**"Microsoft can’t seem to get along with needy children…
"Microsoft has sicced its attorneys on an Australian children’s charity.
"Called PCs for Kids, the nonprofit gives poor children donated computers, many of which come with pre-installed Microsoft software. Microsoft, arguing that the pre-loaded software violates its copyright, has demanded in a letter to founder Colin Bayes that PCs for Kids clean up its act. Either the nonprofit must buy individual copies of its software for each computer, or get the original copies from the donor.
"… [A]ccording to a report in article from Austrialia’s the Age, one of Microsoft’s corporate attorneys sent Bayes an angry letter insisting “that you find some other source of software.”
“…Microsoft has also repeatedly said that no one, no matter how needy, should be allowed to violate its copyrights. One thing you can say about Microsoft: It’s consistent.”**
Microsoft already got paid for their license! Why the hell can’t a charity pass it on, for Bob’s sake! Is someone going to donate their old computer, buy a brand new 1GHz machine, and re-install their old copy of DOS 4.0???
Please don’t give me any crap about slippery slopes or such nonsense. This is just despicable! Why doesn’t Gates just fly over to Australia and kick those kids in the teeth with an iron boot?
Yes, the software was already paid for…and the person who paid for it still has the disk, and can install it on another computer. Two copies for the price of one, of course MS doesn’t like that.
[rant]What, so you say Microsoft should be forced to contribute to a charity? That hardly sounds like charity to me. How about if I declare my own charitable organization so that I can pirate software for my own use at will?[/rant]
Microsoft must diligently enforce its licensing provisions or else be subject to being accused of unfair selective enforcement. Why should charities (no matter how noble the intent) be allowed to break the law and steal software?
Many charitible organizations don’t deal with computers so old that they are running MD-DOS 4. It is my experience that they will only take computers running current operating systems so that they are actually useful to themselves or their recipients.
I won’t even install a copy of Office 2000 on my grandmother’s computer. [sub]And yes, she asked me to do it.[/sub] I happen to believe that software piracy is wrong. Write a program yourself someday and see how you like it when people start violating the conditions you placed on its distribution.
What a bunch of smug cretins we have posting here!
Jesus Christ, what a sanctimonious twit! Microsoft isn’t “donating” anything! They’re demanding a SECOND PAYMENT for the same license, one that will never be used by the original owner ever again!! It’s like demanding that a child pay General Motors for a car again when it’s handed down to them! SHEESH!!
I donate my time to computer charities precisely like the Australian one mentioned. Only four times have I seen anything more modern than a 486, and all were running DOS or Windows 3.0!!
And for the record, sewalk, I AM a freelance software developer! Where the HELL is the financial loss to me if some poor kid inherits a program that I’ve already been paid for??
Intellectual property??? It’s a damn license that the original owner will never use again! Good Bob, man, it’s not the source code! No one is re-distributing it for profit!!
What kind of drugs are you guys on, anyway? Or are you all Microsoft stockholders or something?
Why don’t you all fly down to Australia to kick some poor kids in the teeth, just to keep in practice?
Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards. We have a forum called the BBQ Pit for comments such as that. Carry on.
Good Bob, man, take a breath before you have a stroke!!!
Yes, someone IS re-distributing it for “profit”. Or did you miss the part where Badtz Maru said “Yes, the software was already paid for…and the person who paid for it still has the disk, and can install it on another computer. Two copies for the price of one, of course MS doesn’t like that”?
Basically, what you are complaining about is Microsoft not allowing this children’s organization to have an additional copy of their software (the original still presumably in the hands of the person who donated the computers, in the form of the disk that the software came on) for free.
Explain to me why Microsoft should allow any entity - it doesn’t matter if it’s “for the children” - to use its software without paying for it.
And, Mr. Ambushed, here’s a piece of advice… in the future, try not to allow your knee to jerk so spastically. For one thing, I don’t see how you equate “protecting property” with “kicking children in the teeth”. I would suggest that you explain that connection. What’s next, are you going to mention Nazi’s, too?
Geez, if you want to flail at somebody, go for the idiots who donated the computers without providing the licenses for the software that was already loaded or at the charity for not stipulating this requirement before accepting said computers. When I give someone who could not otherwise afford it one of my old computers (as I have done several times in the past - cretin, indeed) they not only get the hardware, they get the original CDs and manuals for the software I loaded on it. I have even gone so far as to purchase an additional Windows95 license on two of these occasions (once at my expense, once at my former company’s).
Perhaps things are different in Australia, but in the US, most charities don’t even want used computers unless they are relatively modern (i.e. fully Internet-capable) and come with the original software licenses. They are obviously aware of the potential illegalities the charity in your OP ignored.
Let me provide a concrete example for the claim that charities won’t take old computers.
I used to work in IT support for a large law firm when they were upgrading to Pentium systems from a mix of Wang terminals and about 50 386 PCs. I was responsible for disposing of said PCs and rather than throwing them out, as our chief accountant recommended, I called about 20 charitible organizations looking for someone that wanted them. Since my predecessor had short-sightedly disposed of the licenses and original software diskettes when the computers were removed from service, I could not offer them to the potential recipients. To a one, they all refused. Several asked that we pay for new licenses as part of our donation. We approached our Microsoft rep on this and were given a very good deal on buying Windows 3.11/DOS 6.22 licenses to go with them. The board of directors nixed this but I was able to take up a collection around the office to cover it (lawyers can be pretty generous, when a tax deduction is involved ) and the donation was made. I was rather hoping for a nice letter of appreciation from the charity. Instead, my bosses got a call from the charity with a complaint that no application software was provided. We gave and got a complaint for it. The new policy handed down from the board was that all future disposals of used computers would be directly to the dumpster after rendering them totally and irrevocable inoperative (i.e. crushing them) unless employees were willing to take them sans hard drives. This was not the only time I have tried to give computers to charity, just the most irritating example.
My position on charities and donated computers has been formed on the basis of experience.
I think the key point is that, with all the serious piracy out there, doesn’t Microsoft have better targets than charities and children? Yes, piracy is bad. Yes, MS has the right to protect its property. But are a bunch of poor people and children learning to use Windows a festering hotbed of piracy? Who’s actually losing money here? Would these people have been likely or able to have run out and paid two or three hundred bucks for software licenses on their own?
Honestly, I think a little more forethought could have gone into setting up the computers. They could at least have installed win95. Who doesn’t have a copy of two of win95 lying around that’s not being used? Or perhaps installed Linux or something.
The OP reminds me of those Christian Children’s Fund ™ commercials that always seem to air at dinner time.
I suppose the easiest way out for Microsoft would be for them to donate more computers to replace the license-less ones. After having read the entire article, however, I imagine the charity’s director would turn that down.
And I seriously doubt Gates has any involvement at all with whatever department at Microsoft handles licensing.
) and the donation was made. I was rather hoping for a nice letter of appreciation from the charity. Instead, my bosses got a call from the charity with a complaint that no application software was provided. We gave and got a complaint for it. The new policy handed down from the board was that all future disposals of used computers would be directly to the dumpster after rendering them totally and irrevocable inoperative (i.e. crushing them) unless employees were willing to take them sans hard drives. This was not the only time I have tried to give computers to charity, just the most irritating example.