XP, intellectual property law, good faith, and good will.
Posted by: Deane F on 03 December 2004
As far as I can recall, that protection conferred upon intellectual property by copyright law continues only as long as the owner of the copyright is actively protecting the property in the marketplace. So it is fair enough for Microsoft to send in the lawyers etc when breaches of copyright are detected and to write code into software that protects that software's copyright.
What seems a little unfair is when the software forces a continued relationship between the owner of the software and the owner of the copyright, as seems to be the case with XP. I don't run XP (my computer is too old but I'm upgrading in a few weeks) but I wonder if the nature of the protections written into it are, as a matter of course, made clear to the purchaser at point of purchase. If the owner of the hardware cannot make alterations without asking, in effect, for permission from the owners of the copyright of the operating system to make such changes, and this is not clearly understood by both parties at point of purchase, then the vendors of the software are in breach of contract because what is not clearly spelled out in a contract must be fair and reasonable. Perhaps the issue is an artifact of the peculiar relationship between computer hardware and operating systems. No doubt my reasoning is faulty.
Through the years I've noticed a lot of ill-will against Microsoft and the catches written into XP have not improved matters. It does seem to show that Microsoft assumes bad faith on the part of their customers.
It would be impossible to quantify the effect of a high degree of goodwill in terms of sales but I venture the argument nonetheless that were Microsoft to treat their customers a little better they might make more money. I remember the owners of film rights to Harry Potter sending "Cease and Desist" orders to twelve year old fans who ran websites and the opposite approach of Lord of the Rings fimmakers who actively supported fan sites to the point of inviting webmasters to preview parties. The latter approach seems more likely to foster goodwill and sales. I know that many of my own purchasing decisions are based more upon goodwill than price.
Deane
Posted on: 03 December 2004 by Roy T
puts on tinfoil hatBack in the days when the Earth was still young and Microsoft just wrote software if I remember correctly you could copy and save a Microsoft End-User License Agreement (Eula) and then run through the contract at your leisure. It was only then you could see what you had in fact agreed to and under what conditions you could use, save or copy the software you thought you owned after parting with your hard earned cash.
This could well be the time that people started expressing unrest at some of the conditions forced upon users by the Eula, after all if you need the function provided by the software you had to agree to the agreement prior to installing the code. The crux of this problem imho was that the user thought that they had purchased the right to use the software on any machine, at any time but the Eula said different and at this point any good will previously accrued by Microsoft started to drain away at a rate directly proportional to the size and complexity of the Eula.
People started to develop computer code that would run on other operating systems and this code was released under many differing Eulas with the express idea of allowing people to make changes to code and the release the original code plus any alterations. This allowed people to stand upon the shoulders of giants to produce better and more varied code based upon one starting point. The fun thing about publishing under one of these Eulas was that if the code produced if fit for purpose and people liked what it did they would include in in their latest offerings and give you the credit for your bit. Darwinism was alive in tooth and claw and flourishing in the Open Source community.
Examples of this explosive growth in OpenSource software can be seen by the ever increasing number of Linux distributions based around a few core chunks of code plus massive development communities like SourceForge.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyUseGPLhttp://sourceforge.net/ http://creativecommons.org/ takes off tinfoil hat Ps Please remember Microsoft in in business to make a profit for shareholders and the strict enforcement of copyrights is one way make this happen.
[This message was edited by Roy T on Fri 03 December 2004 at 23:20.]
Posted on: 07 December 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Deanne
You should realise by now that daring to suggest that some people might copy MS software will lead to near apoplexy from the World Guardians of Morals: even if you say that the morals are not the issue, prepare for faux outrage, accusations of bullying, leprosy, the botts, etc.
Just ignore the smaller minded yappatistas who will probably announce themselves shortly.
To develop, is it piracy to copy a later/improved version of a programme in order to obtain a required feature not in the earlier version? Or should it ( eg. a back-up facility ) have been there from day one?
Regards
Mike
Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.
Posted on: 07 December 2004 by Deane F
Mike
Please spell my name with one "n". "Deanne" is a woman's name.
I can't see how my post could be interpreted as promoting copyright infringement. I was more interested in the effect that the catches built into XP might have on the goodwill felt in the marketplace toward Microsoft.
Yes, it is piracy to copy a later/improved version of a programme in order to obtain a required feature not in the earlier version. The deal was made with Microsoft's reseller at the point of purchase. Contracts are private laws between the parties to the contract. A contract requires that the parties recognise that they are entering into a legal agreement as opposed to merely a moral agreement.
Your question could be analogised thus: if you buy a NAC112 and Naim upgrades the line to NAC112x should Naim then be required to pay a company in China to upgrade the NAC112 to x specs?
Deane
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by JonR
Err...
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
[..]goodwill felt in the marketplace toward Microsoft.
You mean, there is any?
JR
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Deane F
Well, I was trying to be polite. Maybe some people feel the same love toward Microsoft as Apple users do toward Macs - and I didn't want to offend those people.
I like MS Flightsim. It is large - no other flightsim has a whole world database, ubiquitous, addons are available through a community that is almost like an open source community etc. I do feel some goodwill about that. It has its drawbacks but so does a real airplane.
Deane
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Two-Sheds
quote:
It would be impossible to quantify the effect of a high degree of goodwill in terms of sales but I venture the argument nonetheless that were Microsoft to treat their customers a little better they might make more money.
I would like to agree with this, but in the past (back to DOS and up to windows 95/98?) there were no catches in the software and they were heavily pirated. I think Microsof took pretty much to only option left to it and started building these checks into the software. I can't think of any other way for any software firm to protect it's products cost effectively.
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by HTK
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
Well, I was trying to be polite. Maybe some people feel the same love toward Microsoft as Apple users do toward Macs - and I didn't want to offend those people.
Deane
Love of Microsoft - that's a new one. I think if you tread on any toes with that one Deane you'll be very unfortunate! Software licencing is the old music industry argument taken to stupid extremes. It would be less thorny if anything represented even average value for money and was backed up by the slightest nod towards customer service. Some companies are better than others - Macromedia being a case in point - but still not VFM IMO.
Cheers
Harry
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
Mike
Please spell my name with one "n". "Deanne" is a woman's name.
Deane
Sorry Deane - simple typographical error. BTW, I'll be sending you a pm later, busy right now.
Regards
Mike
Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
Your question could be analogised thus: if you buy a NAC112 and Naim upgrades the line to NAC112x should Naim then be required to pay a company in China to upgrade the NAC112 to x specs?
Deane
The analogy is false. MS do not have to pay somebody if a copy of programme is made.
Regards
Mike
Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Deane F
Mike
Analogies cannot be used to prove arguments but merely to illustrate them.
To be more specific, I do not see that Microsoft has a moral requirement to provide extra facilities in their software after the software has been purchased, no matter how useful those extra facilities are.
Deane
Posted on: 08 December 2004 by Jay
Deane
Microsoft do not need goodwill. They have extremely high, lets say, "market power". Think of them as the world's Telecom NZ.
quote:
To develop, is it piracy to copy a later/improved version of a programme in order to obtain a required feature not in the earlier version? Or should it ( eg. a back-up facility ) have been there from day one?
Yes it is piracy. If you bought the earlier version, you've paid for that, not any future versions.
Jay
Posted on: 09 December 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
Mike
Analogies cannot be used to prove arguments but merely to illustrate them.
Deane
Oh Deane... my answer would be that pedantry cannot be used to deflect a valid observation. (You provided tha analogy, BTW)
The analogy is wrong? The analogy is erroneous? The point remains the same.
There are better things to do.
Regards
Mike
Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.
Posted on: 09 December 2004 by Paul Hutchings
quote:
Originally posted by mike lacey:
To develop, is it piracy to copy a later/improved version of a programme in order to obtain a required feature not in the earlier version? Or should it ( eg. a back-up facility ) have been there from day one?
Yes of course it is, you may not have a moral problem with it but it is still piracy.
The Nokia 5140 is the updated model of my mobile phone, it does a lot that the original didn't, should I be entitled to nick one?
The fact it's a shiny disc or "just a serial number" doesn't alter the fact that it's theft.
If I'm being pedantic, Windows XP Home comes with the same backup facility as XP Pro, it takes about 10 seconds on Google to find that out. That's not having a go, but it highlights that it was probably simpler to get a hooky copy of XP pro than do solve the problem the correct way.
What could be an issue is that these days less and less PC vendors actually supply a "full" Operating System CD, they prefer to go with a "system restore CD", so it can be tricky to get at these extra features.
Paul
Posted on: 09 December 2004 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by mike lacey:
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
Mike
Analogies cannot be used to prove arguments but merely to illustrate them.
Deane
Oh Deane... my answer would be that pedantry cannot be used to deflect a valid observation. (You provided tha analogy, BTW)
The analogy is wrong? The analogy is erroneous? The point remains the same.
There are better things to do.
Regards
Mike
Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.
Yes Mike, I provided the analogy and when you suggested that my analogy was false I provided the qualification for my use of analogy. The qualification is that an analogy cannot be used as evidence of falsity or truth. In your attempt to refute my conclusion you used the word "false" solely in respect of my analogy.
Do I seem pedantic? I really don't care. It is a little tiresome to be forced to explain basic rules of discourse to you. Now I suppose I am condescending to you? It is not my intention. My intention is to civilise the discussion.
But go ahead, I suppose that I am being pompous, arrogant etc.
Deane
Posted on: 10 December 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by mike lacey:
There are better things to do.
Deanne
Shame you did not read the PT I mention above.
You sound like a good bloke - we have exchanged PTs if you recall - dont go down the sad route of faux outrage seen from people with little minds.
Remain a good bloke. Its only the Internet FFS, nothing important.
seasons greatings
Posted on: 10 December 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Dixon:
Crumbs, another person who's fallen out with Mike Lacey.
What the hell is wrong with us all?
Not entirely sure, Patrick: but of your last 20 forum posts, 12 have been about me ( and none of those, I suspect, would be comments you would say to may face...). This ignores the ones you deleted, BTW.
What the hell
is wrong with you?
Mike
Posted on: 10 December 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Fine: for brevities' sake lets agree that you have not deleted any posts.
My question remains: 12/20 posts about me - what the hell is wrong with you?
Posted on: 10 December 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Dixon:
quote:
Fine: for brevities' sake lets agree that you have not deleted any posts.
Surely you must mean for _accuracy's_ sake?
yes of course how very clever: but 12/20?
Posted on: 10 December 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Patrick I had no idea, my sincere apologies. Everything is now explained: if I looked like John Redwood I too would post like you do.
PS nice parting, BTW.
Posted on: 10 December 2004 by Deane F
Mike
Seasons greetings to you.
I took exception to you suggesting that I was being pedantic. It seemed like you were needling me without any good reason in much the same way as as you were needling me by returning to misspelling my name in a subsequent post.
I'd rather have a civilised conversation about the issues without getting personal.
Regards
Deane
Posted on: 10 December 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
Mike
Seasons greetings to you.........
...... you were needling me by returning to misspelling my name in a subsequent post.
Regards
Deane
Deanne
If you look above, you will see that I apologised pronto for what was simply a typo. Your subsequent reactions have surprised me. If you re-read that which you have posted, adopting a third party persona, you might see why.
Lesson learned: next time I disagree with a comment you make I'll just say I think its crap.
Regards
Mike
Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.
Posted on: 10 December 2004 by Rico
quote:
To develop, is it piracy to copy a later/improved version of a programme in order to obtain a required feature not in the earlier version? Or should it ( eg. a back-up facility ) have been there from day one?
Mike - next time you install some software (pirated or not) try
reading the software LICENSE AGREEMENT (which you have clearly just skipped over and clicked the "I accept" button! It contains all the answers to the questions you ask.
I do not suffer from 'love of microsoft' and also support open source. However, having spent some time working in software development, recognise the work & cost that goes into developing commercial software... and bear this in mind when anyone attempts to divorce piracy and ethics from copying.
Rico - SM/Mullet Audio
Posted on: 10 December 2004 by Rico
Deane said
quote:
To be more specific, I do not see that Microsoft has a moral requirement to provide extra facilities in their software after the software has been purchased, no matter how useful those extra facilities are.
Absolutely correct! Simple marketing - how else does one create a market for add-ons!? We can all observe how MS has carefully recognised specific add-ons provided in the aftermarket, and either copied or acquired and then included this in later versions of their software (and been to court over it)... yet to
expect that upgrades should be provided for free as improvements are made available deserves the following question:
Mike Lacey, show your business plan that supports such a free upgrades as your product is developed and evolved *without* increasing current pricing models.Patrick observed
quote:
Crumbs, another person who's fallen out with Mike Lacey.
What the hell is wrong with us all?
LOL.
Rico - SM/Mullet Audio
Posted on: 11 December 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Rico
You might care to note from the above that the issues have moved on. Even Patrick has replied in an humourous manner. Any chance you too could?
Should you actually have a genuine interest in this area, have a look at my postings elsewhere: my rationale is outlined in my "Windows XP Query" thread.
Seasons greetings.
Mike
Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.
Posted on: 11 December 2004 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
quote:
Originally posted by Rico:
yet to _expect_ that upgrades should be provided for free as improvements are made available deserves the following question: _ Mike Lacey, show your business plan that supports such a free upgrades as your product is developed and evolved *without* increasing current pricing models._
Rico - SM/Mullet Audio
Sorry to resurrect, but for a businessplan etc, consider that of Microsoft who give away free copies of Windows XP Service Pack 2. In other words, a free upgrade. Obviously, MS will now go into liquidation and Bill Gates will enter penury.
Oh yeah, the free upgrade is free. It is a no cost, free upgrade. Free, at no cost, free upgrade. It costs nothing. The price is $nil: £nil. The free upgrade is free. [/kicking a man when he is down mode]
Seasons bleatings.
Mike
Spending money I don't have on things I don't need.
