From: Darby Weaver (dweaver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Sat Jul 13 2002 - 00:56:22 GMT-3
I did not think I said it was ok to distribute it... Did I?
But yes both parties are at fault if theargument is to played to it fullest
interpretation. I just think the seller has more "control" of the content
and if even mild precautions are taken, then there would be no violation on
the part of either. Perhaps through other means. but not through the act
of selling the equipment.
Ooop! - Did we forget the embedded code? Now every seller is definaltely at
fault for illegal distribution. But we do not usually seek the buyer of the
drug (although he can be arrested as well), but we do prosecute the dealer
(distributor). Especially when he/she knowingly and purposefully did the
wrong thing.
Now that means the original seller did knowingly and purposely make an
illegal sale for profit. Where the case for the buyer would be a little
more gray. This would have to be tried and proven. I mean a fresh kid may
not have actually realized it until after the sale. But the original
owner... Now this guy -> He's the real culprit.
So I suggest that we all send in the serial number of all of our respective
equipment to Cisco, let them hunt down the original licencees and seek
proper redress.
Becauase for all intent and purposes they have been financially injured as
the direct result of the action of the seller (each and every seller without
bias) - which caused the breech of contract.
Now, any original owner who has violated that agreement and fails to make
proper redress should immediately and without further redress return any
other equipment to Cisco for a full refund since they did not or will not
honor the license.
Better sell you stocks right now while they are still worh the paper.
That is what we are taliking about here. Sue the original owners of the
said equipment and hold them liable. If there is a culprit, then the ISPs
and telco's of the world are probably the biggest.
So let the witch-hunt begin, because there are alot of vioalators out there
and BTW - That means ebay, amazon, and every other place where these things
are happening hundreds of time per day are also at fault.
Hell, by the time we are finished - there will be no secondary market at
all. And let the ax fall where it may on any vioaltors and those who make
the vioators accountable, and the economy as a whole.
In fact, when Cisco or any other vendor seeks restitution, they should get
the full price (not the discounted price) for each and every vioaltion.
Now that is actually fair. And the original owner should be held liable for
any and all discounts originally received, as well.
Are we getting clear?
"Now please understand, I am playing devils advocate to an extent. If you
asked me if I licensed the IOS for all of the routers in my lab, I could not
honestly say yes. I'm not afraid to say that because it's no more an
admission of guilt than your vigilant defense of the practice of violating
the EULA."
However - the if a seller profits from the sale -> Then there is your
criminal.
Next - > If a buyer is knowledgeable of purchasing stolen goods - > The
buyer is at least as much at fault but not more at fault.
Many people have sold loaded routers on e-bay and the likes but have clearly
stated that the licensing was the responsibility of the buyer.
Now that much is pretty clear.
My point is if there is a real culprit - > and the case is to be made, then
the largest violators would tend to be the largest purchasers - who
knowingly sold a "gray market" router loaded with the IOS.
As far as people on Groupstudy talking about selling it - > I do not think
this is at all like Napster.
Napster was essentially a tool used to seek and find illegal works.
Groupstudy if guilty of anything would be sharing information related to the
lab at worst (and many seek to avoid this violation) and helping people deal
with real life issues at best.
Therefore, it is not Napster-like at all (unless I'm really missing the
comparison).
I do no think there is any distribution point here.
Most of those selling here are selling a piece of physical equipment. And I
believe the seller would get the best possible attention mentioning it here
before posting it on e-bay, since the group has such a wealth of potential
buyers.
As far as how the seller conducts the sale - that would be the
responsibility of the seller and I do not believe a court would uphold a
hearing that a board-owner (lest he be the seller or the buyer or in somw
way a party to the actual sale of said item(s)), could possible be liable.
So, I have thought for long hours to the extent many here take a mute
converation and make this study group a battle-ground instead of a true
study hall.
Why do we do this?
It is pointless... Isn't it?
Now my own Devil's Advocate side of the coin.
While this (in my humble opinion) is not a Napster-like act.
It may be closer to the recent issue that occurred when 2600.com had
actually posted information on how to side-step CD-ROM protections.
But even if we were to explore this argument - that is not what is actually
going on here.
What is happening here is more like this...
We are some 10,000+ people at a study hall and somebody yelled he has
equipment for sale.
That is what we are actually talking about.
Now could a college or local town hall meeting control such a violation -
Should we ban the user after one such obstruction.
Where are we going with this?
So as far as the medium (somewhat real-time), can the owner control what is
being said between 10,000+ people on what is more or less a public a forum
(although it is moderated).
Think about what you are asking and compare it to common sense.
Now as far as sellers -> perhaps they should mention the licensing
strictures in their postings. Or neglect to mention the IOS at all since,
we all know that the license is non-transferable.
I do know the license is non-transferable. So please do not imply the
reverse or that I am telling people to pirate Cisco's IOS.
That is simply not the case.
The point is that a simple CCNA candidate who purchases his/her first router
simply may not know this. And may not know this until he/she actually get a
licensed copy and agrees to it.
I once heard a quote from Bill Gates I believe that went like this when he
heard the Chinese were pirating Microsoft's software in China: "Well if thy
are going to pirate software, then it should be Microsoft's software".
Basically, I guess we could all buy old wellfleets and practice with that -
> But who would we be inclined to recommend and sell?
It may or may not be Cisco?
I personally recommend Cisco and honestly prefer it to all others. But then
I have worked with Cisco more than the rest.
And while I have deployed equipment from other vendors and am an agent of
some of the competition. I do prefer Cisco and probably will for some time
to come.
So when my corporate client needs a solution. It is a Cisco Solution.
Period.
Now I guess we could all change this to a Juniper, Extreme, or Foundry type
of forum and start supporting their products.
And our chosen vendor would surely have a cause for concern.
Now once the software is ran and a router is loaded -> The banner is
displayed.
Bottom line is we learn by doing. We do Cisco.
Whew!
As far as closing this particular forum, that would be a dis-service to
Cisco. This place is and has and will continue to be one of Cisco's best
training aids available on the Internet.
I am quite surprised they have not offered to but it themselves... Think
about it...
Finally, this is a case that could be worth Billions. However, when all is
said and done there would probably be one less Cisco in the world and we
would all be poorer for the result. Especially, since no one would dare buy
from such a vindictive seller.
So let the blood-letting begin...
I can send my serials immediately if required. But I want to know who sold
them (originally - alot have Sprint Asset Tags) so I can also sue them as
well.
I mean hey - I want my cut.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kelly Cobean" <kcobean@earthlink.net>
To: "ccielab" <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 10:12 PM
Subject: RE: Is Cisco going to sue it's entire clientele for software
piracy???Re: RE: OT - Lab for SALE
> Darby,
> Firstly, YES, this is a valid topic for the exam. It potentially
> affects the way you prepare for the lab IF you follow the licensing
> agreement to the letter.
>
> My interpretation of the agreement is that any time a piece of hardware
> changes hands, the software is not included, without "royalties" being
paid
> to the company. I don't believe it matters if you were presented with the
> license or not, because like most EULA's state, "use of the software
> constitutes acceptance of the license agreement." It's your
responsibility
> to be aware of what you are agreeing to be bound by when using that
product.
> And YES, the buyer is definitely at fault. As much or more than the
seller.
> A loose analogy would be renting a car and then selling it to a third
party
> with their knowledge that the car is rented. The car is NOT the property
of
> the seller, so buying the car makes the buyer just as guilty as the
seller.
> And it doesn't matter how many times that car gets sold, it still belongs
to
> the rental company. As a seller, you are profiting from something that,
> according to the license agreement, doesn't belong to you.
>
> Now please understand, I am playing devils advocate to an extent. If you
> asked me if I licensed the IOS for all of the routers in my lab, I could
not
> honestly say yes. I'm not afraid to say that because it's no more an
> admission of guilt than your vigilant defense of the practice of violating
> the EULA.
>
> As I stated before, my primary reason for raising the topic is
this....Does
> Groupstudy.com place itself in any jeopardy by providing a vehicle for the
> transfer of said software in violation of the EULA. The case of Napster
> comes to mind (and yes, I realize that it's different in that there was
> full-blown reproduction and distribution of copyrighted material in that
> case) where a company created a means to violate copyright law. When you
> buy a CD, you agree that no portion of that CD may be redistributed
without
> consent. It's still an EULA, just different constraints.
>
> Now...Are WE clear?
>
> Respectfully,
> Kelly Cobean
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
> Darby Weaver
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 11:31 PM
> To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: Is Cisco going to sue it's entire clientele for software
> piracy???Re: RE: OT - Lab for SALE
>
>
> So is the Eula a topic for the exam. Or is this simply computer crime
101.
>
> Who's really guilty anyway? The buyer (may even be his/her first piece of
> Cisco Equipment)?
>
> Or the original seller ----> Yep the one who originally agreed to the
> license.
>
> The secondary market may have never even been presented with the license
to
> begin with.
>
> But the primary buyer had most certainly agreed to it.
>
> So I guess the lawsuits should start with all or nearly all of Cisco's
> clientelle who have sold or intend to sell illegal copies of the IOS.
>
> Since they (the original purchaser), not the buy, in fact did agree to the
> license and knowingly sell it without taking the standard precaution of
> deleting the image.
>
> So where to we start: IBM, WorldCom, Cisco (itself), all or nearly all of
> the fortne 500's etc.
>
> If a simple user gets sued - Then somebody better sue everybody.
>
> Are we clear?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@ldd.net>
> To: "'Kelly Cobean'" <kcobean@earthlink.net>
> Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:52 PM
> Subject: RE: RE: OT - Lab for SALE
>
>
> > My AGS has ROM, not flash. Do I have to remove the rom chips if I sell
> > the AGS?
> >
> > OTOH, isn't all the bootroms a mini version of the IOS? Better remove
> > those bootroms!
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kelly Cobean [mailto:kcobean@earthlink.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 9:29 PM
> > To: Michael Snyder
> > Subject: RE: RE: OT - Lab for SALE
> >
> > Michael,
> > I completely agree with you that to the end-user, this is a
> > completely
> > unreasonable, un-enforceable requirement. However, you MUST agree to
> > the
> > EULA/Software License before you can download an IOS from the Cisco
> > web-site, and I believe if you purchase an IOS on CD (not sure if you
> > can
> > still do this or not), you agree to the license by either opening the
> > package or installing the image. There is no such EULA when buying a
> > clock
> > radio, so your analogy is not technically accurate. If the manufacturer
> > of
> > the clock radio stated on the box "by opening this package and using
> > this
> > product, you agree to be bound by the EULA, which states that the
> > firmware
> > on the clock is sold under a non-transferrable license. Sale of this
> > clock
> > does not constitute sale of the firmware, which must be relicensed from
> > the
> > manufacturer by the purchaser", then you would have a valid argument,
> > except
> > that then selling your clock radio to a person who does not re-license
> > the
> > firmware is illegal.
> >
> > I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm not even saying that it's not
> > totally
> > ridiculous. What I am saying is that not complying with it is breaking
> > the
> > law. It's software piracy, plain and simple. Additionally, I won't
> > tell
> > you that I haven't done this myself, because I have, so I'm guilty too.
> > The
> > point of my post was "Is Groupstudy placing itself at risk by providing
> > a
> > vehicle for the interstate, international sale of non-transferrable
> > licensed
> > software?". What do you think?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Kelly Cobean
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Snyder [mailto:msnyder@ldd.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 8:45 PM
> > To: 'Kelly Cobean'
> > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > Subject: RE: RE: OT - Lab for SALE
> >
> >
> > Hey, my analogy is simple. My clock radio has a processor, memory, and
> > firmware. Want to tell the next person that buys my clock radio, or
> > microwave, or tv set that they have to relicense the firmware!!!
> >
> > In truth, some clock radio manufacture should do this with a elua, so we
> > can get all the junk thrown out of court.
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > All,
> > I'd like to post something for contemplation, not to direct at Dale
> > specifically, but this is something that continually concerns me when I
> > see
> > people selling Cisco equipment. Please read the following paragraph
> > from
> > the Cisco's Policy on Software License Transfer:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:28 GMT-3