You are quite clear about taking software that does not belong to you right there.

Except of course that there was often a paper license that was the right to put it on one machine, just because you have the machine does not mean you have the license for the software.


You brought up taking other peoples software entirely un prompted.

I'm going to let you in on a huge secret. The word "use" and the word "take" aren't at all the same words. I'm happy I was able to teach you something today.

No, sometimes there was a paper license. Sometimes you get it in an email. It happened several different ways. When you license the machine, rather than the user, if you have the machine it literally means you have the license for the software.

No, I didn't. I brought up that when someone abandon's a laptop and doesn't pay their bill then it's no longer their property. It belongs to the company they abandoned the property too.

So you're 0 for all of your claims. Care to keep going?

Alright I'm lost. Like totally lost.

I give my computer to a repair shop to fix it. Let's say the screen is cracked.

Are we actually having a discussion about the legal/morality of people looking at my personal files beyond anything that A) absolutely necessary to fix the issue and B) already agreed upon between me and the person(s) doing the repair.

And if we aren't having that discussion I'm not sure what the hell anyone is talking about.

No, but I can use your scenario to make it clearer.

This would be like if you took your computer to a repair shop, signed their agreement, which every company has, and then they fixed your computer. After your computer is fixed you never paid, you never contacted them, you never picked your equipment up and after awhile it's considered abandoned which then becomes property of the repair shop.

The question being posed is, after you've abandoned that computer what moral rights does the individual who now has it have to the information on it? Some are saying absolutely none. The only thing they should morally do is wipe it completely and sell it as a refurb. Which gets a little complicated when it comes to OS licensing alone, but, whatever, it's not important.

Why the hell are people talking about software? That's the least interesting aspect to all of this. Nobody, not even any software companies, actually cares about what software was on Hunter's laptop, or who is legally allowed to use that software.

Hunter's copyright on material he produced on the laptop is interesting, but he has not asserted any copyright to that material, so unless and until he does, that's an entirely hypothetical question.

I am confident he will not try to assert copyright in order to stop the spread of any material on the laptop. I am willing to engage in an avatar bet with anyone who believes he will.

Nobody cares about Hunter Biden's laptop accept for people living so far in a pro-Trump delusion they can't be saved.

Pick a level, it's all crazy.

Was he an "artist" back then? I don't think he will either, but if he were to the only thing he'd try to do it on is his art, would be my guess.

That's not quite how it works. A copyright agreement is a contract. If you haven't agreed to it you don't get to use the software. If you have than you need to obey the terms.

When software is tied to a pc it means it can't be used on any other machine ever. Even if it's the right machine and you own it you need proof you own a license to sell it or even use it.

He won’t. But that does not mean that the shop had a right to his data. Many violations of rights go unpunished for practical reasons.

Copyright covers more than just artists.

It’s magical thinking. If you prove one element of an elaborate CT then the whole thing must be true. You do know that the pizza lace where Hillary eats the babies actually exists, that’s how you know it happened.

the FBI who is using it to investigate Hunter Biden's business dealings and tax evasion. Other than that, nobody really.

The FBI investigates a lot of **** that everyone knows is nonsense.

Absolutely. My point being that if he were to contest anything it would be his art. Not the rest of the stuff found on the laptop.

Ok, if I just admit to being an unethical douche, can we move on from it? Is that fine or should I turn myself into the authorities today after work for using a licensed, but not to me, version of some programs on abandoned PCs? I seriously will if it moves this along.

Nope... nope not doing it. Not going back down the "Hunter Biden Laptop" rabbit hole, lest of all with someone with that avatar.

It's nonsense. You know it's nonsense. You just don't care that it's nonsense.

Wait, is being investigated for tax dodging a bad thing now? I have some terrible news for Trump supporters...

What the hell are you even talking about? Copyright is DIFFERENT than software licensing. A software license is a contract. Copyright is not a contract. The primary contracts about copyrights would be between the author and the publisher.

Asserting copyright would be a dubious proposition in any case. Many of the pictures are pictures OF him, not BY him, so he doesn't have the copyright to those. Plus, fair use applies to much of this.

From a slightly less legal perspective, what even is the point of copyright? It wasn't designed to protect privacy. It was designed to encourage the development of creative works by protecting people's commercial interests in that creation. But there's no commercial interest involved here. While that's not a legal requirement for copyright, it is relevant to the question of morality. Violating this sort of copyright is malum in prohibitum, not malum in se.

Nope.

Seems weird to me.

How ironic that the man who put his children first his entire life is now being basically accused of being a 'pedo' and molesting his own daughter by the same people who support a man who virtually ignored his own children until they were old enough to be of use to him. A man who has had over 20 women accuse him of everything from rape to forced kissing and who brags about grabbing women's genitals.

Biden commuted by train 220 miles RT almost every day he was a senator so he could be home with his sons while they were growing up. Trump? If his three eldest wanted to see him before going to school, they had to go to his office according to Ivana. Trump's first wife also claims she brought the three children up 'singlehandedly' until they went to college. He never changed a diaper (Trump said that was a 'wife's job'), saw Tiffany maybe twice a year, and Donnie Jr. wouldn't even talk to him for over a year. You never saw pictures of Trump engaging with his children as a father when they were young and he still treats his sons, especially Don Jr., with contempt. He's infamous for insulting and berating Jr. in front of others.

But yeah, let's call Joe a 'pedo' and speculate about his daughter being molested by her father. Some people are very happy scraping the bottom of the barrel.

The pictures of Ivanka dancing on Trump, and Trump saying he would date her if he wasn't her father.

I don't think we'll ever actually know what she meant in that diary. She was recovering from drug addiction, and the parts I read from the story sounds like she was trying to piece together what she could remember.

>>>IF<< Joe did something inappropriate then he should receive backlash. I'll need more than an obscure diary entry though.

This reminds me of when Trump and Sanders supporters tried to make a scandal out of that whackadoodle who claimed Biden assaulted her in the Capitol. I think Trump most definitely favors Ivanka, but I do NOT think he ever touched her inappropriately. As much as I detest the man, I won't sink so low as to make such an unsupported claim or even imply it.