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."
It's totally up to Microsoft to determine how to license their software, and whom to license it to.
What's the fuss? They could license it for free use to recovering crack addicts that live on the 3000 block of 1st street that wear green pants if they wanted to.
As long as some marketing monkey at MS has the OK from the higher-ups, then it's all good.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Obviously microsoft has the right to allow you to use the software, with or without a license. The question in this case is:
Is Microsoft okay with this, or are the higher-ups unaware of what is happening here?
How can he prove this software is legal?
Is Microsoft falsly advertising? Software that is only for non-commercial use IS NOT the same as the software that is worth $109, so he did not recieve what was advertised.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
On the back of the sleeve the first CD is in. I got the same CDs at an event on the same tour.
Nobody here seems to "get it".
Think about the precident this could set and damage this could do to Microsoft. The next time Microsoft wants to prosecute someone for using software without a license, this occurance could be used as evidence that Microsoft does not have a firm and uniform policy on the importance of software licensing.
This, from the company who's entire - let me repeat that - ENTIRE business model is built around the assertion that possesion of little certificate is proof that one have the right to use their product. And, who's EULA reserves them the right to pop surprise inspections on their customers and fine them for software who's certificate can not be produced.
If pursued, this could have lasting repurcussions.
Of course he works for the evil beast! What would happen if you had to face the choice of dishing out $$$ for M$ $oftware or point you browser to openoffice.org?
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Comment removed based on user account deletion
IANAL, but it's not just obnoxious, it's illegal- regardless of whether you obscure the names. Unless I specify otherwise, any communication I send you is intended for you, and you only. If you forward it to someone else, or, say, post it online for all to read, I can sue you.
Got a source for that? Just curious.
Although it was wise for the submitter to check whether he was on solid legal grounds, it seems most uncivil of him to bring all this attention to the employee over such a relatively minor matter as this. Sasha seemed to be handling the problem with all expediency, and I imagine the issue would have been resolved had submitter merely waited and continued to correspond with him. Now tens of thousands of people know about this and Sasha risks getting in trouble with his superiors.
Submitting the site to slashdot was unjustified in light of how the problem was being handled, and it was a breach of trust on the part of the submitter.
If MS is writing of the $109 for every copy of this software they give away, but are not in fact giving away the part of the software (license) that's worth the $109, wouldn't that be fraud?
Customer A naively interprets this as "it's ok to install another copy on the second system." The person already has a CD and doesn't want to spend 8 hours downloading the game. The game is installed on the second computer and off they go.
the question now is "did the customer violate the copyright?" Well that's not a clear picture. For a copyright to be enforcible, it is up to the company to make sure it has uniform licensing, which is truthful and not deceptive. Would an average user consider this case "confusing" with "mixed messages"? Hell yes. The only way a company can make sure their copyright and licensing is air-tight is to include explicit exemptions that cover online versions. If the game license states something like, "this game can only be installed on one system. installation of the free version must be downloaded from the website and this license is not transferrable to free versions." then they are covered. Having no license doesn't necessarily constitute a "inconsistency" or "un-truthful advertising", but it definitely blurs the lines and creates confusion.
You're joking, right?
click
three words back;
Norton disk recovery
You have no idea how LITTLE information a DOS format actually erases do you? "NONE AT ALL"
Here's a better idea.
Boot knoppix
switch to a root shell
for wipe in 5 4 3 2 1; do dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/hda ; done ; dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/hda
Go to bed; it'll be all finished by morning.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
If someone from MS is giving me 8 CD's full of software & telling me that I can use it for free, I'm going to keep my big mouth shut except to say thank you. Why bother questioning the freaking license. If there was a problem, believe me, MS would not be handing out discs.
There isn't a problem now, but what if, for whatever reason, they decided they didn't like you found their software on your computer asked for your license which you couldn't produce?
You would be screwed.
Is this likely? I very seriously doubt it.
Is it possible? Yes.
Another possibility. MS denies that the rep had the authority to do such a thing. You are guilty of accepting stolen (pirated?) goods.
I assume this was actually a MS sponsored thing, so this scenario is even less likely than the previous one, but again possible.
That is the issue here.
Is it worth being worried about? Most likely not, but the legal system seems to run largely on these tiny nit pics.