CloudatCost OpenDNS Issue
-
@Kelly said:
@thanksajdotcom I find your apparent lack of caring about your online perspectives incongruous in light of your proposed session at SWA2015. You might want to reconsider some of the things that are now publicly tied to your "brand".
I don't necessarily recommend people mimic how I post or all my actions. My presentation is more about utilizing professional networks to network yourself with vendors and companies. In addition, it talks about other ways to market yourself as a brand. My brand is different from someone else's. I don't claim everything I do is right or the best way. However, a lot of people from a lot of different places know my name. I will soon be published on a very major website in the IT world. While I may get criticized for some of the things I say, I've been very successful for someone my age. I've worked very hard to become so. As much as people may not believe it, I work very hard and very carefully to maintain what I've built.
-
@Dashrender said:
If you own a single license and do something with that license that is outside the bounds stated in that license i.e. install it on a cloud service are you pirating it or breaking the contract? I would say you're breaking the contract, you're not pirating it. You are trying to use your ONE Legal license to do something inappropriate, but you're not pirating it.
I don't agree. You are making a license a license. But I don't believe that that is the case. A license only exists when applied properly. The license is for specific use, without that use, the license still exists but isn't applicable here. The medium and the key are in use and maybe that is causing the confusion, but they are not related. That the software is installed in an unlicensed way mean, according to my English notes, that it is unlicensed and that equates to no contract. The contract was for licensed use and would only apply when that exists, I think.
The license isn't something that exists no matter what he does. If I give you permission to go into my house and make a phone call and you steal my car while there, it's theft, not breach of contract. You can't just say "I had permission" as if it is generic. You had "permission to use the phone" not "permissions" that we "misapplied." The theft of the car is unrelated to the permission to use the phone.
-
Remember you don't buy the software. You purchase rights to use the software only in the manner they determine.
-
@Dashrender said:
In your examples, I of course agree with you that the 19 other servers and all Other MP3s are piracy, but the first one of each aren't, and if you miss use that one you're simply in breach of contract, not moved over to piracy.
Even if this were to apply, and I don't believe it does in any way, but let us say that it does.... the obtaining of a contract without intent to follow the contract is bad faith and nullifies the contract in most cases.
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
We can't all have your level of income @scottalanmiller, or get everything you get for free or insane discounts.
Not having a income to afford something doesn't entitle you to free, reduce stuff or to steal it. Seriously Go in Walmart and try that. just walk out saying it's okay I can't afford this item. That's entitlement attitude someone else has it so I should get it. It's stealing it does not matter it it's a tangible product or not.
Again, you view using a proper license in this way as stealing. I don't. Argue all you want, but the logic in my head will not view it that way. The example you use is irrelevant to this example.
A.J., this is why you fail so much, so hard, so often. You cannot admit you are wrong when you are wrong.
In the meantime, don't be surprised if people start reporting you to the BSA:
https://reporting.bsa.org/r/report/add.aspx?src=us&ln=en-us
Not to mention, but you may also be violating the TOC of your FIOS connection from Verizon since you are on a consumer plan.
That is actually not true. I openly admit when I'm wrong. When someone wants to tell me I'm being a complete idiot or doing something bass ackwards, I always listen. I choose whether or not to take their opinions seriously or not. @scottalanmiller is my mentor, and I don't always agree with him either. But I will always admit when I'm wrong. A very good friend taught me a few years ago that when you f*** up, just admit it. Don't try to blame someone or something else. You f***ed up, just own up and take what happens. One of the single biggest and most helpful pieces of advice I've ever received. What makes me seem like I don't admit to it is that I don't back down from my opinions easily. Also, my perspective on things is often different from others, and many people view things from a strict technical standpoint that I view as a perspective matter. It is what it is.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
If you own a single license and do something with that license that is outside the bounds stated in that license i.e. install it on a cloud service are you pirating it or breaking the contract? I would say you're breaking the contract, you're not pirating it. You are trying to use your ONE Legal license to do something inappropriate, but you're not pirating it.
I don't agree. You are making a license a license. But I don't believe that that is the case. A license only exists when applied properly. The license is for specific use, without that use, the license still exists but isn't applicable here. The medium and the key are in use and maybe that is causing the confusion, but they are not related. That the software is installed in an unlicensed way mean, according to my English notes, that it is unlicensed and that equates to no contract. The contract was for licensed use and would only apply when that exists, I think.
The license isn't something that exists no matter what he does. If I give you permission to go into my house and make a phone call and you steal my car while there, it's theft, not breach of contract. You can't just say "I had permission" as if it is generic. You had "permission to use the phone" not "permissions" that we "misapplied." The theft of the car is unrelated to the permission to use the phone.
Definitely an interesting way to look at it, though I'm not sure the house stolen car thing is really on the same level.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Remember you don't buy the software buy purchase rights to use the software only in the manner they determine.
That's an important distinction. Use outside of the license is a separate thing.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
I've been very successful for someone my age. I've worked very hard to become so. As much as people may not believe it, I work very hard and very carefully to maintain what I've built.
And that is probably why you think you know it all. Ever heard the saying about the bigger you are the harder you fall?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
Remember you don't buy the software buy purchase rights to use the software only in the manner they determine.
That's an important distinction. Use outside of the license is a separate thing.
I definitely have to give you this one. Though it doesn't seem like most companies push for the extreme (thank goodness) or else they would probably see the need to change the TOS because everyone would probably find some way of failing their TOS/license and we'd all be pirates.
-
@PSX_Defector said:
@Bill-Kindle said:
Not to mention, but you may also be violating the TOC of your FIOS connection from Verizon since you are on a consumer plan.
Now here's something that I do know the law talkin' about.
No major ISP, from Google Fiber to AT&T to Comcast, allows "servers" on their residential connections. What constitutes a "server" is up for major debate. Needless to say, most don't care. They care more if you are slurping down bandwidth like me at an open bar.
And even if it was hosted on a residential connection, again, its breach of contract. The remedy from VZ et. al. would be to disconnect you. Not send you to the gulag.
The only "server" I have on a residential connection is a web server, which is only serving HTTP traffic, and not very much. Non-existent load from even the connection to the house's standpoint. What's technically allowed versus what your ISP actually cares about is totally different. In my opinion, if the ISP doesn't care, even if it's outside the official TOS, why should I?
-
You know what is really stupid about this whole thing. He is using this server as a domain controller for his apartment. He has only one user on his network. He may be breaking some type of licensing agreement, but I am not sure why. There is really no reason at all to have a DC in your home environment. Microsoft has a ton of free labs where you can work with DCs.
AJ, do the smart thing and just get rid of your home domain. There is no point in having it, and you are really hurting your reputation. If you have to have a domain at home. Use an opensource AD alternative.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@PSX_Defector said:
@Bill-Kindle said:
Not to mention, but you may also be violating the TOC of your FIOS connection from Verizon since you are on a consumer plan.
Now here's something that I do know the law talkin' about.
No major ISP, from Google Fiber to AT&T to Comcast, allows "servers" on their residential connections. What constitutes a "server" is up for major debate. Needless to say, most don't care. They care more if you are slurping down bandwidth like me at an open bar.
And even if it was hosted on a residential connection, again, its breach of contract. The remedy from VZ et. al. would be to disconnect you. Not send you to the gulag.
The only "server" I have on a residential connection is a web server, which is only serving HTTP traffic, and not very much. Non-existent load from even the connection to the house's standpoint. What's technically allowed versus what your ISP actually cares about is totally different. In my opinion, if the ISP doesn't care, even if it's outside the official TOS, why should I?
You don't seem to get that you don't get to set the rules. Who you buy it from does. It's not a case of well, I don't think they would care.
-
@IRJ said:
You know what is really stupid about this whole thing. He is using this server as a domain controller for his apartment. He has only one user on his network. He may be breaking some type of licensing agreement, but I am not sure why. There is really no reason at all to have a DC in your home environment. Microsoft has a ton of free labs where you can work with DCs.
AJ, do the smart thing and just get rid of your home domain. There is no point in having it, and you are really hurting your reputation. If you have to have a domain at home. Use an opensource AD alternative.
I don't agree there. His idea here is a good one. Get server experience, get AD experience, get cloud hosting experience. All of that is good. Very good, in fact.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
Remember you don't buy the software buy purchase rights to use the software only in the manner they determine.
That's an important distinction. Use outside of the license is a separate thing.
I definitely have to give you this one. Though it doesn't seem like most companies push for the extreme (thank goodness) or else they would probably see the need to change the TOS because everyone would probably find some way of failing their TOS/license and we'd all be pirates.
Generally companies hope you true up, keep using their software and pay full price in the future. If they catch someone who has no chance of ever doing that, that's when they are likely to go for blood as it is their only chance to get paid.
In Mexico, Microsoft once raided a software pirate using a tank!
-
@IRJ said:
You know what is really stupid about this whole thing. He is using this server as a domain controller for his apartment. He has only one user on his network. He may be breaking some type of licensing agreement, but I am not sure why. There is really no reason at all to have a DC in your home environment. Microsoft has a ton of free labs where you can work with DCs.
AJ, do the smart thing and just get rid of your home domain. There is no point in having it, and you are really hurting your reputation. If you have to have a domain at home. Use an opensource AD alternative.
I had a domain environment at home. Though it is all properly licensed. I don't use it much anymore though.
-
@IRJ said:
You know what is really stupid about this whole thing. He is using this server as a domain controller for his apartment. He has only one user on his network. He may be breaking some type of licensing agreement, but I am not sure why. There is really no reason at all to have a DC in your home environment. Microsoft has a ton of free labs where you can work with DCs.
AJ, do the smart thing and just get rid of your home domain. There is no point in having it, and you are really hurting your reputation. If you have to have a domain at home. Use an opensource AD alternative.
I've considered that. I like being able to have an AD to play with as well as use to help when others have issues that need troubleshooting. Also, given both the jobs I currently have, one being pure-Cisco and the other being retail, it keeps me tied to what I like doing. Besides, the whole "domain at home" was just taking the advice of @scottalanmiller. I don't think it was bad advice. However, maybe for me, in my current situation, it's time to move back to a non-domain environment.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@IRJ said:
You know what is really stupid about this whole thing. He is using this server as a domain controller for his apartment. He has only one user on his network. He may be breaking some type of licensing agreement, but I am not sure why. There is really no reason at all to have a DC in your home environment. Microsoft has a ton of free labs where you can work with DCs.
AJ, do the smart thing and just get rid of your home domain. There is no point in having it, and you are really hurting your reputation. If you have to have a domain at home. Use an opensource AD alternative.
I've considered that. I like being able to have an AD to play with as well as use to help when others have issues that need troubleshooting. Also, given both the jobs I currently have, one being pure-Cisco and the other being retail, it keeps me tied to what I like doing. Besides, the whole "domain at home" was just taking the advice of @scottalanmiller. I don't think it was bad advice. However, maybe for me, in my current situation, it's time to move back to a non-domain environment.
The thing is AJ, you aren't a complete rookie when it comes to servers. You know how to find information, and you know how to search technet. Also you have tons of free labs at your fingertips.
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@Kelly said:
@thanksajdotcom I find your apparent lack of caring about your online perspectives incongruous in light of your proposed session at SWA2015. You might want to reconsider some of the things that are now publicly tied to your "brand".
I don't necessarily recommend people mimic how I post or all my actions. My presentation is more about utilizing professional networks to network yourself with vendors and companies. In addition, it talks about other ways to market yourself as a brand. My brand is different from someone else's. I don't claim everything I do is right or the best way. However, a lot of people from a lot of different places know my name. I will soon be published on a very major website in the IT world. While I may get criticized for some of the things I say, I've been very successful for someone my age. I've worked very hard to become so. As much as people may not believe it, I work very hard and very carefully to maintain what I've built.
Right now your "brand" is associated with unethical practices. It doesn't matter what you tell people to do if your own brand is tarnished. What happens if, after you've been published, some people go searching your name, hit this thread, and get you blackballed from the major IT rags. That isn't beyond the realm of possibility. In all honesty the more well known you become the more scrupulously you have to guard your brand from hints of this stuff.
-
@Kelly said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@Kelly said:
@thanksajdotcom I find your apparent lack of caring about your online perspectives incongruous in light of your proposed session at SWA2015. You might want to reconsider some of the things that are now publicly tied to your "brand".
I don't necessarily recommend people mimic how I post or all my actions. My presentation is more about utilizing professional networks to network yourself with vendors and companies. In addition, it talks about other ways to market yourself as a brand. My brand is different from someone else's. I don't claim everything I do is right or the best way. However, a lot of people from a lot of different places know my name. I will soon be published on a very major website in the IT world. While I may get criticized for some of the things I say, I've been very successful for someone my age. I've worked very hard to become so. As much as people may not believe it, I work very hard and very carefully to maintain what I've built.
Right now your "brand" is associated with unethical practices. It doesn't matter what you tell people to do if your own brand is tarnished. What happens if, after you've been published, some people go searching your name, hit this thread, and get you blackballed from the major IT rags. That isn't beyond the realm of possibility. In all honesty the more well known you become the scrupulously you have to guard your brand from hints of this stuff.
Exactly. That's why I said ever heard the phrase the bigger they are the harder they fall?
-
@thanksajdotcom said:
@Bill-Kindle said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
@thecreativeone91 said:
@thanksajdotcom said:
We can't all have your level of income @scottalanmiller, or get everything you get for free or insane discounts.
Not having a income to afford something doesn't entitle you to free, reduce stuff or to steal it. Seriously Go in Walmart and try that. just walk out saying it's okay I can't afford this item. That's entitlement attitude someone else has it so I should get it. It's stealing it does not matter it it's a tangible product or not.
Again, you view using a proper license in this way as stealing. I don't. Argue all you want, but the logic in my head will not view it that way. The example you use is irrelevant to this example.
A.J., this is why you fail so much, so hard, so often. You cannot admit you are wrong when you are wrong.
In the meantime, don't be surprised if people start reporting you to the BSA:
https://reporting.bsa.org/r/report/add.aspx?src=us&ln=en-us
Not to mention, but you may also be violating the TOC of your FIOS connection from Verizon since you are on a consumer plan.
That is actually not true. I openly admit when I'm wrong. When someone wants to tell me I'm being a complete idiot or doing something bass ackwards, I always listen. I choose whether or not to take their opinions seriously or not. @scottalanmiller is my mentor, and I don't always agree with him either. But I will always admit when I'm wrong. A very good friend taught me a few years ago that when you f*** up, just admit it. Don't try to blame someone or something else. You f***ed up, just own up and take what happens. One of the single biggest and most helpful pieces of advice I've ever received. What makes me seem like I don't admit to it is that I don't back down from my opinions easily. Also, my perspective on things is often different from others, and many people view things from a strict technical standpoint that I view as a perspective matter. It is what it is.
You can try to rationalize the situation all you want. What you are doing is wrong. It's also very unprofessional to continue to do mental gymnastics to try and legitimize a illegit situation.
But that's just one person's opinion.
