OK - I'm running an NFR edition that I received from M$ at the vs.net event. How does this affect me?
><FONT size=1>"Congress shall have the power [...] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive >Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
>That pretty much sums up intellectual property rights in one fell swoop.
No rights are guaranteed in the body of the Constitution. Guarantees of a few basic things were tacked on as amendments, with great controversy, and dubbed
"The Bill of Rights". Several of these never were ratified. This quote from the Consitution gives Congress a limited power. They could have never used it if they wished. The could set the time period to zero, or raise it to 10,000 years. The promotion of innovation had two aspects: an initial exclusivity and then a quick passage into the public domain. Congress has pretty nearl nullified the public domain aspect. Companies often buy failing competitors simply to avoid
a competing product passing into the public domain.
>I will tell you this, do away with intellectual property rights and you will destroy innovation and investment. If a person cannot benefit from their inventions or >creations, where is the incentive to invent or create?
This is the real point. But, as ultima pointed out, calling copied software theft is purely figurative. It doen't resemble stealing a car in the least.
> It is about WinXP and Microsoft's right to own their intellectual property rights to this OS. It is about people who feel entitled to the fruits of other people's >labor, and therefore justify their theft.
No theft is involved however.
>You keep on dancing all over the board here in vain attempts to justify a clearly immoral act. I can promise you were the shoe on the other foot, and it was >your ideas, inventions, or software being stolen, you'd be whining a mile a minute. Especially if you were a single person, and a large company stole your idea >and made a profit on it. If that would be wrong, than it must be wrong when an individual benefits from the fruits of a large company's work without paying for it.
</FONT> Microsoft, or any other company, is entitled to screw up their software as weird as they like, and bloat it with pointless doo-dads. I am morally, though not legally, entitled to avoid submitting to the weirdness by copying and cracking if I choose. As for theft, I have not freely agreed to the arrangement they wish to enforce. There is no morality involved. This is a completely coercive arrangement, which the government is enforcing for software publishers and the entertainment industry. The proliferation and excess of product avialable stuns the imagination, as do profits, so any idea that this level of legal protection is needed for the promotion of innovation is funny, and far beyond the intent of the Constitutional provision.
<FONT size=1>It is ironic that intellectual property is protected so intensively because the laws once protected property rights for true property, but they have become increasingly collectivist since "The New Deal" mentality took over in the 30s.</FONT>
>That pretty much sums up intellectual property rights in one fell swoop.
No rights are guaranteed in the body of the Constitution. Guarantees of a few basic things were tacked on as amendments, with great controversy, and dubbed
"The Bill of Rights". Several of these never were ratified. This quote from the Consitution gives Congress a limited power. They could have never used it if they wished. The could set the time period to zero, or raise it to 10,000 years. The promotion of innovation had two aspects: an initial exclusivity and then a quick passage into the public domain. Congress has pretty nearl nullified the public domain aspect. Companies often buy failing competitors simply to avoid
a competing product passing into the public domain.
>I will tell you this, do away with intellectual property rights and you will destroy innovation and investment. If a person cannot benefit from their inventions or >creations, where is the incentive to invent or create?
This is the real point. But, as ultima pointed out, calling copied software theft is purely figurative. It doen't resemble stealing a car in the least.
> It is about WinXP and Microsoft's right to own their intellectual property rights to this OS. It is about people who feel entitled to the fruits of other people's >labor, and therefore justify their theft.
No theft is involved however.
>You keep on dancing all over the board here in vain attempts to justify a clearly immoral act. I can promise you were the shoe on the other foot, and it was >your ideas, inventions, or software being stolen, you'd be whining a mile a minute. Especially if you were a single person, and a large company stole your idea >and made a profit on it. If that would be wrong, than it must be wrong when an individual benefits from the fruits of a large company's work without paying for it.
</FONT> Microsoft, or any other company, is entitled to screw up their software as weird as they like, and bloat it with pointless doo-dads. I am morally, though not legally, entitled to avoid submitting to the weirdness by copying and cracking if I choose. As for theft, I have not freely agreed to the arrangement they wish to enforce. There is no morality involved. This is a completely coercive arrangement, which the government is enforcing for software publishers and the entertainment industry. The proliferation and excess of product avialable stuns the imagination, as do profits, so any idea that this level of legal protection is needed for the promotion of innovation is funny, and far beyond the intent of the Constitutional provision.
<FONT size=1>It is ironic that intellectual property is protected so intensively because the laws once protected property rights for true property, but they have become increasingly collectivist since "The New Deal" mentality took over in the 30s.</FONT>
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,543
- 20,238
- 146
Um, they do use it, by way of the patent office. As for "Rights" yes, this is one, granted by Congress by means of the patent office. You can argue that the word "Right" in Section 8 does not mean "right," but that would be rather clintonian, no?
It robs the creater of the product of his rightful profit. That, by any moral standard barring a complete lack of one, is theft.
Wrong. It is morally theft to steal the product of another for your own gains. It matters not that congress as deemed this crime worthy of another name.
So because you are not happy with MS's product, you are entitled to have it for free? That makes no sense whatsoever, and brings us back to situational ethics.
Meanwhile, if you're so damn displeased with them, why do you want to use their product free or otherwise?
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2001
- 4,646
- 0
- 71
It would seem to me his letter to Madison was attempting to limit the scope of copyright/patent to "productions in literature" and "inventions in art", "and no other purpose". That would seem to further the arguement that Jefferson was AGAINST intellectual property, because it is neither literature or art. Sticking with the Constitution itself, tell me how software falls in "sciences" or "useful art". I claim software to be intellectual property, and I claim sofware to be neither "useful art" or "science". Binaries are neither. Now source code is entirely different, but MS is not copyrighting the source code. They are, as Jefferson suggested, holding onto it so it doesnt escape.
How does the product activation prevent theft? I argue it does not, you are argue it does. Anyone who decides to download WinXP instead of purchasing it can do so. The evidence of that is right here in this thread. Anyone who wants a CDKey can get it. How does product activation stem piracy? Reminds me of a Fight Club quote "sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken". Just because MS claims it to be a "feature" to prevent piracy doesnt make it so.
Public good is the most important factor, thats what our society exists for, the benefit of itself. I was arguing the same basic prinicple about school vouchers in another thread, public education exists for the benefit of society. If you are talking about a physical, tangible good, then a copyright of a year is a good thing. If you are talking about intellectual property, patents and copyrights should not exist, as Jefferson made clear. The fact that patents are handed out like candy now is sickening. MS has been twice convicted by the government of harming consumers with their monopolistic acts. Dont tell me they are innocent.
"It would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors... It would be curious... if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody... The exclusive right to invention [is] given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:333
Again, intellectual property isnt included, as evidenced by the quote you provided earlier, as is evidenced by this one as well. The quote, "ideas which may produce utility" is important. Microsoft can make CDs with software, and it is the physical disc itself that is the product. Stealing that physical disc from me hurts me, as I dont have it. Stealing the physical disc from MS hurts them because they no longer possess it. That is the product they sell, the physical product which is protected. Not some distorted product/service half breed that software, movies and music all claim to be today.
Tell me, is software a product or a service?
Edit: You are telling others not to use MS's products if they are not pleased with them. Microsoft is a monopoly, and as such its almost a necessity to use their OS. In order to play games and be able to fully interact with others in the cyberworld, you need a Windows partition. They control the market, and are making themselves more and more important. They have illegally fought off alternatives, or threats to be alternatives, leaving us with little choice.
How does the product activation prevent theft? I argue it does not, you are argue it does. Anyone who decides to download WinXP instead of purchasing it can do so. The evidence of that is right here in this thread. Anyone who wants a CDKey can get it. How does product activation stem piracy? Reminds me of a Fight Club quote "sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken". Just because MS claims it to be a "feature" to prevent piracy doesnt make it so.
Public good is the most important factor, thats what our society exists for, the benefit of itself. I was arguing the same basic prinicple about school vouchers in another thread, public education exists for the benefit of society. If you are talking about a physical, tangible good, then a copyright of a year is a good thing. If you are talking about intellectual property, patents and copyrights should not exist, as Jefferson made clear. The fact that patents are handed out like candy now is sickening. MS has been twice convicted by the government of harming consumers with their monopolistic acts. Dont tell me they are innocent.
"It would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors... It would be curious... if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody... The exclusive right to invention [is] given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:333
Again, intellectual property isnt included, as evidenced by the quote you provided earlier, as is evidenced by this one as well. The quote, "ideas which may produce utility" is important. Microsoft can make CDs with software, and it is the physical disc itself that is the product. Stealing that physical disc from me hurts me, as I dont have it. Stealing the physical disc from MS hurts them because they no longer possess it. That is the product they sell, the physical product which is protected. Not some distorted product/service half breed that software, movies and music all claim to be today.
Tell me, is software a product or a service?
Edit: You are telling others not to use MS's products if they are not pleased with them. Microsoft is a monopoly, and as such its almost a necessity to use their OS. In order to play games and be able to fully interact with others in the cyberworld, you need a Windows partition. They control the market, and are making themselves more and more important. They have illegally fought off alternatives, or threats to be alternatives, leaving us with little choice.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,543
- 20,238
- 146
Good gawd do you always twist reality like this? Try acid, it's more fun and you'll have an excuse.
Let's look at the quotes again:
"I like [the declaration of rights] as far as it goes, but I should have been for going further. For instance, the following alterations and additions would have pleased me......
Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding __ years, but for no longer term, and no other purpose..."
"Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive
right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody... The exclusive right to invention [is] given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society."
There. Now, You can pull all the clintonian redefinitions you want, but it wont fly.
It keeps the avgerage user from passing his copy of XP out to all his friends.
I'm not arguing from a subjective point of a computer nerd who spends an inordinant amount of time trying to circumvent product security. You are. Try looking at this from the objective view of the average computer user.
Walk down the street and ask random people if they know where they can get feee copies of XP. Stop thinking computer nerds are anything close the the majority of OS users.
It prevents casual sharing. Even MS admitted it wouldn't stop determined pirates, but then, the vast majority of people aren't determined pirates, are they?
No. Our society exists to pretect and guarantee individual rights.
At the expense of individual liberty.
Again, you twist reality to fit your own agenda (gimme that for free, I'm entitled!).
Irrelevant to this debate.
"It would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors... It would be curious... if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody... The exclusive right to invention [is] given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:333
Again, intellectual property isnt included, as evidenced by the quote you provided earlier, as is evidenced by this one as well. The quote, "ideas which may produce utility" is important. Microsoft can make CDs with software, and it is the physical disc itself that is the product. Stealing that physical disc from me hurts me, as I dont have it. Stealing the physical disc from MS hurts them because they no longer possess it. That is the product they sell, the physical product which is protected. Not some distorted product/service half breed that software, movies and music all claim to be today.[/quote]
Again, you deny the reality of what he said: "Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility."
You've lost here, Hendrix. Give it up. Your sense of entitlement does NOT preclude the rights of others. You do NOT have a right to the benefits of another's labor.
It is a product that provides a service.
Fact:
Intellectual property IS Constitutional.
Fact:
Denying the right to intellectual property would severely limit invention, innovation, and creation.
Fact:
You do not have the right to other people's intellectual property.
Ok, well let me tell you my situation. I'm the ONLY IT person for about 60 Workstations and about a dozen or so various servers. All of the workstations have been NT4, so... with the end of NT looming in the distance, we decided to start looking at an upgrade path. Win2k would be fine, but since it will probably have an end of life about two years earlier than XP, we decided it would be better to just bite the bullet and go with XP.
We have a number of departments and I try to keep machines in the departments the same as to hardware and software configuration... that way I can simply load one computer with the OS and all of the software, tweaks, customizations etc... and the ghost that image and simply ghost the rest of the machines. There may be anywhere from 6-10 machines per department. We buy a legal copy of each and every piece of software for every single machine and keep them together in a box for each machine. This saves me a HORRENDOUS amount of time, since I only have to do all the loading and configuring on one machine. Also, if any one of those machines goes down, I have a generic ghost from each department and can install a new Hard Drive (if needed) and restore from the ghost image and have the machine back and running in no time flat.
Only one problem.... with XP I can't simply ghost because every machine has to have it's own registration number, whether we own a copy of the software is irrelivent. Ok.. so I called MS and explained the situation and told them I needed to buy a number of licenses and a CD of the XP Corporate product. No problem.... except that they START at TWO HUNDRED FIFTY COPIES TO QUALIFY FOR CORPORATE! If I have to individually load each and every machine seperately, it will cost me tons of time and my company tons of money!
My solution "WAS" to go ahead and load a FCKGW version (anyone wonder if that means fsck George Bush?) and just buy a copy of XP Pro for each machine. If we were ever to get auditted, we'd be willing to go to court and argue that we had given MS their revenue stream for the product but that we also protected ourselves from damage and were living within the spirit of the law. The way the courts are today I doubt we would have lost. Unfortunatly, we'll never know. Now I don't know what I'm going to do. If I upgrade to Win2K, I'll be upgrading again two years earlier than I would have had I gone with XP... but now XP might be out of the question.
On another note... none of us has ever bought any software from MS... only a licence. Which make me wonder.... if I have a license with them to use their software and they no longer support it, aren't they breaking the agreement and shouldn't they refund my money... on all my Win95 CD's and in the near future my NT4 CD's? Just a thought......
Joe
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2001
- 4,646
- 0
- 71
Clinton is one of the smartest men alive today. Not only in his immense education but the ability to take a tough issue and break it down and make it easy to understand for many people. I dont think you were trying to compliment me, but oh well!
"Walk down the street and ask random people if they know where they can get feee copies of XP. Stop thinking computer nerds are anything close the the majority of OS users."
The problem with your assertion is that the majority of OS users NEVER EVER install an OS. Most of these "normal" users dont even know that the OS is independant of a computer. Most people I tell that to are completely in shock. When they buy a computer, they dont think of the hardware, other than the physical box. They think Microsoft. The product activation doesnt do anything for these people, they will never install an OS on their own.
"No. Our society exists to pretect and guarantee individual rights."
Yes, but profit never has been a right. It offers a copyright (supposedly for limited reasons) in order to help society. To give purpose for innovation and to allow for entrance into the public domain eventually.
"gimme that for free, I'm entitled!"
Ive already told you all 5 of my computers have liscenced copies of Windows. All paid for, no copyright infringement. Stop trying to lowball me.
If you are saying that software is a product that provides a service, then it is a product. Bear in mind a microwave is also a product that provides a service, but is a product nonetheless. I am free to make copies of the microwave as I see fit. Im free to modify it and sell it. Im free to sell it period. Im free to give it to my friends all I want. Family too. I purchased the physcial product, and that product is mine to do as I wish. It is under my control now. Do you deny that I have those rights with my microwave?
"Walk down the street and ask random people if they know where they can get feee copies of XP. Stop thinking computer nerds are anything close the the majority of OS users."
The problem with your assertion is that the majority of OS users NEVER EVER install an OS. Most of these "normal" users dont even know that the OS is independant of a computer. Most people I tell that to are completely in shock. When they buy a computer, they dont think of the hardware, other than the physical box. They think Microsoft. The product activation doesnt do anything for these people, they will never install an OS on their own.
"No. Our society exists to pretect and guarantee individual rights."
Yes, but profit never has been a right. It offers a copyright (supposedly for limited reasons) in order to help society. To give purpose for innovation and to allow for entrance into the public domain eventually.
"gimme that for free, I'm entitled!"
Ive already told you all 5 of my computers have liscenced copies of Windows. All paid for, no copyright infringement. Stop trying to lowball me.
If you are saying that software is a product that provides a service, then it is a product. Bear in mind a microwave is also a product that provides a service, but is a product nonetheless. I am free to make copies of the microwave as I see fit. Im free to modify it and sell it. Im free to sell it period. Im free to give it to my friends all I want. Family too. I purchased the physcial product, and that product is mine to do as I wish. It is under my control now. Do you deny that I have those rights with my microwave?
Ugh, I think this is so stupid. I used the warez version of WinXP, liked it a lot, and so I bought it when I found a good deal!! I use WinXP every day, so I think it's only fair to pay the money for it that Microsoft (sigh) *deserves*.
Now I don't think that this is wise, because if they would lower their prices for their software to $40 for Home and $75 for Pro new OEM then many people WOULD buy it. I used to be a punk kid who warezed everything just because I could... but as I get older I find myself buying more and more software legitemately just because I can feel better about legally owning it, and I don't have to worry about crap not working right...
I think we should buy software we like, but I don't think software makers should charge so much for their stuff. Programs like StyleXP is $20 to register!! I mean, I would pay $7 or maybe $10 but for such a small, cheaply made program, anything more is too much! You gotta be kidding me!
I just wish places would spend the money they spend on getting rid of warezers with copy protection, and just lower prices a little... I certainly would buy more software then.
Now I don't think that this is wise, because if they would lower their prices for their software to $40 for Home and $75 for Pro new OEM then many people WOULD buy it. I used to be a punk kid who warezed everything just because I could... but as I get older I find myself buying more and more software legitemately just because I can feel better about legally owning it, and I don't have to worry about crap not working right...
I think we should buy software we like, but I don't think software makers should charge so much for their stuff. Programs like StyleXP is $20 to register!! I mean, I would pay $7 or maybe $10 but for such a small, cheaply made program, anything more is too much! You gotta be kidding me!
I just wish places would spend the money they spend on getting rid of warezers with copy protection, and just lower prices a little... I certainly would buy more software then.
Originally posted by: AmusedOne
Originally posted by: Ultima
Originally posted by: AmusedOne
More justification for theft.
I wonder what your reaction would be if your boss told you something like this when he refused to pay you for a days/weeks/months work?
Intellectual property is no less property than anything else. You are stealing someone's work, and using it without paying for it.
The only hole here, is in your morality.
assuming I'm a pirate because I hold a different viewpoint than yours.at you thinking I condone piracy. I'm just looking at it from a more objective angle.
I am assuming your position from the position you advocate. Why else would you go to such lengths in an assinine attempt to justify theft? As for the claimed objectivity of your position, it is nonexistent. Any objective man would know that deeming intellectual property as intangible, and therefore having no value would put a grinding halt to innovation and invention... not to mention software development.
People do not invent, innovate, and devlop ideas for altruistic purposes. They do so for returns. Your illogical, and immoral position not only denies them this return, it makes them virtual slaves who get no payment for their work.
You are never, ever entitled to the labor of another (or fruits thereof). The minute you assume this entitlement, you condemn others to slavery.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,543
- 20,238
- 146
Clinton is one of the most morally corrupt people alive as well.
And this is why OS upgrades are available everywhere from Staples to Walmart and sell quite well? People DO upgrade their OSes, and they're not computer geeks.
The right to make a profit is an individual right in this country. It's part and parcel with capitalism. One has a right to profit on whatever they own. Not every right is specifically spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Why else would we have the Ninth Amendment?
At any rate Section 8 clearly defines it as a right. An exclusive right at that.
I'm not implying you have done it. Only that you seem to want to.
You are not free to make exact copies of your microwave for the purpose of undermining that microwave maker's sales. That would be a patent and trademark violation.
You are free to sell it, yes. But you are not free to undermine that companies name and design by making exact copies and selling them.
Meanwhile, let's talk books. Is it legal to buy a book, make copies and sell it?
DevilsAdvocate
I have NFR also as subscriber to the partner program and OEM. I do not believe we are affected by this at all. The program we are on is for demo in our stores and evaluation. You can't be profecient without having the software up and running. That program gave me $10000 in software for $299. I am forever grateful. I have learned 10 times more working with this stuff than from reading tech manuals or microsoft books. I think it was the smartest money microsoft has spent. They now have a somewhat educated and broader sales force at their disposal. That is good news for consumers.
I have NFR also as subscriber to the partner program and OEM. I do not believe we are affected by this at all. The program we are on is for demo in our stores and evaluation. You can't be profecient without having the software up and running. That program gave me $10000 in software for $299. I am forever grateful. I have learned 10 times more working with this stuff than from reading tech manuals or microsoft books. I think it was the smartest money microsoft has spent. They now have a somewhat educated and broader sales force at their disposal. That is good news for consumers.
Regardless of whether you try to justify it, downloading Microsoft's OS (or any other software) is illegal unless they are giving it away for free. Period. There is no constitutional provision that allows you to physically take the property of another, reproduce it, and claim it as your own. That is the same as copying VCR tapes or photocopying your favorite book.
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2001
- 4,646
- 0
- 71
Clinton is no more "morally corrupt" than most men. Nearly 50% of men who are married have cheated on their wives by the age of 40. George Bush did, Ronald Reagan did (he was banging Nancy while still married to his first wife), Nixon did, LBJ did, JFK did, Eisenhower did, FDR did, dont think Hoover did, Coolidge did, Wilson did, and so on through our nation's past. Hell, George Washington got killed because of his infedility. He was shot when some guy found him banging his wife. Ol GW ran out of there and into the cold winter night naked. He caught pneumonia from the cold and had complications from the shotgun wounds and died. Clinton is "average" or "normal" statistically. But, to get back on point...
The majority of Windows users NEVER install it themselves, they go with what was preconfigured for them. There is a market for people who upgrade (like me), and these people have to have knowledge of their system to get drivers. Getting a warez copy of an OS is only a marginal step up from locating proper drivers and installing them. I helped a friend's dad's friend (got that?!?!) build a system. He had ordered the parts, but needed help getting it all together. He got an Athlon XP2000+ when it was the fastest one on the market and a GF2MX when the GF3s were out. He was building his second machine to play games, but I didnt have the heart to tell him (he was so proud of ordering the parts himself) that he was better off saving $$$ by getting a cheaper CPU and getting a better video card instead. His other computer was a prebuilt Dell. He had already secured pirated copies of WindowsXP and various programs from his friends at work. If someone wants to get a pirate copy of Windows, they can.
You do not have a "right" to profit. You have a right to sell the product but there is no "right" to make money. Capitalism determines whether or not you make money, whether or not the market assisgns a value to your good.
I dont wish to get illegal copies of Windows to run. I have legit copies that were paid for becuase I wanted to pay it. Now I must admit I dont think I did individual installs for each computer, I probably used the same disc or two, but I do have 5 liscenses. I could very easily download whatever OS I wanted, or get it from people at school or work, but I havent.
What is the business of undermining microwave sales? I dont know when that idea entered the mindset of citizens. Ford came out with the Model T, ready for public consumption. It undermined sales of horse whips and carriages. That is a marketplace that is advancing, that is a GOOD THING. That was the reasoning behind allowing products to enter the public domain, so that the market doesnt stagnate and new products and innovations are always pushing forwards. If I am able to make a copy of a microwave myself and sell it, I can. There are many companies that sell microwaves. I cant sell their name, because that is a trademark. I can sell "HendrixFan Microwaves" and advertise it as being "as good as GE's model and perfectly compatible". Can I then work to make a functional copy of Windows and sell it as "HendrixFan OS" and advertise it as being "as good as MS's model and perfectly compatible"? Can I decide to give it away for free instead of selling it?
Its not legal to copy a book and sell it, but it is copyrighted literature. Show me where MS has copyrighted their source code and published it. You said yourself that the Windows disc is a product. They arent selling the software, they are selling a product. Or is it the software they are selling, and not the physical disc? They pick and choose, based on what works best for them. Im free to lend a book to a friend anytime I want, can I do the same with Windows? I can give it to a friend, can I do that with Windows?
The majority of Windows users NEVER install it themselves, they go with what was preconfigured for them. There is a market for people who upgrade (like me), and these people have to have knowledge of their system to get drivers. Getting a warez copy of an OS is only a marginal step up from locating proper drivers and installing them. I helped a friend's dad's friend (got that?!?!) build a system. He had ordered the parts, but needed help getting it all together. He got an Athlon XP2000+ when it was the fastest one on the market and a GF2MX when the GF3s were out. He was building his second machine to play games, but I didnt have the heart to tell him (he was so proud of ordering the parts himself) that he was better off saving $$$ by getting a cheaper CPU and getting a better video card instead. His other computer was a prebuilt Dell. He had already secured pirated copies of WindowsXP and various programs from his friends at work. If someone wants to get a pirate copy of Windows, they can.
You do not have a "right" to profit. You have a right to sell the product but there is no "right" to make money. Capitalism determines whether or not you make money, whether or not the market assisgns a value to your good.
I dont wish to get illegal copies of Windows to run. I have legit copies that were paid for becuase I wanted to pay it. Now I must admit I dont think I did individual installs for each computer, I probably used the same disc or two, but I do have 5 liscenses. I could very easily download whatever OS I wanted, or get it from people at school or work, but I havent.
What is the business of undermining microwave sales? I dont know when that idea entered the mindset of citizens. Ford came out with the Model T, ready for public consumption. It undermined sales of horse whips and carriages. That is a marketplace that is advancing, that is a GOOD THING. That was the reasoning behind allowing products to enter the public domain, so that the market doesnt stagnate and new products and innovations are always pushing forwards. If I am able to make a copy of a microwave myself and sell it, I can. There are many companies that sell microwaves. I cant sell their name, because that is a trademark. I can sell "HendrixFan Microwaves" and advertise it as being "as good as GE's model and perfectly compatible". Can I then work to make a functional copy of Windows and sell it as "HendrixFan OS" and advertise it as being "as good as MS's model and perfectly compatible"? Can I decide to give it away for free instead of selling it?
Its not legal to copy a book and sell it, but it is copyrighted literature. Show me where MS has copyrighted their source code and published it. You said yourself that the Windows disc is a product. They arent selling the software, they are selling a product. Or is it the software they are selling, and not the physical disc? They pick and choose, based on what works best for them. Im free to lend a book to a friend anytime I want, can I do the same with Windows? I can give it to a friend, can I do that with Windows?
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,543
- 20,238
- 146
This is what it boils down to. And you're wrong. A person has the right to charge whatever they see fit for their product. If it doesn't sell, oh well. If an idiot is stupid enough to buy it for twice what you think it's worth, oh well again.
I have a right to make whatever profit I want to on the goods I sell, IF I CAN make that profit.
If Ebay proves anything, it's that there is always a person who values something higher than you do, and is willing to pay it. There is no such thing as a universally "fair" deal. The only "fair" deal is the one seller and buyer agree upon.
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2001
- 4,646
- 0
- 71
I understand that supply and demand meet and create an appropriate price in economics, but not when you are talking about a monopoly.
Now, you have a right to sell your good, but there is no guarantee someone wont come along and offer a better price by making their own copy. Like I said with microwaves, someone else is free to come along and make their own microwave and sell them or give them away if thats what they want to do. How is that different than someone making their own Windows CD, perhaps one without product activation, and giving it away or selling it? Its just binaries on the back of a disc, a pattern of numbers. Sure, this person making their own Windows CD, may not have the same Windows marking on it, may not have the same silver bottom to the disc, or the fancy box, but thats fine for some people. Hell, it may not even come on disc and just be binaries that you download. Its not the exact same (neither are the microwaves), but its good enough for people to be interested in it as an alternative.
Now, you have a right to sell your good, but there is no guarantee someone wont come along and offer a better price by making their own copy. Like I said with microwaves, someone else is free to come along and make their own microwave and sell them or give them away if thats what they want to do. How is that different than someone making their own Windows CD, perhaps one without product activation, and giving it away or selling it? Its just binaries on the back of a disc, a pattern of numbers. Sure, this person making their own Windows CD, may not have the same Windows marking on it, may not have the same silver bottom to the disc, or the fancy box, but thats fine for some people. Hell, it may not even come on disc and just be binaries that you download. Its not the exact same (neither are the microwaves), but its good enough for people to be interested in it as an alternative.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,543
- 20,238
- 146
Because it's a patent infringment. You are stealing their product (WinXP).
A book is just a bunch of words. A song is just a bunch of notes, and a program is just a bunch of code. ALL are protected intellectual property.
Stop while you're ahead, OK?
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2001
- 4,646
- 0
- 71
Look, I see neither of us are gaining ground on intellectual property. Just answer these questions.
What has MS patented? Binaries? A sequence of numbers? What is physically on the disc?
When I buy a book, I can read it to learn/enjoy and take full advantage of everything it has to offer. After digesting it all, I can then give it to a friend or sell it to someone. They can do the same. That isnt patent infringement. I dont need the book anymore, I can offload it to someone else.
When I buy an OS, I can install it and learn/enjoy and take full advantage of everything it has to offer. After digesting it all, can I then give it to a friend or sell it to someone? Can they do the same? I dont need the disc anymore I can offload it to someone else, right?
Now, back the the microwave. How is my description from a previous post patent infringement when dealing with Microsoft but not with GE? Or are you stating that buiding a microwave and selling it is patent infringement?
What has MS patented? Binaries? A sequence of numbers? What is physically on the disc?
When I buy a book, I can read it to learn/enjoy and take full advantage of everything it has to offer. After digesting it all, I can then give it to a friend or sell it to someone. They can do the same. That isnt patent infringement. I dont need the book anymore, I can offload it to someone else.
When I buy an OS, I can install it and learn/enjoy and take full advantage of everything it has to offer. After digesting it all, can I then give it to a friend or sell it to someone? Can they do the same? I dont need the disc anymore I can offload it to someone else, right?
Now, back the the microwave. How is my description from a previous post patent infringement when dealing with Microsoft but not with GE? Or are you stating that buiding a microwave and selling it is patent infringement?
Your book to OS comparison is flawed in that you don't make a copy of the book before you give it to someone.
If you uninstalled the OS and then gave it to someone, I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't have a problem with that.
If you kept a copy of the book and then sold it or gave it to someone, you'd be in violation of copyright laws.
If you uninstalled the OS and then gave it to someone, I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't have a problem with that.
If you kept a copy of the book and then sold it or gave it to someone, you'd be in violation of copyright laws.
HendrixFan
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2001
- 4,646
- 0
- 71
GW is from history class, read quite a bit, learned quite a bit in History I (good professor), but not History II (bad professor).
What does MS have a patent on? The binaries on the disc? Or what you have installed on your hard drive? If it is the disc, you dont need to uninstall it whenever you "lend" a copy to a friend or if you sell it. If its the install on the hard drive, then why are we even worried about people sharing discs? Because you and I both know what is installed is what you derive from the disc, and is not what is on the disc at all. They are two seperate things.
What does MS have a patent on? The binaries on the disc? Or what you have installed on your hard drive? If it is the disc, you dont need to uninstall it whenever you "lend" a copy to a friend or if you sell it. If its the install on the hard drive, then why are we even worried about people sharing discs? Because you and I both know what is installed is what you derive from the disc, and is not what is on the disc at all. They are two seperate things.
Man, your logic is so twisted.
Forget patents, but whatever is on that disc and whatever is installed onto your system from that disc is under copyright by Microsoft. What is so hard to understand about that? They built the code, they put it together and packaged it, it's their code.
If someone writes a song, records the song, puts it on a CD, someone buys that CD and puts it on their computer in mp3 format and then shares it, they aren't getting around copyright laws. Copyright laws are NOT specific to the medium they are on.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,543
- 20,238
- 146
Please provide another source for this claim.
I beginning to see what's wrong here. In another thread you defended public education and presented yourself as a fine example of it. I would suggest you no longer do that in the future as it would only prove the opposition's point.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,543
- 20,238
- 146
Originally posted by: pulse8
Man, your logic is so twisted.
Forget patents, but whatever is on that disc and whatever is installed onto your system from that disc is under copyright by Microsoft. What is so hard to understand about that? They built the code, they put it together and packaged it, it's their code.
If someone writes a song, records the song, puts it on a CD, someone buys that CD and puts it on their computer in mp3 format and then shares it, they aren't getting around copyright laws. Copyright laws are NOT specific to the medium they are on.
Pulse, the funny part about this is in my post above.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter