Slashdot Log In
Copyrant
from the last-straw dept.
MS's most recent abuses of its customers are just the latest in a series of increasing restrictions. OEM's are no longer permitted to include full-capability Windows disks with new machines - instead, what you'll get is either a disk image on your hard drive or an image on a "recovery CD". The "recovery CD" must be crippled so that it won't run on any hardware except that specific machine.
So what you bought is either some extra bits on your hard drive (sure hope you didn't want to use the full capacity of the drive; sure hope your disk doesn't fail) or a nearly-useless CD which is solely capable of restoring your PC to its original state - you'll have to backup and restore all of your data, reinstall all other software, re-change all settings you've customized, etc., if you ever use that CD. But you're a Microsoft customer [motto: "Your time isn't worth a bucket of warm spit to us"], so get used to it.
If you did something foolish, like swap in a new hard drive, or a new motherboard, well, I'm sorry, but you've lost any ability to restore your Microsoft operating system. And naturally, of course, you won't be able to copy it to another computer - even if you delete it from the first one. You can't sell it, you can't lend it, hell, you can barely use it yourself. Office 2000 with its forced registration procedure is much the same, and we're now getting submissions about this from people who didn't catch stories last year about it. Office 2000 binds itself to your system with the registration in exactly the same way as the "Recovery" CDs must be bound by the OEM to the system they ship.
The main effect of this will be to eliminate the concept of "used software". Software vendors like this; they can sell more retail copies if there's no aftermarket.
Generally, copyrighted works are governed by what is known as the "first sale" doctrine. This means that once the copyright owner has sold the item the first time, they lose all control over it - it can be resold without limitation. This matter originally came up when a book publisher was trying to prevent Macy's from selling books at a discount price. Essentially, the publisher (Scribner and Sons, still in business today) had a nice scheme going where it set "minimum" prices for its books. In fact, the scheme is practically identical to the scheme that music publishers have going today, and that software publishers like Microsoft are now moving to.
A brief quote from one of the cases:
The appellant is the owner of the copyright upon 'The Castaway,' obtained on the 18th day of May, 1904, in conformity to the copyright statutes of the United States. Printed immediately below the copyright notice, on the page in the book following the title page, is inserted the following notice:
The price of this book at retail is $1 net. No dealer is licensed to sell it at a less price, and a sale at a less price will be treated as an infringement of the copyright.
The Bobbs-Merrill Company.
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "That sounds just like a shrinkwrap license on software! Or it sounds like what the giants of the music industry [Sony, Time-Warner, MCA, Polygram, Bertelsmann and EMI Music] do with their 'Minimum Advertised Price' policies, which has resulted in a class-action suit and an ongoing FTC investigation!" Am I right?
So how did the Court look at this particular issue?
What does the statute mean in granting 'the sole right of vending the same?' Was it intended to create a right which would permit the holder of the copyright to fasten, by notice [210 U.S. 339, 350] in a book or upon one of the articles mentioned within the statute, a restriction upon the subsequent alienation [transfer of property] of the subject-matter of copyright after the owner had parted with the title to one who had acquired full dominion over it and had given a satisfactory price for it? It is not denied that one who has sold a copyrighted article, without restriction, has parted with all right to control the sale of it. The purchaser of a book, once sold by authority of the owner of the copyright, may sell it again, although he could not publish a new edition of it.
Software publishers have this in mind. So they don't actually "sell" anything at all. If you make a contract to license something, the terms can be anything that a court doesn't regard as "unconscionable" - whatever the other party demands. So in fact copyright has almost nothing to do with the "sale" of commercial software products - companies could just as easily license to you software written by, say, the Federal Government (which would be in the public domain) They don't need copyright at all, since the contract alone is sufficient to bind your permitted activities, if the courts say a binding contract has been created.
The idea here is to get away from copyright, because copyright has all those nasty exceptions carved out by the legal system such as the "first sale" doctrine. But if you license something rather than sell it... and if you can cripple it with technology so that regardless of what the law says, the product can't be resold... ahhh, then you're in business!
Why have courts permitted software licensing to usurp copyright? Why do book-title-page-licenses not bind you but back-of-a-software-box-licenses do? Why doesn't the purchase of a copyrighted piece of software entitle you to do just about anything with it except sell copies, just like the purchase of a book does? It's a long story, but basically, I think it's because the first cases to hit the court system looked a lot like standard corporate contract disputes rather than mass-market sales. Individuals have only started purchasing software at retail within the last ten years or so. And now that people have caught on that this is a Bad Thing, we get laws like UCITA, designed to expressly legitimize these sorts of licenses. Remember that UCITA applies to software-hardware combinations as well, so your next PC might have a license agreement applying to the hardware.
But back to what started this rant. Microsoft's licensing. Microsoft has wanted for some years to move to a rental system, where not only do you not actually purchase anything for them, you get to pay for nothing every year. (In fact, they delayed the announcement of it so it wouldn't overlap with the anti-trust decision - might look bad to be simultaneously losing an anti-trust suit and announcing how you were going to get millions of people to rent software from you.) That way they can extract truly maximal profits from their operating system - raise the rents when it seems appropriate, cut sweetheart rental deals with some companies and viciously expensive ones with others, depending on whether or not you testified for the DOJ...
Microsoft has a couple of goals here, you see. Getting shrinkwrap licenses validated by the legal system allows them to control pricing in much the same manner as Scribner and Sons' attempt at book-wrap licensing. And building protective technological measures into their software, such as the OEM system-lock for the operating system or Office 2000's single-system registration procedure, allows them to get around the first sale doctrine - you could sell the item, copyright law says you can, but you can't sell it, because the software won't work for anyone else.
At a minimum, you could donate it to a charity or school when you're no longer using it and get a tax break. But that Windows 2000 Recovery CD or an already-registered Office 2000 CD are just coasters. Microsoft, of course, can cheerfully continue to donate software licenses and take tax write-offs for the full retail price of the software, a strategy which saves them hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes every year at a cost to them of approximately zero. And don't you dare to try to circumvent those controls in order to exercise your legal right to resell the software - that's a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, I doubt you want to spend five years in prison.
In a non-monopoly marketplace, the fact these two products are worth a lot less to you than their predecessors would force a reduction in price. Instead, Microsoft raised the prices on both. Lawyers have considered the interplay of contract, copyright, and technological restrictions - here's a paper, here's another - but the time is long past for this issue to be considered by the public.
And that's why the threats of Adobe chairman Warnock are the last straw. Microsoft and all the other familiar names in commercial software have been increasing their restrictions for years. It doesn't have anything to do with piracy; we're
regardless of what the fictitious figures of the Business Software Alliance say about copyright infringement. Listen to what Warnock is saying: if only we evil customers didn't make copies of software, Microsoft wouldn't force computer manufacturers to cripple the Windows installed on their machines. Yeah, right. Tell me another one, John."...going to have a piece of music that will only play on one Walkman. [We're] going to have a piece of software that will only work on one machine. It will provide enormous inconvenience."
But Warnock is absolutely right: it's a failure of the general population that is responsible for this licensing mess we're in. The failure is: insufficient regulation of the software industry.
If you buy a car, you are almost certainly protected by state "lemon laws". They were enacted to prevent the abuses that were extremely common, and so you acquired certain minimum rights in the purchase transaction which cannot be waived: if the car breaks down all the time, you can return it and get a refund plus your expenses paid. No matter what the sales contract says. Similarly there are restrictions on just how small the fine print can be, how egregious the interest rate can be, etc. The laws have had a salutory effect on auto sales - dealers are much less likely to try to cheat customers, and manufacturers have incentives to build better-quality cars. It is, in fact, a win-win situation - even though auto manufacturers screamed that laws like these would put them out of business in a week.
We haven't got anything of the sort with software purchases. And like Adobe's chairman just told us, the race to the bottom - who can have the most restrictive licensing, who can gouge the customer the most - is in full swing. It took a long time to get lemon laws enacted across the country, many years of abuses and horror stories, many years of opposition by the automobile manufacturers doing exactly what the software manufacturers are doing now: dumping buckets of cash into Congress. Are we going to learn from our experiences of the past and put some restraints on these abusive restrictions? Are we going to makes software sales into sales, and make software companies stand behind their products? We are, no doubt about it; abuses like these will only be stood for so long. The question is only this: How long will we stand for it?
What do you mean I don't own my software?
-- from http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/antipiracy/main.html
Adobe software is owned by Adobe. When you purchase software, you purchase a license to use the application. The use of the software must be in compliance with the End User License Agreement that is included with the software. Misuse of software is punishable by Federal Copyright Law.
We can fix that, Adobe.
Where do I sign up? (Score:4)
Make something remotely like the above available as a petition and I will cheerfully sign it. A donation is not out of the question. My vote in the next federal election is already spoken for as long as it looks like Bush is likely to let Microsoft off the hook and Gore is neutral. (Heck, that could be seen as the best way I can see to vote for the above.)
But leave it at an article here and nothing significant will happen. Nor do I have the time or energy to do any significant organizing.
I doubt I am alone...
Cheers,
Ben
Last time I rebuilt my PC... (Score:3)
As far as I'm concered I bought a Win95 licence and I'll install it from the CD that shipped with the PC or any other Win95 CD I feel like installing it from.
You've only got yourselves to blame (Score:3)
Unfortunately this kind of thing has come around as a result of the blatent piracy that takes place across the entire computing world thanks to the "I'm not paying for that" mentality that seems to be the norm. Especially when the company is Microsoft, people seem to think that they have some kind of moral right to copy and distribute their products willy-nilly rather than give any more money to the "Evil Empire".
This kind of attitude is prevalent on /. with their rampant disregard for copyright, IP and any other restrictions on what they can have - if you can't get something as "Free Software" then hey, do the next best thing and pirate it. It's all for the cause right?
And this is from a demographic that is supposedly earning a lot more money than the rest of society. Does anyone else see the contradiction and indeed hyprocracy in this? You're all quite willing to take plenty of money from the large corporations you work for, but then all you do is bitch about your working hours and engage in criminal activities. Especially the sysadmins.
Until this attitude of piracy being a good thing of course companies are going to try and impose additional restrictions on their software. Despite what the Stallman hardliners might think, people do deserve to make a living of off their work, and this kind of move is simply an attempt to do so. You've only got yourselves to blame.
Spread the message, brothers (Score:5)
a) The general software buying (Licensing, sorry) public have to be aware of the restrictions being placed on them by companies such as Microsoft
b) The public have to be made aware of free and open source software as an alternative
c) The alternative software has to offer the same or better features that the propriatry software (With it's restrictive licencse) offers
I think a) is becoming clearer every day, as Micrsoft and the other softies extend these types of licencsing and software distribution. b) is also not as much a problem as it used to be, with more and more people aware of, if not actually using, open source software such as Linux and *BSD. c) is something that the Gnome & KDE teams are working very hard on (KOffice, for example).
Now all we need to do is bring them all together, and shout about it.
Insanity (Score:3)
Not to mention that I change hardware from time to time. A new video card here, a new disk controller there. Sometimes these require an OS-reinstall.
In the end though, I do have to laugh since my dependancy on all forms of Windows has now been reduced nearly to nothing because of Linux. We don't need Linux to kill MS, they are doing a good job all by themselves.
Oh, well (Score:4)
it is our fault heres why... (Score:5)
Re:You've only got yourselves to blame (Score:3)
Reminds me of the comic 200AD, and in particular, the Dark Judges. On their world, the "Judges" (read: combined police officer, judge and, if they saw fit, executioner) realised that all crime was committed by the living, and so outlawed life.
Effectively, MS and others have decided that all piracy is committed by people that own full install CDs, and so are attempting to prevent such ownership.
Sure, a lot of people do pirate software. But an awful lot don't - why should they be made to suffer this, when they are guilty of no cirme?
This must be stopped before it gains acceptance.
Companies must be reminded that when we buy something, we own it, completely and utterly.
Copyright law already prevents me from lawfully copying software. What's the next step, license everything and ban all removable, recordable media?
Cheers,
Tim
Click-wrap license agreement problem - solved (Score:5)
Videotape yourself for future proof.
IANAL, but I believe that you can't legally enter into a contract while under the influence. So click "I agree" all you want! (If you can get the mouse into position)
Alternatively, you could have a minor install the software, since they can't enter into contracts either. Or something like that.
I suppose the evil lawyers have probably created a way around this, but at the very least it could liven up the workplace for those who install software for a living!
Digging their own grave. (Score:3)
The only thing we have to be vigilant about is that the distribution channels themselves remain open for open source and open content.
Audio indicates the risks of what can happen: MP3 media, MP3 players, and digital audio recorders have been deliberately crippled for the commercial interests of the record industry. Just doesn't just restrict sharing of copyrighted content under fair use provisions, it also limits access to the market of the very people who operate outside the major record labels. By making recording and distribution more painful and costly, the record industry inhibits low cost and free recordings.
So, as a user, I don't worry about this kind of nonsense--it will merely spur the development of cheaper or free alternatives. I do worry when these people go out and try to restrict the distribution of information in general because that keeps new competitors out of the market and has far reaching consequences for a free society in general.
This it intended to stop dual booting Linux/BSD (Score:5)
This recovery CD apparently restores the whole original state, including the partitioning. If that is so, you will not be able to repartition and reinstall Windows (and then add Linux and/or BSD), because it will restore your original partitioning, which gives Windows the whole disk again.
IMHO, this is a Microsoft tactic intended to keep people from giving Linux or BSD a try. It's all part of the campaign of trying to lock people and businesses in and not let them discover any way out. I knew they would try to pull things to lock out other operating systems, and do so in a way that looks like they are doing something else. This appears to be the start of that effort.
Adobe's way of looking after the customer (Score:3)
I went away and installed the software (this is in France). When I launched the software I found that it needed licensing keys. Oh dear yet more time lost. However all the contact information in the box (Email and UK telephone numbers) was out of date. No way to get a reply. I spent hours phoning though to the US to try and track down the European licensing center. I took me 10 DAYS to license the software.
Three months later I received a letter from the Adobe law office saying: We see that you have Adobe software in an Educational institute. We reserve the right to come and search your machine at any moment for potential violations of the license. Your acceptance of your software license implies our right to examine all machines and backup media in your possession.
They can't even answer the phone to give out a license number, but they have time to send the bailiffs in to personally read everything on my machine...
Thus work US software houses in Europe
There is no one to blame: It's fiction. (Score:5)
The loss to industry due to unsanctioned copying is... Zero! That's right! Zilch! Nada! Zip!
My methodology for arriving at this figure is every bit as valid as that used by the SPA/BSA to arrive at their figures. Both methodologies attempt to measure events (sales) that didn't happen. Since this is impossible, it hardly matters what fancy formulae you use to justify it. So you can, like the SPA/BSA, pull any number out of your ass and claim that as your loss.
Gimme a fscking break.
Have another example: To combat unsanctioned copying, Unreal Tournament uses a form a copy protection that checks for the presence of the CD in the drive. This technique is easily hackable, and w4r3zed copies exist. However, Quake-3 uses a central server-based authentication system based on the CD key you have to type in when you install the game. When you try to play on the net, it sends your key to your-papers-please.idsoftware.com (note: may not be actual server name), which then grants you permission to use your property. id's system is foolproof and unhackable, since they alone maintain the database of valid keys.
So, if they SPA/BSA's propoganda is correct, Quake-3 should be selling a fsckload more units than Unreal Tournament, since Q3's copy protection is foolproof, right? We can even measure it fairly easily, since they came out at roughly the same time.
Check the sales figures, pal. They're about even.
The propoganda does not bear even the slightest scrutiny. Unsanctioned copying is not, and never has been, a credible threat to software sales. Get over it.
Schwab
The 'CD Free' OS. It's all about revenue streams (Score:5)
I shouldn't be surprised. As I said in a post in another article [slashdot.org], there will be some serious market forces driving MS-OS and MS-AP apart, due to their differing nature, and the OS portion is going to get the short end of the stick.
Since most of the the biggest microcomputer OSs (aside from MS) have a hardware company behind them (Apple, Sun, SGI, etc), we forget that, for all its importance, an OS is simply not a high ticket item without packaged hardware, and it's bought infrequently. Buying each version since DOS 3 cost maybe $20-30 a year, and most of that would have gone to retailers, packaging, etc. instead of MS's profit column. Let's face it, it's peanuts.
MS milked their OS advantage to fatten their real cash cow: the apps. That's not to say that they didn't make money on the OS, but that wasn't what made them a powerhouse. Price MS-Office against Windows 98, and you'll see why MS-OS needs a new revenue stream.
So what will it be? They can milk licensing and partnering in exchange for a peek at their hidden APIs could be good for a quick infusion, but it's a one-shot. They'll need to offer favorable terms to developers for all future OS's or they won't get enough app support to compel immediate upgrades. Damn OS's live too long! Win95a still runs fine.
Sure, they'll still have new computer sales, but the installed base is their major advantage. Hardware, OS, and apps all bloated each other in a vicious cycle. But all that 'stranded hardware' has some real power left in it. And now there may be competitors who can make use of that power (like Linux) and erode MS's installed base from behind. The consumer desktop needs power for games -- and not much else. We have the equivalent of last decade's supercomputers on our desks now. DO we really need that to write letters, surf, and do our taxes?
MS-OS lost their Apps, most of their Enterprise stuff, MSN.NET, MSNBC, MS hardware (input devices, etc.) and now they are stuck with the central piece that made it all tick... and nothing to make tick. The 2001/2 could be a very lean year.
Further, it'll be harder to buy companies and technologies now that stock swaps won't be quite as appealing. All the guys the used to bully have grown up, and though there's a lot of tech funny money around, MS-OS won't have the liquidity it once had.
I foresaw this back at the beginnning of the DoJ business, but I guess I never really believed it until now. Wow. The OS *isn't* the power. Who ever got *giga-rich* off an OS alone, except Gates -- and he did it by fighting dirty.
Re:Oh, well (Score:3)
Microsoft have an unofficial policy: "If they're going to pirate something, we'd rather they pirate our stuff"
It's simple. If 60% of people buy microsoft, and 20% of people pirate it, that's 80% market penetration, and can be leveraged to force competitors out of the market etc (see DOJ case)
This is related to the recent ask slashdot piece talking about leasing/hiring everything and nothing being permanent. It's very scary to see the way things have gone and even scarier to see where they may go
--------
Re:Bootlegging (Score:5)
If MS software were reasonably priced - say £10 for a Win98 CD - then I'd be perfectly prepared to spend out on it, and so would many other ppl.
You're quite right though, we have developed a rampant disregard for copyright, IP, etc. We go by something more fundamental called "common sense", bcos we're currently years ahead of the lawmakers. If lawyers can say, "Oh, you don't own that copy of the software, you're just licensing it and we can take it back off you if we want" (which is what many license agreements amount to), then that violates common sense. Would you accept Penguin going into your house and taking all your paperbacks away, if you lent a book to a friend? And note that authors and publishing companies seem to have no problem making a living within the copyright laws. In fact, the UK publishing companies have set up a price-fixing cartel which should be investigated sometime soon, but the price isn't fixed _too_ high, so there's not too many complaints. CD prices are fixed higher, so there are complaints. And MS prices are fixed highest of all, and there's outright revolution!
I don't deny that ppl should make a living off their work, but there's a difference between 'making a living' and 'chiseling them for all the money we can get, cos we're a monopoly'. It's that kind of attitude that's got MS into their present situation (see news reports today).
Grab.
Re:Spread the message, brothers (Score:3)
Not so naieve, please. If you look at the big picture, you'll see the OSS movement will be screwed by the UCITA.
No shrink-wrapped license? Too bad, all liability is for the programmer. Unless we fight the UCITA (among other problems), we might be in serious legal trouble for every little bug. After all, we cannot waiver liability like shrink-wrapped software can.
You think there is something wrong with current licensing models? There is a lot more wrong with a law that will legally recognize these and at the same time make all others such as the GPL void.
And you won't even be able to complain about it because they can forbid that in their license and the UCITA would actually grant them that right.
Now all we need to do is bring them all together, and shout about it.
I'll suport you 100% on that. This is getting far beyond software licenses though. Democracy, freedom.. we're living in a "pecuniacracy", where money seems to be in control and not the people.
I wonder if we could sue our government for malpractice if they actually allow all this. They are here to represent _our_ needs, right?
Re:You've only got yourselves to blame (Score:5)
Stallman and the FSF have sold their software to raise funds. Heck If you want to buy some GNU software go to http://www.fsf.org/order/order.html [fsf.org] and splurge away.
Now, I'm sure that a lot of software that's used on college campuses has been pirated. Most of it was when I was in college a decade ago, so I doubt it's only gotten worse. At the time, the reasoning was "The software companies are cultivating future users who will pay for the software once they become employed. The students don't have the money to pay for it anyway, so it's not like they are losing a sale". A employed computer professional burning copies of Office 2K for his friends and family is another story. They certainly can pay for it and are robbing the company from a sale. There is no excuse for that.
Not everyone is a thief, so why should the majority be penalized because of the actions of a few? I've actually paid for shareware titles that I didn't have to. I occasionally buy boxed versions of software that I have legally downloaded for free just for the additional documentation (WordPerfect for example). The software publishers went through this phase in the 80s too and discovered that they lost customers because their anti-piracy efforts didn't stop the pirates, but did stop legitimate users from practicing prudent data recovery procedures. I can only see this hurting the OEMs and the software publishers. IMHO, it's pure greed.
I may certainly have as much disdain for M$ as the average slashdotter, so I don't buy from them. The rare occasions where I have, the software moves from machine to machine, where the old machine is stripped and the parts used for something else. If I can't move the software like that in the future, I won't buy it. Especially with the consumer audio/video equipment. I don't know how many CD players or VCRs that I've gone though over the years. Having to buy a different copy of a song/video because the existing player broke (or is at the house instead of the office) would be insane. BS tactics like this only drive me and people I talk to towards the Free Software community (and good old fashioned redistributable paper books).
One more nail in their coffin... (Score:5)
Ok so people are going to start to realize that they no longer have any rights whatsoever when they buy from MS, Adobe and whoever else begins raping customers in this fashion. IT professionals will of course be the first to realize this and will also be in a position to do something about it. IT managers who happen to be Linux advocates will have one more piece of ammunition to use when preaching to management about the benefits of implementing Linux wherever possible. No longer will our arguments be purely technical and philosophical, concepts management often fails to understand, now we can really talk about the bottem line and not just in terms of purchase price, but liscencing that so limits the maintainability of company assests (computers) as to make them nearly useless. Well that's an argument I believe most managers will listen to. Maybe VALinux will see a bump in their desktop orders because of this
Seriously though, the best way to stop this kind of corporate behavoir is to vote with your wallet, or department budget as the case may be. When purchacing new systems from an OEM make it a point to go over the new MS liscense details with management and explain how following the liscense to to the letter of the law would make even minor disaster recovery very costly in terms of downtime, and then suggest that it may be worth the time and effort for your company/department to switch OS's and retrain the staff. Have a plan with potentional training issues and cost estimates available, give them a demo of Linux running on your workstation (we've all smuggeled linux onto all of our desktops at work already, right?) create/convert some docs ect... Then let managment make a decision, many will probably bite the bullet and deal with being analy raped by big bill, after all staff retraining is a bitch, no matter what the result at least it was a good oppurtunity to responsibly advocate linux to management, and a few of us may get lucky and actually convince management to switch.
As free software keeps getting freindlier and as bloated^H^H^H^H^H^H feature rich as commercial software; and commercial software liscense agreements get worse and worse, it's going to be easier for us to get Linux and other Free Software products in trough the front door, where it belongs.
Just my opinion, I could be wrong
Ask not for whom the bell tolls... (Score:5)
I heard it when Apple went from the Velcro-back "we want you to poke around" Apple II+ to the "if you so much as open the case, you void the warranty" Mac (the one where you couldn't install a HDD until Apple introduced their own 'authrized HDD. Their market share plummeted, in favor of the 'commodity hardware' Wintel PC.
I heard it in the copy-protected games of the early 80's. When did you last see one of those?
I heard it from Lotus, once the 1000 lb gorilla of spreadsheets and business apps.
I heard it from IBM when they went MicroChannel with the PS/2 (a technical advance, in many ways, but with a "lock-in the consumer" mentality)
Some companies heard it themselves and spared themselves.
Even newbies were deserting AOL until they dropped their proprietary "we own this user" tricks one by one, and allowed free (as in speech) access to the internet, and third party apps. If AOL had tried to keep the squeeze on their users, and tie them to 'preferred vendors', they wouldn't have bought Time-Warner, they wouldn't even be able to buy time.
I have discussed the market forces that will drive MS-OS and MS-AP [slashdot.org] in another thread, as well as MS-OS's desperate need for new revenue streams [slashdot.org]. Check them out, if you haven't seen them. It all ties together.
Like a funeral shroud.
One sole owner, one sole licencee. (Score:5)
Well, yes. On his machine, since he will, with that attitude, become the one sole owner and one sole licencee of his software.
Microsoft: Subversive Lawmaking? (Score:5)
There's a normal syllogism that often seems to go with stories about Microsoft on Slashdot:
Microsoft does bad things.
Microsoft did this.
Therefore, this is bad.
The strange thing is...it's usually valid. Microsoft has a very strong penchant for abusing the market(both the consumer, and if you believe what's been said about their stock manipulation, Wall Street too), and it's this tendancy which Slashdot has a tendancy to report upon.
Now, here's what gets really strange: Microsoft has been executing breathlessly aggressive schemes for market domination while being directly under the thumb of the US Government, whose ire was finally raised by the horde of very well connected companies that Microsoft abused. (I'm actually beginning to realize IBM being forced to buy Windows 95 off the street was a bigger deal, government-wise, than Compaq losing the right to sell Windows 98 for a day.) Neither the Kerberos scam, the SOAP harassment(which ended up with IBM open sourcing their implementation), nor this ultimate example of product bundling had any right to happen right now. Six months ago? Even then, maybe. But not now.
Microsoft does bad things.
Microsoft did this.
Therefore, this is bad.
Microsoft's sins are widely publicized as bad.
Microsoft can select its sins.
Therefore, Microsoft can select that which is widely publicized as bad.
That's a position of power. It's Machiavellian beyond belief, but it's a definite position of power.
The most rational explanation for Microsoft's behavior has generally been that they wanted to goad Judge Jackson into implementing an overly harsh penalty--and bragging about it. Indeed, they may have succeeded in that, as Jackson commented the penalty was more severe than that which would have been ("justly") reached by arbitration. So, we've already got a theory that argues Microsoft is intentionally erring so as to exploit Jackson's emotions(exploits didn't begin with Winnuke!).
Ah! But what errors to make? That, my friends, is where things get interesting. Any thoughts? I've got a few, but I've said enough for the moment
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Software Not Included (Score:5)
If software doesn't install, the package is incomplete. If the package is incomplete, advertising for that software is fraudulent. Last I checked, fraud was a crime which, among other things, invalidated most contracts. Since the EULA likely describes capabilities which Microsoft would have fraudulently removed from the software, such EULA could arguably be rendered null and void.
The fact that installer-castrated operating systems are inherently more risky to remove(since you suddenly need to wipe out more than just the operating system Microsoft sold you to reinstall what you've already purchased!) actually makes this the most intriguing form of product bundling we've seen yet from Microsoft: They're actually bundling Windows now with the data that you create with it. If you try to remove Windows, and ever wish to return, you will now lose all the documents, the email, the graphics, the Internet Bookmarks...you will lose everything.
Windows thus becomes bundled with your own data. It's brilliantly devious, really.
It's also doomed to fail. Coming from somebody who spent two years repairing Windows systems(c:\windows\options\cabs is a lifesaver, incidentally), let me personally state that Win9x systems do not need Linux's help to fall over, die, and require reinstallation. If such reinstallation could not be done without either losing everything or moving the hard drive into another machine for disk-to-disk copying(what, you think you're going to go into Windows and backup to another machine on the network, when Windows now refuses to boot?), Microsoft would probably face a mass revolt from the thousands of MCSE's they trained quite well to do just that very thing.
Revolting MCSEs happen to be a disturbingly dangerous demographic for Microsoft. The Win2K uprising was actually surprisingly bloody.
Hmmm. This is getting fun to watch. Tech soap is always classic.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
Selling your soul to the devil? License it instead (Score:5)
Re:Click-wrap license agreement problem - solved (Score:3)
BTW, IANAL.
Contracts made while severely under the influence of alcohol are voidable. This means that when you get sober you can void it. Or you can decide to ratify it. Gibbons v Wright (1954) 91 CLR 423 is the authority for this.
Voiding the contract appears to be ab initio i.e. they give you back your money - you give them back the software and everything is returned to the start (Hermann v Charlesworth [1905] 2 KB 123.).
In NZ minor's contracts are covered by the Minors Contracts Act 1969. It's statute not common law so doesn't hold in the US but the principle is that people over 20 are of full age. People 18 and 19 (and employment contracts) can have a contract enforced against them unless the terms are 'harsh or unconscionable' or the 'consideration is so inadequate as to be unconscionable'. People under 18 can't have contracts enforced against them unless it's 'fair and reasonable'. This means looking at the whole circumstances.
However NZ has fairly strict consumer legislation - it includes statutory guarantees of quality and other good stuff - and you can't contract out of it unless it's for business purposes (and even then it's difficult).
It would be interesting to see what would happen if somebody brought an action under this legislation.
WRONG: Corporations Have NO *Right* to Make Money (Score:5)
But if companies cease to serve the needs of consumers, corporate rights can be taken away as easily as they were granted. That's why the "no media" policy which is becoming attractive to software makers won't last long if the voters of the U.S. launch a major campaign to have legislation introduced which would outlaw the practice. You see, a corporation has no inherent right to sell me a license to use software, without including the installation media. In fact, a corporation has no inherent right to exist at all--they exist merely because their existence is generally beneficial to consumers, not vice versa.
I want Microsoft and Adobe to continue fucking consumers in the ass, because the more they do so, the more likely it is that courts will overturn UCITA and similar legislation, and the more likely it is that laws will be passed to require media to be provided and prices to be fair. The corporations may have considerable sway and lobbying ability on Capitol Hill, but they don't have the one thing we consumers have: votes. Enough voters will start complaining that their computers say "Insert Windows Install Media" and yet their OEM says Microsoft told them not to provide media, that laws will be passed and assurances made. Microsoft has no inherent rights to do as it pleases. Meanwhile, more and more people will be forced to download ISO images of real Windows installation media, and that's a good thing because, I repeat, Microsoft has no inherent rights to keep those media to itself. It has only the rights that we, as a society, have granted it, and those rights can be taken away. Those rights are in fact fictitious rights since a corporation is a fictitious person under the law.
I in fact support piracy of software from big corporations like Microsoft and Adobe, though not from small-time operations. Why? People have real rights, and corporations have legal-fiction rights, and big corporations have been abusing their rights as of late. Abuse it and lose it. Microsoft has no inherent right to charge me $89 for a simple upgrade (Win98) to a piece of software I paid a lot of money for in the first place (Win95 A), so I burnt a copy of a friend's CD. Did I take money from the mouths of hungry programmers? No, Microsoft is not a hungry programmer, it is a powerful multinational corporation which has been so abusive of its rights as to suffer the ultimate in corporate punishments: break-up under anti-trust laws. It employs programmers, none of whom will have to go hungry because I helped myself to a copy of a Win98 upgrade CD. I wouldn't have bought the CD anyway, because I honestly can't afford it--I spend on average about $100 a week inclusive of food, so I wasn't going to buy that CD ever. Did my illicit copy of that CD harm anyone, then? No.
Some people would say, "But that doesn't matter, because it's not your property, it belongs to someone else and you have no right to take it." I had more right to take it than M$ had to withold it, because I am a real person and Microsoft is a fictitious entity; I have natural rights, but M$ has only un-natural ones created in the last century not for the purpose of benefitting companies, but for the purpose of benefitting consumers. And now that Microsoft has seen fit to try to strangle consumers once again, I feel entitled to upgrade to Win2K for free. I think I'll go to USENET and find an ISO image. And do you know who I'll be hurting? No one. Microsoft has abused its power to force competitors out and force prices up--prices on hardware have fallen tenfold in recent years, while performance has met or exceeded Moore's Law, and yet software prices have remained high yet software has hardly improved. I wasn't lying when I said that Win98 was a mere upgrade to Win95, and we all know it. Likewise, years ago in the college lab I used a PowerMac 7200 running Adobe Photoshop 3.0, and yet the newest version of Photoshop is at least as expensive and doesn't have much more useful functionality. The largest software companies are price-gouging, and since they have no right to do that I *do* have the right to neutralize their gouging.
The same goes for music. Up until 60 years ago, musicians didn't make money from album sales--and today most still don't since record companies gouge, and blame it on middlemen who in fact are usually owned by the self-same record company. Musicians made money by holding concerts. Then along came record companies, who capitalized on new technologies to create an industry where once there was nothing. See, the recording industry isn't about music--that's what concerts are about. The recording industry is about selling recordings of music which, while nice to listen to in your home, don't compare at all to a real live concert experience. Therefore, no matter what happens to the record companies, musicians will still be able to make money off concerts just as they always have. The recording industry has no inherent rights to sell me something which, until the selfsame recording industry had laws passed to prevent it, I could have gotten for myself by attending a concert and bringing a recording device. Screw that. The recording industry has engaged in unlawful price-fixing for years, as the results of federal actions against them have recently proven, and since I have several hundred CDs on my shelf which I was unlawfully forced to pay a price-fixed premium for, I am damn well entitled to have a gig or two of mp3 files I got from USENET and Napster. Not to mention that, again, a corporation has no inherent right to be able to sell me something which, were it not for the meddling of the very same industry, I could get for free whenever I go to a concert--and I go to more concerts now that I don't buy CDs. Once we reduce the recording industry to little more than a streamlined distribution channel to sell cheap CDs and a scouting industry for new musicians, instead of a corporate price-fixing monstrosity with more rights than the consumers have, musicians will by-and-large be much happier and will make a larger share in the profits. I reiterate that such industries have the right to exist only insofar as they can benefit the consumer, and right now the recording industry is choking the consumer with unlawful cartel pricing structures and, dare I say it, too damn many NSYNC pre-packaged culture-killing mind-numbing artificial groups designed to exploit stupid teenagers and turn them into mindless buying drones.
In summation, fuck the price-gouging corporations which have ceased their purpose of serving us and have instead started usurping our rights and raping our asses whenever they get the chance just to make a few dollars more. Bill Gates and the chairman of Sony can lick my asshole, because they have no right to get into my wallet by taking away my rights to a fair and non-cartel/monopoly pricing structure.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Legal Disclaimer: I lied about having any pirated software and mp3s. I own only licensed software and licensed music.
don't go flying off the handle just yet (Score:3)
Question: Non OEM machines (Score:4)
I'm guessing that you have to plunk down the $170-$200 full retail price for the non-OEM, full install, non-upgrade CD, as you have been able to do in the past, but the article doesn't say that.
Re:Spread the message, brothers (Score:5)
Short version of UCITA: The developer has FULL liability unless waivered by a shrink-wrapped license.
You're right, at the moment. But with the UCITA in action, your no warranty clause in the GPL would be overruled by law. Underestimating this is exactly the danger we're facing!
I've often heard that view espoused, however, I do not see any language in UCITA, or its predecessors CITA and UCC Article 2B that specify "shrink-wrap". That term does not appear in UCITA The terms I do see apply equally to all mass market licenses, whether they are read pre- or post-sale, shrink-wrapped or not, etc. (with one exception, below)
UCITA does 'firm up' some standards that were previously ambiguous or inconsistently interpreted. These include reaffirming a few principles of implied warranty, and weakening others. They also include reaffirming the inpplicability of outrageous terms in licenses. This has been interpreted variously as saying 'full waivers may be void' and 'full waivers are affirmed'. Whichever interpretations wins out, will apply equally to all mass market licenses.
The only clause I have seen that differentiates SWL from GPL is the refund clause for SWL which allows a right of refund, with or without cause, if the license was not available until after purchase. Some have taken to mean that SWL products are *only* liable for refund (a claim that is difficult to support in the light of the whole law: either Section 809 and similar sections may properly be waived by a SWL and GPL; or they are both equally unconscionable and void. I cannot read the refund clause as a privileged state of limited liability)
However, I am eager to learn. Here's the UCITA text in a variety of formats [upenn.edu], and 48 legal articles commenting on the law [2bguide.com]. Please quote the appropriate text supporting your claim. Otherwise I may suspect you accused me of not understanding UCITA, when I've done my homework and you haven't.
I despise UCITA, but I feel that ignorant babbling serves our cause very poorly.
BTW, I think badsoftware.com is an interesting and site, but their slideshow is ambiguously worded on the SWL disclaimer. If you re-read it, you will find that it says the offensive disclaimers are allowed in 'shrink-wrap' (terms hidden until after purchase) licenses but NOT that such disclaimer can ONLY be exercised by an undisclosed license.
IANAL. I just invested time and effort before I made my comments. I trust you did, too, and that I will be reading a response soon
A Better Way To Do It (Score:3)
Visualize a license key scheme, wherein you are given a MD5 hash key that matches the hardware in the system. Change the hardware, you have to call MS and get a new key. Having to call the vendor tends to put a BIG damper on illegal software use.
I have said for a long time that the only reason MS is so successful is that most people don't have to pay for Windows directly. I mean, if you pay for a product directly, you get really cranky when it doesn't work. On the other hand, if you got a copy from your cousin Fred, you will probably not complain nearly as much. Microsoft is maing a huge mistake here, and if they don't back down I think this could cost them the market.
My current theory: this is all an evil plot to make Linux be reinstalled every time Windows has to be. These OS recover CD's tend to wipe out EVERYTHING, including foreign partitions.
--
Re:Welcome to the real world (Score:3)
Your examples (apart from the R rated movies one) are all to do with limiting behaviour and actions that can endanger other people.
People aren't allowed to drive really fast because, no matter how good a driver you are, nor how good your car, you cannot be sure that it will not suffer some sort of mechanical failure. Say you're driving down the road at 100mph, and, for some reason (debris in the road, faulty tyre, whatever), your tyre blows out. Still think you'll be in complete control of your vehicle? I doubt it.
The airport example is completely facetious. The airport is private property; its owners have every right to say that you're not allowed to park your car anywhere they don't want you to park it. In the case of bought software, the software is my property, not that of the company that sold it to me.
You are right about the guns example, it would have been a much better one to use. However, as I live in the UK, it's pretty much a non-issue; very few people legally own guns here, so it tends not to occur to me.
Yes, you may well be getting the OEM version of the OS at a discounted price, but you are still paying for it. I don't know about the situation in the States, but here in the UK, it is almost impossible to find a PC retailer that will offer to sell you a machine without Windows. The "reinstall CD" option is bad, because that forces you to backup all your data should you ever need to reinstall the OS. If the reason that you need to reinstall is because it's trashed to the point that you can't even boot your machine, what are you supposed to do? Most people (in my experience) don't backup their data regularly, or have access to another machine to put the drive into to get at it (or the technical expertise required). Whether that's a failing of the users or not is an argument for another thread.
I don't really understand why you mention Office 2000, as I certainly didn't; and you critise my logic and arguments? (I'll ignore the implication that I've been using illegal registration codes and software, as being beneath contempt
It saddens me to see that you cannot believe that I really am just "lookin' out for all us poor suffering commercial software users". The fact that I, too, buy and use commercial software is immaterial; I do care about people other than myself. I am dismayed to see that you, apparently, do not.
Cheers,
Tim
Install image on HD & viruses (Score:3)
Yearly licensing next (Score:3)
If you recall a story got "out" last year about a "working document" whereby Microsoft would begin charging yearly usage fees.
At the time it was dismissed, but other providers thought it would be the way software would have to be produced in order to protect the consumer form illegal and faulty software.
Well folks, wake up and smell the java, here is the next step. Once you do not have the software to install, then you cannot make an argument that you own anything. If you do not own it, then I am providing a "usage" license. If it is a usage license, it is not "forever".
This is not a Microsoft issue, it is a software issue. MS just provided the place we could observe it. When the projected rush to the next release does not occur (i.e. Windows 2000), what can the company do? They cannot force you to buy an upgrade or new release, today.
This will not be a problem in the future, when I can explain that next year's license is 3 times this years, because you are getting a new release. You do not need it? Sorry, we do not license old versions, and you have 15 days left before your current license expires. Have a nice day.
copyright double-standard (Score:3)
Maryland UCITA Removes Liability for GPL Software (Score:3)
So relax already. Maryland is the only state where UCITA is actually law (it doesn't go into effect in Virginia until it is "studied" for a year) and most of the worst UCITA clauses were taken out of the version of the bill that actually passed and was signed by Gov. Parris "I hate working people" Glendenning.
The liability shield for free software is similar to the "good samaritan" law we have that frees doctors from the risk of malpractice lawsuits if they render medical aid at crash scenes or in other emergencies, and indeed was modeled on it.
- Robin
Re:The 'CD Free' OS. It's all about revenue stream (Score:3)
Surely you mean "Win95a still runs as well as it ever did", which is not to say it does or ever has run well.
Wouldn't you know it, but the Win95 network at work went down at precisely 4:30pm EST yesterday. It must have been mourning Jackson's break-up decision.
Re:Software Not Included (Score:3)
How often will you back up? Daily? Weekly? Whenever there's new data on the drive?
What if you have to support several {hundred|thousand} users. Back all of then up at night? (Something like that would require massive amounts of disk space. Hrmmm...MS may have just given a nifty nich market to the likes of Sun or Compaq...)
For home power users, backing up the image daily is one thing. For home `honey, how do I get to my email' users, backups are things you do in a car.
<comment type="me too" src="AOL">
I think that the age of general computer ignorance is about to end. I think it has to, considering just how many people will be devastated by this. It's one thing to have Win9x crash - the general populace is used to that. However, when we (the geeks) get to explain to general users that the reason why all of their email, documents, and pictures of their grandkids are gone (forever, never getting them back) is because of the way Microsoft does business, they will think long and hard about actually reinstalling MS-OS again.
</comment>
IMHO, IANACE, IANAL, etc.
Here's my [redrival.com] copy of DeCSS. Where's yours?
If Ben Franklin just proposed idea of a "library": (Score:3)
Now suppose that Benjamin Franklin was alive today and just now proposed the idea that large buildings be constructed with taxpayer dollars and more of those tax dollars be used to purchase books and magazines (copyrighted material) so that the public can come anytime and read these materials freely.
The print publishers would FLY INTO A RAGE and call Franklin every dirty name they could think of from "thief" to "crook" to, yes, even "pirate" who is "opposed to people profitting from their hard work" and "taking the food out of baby's mouths bacause writers won't be able to support their families anymore".
Of course, today, Franklin would have proposed that libraries included software, video, and audio, and indeed, all copyrighted works. Indeed many public libraries today do lend VHS and CDs.
And it wasn't just for the purpose of education and betterment of the public. Most books were an entertainment medium in the 18th century as much as movies are today. So don't isolate Franklin's idea as having only altruistic motives.
And who would say that closing all libraries would be a GOOD idea? Very few I'll wager. Why should it be any different when it comes to CDs/movies/software than it is with books/mags?
And oh yes, despite the existance of libraries, (gasp!) people still make money and can even (choke!) earn a living as writers and publishers. Well imagine that. Free access to copyrighted books and magazines didn't kill the industry after all. In fact, it expanded it. Just like VHS rentals resulted in Hollywood making more money today from home video sales than it ever did or ever will from theatrical ticket sales.
Ever rent a movie, video game, book, or magazine. Then you too are as much a pirate and thief an yo label others to be.
Let he who is without sin...
Re:Where do I sign up? (Score:3)
Regardless of what you think of either party, though, *go out and vote for someone!* This is an important election. Give it your voice!
- Rei
Hear, hear! (Score:3)
Think of all those folks you may have known who share/borrow WinDisks for the drearily frequent reinstall rituals. Suddenly that doesn't work; who in their right mind assumes that they'll just go and start shelling out for EACH AND EVERY copy on EACH AND EVERY machine? Micros~1 gets a nawful lot of free tech support from those of us who take pity on Aunt Tillie and our drinking buddies and help them navigate Winders. Now all those altruists are going to buy an E-ticket for each session AND donate their time? Hah.
Not before taking a gander at free ( as in beer )software - they've already had to learn a bit to start with, and the installs get easier all the time. I intend to start volunteering my Linux and OpenBSD skills around the neighborhood - I've done a whole *one* install of each ( lookit me admin! :) But that's enough. In a month, I'll know MTA's; in a few more, I'll know firewalling and networking. And a legion of AOLusers will just be stumbling out into the sunlight....
"Remember, brethren, that no man's opinion is worth a sack of weed" - Brigham Young
ROM Hard drives (Score:3)
What are geeks supposed to do, then? MS obviously won't be able to release a non-bastardized version of the OS, because everyone and their brother would jump on the opportunity to copy the CD onto their own system, since their version was crippled by the vendor, and people will see it as the same product. Geeks who custom build systems won't be able to install MS products, because the OS doesn't come configured for the certain hardware they purchase, and it's impossible to install drivers.
Can you imagine paying for computer software subscriptions like you do to a magazine, you ISP, or cable? That's insane. Systems will probably be completely proprietarized, so that the MS software can't be removed either, IMO. Who knows? Maybe they'll slap a ROM disk onto all new hard drives, where the OS will be hardwired. (How many times have YOU had to reinstall windows on a computer, due to crappy MS programming, or some other reason?)
-------
CAIMLAS
Re:About Quake3's serial numbers.... (Score:5)
As far as we know, there are no real key generators. If there were, we would have much more significant support issues.
We certainly will drop the CD-in-the-drive-for-single-player check in a future patch, that is our standard procedure after a game's primary sales are over.
John Carmack
Re:Can I state the obvious? (Score:3)
The IANAL thing is *so* redundant since whenever a lawer posts an opinion they invarably preface it with "This is not to be construed as legal advice, if you need legal advice seek the council of a licenced attorney in your state
Even if he was a lawer, he might not be qualified, either due to a different specialization (i.e. tax law) or due to general ineptitude. Even when lawers are quoted in major news sources, their conflicts of interest are rarely discussed. So it's not like you ever have assurances that a legal discussion is knowledgeable and unbiased, unless (you know otherwise from the authors background).
And Michael did link to many of the relevent documents so you can read up on the subject yourself. And let's not forget that the referenced articles (mostly from infoworld) are neither written by lawers or quoting lawers heavily. Why does Michael earn a special serving of your contempt? Come to think of it, I recall making a similar post recently. Ah-ha, I was responding to your rants about Michaels article on Doubleclick http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=00/05/21/0029
Personally, I think us "common folk" ought to discuss law more often. People need to be aware of thier rights and of the laws and how those laws affect them. If people tried to read and interpret the law on thier own, they would be less suceptable to illegal scams and dishonest/incompetant lawers.
It's bad enough that you need a lawer for anything more than a parking ticket these days, now you need a lawer just to post a story on slashdot?