If the PRS are trying to recover money from you and decide to take you to court to do it, then the onus is on them to prove why you owe money, specifically proving in which way you have infringed upon or are basically covered by copyright laws. If they can't show which copyrighted works you owe royalty payments for then they don't have a leg to stand on and would indeed have to pay YOUR court costs/legal fees too. That's how the system works in the UK - loser pays. If they tried to claim ownership of your own original compositions, but you could prove otherwise it would further damn their case against you.

Does anyone else think it's ironic that the PRS (Performing Rights Society) whose job it is to collect royalties on behalf of artists is trying to charge a performing artist money?

So just imagine if she had been singing her own material and paid the PRS the required fee - just how much would she see of that money from the PRS when they came to pay out her due royalty earnings? It'd be interesting to know how big a cut they take! :-o

Has he borrowed Steve Jobs' Reality Distortion Field? :D

Unless you set your security so that you don't even show up in search results. Honestly, 2 minutes to set security properly would have blocked this, not that the 'victim' should have HAD to set it up given the restraining order, but just saying...

Oh ffs! RIAA, MPAA, BPI, PRS, AFACT, IFPI and now BSA.

Just how many more people are going to jump on this bandwagon of 'teh evil interwebz are killing my business'?

Software piracy is NOT a new thing, nor has P2P particularly changed things - how many people do you know who bought a WinPC from some small backstreet shop with Win95/98/2K/XP pre-installed along with a copy of Office. And they didn't have to pay for the software, they just assumed a PC always came with that stuff on it!? And that's just people using pirated software without even knowing it's pirated. Most small businesses can't possibly afford a multi-user license for half of the software they use, and I know most will buy a copy to be 'legit' and then install it on multiple machines for starters.

...I only buy it for it's interesting articles and thoughtful investigative journalism anyway!!!

Actually, I've noticed that some netbooks are shipping with Google's apps pre-installed. So maybe this is MS trying to regain some ground they're losing in that space...

I think you're onto something there. Although from memory, many of the Office 30 day Trial versions give you the option to 'upgrade' to the full version at the end of the trial period. Which means a direct 'download' sale from MS and not necessarily a box-off-the-shelf sale for a 3rd party retailer. I suppose if it establishes lock-in for the customer then it increases the chances of the retailer making that sale long term rather than short term.

I copulated with a bear trap and lived. I loved it so much I bought a whole range of traps... mmmmmm masochism!

Heh, I think you argued yourself into redundancy when you noticed how bad the ribbon effect was! ;)

My in-laws didn't want to fork out the hundreds of for the full blown version of Office. Had something like this existed then, they may have used it out-of-the-box. As it was, at the time I gave them the choice - use an illicit copy of Office (which they weren't comfortable with) or use a FREE and legal Office replacement (which they weren't even aware was available).

The opted for the free and legal route and now use NeoOffice quite comfortably. The 'pain' of 'switching' was less than the pain of the pricetag for Office, although to be honest there was no real switch involved with it being a fresh install, and even if there was I think the average user is having to learn to 'switch' every time a new version of MSOffice is released because MS in their wisdom keep changing the interface dramatically. So simply sidestepping to a competitor version with at least the level of functionality the vast majority of users need is actually quite easy.

I think this 'free' pre-bundled Office Lite may have quite an impact on the uptake of OOo though. If only because there'll be fewer non-tech users buying a PC without Office pre-installed. At that point they usually turn to their 'techie friend' for help, whereupon their friend may suggest OOo like I did. People like free - if it's pre-installed it's free, yet OOo is also free. People like easy too - pre-installed means no extra work, installing OOo means 5 minutes of work which isn't QUITE as a easy... shame, but OOo loses on those odds I fear.

This is complete BS. If they only licensed the software to him, then why did they send him CDs? If they SOLD him copies of software on CD and a license to use it, then at the very least he has the right to sell on those physical CDs, even if they restrict the right to transfer 'ownership' of a software license in the same sale

Installed without approval or authorization.
Not removable by normal, non-invasive means.
Reduces performance and functionality of the infected PC. Sounds like Malware to me.

That sounds like a description of a pre-installed copy of Windows to be honest! ;)

Isn't it a shame that after all the hard work the devs put into great ideas like this at MS, once the accountants and marketers get their hands on it it comes out the doors like Vista! There's something seriously wrong with the workflow in that company...

To check for malware brought in through security holes opened by running virtual machines, hehehe ;)

What makes you think the 'terrorists' are anything but the state itself? It's a statistical fact that you are more likely to be harmed or killed by your own government than by a foreign nation's government. The only actual difference between what our nation's establishment and media call 'terrorists' or their associated 'acts of terror' and what our government does around the world is that our nation's acts of terror are state-sanctioned and use an organised and professional military infrastructure. The actual acts themselves are fairly identical - indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas, propagandising our current given reasons for actually being there to normalise them in the public psyche.

Even when it comes to our government's latest official identified 'villains' and 'rogue states', many of their supposed horrific activities reflect our own governments activities quite closely - propping up tinpot dictatorships, supplying our 'allies' (some of whom are said tinpot dictators) with arms and logistics to often suppress and kill their own people and even neighbours, sponsoring certain terrorist groups. Just have a casual glance back over the UK's history that isn't reported in the mainstream media - currently the media are trying to keep the stories of UK involvement in detainee torture out of the news despite the fact the evidence has been out there for public consumption for years now.

Check out the reality of the NuLab 'ethical foreign policy' (it's just another one of those nuspeak oxymorons) - when they came into power they stepped up arms shipments to dubious regimes, making it even worse than Thatcher's despicable record. We sold the weaponry to Suharto to carry out his genocide in East Timor, and employed 'plausible deniability' simply by saying "well he promised he wouldn't use the weapons to wipe out the East Timorese". And that's just one very easily researchable example. The deeper you dig, the more deplorable you'll see our establishment is. The 'different' political parties are irrelevant, they're all in the same game of perpetuating the status quo.