| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Arcana
The Engineers
Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Post Count: 2035
Location: Lion's Maw
190546 Potch
200 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:54 am Post subject: Software licensing and piracy policies. |
  |
|
With great apologies to Elc for quoting him out of context.
I do encourage everyone interested to read the full text below. :)
Elc:
| Quote: |
| Forgive me for being blunt, but I don't care one bit what Microsoft thinks "is better" for the consumer, as all they are concerned with is being a monopoly in whatever market they choose to venture in. With the product activation nonsense I mentioned before (and I still don't know if they still do it or if they've gotten rid of it entirely) you can't even install the software on multiple computers if you have more than one. Do you really want to have to spend $200 or more for each computer in your home? (Say you have a PC but mom has a laptop. If the software includes product activation, you can only "activate" it on one machine, while it will stop operating on the second after so many boots.) |
Arcana:
| Quote: |
| Sorry, I don't buy this argument. If you buy a $60 dollar game, why do I need to buy it twice if I want to play it multiplayer? If I buy a $900 copy of Photoshop, why can't I install it on all 1100 computers inside my corporation? It's the price of owning a computer. Software isn't free. Someone buys it or donates their time to build it. If you want free, then... as I've said before... download Linux. Free to install, free to use. They say "Free as in free speech, not free as in free beer", but really, the software is free beer. |
Elc:
| Quote: |
It doesn't matter if you accept the argument of not, if I'm going to spend hundreds of dollars to buy Microsoft's operating system (I'm talking the complete operating system, not the upgrade) then that disc is my property. What if I buy a new PC and want to install the OS but Microsoft doesn't want to let me because the system specs/ID doesn't match from when I "activated" the thing in the first place? I certainly will not buy a second copy just because I went from one machine to another. But, like I said, the Professional edition forgoes that garbage, though it is more expensive.
In regards to your Photoshop argument, while I may not have all the facts, I believe corporations buy a corporate license so they can install the program on as many machines as they need. Furthermore, if all the computers in the corporation are networked, the program needs only be installed on the server and every computer connected to the network will have access to it. (I know that part at least, since that's how the computer lab was when I took an internet course)
As for the game... well, it's illogical to buy two copies of the same game, since you can't play multiplayer against yourself. Obviously, unless it's a network/server setup, you're going to need a copy for each computer participating in the multiplayer session. I'm more inclined to support the company which produced the game than I am to Microsoft, who seems to bring out a new operating system every few years just so they can squeeze more money they don't deserve out of the consumers. |
Synopsis:
My poor, sarcastic attempt at humour has been erased here.
So I have to address the issue of corporate licensing...
Corporate licensing is EXPENSIVE. We're not talking about $1000 for the right to install Photoshop on 1100 computers. Adobe's site licenses probably run in the tens of thousands of dollars, and that buys a corporation the right to install as many copies of Photoshop as they want on computers used for business.
I might have to explain the concept of licensing a bit more, especially in the context of software. When you buy software, you are NOT buying a disc with data on it. That is what you happen to get for free. What you are buying is the RIGHT to use the software in a particular way. You know that End User License Agreement that you always click "I agree" on? That's what you're purchasing.
Software, like music, games, and literature, are considered intellectual property covered by copyright law, and the purchase of a license is basically an agreement between you and the software company in question. If you buy a single license, then you agree to install the software on one computer, and one computer only. When you, on the other hand, buy a site license (aka a corporate license), then you are making an agreement with the company that says, "We'll give you XX dollars if you let us install this on as many computers as we want that we use for business."
In addition, a software company can agree to give out its licenses under certain conditions, such as is the case with Microsoft's Academic Alliance program - my University has the right to give out copies of Windows XP, Visual Studio .NET, MS Office, and Visio for no cost as long as I'm a student at the school.
Software is not a physical thing you purchase. It's like music. When you purchase music, you end up buying not a CD, but the right to listen to the music as often as you want. (It is for this reason why people argue that, if you have given money to buy the CD once, you should have the right to make as many MP3 copies of it as you want to to play on all of your portable music devices). For software, you're buying the right to install it on a single computer, most of the time.
This is because most of the effort in building software is intellectual - the price for software is recovered through the sales of units. It might have taken 100 people 8000 hours to build a unit of software, and therefore, the costs of investment of such effort must be recovered if a company wants to make a profit. Therefore, Microsoft puts boxes on its shelves to sell to corporations and consumers.
Enter Linux.
Linux is free. In the license for the Linux kernel, you are given explicit permisison to distribute the software as much as you want to, provided that:
1) You can provide the source code of the programs, if requested and
2) You do not re-release the program under a license that will take away any of the aforementioned rights.
This is the GNU Public License, or the GPL that governs Linux and most of the softwre it is released under. Basically, you can modify and redistribute the software as much as you want to, provided that you make all of your changes publically available in source code, if requested. You're not allowed to take something and then stop distributing the source.
This is a totally different license than the EULAs that most people are accustomed to paying for.
You don't necessarily have to agree with Microsoft's license, but you do have to agree with it if you want to use it. If you copy it and put it on multiple computers, you're breaking the law, because that's piracy. With product activation, Microsoft is enforcing its license, which is perfectly within their rights to. A lot of people were pissed off at Microsoft's change because they were used to illegally copying Windows CDs for their 3 or 4 computers at home. When I was a kid, I don't think I ever paid money for Windows becaues I just stole it from my friends who stole it from someone else. Naturally, the kids of this generation are now pissed off that they can't use their copy of Windows from the store to just install on their machines and laptops.
I like to say that, when you pay money for software, you're buying license keys. I bought a copy of Windows 98 because it came with my computer. When Windows 98SE came out, I copied the disc from a friend and upgraded. It asked me for a key. I entered the one I got with my computer, and it was accepted. I took that as, yes, Microsoft Windows 98SE accepted my key so therefore I am a legal user of this upgrade.
So I'll go back to my thesis - if you're upset at how Microsoft constantly screws you by forcing you to pay money to upgrade, by forcing you to pay money to install on more than one machine, by forcing you to adapt to something you don't like, then the answer is simple - stop dealing with them. If you dont like a company, you stop paying for their products - the same principle applies here. It's illogical to say that "MICROSOFT $ucks my ballZ i HATE it give me something ELSE" on a forum when you're typing in Internet Explorer. If you hate something, stop using it and stop giving money to them.
So what's the alternative? There's always MacOS, which unfortunately has tons of limitations - primarily cost. Now that MacOS X is Unix-based, it's opened its doors to millions of applications that the rest of the world uses, but you're going to be locked to Apple software and Apple hardware.
Then we get into the free *nixes, of which Linux is the most popular. I think that the main Linux distributions (Fedora/Redhat, SuSe, Mandrake) are very user-oriented now and most come with everything you need on the CD distribution set. Installation is a breeze now and most of the functions you want work. Other distributions I hear about that are recommended are Gentoo and Ubuntu, but I haven't tried either. However, if you're really serious about Microsoft's constant screwing of you and your computer, I think you should consider moving away from its products and getting something else. As you said, if a company screws you, you won't deal with them again. So why not take the leap? It might not hurt.
Sotware piracy - is it for you? :)
_________________
Woo, 2000 posts as of Tuesday, 2007 August 28.
Last edited by Arcana on Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:27 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Trevoke
The missing liberty
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Post Count: 1924
Location: Madra
25000 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm afraid I can't be as lengthy as you were, as I really prefer to be concise (I had a lot of issues in college writing 10-page papers..), but, in short, I do agree.
Why whine about Microsoft? Reasons to switch over are in the "Which OS do you use?" thread, but more importantly, this is about yourself. For a while I was in the warez scene as an end-user (I would just download stuff so I wouldn't have to pay for it). Eventually I got tired of it though.. It wasn't worth the effort.
I have to admit that you are right (however much I am annoyed to admit it in this case, not because of you but because of the situation) ... You are technically only allowed to install that software on however many computers you bought the license for; in many cases, it's for one computer.
Although I gotta say I'm loving GNU/Linux more and more every day... :)
[edit: I just noticed WHY this new thread was made so let me continue here..]
Elc, you can't compare Nintendo and Microsoft. Nintendo builds hardware, Microsoft builds software. That is entirely different.
Now, if you want to compare, say, Nintendo and ASUS, now we're talking, but that's a different ball game and I don't feel qualified to discuss it (i.e. I have no idea what we're talking about).
The CD you buy does belong to you, but not the use you make of it (what a darn shame, huh?)
However (was this brought up here or in another forum, I forget), if you do not use windows and do not accept the EULA, you can get a refund for the OS when you buy a new computer. Not many people realize that.
If you wipe your disk clean and install a *nix derivate, you don't have to pay for WinXP.
_________________
There are weapons you cannot hold in your hand.
You can only hold them in your mind.
-- Bene Gesserit Teaching |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcana
The Engineers
Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Post Count: 2035
Location: Lion's Maw
190546 Potch
200 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Legally, yes, Microsoft gives you only ONE license. However, there are a lot of companies out there that do allow you to install the software on two computers, or similar, in an effort to build goodwill. However, as we all know, goodwill building is only needed if a competitor is threatening to steal all of your business - in the case of a monopoly there is no need for that.
Do recall that Nintendo DOES build software as well - they're a games publishing and development company in addition to developing a console. Hardware isn't really what this discussion is about, though.
One thing that people also don't understand is that, if I've bought the software once, I actually have the legal right to download a copy of it for use. If you buy a copy of Windows XP, and then you lose your disc, you can copy your friends' using a CD burner and install it yourself. Theoretically, you have this right with music too, which is a positive argument in favour of being permitted to copy MP3's.
A lot of people like to use the "like a book" analogy. That is, you can keep as many copies of something as you want, as long as the collective copies are treated "like a book". You have two books at the same time and at no point should you be able to "read the book at the same time" in two different locations. So, in theory, you could install Windows XP on your desktop and your laptop, provided they are never turned on at the same time. And I didn't actually know about the Windows XP refund. Thanks, Trevoke!
Of course, there's also that legal grey area. Honestly, who hasn't pirated anything ever before? Fansubs are technically pirating, but they actually make the anime industry turn in North America. Many people like grabbing Abandoned Warez - games that have been out of print for a decade or longer and cannot be acquired through legal means without a lot of difficulty. I might have to find evidence for this, but I believe you can actually lose the rights to distribution if you do not make a reasonable effort to provide a copy of your licenses to those who request them.
_________________
Woo, 2000 posts as of Tuesday, 2007 August 28. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trevoke
The missing liberty
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Post Count: 1924
Location: Madra
25000 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=289760 for more info. Of particular interest are these:
The Windows XP Professional EULA
and what it states:
| Quote: |
IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: This End-User
License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you
(either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft
Corporation for the Microsoft software product identified above,
which includes computer software and may include associated
media, printed materials, "online" or electronic documentation,
and Internet-based services ("Product"). An amendment or
addendum to this EULA may accompany the Product. YOU AGREE TO BE
BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY
INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE
PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL
OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR
PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND. |
[edit: I screwed up the quote]
_________________
There are weapons you cannot hold in your hand.
You can only hold them in your mind.
-- Bene Gesserit Teaching
Last edited by Trevoke on Mon Feb 14, 2005 12:10 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elc
Rebel of Babylon
Joined: 24 May 2004
Post Count: 5759
Location: Blight's Bay
1138266 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2005 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apologies accepted (and yes, I'm a guy) with one caveat:
| Arcana wrote: |
Synopsis for those who don't want to read the entire text below:
Elc: Microsoft's policies suck. I have to pay $200 if I want to install multiple copies of Windows on my machines.
Arcana: Well duh, of course you need to pay. If you want to play a multiplayer game or buy Photoshop, you can't just install it on a bazillion computers in a Corporation.
Elc: But you can buy a Corporate license for Photoshop. And a good game deserves money. Microsoft doesn't deserve my money. I also own the disc, why can't I do whatever I want with it?
|
This is more of a personal attack on me than anything productive. Disagree with my opinions all you like, as that is part of having a discussion, but I do not appreciate someone trying to make me look like an idiot, as in the above quote... particularly since you have taken my comments out of context. For one, with the Windows activation system (if they still us it) in the Home Edition it uses the system specs when generating the activation code. So what happens if your computer is fried and you need a new one, you own that license so you have a right to install Windows on your new machine since you have paid for the thing. Now, since this hasn't happened, I don't know if it would accept the new activation or not.
But, for your information, Microsoft Windows XP Professional is not simply $200, though it may cost that much to get the upgrade. The full program retails for $500 Canadian, which is roughly $405 US. The Home edition is $300 Canadian, or roughly $244 US. Unfortunately, I don't feel that any of the Windows operating systems are worth that amount of money.
| Quote: |
It's illogical to say that "MICROSOFT $ucks my ballZ i HATE it give me something ELSE" on a forum when you're typing in Internet Explorer. If you hate something, stop using it and stop giving money to them.
|
Well, just to clear up any confusion, I do not use Internet Explorer unless absolutely necessary, so I am typing this on a Netscape browser. I also don't mindlessly bash Microsoft, I only give my opinions when asked, such as the "What operating system do you use" thread. We should just agree to disagree as I have no intention of supporting Microsoft until they are capable of putting out software which isn't full of security holes allowing hackers to penetrate it with viruses and worms. Microsoft is supposed to be comprised of the best programmers in the industry, yet they still release build after build of sub-standard merchandise?
_________________
"You make me smash the clock and feel, I'd rather die behind the wheel.
Time was never on my side, So on I wait my whole lifetime." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sophita
The Wee Kitty Grand Duke Defense Brigade
Joined: 13 May 2004
Post Count: 4744
Location: Reina Mia
498078 Potch
1330 Soldiers
2725 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree; even if you didn't mean it as such, it does sound like a personal attack, and a way of belittling Elc's points. That will completely turn people away from listening to you, Arcana, because if your arguement were sound, you wouldn't need to attack others. And if anyone enters a topic, they should read it - providing a summary of any kind is kind of silly after you've quoted the related text from the original thread, IMO.
Anyway, on to the main argument:
You're right, it is completely legally A-OK for Microsoft to require product activation. But it's also legal for the U.S. Government to give private contracts to their friend's business, it's legal for me to shoot a man (...in self defense), it's legal for your boss to fire you because he can save $0.05 by giving the job to someone in another area, and it's legal for hospitals to refuse to treat you because you don't have health insurance. There are a lot of morally despicable things a person or company can do that are legal. Legal doesn't make things morally or ethically right. So the question becomes: Is it morally or ethically ethically right? Should a person have the right to use a copy of software for their own personal use, however they wish?
I say yes, a person should have the right to use a copy of the software for their own personal use in any way they wish. I think that once I pay for a copy of software, I have the right to use that software any way I please. If I want to install it on more than one PC, I should have the right to do so. If I want to use the CD it came on as a coaster, I should be able to do that, too. If I want to make back-up copies of the CD, I should be able to do that. I should NOT have to worry about how many times I can upgrade my computer before Windows tells me that I have to buy ANOTHER licenses. (And honestly? I upgrade a lot. The only thing of my computer that's from the original is the case and the power supply.) And if I have 2 computers, then I should be able to install the software on both computers - no matter what. A copy is a copy is a copy.
I believe the book analysis is a bit faulty. I think in this case, copies of a page would be a better analogy. If I buy a book and want copy some pages to keep for quick reference, it's perfectly legal for me to do so. Those copies are perfect copies of the original pages, and I can access them whenever I want, however I want. I don't have to notify the book's publishers to copy them and I don't have to pay more money to do so; just because I bought one copy of the book does not mean I can't make copies of the book for free. So long as these copies are for my own personal use, and not for profit, it's perfectly legal and perfectly fine. I can even copy a page and access it - and the book - at the same time. (Though it might be silly to do so.) I can copy the entire book if I want and keep one copy in one room and one copy in another. So why is it that when I buy software - a copy of a program - that I can only make one copy on one computer and ...that's it? Rather inconsistant copyright law, don't you think?
As for your argument that "If you don't like Microsoft, then SHOVE IT"; it is pretty much an impossiblity for a lot of people. A lot of products don't come out for any platform but windows, and there ARE no alternatives on Linux or Mac. For instance, let's say that for both my Spanish and German courses, I need to use a software program on my computer. This program can only run on Windows - and there is no alternative, like there is with a lot of software these days. I either get a windows computer, or I can flunk out/withdraw from the course. Almost all my homework is based on it, so there is no alternative to not doing it. I suppose I could do it on the school's computers - but like most schools, mine doesn't allow you to install software onto the public computers. So, I can either do the homework or....what, exactly?
And where does one buy Mac equipment? You don't exactly see it in Wal-Mart or Target, and not everyone is lucky enough to have an Apple store nearby. In fact, I'd say most aren't. And I've never seen Mac software for sale - in my entire life. And not from a lack of looking.
And you could install Unix, but how many people have the computer knowledge for that? Most Windows users are people who have very little idea about what runs a computer. Most people would be lost in it. You have to have a bit of a techy backround - or at least somewhat of a knowledge of a computers - to really be able to use Unix based systems. A lot of people who use computers are barely computer literate - if that. They're not going to know how to install Unix or run it - or even run a dual boot system - or what to do if something goes wrong. There's a reason a lot of computer tech support is things like "make sure the monitor is on" or "make sure the power cord is plugged in" - it isn't because a lot of people are dumb, it's because a lot of people are ignorant on computer basics. You can't expect those people to be able to convert to a Unix system, especially when they can barely handle windows.
It's not as simple as you make it sound. If people didn't like Microsoft or didn't need Microsoft (and I think most fall into the latter category as I have never met someone happy with a Windows machine), then Microsoft wouldn't continue to have a monopoly.. Simple economics. It's not just brand name - if it were, we'd all be drinking New Coke right now. Believe me, most people haven't switched over to Macs/Unix from a lack of hearing about it.
_________________
 SCII month continues! DueFiumi.com
| John Layfield wrote: |
| But bubbles... children love bubbles! XD |
Last edited by Sophita on Sat Feb 12, 2005 3:40 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcana
The Engineers
Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Post Count: 2035
Location: Lion's Maw
190546 Potch
200 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Has this thread been reopened? I told Elc that I'd remove my comments if it was.
_________________
Woo, 2000 posts as of Tuesday, 2007 August 28. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vextor
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Post Count: 12086
Location: Hell
11331071 Potch
23689 Soldiers
160 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| If you can post on it, yep, it is opened. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sybillious
Ebony Moon Knights
Joined: 30 Mar 2004
Post Count: 5440
Location: Sawgrass Laneding
981865 Potch
59 Soldiers
60 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
it was reopened due to others showing further interest in the topic; it was locked originally due to a potential flame war, but it seems that everything is in hand, so have at it, everyone.
_________________
prinny...DOOD!
gotta gotta get a...SPICE WEASEL!
to paraphrase my fellow mod, parallax:
I hate my job with the passionately burning intensity of a thousand fiery suns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcana
The Engineers
Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Post Count: 2035
Location: Lion's Maw
190546 Potch
200 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| And you could install Unix, but how many people have the computer knowledge for that? Most Windows users are people who have very little idea about what runs a computer. Most people would be lost in it. You have to have a bit of a techy backround - or at least somewhat of a knowledge of a computers - to really be able to use Unix based systems. A lot of people who use computers are barely computer literate - if that. They're not going to know how to install Unix or run it - or even run a dual boot system - or what to do if something goes wrong. There's a reason a lot of computer tech support is things like "make sure the monitor is on" or "make sure the power cord is plugged in" - it isn't because a lot of people are dumb, it's because a lot of people are ignorant on computer basics. You can't expect those people to be able to convert to a Unix system, especially when they can barely handle windows. |
I'm not in the condition to address every single one of your points, Sophita, but I'd like to look at this one specifically - it takes a surprising amount of knowledge to be able to set up and administer a Windows machine. It has been shown that, when set down in front of a typical Linux installation, usability only slightly trails that of Windows XP, and in some cases, exceeds it.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/08/04/HNusabilitystudy_1.html
The problem is, of course, when you reach the administrative stage, and at that point - there is truly no way that either a person in Linux or in Windows can cope if they're at that totally beginner level. I'm sure that "go to Start Menu. Click on control panel. Now find Display" is as difficult as telling someone, "Go to the console. Open it. Type 'ps'". There was a study also done on the command line usability and that showed that the command line was, in fact, not a difficult model for human beings to adapt to.
My argument, for this point anyway, is that it does not require much more technical knowledge to run Linux versus Windows, but it does require more knowledge of your computer system to administer Linux well if things go wrong, just as it requires a vast amount of knowledge to administer Windows well when things go wrong.
One personal reason why I think Linux administration can feel more difficult? When something breaks, people who run Linux like to fix it. When Windows breaks, people get into the mentality that they'll reinstall.
So I don't buy the assumed statement that "Windows is easier than Linux, so therefore people can't handle Linux".
As for software - it is the responsibility of your university to provide you with computing resoruces to perform your courses with, so you should be able to use Windows all you want in your computer lab. It is a bit of a sacrifice, but it depends on how much you want to tolerate Microsoft (and it seems a number of you who post here frankly, do not tolerate them at all).
Anyway, back to the point -
| Sophita wrote: |
| I believe the book analysis is a bit faulty. I think in this case, copies of a page would be a better analogy. If I buy a book and want copy some pages to keep for quick reference, it's perfectly legal for me to do so. Those copies are perfect copies of the original pages, and I can access them whenever I want, however I want. I don't have to notify the book's publishers to copy them and I don't have to pay more money to do so; just because I bought one copy of the book does not mean I can't make copies of the book for free. So long as these copies are for my own personal use, and not for profit, it's perfectly legal and perfectly fine. I can even copy a page and access it - and the book - at the same time. (Though it might be silly to do so.) I can copy the entire book if I want and keep one copy in one room and one copy in another. So why is it that when I buy software - a copy of a program - that I can only make one copy on one computer and ...that's it? Rather inconsistant copyright law, don't you think? |
Your analogy here is also faulty, though. You're copying a page, not the entire book. When you install Windows, you're copying the entire software suite, not just a single data file. But if you copy an entire textbook for personal use, people could theoretically (but probably never will actually) hand out a charge for copyright violation.
There's something called "Fair use" which applies to most books, artwork, and so forth. That covers things such as quoting work. You're actually not allowed, let's say, to perform a full copying of a journal paper to distribute to your class of ten. That is not legal. You're not supposed to copy an entire poem to distribute to a class. Fair use covers limited personal use (one of which might be making backup copies of software, which you are allowed to do).
Software is funny because it's not a physical object. The CD you buy is not what you're paying $500 for. You're paying $500 to recover the last three years of paying developers to build the software. Maybe this money goes to Adobe, or Microsoft, or Corel, or IBM. They spend money to build this software for you, and it's a LOT of money. The same argument could be made of musicians as well, but the primary difference is that software serves a unique and useful purpose, unlike music (some may argue with me on that point, but I maintain that music is not a tool like software is). Software is a tool like a screwdriver is, or your car is, or your computer is. To copy otherwise, against the EULA, is piracy.
And honestly, there are better ways to drive Microsoft to bankrupcy other than using its products illegally. :)
I suppose the issue here not really "whether it is legal or not", but instead whether it is considered fair or not to the end user. I mean, if we all agree that "software should be permitted to use as much as you want for personal use", someone's going to have to define personal use, because before long a corporation's IT manager going to copy 1500 licenses for Windows and declare that it's for personal use of the corporation. It could get pretty ridicuous.
_________________
Woo, 2000 posts as of Tuesday, 2007 August 28. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sophita
The Wee Kitty Grand Duke Defense Brigade
Joined: 13 May 2004
Post Count: 4744
Location: Reina Mia
498078 Potch
1330 Soldiers
2725 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 12, 2005 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting thoughts, Arcana.
| Arcana wrote: |
| I'm not in the condition to address every single one of your points, Sophita, but I'd like to look at this one specifically - it takes a surprising amount of knowledge to be able to set up and administer a Windows machine. |
I admit I haven't set up a Windows XP system, but I'm under the impression that most people who have XP have it pre-installed on whatever system they buy. I would assume that would include setting up the administrator account? I'm afraid I have to claim ignorance, here.
That's an interesting article, and I'll agree with you and the article on one thing: In an office setting, Unix is a great OS. It's more secure, it can handle multiple people working on it better, and people who haven't used Unix really benefit from being in an enviroment where support is available both from their peers and from tech support.
But I wasn't talking about office use; I'm talking about personal use. And there's a whole lot of things that come up there that wouldn't come up in an office setting:
In an office, all the software you'll need to work in is already there for you. You don't need to buy it, and if you do need to install something, you have tech support nearby to walk you through it. At home, however, it's an entirely different story. Maybe your son wants Ultra Gigantor IX - which is only available for Windows, like a lot of games are these days. Many days are spent arguing over why he can't have Ultra Gigantor IX.
Then, your daughter needs to use the computer to do a powerpoint project...Only you don't have powerpoint, and the file she worked on for hours at school is meaningless. You can rebuild it in some other format, but it won't be powerpoint and her teacher won't let her run it, even if she could. So your daughter has to go to school extremely early in the morning and get it done there.
And then you have the problems of finding software for yourself. Want to edit that photo with your family? Not as simple as looking at Photoshop Elements, Paintshop Pro and Microsoft Photo; instead, why not look at 50 different free photo editors, all very different. Which is the best? You don't know. It's an absolute overload of information. You have to research a lot of free software, and if you're on a dial-up connection? Oh man, it's going to take you hours to download one program, let alone many if you want to experiment!
And that's just one problem of many.
| Quote: |
| I'm sure that "go to Start Menu. Click on control panel. Now find Display" is as difficult as telling someone, "Go to the console. Open it. Type 'ps'". There was a study also done on the command line usability and that showed that the command line was, in fact, not a difficult model for human beings to adapt to. |
I agree that it's not hard if someone is telling you, but which is more intuitive if you're looking for information? If I'm looking for information on my display settings, I find it a heck of a lot more intuitive to go to control panel -> display than console->type 'ps'. 'ps' is not a phrase I would primarily be thinking of when looking for information on my display settings. Display, on the other hand, is.
| Quote: |
| My argument, for this point anyway, is that it does not require much more technical knowledge to run Linux versus Windows, but it does require more knowledge of your computer system to administer Linux well if things go wrong, just as it requires a vast amount of knowledge to administer Windows well when things go wrong. |
Yes, but assuming that most computer users don't have that knowledge (which, let's be honest - they don't, or else the pc doctor stores would have gone bankrupt long, long ago) which is easier to find someone to help you? Linux, or Windows? There are so many more people who can help you with a Windows system, who have had those exact same errors...You won't get that kind of help with a Linux machine, at least not locally. Linux does have an excellent, helpful online community. (Though that won't do you much good if your problem is you can't get on the internet...)
| Quote: |
| So I don't buy the assumed statement that "Windows is easier than Linux, so therefore people can't handle Linux". |
Oh, people can handle just about anything. Humans are remarkably resiliant creatures; we can adapt to just about anything. There's no doubt that anyone who had an interest to could adjust to Linux and be perfectly happy. There's no doubt that Linux can be and is the right choice for many users.
But honestly? Windows is easier. Easier to find software for, easier to find help for, easier to learn because there is so much more information around about it. If you want ease of use, go with Windows. If you're not afraid to tinker, well, go with Linux.
| Quote: |
| As for software - it is the responsibility of your university to provide you with computing resoruces to perform your courses with, so you should be able to use Windows all you want in your computer lab. It is a bit of a sacrifice, but it depends on how much you want to tolerate Microsoft (and it seems a number of you who post here frankly, do not tolerate them at all). |
In an ideal world, that would be the case. But honestly, I doubt that would happen. Have you seen the hoops you have to jump through in most schools? Even assuming I could make them put it on every computer (which they wouldn't, because that would cost so much money - the EULA for it says you can only legally install one copy, so I assume it would cost mucho dinero for them to shell out for each and every publically accessable computer), by the time you'd managed to jump though all the hoops, you'd probably be out of the course!
| Quote: |
| Software is funny because it's not a physical object. The CD you buy is not what you're paying $500 for. You're paying $500 to recover the last three years of paying developers to build the software. Maybe this money goes to Adobe, or Microsoft, or Corel, or IBM. They spend money to build this software for you, and it's a LOT of money. |
But that's the case with books, too, isn't it? I don't buy a book for the paper; I buy it for the ideas of the author written inside. I have Raymond Carver's Fires on my desk right now. The book cost probably $1-2 dollars to make at the most; it's your standard softcover and it's a short one at that, only 204 pages long. But it retails for $10. The other $9-8 dollars aren't going towards the making of the book, they're to the author (well, the author's estate in this case), and the publisher to recoup the money they invested in the product.
But with my book, I'm not bound to making 1 copy. I can make a backup copy of a book, place it in another room if I wanted to, and read it both here and there. Personal fair use. If I were going to make an entire copy and distribute it, that would be wrong. But as is, perfectly legal. I'm not claiming copyright, I'm not publishing it, I'm just using it for my own enjoyment/learning.
So why isn't software held to the same scale?
| Quote: |
| The same argument could be made of musicians as well, but the primary difference is that software serves a unique and useful purpose, unlike music (some may argue with me on that point, but I maintain that music is not a tool like software is). Software is a tool like a screwdriver is, or your car is, or your computer is. To copy otherwise, against the EULA, is piracy. |
But fair use doesn't just protect works with "a unique and useful purpose"; It also protects making copies for your own learning and enjoyment. If I can tape a copyrighted movie off the air for personal use and watch it as much as I please, why can't I put a copy of an OS I own and put it on another computer? Both are for private use and my own enjoyment.
| Quote: |
| And honestly, there are better ways to drive Microsoft to bankrupcy other than using its products illegally. :) |
Why would you want to drive Microsoft to bankrupcy? What good would that cause? I have nothing against Microsoft as a company; if I did not need or want their products, I would not use them.
| Quote: |
| I suppose the issue here not really "whether it is legal or not", but instead whether it is considered fair or not to the end user. I mean, if we all agree that "software should be permitted to use as much as you want for personal use", someone's going to have to define personal use, because before long a corporation's IT manager going to copy 1500 licenses for Windows and declare that it's for personal use of the corporation. It could get pretty ridicuous. |
But that's completely wrong, because a corporation can't have a personal use and is using the program for profit. Personal applies to the individual; a corporation by definition is not an individual and as such that does not apply. A corporation cannot use something for enjoyment, learning, or even usefulness because a corporation is not an entity that can enjoy, learn, or appreciate. Coca-Cola can not appreciate sunshine. Coca-Cola executive Joe Schmo, on the other hand, can.
"Software should be permitted to use as much as you want for personal use" is not what I'm saying; I'm saying "Once I own a copy of something, I think it should be my right to do whatever I wish with it, so long as I don't harm the owner's ability to sell their product in some way." (ie, making copies of it and selling it.)
Personal use is a thorny issue though, and a hard one to get into. It's the most murky, deepest part of copyright law, and one we can argue about for thousands and thousands of years and still have neither of us reach a definitive answer.
_________________
SCII month continues! DueFiumi.com
| John Layfield wrote: |
| But bubbles... children love bubbles! XD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arcana
The Engineers
Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Post Count: 2035
Location: Lion's Maw
190546 Potch
200 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
And again, this thread is way too long for me to address 100% of your points (I promise that I'l ltry to get to them - really, we can't be the ONLY two people who have an interest in this topic).
The irony is that, in fact, if you're installing Windows on your laptop, and on your desktop, and on your mom's computer (and MS Office and Visio and MS Visual Studio .NET and Photoshop Elements and...), you are in fact hindering the owner's ability to sell the software, because every time you are copying the software to another machine, you're basically denying the software owners a sale. What is exactly the difference between:
"Once I own a copy of something, I think it should be my right to do whatever I wish with it, so long as I don't harm the owner's ability to sell their product in some way."
and
"Software should be permitted to use as much as you want for personal use"
?
Let's say you went to a store and bought a computer that came preinstalled with Windows XP. If you told them, "Can you subtract the price of Windows from the final amount? I already have a computer with Windows on it, and I can copy it from that computer to this one", what do you think the store salesmen would do?
If everyone decided that they had the right to install as many copies of MS Office on their laptops, do you think you'd affect sales significantly?
Now, the honest answer is "no". Most software companies actually don't make money off of the COTS product lines (COTS stands for "Commercial Off the Shelf"; a product line is basically software). They make money from corporate sales and service. The end user is really little beans. Microsoft doesn't really make money from sales of Windows - its sales of Windows tend to be more for corporations, many of which end up transferring the cost to the end user if they are in the business of selling computers. Microsoft actually wants people to migrate to Windows so it can easily sell its high-profit software like MS Visual Studio and MS Office.
There is a simple reason you're not supposed to copy software - you agree not to by clicking on "I agree". That's supposed to be a contract between you and the company. By saying, "Ah, screw that contract", you're breaking the law (technically - I bet someone can write an essay on how EULAs are not legally-binding). Because software is a tool, it's very easy to claim that you're using it to make money. If I copy a play for my friends so we can put it on in a park, and then charge everyone a small amount of money to cover our costs of photocopying, is that "personal use"? It's me and my friends - a personal endeavour, but is it in fact personal?
The software I buy can also be used to make money. I can use Internet Explorer and sell something on EBay. Is that then using Windows for the purpose of enterprising? Does that therefore restrict my definition of personal use?
Many people believe that software should in fact be covered by patent law, not copyright law, to partcially circumvent the problems you describe with software being protected under copyright. Patents, unlike copyright, protect a useful concept (whereas copyright protects the execution of a concept in the case of software). Patents are more useful for the industry side, but theoretically, under a patent system, you could patent something "new" and "useful" and restrict everyone else from using it... like Amazon's 1-click shopping idea.
Remember that the attitude that "software can be used by me as much as I want" is what spawned the growth of rampart piracy of games and of applications (the entire Warez culture). People grew up accustomed to the idea that they can duplicate software as if there was a magical replicator to clone a monitor or a toaster. Honestly, it's partially a question of appreciation. When you buy a toaster, you pay for the parts, but also for the cost it took to develop the toaster. Every toaster you buy gets that amount contribution to the R&D. If you want a toaster in your room, you're going to have to buy another toaster ,and put that money into R&D. If intellectual property is free for personal use, then you should be able to claim that if I buy a toaster, or subsequent copies of the same music CD, or another copy of a book, that the second time, you should only have to pay for the cost of materials, and not for the cost of research and development.
But you can't, obviously. :) I think part of the whole software piracy thing is really an issue of respect - how much respect do you pay for the software developers who program the tool for you? How much do you appreciate the work they've done? A lot of people actually go on this principle of "I buy the software if I try it and I think it's good" - especially common with games. Gamers tend to like to buy games they try out and like because there is a belief that, yes, the game is good, so the developers deserve my money so they can make more games.
I believe that Microsoft wanted to go to XBox, away from the PC Market, because the XBox is harder to clone games for.
In any case, I think I'm arguing in a circle here... I probably need to re-read the thread and try to bring up something new. I don't feel that I'm saying anything that I haven't already said above. Give me a few hours and I might bring something new to the table.
_________________
Woo, 2000 posts as of Tuesday, 2007 August 28. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Elc
Rebel of Babylon
Joined: 24 May 2004
Post Count: 5759
Location: Blight's Bay
1138266 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2005 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Arcana wrote: |
If I copy a play for my friends so we can put it on in a park, and then charge everyone a small amount of money to cover our costs of photocopying, is that "personal use"? It's me and my friends - a personal endeavour, but is it in fact personal?
|
No, since you're charging everyone for a service. If money changes hands, it's no longer "personal use" and cannot be claimed as "non-profit" even if the cost is just for photocopying. If I have two computers in my home, a laptop and a PC, installing the software onto both is personal use and doesn't prevent the company from making another sale since both machines happen to belong to a single consumer.
Would you, for example, buy two copies of the Monopoly board game (no, I didn't choose that as a silly joke) because two people want to play the game? It would be stupid to do so, wouldn't it? So why should a consumer have to spend upwards of $800 - $1,000 for two copies of an operating system in order to have his or her laptop installed with the same OS as the desktop?
Do I have to pay the $99.99 I paid for a DVD box set every time I wish to watch the discs? Am I limited to just watching them on one DVD player? I mean, I've got a PS2 along with a standalone DVD player as well as a DVD-ROM drive in my PC. Once I've bought the product, it's mine to do with as I please barring any acts of copyright infringement. I can also lend the DVD to a friend or relative, which might convince them not to buy them for themselves, but that's not an infringement of copyright since the discs haven't been copied nor has there been any money changing hands.
| Quote: |
The software I buy can also be used to make money. I can use Internet Explorer and sell something on EBay. Is that then using Windows for the purpose of enterprising? Does that therefore restrict my definition of personal use?
|
You can also use Internet Explorer to connect to Amazon or DeepDiscountDVD to buy products. Internet Explorer is a web browser, so connecting to such sites is a part of its function. It would be like saying you could be charged with littering by flushing the toilet. You can use Windows and Microsoft Word to type up a manuscript which you could then sell to a publisher, or you can do your taxes... pay your bills online.
| Quote: |
I believe that Microsoft wanted to go to XBox, away from the PC Market, because the XBox is harder to clone games for.
|
Microsoft would never try to get away from the PC market since they have a stranglehold on the market. The reason Microsoft wanted to go with the Xbox is simple... money. They saw the potential for money in the home console business, so now they are trying to gain a stranglehold in that sector. For once, Microsoft isn't the dominant force in the market and it's laughable that they blame the Xbox's performance on the lead time the PlayStation 2 had on the market.
_________________
"You make me smash the clock and feel, I'd rather die behind the wheel.
Time was never on my side, So on I wait my whole lifetime." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trevoke
The missing liberty
Joined: 26 Jan 2005
Post Count: 1924
Location: Madra
25000 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sophita, I am not even gonna attempt to address all your points, so very quickly...
Linux software availability. Powerpoint, you mention. I introduce to you www.openoffice.org.
You mention the Adobe suit; I give you the GIMP.
You ask, which is better? I ask you, "What is your purpose?"
You say it will take forever to download it; so you are going to tell me that you went and bought Adobe Photoshop? If you did, I am sure you won't mind forking over the 20 bucks (if it's that much) for a CD of OpenOffice.org ... There are plenty of CDs that are just full ripe of open-source software.
You might say, why pay for something that is free? You're not; you're paying for the convenience to have it handily on a CD.
And the thing that made me gag... You say Windows is easier. Hmm, no, it is not. I have used both (Windows and Linux) extensively enough to tell you that Windows is more user-friendly IN THE BEGINNING, but it is not easier. It is extremely hard to properly set up a Windows system. Yes - there are a lot of things to set up on a Windows machine after it has been installed; and if, as _you_ said, there is so much information out on it, then why do people still suffer the attacks of viruses, worms, trojans, adware and spyware?
Is it so complicated to have an Admin account and a regular account? The average Windows users aren't even aware they have an Admin account; they think they have their account and that's it.
The truth is, as far as I can tell, there is probably as much information out there for Linux as there is for Windows; the difference is that so far, all of the info I've needed on Linux was free to access, while I would have been required to sign up and pay a few places to get the info I needed on Windows.
The real difference is that you need to do a real setup of Linux, and that's scary (I know, I was scared the first time I did it.. The first 5 or 6 times actually). I will certainly grant that not everyone will want to switch over, simply because they already know Windows, or (more appropriately) people are afraid of change.
My point is this simple one... Windows is more user-friendly. They sugarcoat everything, but as Arcana said, if there's a problem in Windows, you reinstall Windows. If there's a problem in Linux, you fix it.
_________________
There are weapons you cannot hold in your hand.
You can only hold them in your mind.
-- Bene Gesserit Teaching |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kuwaizair
blauuurgggh!
Joined: 22 May 2004
Post Count: 3427
Location: Plaats
174392 Potch
0 Soldiers
1291 Nation Points
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Corporate licensing is EXPENSIVE. We're not talking about $1000 for the right to install Photoshop on 1100 computers. Adobe's site licenses probably run in the tens of thousands of dollars, and that buys a corporation the right to install as many copies of Photoshop as they want on computers used for business. |
um...where i go to school, at my collage, each computer needs its one copy of all the programs they uses, not one, and many personal licences, each computer. There are (forget...15 or so, maybe 20). Each computer has Photoshop, Bryce, Quark, Painter, Illustrator, Flash, Dreamweaver, and possibly 9 or more others. Lucky these are all "educational editions" so Photoshop will cost 300 dollars, and not $1000 (there is an package of adobe prodcuts, at this price,)
I must admit, I'm the happy owner of my own copy of Painter 8. now I need an updrade to 9...but eh....like...um...lets buy some painter done pics to fund it ok?
everyone does it!
---------
I hear Linux is hard to learn....in some aspects. I'm a bit of a dunce....so maybe somone can be my Chicken-Little-Computer-Problem-Fixer.
_________________
few runes short of a set of 27
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
