Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Pirating Their Own Software?
14ghz writes "Microsoft gave out copies of .NET Visual Studio Pro to attendees of the Microsoft .NET Student Tour. Despite the discs saying "UNLICENSED
SOFTWARE -- Illegal without separate license from Microsoft", the freebie didn't contain any license document, and one guy decided to ask the MS conference rep about it. Read the in-progress story."
Dont they normally have some kind of click through license?
"Do you agree to our terms and conditions YES | No"
Kind of thing?
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
The dude who posted the article should have had the common decency to obscure the name of the person at Microsoft that he was corresonding with. I have had my name posted on the internet with correspondance I made on behalf of my employer and it always makes me uncomfortable.
Further, the guy is probably some frontline peon who really has no control over anything there and has only been given the vaguest of guidelines on how to operate. No sense sticking his name out on the net for future harassment or embarassment.
I really think doing that was a bad move and anyone in the tech industry should have the common decency not to do that to a colleague.
Even if it's closer to false advertising, because there isn't any direct profit going to MS from the distribution of the software, this "problem" is a non-starter.
What MS is trying to do is to create a viable developer base among students in order to facilitate later corporate acceptance of .NET, and they're not going to get upset about dinky shit like this -- and neither will any court -- as long as that objective is met. This tactic is nothing new, illegal, surprising or interesting.
It is up to Microsoft how and to whom they license the software but this guy and 500 others did not get a license of any kind, just a disk.
He could have downloaded this off of Kazaa or somewhere.
What happens when the company or school he is at gets audited 6 months from now? Does he have to pay up for a license? If MS had given him a piece of paper that said 1 non transferable license free for non-commercial use he could wip the paper out and show the auditors. Now he has to erase the software from his computer or pay up if he gets audited. MS is being lazy. If they want the rules to protect their revenue stream then they have to stick to the rules themselves.
I work for a major retail computer chain. We used to have training events with all kinds of software vendors (microsoft, mcafee, mgi, datavis, roxio, etc.) and they used to give out all kinds of free software so that we could try thier products in hopes that if we used them we would reccommend the software to our customers. Now, due to the current economy a lot of these training events have stopped, but even at the ones that still do occur (microsoft included) we dont get NEARLY the amount of handouts that we used to. Again, it could probably be argued that this is due to economic conditions, and I would agree if they were handing out keyboards or processors, but for the cost of them to manufacture a CD they dont lose money as compared to what they will make on our reccomendations to customers.
Anyway, back to my point. It seems to me that this guy is just trying to cause trouble for troubles sake, OR is trying to prove a point with regards to liscencing laws. While I agree with the sentiments, I DO NOT agree with the ammunition he is using for his fight.
All he is effectively doing is making these companies more gunshy to hand out free software to resellers like myself, or anyone else who attends training events like the one he did to get his software. The companies wont want to deal with a deluge of email like this, or go throught the trouble of making special key sets for promotional NFR (not for resale) software, etc. Actually, we USED to get software that was stamped NFR all over it, but they stopped this and started handing out "real" versions under volume lisences because there were more costs involved with producing NFR sets rather than using existing stock.
Youre looking a gift horse in the mouth and will end up ruining things for yourself and everyone else just to prove a point!
Yeah, but when the BSA comes in, sees you have a copy of MS software, but no license?
.. but it'd be your ass on the line if anybody contacted Leonard Publishing about your supposedly 'legal' pirated sheet music. Of course the owner of the copyright can let you have use of it for free, but if they dont give you legal proof that you own it, they could be responsible for getting you in legal trouble when an entirely seperate entity wants to check on the validity of what you own.
Considering they dont consider owning the original CD proof that you own it, I don't think they'll consider an email from an MS rep saying "its okay" proof that you own it.
Just because an MS employee says 'its okay' does not cover your ass in court if MS's *other hand* comes knocking at the door looking for proof that you indeed own licenses for the software you have installed on your computer.
The point is, the software/CD is worth nothing. The license is worth something. And you need the license to use the CD. Anything else could be a little bit of unintentional BSA-enforced entrapment.
I don't think it'd really happen, but the guy has a very very good point. It'd be like a sheet music service giving you photocopies of some sheet music (ie, no proof you own them), and saying "its okay, go ahead"
"Old man yells at systemd"
I left a few minutes early and they said they'd mail us VS.NET because they couldn't find it.
Seriously though, why would you be such a biatch to someone who's trying to do something FOR you. She helped coordinate the event that gave you FREE food (although those wraps were a funky colour), FREE software, and FREE sessions.
Oh well, I've read enough complaining in this post already; it's about time I stop contributing to it. I can't believe this made the front page.
If you make software with pirated tools, you still own it, and there is nothing illegal about the software you wrote.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Those papers Microsoft gives out are "End User License Agreements" and "Certificate[s] of Authenticity", they are not "Licences".
The EULA says you must have a licence, but it doesn't say what constitutes a license.
The best evidence you can provide of licensing is a receipt for the software from an authorized retailer. Otherwise you can hold up all the Certificates of Authenticity, original media and EULAs you want and you still could have bought the package from Bob down the street... which violates the terms of the EULA.
If you notice all the emails from Sasha to Lance, it states "Sasha Krsmanovic (ManPower)"
Manpower is a consulting firm.
They wrote the software, they can give it away, and give people permission to use it without a license if they so choose. Although it might be in their best interests to have done so in writing.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Ahh, this poor boy is one of the unwashed masses who has been trained to think that you need a license to use a piece of software.
Well guess what, YOU DON'T! You are in posession of the software, given to you in a legal fashion. You may use the software in any way you wish (including installing it on your computer and loading it into RAM, which is EXPLICITLY allowed by copyright law!). You may NOT distribute copies, which is explicitly prohibited by copyright law.
Since it didn't come with a license, you have the basic rights everyone has under copyright law, which are the same ones you have with a CD, a book, a poster, a DVD, etc...
I repeat: software licenses are used to add (or remove, unfortunately) from the basic rights afforded by copyright law. If you didn't receive a license, and you lawfully received the software, that's the END OF THE STORY.
If you're afraid of the BSA (which you shouldn't because they are a bunch of cowardly thugs), just print out the first email the MS-drone sent you, and be done with it.
One more time: just because Microsoft, Adobe, etc, have you trained like a monkey to kiss their ring whenever you need to install or run software, doesn't mean that's how it is. Even the GPL explicitly says that it doesn't cover RUNNING the software.
I wouldn't put that kind of sneaky, technically legal kind of behavior past Microsoft. After all the attacked elementary schools in Oregon why not university students.
However I really doubt this is a trap. Dot Net is a hurting piece of technology that offers very little advantage to anyone except people who are already tied into a microsoft solution.
Most articles that I have read have suggested that companies take a "wait and see" approach before adopting dot net. Of course if every body listened to this advice then few would adopt the new frameworks and the whole thing can fizzle worse than the XBox. I think that Microsoft is going to follow their old strategy of giving to away for cheap, until people depend on it then crank up the price.
Microsoft isn't at fault here. Good grief, all everyone here does is complain about Microsoft's draconian licensing system, then when they try and give something away they get jumped all over.
I mean, geeze. In that e-mail exchange the story linked to, one participant wasn't making sense, and it certainly wasn't Microsoft. 'Here, have this software' 'There's no license' 'Well you can use it for non-commercial use' 'Just this software?'. That last one kills me; he knows perfectly well that 'for that single piece of software we gave you you don't need a license' doesn't imply in any way that he doesn't need a license for ANY Microsoft software ever again. Don't try to make it sound like MS is being all contradictory.
Yes, software is like drugs.
You give it away or sell it very cheap, until your enough customers are hooked.
Then you raise prices.
Remember piracy is the best thing that has ever happened to Microsoft.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That sounds absolutely incorrect. Have you ever heard of investigative journalism?
I don't know what the exact state of the law is in the US, but certainly where I am (New Zealand) it's fully legal to record and/or disclose a private conversation as long as at least one of the participants is aware that it's happening. The exception is if there's a legally binding agreement between the parties that restricts disclosure.
Having said that, I agree that it's not very polite to disclose the name of the Microsoft employee on these emails. There's no need in this case except to embarass someone who probably doesn't deserve to be embarassed.
There's another phrase for when a company pirates it's own software.
It's called "legitimate and legal use".
oops.
It's been a long time.
There is more evidence that he is only a var acting on behalf of microsoft by looking at his name in those emails signed "Saha Krsmanovic (ManPower)." ManPower is a Canadian federally subsided employment agency. They offer a job posting board and training seminars to those looking for employment. He is probably just acting as a Var for Microsoft, though he works at ManPower. I'd say the cost of this handout software was covered many times over because this program is probably somehow federally subsidized (Therefor i paid for, that CD is free on beahlf of my tax dollars?). It would also explain his cluelessness if he was a federal employee.
Not in Australia, it isn't.
Think about it.
Spammers usually define spamming as "That which they do not do."
Here, we have a case where Microsoft is simply redefining software piracy as "That which we do not do."
Since Microsoft has also been known to spam, and has tried to weaken anti-spam laws in their favor, it comes as no surprise to me that the left hand has no idea of what the right is doing when it comes to handing out software.
Spammer logic. Amazing -- and kind of frightening -- how contagious it is.
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
Actually...
If that came from an authorized rep at MS, acting in his official capacity (i.e. e-mailed at work, instead of at his home address), a strong case could be made that it is, in fact, permission from the company. The important part here is "official capacity;" if you have reason to believe (that part is important) that the person you ask is, in fact, authorized to make such a deal (and if a representative of the company is handing out software at an officially-sanctioned conference, it's probably reasonable to believe it), then you can make a strong case in court that you were, in fact, entitled to use the software. It's possible that the court may find that you didn't have the right to use it, and require that you buy a license, but a conviction generally requires intent; if you can convince the judge/jury that you had good reason to believe that you were legit (the so-called "reasonable person" test), then you'll likely be acquitted.
If, however, you e-mailed Joe Blow at home, and got the flippant and obviously-unreasonable response you just provided, well, you're going to swing.
I, of course, ANAL.
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
That MS finds it nit-picking is humorus--except that that nit-picking is exactly what they expect companies, schools, users to do to remain legal. This is the the same laziness they are fighting tooth-n-nail to stop!
It's interesting that MS wants to play fast-n-loose with the rules while turning around and then later holding you to it--this guy's exactly right to make an issue out of it! That is exactly the problem with software licensing-it's become outright draconian! Just because it's MS giving out MS software doesn't mean they shouldn't follow the rules too! The big-wigs want to argue over details like this when it's you or I, but don't want to be bothered themselves if license tracking would cost too much!