More Microsoft Crap- Buy a new motherboard, buy a new license

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
If we don't truely own what we purchase - then what are we? Serfs? Slaves? Clearly, if so, then we are NOT "freemen". :|

But you are a "freeman"

If you don't wanna be microsofts "surf" then don't purchase the licence.. Simple enough solution vs. medievil times where you had no choice but to slave away 18 hours on your dukes land or to the gallows you go - no trail - no jury.

Is that really true though? In a certain sense, it isn't - if you want to buy a PC, you have to pay the "MS tax", and if you don't, you are looked upon as a thief (assumed to be a copyright violator).

Sure, we all know enough to build our own PCs and install Linux, but that would make us more like freedmen, travelling via the "hidden railway" (whatever slaves used to safely travel out of the clutches of their slave-masters). But not everyone is free like that. There is still a civil war to be fought, over the issue of software licensing (no individual rights) vs. software copy ownership (with inaliable individual rights). It won't cause shed blood, but it will involve lots of "green" ($$$). And I hate to say it, but on this issue, the current pres. doesn't seem to be much like Lincoln...

 

[karstenanderson]

it breaks the DMCA law...

Originally posted by: smack Down
Valid license keys are easy to find on the internet and post and using them breaks no law.

 

[mechBgon]

Is that really true though? In a certain sense, it isn't - if you want to buy a PC, you have to pay the "MS tax", and if you don't, you are looked upon as a thief (assumed to be a copyright violator).

If you hadn't noticed, you can buy Dell desktops with no OS, thus alleviating yourself of the "Microsoft tax." And you can buy HP desktop systems with Linux, straight from HP. Dell and HP are a couple of pretty big PC companies, and you can buy them online without feeling awkward about being branded as a thief.

Dell N-series models

Let's see how much you save by not paying the "Microsoft tax." I'll pick the cheapest one, and a semi-reasonable configuration for basic use by the poor downtrodden masses yearning to breathe free. I lift my lamp beside the golden door, and stuff.

Dell 1100n

• Celeron D 325 CPU
• 512MB DDR400
• Dell USB keyboard & mouse
• 80GB ATA/100 7200rpm hard drive
• CDRW/DVD-ROM combo drive
• no floppy
• 17" E176FP analog LCD monitor
• cheap A215 speakers
• 56k modem option
• ...and now the part people forget to compare: warranty. Realistically, I'd recommend at least 2 years, so I'm picking that.

Bottom line: $699


Now the corresponding Dimension 1100 with WinXP Home Edition: $708. Before mail-in rebate, that is. So the "Microsoft tax" is probably a negative number once you count the rebate, and this is without even a token attempt at shopping around for a Hot Deal.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
Btw, there is no restrictions in copyright law in terms of a private "right to use". What you are describing is essentially tecnological feudalism, where individuals have no rights of private ownership.

The history of this country was founded on principles opposite to that - the right to private ownership of property is codified in many places in US law and history. I have a hard time believing that you would want to move from a model of private ownership, to that of one where the ownership rests with a powerful minority, and they can change the "rules" at any time, to continue to keep individuals jumping through increasingly-impossible hoops, all to make a profit.

Did you read any of the later posts in this thread? That's NOT what I'm talking about. I think that the way copyright law is legally defined should be changed, not that consumer rights should be gutted. The way the current laws are written makes a lot of these cases very unclear.

The DRM issue is likewise similar - the concept is that you pay money, and you don't actually own anything, just a limited "license" to something, that could change or disappear at any time. No real ownership, and therefore no real ownership rights.

This one we've been through before in other threads. You appear to be ideologically opposed to any sort of DRM, so we're not going to really get anywhere.

I fully support the rights of copyright owners - according to the law. But attempting to bypass and dictate the law, to destroy the balance of rights, giving individuals no rights, and corporations all the rights - I am strongly opposed to that.

I don't want to 'give individuals no rights' -- but I think that the copyright owner needs to be able to choose to exercise more control over their content. In an ideal world we wouldn't need any of this, but clearly we don't live in one.

But those are restrictions that the law itself makes. Much like copyright law - you can't buy a copy of a book, or a piece of software, and then make 10,000 copies and re-sell them - that's prohibited by law.

I was talking about abitrary restrictions over and above the provisions of law itself, designed primarily only to inflate the profits of the seller, at a significant cost to the rights of the purchaser.

The only 'rights' you have are the ones afforded to you by the law. Some people think the copyright laws themselves need to be re-evaluated, as they were written in a VERY different technological environment.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Is that really true though? In a certain sense, it isn't - if you want to buy a PC, you have to pay the "MS tax", and if you don't, you are looked upon as a thief (assumed to be a copyright violator).

If you hadn't noticed, you can buy Dell desktops with no OS, thus alleviating yourself of the "Microsoft tax." And you can buy HP desktop systems with Linux, straight from HP. Dell and HP are a couple of pretty big PC companies, and you can buy them online without feeling awkward about being branded as a thief.

The part about being "branded as a thief" - I was referring to MS's "naked PC" initiative, in which they attempted to assert that anyone buying a "naked PC" (a PC without Windows pre-installed), is automatically presumed to be wanting to warez Windows anyways, because in MS's mind, who would want to run a PC without Windows?

PS. Tried to buy a major-brand laptop yet, without Windows? Good luck.

That was part of the north/south analogy I was trying to make - in some instances, you actually can buy PCs without Windows (that would represent the "free" north), and in many other cases you cannot (the "enslaved" south). People that buy PCs and remove Windows would be like the slaves trying to make their way north to become freedmen.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Did you read any of the later posts in this thread? That's NOT what I'm talking about. I think that the way copyright law is legally defined should be changed, not that consumer rights should be gutted. The way the current laws are written makes a lot of these cases very unclear.

I think that there is two primary reasons why these cases seem to have mixed outcomes - one is that primarily, lower courts are not well-versed in copyright issues, and courts in general have been slow to really "understand" technology cases, and secondly that companies intentially try to obscure the true issues, in an attempt to manipulate the public and the outcome of cases to their favor, when they really shouldn't be.

Thirdly, there is the political issue of US GDP, increasingly becoming dependent on "intellectual property", so for any judge to rule against an IP holder, the case generally seems to need to be very clear / cut-n-dry. Meaning that like a casino's "house odds" - if the case seems to be grey, oftentimes the ruling goes towards the "house" (the IP holder), even if the case doesn't clearly support them. That's the unfortunate political overfactor affecting some of these cases.

Originally posted by: Matthias99
This one we've been through before in other threads. You appear to be ideologically opposed to any sort of DRM, so we're not going to really get anywhere.

I don't want to 'give individuals no rights' -- but I think that the copyright owner needs to be able to choose to exercise more control over their content. In an ideal world we wouldn't need any of this, but clearly we don't live in one.

The only 'rights' you have are the ones afforded to you by the law. Some people think the copyright laws themselves need to be re-evaluated, as they were written in a VERY different technological environment.

You're right. I don't think that DRM-protected digital content should be afforded protection under copyright law at all. I think that there should be a test, to see if something should be afforded protection - 1) value to the public domain, and 2) likelyhood of falling into the public domain. If there is no value to be added to the public domain, or there is no likelyhood of falling into the public domain, then there shouldn't be any copyright protection afforded by law. The original intent of copyright law, was to enrich the public domain, by providing a certain (primarily financial) motivation to "authors", by granting them certain, specific, LIMITED rights over that content, for a LIMITED period of time.

DRM-based technologies cross that line, IMHO, because what good is a pile of encrypted bits, 75 years or more down the line, when the decryption/unlocking keys and viewing format technologies are long since lost? There is no future enrichment to the public-domain, and if the keys are never archived and then released publically, then the content will arguably never be released (in viewable fashion) to the public domain.

It's the same dichotomy between patents and trade-secrets. Companies have a choice - release the details of their inventions to the public, eventually to fall into the public domain, and thus also they are granted limited monopoly protections under law for their disclosures for a limited amount of time. Or they can maintain their inventions as a trade secret, and never disclose them publically, but they don't get any (patent) protection under the law.

You seem to think that copyright law needs to be changed, because of the (arguably, massive) amount of copyright-law violations going on right now. However, those are already against the law - making them "more against the law" isn't going to help anything. The real problem is that copyright holders have arguably abused copyright law and contract law past the breaking point, leading individuals, in their own way, to "fight back" and willingly ignore the law. It's a sort of subtle revolution going on right now, a massive expression of civil disobedience. Or perhaps it's just corporate greed vs. personal greed, and a sense of entitlement on both sides.

The biggest problem with DRM, is that it also (IMHO, irreperably) damages the free market. That's one reason why I cannot believe that any real American could ever be pro-DRM in any way. There's a reason why the rights of private individual ownership should be protected - just as the legal rights of (legitimate) copyright owners should likewise be protected. It's a balance, and it's already starting to heavily tilt (more like topple over) towards the copyright owners, as they twist and pervert the law around their greedy desires.

I don't see why copyright owners should have any more rights to control the copies of their products than they already have. Does (insert car company here) have any right to tell you what streets to drive on, or what brand of gas to buy? Why would any American welcome a fascist copyright dictatorship to do otherwise? Copyright law most certainly does not grant an unlimited monopoly, rather, limited rights under the law for a limited time, in exchange for public disclosure. (I would even go so far as to say that the original intent applied to human-readable/human-viewable content only, implicitly, and that software binaries shouldn't even be afforded copyright protection, UNLESS the source code for those binaries was fully disclosed/registered with the Library of Congress - ensuring that the public domain WOULD be enriched, at such point that the copyright on the work ran out. In an ideal world, that's how it would be.)

 

[mechBgon]

The part about being "branded as a thief" - I was referring to MS's "naked PC" initiative, in which they attempted to assert that anyone buying a "naked PC" (a PC without Windows pre-installed), is automatically presumed to be wanting to warez Windows anyways, because in MS's mind, who would want to run a PC without Windows?

PS. Tried to buy a major-brand laptop yet, without Windows? Good luck.

Ahhh, he's managed to chew through the restraints again...


The market is driven by what people buy. There are Linux-equipped HP desktop PCs and FreeDOS-equipped Dells because people buy them. You want a lappie without Windows? then call the company and ask for one. It's not your Constitutionally-given right for there to be laptops without Windows "just because."

People that buy PCs and remove Windows would be like the slaves trying to make their way north to become freedmen.

Explain. They'd be arrested? Forced to reinstall Windows? Fined? Not allowed to watch SNL? (although that might not be a bad thing)

 

[VirtualLarry]

My Knoppix live-DVD just finished burning, so I'm going to go play with that and give this thread a break for a couple days. Freedom!

 

[karstenanderson]

how about retail XP-pro, is it "legal" to resell that to someone else?

 

[tcsenter]

how about retail XP-pro, is it "legal" to resell that to someone else?

You may sell retail software by itself, or install it on another computer (only one at a time, of course), as you please.

Single pack OEM copies of Windows may now be transferred without a hardware requirement between system builders as long as the single DSP or OEM pack is not opened and the seal isn't broken. It used to be that OEM three pack and 30 packs were the smallest 'units' that could be transferred between system builders without a hardware requirement.

There is a grey area with OEM software, and that is OEM software that may have been included/shipped with a computer system or other qualifying hardware, but the purchaser either never installed the software to begin with, or if it came preinstalled, never accepted the EULA and uninstalled it from the computer.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Matthias99
This one we've been through before in other threads. You appear to be ideologically opposed to any sort of DRM, so we're not going to really get anywhere.

I don't want to 'give individuals no rights' -- but I think that the copyright owner needs to be able to choose to exercise more control over their content. In an ideal world we wouldn't need any of this, but clearly we don't live in one.

The only 'rights' you have are the ones afforded to you by the law. Some people think the copyright laws themselves need to be re-evaluated, as they were written in a VERY different technological environment.

You're right. I don't think that DRM-protected digital content should be afforded protection under copyright law at all. I think that there should be a test, to see if something should be afforded protection - 1) value to the public domain, and 2) likelyhood of falling into the public domain. If there is no value to be added to the public domain, or there is no likelyhood of falling into the public domain, then there shouldn't be any copyright protection afforded by law. The original intent of copyright law, was to enrich the public domain, by providing a certain (primarily financial) motivation to "authors", by granting them certain, specific, LIMITED rights over that content, for a LIMITED period of time.

DRM-based technologies cross that line, IMHO, because what good is a pile of encrypted bits, 75 years or more down the line, when the decryption/unlocking keys and viewing format technologies are long since lost? There is no future enrichment to the public-domain, and if the keys are never archived and then released publically, then the content will arguably never be released (in viewable fashion) to the public domain.

Why would the material not become part of the public domain after copyright has expired on it? If you amended copyright law to actually address these sorts of cases, you could have the laws specify that such material has to be released into the public domain just like anything else.

It's the same dichotomy between patents and trade-secrets. Companies have a choice - release the details of their inventions to the public, eventually to fall into the public domain, and thus also they are granted limited monopoly protections under law for their disclosures for a limited amount of time. Or they can maintain their inventions as a trade secret, and never disclose them publically, but they don't get any (patent) protection under the law.

But there's a law (well, probably a whole book of them) that defines what a trade secret is. If you want to declare protected content as different legally from unprotected content, that's fine, but the law still needs to be amended to address it!

You seem to think that copyright law needs to be changed, because of the (arguably, massive) amount of copyright-law violations going on right now. However, those are already against the law - making them "more against the law" isn't going to help anything.

I don't want to make them "more against the law" -- I want to make the laws actually clear and understandable. What you can and cannot legally do with IP right now is VERY unclear unless you have a law degree, and even then there are a lot of grey areas. This is not a good situation for anybody.

What is and what is not against the law is a different question. Personally, I feel that content providers should have the option to put more limits (within reason) on their content, and the consumer should choose whether or not to accept those limits when they purchase the content.

The real problem is that copyright holders have arguably abused copyright law and contract law past the breaking point, leading individuals, in their own way, to "fight back" and willingly ignore the law. It's a sort of subtle revolution going on right now, a massive expression of civil disobedience. Or perhaps it's just corporate greed vs. personal greed, and a sense of entitlement on both sides.

You honestly think people download movies and music as a form of civil disobedience? This is a question of greed on both sides.

The biggest problem with DRM, is that it also (IMHO, irreperably) damages the free market. That's one reason why I cannot believe that any real American could ever be pro-DRM in any way.

This is a basic ideological tenet that I just don't agree with. Well-designed and implemented DRM should prevent you from doing things you are not allowed to do with the content, while still allowing you to do the things you are allowed to do with it. Determining what you are and are not allowed to do is an issue independent of whether technology enforces these limits or you are left on the honor system.

There's a reason why the rights of private individual ownership should be protected - just as the legal rights of (legitimate) copyright owners should likewise be protected. It's a balance, and it's already starting to heavily tilt (more like topple over) towards the copyright owners, as they twist and pervert the law around their greedy desires.

They are trying to 'twist and pervent the law' (as you put it) because many people are blatantly ignoring copyright law all over the place.

I don't see why copyright owners should have any more rights to control the copies of their products than they already have. Does (insert car company here) have any right to tell you what streets to drive on, or what brand of gas to buy?

I can't make and distribute an unlimited number of copies of my car at essentially zero cost relative to the car's purchase price. That's sort of an important difference.

Content providers need more rights to control their content because IP is implicitly harder to control now than it was in the past.

Why would any American welcome a fascist copyright dictatorship to do otherwise?

Ah, yes. Because anybody who thinks DRM is not a tool of the devil is a fascist.

Copyright law most certainly does not grant an unlimited monopoly, rather, limited rights under the law for a limited time, in exchange for public disclosure.

I guess the basic difference is that I think the 'limits' need to be re-evaluated. The technological environment today is such that the limits allowed under existing copyright law simply do not adequately protect copyright holders from widespread illegal distribution of their content. Telling the content owners 'hey, sucks to be you' is not really an acceptable solution.

(I would even go so far as to say that the original intent applied to human-readable/human-viewable content only, implicitly, and that software binaries shouldn't even be afforded copyright protection, UNLESS the source code for those binaries was fully disclosed/registered with the Library of Congress - ensuring that the public domain WOULD be enriched, at such point that the copyright on the work ran out. In an ideal world, that's how it would be.)

That would cause... problems with the entire software industry, to say the least. Personally, I would like to be able to continue earning a living as a software engineer. Putting every software company in the world out of business might be 'ideal' to you, but I'm gonna have to disagree on that one.

 

[scottish144]

Originally posted by: Kwatt

An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a ?new personal computer? to which Microsoft® OEM operating system software cannot be transferred from another computer. If the motherboard is upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect, then a new computer has been created and the license of new operating system software is required.?

defect =
1. I can defect anything
2. Computer no longer performs to my needs
3. .... I can explain anything ...er...I mean everything.

EDIT : Already there and has been there for a while.

So just kill ur old mobo when you want to upgrade?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Matthias99
This one we've been through before in other threads. You appear to be ideologically opposed to any sort of DRM, so we're not going to really get anywhere.

I am, for a number of reasons that I have been trying to clearly enumerate.

Originally posted by: Matthias99
The only 'rights' you have are the ones afforded to you by the law.

Some of us believe that we live in a Constitutional Republic, founded under the principles of God-given, inalienable rights. IOW, we have rights, unless we willingly, collectively, as society give up those rights in order to live in an orderly, peaceful, state with others. IOW, it is the restrictions on our rights that are enumerated, and not the other way around.

The POV of fascists is that citizens only have the rights granted to them by the state, because the state owns the citizens. In the US of A, at least in principle, it is the opposite.

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
You're right. I don't think that DRM-protected digital content should be afforded protection under copyright law at all. I think that there should be a test, to see if something should be afforded protection - 1) value to the public domain, and 2) likelyhood of falling into the public domain. If there is no value to be added to the public domain, or there is no likelyhood of falling into the public domain, then there shouldn't be any copyright protection afforded by law. The original intent of copyright law, was to enrich the public domain, by providing a certain (primarily financial) motivation to "authors", by granting them certain, specific, LIMITED rights over that content, for a LIMITED period of time.

DRM-based technologies cross that line, IMHO, because what good is a pile of encrypted bits, 75 years or more down the line, when the decryption/unlocking keys and viewing format technologies are long since lost? There is no future enrichment to the public-domain, and if the keys are never archived and then released publically, then the content will arguably never be released (in viewable fashion) to the public domain.

Why would the material not become part of the public domain after copyright has expired on it? If you amended copyright law to actually address these sorts of cases, you could have the laws specify that such material has to be released into the public domain just like anything else.

The material would become "public domain" - but if it is just a pile of randomly-encrypted bits, with no means of reconstructing the actual human-viewable/readable content - what good does it do? What enrichment to the public domain does it have? In that case, the public has clearly been cheated! And yet, the public paid taxes the gov't for copyright enforcement - those content-producers stole from the public!

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
It's the same dichotomy between patents and trade-secrets. Companies have a choice - release the details of their inventions to the public, eventually to fall into the public domain, and thus also they are granted limited monopoly protections under law for their disclosures for a limited amount of time. Or they can maintain their inventions as a trade secret, and never disclose them publically, but they don't get any (patent) protection under the law.

But there's a law (well, probably a whole book of them) that defines what a trade secret is. If you want to declare protected content as different legally from unprotected content, that's fine, but the law still needs to be amended to address it!

That much I agree with. If copyright laws should be changed, they should be changed to be more strict about the need for the enrichment of the public domain, as a requirement for extending copyright protection. Many things that now recieve copyright protection by default, would no longer be protected. (Of course, existing copyrighted content would likely be grandfathered in anyways.)

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
You seem to think that copyright law needs to be changed, because of the (arguably, massive) amount of copyright-law violations going on right now. However, those are already against the law - making them "more against the law" isn't going to help anything.

Note that what I was saying in so many words, is that a problem with *enforcement* of existing laws, is not going to be solved by increased *legislation* of new laws.

Originally posted by: Matthias99
I don't want to make them "more against the law" -- I want to make the laws actually clear and understandable. What you can and cannot legally do with IP right now is VERY unclear unless you have a law degree, and even then there are a lot of grey areas. This is not a good situation for anybody.

I disagree. There are several university sites hosting complete copies of the actual US Copyright code, along with helpful annotations. It's quite readable, and relatively straightforward. The only reason that these things seem so "grey", is because court enforcement of the actual laws has been spotty at best - fueled by the widespread corporate usage of intentionally-deceptive EULAs, and the unwillingness of courts to find against those companies.

Originally posted by: Matthias99
What is and what is not against the law is a different question. Personally, I feel that content providers should have the option to put more limits (within reason) on their content, and the consumer should choose whether or not to accept those limits when they purchase the content.

See, that's not the same as dealing with an enforcement problem with the existing laws. You want more control (for the copyright holder), which leads to more enforcement actions - but those are likely to be just as ineffective as the existing ones.

How about presenting those restrictions on the content, up-front, allowing citizens and consumers to make an "informed choice" about the matter, rather than an after-the-fact unlawful attempt to coerce them into those restrictions?

Originally posted by: Matthias99
You honestly think people download movies and music as a form of civil disobedience? This is a question of greed on both sides.

You honestly think that corporations are happy with the existing limited protections of copyright law? Greed on both sides indeed!

When it comes down to it, at the end of the day - the only reason that the (written, public) law has a purpose, is that people willingly abide by it. It is a choice, a tradeoff - if you disobey the law, there are consequences.

It is not a literally absolute prohibition - you cannot lock up every citizen in straightjackets, just to prevent possible violations of the law.

I would say that corporations are abusing the courts and contract law to the very breaking point, and they have been doing so BEFORE the rise of internet technologies and accompanying trivial digital-content copyright law violations.

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
The biggest problem with DRM, is that it also (IMHO, irreperably) damages the free market. That's one reason why I cannot believe that any real American could ever be pro-DRM in any way.

This is a basic ideological tenet that I just don't agree with. Well-designed and implemented DRM should prevent you from doing things you are not allowed to do with the content, while still allowing you to do the things you are allowed to do with it.

IOW, lock people up in "digital straightjackets", so that they are literally never allowed to violate the law. The very idea is wholly un-American.

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Determining what you are and are not allowed to do is an issue independent of whether technology enforces these limits or you are left on the honor system.

Is society so far gone (on both sides), that everyone behaves as outlaws (corporations and individuals alike), and the only recourse is the "straight jacket solution"?

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
There's a reason why the rights of private individual ownership should be protected - just as the legal rights of (legitimate) copyright owners should likewise be protected. It's a balance, and it's already starting to heavily tilt (more like topple over) towards the copyright owners, as they twist and pervert the law around their greedy desires.

They are trying to 'twist and pervent the law' (as you put it) because many people are blatantly ignoring copyright law all over the place.

Again, what about corporations and courts twisting copyright and contract law in a perversion of existing legal principles that have been held to for hundreds of years. To say nothing about how the technology and software industry in particular have flouted their noses at bodies of existing product-liability law. (I personally am FOR product-liability for software, but that's a different discussion altogether.)

Originally posted by: Matthias99

I don't see why copyright owners should have any more rights to control the copies of their products than they already have. Does (insert car company here) have any right to tell you what streets to drive on, or what brand of gas to buy?

I can't make and distribute an unlimited number of copies of my car at essentially zero cost relative to the car's purchase price. That's sort of an important difference.

I guess I don't understand. The law already prohibits anyone but the copyright holder from doing so, unless granted a license by the copyright holder. Note interestingly that I said nothing about replicating the car, but of additional restrictions over the use of the car.

Originally posted by: Matthias99
Content providers need more rights to control their content because IP is implicitly harder to control now than it was in the past.

Again, I ask: better enforcement, or *more* rights of control? Fascists always want more control. I argue that most current corporation copyright owners, especially the music and movie industries, are very fascist in nature. Copyright law was written to be BALANCED. Not to give copyright holders complete control.

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Why would any American welcome a fascist copyright dictatorship to do otherwise?

Ah, yes. Because anybody who thinks DRM is not a tool of the devil is a fascist.

DRM's principles are rather fascist in nature. Lock everyone up in digital straightjackets, so that they can never violate the law... but in the process, it userps many rights and liberties of the people, turning them from free into un-free. How free can you be, to produce, create, sell and re-sell, information, when everyone is wearing "digital straightjackets"? What is everyone that is not part of the "copyright cartel" at that point, supposed to do? Go back to oral traditions? Set the human race back several thousand years, because of the extreme greed of a self-selected minority?

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Copyright law most certainly does not grant an unlimited monopoly, rather, limited rights under the law for a limited time, in exchange for public disclosure.

I guess the basic difference is that I think the 'limits' need to be re-evaluated. The technological environment today is such that the limits allowed under existing copyright law simply do not adequately protect copyright holders from widespread illegal distribution of their content. Telling the content owners 'hey, sucks to be you' is not really an acceptable solution.

I would make the opposite argument, on behalf of the public domain. The tech. environment today, is such that the limits on copyright protection, are not adequately defined enough to protect the public from being scammed. Telling the public "sucks to be you" (left holding a pile of DRM-infested, encrypted binary noise after 75 years) is not really an acceptable solution for society.

Originally posted by: Matthias99

(I would even go so far as to say that the original intent applied to human-readable/human-viewable content only, implicitly, and that software binaries shouldn't even be afforded copyright protection, UNLESS the source code for those binaries was fully disclosed/registered with the Library of Congress - ensuring that the public domain WOULD be enriched, at such point that the copyright on the work ran out. In an ideal world, that's how it would be.)

That would cause... problems with the entire software industry, to say the least. Personally, I would like to be able to continue earning a living as a software engineer. Putting every software company in the world out of business might be 'ideal' to you, but I'm gonna have to disagree on that one.

How would that put any software company out of business? Perhaps I should have clarified, I wasn't intending for the software's source-code to be immediately disclosed to the public - I meant at such point in time that the software would fall into the public domain, then the full source code would be available to the public, for the enrichment of the public domain. Anything less, is cheating the public, IMHO. Actually, I take that back. It should be part of the public record immediately. Why? Books and music are handled the same way. People should be able to learn from copyrighted software works, just as they might read and learn from books, or listen and learn from music. But the protections of the law would still be in-force, preventing wholesale copying, so I don't see a problem with that. It certainly wouldn't put any software companies out of business. Quite the opposite, I think it would enhance the competitiveness of the software industry, and advance software technology as a whole.

I also think that copyright protection on computer software should be lessened to something much shorter than 75 years - probably closer to patent protect, something on the order of 20 years or less.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
This is a fun thread, isn't it? I give you mad props for the extreme hyperbole contained in the above. The funny thing is, people basically felt the same way about Jesus, and he was crucified, primarily, simply because of his severe annoyances to the powers-that-be. (Jewish leaders and Roman gov't leaders.)

I admit it, I'm a "zealot". A zealot for truth, and fairness. The actual copyright law, and pre-existing contract law dating back to the "common law" era, is very fair and balanced, overall. Corporate (MS) EULAs, and adhesion "contracts" with one-sided onerous terms, are not.

I believe in the truth, more than just a general sheep-like consensus, unlike most people it seems that prefer to be spoon-fed what their reality is supposed to be, rather than digging deeper and finding out for themselves what the reality really IS. There are a number of forces out there that want to deny you your true reality, so that they can control it for you. The Microsoft mind-control machine is just one of those forces.

This folks, is VirtualLarry. Get a good wiff.


The next time I flame him you'll all understand why.

 

[jwhitt]

the article is bullshit and people are freaking out about this.... there have been lawsuits to this effect and the lincincse that you have from ms, is for one copy of the os running at a time so in theory, you could have the os installed on 20 machines, and only use one at a time... or at least thats what i thought

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: jwhitt
the article is bullshit and people are freaking out about this.... there have been lawsuits to this effect and the lincincse that you have from ms, is for one copy of the os running at a time so in theory, you could have the os installed on 20 machines, and only use one at a time... or at least thats what i thought

I'm kinda getting the feeling you didn't read this whole thread?


hehe it's ok. I'm the pot calling the kettle black.