News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Avast sees single software license used illegally 774,651... by jrockway on Monday December 06, 2010 @04:48PM (#1976954)
Rather than killing the license code, the team at Avast decided to watch what happened and how many users would break the law by using it.

Which law are the users breaking?

Re:Avast sees single software license used illegally 774,651... by azim on Monday December 06, 2010 @04:59PM (#1976989)
In short, copyright infringement. Wikipedia has more information on specific laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement_of_softw... and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement
Re:Avast sees single software license used illegally 774,651... by pbhjpbhj on Monday December 06, 2010 @06:44PM (#1977326)
They're probably in breach of contract too, I expect there is a click-through.

In the UK they could probably be got for "hacking" (ie cracking) as they are using the computer from which they download updates without authorisation and breaching a security feature in order to do so this puts them in contravention of the Computer Misuse Act (or at least on a naive reading, mine, it does so).

Re:Avast sees single software license used illegally 774,651... by Dylan16807 on Monday December 06, 2010 @08:52PM (#1977686)
I'm sure many of these people are violating copyright to get a copy of the installer, but surely that can't be the main law being broken. Avoiding the specifics of Avast that I don't know, if they can get the installer from the producer, maybe because there's a trial, there can't be a copyright violation when no unauthorized copies are made, can it? So what is the exact law being broken?
Re:Avast sees single software license used illegally 774,651... by msbarnett on Monday December 06, 2010 @05:02PM (#1977001)
Probably some variation of copyright law, depending on the country.
Re:Avast sees single software license used illegally 774,651... by jrockway on Monday December 06, 2010 @07:27PM (#1977462)
Why is it not fair use?
Re:Avast sees single software license used illegally 774,651... by Mithrandir on Monday December 06, 2010 @07:42PM (#1977503)
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Fair_use:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

       1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

       2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

       3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

       4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors"

Personal use does not, unfortunately, apply.

Re:Avast sees single software license used illegally 774,651... by uptown on Monday December 06, 2010 @08:20PM (#1977607)
"Why is it not fair use?"

I don't mean this in a sarcastic way, and am genuinely curious about your answer. Why do you think it would be considered fair use?