Microsoft Pirating Their Own Software? 575
14ghz writes "Microsoft gave out copies of .NET Visual Studio Pro to attendees of the Microsoft .NET Student Tour. Despite the discs saying "UNLICENSED
SOFTWARE -- Illegal without separate license from Microsoft", the freebie didn't contain any license document, and one guy decided to ask the MS conference rep about it. Read the in-progress story."
I havent installed MS Software for ages but... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Do you agree to our terms and conditions YES | No"
Kind of thing?
Slashdot reaches a new low (Score:3, Insightful)
The license has to be grated by whoever is giving out the CDs... these are volume licensing CDs. Usually you are given a CD key that is associated with an institution.
For example, I just had to sign a MS affidavit at our bookstore and they were all mine for $5 apiece.
I can't believe you shitheads posted this "story." Makes me wonder why I read this site less and less every day.
Sad (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Running out of good reasons to bash ms? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Slashdot reaches a new low (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't you get it? According to /. *everything* Microsoft does is Evil, and everything Steve Jobs does is INSANELY GREAT.
Re:I havent installed MS Software for ages but... (Score:5, Insightful)
What happens if the student installs it on his (or the universitie's or their workplace) PC, and the BSA shows up?
article poster is a jerk (Score:5, Insightful)
Further, the guy is probably some frontline peon who really has no control over anything there and has only been given the vaguest of guidelines on how to operate. No sense sticking his name out on the net for future harassment or embarassment.
I really think doing that was a bad move and anyone in the tech industry should have the common decency not to do that to a colleague.
Re:Not really Piracy (Score:4, Insightful)
Even if it's closer to false advertising, because there isn't any direct profit going to MS from the distribution of the software, this "problem" is a non-starter.
What MS is trying to do is to create a viable developer base among students in order to facilitate later corporate acceptance of .NET, and they're not going to get upset about dinky shit like this -- and neither will any court -- as long as that objective is met. This tactic is nothing new, illegal, surprising or interesting.
Re:Discretionary licensing (Score:5, Insightful)
He could have downloaded this off of Kazaa or somewhere.
What happens when the company or school he is at gets audited 6 months from now? Does he have to pay up for a license? If MS had given him a piece of paper that said 1 non transferable license free for non-commercial use he could wip the paper out and show the auditors. Now he has to erase the software from his computer or pay up if he gets audited. MS is being lazy. If they want the rules to protect their revenue stream then they have to stick to the rules themselves.
Re:Slashdot reaches a new low (Score:4, Insightful)
If you really do read this site less and less everyday, what a coincidence it is that you just happened to be reading when a new story was posted, and your response is in the first few posts.
Maybe you should actually read the story instead of rushing to post first on a site you barely want to read. If you had, you would have noticed that the MS flak said nothing about a license. In fact, she said it was okay to use the software without a license. Is that what the affadavit you signed in your bookstore said? I think not.
Ruin it for everyone... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, back to my point. It seems to me that this guy is just trying to cause trouble for troubles sake, OR is trying to prove a point with regards to liscencing laws. While I agree with the sentiments, I DO NOT agree with the ammunition he is using for his fight.
All he is effectively doing is making these companies more gunshy to hand out free software to resellers like myself, or anyone else who attends training events like the one he did to get his software. The companies wont want to deal with a deluge of email like this, or go throught the trouble of making special key sets for promotional NFR (not for resale) software, etc. Actually, we USED to get software that was stamped NFR all over it, but they stopped this and started handing out "real" versions under volume lisences because there were more costs involved with producing NFR sets rather than using existing stock.
Youre looking a gift horse in the mouth and will end up ruining things for yourself and everyone else just to prove a point!
Re:Discretionary licensing (Score:5, Insightful)
Considering they dont consider owning the original CD proof that you own it, I don't think they'll consider an email from an MS rep saying "its okay" proof that you own it.
Just because an MS employee says 'its okay' does not cover your ass in court if MS's *other hand* comes knocking at the door looking for proof that you indeed own licenses for the software you have installed on your computer.
The point is, the software/CD is worth nothing. The license is worth something. And you need the license to use the CD. Anything else could be a little bit of unintentional BSA-enforced entrapment.
I don't think it'd really happen, but the guy has a very very good point. It'd be like a sheet music service giving you photocopies of some sheet music (ie, no proof you own them), and saying "its okay, go ahead"
Re:Go license nazi! (Score:4, Insightful)
If Sony gave you a CD-R copy of the latest hit CD, and audits were regularly performed in the environment you listened to it in, would you take it, or would you kindly ask Sony for some proof that you own it so you can't get in legal hot water later?
He's being responsible. If he didn't care, it's basically saying that MS not only is the licensee, but ALSO the enforcer. Since we know that copyright law is a federal matter, I don't think a federal lawyer is going to take an email from an MS perma-temp as proof that you own it.
Mind you, its funny how those who call this a nit-pick are likely the same people who can't imagine something like this EVER happening to them. The likelyhood of an audit is low, but it can happen (our 30 person company just got BSA-d), and the responsible ones have their legal asses covered.
At least you got a copy... (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously though, why would you be such a biatch to someone who's trying to do something FOR you. She helped coordinate the event that gave you FREE food (although those wraps were a funky colour), FREE software, and FREE sessions.
Oh well, I've read enough complaining in this post already; it's about time I stop contributing to it. I can't believe this made the front page.
Re:Slashdot reaches a new low (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I havent installed MS Software for ages but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do you think BSA audits scare companies so much?
Re:Discretionary licensing (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't touch a license (Score:3, Insightful)
Those papers Microsoft gives out are "End User License Agreements" and "Certificate[s] of Authenticity", they are not "Licences".
The EULA says you must have a licence, but it doesn't say what constitutes a license.
The best evidence you can provide of licensing is a receipt for the software from an authorized retailer. Otherwise you can hold up all the Certificates of Authenticity, original media and EULAs you want and you still could have bought the package from Bob down the street... which violates the terms of the EULA.
Sasha is probably NOT an employee of Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
Manpower [manpower.com] is a consulting firm [manpower.com].
MS is not doing anything wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
HELLOOO FUCKTARD! (Score:1, Insightful)
Well guess what, YOU DON'T! You are in posession of the software, given to you in a legal fashion. You may use the software in any way you wish (including installing it on your computer and loading it into RAM, which is EXPLICITLY allowed by copyright law!). You may NOT distribute copies, which is explicitly prohibited by copyright law.
Since it didn't come with a license, you have the basic rights everyone has under copyright law, which are the same ones you have with a CD, a book, a poster, a DVD, etc...
I repeat: software licenses are used to add (or remove, unfortunately) from the basic rights afforded by copyright law. If you didn't receive a license, and you lawfully received the software, that's the END OF THE STORY.
If you're afraid of the BSA (which you shouldn't because they are a bunch of cowardly thugs), just print out the first email the MS-drone sent you, and be done with it.
One more time: just because Microsoft, Adobe, etc, have you trained like a monkey to kiss their ring whenever you need to install or run software, doesn't mean that's how it is. Even the GPL explicitly says that it doesn't cover RUNNING the software.
Re:Watch Out (Score:2, Insightful)
However I really doubt this is a trap. Dot Net is a hurting piece of technology that offers very little advantage to anyone except people who are already tied into a microsoft solution.
Most articles that I have read have suggested that companies take a "wait and see" approach before adopting dot net. Of course if every body listened to this advice then few would adopt the new frameworks and the whole thing can fizzle worse than the XBox. I think that Microsoft is going to follow their old strategy of giving to away for cheap, until people depend on it then crank up the price.
bah (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, geeze. In that e-mail exchange the story linked to, one participant wasn't making sense, and it certainly wasn't Microsoft. 'Here, have this software' 'There's no license' 'Well you can use it for non-commercial use' 'Just this software?'. That last one kills me; he knows perfectly well that 'for that single piece of software we gave you you don't need a license' doesn't imply in any way that he doesn't need a license for ANY Microsoft software ever again. Don't try to make it sound like MS is being all contradictory.
Drugs and software (Score:3, Insightful)
You give it away or sell it very cheap, until your enough customers are hooked.
Then you raise prices.
Remember piracy is the best thing that has ever happened to Microsoft.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
No it's not (Score:3, Insightful)
That sounds absolutely incorrect. Have you ever heard of investigative journalism?
I don't know what the exact state of the law is in the US, but certainly where I am (New Zealand) it's fully legal to record and/or disclose a private conversation as long as at least one of the participants is aware that it's happening. The exception is if there's a legally binding agreement between the parties that restricts disclosure.
Having said that, I agree that it's not very polite to disclose the name of the Microsoft employee on these emails. There's no need in this case except to embarass someone who probably doesn't deserve to be embarassed.
Oh yeah. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called "legitimate and legal use".
oops.
Re:The 'MS rep' isn't an employee (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No license == no copying (Score:2, Insightful)
Not in Australia, it isn't.
This makes perfect sense... (Score:5, Insightful)
Spammers usually define spamming as "That which they do not do."
Here, we have a case where Microsoft is simply redefining software piracy as "That which we do not do."
Since Microsoft has also been known to spam, and has tried to weaken anti-spam laws [nwsource.com] in their favor, it comes as no surprise to me that the left hand has no idea of what the right is doing when it comes to handing out software.
Spammer logic. Amazing -- and kind of frightening -- how contagious it is.
Re:Discretionary licensing (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually...
If that came from an authorized rep at MS, acting in his official capacity (i.e. e-mailed at work, instead of at his home address), a strong case could be made that it is, in fact, permission from the company. The important part here is "official capacity;" if you have reason to believe (that part is important) that the person you ask is, in fact, authorized to make such a deal (and if a representative of the company is handing out software at an officially-sanctioned conference, it's probably reasonable to believe it), then you can make a strong case in court that you were, in fact, entitled to use the software. It's possible that the court may find that you didn't have the right to use it, and require that you buy a license, but a conviction generally requires intent; if you can convince the judge/jury that you had good reason to believe that you were legit (the so-called "reasonable person" test), then you'll likely be acquitted.
If, however, you e-mailed Joe Blow at home, and got the flippant and obviously-unreasonable response you just provided, well, you're going to swing.
I, of course, ANAL.
Devil in the details! (Score:2, Insightful)
That MS finds it nit-picking is humorus--except that that nit-picking is exactly what they expect companies, schools, users to do to remain legal. This is the the same laziness they are fighting tooth-n-nail to stop!
It's interesting that MS wants to play fast-n-loose with the rules while turning around and then later holding you to it--this guy's exactly right to make an issue out of it! That is exactly the problem with software licensing-it's become outright draconian! Just because it's MS giving out MS software doesn't mean they shouldn't follow the rules too! The big-wigs want to argue over details like this when it's you or I, but don't want to be bothered themselves if license tracking would cost too much!