4

Ashton · 07-09-07, 12:42 PM

@ Haesslich:
I do not fault chris or his staff on this point, however, they are saying this is illegal, and the line is very fine and very easy to cross eitehr way. Personally, I'd hate to see a case like this go to any kind of trial because there is so much stacked on each side. In the end, yes, Chris gets final say, if he decides that anyone who mentions the word ROM suddenly gets their avatar changed to a chicken, then nobody can complain (well, yes, the can but they have no right to) I am ONLY faulting them (1) on keeping a double standard for the HP and Dell hacked roms, and (2) trying to take a black-and-white stand on wheather this is legal or not, because, as I said, this is a very fine line we're bridging, and there is a lot of gray area that can fall into either and both categories!

@ aiko: my mistake, I appoligize, I've not read the constatution in years.

As for how it SHOIULD be, I think dell should be required to fufill updates for as long as the OS is viable (i.e. untill MS says "no more WM05 updates") Personally, I think they should supply updates as long as they are compatable, however this is rediculous as the X50v/x51v are so far ahead of the rest of the PDA pack that WM2009 will probably run on it, provided MS doesnt require specific hardware, such as a USB root host on the MoBo (wasn't there somone on here trying to hack a USB root host into the Axim?) So, I would say atleast 5 years from the time the product line is dead, or untill the last update from MS for the product's avalible OS (including WM05 for the X50 series), which ever comes last.

07-09-07, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Ashton

Acctually, there is a major issue here that nobody has addressed, which, in cases such as these, is a very fine line...

All of us in the USA have a 5th ammendment right to free speach. We can discuss whatever we want legally, we just cant operate on it. So the DISCUSSION of this hack can be considered legal under the US constatution 5th ammendement, however, if those in the discussion are intent on using the rom or hacking other roms, then it moves to a cominal act (see the fine line? INTENT - which I might add is almost impossible to prove in a court of law)

I see no question that HOSTING the acctual ROM is a problem, however allowing it's discussion should fall under the 5th ammendment.

(if anyone's curious, yes, I love to see these discussions where I can test my knoledge of the legal system, expect to see quite a few posts from me on this thread)

Given that I am not American I may be reading more into the above statement than should actually be there but are there no conspiracy laws in the US?

Is it perfectly legal for me and my friend to openly discuss the commissioning of a crime, i.e. theft, assault or murder? Are those kind of discussions protected by the 5th amendment?

Anyway what does it matter what is legal or illegal, the only information that should be allowed to be discussed or hosted here is that which the site owner permits. This surely has nothing to do with withholding constitutional rights. There are plenty of other sites people can go to to find what they need and then the only problem over the legality issue is with their conscience.

There are far more important debates over things that might be legal / illegal such as.......

Slainte.

FunkyCowie · 07-09-07, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by ikehiker

Seems to be your understanding that is lacking. Nowhere in the EULA that comes with the X51 does it state that you can use Windows Mobile 5.0 on one device. In fact, it specifically says "You may use the DEVICE Software as installed on the DEVICE." (emphasis mine)

As for upgrades, it also specifically limits these to those provided by DELL, INC.

So, your assumption that you can use any version of WM5 that you can get your hands on is not supported by the license. You can use the copy that came on the device or one provided by Dell specifically designed for upgrading that device.

If what you say is true about the EULA then there is no argument for the mods to discuss, its clear cut that we would have to ask dells permission to update our own, then the next step would be to MS's permission... then maybe other companies...

Ashton · 07-09-07, 01:43 PM

@ ljkelman: Well, prior to 9/11 discussion like this was treated as mindness. Let me put it this way, back in the late 90s, the KKK held a public demonstration in the town I live in... I'm not familiar with the new laws since 9/11, but before then, unless there was an obvious intent, then yes, you could ahve discussed whatever you wanted to. Today, I'm not 100% sure.

Julie · 07-09-07, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Ashton

@ Haesslich:
(1) on keeping a double standard for the HP and Dell hacked roms, and (2) trying to take a black-and-white stand on wheather this is legal or not, because, as I said, this is a very fine line we're bridging, and there is a lot of gray area that can fall into either and both categories!

No double standard here, I guess you haven't noticed that the hx4700 thread is also closed?

I wouldn't say the moderators are turning this into a black & white issue. If this issue were black and white, then the call would be easy and would have already been made (but discussions continue).

This is not a "freedom of speech" issue either. Since this is a private forum, that argument really does not fly. An example that comes to mind.....you are free to say whatever you want to say about me, but if you come to my private home and start spouting off stuff, I am free to close you down and tell you to leave. Have I violated your "freedom of speech" by preventing you from violating my private space? Hardly.

Let's look at another example...As a moderator, I delete threads every day that have no value for this forum (spam, pornography, etc.) Am I violating anyone's freedom of speech by deleting these threads? Again, this is a private forum and the owner and moderators have made the decision to not encourage or foster those types of threads.

Most of the users here do not bear the cost of or the risk from running a forum like this one. Participation in this forum is a privilege, not a right.

I don't have an Axim, so I have never reviewed the license for an Axim, but from what has been discussed here, Dell seems to have a much more liberal policy than HP. HP's license agreement, which I read well before this particular debate occurred, includes language that governs the transfer of software and prohibits decompiling the software -- which, in my view anyway, is what happens when people post links (distributes software) to hacked ROMs (decompiled and recompiled software).

julie

rlarson_mn · 07-09-07, 03:01 PM

This is going way beyond the original intent of the post. Maybe all of the legal talk should be put onto another thread. Just an Idea and dont flame for for the suggestion.

ikehiker · 07-09-07, 03:18 PM

Originally Posted by Julie

... Dell seems to have a much more liberal policy than HP. HP's license agreement, which I read well before this particular debate occurred, includes language that governs the transfer of software and prohibits decompiling the software

All of those points are also in the Dell agreement (and the M$ agreement, which is what I posted quotes from). I just gave the significant points that contradicted JimpsEd's post.

Elrendhel · 07-09-07, 03:27 PM

Originally Posted by rlarson_mn

This is going way beyond the original intent of the post. Maybe all of the legal talk should be put onto another thread. Just an Idea and dont flame for for the suggestion.

You are quite correct, however, Chris allows a great deal of latitude (see the last section, top bullet) on going "off topic", so there's no real issue regarding going beyond the original intent of the post.

More importantly, Julie, as a Moderator, is an agent of Chris Leckness, and as such, answers to him alone. Her intention to educate users is admirable, because in the future, others may not question our role and polute the forums with issues of legality.

To All:
Anyone who wishes to challenge the decision of any Moderator is free to take the issue up with Chris himself (PM name: Chris Leckness). More than likely, the answer you will get from Chris will be that you are free to leave the forums if you do not like the rules.

Ashton · 07-09-07, 04:36 PM

Acctually, in the letter of the law, I do have to right to come into your house and start saying whatever I Want, however, also by hte letter of the law, you have the right to ask me to leave, and even to have me escorted away by law enforcement if I do not. So, while it's very much superceeded, yes, technically I do have that right lol (while true, that was meant as humor, no offence intended, julie) and I appoligize, I had not looked at the other thread, as I dont own an ipaq and personally couldn't care less about ROMs for it.

As I stated, _my_ only reason for bringing up the law is because people were throwing around the words "legal" verses "illegal" and there are times and places where the same actions can be viewed in both ways.

One point that has been hinted at but not mentioned though, is people are treating this as abandonware; software that all related companies ahve thrown away as outdated and useless, and nolonger care if is decompiled, tikered with, and put back together. M$ certainly has not given up on WM05, even if dell has abandoned the axim line (dont know what dell's stance is on this issue, but if MS is against it there is no legal leg to stand on).

now, @ Elrendhel:
I hope I am misinterpreting your words, because I am getting a very bad feeling from this:

Quote:

in the future, others may not question our role and polute the forums with issues of legality.

This is one issue I strongly oppose, without regulation, you end up with Gastopo, who can do anything they want and are outside of the law. I hope I am misinterpreting the sentance, and if so I am VERY glad to appoligize, if I am not, then I think the whole moral system of this forum is about to errode to dust...

Elrendhel · 07-09-07, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Ashton

Acctually, in the letter of the law, I do have to right to come into your house and start saying whatever I Want

And be shot dead in your tracks by the home owner. If you survived, then charges of breaking and entering, assault & battery, and trespass would (in most cases) be leveled against you.

Originally Posted by Ashton

technically I do have that right lol (while true, that was meant as humor, no offence intended, julie)

No, you do not have the right to break into someone's home and start spewing your beliefs and/or opinions. At least not in the USA...

Originally Posted by Ashton

As I stated, _my_ only reason for bringing up the law is because people were throwing around the words "legal" verses "illegal" and there are times and places where the same actions can be viewed in both ways.

This place is a court of law, NOT a forum. Which is entirely our position as Moderators. Take these kinds of discussions elsewhere! :approve:

Originally Posted by Ashton

One point that has been hinted at but not mentioned though, is people are treating this as abandonware; software that all related companies ahve thrown away as outdated and useless, and nolonger care if is decompiled, tikered with, and put back together.

This is not a legal definition that allows users to reverse engineer a product just because it is no longer actively supported by it's creator. Looked-at from the flip-side, just because the creator/author isn't going to bother suing you for reverse engineering her/his creation is not a legal reason why you are now allowed to perform such an action.

Originally Posted by Ashton

M$ certainly has not given up on WM05, even if dell has abandoned the axim line (dont know what dell's stance is on this issue, but if MS is against it there is no legal leg to stand on).

Again, please take these issues into your own responsibility by sending a letter to Dell & Microsoft advising that you plan to hack and re-distribute the hacked version online and offer to take them to court on the merits of your case. When you have resolution that is publicly stated as part of the terms of disclosure that MS and DELL are going to freely allow hacking on the ROMs, then and only then will it be worth Chris' time to discuss this further.

Originally Posted by Ashton

I hope I am misinterpreting your words, because I am getting a very bad feeling from this

:exc:You are misinterpreting due to your narrow use of the very last part of the sentence, which entirely allows the statement to be taken "out of context". Try doing our membership the justice of quoting the entire sentence if you are going to pick nits about specific phrases within that sentence.

Thank you, and have a nice day!

Julie · 07-09-07, 05:15 PM

. . . and I would say that you do not have the right to come into my private home unless I invite you there. Otherwise you are trespassing.

julie

Ashton · 07-09-07, 05:24 PM

I never said I'd break in, nor did she.

As for abandonware, no, it does not make it legal, my only point there is that abandonware can be reversed engineered all day and nobody cares. In some cases, a company might even appreciate it if they're still making games and it gives them some publicity, however, yes, it is still illegal. This is the same point I made above about video-game roms, once they're too old to be profitable, many companies dont really care waht you do to them.

I never said that chris should allow the roms, my statement was regarding abandonware, and that there are 2 companies involved, even if dell itself doesnt care (which at this point it probably does) then MS still cares, so the product shouldn't be treated as abandonware.

I wholly agree on the legal vs illegal discussion, it should not be here, I was not the first one to start using the terms, nor was I the fiorst one to start trying to quote the law.

Elrendhel · 07-09-07, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Ashton

so the product shouldn't be treated as abandonware.

I should elaborate my position then: as far as I can tell, NO company should ever be "treated as abondonware", if this process calls for any reverse engineering of code, or redistribution of portions of their code.

When a company wishes to publicly allow and endorse this kind of behavior (on the part of hackers, etc), they will surrender their copyrights (etc) on a product and place the code in the public domain.

Ashton · 07-09-07, 06:03 PM

By this same concept then, why does aximsite endorce scumm VM? it hacks games that are considered abandonware and runs them in an environment they were not intended to run in.

((I hope you dont take these last few posts as an attack, I am simply exploring the rules and love a good debate, no offence is intended))

07-10-07, 12:58 AM

Originally Posted by Ashton

By this same concept then, why does aximsite endorce scumm VM? it hacks games that are considered abandonware and runs them in an environment they were not intended to run in.

((I hope you dont take these last few posts as an attack, I am simply exploring the rules and love a good debate, no offence is intended))

Get your facts straight.

1) ScummVM is an emulator; to use it, you have to have original data files for the games in question. It does not 'hack games considered abandonware' any more than VMWare's virtual machine software 'hacks OS's' - it's an environment to run a program for which you have the data files. I have Curse of Monkey Island and the first two Monkey Island games on CD through the LucasArts collections and I run those with ScummVM. The ONLY reason they've got "Beyond a Steel Sky" and "Flight of the Amazon Queen" on their site is because Revolution Software and Renegade Software released them to the public domain. ScummVM by itself no more encourages piracy than VMWare's virtual machine software encourages people to pirate Windows XP.

2) Saying that you're entitled to the AKU 3.5.2 update and that it's not illegal is like saying that, because Windows ME was based on the Windows 95/98 codebase that it's also a 'free upgrade' for you, because it's 'the same thing' and merely a service pack.

3) No, you do not have the right by law to come into my house and say what you want. When you're on private property, you're trespassing if you're there without invitation, and I'm well within my rights to kick you out of the house should you start saying things. Whether it's protected by the First Amendment or not is immaterial: the First Amendment is only there to protect your right to self-expression from being stopped by the government and society, not a license to be an annoying loudmouth who breaks into houses.

4) Stop trying to debate legality - I've always found people who claim to be debating the legality of a situation or an act only end up showing themselves as.. well, less than enlightened, to put it politely. May as well quit while you're ahead. Besides, it takes about 50-100 years either after the death of the creator or else after its release for something to be considered 'public domain' and thus fair game for whatever.. and even then, I don't know if reverse engineering is allowed.