Windows XP The Next Great Thing or Not?

Great Debates
81

What, pray tell, is immoral about me, as a software author, wanting to be paid for your use of the programs I have created? I do the work, write the code, publish the software. I ask that you please purchase a copy for each installation that you use. What is wrong with that? Fair use says that you can make copies for your family or friends, and I don’t really have a problem with that. Granted, the software we make where I work wouldn’t do the general population much good, but still it wouldn’t bother me that much. To a certain degree, you making copies for friends and family would be a good thing for me (or ,rather, a general use software author.) They would try my software when maybe they wouldn’t have if they had to buy it. Then comes a time when they do need to buy software and think of me because my stuff was good the last time. The piddly stuff pretty well balances out, if you produce good software.
What I have problem with is people who purchase one or two copies when they know darned well that they will install it not once or twice or a few times for friends, but intending to make multiple copies for use in a company or to trade like the baseball player cards from the bubblegum packs. It also pisses me to no end when people holler “fair use” when they are distributing copied software to strangers over the internet.
For me, the real problem is that too many people have no sense of proportion. Your best friend, your brother or sister, fine. But good grief. The nerd you just met at the computer club or over the internet is not immediately your friend. “Fair use” has a fairly narrow meaning. It does NOT mean “make enough copies of this CD to wallpaper Grand Central Station and pass them out to complete strangers.”

The business of the copy of the audio CD is covered within “fair use.” It is also a settled point that you are allowed to make back up copies of your software. I don’t know about the CD player in your car, but mine scratches the shit out of the CDs. Every one I have ever played on the road has come out with spiral scratches all over it. So, my making a copy of my store bought CD to play in the car falls under fair use (I am keeping the copy, after all) and my right to make a backup copy of data that I have purchased. If I start running off dozens of copies of my CDs or compress them and trade them with complete strangers over the internet, then I am surely not making backup copies and how can you claim fair use when strangers are getting the data.

82

Sam Stone:

A more relevant analogy: I buy a $90,000 Porsche, and now my wife wants one too. Luckily, I own a machine shop and I’m incredibly skilled. Would it be okay for me to buy some raw materials and build an exact replica of my Porsche for her, or do I have to go to the dealer and pay another $90,000?

83

Abso-fuckin-lutely NOTHING! That’s why I pay for my software. YOU deserve to be paid for your creation. However: The COMPANY is who is paid for my purchase, and you are paid by the company. Do you receive royalties for each copy sold? Likely not. So YOU do not lose a single cent. REGARDLESS of this, however, I continue to pay for my copies. WHY is it not ‘fair use’ to use the copy that I have paid for and legally obtained on multiple, personal, non-business computers? Why is it ‘okay’ to copy it and give it away, FREE, to friends and family, which is or can be many, many unpaid for copies, but NOT okay for me to use MY copy on multiple machines? WHY? This makes NO SENSE. NONE. If ANYTHING, I would see you relenting use on my multiple machines but wanting to restrain ‘free’ copies being given to f&f.

There is NO SUCH THING as licensing. You create something. Fine. Then you have a few options: retain it for your own personal use, which means NO ONE can alter it or use it in a method of which you do not approve, lend it to someone, free, and retain all rights of it’s use, or SELL IT, and LOSE ALL RIGHTS TO IT. You cannot retain rights on a product that has been sold and paid for! YOU CANNOT! You no longer retain rights to a product which you have accepted money in return for. Kee-rist!

I write lyrics for a band, or did, this past year. If, IF, we had sold our songs instead of distributing them freely, I would no longer retain ANY rights to THOSE SPECIFIC COPIES which were sold. Yes, I would retain rights to the use of my unsold music and it’s intellectual properties contained therein, but I would have NO SAY to it’s not-for-profit private or personal use. It’s THEIR COPY! They can do WHATEVER the fuck they want, including editing or remixing their copy to their liking, AS LONG AS it is not profited from. IF profit is obtained by using my music, then yes, I would likely feel that I deserved some kick-back for it, because profit is obtained by a method which originated with me. Do you understand what I mean? If a person is not using your ‘intellectual property’ to profit for themselves, you have NO SAY in how they use it. NONE. They can make TEN THOUSAND fucking copies for their own personal use as long as they do not profit from such. It is HIGHWAY ROBBERY and PURE GREED to demand additional monies from something which you have voluntarily agreed to release all rights to, that voluntary agreement being the sale and purchase thereof.

Mr2001, you are absolutely correct in your analogy. And yes, you can make a perfect duplicate if you have the materials and skills, HOWEVER, you cannot sell the vehicle as the original, nor can you profit from your copy if the profit is obtained in a manner which leads the purchaser to believe that either 1) it is your design or 2) it is the original. Do not be surprised, however, if Porsche feels that they are owed monies for using their design once you obtain profit from it’s use.

–Tim

84

Nobody would bitch at all. They would probably applaud such skill. BUT the minute you started cranking out copies on an assembly line, you would get hit with a lawsuit.

85

Sorry, Homer. It is Microsoft with a stick up its butt about installing a program from one CD on multiple machines, not me.
If it were my stuff, I wouldn’t sweat it. Unless you look like Zaphod Beeblebrox, but with more arms, you can’t make effective use of more than one installed copy at a time. All it does is make your life easier.

86

No. Just plain no. WMA doesn’t let you rip high quality MP3s. Big deal. They will let you rip low quality MP3s, which is more MP3 ripping than Win98 has built in right now. I will continue to use software made by non-MS companies to rip and encode to MP3. No change at all.

  • Rob
87

Homer: A license is a contract. When you agree to it, you enter into a contractual obligation with the author, or his representative in the form of the software company.

Do I take from this that you do not believe in contract law? Do you really need us to tell you what would happen if the law didn’t protect intellectual property?

Here’s a better analagy than the Porsche one. Let’s say Pfizer spends 100 million dollars developing a new drug. Then they put it on the market for $20 a pill. You, being the clever criminal you are, decide that $20 is outrageous, so you analyze the pill, figure out exactly what’s in it, and start cranking out free copies for yourself and friends. Is this okay? All issues of drug purity and safety aside, do you see anything wrong with this?

Here’s a little moral test to give yourself. Let’s say you say that this is okay, and that the law preventing it is wrong. Okay, let’s do away with that law, and just let everyone copy anything they want. Software, pills, patented devices, etc. Anything goes. What would happen?

The answer is that no one would create these things, because there would be no way to recoup the investment made. So they wouldn’t exist, and you wouldn’t get to use them anyway.

So, your little black pirate heart gets free software only one way - through the existance of those laws, and through the rest of us obeying the law, thereby creating an industry that you exploit. In other words, you are a parasite.

Please, stop calling yourself a Libertarian. You’re giving the real ones a bad name. Libertarians uphold contractual law, and most assuredly they are strongly in favor of property rights, including the right to license your intellectual property in any way you see fit. At best, you are an anarchist. But I hate even applying a philosophical label to what boils down to an inane rationalization for taking what isn’t yours simply because you want it.

88

You might not like the law, you might not agree with it, but if we each get to choose what laws we obey and which ones we don’t, then laws are meaningless.

Every crook who breaks the law rationalises his behavior. The rioters in LA were not stealing, they were redistributing what had been denied them by an unfair system set up by the white man. Even McVeigh thought he was fighting an unfair system.

In China they believe pretty much that since Americans are rich, they can pirate as much American software as they want and there’s nothing wrong with that.

What happens when too many people do not respect the law and/or do not abide by their agreements is that we end up having to spend money on preventing this. Money which could be put to better use if there weren’t so many crooks around.

89

Putting aside the issue of the suckitude of Microsoft software, the fundamental question raging between Homer and his detractors in this thread is, “What are you really paying for when you buy software?”

In the old days (which I believe Homer is espousing), the software you bought was essentially a tangible object. Once you bought it, you could do anything you want with it, short of making extra copies and selling them or giving them away. If you had three computers that you switched back and forth on (PC at home, PC at work, and laptop, for instance), you could expect to install the program on all three of them, for your convenience. Computers with software on ROM cartridges were the ultimate embodiment of this idea; you could move your software from one machine to another, using your one copy in a manner most convenient for you.

Under the current model – while not something Microsoft pioneered, but definitely encourage – you are paying for a license to use the software. You can use it, but only under the conditions that the manufacturer dictates. Nothing has changed about our habits or the software itself; it’s merely a shift in emphasis imposed by the companies.

Personally, this model gives me the willies – I’m an old-school computer geek who deep down believes that the software I buy is mine to do with as I please. I don’t purchase a “license” for my videotapes or CDs or my car, after all. It is convenient for me to have the same software on my different computers, so I can use them whereever I am. Who is Microsoft to dictate to me otherwise?

And besides, under the licensing scheme, there’s nothing that prevents the next version of Microsoft Word from having an agreement that says you can only install it on a computer system that only has Microsoft-sanctioned web browsers and multimedia players, for instance (and the installer program will “conveniently” delete the offending programs from your hard drive during installation).

In such a radical situation, market-force advocates like to say that customers are free to not buy the program. Unfortunately, Microsoft’s monopoly on desktop operating systems and office application program gives them a tremendous stick to leverage their agenda with.

In an obvious mood tonight,

90

How is it fair to use a product which you had not paid for?

You go buy a Windows CD. You have the right to one - ONE - copy of Windows. A SINGLE COPY. What is hard to understand about this?

Are you or are you not saying that making two copies when you’ve only paid for one is against the law? It’s a whole 'nother ballpark to know that your actions are technically wrong and still do it…

The argument isn’t about whether the law is wrong or not. The argument is about whether or not this is, in fact, the law.

If you want to discuss unjust laws, go start a new thread.

91

Sure there is - they’re called laws. You know, those things that are causing that huge antitrust fiasco between MS and the Government?

92

So you are aware Microsoft has been violating the laws for a while now. And yet you think this won’t happen in the future because… well wait, why DO you think this won’t happen again?

Let me remind you that they have yet to be punished.

93

Yes, MS has been convicted of abusing it’s monopoly powers. However, they were only ruled guilty on a couple of the original dozens of charges. Also, it is being looked into as to whether Judge Penfield Jackson made his ruling based upon bias against the company.

94

Where exactly are you getting this from? You’re arguing that making copies is illegal and yet you’re not even familiar with a simple copyright term such as ‘fair use’. Check the U.S. copyright act regarding computer programs:

*…it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.*

The amended Canadian copyright act contains similar provisions.

I’m no expert, but this seems to back up Homer’s desire to make copies for personal use. Perhaps someone who actually knows what they’re talking about could enlighten myself and the rest of us.

95

Where exactly are you getting this from? You’re arguing that making copies is illegal and yet you’re not even familiar with a simple copyright term such as ‘fair use’. Check the U.S. copyright act regarding computer programs:

*…it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.*

The amended Canadian copyright act contains similar provisions.

I’m no expert, but this seems to back up Homer’s desire to make copies for personal use. Perhaps someone who actually knows what they’re talking about could enlighten myself and the rest of us.

96

Look, nobody is arguing you cannot makes copies if the law allows you to do so. Your quote says for archival and backup purposes, not to run on several machines. The point we are trying to make is that you should respect the law. If the law says you can do it, then fine. If the law allows the seller to set a certain condition and you agree to it, then you should abide by it. The point here is that Homer believes he is entitled to decide what laws and contracts he should respect and I believe that is not a good thing for society as a whole. I believe we are all better off when we respect the law and the contracts.

97

Actually, Microsoft was found innocent on only one charge out of all the charges raised against them. When the game was over, the score was Microsoft: 1, DoJ and 19 States: N-1.

Given Jackson’s public statements before, during, and after the trial, all of the signs are indicative that he was a neutral observer who soured on Microsoft only after their evasive testimonies and disrespectful actions (forged videotape evidence, for instance) in court. Remember, prior to the trial, the man was a Reagan-appointed free-market judge whose only exposure to Microsoft was using MS Word on his Windows PC.

(Sidebar: For a good, balanced historical account of the trial, I recommend U.S. vs. Microsoft, a compilation of the New York Times’ trial-related news articles, with additional background material by the writers.)

98

IANAL, but as I read it, this is damning to Homer’s opinion. 1) says that you may only make a copy if it is essential to utilize it. 2) says you may only make copies for backup purposes. So, unless there is no other way to utilize the software than by making a copy, you may only make a copy for archival purposes.

Also importantly, have you ever read the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)?

This site highlights important parts of this Act. The relevent highlights are:

  • Makes it a crime to circumvent anti-piracy measures built into most commercial software
  • Outlaws the manufacture, sale, or distribution of code-cracking devices used to illegally copy software

So, in conjunction with Title 17 of the US Code, the DMCA prohibits people from circumventing anti-piracy measures, but does not prohibit people from making copies of the software. HOWEVER, requiring users to agree to the end user license agreement is considered (I believe, from what I’ve heard from the legal types I know) to be a form of anti-piracy, and breaking this agreement is breaking the DMCA. So, while you may have copies of the software, you MUST abide by the eula or be breaking the law, and in most cases, this means you are allowed to use ONE copy of a software. (Of course, if I’m incorrect on any of this, I hope the legal-types will help me out).

99

Perhaps his point is, he’s only going to run it on one machine, whichever one he’s in front of at any particular time.

Remember Borland’s ‘just-like-a-book’ wording of their compiler license? That was a good thing.

If Homer had several identical (so XP couldn’t tell the difference) computers with Windows XP installed on a removable hard drive he could carry from computer to computer, would such use be a license violation?

100

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by AmbushBug *
**Perhaps his point is, he’s only going to run it on one machine, whichever one he’s in front of at any particular time. **

Thanks Ambushbug, that was my main concern, rather than any defense of Homer’s jolly buccaneer approach to the law.

Monster, it is my understanding that, by purchasing a copy of Windows XP, under existing laws I may freely use that program so long as I do not violate copyright. Under ‘normal’ home conditions, this would mean not operating that copy on more than a single computer at a time. Unfortunately, Microsoft seems to be acting very dodgy about whether or not this will be the case with XP. The Product ID will be tied to a single computer, so what happens when I try uninstalling it from there, and then install it, say, on a brand-spanking new system. Am I suddenly a pirate for trying? If not, then why should I pay MS for an additional license to install the program on the second computer, which seems to be what MS is hinting at doing. The law, I believe, says my actions are legal; Microsoft’s EULA says they aren’t. The DMCA says that breaking an EULA can be considered an act of piracy, but what are the limitations on the terms MS can impose through the license? Can a license agreement supersede the law?

Any input from legal-types would be greatly appreciated.

P.S. IANAL? I’m not familiar with that one.