Cobzz, you can't delete the thread, only Mods can delete an entire thread. You can only delete YOUR posts!

Don't worry about it Cobzz, I guess you got lucky. There is not a way you would have known anyway.

As stated, we don't support key swapping or piracy but in this case, it seems you were able to download the CitationX as there was a glitch in their recent upload.
I don't know if you can pay for it as it would be the right thing to do, but if you can't that is up to you.

Happy flying

Dave

Several months ago, there was a glitch in the United Airlines computer system that resulted in airline passengers buying tickets for five dollars.  Today there's a story of US Airways selling tickets for $1.86.

Should these passengers be required to pay the difference?  The airlines seem to think not, and all tickets were honored at their purchase price.

I don't think the public should be held responsible for the misgivings of a company any more than the company should be held liable for the behavior of it's client base.

I wouldn't.  You've done the right thing by trying to find out once.  If they deleted the post, that's on them, not you.

If Cobzz found the $100 on the sidewalk, and attempted to hand the rightful owner the lost bill, but the rightful owner wouldn't talk to him, how again is Cobzz to blame?

Furthermore, a character assassination of someone who says they tried to do the right thing by a company speaks more about the company than it ever could about the individual.

If you read the post, Cobzz was ASKING if this product was payware or freeware.  The only time he explained how it happened was when people doubted his authenticity.

I find the behavior of Eaglesoft in this case to be disgusting, and yet another example of the greed that has led to my lack of support for payware developers.

Now, as for your allegation that Cobzz is a thief.  I'm afraid you may want to speak with your legal department.    There are very specific criteria which must be met in order for something to qualify as theft.

For example, the intent of the party must be felonious; he must intend to appropriate the property of another to his own use. 

There must be a taking from the possession, actual or implied, of the owner; hence if a man should find goods and appropriate them to his own use, he is not a thief on this account.  (So your analogy regarding Cobzz's finding of $100 would not legally qualify as larceny.)

Unless you can prove that Cobzz had felonius intent, I would definitely suggest that you refrain from referring to him as a thief, or you're opening yourself and your company up to a world of litigation that you probably wouldn't want over a $28 file.

Quote:


According to his profile we are talking about a chap who's 12 yrs old, so give him a bit of slack. He's just a lucky chappy who benefitted from a mistake. It's not his fault at all that the wrapper didn't work/exist on his download and he highlighted the problem too.

I suppose this is an example of the joys (and intricacies) of internet shopping!

(in case this post was in any way mis-interpreted, I was merely referring to the fallibility of electronics (and there particular use here), not the "joy" of finding yourself with something you were expecting to pay for)

Quote:


You can stand by it, sit on it, put it on a slice of bread and eat it...the fact remains that the legal definition mandates INTENT.  Your Wal-Mart analogy is tainted.  In order to use Wal-Mart appropriately in this case, you'd have to say that Cobbz found a copy of the item in the parking lot, and he took it.  That does not satisfy the legal terms of larceny.

EDIT:  Go ahead, prosecute it.  There isn't a judge in the world who will find anyone guilty of a crime in this case.