AskMe policy on dishonestly obtaining stuff January 30, 2006 5:06 PM Subscribe
So questions about software piracy are not allowed, but discussions about other ways of dishonestly obtaining (discounts on) goods and services are OK? Seriously, where's the distinction?
Probably something to do with the one being a high-profile widespread controversial internet issue and the other being a completely brilliant idea.
posted by hackly_fracture at 5:14 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by hackly_fracture at 5:14 PM on January 30, 2006
The "less-than authorized" and "What else should I do?" bits in the hotel discount link are the clinchers for me. It's essentially saying, "Hey, folks, I'm gonna defraud a hotel by claiming to be someone I'm not. Can anyone think of why this wouldn't work?" with an ensuing discussion about all the different ways of actually succeeding in the scam.
The first link was more straightforward: "I want to pirate software. Can someone give me the information I need to do so?"
While there may be sematic differences, I think that both questions amount to (or result in) the same thing: discussion on how to defraud a company. Without going into personal feelings regarding either of these two approaches, why is one allowed and the other removed?
posted by aberrant at 5:19 PM on January 30, 2006
The first link was more straightforward: "I want to pirate software. Can someone give me the information I need to do so?"
While there may be sematic differences, I think that both questions amount to (or result in) the same thing: discussion on how to defraud a company. Without going into personal feelings regarding either of these two approaches, why is one allowed and the other removed?
posted by aberrant at 5:19 PM on January 30, 2006
...and more interestingly, there was NO discussion about how to pirate the software in the first thread (maybe because it was deleted fairly quickly, but still - look at the comments prior to deletion), while the second one resulted in considerable and almost immediate discussion as to the best way to get out of paying the established price for a hotel room.
posted by aberrant at 5:21 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by aberrant at 5:21 PM on January 30, 2006
If the first question was "I found a serial number for my Office tryout online, what consequences might I face?" they would basically be the same question and I'd let it stay.
As it was, the question was basically "how do I get a free working copy of Office?" which is too close to "help me pirate warez, please" for comfort.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:24 PM on January 30, 2006
As it was, the question was basically "how do I get a free working copy of Office?" which is too close to "help me pirate warez, please" for comfort.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:24 PM on January 30, 2006
So, the fact that the would-be software pirate couldn't find a working key, but the would-be hotel-room scammer managed to obtain a working discount code makes the difference here? Sorry, I still don't see it - but it's been a long day and I'm willing to be persuaded that I'm wrong in my analysis.
posted by aberrant at 5:27 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by aberrant at 5:27 PM on January 30, 2006
Eh, the difference is: "help me do something bad" versus "is what I did bad?"
posted by JekPorkins at 5:32 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by JekPorkins at 5:32 PM on January 30, 2006
The hotel question wasn't asking how to break the law, it was asking what the consequences were to doing something. The first one was unconcerned about the ramifications and read more like "hey, get this copy of Office working for free for me."
How about a new example:
"A friend traveled into the US and forgot some magic mushrooms in his back pocket. He got in ok, but what could customs have done to him if they found it?"
"I'm going to Amsterdam next week and wondering how I can smuggle drugs into the US on my trip back."
I'd let the first one stand, and remove the second one.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:33 PM on January 30, 2006
How about a new example:
"A friend traveled into the US and forgot some magic mushrooms in his back pocket. He got in ok, but what could customs have done to him if they found it?"
"I'm going to Amsterdam next week and wondering how I can smuggle drugs into the US on my trip back."
I'd let the first one stand, and remove the second one.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:33 PM on January 30, 2006
Perhaps it's more a matter of degree. If the discount code is valid, the questioner is still going to pay something, unlike someone who pirates a copy of Office.
Then again, maybe he'll get lucky and someone at Amazon will fuck up a camera promotion to include a free hotel stay.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:33 PM on January 30, 2006
Then again, maybe he'll get lucky and someone at Amazon will fuck up a camera promotion to include a free hotel stay.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:33 PM on January 30, 2006
Eh, the difference is: "help me do something bad" versus "is what I did bad?"
No, the difference is: "help me do something bad" versus "I did something bad. Will I get in trouble?"
posted by interrobang at 5:34 PM on January 30, 2006
No, the difference is: "help me do something bad" versus "I did something bad. Will I get in trouble?"
posted by interrobang at 5:34 PM on January 30, 2006
Mathowie: your example assumes actions in the past which are immutable. Both of these threads describe future actions - taking advantage of an unauthorized license key, and taking advantage of an unauthorized discount code are things that haven't happened yet.
Mr_crash_davis hits closer, I think. Whatever happened to all those folks railing against the obviously-wrong Amazon camera offer way back when?
posted by aberrant at 5:36 PM on January 30, 2006
Mr_crash_davis hits closer, I think. Whatever happened to all those folks railing against the obviously-wrong Amazon camera offer way back when?
posted by aberrant at 5:36 PM on January 30, 2006
For what it's worth, I agree that the posters' ethical choices are similar, aberrant (ironic nic of the week award). I also agree that it's unfortunate that some are so quick to applaud defrauding a corporation solely on the basis of being able to get away with it.
I still agree with mathowie's moderating decision, though (also, for what that's worth).
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:38 PM on January 30, 2006
I still agree with mathowie's moderating decision, though (also, for what that's worth).
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:38 PM on January 30, 2006
...and upon even more reflection, it's the "what else should I do (to ensure my success in defrauding the hotel)?" part of the question that bugs me. In my mind, that's soliciting advice on how to obtain something dishonestly in the future (as the charges haven't been incurred yet).
posted by aberrant at 5:40 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by aberrant at 5:40 PM on January 30, 2006
The hotel question wasn't asking how to break the law, it was asking what the consequences were to doing something.
But it's not about possible consequences. The way it's been answered, the question's become "How do I get away with it?".
posted by cillit bang at 5:58 PM on January 30, 2006
But it's not about possible consequences. The way it's been answered, the question's become "How do I get away with it?".
posted by cillit bang at 5:58 PM on January 30, 2006
The hotel question was at least a little interesting, while the Office one was stupid. I know that's not the rationale for deletion, but I would be happy if it was.
posted by smackfu at 6:06 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by smackfu at 6:06 PM on January 30, 2006
Hold on; the Office question didn't say anything about "free". That guy could have been some dufus who couldn't figure out how to purchase an upgrade to a full license. Isn't it our responsibility to help the dufuses, too?
posted by mr_roboto at 6:13 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by mr_roboto at 6:13 PM on January 30, 2006
"I did not know what to do but I used a product key from the internet."
posted by smackfu at 6:17 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by smackfu at 6:17 PM on January 30, 2006
I have planned a visit to your parents' house to buy their washing machine, and as I was about to knock on their door, I decided to play around with their lock. After a few tries, I was able to pick the lock and gain entry to the house, which represents a much more convenient way to obtain the appliance, and at a substantial discount.
As far as I can tell, I never claimed to be a burglar -- I simply fed the lock a decent rake, and it opened. I found nothing specific addressing this posted on the door, just the usual vague disclaimers about not allowing soliciting.
How can this possibly come back to bite me in the arse? Should I be concerned? What else should I do?
posted by aberrant at 6:20 PM on January 30, 2006
As far as I can tell, I never claimed to be a burglar -- I simply fed the lock a decent rake, and it opened. I found nothing specific addressing this posted on the door, just the usual vague disclaimers about not allowing soliciting.
How can this possibly come back to bite me in the arse? Should I be concerned? What else should I do?
posted by aberrant at 6:20 PM on January 30, 2006
Both hotels and software are items that have prices that are set to a large degree by markets. Software is cheaper if you're a student, and hotels seem to be cheaper if you're a General Electric employee. Software and hotels aren't free. If someone had posted "I bought MS Office at a student discount but I'm not a student, will I get busted if I fill out the warranty card?" to me that's a functionally equivalent question. The poster is getting the room at a price the hotel is willing to sell it at, but being untruthful in how he goes about it and wondering how the system works. Not totally legit, sure, but very different than trying to pirate software and get a copy for zero dollars instead of some student discount-type situation.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:23 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:23 PM on January 30, 2006
It's Raining Florence Henderson nailed it in one.
I've always wondered this same thing about BugMeNot, though. Everyone here seems to love it but it's equally "dishonest."
posted by scarabic at 6:35 PM on January 30, 2006
I've always wondered this same thing about BugMeNot, though. Everyone here seems to love it but it's equally "dishonest."
posted by scarabic at 6:35 PM on January 30, 2006
Aberrant, it basically comes down to how easily one can get away with breaking the rules, or, rather, how unlikely it is you will suffer any consequences.
posted by Rothko at 6:40 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by Rothko at 6:40 PM on January 30, 2006
Well, bugmenot doesn't allow logins for pay sites, so at least they aren't cheating any companies out of money.
posted by Gator at 6:41 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by Gator at 6:41 PM on January 30, 2006
Would the question have been approved had it been asked anonymously? I suspect not.
posted by interrobang at 6:42 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by interrobang at 6:42 PM on January 30, 2006
Oh come on, the distinction is easy: the DMCA could be used to make trouble for Matt over the "warez" question; in the case of the hotel discount code, there's no law that could be used to make that trouble for Matt.
posted by orthogonality at 6:42 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by orthogonality at 6:42 PM on January 30, 2006
I'm tending to agree with aberrant here. I think that this question is basically, "How can I get away with this?"
The question would be more like your example, Matt, if it read, "I just got back from vacation and paid a great rate through the unauthorized use of a discount code. What could have happened if they asked for proof of being an authorized user of this code?"
AskMe questions are deleted all the time because they are not phrased in a way deemed appropriate for the site. While I don't agree with all of the policies regarding phrasing of questions, I do think that the policies in place should be enforced consistently. It has been made clear that questions involving how to defraud businesses are not acceptable on AskMe. This question crosses that line.
posted by spaghetti at 6:50 PM on January 30, 2006
The question would be more like your example, Matt, if it read, "I just got back from vacation and paid a great rate through the unauthorized use of a discount code. What could have happened if they asked for proof of being an authorized user of this code?"
AskMe questions are deleted all the time because they are not phrased in a way deemed appropriate for the site. While I don't agree with all of the policies regarding phrasing of questions, I do think that the policies in place should be enforced consistently. It has been made clear that questions involving how to defraud businesses are not acceptable on AskMe. This question crosses that line.
posted by spaghetti at 6:50 PM on January 30, 2006
Getting pirated software to work isn't "breaking the law". Once you've copied it, you've already broken the law in some vauge sense (since you're copying the data to hard drive, etc etc) although really you need to distribute the software to actualy be a tortfeasor.
posted by delmoi at 6:52 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by delmoi at 6:52 PM on January 30, 2006
Oh come on, the distinction is easy: the DMCA could be used to make trouble for Matt over the "warez" question; in the case of the hotel discount code, there's no law that could be used to make that trouble for Matt.
Except that it couldn't. Not that that's stopping anyone from believing it could for no reason at all.
posted by delmoi at 6:54 PM on January 30, 2006
Except that it couldn't. Not that that's stopping anyone from believing it could for no reason at all.
posted by delmoi at 6:54 PM on January 30, 2006
The Amazon camera thing is far worse then any copyright infringement, IMO. It would have cost amazon.com real money to ship those orders, while copyright infringers only cost companies money if they avoid paying things they otherwise would have.
If I pirate Photoshop, and I can't afford a copy in the first place, then adobe loses nothing. If I steal a camera from Amazon, Amazon is out one camera, that they could have sold at full price after fixing their error.
posted by delmoi at 6:58 PM on January 30, 2006
If I pirate Photoshop, and I can't afford a copy in the first place, then adobe loses nothing. If I steal a camera from Amazon, Amazon is out one camera, that they could have sold at full price after fixing their error.
posted by delmoi at 6:58 PM on January 30, 2006
If I pirate Photoshop, and I can't afford a copy in the first place, then adobe loses nothing.
Not if you stole a license code that someone legitimately purchased and can no longer use, because of sofware piracy.
posted by Rothko at 7:08 PM on January 30, 2006
Not if you stole a license code that someone legitimately purchased and can no longer use, because of sofware piracy.
posted by Rothko at 7:08 PM on January 30, 2006
Not if you stole a license code that someone legitimately purchased and can no longer use, because of sofware piracy.
Sure, and stealing the cameras from amazon.com would be bad if they exploded and killed UPS workers. But that dosn't happen either.
posted by delmoi at 7:11 PM on January 30, 2006
Sure, and stealing the cameras from amazon.com would be bad if they exploded and killed UPS workers. But that dosn't happen either.
posted by delmoi at 7:11 PM on January 30, 2006
I think this is semantic swordfight. When I read that post I thought " Wow, someone has found a hack for getting a discount at some resort, and now everyone knows what the hack is !" How is this different than posting that you accidently found That serial # XXX 000 will work for some software ? Not that I give a shit either way, but neither is more legit than the other... just splitting hairs.
posted by lobstah at 7:21 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by lobstah at 7:21 PM on January 30, 2006
Well, bugmenot doesn't allow logins for pay sites, so at least they aren't cheating any companies out of money.
A very innocent/ignorant observation. Why do you think "free" sites want you to register at all? Just to slow you down and make you hate their site? No. They have a monetary interest in building their customer database, that's why. I'm not going to defend their dinosaur business models. Just pointing out that BugMeNot does have its issues if you're going to be all anti-piracy.
posted by scarabic at 7:39 PM on January 30, 2006
A very innocent/ignorant observation. Why do you think "free" sites want you to register at all? Just to slow you down and make you hate their site? No. They have a monetary interest in building their customer database, that's why. I'm not going to defend their dinosaur business models. Just pointing out that BugMeNot does have its issues if you're going to be all anti-piracy.
posted by scarabic at 7:39 PM on January 30, 2006
""Hey, folks, I'm gonna defraud a hotel by claiming to be someone I'm not. Can anyone think of why this wouldn't work?""
Show me a lawyer who says this is fraud. Gimme a case cite. Lying isn't illegal. The site did not ask him to BE someone who works for GE, just to have the code.
And you wonder why people think you're a douche?
"Not if you stole a license code that someone legitimately purchased and can no longer use, because of software piracy."
Yeah, because the crime of stealing credit card numbers is because then the company has to use its very rare algorithm dust to invent a new one.
posted by klangklangston at 7:40 PM on January 30, 2006
Show me a lawyer who says this is fraud. Gimme a case cite. Lying isn't illegal. The site did not ask him to BE someone who works for GE, just to have the code.
And you wonder why people think you're a douche?
"Not if you stole a license code that someone legitimately purchased and can no longer use, because of software piracy."
Yeah, because the crime of stealing credit card numbers is because then the company has to use its very rare algorithm dust to invent a new one.
posted by klangklangston at 7:40 PM on January 30, 2006
What jessamyn said.
Hotels dont negotiate rates that they lose money on. Someone found a workaround in the market forces. If this becomes too big a problem for hotels, they'll become stricter about asking for proof or ID.
This is 2006, right? Why not just call it a "hack"? Not totally above board, sure, and not something I'd bother to do but not equivalent to software piracy where there is absolutely no financial interaction with the producer.
And regarding the washing machine theft example above, its more like "They were selling it for $100 on craigslist but $60 to their friends, so I said I knew their friend Bob, although I didnt." Ok, not good, but not theft and they got the washing machine for a price they were willing to sell it for.
posted by vacapinta at 7:51 PM on January 30, 2006
Hotels dont negotiate rates that they lose money on. Someone found a workaround in the market forces. If this becomes too big a problem for hotels, they'll become stricter about asking for proof or ID.
This is 2006, right? Why not just call it a "hack"? Not totally above board, sure, and not something I'd bother to do but not equivalent to software piracy where there is absolutely no financial interaction with the producer.
And regarding the washing machine theft example above, its more like "They were selling it for $100 on craigslist but $60 to their friends, so I said I knew their friend Bob, although I didnt." Ok, not good, but not theft and they got the washing machine for a price they were willing to sell it for.
posted by vacapinta at 7:51 PM on January 30, 2006
Actually, klangklangston, I was the one whose quote you attributed to Rothko. I'm assuming the "douche" comment was directed at him, since I've only ever been called a slimy corporate tentacle.
In any case, please see Wikipedia for a good discussion of what constitutes fraud, and this definitely fits their definition. Also see this article (referenced indirectly from Wikipedia) that explains fraud from a criminal law perspective (hint: fraud is "not a crime with prescribed elements").
And, for the record, I think you're wrong. I've been the unfortunate LEGITIMATE owner of a game whose key made it into one of those keygen programs, and I had to go through the hassle (and it WAS a hassle!) trying to get the game company to reissue another key. Did it hurt me financially? Only if you count the cost of my time, but it was an unfair inconvenience to an otherwise innocent third party.
posted by aberrant at 7:57 PM on January 30, 2006
In any case, please see Wikipedia for a good discussion of what constitutes fraud, and this definitely fits their definition. Also see this article (referenced indirectly from Wikipedia) that explains fraud from a criminal law perspective (hint: fraud is "not a crime with prescribed elements").
And, for the record, I think you're wrong. I've been the unfortunate LEGITIMATE owner of a game whose key made it into one of those keygen programs, and I had to go through the hassle (and it WAS a hassle!) trying to get the game company to reissue another key. Did it hurt me financially? Only if you count the cost of my time, but it was an unfair inconvenience to an otherwise innocent third party.
posted by aberrant at 7:57 PM on January 30, 2006
Yeah, vacapinta, the analogy was deliberately over-the-top and was only half-serious. It's the "not good" piece that interests me, as well as the fact that misrepresentation might very well open up the fake friend to a civil action by the folks selling the washing machine, if that affiliation was a material condition of the contract.
posted by aberrant at 7:59 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by aberrant at 7:59 PM on January 30, 2006
klangklangston: the elements of fraud, in California, at least, are set forth in the Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group case:
1. Misleading or false statemet
2. Knowledge that it's false or misleading
3. Intent to deceive/defraud
4. Justifiable reliance on the false statement
5. Damages.
Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951
posted by JekPorkins at 8:10 PM on January 30, 2006
1. Misleading or false statemet
2. Knowledge that it's false or misleading
3. Intent to deceive/defraud
4. Justifiable reliance on the false statement
5. Damages.
Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951
posted by JekPorkins at 8:10 PM on January 30, 2006
Yeah, because the crime of stealing credit card numbers is because then the company has to use its very rare algorithm dust to invent a new one.
Klangklangston, you show that you don't understand how Adobe/Macromedia (and other software companies like Native Instruments, or Ableton) now do licensing, so let me explain in words even you will understand:
When you register their products, you must register your code over the network. When you steal someone else's legitimate serial number, they can no longer register their legitimately purchased product with said serial number. Adobe will not hand out new serial numbers just because they're asked for one.
And you wonder why people think you're a douche?
No, I don't give much thought to the opinions of thieves and apologists who call me a douche, sorry.
posted by Rothko at 8:10 PM on January 30, 2006
Klangklangston, you show that you don't understand how Adobe/Macromedia (and other software companies like Native Instruments, or Ableton) now do licensing, so let me explain in words even you will understand:
When you register their products, you must register your code over the network. When you steal someone else's legitimate serial number, they can no longer register their legitimately purchased product with said serial number. Adobe will not hand out new serial numbers just because they're asked for one.
And you wonder why people think you're a douche?
No, I don't give much thought to the opinions of thieves and apologists who call me a douche, sorry.
posted by Rothko at 8:10 PM on January 30, 2006
Oh, and when you're calling me a douche for accurately quoting monju_bosatsu's excellent summary, then you're really calling monju_bosatsu a douche. You might think about whether you owe him an apology, as — whatever you think about me — he's generally one of the most level-headed and intelligent posters on this site. Good luck.
posted by Rothko at 8:16 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by Rothko at 8:16 PM on January 30, 2006
Show me a lawyer who says this is fraud. Gimme a case cite. Lying isn't illegal. The site did not ask him to BE someone who works for GE, just to have the code.
Except that lying for your own gain is basicaly the definition of fraud. Not that I think this guy will get into trouble or anything, but I think it fits the definition of fraud in some ways.
posted by delmoi at 8:20 PM on January 30, 2006
Except that lying for your own gain is basicaly the definition of fraud. Not that I think this guy will get into trouble or anything, but I think it fits the definition of fraud in some ways.
posted by delmoi at 8:20 PM on January 30, 2006
25 feet of my poop on the floor,
25 feet of my poop,
squat right down, squeeze out some brown,
26 feet of my poop on the floor.
posted by quonsar at 8:21 PM on January 30, 2006
25 feet of my poop,
squat right down, squeeze out some brown,
26 feet of my poop on the floor.
posted by quonsar at 8:21 PM on January 30, 2006
Wait... as you grow older I'm losing track. Are you the smarter-than-us trickster who takes a shit in the center of the room to protest what we're saying, or just some old guy in the corner who can't control his bowels? Your indiscriminate evacuation here and there willy-nilly makes it hard to tell whether you're a discerning pooper-of-social-commentary or just a poop-where-poop-may innocent bystander to your own gastrointenstinal infirmity.
posted by scarabic at 8:30 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by scarabic at 8:30 PM on January 30, 2006
As the author of this thread, unless dios comes in to offer a legal opinion, I'd like to request closure. It's not gonna get any better than 26 feet of poop.
posted by aberrant at 8:35 PM on January 30, 2006
posted by aberrant at 8:35 PM on January 30, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:13 PM on January 30, 2006