Microsoft Pirating Their Own Software?

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."

Discretionary licensing

[mfh]

It's totally up to Microsoft to determine how to license their software, and whom to license it to.

What's the fuss? They could license it for free use to recovering crack addicts that live on the 3000 block of 1st street that wear green pants if they wanted to.

As long as some marketing monkey at MS has the OK from the higher-ups, then it's all good.

What would the BSA think?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet it would not be good at all if they spotted these discs laying about during an audit. It's downright irresponsible for Microsoft to take such a casual attitude towards their own license while promoting a goon squad checking everyone for strict compilance at the same time.

Not really Piracy

[evilviper]

It's not really copyright infringement, it's more like false advertising.

Obviously microsoft has the right to allow you to use the software, with or without a license. The question in this case is:

Is Microsoft okay with this, or are the higher-ups unaware of what is happening here?

How can he prove this software is legal?

Is Microsoft falsly advertising? Software that is only for non-commercial use IS NOT the same as the software that is worth $109, so he did not recieve what was advertised.

Re:Discretionary licensing

[Anonymous Coward]

I think his concern is that Microsoft didn't provide any written license with the software, nor did it provide any explanation as the terms of use for that software. Sure, Microsoft can license its software as it wasnts, but an email from some Microsoft stooge say "don't worry about the license" isn't going to provide any sort of legal protection.

Re:Discretionary licensing

[mfh]

Except for the fact that MS would have a very hard time proving any malfeasance on the part of the consumer.

Especially when said consumer was at a conference with several thousand witnesses that did the same thing. Then, concievably, a countersuit could be filed on the grounds of entrapment/false advertising/whatever, i'm not a lawyer, only stating the obvious.

Re:What would the BSA think?

[spun]

Well, actually it makes sense. Some poor university thinks they have all their licenses in order, so when MS sends the BSA goons after them, they say, "Sure, we have nothing to hide!" and then the BSA finds 500 unlicensed copies of this software so the university owes millions in fines. Clever tactic, really.

Re:Not pirated

[AnotherShep]

On the back of the sleeve the first CD is in. I got the same CDs at an event on the same tour.

Re:Discretionary licensing

[dbarclay10]

t's totally up to Microsoft to determine how to license their software, and whom to license it to. What's the fuss?

It's a big deal BECAUSE there is no license. They're giving away unlicensed software. To students. Who might use it to make really great software. With unlicensed tools. They might make great software. Illegal software, because of those unlicensed tools. Software MS may take offense at.

Nobody here gets it

[varebel]

Nobody here seems to "get it".

Think about the precident this could set and damage this could do to Microsoft. The next time Microsoft wants to prosecute someone for using software without a license, this occurance could be used as evidence that Microsoft does not have a firm and uniform policy on the importance of software licensing.

This, from the company who's entire - let me repeat that - ENTIRE business model is built around the assertion that possesion of little certificate is proof that one have the right to use their product. And, who's EULA reserves them the right to pop surprise inspections on their customers and fine them for software who's certificate can not be produced.

If pursued, this could have lasting repurcussions.

Re:Discretionary licensing

[m1a1]

I disagree. That's the equivalent of installing, say, 50 copies of AutoCAD when you only have one license, and then saying "well... yeah but only one person uses it at a time."

I know for sure this happens with certain software (I couldn't say autocad for sure).

At my University we have limited matlab licenses. If you try to start matlab it tries to use a license off of a license server. If all the licenses are already in use you are told that you can't use matlab right now becaue there is no license available for you.

This is a whole lot of fun the day before several classes have matlab projects do. It's great to sit and click the matlab icon for 30 minutes until it opens, and then you never close it, you protect that license with your life.

Re:Only on Slashdot

[HiThere]

If they require the EULA I read, free is overpriced.

I seriously dislike the MS license. It was why I originally switched to Linux, when the applications I needed weren't available. If you want to gamble, you go right ahead. I prefer to be a bit safe. If someone makes me sign a license that says "you won't use my software except under these conditions..." and one of the conditions is that you have a license, then I won't bother to install it without a license. And a salesman's word of honor is as good as a saleman's word of honor. (I.e., a bit better than a politician's.) If they take you in for an audit, then you are had, and a salesman's promise is no help at all, even if it were personally signed, much less being just an e-mail.

Re:In other news:

[curious.corn]

Of course he works for the evil beast! What would happen if you had to face the choice of dishing out $$$ for M$ $oftware or point you browser to openoffice.org?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Posting private comments publicly is illegal

[paranoid.android]

IANAL, but it's not just obnoxious, it's illegal- regardless of whether you obscure the names. Unless I specify otherwise, any communication I send you is intended for you, and you only. If you forward it to someone else, or, say, post it online for all to read, I can sue you.

Got a source for that? Just curious.

Civility, please?

[Chymaera]

Although it was wise for the submitter to check whether he was on solid legal grounds, it seems most uncivil of him to bring all this attention to the employee over such a relatively minor matter as this. Sasha seemed to be handling the problem with all expediency, and I imagine the issue would have been resolved had submitter merely waited and continued to correspond with him. Now tens of thousands of people know about this and Sasha risks getting in trouble with his superiors.

Submitting the site to slashdot was unjustified in light of how the problem was being handled, and it was a breach of trust on the part of the submitter.

Fraudulent Accounting Implications

[siferhex]

If MS is writing of the $109 for every copy of this software they give away, but are not in fact giving away the part of the software (license) that's worth the $109, wouldn't that be fraud?

Re:Discretionary licensing

[zurab]

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.

Well, that's good - next time I am going to use that logic every time I lose a CD of a software package I bought (and I have lost quite a few). I am going to call up the software maker, inform them of my loss, and demand another copy of their product and present them with my license number and purchase receipt. Somehow, I don't think this is going to fly with anyone. They'll just tell me to go to hell or buy another license AND media.

IP making companies (software, entertainment, etc.) need to make tough choices - are they selling media? or are they selling, no wait... renting or licensing their IP for limited use? In case of the former their IP cannot carry any conditions; in the case of the latter, my lease or license should also give me the right to the content that I am entitled to, even if original medium is damaged, or lost, or stolen, etc. (maybe after a small media fee). It's like saying if you lease an apartment and lose a key, then - tough shit - you gotta find another place to live while still satisfying the existing lease. And no - you can't replace the key or the lock.

So, which is it? It seems like they want to stay unclear on this, and invent new legal, technological, and other schemes to trap the consumer into an unfair practice.

consistency and fair advertising

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a concept in law that says for copyright/trademark to be enforcible, the company holding the copyright or trademark has to actively defend it and advertise the policies to the public. Say I'm a publisher of a PC game and I offer the complete game for free on my company website I am advertising the game is free. Say customer A goes to the store and has never of my company until they see the cool packaging and buys it. Customer A goes home and installs the game. After a couple days, the individual loves and wants to install it on second system at home. The person goes to the website and sees the free download.

Customer A naively interprets this as "it's ok to install another copy on the second system." The person already has a CD and doesn't want to spend 8 hours downloading the game. The game is installed on the second computer and off they go.

the question now is "did the customer violate the copyright?" Well that's not a clear picture. For a copyright to be enforcible, it is up to the company to make sure it has uniform licensing, which is truthful and not deceptive. Would an average user consider this case "confusing" with "mixed messages"? Hell yes. The only way a company can make sure their copyright and licensing is air-tight is to include explicit exemptions that cover online versions. If the game license states something like, "this game can only be installed on one system. installation of the free version must be downloaded from the website and this license is not transferrable to free versions." then they are covered. Having no license doesn't necessarily constitute a "inconsistency" or "un-truthful advertising", but it definitely blurs the lines and creates confusion.

Re:who is calling the BSA on students?!

[Spoticus]

You're joking, right?
click [aaxnet.com]

Re:I havent installed MS Software for ages but...

[zcat_NZ]

three words back;

Norton disk recovery

You have no idea how LITTLE information a DOS format actually erases do you? "NONE AT ALL"

Here's a better idea.
Boot knoppix
switch to a root shell
for wipe in 5 4 3 2 1; do dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/hda ; done ; dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda
Go to bed; it'll be all finished by morning.

Re:WTF??

[Darby]

If someone from MS is giving me 8 CD's full of software & telling me that I can use it for free, I'm going to keep my big mouth shut except to say thank you. Why bother questioning the freaking license. If there was a problem, believe me, MS would not be handing out discs.

There isn't a problem now, but what if, for whatever reason, they decided they didn't like you found their software on your computer asked for your license which you couldn't produce?
You would be screwed.
Is this likely? I very seriously doubt it.
Is it possible? Yes.

Another possibility. MS denies that the rep had the authority to do such a thing. You are guilty of accepting stolen (pirated?) goods.
I assume this was actually a MS sponsored thing, so this scenario is even less likely than the previous one, but again possible.
That is the issue here.

Is it worth being worried about? Most likely not, but the legal system seems to run largely on these tiny nit pics.