D&C GLug - Home Page

[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]

Re: [LUG] OT: "Bloody' Microsoft

 

On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 11:49:24PM +0100, Julian Hall wrote:
> Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote:
> > No, it doesn't. The law might make it legally questionable,
> Call me picky but isn't that what laws are *for*?  To define what is 
> legal and what isn't?  That's why they're called laws - otherwise they'd 
> be called guidelines..

Yes, that's my point.

> >  but the
> > Federation Against Software Theft, Microsoft, SCO, et al. do not
> > make the laws.
> >   
> MS and SCO are irrelevant to the argument.  FAST are not as they are the 
> body charged with monitoring activities in this area.  No they're not a 
> law enforcement agency, but then nor are Customs and Excise who monitor 
> various activities.  Their job is to monitor and report on infractions.

MS and SCO have similarly obnoxious views on intellectual property,
and are similarly lacking in any actual legal authority.

Actually, as copyright holders, MS and SCO have the right to sue
over infringements. FAST can't even do that.

> > "Necessarily" being the operative word. Corporations generally take
> > a rather conservatative view of copyright law (for "conservative"
> > read "draconian") which does not necessarily line up with legal
> > rights in a given territory (for example, parts of Europe -
> > Scandinavia, I think - give anybody the right to reverse-engineer
> > any software for limited purposes, and no matter how much Microsoft
> > want to whinge about it they can't take away that right with their
> > EULAs).
> >   
> Individual states of course have a perfect right to set their own laws.  
> However we are not in any of *them*, we are in the UK, and until/unless 
> we adopt a European law similar to Scandinavia, we abide by our laws.

My point was that what Microsoft consider to be their rights do not
necessarily match what UK law, or the law in any other territory,
considers to be their rights.

> > They're misused by software companies to shaft customers for
> > as much cash as they can cram into Bill Gates' gold-plated sock
> > drawer
> OK so I am a private individual.  Say I spend a long time writing a 
> piece of software, maybe a year or more developing it.  I want to earn 
> an income for my efforts - a reasonable wish I would think.  I get it 
> distributed and sold with a license clearly stating the user may install 
> it on their PC for private use.  The cover price is ?29.99 (ie the price 
> for the license to use it).  Instead they get a pirated copy and deprive 
> me of my *earned* income.  That's OK with you is it?  That's what you're 
> saying so far.

No. You're taking me out of context; part of my email you removed
mentioned the original purpose of copyright being so that an author
can earn enough money to make creating a work worthwhile. This is
perfectly legitimate, though I don't see why a non-free licence is
necessary just to make money from writing software.

What I *strongly* object to is a company like Microsoft charging £400+
for an *office suite* and having the nerve to stick a ridiculous licence
on it, that all but requires one's first-born son to be posted to
Redmond.

> > Income they so desperately need to send the board of directors on
> > holiday to the Caribbean for six months of the year?
> Why do people resort to sarcasm when they run out of ways to refute an 
> argument?

Because the alternative is taking seriously Microsoft's implication
that copyright infringement means Bill Gates' children go hungry.

-- 
Benjamin A'Lee :: bma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/
"I believe in equality for everyone, except reporters and photographers." -
Mahatma Gandhi

Attachment: pgpsWFA5Z5B1U.pgp
Description: PGP signature

-- 
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html