On Mar 30, 6:47 am, Mark Kent <mark.k...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Rexford Ballard <rex.ball...@xxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 29, 8:38 pm, Roy Schestowitz <newsgro...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >> Microsoft Happy with the Evolution of Windows Vista Piracy
> >> ,----[ Quote ]
> >> | But the truth is that Microsoft is happy with the way Windows Vista
> >> | piracy is evolving. Is there a catch to this?
>
> > Microsoft loves to scream "piracy" even when the piracy is actually based
> > on software that was originally legally obtained. For example, users
> > of beta versions distributed to MSDN subscribersr are legally "pirates"
> > shortly after the operating system is available to the general public.
> > MSDN subscribers, who pay about $1500/year for their subscription,
> > which includes lots of demonstration software. I've known more than
> > a few MSDN subscribers who didn't read the license agreements very well.
>
> I was more than a little confused by the nature of the article, though.
> Microsoft seem to be claiming that because illegitimate copies of Vista
> are only fetching US$5, then this is a good thing. Their argument being
> that this is because their anti-copyright-violation capabilities are so
> good that illegitimate copies are worthless. I do wonder, however, if
> another good reason might be that few people want Vista, and even fewer
> are willing to buy the hardware required to run it?
>
> --
> | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
> | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
> | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
Keep in mind that Microsoft can do a "puppy dog close" on them. Let
them
have access to the software for a month or two, then electronically
disable it.
It's very clearly spelled out in the Vista License agreements, that
Microsoft
has the right to completely disable the computer if the product is not
properly
resgistered within 30 days. After that - the machine can be disabled
completely.
If there were not an accepted clause in the license agreement, it
would be
extortion. The problem, for Microsoft, is that most people don't read
those
license agreements, and when Microsoft suddenly cripples their
computer,
and tells them that they have to pay full retail price for a license,
even if
the machine was purchased with an OEM license that wasn't properly
activatetd, it might cost Microsoft a huge amount of goodwill.
Remember that the Vista license also contains a clause that nullifies
any previous licenses. For example, if you purchased the machine with
XP,
then you upgraded to Vista, but you didn't register the activation
code,
your computer could be disabled, and you would not be allowed to use
either the Vista license or the XP license.
In effect, Microsoft could force end-users to pay up to $400 for Vista
Ultimate
(because the end-user had downloaded Real-Player into Home Basic or
Business
Edition, violating the terms of those licenses). If the user will not
agree to pay,
they pretty much have the choice of purchasing a new computer, or
switching
to Linux.
Again, it's right on the borderline between a legitimate copyright
license and
fraud, extortion, and sabotage. If a hacker attempted the same stunt,
without
the benefit of a $1 billion/year legal team, a carefully worded
copyright license
worded by that $1 billion/year legal team, and a $25 billion cash
hoard for quick
settlement payoffs, they would be facing life in prison for federal
felonies including
computer trespassing, computer sabotage, and extortion. The total per
offense is
5-10 years. The "3 strikes" rule would mean that the judge would have
to sentence
the perpetrator to life in prison.
The irony is that one of the clauses is that Vista Home edition can't
be use in
a Linux VM. The problem is that if Microsoft decides to shut down a
Linux system,
or even the VM, they are not just trespassing into the Windows system,
they are
trespassing into the Linux system. This WOULD be a federal crime. If
it were
ordered by Steve Ballmer or Bill Gates, they WOULD be facing life in
prison.
Remember, Microsoft's entire marketing model is patterned after the
very
effective tactics of drug dealers. Free, or very inexpensive
"samples" to get
the kids hooked. Increase the dose and concentration at higher prices
while
they drain their family resources. Get them so addicted they have to
resort
to prostitution, embezzlement, theft, and other crimes to "feed their
addiction".
As they begin to "burn out", you raise the prices, tell them they have
to turn
tricks at your parties, and "earn their keep" as slaves. Their charms
are used
to seduce new addicts who have resources.
In the final stage, there is the point where they aren't even putting
out at
the parties, and they are not "earning their keep", At this point,
the addict,
usually a couple, a guy who owes a lot and has been mouthing off or
trying
to get clean, and a girl who hasn't been putting out, get a "free
ride". The
problem is that insteod of cocaine or heroine, the ball is filled with
stricknine.
The first person to "dose" (usually the male), begins shaking and
convulsing
in a horrifying display of pain and suffering, eventually expiring in
extreme
pain. The survivor tells the horror story to the other people she
knows. She
is in fear of her own life. The other addicts avoid her like the
plague, but they
know that they had better "pay up or put out".
Vista is that 8-ball full of agonizing death. It has the code
required to completely
disable the computer, and even destroy all of the user's data. Even
if the customer
decides to switch to Linux as a result, he is very likely to go public
with his "horror
story", which is what the dealer wants. Even if they lose a few
customers, those
who are heavily dependent on Windows XP and Vista, now know that they
are
trapped, and have to do whatever Microsoft wants, even if it isn't
entirely legal.
Any resistence could result in "corporate death".
It's quite likely that Microsoft will hold off on "pulling the
trigger". They won't pull out
the poison rock unless and until they know they have critical mass
with Vista.
The problem is that the corporate lawyers are looking at these
licenses, and they
can see the risks. At this point, they are getting ready to do an
"Internevention" on
the IT department. Get the addict to admit they have a problem. Get
them to admit
that they need help. Then get them into a treatment program that
helps them
break their addiction. If necessary, give them alternatives which are
safer and
can be managed through safe distribution channels.
Unfortunately, the only remedy would be to have either have congress
or the supreme
court begin to limit the use of copyright licenses. They would have
to make it
illegal to use a copyright license to obstruct justice. For example,
a copyright
license could not be used to permit the publisher to commit criminal
acts. The
copyright license couldn't be used to restrict the flow of information
in such a way
as to perpetrate fraud.
|
|
