software licensing regulations - general clarifications

[exxon]

premitting that what is written below certainly does not want to be an invitation to use pirate copies of any software, but only to prevent certain metropolitan legends spread even in places where they should not (see here), we fix some firm point.

1) if a guy accuses of any illicit, he must file a case. It is not that he can ask himself to question, or ask for any information. Takes a lawyer and turns to the judge.

2) the domicile is inviolable. inspections or investigations or seizure may not be carried out if not in cases and ways established by law, according to the guarantees prescribed for the protection of personal freedom. this establishes the constitution... Your pc is part of the domicile, if guy put his nose in it without explicit consent, it's him who gets the report. if such consent is within a license agreement, then:
a) such consent cannot be retroactive;
(b) is a harassment clause and as such must be signed separately.

3) the judge, after eligibility and relevance assessment, has the interrogation with an order, which must contain the indication of the ways and terms of the recruitment and must be notified to the parties under the code of civil procedure. It is not that someone wakes up in the morning and forces someone else to tell him that software has used in the last ten years, what he did to us, where are the files or similar amenities.

4) all issues related to ip, mac address and similar are only clues, not documentary evidence and as such are worth little if not corroborated by something much more concrete.

5) even if in the course of an imaginative interrogation ahead of a court token on the subject mac and similar, the accused should make a deposition unfavorable to himself, as is obtained from articles 2731 and 2733 c.c., the eventual declaration against made by the interrogation may not have full evidence effectiveness, but is evaluated according to the principle of free appreciation of the judge.

and you could continue for pages and pages. I have already written on the subject in the other threads mentioned at the beginning of this discussion.

 

[drake]

I don't fully agree with you. I know cases, where all the controls that were said in this debate were made. with all honest I do not know the final results of the above mentioned cases but they were very heavy. in cases of tax checks is the accused who must claim that he has not committed the "network" that is challenged to him. I don't think it's really "right," but it is. This is also obvious that a dispute arises between the parties that you certainly know how it begins, but you do not know how it will end. I conclude by saying that in the case of using a softwar lent by someone else, I think, it is precisely to protect those who borrow it by writing two lines that bear the loan.

 

[exxon]

in cases of tax checks is the accused who must claim that he has not committed the "network" that is challenged to him.

These are not tax offenses.

and the buffalo that the softwarehouse "mandate" the gdf at home of its customers or possible abusive users is one of the many that turn to the bars. The gdf doesn't send anyone home.

 

[drake]

I meant to talk about controls...so that the gdf is either called by the sotwarehouse or not little matter, when you see them enter the magna pump with a guy from the eyes to almond that with a usb wrench pulls all the pieces from the...pc... with all the history of the software installed in the present and deleted time.. I wasn't at the bar drinking a beer. . .

 

[ceschi1959]

These are not tax offenses.

and the buffalo that the softwarehouse "mandate" the gdf at home of its customers or possible abusive users is one of the many that turn to the bars. The gdf doesn't send anyone home.

ti mandano la bsa https://www.bsa.org/?sc_lang=it-itand these have lawyers.
cases they are aware of have preferred to pay the license or licenses used illegally.
an eclatating case concerns a study, with regular licenses, which wanted to try additional software packages. the request was about 100,000 €!!!!! and there were no saints, they had to pay.
the software-house of the previous case has no problem to give you regular licenses, lasting three months, for all packages you want under two conditions: You don't have to make commercial use of it, and they give it to you for once.

 

[exxon]

If they send me the "bsa", the "bsa" is out of the door to catch cold. along with all his lawyers. . .

Then, these lawyers can also be the "best" of the world, but to decide is always a judge, according to the civil code, does not decide the "bsa" and not even his lawyers.

if someone has actually paid 100,000 euros extrajudicially to avoid a cause, is it not for the "try" of some additional package, otherwise how much would it pay in case of negative judgment? maybe 10 million?

without contextualizing the examples, you do nothing but feed the usual legends.

 

[ceschi1959]

without contextualizing the examples, you do nothing but feed the usual legends.

I worked as an outsider for the retailer who sold the packages to these here.
the software house simply said: you used x,y and z packages that cost tot. buy them at full price and we finish it there.
So this is not an extrajudicial agreement.
then the bsa has no need to enter your home, it must not do any search.
second example of which I have witnessed: a company (multinational) commissioned a project provider. This has done it with unknowing licenses from the client. the company, having nothing to hide, has passed files that had problems with assistance.... with all the consequences of the case: was accused of using unseen software and rivaled the supplier.

 

[cacciatorino]

if someone has actually paid 100,000 euros extrajudicially to avoid a cause, is it not for the "try" of some additional package, otherwise how much would it pay in case of negative judgment? maybe 10 million?
.

Maybe because regularizing avoids the penalty.

 

[exxon]

the software house simply said: you used x,y and z packages that cost tot. buy them at full price and we finish it there.
So this is not an extrajudicial agreement.

What you described is an extrajudicial agreement.

Maybe because regularizing avoids the penalty.

and from where the possession and use by a professional or association of professionals (also at the end of profit) of illicit source software is criminal? only trade falls under such circumstances; In other cases it is an administrative offence.

Among other things, even in the worst case, the penalty is equal to a little more than 15 thousand euros. That's why if someone paid 100,000 for not paying 15,000, it means he had a bad legal partner. . .

 

[cacciatorino]

and from where the possession and use by a professional or association of professionals (also at the end of profit) of illicit source software is criminal? only trade falls under such circumstances; In other cases it is an administrative offence.

Sure? the company xyz srl that has the pirate cad and uses it to design its plants does not do it for profit? I think I do.

 

[ceschi1959]

and from where the possession and use by a professional or association of professionals (also at the end of profit) of illicit source software is criminal? only trade falls under such circumstances; In other cases it is an administrative offence. ...

there is the civilistic aspect to be taken into consideration and that is the cause that the software house intent on you because it suffered a damage (failing sale).

then it will also be only an administrative offense but to put it in that place to colleagues who respect the rules is a porcade.

 

[exxon]

the company xyz srl that has the pirate cad and uses it to design its plants does not do it for profit?

No, he sanctioned the cassation.

then it will also be only an administrative offense but to put it in that place to colleagues who respect the rules is a porcade.

and who said otherwise.
I specified as a hat at post #21

premitting that what is written below certainly does not want to be an invitation to use pirate copies of any software, but only to prevent certain metropolitan legends spread even in places where they should not (see here), we fix some firm point.

fairness and legality have little to do with the truthfulness of the information found on the net and participates in spreading. most are buffalo, as on each topic.

such could be mine, but read, I know, of a srl with 10,000 euros of share capital that pays 100,000 for installing the extension of a software is a little too much not to comment on it.

I repeat, stealing the software is like stealing a screwdriver, ethically there is nothing different. Similarly, the blackmails put in place by attack marketing operators of known software-house go to good end thanks also to the "secret advertising" that the spreading of certain buffalo gives them. it would be avoided.

 

[cacciatorino]

No, he sanctioned the cassation.

I read about articles found through google, but I think it applies only to professionals and not to companies.

 

[exxon]

try to ask you this question: wouldn't it be curious if a criminal offence applied or not according to a parameter independent of the fact committed, which type of company?

the law speaks of "growth or business activity", but with this means the trade of illegal software. is the business activity aimed at trade, while "lucroscope" is an extension of the criminal offence even to the single (non-business) that trades illegal software.

 

[cacciatorino]

try to ask you this question: wouldn't it be curious if a criminal offence applied or not according to a parameter independent of the fact committed, which type of company?

the law speaks of "growth or business activity", but with this means the trade of illegal software. is the business activity aimed at trade, while "lucroscope" is an extension of the criminal offence even to the single (non-business) that trades illegal software.

from what I read the purpose of profit also exists when using the software to profit (i.e. to produce and sell goods), in fact I miss the reason why professionals are offered this "death discount".

 

[exxon]

...in fact I miss the reason why professionals are offered this "death discount".

because it's not like that.

the law does not make penalty discounts to guy or caio: every subparagraph is if anything an enlargement of responsibility, hardly a restriction. in the specific case, the criminal offence is brought back to the companies and also to the single who trade illegal software.

the administrative illegality is true for everyone, as the right of those who have suffered the damage (software house) to see an adequate compensation. The latter, however, is established by the judge and is never, but never of entities which were written here above.

if an engineering company invoiced 100,000 euros a year and has a gross profit of 50,000, never and then never a judge will establish a compensation for the software house that is not a (small) percentage of that profit. never and never will be higher than the penalty (15,000 euros) which should pay who of that software had traded.

If then a software house asks the guy to pay him 100,000 euros, threatening him and guy accepts instead of reporting them... the world is beautiful because it is varied.

 

[drake]

However it reiterates the fact that you do not believe what you said, saying that you have found news that they are nothing but buffalo. on this survivor, I know only an animal that makes sublimation mozzarellas. It's clear that for reasons of confidentiality I can't add anything else to what I said in my previous posts and others here in the forum. I only add that the softwarehouses I was talking about, are self-desk for physically done control and siemens for that started via the internet... with the latter had begun a real judicial cause. with the first there was an agreement, for a not quite small figure, because the east had found only two or three "not in order" positions on a total of about fifteen. I repeat I do not know how the chores ended, because they are no longer in contact with these subjects. I conclude and close that the biggest mistake you can make is to underestimate the communication that the software does with your mom.

 

[ceschi1959]

Even my parents are not buffalo, I worked for these companies, as external but I worked on them.