I’ve always said that Windows causes a disproportionately large number of ulcers, headaches, and screaming fits. 
Why people willingly use that pile o’ poo is beyond me.
[QUOTE]
[ul][li]The Ultimate Sportscar: Porsche vs. Ferrari;[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
What, no Lamborghini? Philistine! 
Guys, I apologize for getting riled, but these are our rights at stake here. We should ALL be getting riled when people start fuckin with our rights.
Specifically, I was quite annoyed that you (Spoofe) didn’t answer my question on the difference between fair use when applied to software and when applied to music media.
As for cites, see here This should be a chart of piracy rates worldwide. I can’t find a good cite about multiple use, I apologize. I think, however, if you were to survey computer users, easily 50% have participated in multiple use. If 25% will participate in outright piracy, many more would be expected to participate in casual piracy.
Dodged question: I ask sailor on 6-17 “Why do you not feel it wrong to keep a copy of your CDs in your car while leaving the originals at home? This is ‘fair use’, is it not? How is my installing my copy of whatever on my two or three machines not ALSO fair use? What is the division?” where the question is raised. Afterwards, you post twice to the thread. On 6-18, the question is then directed specifically at you when I say “Spoofe, you continue to ignore fair use. Why is this not considered fair use?” You answer in the next post of yours on 6-19 with “How is it fair to use a product which you had not paid for?” This is not an answer, this is a dodge. I said why is it not considered fair use, directed towards you, wherein you respond that it is not fair use to use a product you have not paid for. But the product has been paid for, so your point is irrelevant. You then claim, again on 6-19, that you are familiar with fair use, but when quoting the law, you omit the word “or” from clause 1, which completely changes the meaning of the entire section. I then force the matter later on 6-19 with the sentence you quoted. You reply on 6-20, claiming that it is specifically excluded from fair use in the laws quoted above. However, it is only excluded when the word “or” is removed from the section, as you did above. Also, the fact of the law is irrelevant, because I asked you what is the difference, not to quote the law. A trained monkey could quote the law, but it takes somewhat more than a trained monkey to consider the content and context of the law and give their opinions thereof, in addition to examining whether the law was relevant to the question at hand and finally deciding whether the law was just. You dodged the question.
Please answer me this, since apparently I must be exceedingly specific: Regardless of the content of the law, why do YOU consider installation of a program on two computers to differ from copying a CD to keep in your car while the original is left at home? In addition, if you consider keeping a copy in the car to be within the bounds of fair use, why do you, regardless of the content of the law, not consider installing a program on two machines to be the same act?
Please show me where I claim it to not be against the law. I claim that it is within fair bounds of property rights. I claim that it is wrong. I claim that it is greedy. I claim that it is unfair, I claim that it is immoral, and unethical. I do not claim it is not against the law. In fact, I specifically mention many times that it is indeed against the law but its legality is irrelevant because the law is in error, and a law which does not reflect the will of the people should not be followed and should be removed from the books as soon as it is shown to be against the will of the people.
It has been clear since my first tangential post that I am not arguing it’s legality. If it takes a second thread to snap you from the argument of legality to the argument of the morality/ethicality of the basis of the law, by all means, start a new thread. I’ll be there with bells on.
Sam Stone: What? WTF did that come from? Where do I say I am against the Constitution? In order for me to be anti-Constitutionalist, I would have to be rejecting something within the Constitution. Please show me where licensing of software is reserved within the Constitution. No, I am all for the Constitution and the original 10 amendments, but I start having problems with it afterwards, I will admit. However, I am far from anti-Constitutionalist.
Besides, pure majority rule would override the wishes of the minority also. Just because they are not the majority does not mean their wants and needs are irrelevant. The well-being of all Citizens of the United States of America must be respected. And if a large number of citizens disagree with the content of the law, it obviously does not serve their interests and MUST be changed. As was said in another thread, the Government answers to the People, the People don’t answer to the Government.
Coldfire: I don’t know about you crazy Danes, but 'round here, people get riled when someone tries to restrict their freedom with unneccessary and unfair laws and regulations. Well… people SHOULD get riled, but they’re too busy eating their Big Macs and listening to Britney that they can’t be bothered to move their obese frame from the Lay-Z-Boy to voice their dissent.
And for everyone getting pissed because I’m being snippy… shit, YOU should get pissed that your rights are being trampled on by elephants and donkeys and bigwigs day in and day out, and when someone squeaks, they get hauled into court, stripped of their property, and slammed in jail.
–Tim
Homer, I got this from YOU. Let me quote again:
Those are your words. Sounds like majoritarianism to me.
And do you not believe that the constitution upholds the rights to own property? That’s what makes software licensing legal: You are entering into a contract with the owner of a product. That contract stipulates the conditions under which the owner of that product will let you use it. By purchasing his product, you complete a contract that is legally binding. Break it, and you violate the law. This has been upheld all the way to the Supreme Court.
In short, you never own the software yourself, so you have no right to dispose of it in a way that the owner does not approve. If you want to own software, you need to buy the rights to the program itself from the owner. Then you can sell it, burn it, or do whatever else you want to do.
I’ve been away on a business trip for a week with no contact with this thread and you are STILL hammering on this ridiculous thing?
Let me put things in a different light. By your own admission, you are a minor. Minors are unable to legally enter into contracts. You had to sign a nondisclosure agreement to join the MS beta program. If you did so without your parents’ signature as well, you committed fraud. Did you ask your mommy for her signature when you sent in the MS paperwork? I doubt it.
So, as I said, you fraudulently obtained an old beta.
Now give up this stupid harassment. I’m not going to apologize to you no matter how much you harass me.
Sounds like a(nother) good reason to stop using Microsoft Windows(*), hmmmm?
[sub](* = Or any other software product with such restrictive requirements, naturally)[/sub]
Nobodys harrasing you, you just owe him an apology. In this thread(opened in your honor), quite a significant number of posters have all come to this same conclusion. But I guess were all wrong, and you are right?
Homer…
Apology accepted (see, Chas? It’s not that hard, is it?).
If you posed the question to sailor, then I couldn’t possibly have dodged it, could I have?
Uh… I DON’T consider them different.
Sure thing.
“If I purchase a program, I have the right to use that program in any way I see fit as long as it does not result in profit.”
“You cannot sell someone a product and then regulate how they use it.”
“Spoofe, you continue to ignore fair use. Why is this not considered fair use?”
All those statements indicate that something is legal when it is not so. Additionally, I (and several others) have repeatedly told you that your desired actions are against the law, which you have repeatedly denied.
Again, I don’t give a rat’s patootie about the morality of the law… just the law itself. However, I believe that your assertion that “you can do whatever you want with a purchased product, as long as you don’t make a profit” violates the rights of the creators of that product, thusly making it NOT a right of your own.
It has not. Again, if you weren’t arguing it’s legality, then why did you repeatedly deny that your desired actions were against the law?
You have an odd idea about what “rights” are. I remember a line from a movie a while back (don’t remember the movie, just the line): “I’m a kid, in America! I can do whatever I want!”
::sigh::
For music media, which was this point, it’s not so cut and dried, full details here.
An excerpt (fair use? grin):
I’m one of those who thinks what http://my.mp3.com was doing ought to have been legal
I realized that I forgot to answer arguments posed by Spoofe and Sam Stone earlier.
No, when you give no justification for your position except that “it is against the law and it is wrong,” you are using circular logic. The logic does not become uncircular until you clarify why you believe it is wrong. Before that is done, the argument retains all appearances of circularity. “It’s wrong because it’s against the law because it’s wrong ad nauseum” is circular. “It is wrong because it is against the law because [insert argument here]” is not circular. Insisting it is against the law because there are laws against it is pointless. Of COURSE there are laws against it, otherwise it would not be illegal! The point of this line of argument is whether the laws SHOULD be laws or not, not whether they ARE.
This is the most asinine argument I’ve ever heard. The public does not encourage nor support the strict intellectual property laws which are in force. Then why are they there? Because it benefits business. Benefit for business != benefit for the public. The fact that it ‘has been protected for a long time’ does not properly explain your reasoning for it’s support. To claim something is wrong because there have been laws against it for a long time is a bullshit argument. There have been laws against marijuana for a long time. Does that mean that they are correct? No. It just means they’ve been around awhile.
Could you explain the benefit to the public of restricting the public’s right to property for which they have paid for? I see no benefit for the public. Only for business. A law that does not benefit the public in any manner should not be a law.
Ah-ah-ah. Wrong.
The property of it’s citizens is NOT being protected, it is being unnecessarily limited and restricted.
It is immoral and unethical to restrict a person’s right to use their property in any manner.
If you sell something, say goodbye to your right to tell someone how they can use it. I can’t sell a shoe and say “you can only put this shoe on your foot, you cannot put this shoe on a dog’s foot, otherwise I will come take it back and not reimburse you for the shoe I sold you”. To claim otherwise is illogical. You cannot retain rights to something which you do not own!
My fraternity house cannot have parties because when the property was SOLD to my fraternity, there was a clause included that the college can choose, at any point, to ‘reclaim their property’ without reimbursement to the fraternity. The college has since said that they will enforce this clause if we are caught having parties. Do you support asinine laws such as this, also, simply because ‘they’ve been around a long time’?
You are correct. Windows IS Microsoft’s property, I never argued that. HOWEVER, the CD and everything contained therein is MY property because it was purchased and paid for by me. This is not conflicting with Microsoft’s right of ownership of the source code of Windows. This is simply guaranteeing my right of private ownership of property for which I have paid.
If I have the knowledge and ability required to duplicate this pill, then I should be able to duplicate this pill for my own use. I cannot sell it, I cannot give it away to others, but I can duplicate it for myself, if I have the ability. This does not limit, in any way, Pfizer’s ability to turn a profit.
Besides, if big businesses can figure out how to make a product, alter it’s production slightly, and then crank it out as their own, why can’t I copy the product for my own use without selling it? Don’t believe me that businesses can do it?
You can dig up the whole article if you wish. I didn’t really look online.
You can’t tell me that they didn’t look at how Viagra works and then change it slightly to make it more effective. Why can a BUSINESS retain rights not granted to an individual?
Returning to new business
Have you just been skimming my arguments? I said right afterwards “Spoofe, you continue to ignore fair use. Why is this not considered fair use?” Thereby the question is now directed towards you.
Of course, the reason you are dodging it is because if you support one, but not the other, you are being hypocritical, and your entire argument collapses.
Besides, you say “Uh… I DON’T consider them different.” Then, if they are the same, why should one be illegal and one not?
No, all those arguments do is show that I never claimed it to be legally, in fact, in each quote I took steps to NOT claim that it is legal, simply wrong. Please don’t selectively interpret my quotes.
Spoofe, unquestioningly obeying the laws without thinking about the morality of the law has drug many cultures under in the past. I will avoid invoking whatever law it is by making the obvious assertation, but I’m sure you can see where that mentality will eventually lead. “Who cares if theres jackbooted thugs marching down the streets and police are shooting citizens, the law says it’s okay, so who gives a damn?” You SHOULD give a GOOD God-damn about the morality of the law. You SHOULD question the morality of the law, and you SHOULD disobey laws that are immoral while working to change them. You should NEVER obey an immoral law, such a passive response only leads to MORE, stricter, and worse immoral laws. I cannot believe a person with such an obvious intelligence such as you would EVER say “I don’t give a rat’s patootie about the morality of the law…”
The individual gives up their right to the product, all right to the product, when it is sold. Should I repeat that? YOU GIVE UP ALL RIGHTS TO SOMETHING WHEN YOU SELL IT. You cannot control how a product that you do not own can be controlled. It does not violate the creator’s right, the creator has voluntarily given up those rights by selling the product! However, in software and music, the person selling the product is not the creator in the first place. If anyone is the creator of Windows, it’s the programmers, not the company. The programmers. Not the company. The company merely sells the product.
Besides, claiming that since it violates their rights (which they have voluntarily given up) I do not have a right to do something is a slippery slope. Using this argument, you can make ANYTHING illegal by claiming it violates someone else’s rights, therefore it cannot be exercised by myself, whether this argument is relevant or not. There are often times when the rights of one usurp the rights of another, but only in a situation where exercising the rights of one will cause harm to the other. This is not the case in this situation!
I remember a quote from Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety, and will lose both.”
To demand the enforcement of my personal property rights which have been violated by the tyrannical “rights” claimed with most intellectual property laws is FAR from “doing whatever I want!” I cannot believe you cannot see the difference! Is there NO hope for America?
Here’s another quote from my great(n-1)-granduncle, Benjamin Franklin: “A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins.”
Here’s one more for good measure. “…a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles…is absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty and keep a government free.”
Please start exercising your fundamental rights before they are ALL stripped away. Many have been taken, but by exercising the few that remain we may reclaim those removed from us.
–Tim
Homer, you keep repeating “YOU GIVE UP ALL RIGHTS TO SOMETHING WHEN YOU SELL IT.” What you apparently don’t understand is that Microsoft did NOT sell Windows to you. They own it. They’ve never sold it, to anyone. What they have sold you is a LICENSE to USE it, under the conditions THEY specify. If you agree to the license, then you may install a copy of the software from the CD they give you.
The fact that you have a copy of the runtime code in your possession does not imply any sort of ownership, any more than you own “All in the Family” because the creators chose to broadcast a copy of it for your use.
This is not a matter of debate. The law is clear. Lots of people are in jail for violating it. Have you heard of Napster? Do you know why they were required to filter commercial music or risk being shut down? Because they were facilitating an ILLEGAL act, which was the free trading of music software. No one was making a profit from the copies - mostly it was kids trading music with kids for free. But that is illegal, and therefore Napster was required to stop facilitating it.
I’m a software developer. I owned a software company. I have spent years of my life developing software, only to see my profits eroded away because people were swapping free copies of it with each other. That was money right out of my pocket. Each copy of the software that I licensed (“Sold” in your terminology) came with a license that did not allow the copying of the software. Anyone who did so was violating MY rights just as surely as if they had broken into my home and stolen my money.
Now, as to the morality of free software exchange. As a self-proclaimed Libertarian, I’m surprised that you need someone to justify the right of property ownership to you, but apparently you do. The creator of the software has the right to use it as he wishes, do you not agree? And if what he wishes is to enter into contracts with people and let them use it for a fee under conditions that he sets, would not also agree that this is right? And if the person that enters into a contract with breaks it, would you not agree that he is in the wrong?
If you want a more pragmatic justification, it’s this: Without intellectual property rights, there will be no intellectual property. If Pfizer cannot protect themselves against illegal copying, they will not spend the hundreds of millions to develop new drugs. And society will suffer. And here’s another important fact: When a company applies for a patent, they engage in a tradeoff - in exchange for LEGAL protection from theft of their ideas, they must agree to publish the details in full. In this way, we allow other researchers and inventors to study previously patented and copywritten works in order to learn from them and advance the state of the art.
Without patent and copyright protection, the only recourse companies will have will be to resort to trade secrets, and other methods of protecting themselves. If the government suddenly says that software can be copied at will, then software manufacturers will make their software uncopyable through the use of hardware dongles, automatic daily audits through internet connections, or other schemes to make sure that only the people who buy the rights to the software can use it. This would have a severe impact on regular, law abiding people who are now heavily inconvenienced.
As for the company making the ‘new’ Viagra substitute, I guarantee you that if it’s a direct clone they will be slapped with a lawsuit so fast your head will spin. More likely, they did research on the drug based on the PUBLISHED drug patents (remember how I said that patents were a good thing because it forced companies to publish their research?), and from there discovered the active ingredient and did new research which resulted in a new drug that is not the same but has a similar effect. More power to them. And no doubt this company has already patented THAT drug. If the patent office decides that it is too close to Viagra’s formula, they will refuse to allow the patent. And the company will go to court and pay big money in reparations, and be forced to withdraw their drug from the market.
The ‘Hacker Ethic’ that you espouse is borne of ignorance. You think you are right simply because you don’t understand many complex issues. I’m guessing the patent publishing aspect never even occurred to you before.
okay, I’ll be upfront and honest, I didn’t read the entire thread…but here is my two cents and a question.
is XP going to be any good – its supposed to be. working for a major computer retailer that loves its cow spots we’ve been “previewed” XP and will get our more formal training shortly. If XP is everything that its supposed to be (basically the “compatibility” of win98/ME with the rock solid stability of 2000) its going to be one hell of a OS.
My understanding of the reg. number is that the OS has its own serial number hand in hand with your hardware generates a unique reg. number for that serial number that is then sent to MS via the net. However you can only reg. over the net once, any time there after you have to call MS. From what we’ve been told of office XP that if the software is uninstalled that reg. number does not go away…its permanently saved on your system (that whole line at the end of the uninstaller that says that not all files were removed, that’s the catch-all there). but if your system is ever formatted, then that information is gone. Now if you happened to have installed new hardware on your system between then and now, there may be a problem. Our trainers say that XP is supposed to be smart enough to get past small changes, but what is a small change?
As far as copying your software, MS has made it very clear that our clients are allowed to make ONE (singular) backup copy of their MS OS to ensure that they have a backup. Any there after would be software piracy.
My question refers to OEM OS’ – From what I understand MS is very animate that if you get an OEM OS that you cannot use it on another system if you uninstall the OS from your original computer. WTF is up with that? I bought a license for this OS when I got my computer…why does it matter what system its on as long as its only on one system?
Homer, this is getting repetitive, so my response will be short…
Except I did give justification for my position. Note the part where I say that the law protects intellectual property. You even quoted it.
Says who? The reason that most people don’t care much about intellectual property laws is because most people don’t have valuable intellectual property to protect!
I guaran-damn-tee that the second you publish a best-selling novel, you’ll be kissing the feet of the people who wrote those intellectual property laws.
Once again, with FEELING, class: Just because you purchase a product, that does NOT mean that you become the owner of the intellectual property rights! You become the owner of the physical object which CONTAINS the intellectual property.
You’re failing to note the difference between the CD (book, video tape, etc.) and the content in/on that CD (book, video tape, etc.). See, once you purchase it, you own the physical object… but that’s it. The contents of that physical object are NOT yours, but you are merely being allowed to use it by the TRUE owner of the contents.
I agree. Where we differ is in what is considered “property” and what isn’t.
In any case, I belive Sam Stone has adequately covered the rest of your post. Please note that this will be my last words on laws/morality of the laws in this thread.
Now, onward and upward…
::ahem::
For the sake of people who actually still care about the original purpose of this thread, I would recommend picking up the newest Popular Mechanics. They have a nifty (if vague) review of Windows XP. They don’t delve into many specifics (probably because the specifics haven’t been finalized yet… it’s still in Beta, after all). However, they do address WPA in passing… they seem to provide a much less sinister version of it than has been previously provided. They also mention that WPA (or something similar to it) may become the standard in copy protection for almost all future forms of software. Granted, I take this whole review with a grain of salt… but it’s still an interesting read.
Other points in the article address the much higher system requirements than have been seen in previous versions of Windows (relative to current levels of technology), and they also mention that there’s a lot of backwards compatibility… if you have a program that’ll run on Windows 3.x, it’ll probably run just fine on Windows XP (a big plus for people who have old games or software and want to relive a bit of nostalgia).
To get to MrVisible’s point…
First, I’d like to clear up a couple things. First, every other OS out there - Linux, UNIX, BeOS, OS/2, and MacOS X - all fully support raw sockets. So, why is it now bad when MS does it? Most people who know how to do DDoS attacks already prefer Linux or UNIX or some such over Windows. I don’t see this as leading to a major increase in DDoS attacks.
Second, there is no such thing as true IP address “spoofing”. You can mask an IP, and you can try to prevent packet snatching of your IP. However, truly “spoofing” an IP is impossible.
Now look here, Sam Stone, I’m tired of you misinterpreting what I say. I don’t know if it’s you being willfully obtuse, or me not being clear, but it keeps happening and I’m tired of it. I will try to use the simplest language that I can. I will explain my position, in full, one last time. Perhaps this last time, the both of us can understand it.
No, MS did NOT sell Windows to me. If I ever led to think that I believed they did, I then apologize for the unclarity of my posts. They retain all rights to the Windows source code. One last time, everyone! They retain all rights to the Windows source code. What they DID sell me was a COPY of the Windows source code. One last time, everyone! They sold me a COPY of the Windows source code. HOWEVER, with this copy, I can do anything that I want with it for my own personal use. I CAN NOT sell a copy of it. I CAN NOT give a copy away. I CAN NOT claim that it is my production. HOWEVER, I can do ANYTHING WITH IT that I want, for my own personal use, that DOES NOT result in profit! This INCLUDES making a secondary or tertiary or so on copy FOR MY OWN PERSONAL USE on my home network. This DOES NOT deprive MS of their due profits. This DOES NOT provide a programmer of his due profits. Do you understand THIS? Or should I diagram these sentences and define each word so that you get it? Or will I just have to keep hammering this into your head by repetition until you can understand what I mean without twisting my damn words?
The fact that I have a copy in my posession that was sold to me by MS means that I own this copy and may do anything with it that I please for my own personal use that does not result in profit. The analogy to broadcast TV does not apply because I do not purchase the right to view television shows, they are broadcast free of charge with the understanding that the viewer retains no rights to this which they have obtained free. A better analogy would be if MS GAVE me a copy of the program with no return of time or funds on my part. THEN, MS would retain all rights to the program. But once the COPY of the source code is sold, I then gain the right to do with it whatever I please for my own personal use that does not result in profit.
“The law is clear. It is not a matter of debate. Lots of people are in jail for violating it. You must kill any black man who has sex with a white woman.” DO NOT OBEY LAWS WHICH ARE UNJUST AND DO NOT USE AN UNJUST LAW AS A BASIS FOR UNJUST ACTIONS! This is a BULLSHIT argument, Sam Stone, and you should be smart enough to avoid it. Only a damn FOOL makes an argument like this, and I KNOW you are not a fool!
Unfair analogy. A fair analogy would be arresting people for keeping a copy of their CDs at home, a copy at work, and copy in the car. But do people get arrested for that? NO. Because it’s FAIR USE!
Napster is people who have NOT paid for a product, and therefore have NO RIGHT to the product, GIVING the product to another person who DID NOT pay for the product and has NO right to the product. To attempt to portray me as a criminal by using an unfair analogy is NOT a fair debate tactic. I heard you’re a rapist, Sam, so I’m not going to listen to your arguments. See? Is this a fair debating method? No.
To quote Ed McMahon, “You are correct, sir!”
I AM NOT CONDONING NOR SUPPORTING GIVING COPIES OF SOFTWARE TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT PAID FOR IT! STOP SAYING THAT I AM! I AM condoning and supporting people taking advantage of their full rights to their property, that is, making multiple copies for their OWN PERSONAL USE THAT DOES NOT RESULT IN PROFIT!
Where the FUCK does this come from? Regardless, I’ll answer it. But stop trying to harp on my political views, a person who proclaims themselves a Democrat is not bound in totality by the views of the DNP, nor is a person who proclaims themselves a Republican bound in totality by the views of the GOP. Why should it be different for a Libertarian?
You do NOT need to justify the right of property ownership to me, that’s what I’ve spent hours now trying to present to you! I BELIEVE A PERSON’S RIGHTS TO USE OF THEIR PERSONAL PROPERTY CANNOT BE RESTRAINED BY THE PERSON WHO SOLD THEM SAID PROPERTY. A piece of software which is sold to me is MY PROPERTY. The source codes IS NOT, that is why I CANNOT PROFIT FROM THE USE OF MY SOFTWARE!
Regardless, you CAN contract a person to perform a service. You CANNOT contract a person’s use of their property.
The continued violation of personal property rights has led to their erosion of said rights. Intellectual rights do not supercede personal property rights, regardless of what ‘big business’ would tell you. Nor do personal property rights supercede intellectual property rights. They are mutually exclusive rights and the use of them in the manner which MS and other corporations have been doing is considered a money-pump. Just like using a negative force to repulse an particle while a positive force attracts it.
If I purchase their product and can figure out how to make it myself, I can do so. I cannot sell it. I cannot give it away. But I can use it for myself.
I did not realize the Windows source code had been published. I did not realize that people can use the Windows source code to create a derivative work that is different from or better than the original. Oh, yeah, they haven’t, and you can’t. BECAUSE MICROSOFT DOES NOT GIVE A GOOD GOD DAMN ABOUT THAT LAW. Microsoft only obeys laws which are to THEIR benefit. They disregard all laws which are NOT to their benefit. They speak one language: MONEY. As much, as fast, as possible, in any way. By hook or by crook. You have heard of “derivative works” laws, right? MS does NOT allow for their use, and will persecute anyone who attempts to use them. Thank you and good day. MS does not care for the law, and MS uses any way possible to make sure that it’s customers don’t either, so that it can continue to abuse their rights to MS’s advantage.
Bullshit, Sam, and there’s no reason to be an asshole about it. If you want to be a prick, I can too. I am QUITE certain, Sam, that I am exponentially more intelligent than you, because you certainly seem to be unable to understand the simple ideas that I am putting forth in plain language. If you cannot comprehend the fact that you have certain property rights which are unalienable regardless of what you are told time and again by a greedy, money-hungry corporation, then you sir are a fool. As for patents and patent publishing, I am currently in the process of patenting multiple complex technological inventions of mine, so I do understand the patent publishing process.
Look here, sir. This is how MS and other software companies create a money-pump. Never heard of a money-pump? You see them everyday. They are corporations who are structured quite legally, but use the inherent injustices present and allowed for in the current structure of the legal system to BLEED THE PUBLIC DRY. Microsoft is one of them. The energy situation in California is the result of another.
A programmer creates a work for MS. In exchange for this work, they are paid. MS collaborates the works of multiple programmers into a functional software package. MS sells this to consumers. This all seems fair and above board, right? WRONG. I will explain why.
A programmer creates a work for MS. They are paid for it ONCE, in salary wages. However, for this creation of theirs that they are paid once for, MS makes as many copies as they want. MS then collaborates the works of multiple programmers by using more programmers paid in salaries. These programmers are also paid once for their work, even though it is multiplied many times for sale. With the completed software package, MS sells a copy of the work to a consumer. The consumer is then expected to pay for each copy of the software they use.
Did you catch the money-pump? MS pays the programmers for their creative work ONE TIME. MS pays the programmers to collude their created works ONE TIME. HOWEVER, MS then makes MILLIONS of copies of the work they have paid for ONCE. THEN, each copy is sold individually to a consumer, who is expected to pay for each individual copy they use.
Microsoft is violating the very ‘intellectual property’ laws they greedily try to enforce. Why can MS get away with paying a programmer once for a work that is copied millions of times, when a consumer is expected to pay for each copy individually?
You can have it one way or another, Sam, but not both. You can have intellectual property laws, or you can have physical property laws. But these laws are mutually exclusive. By allowing the mixing and matching of the two through current laws, you can create a money pump or a money vaccum. By applying intellectual property laws to the programmers, and physical property laws to the consumer, you create a MS money vacuum. By applying physical property laws to the programmers and intellectual property laws to the consumer, you create a MS money pump, which is what we currently see.
Programmer Microsoft Consumer
IP>MS<PP
PP<MS>IP
The only way to create equilibrium in the system is to force the same property laws on all sides of the system. This would create not a money pump or a money vacuum, but a money channel.
IP>MS>IP
PP<MS<PP
A money channel would allow for the continuous flow of money throughout society WITHOUT the amassing of money by a small few people. A money pump creates a small mass of rich people in the corporation, and a large mass of poor people outside the corporation. A money vacuum creates a small mass of poor people in the corporation, and a large mass of rich people outside the corporation. A money channel creates a means where all persons are given their due.
The RIAA works in almost the same manner, but they have been forced to allow an outlet for the artists, concerts. No one wants to watch a programmer program, however, so this is not a possible outlet. The only outlet now given is piracy, but MS, and the rest of the industry, is trying their best to ‘seal the leaks’ in their money-pump. The only way to return the system to equilibrium is to force the same laws to be applied throughout the system.
Unless, Sam, you believe that a money-pump should be legal. How about this, Sam. Why should a programmer not retain the intellectual property rights to their created works and license them to MS, who will pay the programmer for each copy produced. Then, and only then, will I respect the necessity to pay for each copy of software that I use. As it stands, the programmer is paid once for their work, so I pay once for the copy. If MS does not respect intellectual property laws in exchange for physical property laws, then so do I. You cannot expect a customer to abide by intellecutal property laws and the creator to abide by physical property laws while the middle-man absorbs the accumlate wealth of forcing the dichotomy through legal loop-holes. This is the same system that was applied in cotton mills and so forth during the industrial revolution. And what happened? People got tired, the companies sparked the situation by being bastards, and everything erupted. You just wait, Sam. You keep forcing the dichotomy, and the situation will erupt. People must be given a channel of release, and that release is to replace fairness, equality, and justice in the system. Business be damned.
–Tim
I should clarify, but I don’t think it’s necessary. The < and > symbols are used just like in math.
PP<MS>IP is a money pump.
IP>MS<PP is a money vacuum.
Spoofe, I think your objections are addressed also in my diatribe to Sam. If they are not, please point out the remaining problems and I will type up a short bit to clarify.
–Tim
Homer, I think your problems reside solely in your definition of “property”. My statement about the difference between the medium and the contents of that medium still stand.
You own the medium. You don’t own the contents of that medium. The sooner you accept this, the better we will all be.
You see, Homer, you need to understand something… if you truly owned the contents of the medium, then that leads to a HUGE potential for the copyright holder to get screwed over. Hence, the laws that protect the true owner of the property. Mark Twain, for example, had The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn stolen from him and it was being published by another party, before he even got around to selling it himself. He sued to regain his stolen property… and, unfortunately, lost.
Is that right? Is that moral? Should we allow a man to lose his property just because someone takes it? Because that seems very, very similar to what you are proposing.
Think about that… VERY CAREFULLY… before you post again.
Monster, it is much easier to spoof a raw socket than a Windows socket. That is the only reason why DDOS attacks have not stopped the Internet entirely; the Windows sockets used can be filtered ignored, and traced by the target server. A UNIX socket cannot be filtered and traced so easily.
Homer: I don’t know where you are getting your ideas, but they are so far out of the mainstream that we are having trouble communicating.
You claim to be extremely intelligent (“exponentially” more intelligent than I, which is quite the statement), yet you can’t comprehend simple facts about property and the disposal thereof.
Your ‘money-pump’ argument is ridiculous. Microsoft programmers don’t own the source code they write while in Microsoft’s employ, because they explicitly signed them away when they agreed to work there. The law has upheld this over and over again - if you agree to create something for someone for a fee, then when you are done that person or business owns the commercial rights to what you created for them, unless you had a specific arrangement with them to share ownership in some way. There is the concept of ‘moral rights’, which are a little different. If I commission an artist to paint something for me, I own it and can dispose of it in any way that I want, unless the method of my disposal violates the moral rights of the creator. This is a complex area of law, but it has been upheld before. For instance, if I get you to paint something for me for $20, and you agree, then I can sell it for 1 million and not give you a cent. Or, I can make prints of it and sell millions of them. What I can’t do without your agreement is use it for the cover of a Nazi propaganda book. You can invoke your moral rights to stop me, but you can’t demand a share of the money.
Again, this is not only current law, but it’s necessary. If a company could never contract with someone to create intellectual property for them, then we as a society would suffer greatly. I hope I don’t have to explain why.
Now, the fact of the matter is that you do NOT have the right to do whatever you want with a copy of software that Microsoft sells you. You have to abide by their license. If that license says you can make ONE copy only, then if someone finds out that you’ve got a private network in your home with 10 copies of Windows on it, you can be sued or charged with a criminal offense. That’s the law, and that’s as it should be. There is NOTHING wrong with this.
The software contract you agree to can put even more stringent limits on you. Shareware licenses will often only allow you to use software for non-commercial purposes. If you buy a copy, then subsequently use it in your business, you are in violation of their contract and are breaking the law. They can specify that you can only run the software on every second Thursday if they want, and you can’t do anything about it. You can either agree to it, in which case it’s legally binding, or you can choose not to buy their software.
Now, there are plenty of things that a license can’t restrict you to. Microsoft can’t tell you to wear a suit and tie when using their software, or that you must vote Republican if you use it. But when it comes to limiting the function and copying of the software itself, they can and do set limits. For example, if you buy many of MS’s server products, they demand that you limit the number of simultaneous connections to it. If you are audited and someone finds out that you have 20 users connected to a piece of software with a 5-user license, you can and will be fined or charged with a crime. And it doesn’t matter if it’s non-commercial use, or if the 20 people are all members of your family.
Again, this is as it should be. If Microsoft cannot sell per-user licenses, then to earn the same return on their investment they will have to charge more for each copy, and that means it will not be available to small businesses, or small businesses will have to pay more and in effect subsidize larger ones.
But of course, the whole system breaks down when self-styled geniuses decide the law doesn’t apply to them and come up with some half-baked justification for doing what they please.
It’s not just Sam who “misunderstands” your points. I certainly get the feeling that you’re not arguing a philosophical point. You may feel that you should have the right to do whatever you wish with the software you purchase as long as you do not financially profit from said activity. If I’m misunderstanding this, then cast me in with all the other people. It seems much more the case that you are arguing your idea is a fact of law, which many people have gone out of their way to illustrate, is not the actual case. If this is not the case and you are merely arguing that you have the ‘natural’ right to use the software in this way and the law should be changed to reflect this right, then by all means, ignore the rest of my post. However, I also think that the foundations of your argument are faulty, so maybe you’d like to tag along for the ride.
I believe you’re mistaken. They have not sold you a copy of Windows. They have sold you the right to use windows on a single machine according to the license agreement. When you buy a ticket to the movies, you get the right to view the movie once, not an unlimited number of times as long as you do not profit from viewing the movie as many times as you wish. The movie theater sells you, in effect, a right to view the movie a single time, just as Microsoft has sold you the right to use the program on a single machine. The analogy is not perfect, but it is more in keeping than most of the others I’ve seen offered.
It does deprive them their due profits. I realize you don’t feel it’s so, but according to the way their license agreement is spelled out, you have the right to use it on a single machine, not on each machine in your network at home. You don’t (unless you purchase a special ticket) have the right to view a movie three times because you’ve purchased the ticket once, nor do you have the right to use the software on more than one machine.
You do not own anything besides the CD the program is on. The software itself is the property of Microsoft. The USC, Title 17, Section 202 explicitly states this:
Although you might own the CD itself, the software on the CD remains the property of Microsoft and does not transfer to you at the time of purchase. You are purchasing the license to use the software, not the software itself. Not even the run-time code as mentioned by Same Stone in his post to which you took such exception. You do not own the software, although you have physical possession, Microsoft does.
I disagree with your continual use of the idea of Fair Use. The Doctrine of fair use is not the reason people can retain multiple copies of the music they have already purchased. That is a result of the American Home Recording Act of 1992, and deals only with music, not with software. The idea about being “allowed” to possess multiple copies of music, which have already been purchased stems from section 1008, quoted in its entirety below:
CD-R and CD-RW drives do not fall under the category of “digital recording device”:
The manufacturers of CD-R and CD-RW drives for computers have maintained that since their products are not designed primarily for the recording of audio information, they do not fall under the definition as given above and therefore do not have to conform with the Serial Copy Management System and the requisite copyright royalty payments.
Technically, if you use a CD-R or CD-RW in a computer to duplicate a music recording, you’re violating the AHRA, and are subject to prosecution, since they do not conform to the AHRA requirements. Using a digital recording device as defined in the AHRA (e.g. a Phillips CD Writer) means that you cannot be prosecuted for duplicating the musical recording, even though the RIAA maintains that it’s a copyright violation. No matter what, the chances of ever being noticed, much less prosecuted are miniscule to the point of ridiculous.
**
It’s not your property (USC Title 17, Section 202)
You may not be condoning nor supporting the distribution copies of the software to other people, but you are condoning and supporting the duplication of the software more than the license agreement allows. When Sam Stone or any other software designer sees the two or three (or ten or twenty) computers on your home network, he sees the possibility of three sales. By duplicating the software, you’ve reduced his possible sales by 2/3rds. That’s money out of his pocket. By duplicating the software and installing it on all three computers while only paying for one license, you are pirating the software according to the laws that currently exist. The chances of being prosecuted for this are, as in the case of music recording duplication, slim to none, but the objective fact remains that you are contravening the law as it stands. Sam’s strong reaction to this duplication is a simple result of his situation as a software designer.
**
It’s not your property. (USC Title 17, Section 202)
Again, if you’re arguing about the way things should be as opposed to the way things are, this entire post is for naught.
OK, I’ll start of by saying that while not all of the software on my computer has been legally obtained I do understand whats going on here…
Couple of points here (not sure who said what so I’ll just recite from memory):
“If I buy a copy of Windows and install it on my laptop and my home computer, it’s not stealing since I bought it and I can do whatever I want with it!”
Wrong. OK, You install Windows on 2 machines, you paid for a license to use it on one. You pay $100, but since your really using two copies of it, you should’ve paid $200. Paying less than your supposed to is stealing, but as bad if you didn’t pay at all.
As far as Product Activation, its just a business choice that they have made. Will they fall because of it? Probably not. Believe it or not, Microsoft can force you to do anything with their product if you agree to the license (remember clicking “I Agree?”). I bet you didn’t know that your supposed to be using Windows standing on your head, did ya? (Ok, so that’s not true, but it could be. What is true is that you are only supposed to be using Windows on one machine, and a load of other stuff that most ignore.) When you click “I Agree” you are, believe it or not, agreeing, to that license. Don’t like it? Click “Cancel,”
And, explain to me how is it Microsoft’s fault if they employ Unix sockets in Windows XP and it causes “the demise of the Internet?” Seems to me that it is more a fault of Unix, but I digress.
FWIW, it is possible to obtain a copy of the latest Windows XP beta, install it on your computer, and run a little 40kb .exe that will bypass Microsoft’s nifty Product Activation scheme. Isn’t technology grand? Remember, “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
All these problems arise from the fact that Congress doesn’t understand today’s technology and most laws (with exception to the DMCA, which is another story) don’t fit well with software, computers, etc.