PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: bilbous on October 19, 2006, 06:48:13 pm
-
I just ran across this link http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/2006/10/19/forbidding_vistas_windows_licensing_disserves_the_user.html
today (saw it on boingboing.net) and thought it might be timely due to the "fine" discussion I recently participated in on another thread. I hope someone finds it interesting.
It is kind of amazing what kind of stuff you can learn just by following a few rss feeds.
-
Bill is just letting us know that we have no rights, and that he can f*$&% with us anytime he likes.
-
Damn, am I happy not to depend on Microsoft's software anymore!
-
Your posts are way too Onenet. Let it die, let it die.
(Their end user agreements are designed to prevent piracy. It's actually not that big of a deal.)
-
Meh, wernt planning on getting that heap of rubbish any way.
-
What? No "By purchasing this software you are agreeing that Microsoft (c,tm,etc) and any affiliated companies own your immortal soul" ?
-
The price you pay for quality software is ridiculous licenses. These clauses in EULA's are extremely strict so to prevent any loopholes in them from being exploited. Basically, software companies say "You have no rights at all technically", but choose to ignore that if you're not doing anything really bad. Hence things like limiting "workarounds"- this is put in to prevent people, for example, disabiling verification or whatever, but could be interpreted more widely if they wanted. Thats an unfortunate necessity for software companies these days, due to the actions of people who think it's ok to just download any software (or media) they want regardless of copyright, etc.
Of course, people say "OMG, EVILZ" and therefore justify pirating the software and so on, thus continuing the need for ridiculous license statements.
If you dont like it, dont buy it. Let others make their own decisions.
-
Well spoken Ram, well spoken.
-
(Their end user agreements are designed to prevent piracy. It's actually not that big of a deal.)
What is a big deal is that if I do shell out $400 dollars and I install it on my pc, then my mobo burns out. No biggie I replace it. Later on what happens if I want to upgrade the motherboard? XP already freaks out if you change 3 pieces of hardware at the same time. I hate to see what vista will do - no wait I already did since I've got the beta. The license I have is supposed to work for 10 PC's. I changed the NETWORK card and it told me I was running a pirated copy. A PIRATED COPY OF BETA SOFTWARE??? WEIRD>
Actually if it wasn't for all the TCPA stuff in Vista I'd say its a good release. Its finally catching up with OSX and shaping up to be a good OS.
And Ram is right - the eulas themselves are designed to close loopholes, but the sotware itself is also designed to not work if you tranfer it. I'm fine with that. The policy should be if I uninstall vista from machind A then I can install it on machine B. Unfortunately despite the fact that I own a license - its impossible at the software level, and illegal at the EULA level. This doesn't make sense for any kind of thing other than requiring people to pirate it in order to move it to a new machine. Few people want to pay again just to move it.
-
I wouldn't call windows "quality software" myself, but then, I've not tried vista, so perhaps it's improved since xp. And it's best that I don't start another of these OS wars. I understand already the niche that windows fills, but the fact that it serves the useability need of the majority of the population does not mean it's good quality, especially when compared to some other products around. *Shrug*
Open source forever! For those willing to get it working XD
-
And Ram is right - the eulas themselves are designed to close loopholes, but the sotware itself is also designed to not work if you tranfer it. I'm fine with that. The policy should be if I uninstall vista from machind A then I can install it on machine B. Unfortunately despite the fact that I own a license - its impossible at the software level, and illegal at the EULA level. This doesn't make sense for any kind of thing other than requiring people to pirate it in order to move it to a new machine. Few people want to pay again just to move it.
Thats what I dont get- why Didnt Microsoft simply say "You cant have more than one computer connecting to the internet / receiving virus updates from our servers with the same license key"? That would solve the problem entirely, and you would even be able to trasnfer your license if you wanted to another computer, as long as you didnt want to use yours anymore (with vista). Their solution is more complicated than I think is necessary.
-
If you dont like it, dont buy it. Let others make their own decisions.
Don't you think it is valuable to read a range of opinions before making a decision?
I freely admit I have a bias against Microsoft. If someone wants to post a link to a pro-Vista article in this thread I won't complain. It would help if it came from a source independent of Microsoft with some sort of professional standing. I don't know much about the author of the link I posted but I have come to trust the publishers of boingboing to link items of interest. They certainly have their own perspective, who doesn't?
I have just one final question. Do pirates pay attention to eulas or are they really designed to restrict the rights of honest people?
-
Don't you think it is valuable to read a range of opinions before making a decision?
Yes, of course it is. And my opinion is, if you don’t like it, then don’t buy it. Alot of software users feel the need to evangelise the product they use and think that everyone has the same needs as them. Thats why I say everyone should make up their own mind.
I have just one final question. Do pirates pay attention to eulas or are they really designed to restrict the rights of honest people?
It's not about pirates "paying attention" to EULAs, its about Microsoft (and software companies in general) having the legal right to pursue pirates when necessary. Pirates care about EULAs when it they're in court and it's going to mean a hefty fine and years in Jail for them.
I dont see the motivation behind restricting the rights of honest people on purpose, just for the sake of it. I dont know how that's going to benefit your company, get you sales, or promote your product. Theres no sane reason to do it on its own- it's done to stop piracy and viruses. I'm not going to sell a car and put in the EULA "You must wear a pink hat while driving my car" just for the sake of it to piss people off. Especially not when it's a multi billion dollar company with alot riding on their next product's release.
-
As far as I know EULAs have never been tested in court and there is considerable support for the opinion that they would not hold up in any case. It is a very grey area. For the most part EULAs are only written for software and were originated for the purpose of attempting to avoid liability for the software.
I hope you would not buy a car with a license agreement as it would mean that you do not own the car but rather own the privilege of driving the car which could be revoked at the true owners whim. In a sense you have this with the Dept. of Motor Vehicles but it attaches to the license plate which is then physically attached to the car.
As time has gone by software producers have started to put more and more things into their license and to reduce the things you are allowed to do with it. Almost all software comes with a license agreement of some sort. The main difference is what you are permitted to do with that software.
It is kind of a shame that the only time you can own a piece of software is if you wrote it yourself or paid someone to write it for you and made such provision in the contract. The rest of the time you own, at best, the media that the software came on and a license to use the software on the media.
Please forgive the disorganized format of my post, I am not the most ordered of thinkers and I write as I think.
-
As far as I know EULAs have never been tested in court and there is considerable support for the opinion that they would not hold up in any case. It is a very grey area. For the most part EULAs are only written for software and were originated for the purpose of attempting to avoid liability for the software.
Again, I'm going to have to ask if you have any documentation to back this up- are there any legal precidents for them? I'm not convinced that they are illegeal, or invalid, but even if they are grey, you have to admit, from a Software companies point of view, its really better than nothing. If you've got a huge investment in software you're going to do what you can to protect it. Regardless of their original purpose, they are now also used to impose certain restrictions to protect their rights.
I hope you would not buy a car with a license agreement as it would mean that you do not own the car but rather own the privilege of driving the car which could be revoked at the true owners whim. In a sense you have this with the Dept. of Motor Vehicles but it attaches to the license plate which is then physically attached to the car.
Fair point, that wasnt a great analogy (perhaps renting a car would be better- those have terms of service, Im pretty sure). Or think of it as, you can do whatever you want with a piece of hardware you purchase, but the warranty also has terms of service which you must abide with for a warranty to be valid.
My real point was, companies dont impose restrictions without there being a reason for doing it. They dont generally like annoying customers; its just plain illogial. So if you apply Occam's Razor and say, are they protecting their rights or pissing off customers for the sake of it... you tell me.
As time has gone by software producers have started to put more and more things into their license and to reduce the things you are allowed to do with it. Almost all software comes with a license agreement of some sort. The main difference is what you are permitted to do with that software.
Yes, yes they have. Any why are they doing that? Is it because they like restricting people and annoying them, or because of people pirating software and making viruses to target their programs? You tell me.
It is kind of a shame that the only time you can own a piece of software is if you wrote it yourself or paid someone to write it for you and made such provision in the contract. The rest of the time you own, at best, the media that the software came on and a license to use the software on the media.
Thats the basic idea of copyright. If you 'own' a piece of software, that means you have the right to do whatever you want with it. If I want to sell you a bit of software, but you have the right to sell it to anyone else, then suddenly, I cant sell it to bob, either because he can get it cheaper or for free off you. So basically (whether you realise it or not) you want the abolishment of all sale of software. Yeah, its a shame, but thats life. Thats how it works. Theres no way to make everyone own everything they ever wanted. Its a shame that life isnt fair, but its something we have to deal with.
Its in fact, the same with any media as well: You dont 'own' a picture, you buy the right to look at it. (Technically speaking: you own the paper it's printed on, but you dont own that image and you dont own the right to make copies of it, to sell copies of it, to change it etc. Just like you dont own the right to copy software, to sell copies, to change it). If you have some revolutionary new way the entire world can function without copyright I'd like to hear it. Seriously.
-
I hope you would not buy a car with a license agreement as it would mean that you do not own the car but rather own the privilege of driving the car which could be revoked at the true owners whim. In a sense you have this with the Dept. of Motor Vehicles but it attaches to the license plate which is then physically attached to the car.
You're missing one huge point though: We aren't talking about something physical. We're talking about intellectual property. A car requires materials. Programming is not material - it's information. You can't photocopy a car to save money. You can, however, copy CDs with relative ease.
-
You're missing one huge point though: We aren't talking about something physical. We're talking about intellectual property. A car requires materials. Programming is not material - it's information. You can't photocopy a car to save money. You can, however, copy CDs with relative ease.
Yes, that was my fault for the bad analogy. But my analogy was more about imposing harsh restrictions on buyers of your product in general. And you can do that on physical items by saying that the warranty is void if you do certain things, for example.
-
Ok Let me try to address some points about the topic without resorting to extensive quotes. I hope you won't mind if I truncate nicks to save typing fell free to do the same to mine.
Ram asked for documentation about the legal status of EULAs. I do not know of any case anywhere in the world where they have been tested. This is a subject that I have followed for some months now and the general consensus of what I have read is as I suggested. This does not mean there are not differing opinions or that it is impossible there are one or more cases I haven't heard about. I am not an expert but I am interested. If you find something seemingly credible that contradicts what I have said I would look at it and make my own opinion as to its value.
About your (Ram) point about businesses reasons for restricting user rights. I believe that in the case of a for profit company with an effective monopoly the reason is always to maximise profit. Note the use of the term effective, I am not talking about an ideal perfect monopoly but the kind that Microsoft has been convicted by several courts of possessing. That gives Microsoft considerable leeway as to how they treat their customers. When the customers are led to believe they have no viable options they can be squeezed for more money and terms can be made that much more unfair.
On to your point about selling software. I can, right now, sell you a copy of GNU/Linux perfectly legally. I don't own it but I could make a copy of a free version that I have downloaded and sell it to you. Pretty much the only thing I would be required to do is to include all the source code to the software that I sell you. This is the essence of the General Public License version 2 as I understand it. I am not a lawyer so don't take this as legal advice. I am sure there is a little more to it. For more information try this link: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html . Also note that it would not be exactly the same as Red Hat, Debian or some other distribution as a full distribution comes with software with various licenses as well as proprietary look and feel additions. The distributions make their money by selling packages with their own additions and enhancements, configuration scripts and desktop themes etc. and by selling technical support and training contracts. Some are supported by large companies such as SUSE which is owned by Novell. Others such as RedHat are supported by a large IPO. I believe it floated at around $4 billion U.S. but that number might be somewhat off. Still others accept donations, these tend to be smaller niche distributions, Knoppix comes to mind but again I might be mistaken.
Of course I would rather just give you a copy or tell you where you could download it for free.
About "media," if you sell me a picture on a piece of paper I cannot mechanically reproduce it and sell copies. I can add it to a collage or other artwork and sell the result. I can do just about anything I want with that piece of paper with your picture on it except distribute copies of it. This is my understanding of the "principle of First Sale." Search on that term if you want a better explaination. I don't have time. If I am an artist and it is a painting I can reproduce it in my own work as long as I don't represent it as the original. I don't even need to own it to do that. There are other considerations that may come into play that don't have to do with copyright. An example of this is I believe the Louvre in Paris has registered an International Trademark on the Mona Lisa. It is not uncommon for there to be special exceptions to any generality.
Now Zan, You are right and at the same time you are not, I think. Let me explain. Yes a program is information and that information that is protected is the specific source code and its compiled expression. This is similar to an automobiles blueprint and its factory produced expression the vehicle itself. Does that make sense? Now lets go a bit further. If I have a blueprint can I make a replacement part for the car you sold me? I think so With enough tools and expertise I can follow your blueprint and make myself a copy of your car. It would likely not be an exact duplicate as modifications would crop up due to differing production methods. Could I sell it under your brand name? No, of course not. Could I sell it at all? Privately, probably yes, commercially probably not.
Now if I were to recreate it without your help I could sell sell it commercially.
Well It is 5 am and I'm losing track of what I am trying to say. Perhaps I'll try to clean this up tomorrow. I may have to substantially modify this last part I think most of the post will stand though. Just don't want to lose the last two hours of typing. If anyone else can see what I am trying to say feel free to say it .
*Edit1: just a quick note about EULAs. Actually I have heard about one particular EULA that has been tested in various courts and that is the GPL. It is a horse of a different color to the EULAs coming from Microsoft and the like. It is intended to garuntee rights moreso that to restrict them. There is currently some controversy in the OSS community due to the current attempt to update the GPL but that is another topic altogether.
-
Modifications to the software include modifications that allow people to pirate the software. That's probably why.
-
Could you elaborate? I am a little confused about your comment, Zan.
-
Seems simple enough to me.
-
take as example, changing the main exe of a program, rewriting it, so that it doesn't need to run with a cd in the drive, then making an iso file of that, and putting it on a torrent site.
-
take as example, changing the main exe of a program, rewriting it, so that it doesn't need to run with a cd in the drive, then making an iso file of that, and putting it on a torrent site.
Call me stupid, but don't you need the source of the app in order to rewrite it?
-
Call me stupid, but don't you need the source of the app in order to rewrite it?
Technically no, you can change the machine code, or change it in assembler.
How do you think people write "no cd cracks" for programs? Im pretty sure theres a way to do it. For example, alot of programs dont actually use the data on the cd- they just check whether it's there (so the person has to physically have the cd). So if you, for example, intercept the call to the dll that checks for the cd and return "True" or something. I dont know, Im not exactly an expert, but its possible.
Or look at the code in assembler and change all the lines dealing with searching for the cd to null commands, so it doesnt check.
-
Looks like you are going to make me do some homework you nasty Bagginsesses.
Let us see if we can agree on any terms.
Pirate: a person who has a commercial interest in trading in intellectual property to which they have no rights. Is that fair or would you consider it to be anyone who provides intellectual property to which they have no rights regardless of whether they profit?
Remember that Copyright laws differ according to jurisdiction.
Intellectual Property Broker: (IPB) A company or group whose business involves dealing in intellectual property from more than one source. This would include Microsoft because they generate much of their own I.P. but they also acquire it by purchasing companies that hold I.P. It would also include the RIAA and MPAA because they are trade associations of companies that buy and sell I.P. in the form of music and movies respectively. It would include many large companies such as drug manufacturers as well as the international counterparts to the RIAA and MPAA. It would not include any company that only traffics in their own I.P. such as selling only products that they have developed or whose I.P. is already in the public domain.
Intellectual Property Rightsholder: (IPR) This is someone such as an artist or programmer whose interest is in producing the I.P. that the I.P. Broker trades. This person might trade in I.P. for the purpose of developing new I.P. from the old but is not in the business of buying and selling of I.P. generally.
Are these definitions of use and are there others I should consider?
Edit
I'm not sure how interested I am in going on about this as it seems like a lot of typing about something I am no expert in. I think there are some misconceptions being bandied about and I don't think they are all mine. Maybe I'll have more time this weekend.
-
I'm not sure how interested I am in going on about this as it seems like a lot of typing about something I am no expert in.
You're an expert on your own statements though.
-
Not really, I tend to forget them even while I am saying them, hadn't you noticed?
-
Big business has too much power. So much that the consumer is currently their slaves. We are at the point where there is near nothing we can do about it.
I will admit right now that i am a pirate and have been for a number of years.
Why do i do it? I feel that if someone buys a product and wants to share it with the world, he has every right to.
Right now that's not the case, Dvd's have software protection that doesn't allow the making of perfect copies, EVEN IF YOU OWN IT AND WANT TO LEGITAMETLY BACK IT UP!
This is bogus. Especially when the Dvd company charges soo much for a single disc and plastic.
What is the average rate of dvd? I'd say from 15-20 dollars each.
How much do the companies pay to make that dvd and that plastic, i'd say about 2 dollars each.
They make too much profit and they don't even say you own the dvd but just the right to view it.
Again it's bogus and it's unfair.
Corporate america lining it's pockets with the blood of hard working men and women of the middle class is wrong.
So you know what we decided to do?
Share, and we shared on a HUGE level. Was it easy?
No?
You know how hard it is to keep a torrent seeded with active seeders for 1 week, let alone 1 month.
It took alot of hard work to distribute DVD rips and Software and music.
We have the technology now where one person can share with thousands, sometimes millions.
My take on it is this, Pirating is the result of Corporate america overcharging their consumers. I feel there is nothing wrong with one person being able to share his digital items with many, regardless of how much the person looses in profit.
One day there will be a work around that will allow mass sharing and also give the artists some profit.
It's technology, it's progressing, and it's not going to be stopped.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Imaginge this, South Korea invents a machine that is 10 feet by 10 feet by 10 feet.
In this big metal box there is a Vertical divider, basically one empty space on one side, a wall, then another empty space on the other.
Now you insert whatever you want, food, materials, money, computers, and after 2 days, you get an exact copy.
Do you know what this means?
We could end hunger by using thousands of these machines to send food to millions of people around the world.
Free computers.
Free equipment.
Free everything.
What do you think would be done with this machine?
I think it would be banned and prohibited from EVERY country in the world. Why? Because profits would be lost from corporate america.
I see pirating in the same way. Pirating HELPS the artist, it gives him a wider fan base, allows the music to be distributed faster. Same with software, especially open source, where then you can take the software and improve it.
I think pirating is banned for the same purpose, it's a step forward for technology, and yet it's banned because it takes away corporate profits.
If you look at the bigger picture though it helps all people in general.
Just like that machine I mentioned before, It's able to clone ANYTHING, do you really think the U.S would allow it to exist?
Even if we had the technology now, wouldn't governments be doing everything possible to stop the creation of such a device?
Wouldn't this device help the world over? Stop hunber? Be the answer to all our dreams?
Sadly the cause of the Eulas and the overcharging is all from one source:
Corporate America and Big Business.
Pirating is the result of it and of our technological advancements.
There is a war going on right now and i stand with the consumer and the greater good for the greatest amount of people.
People will have to take sides soon and eventually the machine I mentioned will be made, it will be up to you to allow its creation or destroy it.
~~Datruth
-
DVDs are not a necessity of life. They are a luxury.
It depresses me that this is the battle you have chosen to fight when there are so many more important issues out there.
-
getting back to the original topic.....
http://slashdot.org/articles/06/11/02/2055216.shtml
Seems they realised one of thier mistakes.
-
I saw that. It is only by throwing darts at their trial balloons that we protect our skies from hot air...if you know what I mean.
What the heck does that mean? Maybe I should start a thread challenging people to post the most obscure metaphor they can think of, does that sound like fun?
-
Hi,
from my point of view MS of course needs to protect his Programms.
But they have no right to send whatever personal or technical information in what form ever to their Corporate-Central.
And I do not think they do.
I justified several times the XP-Installation of friends of mine via phone with no problems at all.
They just asked some stupid questions like: "On how many PC did you install that CD?"
I had a legal License sticker and the Original CD from MS that had the same Owner as the PC I installed it on.
So from my personal point of view i was doing only legal acts.
On my Job i sometimes have to design specific technical changes, modifications or Improvments to complex machinery.
So I often expierience the fact that you have to keep it simple to get the best results.
Why not this way:
You have an Original CD and a writen Licence (or a fancy holo-sticker) from MS, you have the right to install this System on a Computer.
You hold that licence, you have the right to have one PC running under this System.
Point.
No Hooks.
Finish.
And please, no more OEM or System Builder Editions.
Again, keep it simple.
same Product = same Price
I can imagine verifications via Internet without sending any personal Information via Internet.
Every Network card has an Unique mac adress.
Why not such an Adress for every CD the sell?
Ah, one more thing.
I am not allowed to sell my licence?
Where are we living?
Of course I should be allowed to sell my licence, why not?
Could someone tell me one point why it should not be allowed?
To Redmond:
I do not have any legal right pending on that suggestion ;)
Greetings
Markus
-
A quote from the EULA
your software will begin to degrade in function.
Well, no change there then ;D
On a serious note
another quote from the EULA
"The software will from time to time validate the software, update or require download of the validation feature of the software. … [if validation fails] you may not be able to use or continue to use some of the features of the software."
To me this would mean that you are required to have an internet connection to use vista, that seems a little stupid, atleast WinXP had the choice of activating by phone.
-
Now that they've (MS) made that multi-million dollar deal with Novell owner of SUSE linux for cross support/patent leasing look for the ships to really hit the foam.
Hey look another obscure metaphor, a cleaned up version of an old vulgar one!