4 ms·

She should never have acknowledged the 'facts'. She should have called her lawyer. She should also point out that she was under pressure to get stuff done and w

She should never have acknowledged the 'facts'. She should have called her lawyer. She should also point out that she was under pressure to get stuff done and was under the impression that she had a licence to use the product. Due process implies a legal process not a random invoice and several large organisations charging an individual an arbitrary amount.

sbuk 11y ago
No. You are wrong and getting very tedious. This individual, a male by the account of a person that has first hand knowledge (something you, or indeed I, do not have) of the situation, did wilfully obtain software for use outside of the agreed license scope. HE didn't get it from an authorised reseller or from CERN, an innocent party in all of this. HE obtained this from an illicit site. The ramifications of this action could have been considerably worse; someone has already mentioned confliker. Let's examine your quoting the word "facts". Are you disputing that HE acted unethically? By using unlawfully procured software? Are you really arguing that these actions should go entirely unpunished? There is only 1 organisation charging an individual, who has used said company's product unlawfully (this is the bit you seem incapable of acknowledging). The other 2 were implicated by HIS unlawful and unethical and merely met their legal obligations in identifying the guilty party. Whichever way you look at this, however militantly anti-capitalist you are, failing to accept the individual acted unethically and with impunity is a ridiculous position to take. Should HE pay the money? No. HE should negotiate. HIS career in the very small field that is academic particle physics is over as HE has acted unethically. End of discussion.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]