CAD Programs

You're floundering.

Having been shown to be the fool you are ( again ) you're now trying to hammer the context around to fit your dreadfully flawed statement. Is that what happens when you don't get your way? You take a hammer to it? Sounds familiar. You really are clueless.

You're still wrong. And what's worse is that you posted this utter garbage on a newsgroup dedicated to the furtherance of skills that may be used to construct things. Now, assuming your brain hasn't completely putrefied - try to find completely bloody obvious link.

Which wasn't what you posted in the first place - you referred to possession...or have you forgotten already?

Hello? Hello? Anybody in there??

Consider.....

1. You have paid for the goods or they have been a gift to you from someone else who had legal title to the goods. It would appear that you would also have a bona-fide licence, although some licences forbid transfer as a gift, especially where the recipient party is a business venture. In such a case the recipient will not have a bona-fide licence and use of the product will be unlawful. I understand that selling on a PC with any Microsoft product installed other than as an OEM renders the licence void and use thereof unlawful. (The pitfalls of buying a second-hand PC!)

1. You do not have good legal title to the goods. This will be a criminal offence covered by the Theft Act. You will not possess a bona-fide licence. It is criminal whether or not you use the goods.

2. You have a copy of the goods without any legal title to the original. This is criminal possession of a pirate copy. It is criminal whether you use it or not.

So, it would seem that the only case that is in doubt is the case where you have a good legal title to the goods, but not a bona-fide licence for them because the goods were transferred to you.

I think that disambiguates the situation. Any infantile restorers of woodwind instruments want to have a further temper tantrum?

You seem determined to utter statements that are offensive. Such a disposition is infantile.

Shame on you.

That you do so at the same time as you advertise your "business" must be a caveat for people not to deal with you.

Stupid boy!

No but can I have a go ???

My piece of 5K software doesn't fall into any of the three categories above. Try again...

and again....

and again...

See you at Harrogate Gareth ??? Blackgates stand? for lunch ??

-- Regards,

John Stevenson Nottingham, England.

Had you originally said "All readers of the NG are cautioned that possession of such software for which you do not have a bona-fide licence is a criminal offence", rather than what you actually said, would have made most of this sub-thread, and the posting above, totally nugatory. You should really learn to avoid using global statements where a suitable caveat would appropriately limit that generality to the case under discussion.

Is this not similar to the reaction to your statement about 'slope detection being impossible' due to a similar lack of appropriate wording?

At least he has a business to advertise, and he can blow his own trumpet. Something you try to do and fall flat.

Grey man!!

Going to Harrogate Gareth ?

-- Regards,

John Stevenson Nottingham, England.

You'd have thought that someone who 'claims' to be of an engineering bent would have had an inkling of the need for precision, particularly in legal matters.

Regards,

Couldn't work out the link eh? Figures.

Your typing any old rubbish doesn't make your statement right - but I guess it keeps you off the streets.

Not at all.

My appearance in this thread has entirely been to assist people not to inadvertently find themselves on the wrong side of the law. I hope that I have been successful in that. (Sneerers 'n' jeerers and infantile woodwind restorers excepted)

I wonder what your motivation was? To start a pissing-in- the-playground contest in a style that most of us abandoned when we left the junior school?

If one looks back at the history of your responses to me over the last few months, one must really doubt your state of mind.

Stupid boy.

You have been spectacularly and laughably negligent in that regard.

I will rem>All readers of the NG are cautioned that possession of

It was wrong then, it's wrong now - it's that simple and plain.

Still not worked out the link? Sigh.

Ummm the theft act is rather different...

the offence you mention is one of theft...it should actually be one of "obtaining goods or services by deception"

Theft requires that you intend to deprive with intent the legal owner of property or materials permanently.Fraud is a totally different charge,the software is not stolen as you have not caused it to be removed from it's legal owner,you are instead making use of it without paying the correct remuneration.Thereby comitting a fraud. Using it to get or assist in gaining products,services or remuneration is a slightly different charge...and considerably more serious.

----------------------- Offence:THEFT: It is an offence for a person to dishonestly appropriate property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it

Contrary to: Theft Act 1968 s.1

Max Sentence: Magistrates' Court: 6 months' imprisonment / £5,000 fine

Power: Arrestable offence

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

Fraud is tryable by assises and carries up to 7 years/life in jail. The more likely outcome is that a software house will take legal action against anybody infringing...in an attempt to recover costs + damages should they apply.This however is a civil offence/matter and not one subject to the same classification as theft.

Sorry to piss in the bonfire chaps but this Bean chappy is quite right.Illegal use of software is indeed a criminal offence.

cheers D

His point, laboured yet again, was that /possession/ was an offence.

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:10:13 +0100, "Airy R. Bean" No doubt

That's rich coming from you. Back to the psych ward again Gareth..

-- Steve Blackmore

You continue to contribute postings of an infantile nature that are nugatory.

Stupid Boy!

You continue to contribute postings of an infantile nature that are nugatory.

Stupid Boy!

You continue to contribute postings of an infantile nature that are nugatory.

Stupid Boy!

I said that I found a copy there. I didn't say anything about buying one :-)

Russell

I did not make any suggestion whatsoever of wickedness on your part.