Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Files a Copyright Infringement Lawsuit For Activating Pirated Software

First time accepted submitter Esra Erimez writes Microsoft has filed a complaint at a federal court in Washington accusing person(s) behind an AT&T subscription of activating various pirated copies of Windows 7 and Office 10. The account was identified by Microsoft's in-house cyberforensics team based on suspicious "activation patterns." Despite being one of the most pirated software vendors in the world, Microsoft doesn't have a long track record of cracking down on individual pirates. From the descriptions used in the complaint it seems likely that the target is not an average user, but someone who sells computers containing pirated software.

268 comments

  1. Creators wishing to control their creations... by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's have some outrage over creators seeking to, gasp, control their creations — and be paid for their use.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      I don't think there will be much outrage from people who understand that back-alley shops stay open by ripping off everyone, including their customers.

      It's how they stay in business, since they obviously don't have the skills to do business legitimately.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Despite being one of the most pirated software vendors in the world, Microsoft doesn't have a long track record of cracking down on individual pirates.

      Emphasis mine.

      Sent from my pirated copy of FreeDOS.

    3. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      That's so 1976-ish.

    4. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why? If you want to use Software that is not free, you're supposed to pay for it.

      The only thing that really pisses me off is that when they think you had to reinstall your copy a few too many time you become a frequent participant on their Indian call-in show...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer outrage over the unconscionable language. TFS sucks so bad that I RTFA (whoa).
      Maybe I just figured out why Slashdot doesn't have editors.
      It turns out that the opaque language "behind an AT&T subscription" is from TFA. Apparently it means that AT&T is the pirate's ISP.

    6. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mlts · · Score: 1

      Interesting that TFA talks about an activation key likely misused/abused.

      I'm sure the shop has the skills to operate legitimately. An OEM version of Windows mainly requires a sticker to be peeled from the back of the DVD case and slapped onto the machine, and that one OEM copy of Windows goes out per machine sold. Not rocket science. Here in the US, $130 is the "retail" charge for an OEM copy.

      IMHO, this is a non-issue.

    7. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Falos · · Score: 1

      Holding up "I thought of it first" as a paper wall to command the universe, indefinitely, strikes me as futile if not naive. Shout morals if you like, but reality listens closer to logistics. You might want to indulge it in the present, but it's a ridiculously impractical model going forward. Not to say that I have an immediate solution.

      Even with respect to morals, I tend to put more priority on people who lose control of their possessions, not people who want illusional control of "their" creations.

    8. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      You don't get to "control" your creations. That's not what COPYright law is about. It's about COPYing. "Control" is something entirely else beyond the scope and intent of intellectual property laws (at least in the US).

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re: Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like using AT&T to unlock software. People with skill can crack the software by knowing how to customize each installation for the motherboard.

    10. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mi · · Score: 1

      Why? If you want to use Software that is not free, you're supposed to pay for it.

      This sounds just as — indeed, indistinguishably — logical to me as "If you want to listen to music that is not free, you're supposed to pay for it". Or "If you want to watch a movie that is not free, you're supposed to pay for it."

      And yet, the prevailing opinion on /. remains, that creators wishing to control their creations (or sell such control to others) simply shows them to be greedy and their attempts — outrageous.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    11. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mi · · Score: 1

      It's about COPYing. "Control" is something entirely else

      Distinction without difference. Thanks for playing.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    12. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's one thing to pay for a movie if I want to watch it. That's pretty much the way it should be, you create something, you get compensated for me using it.

      It's another thing if I pay for the movie and then have to jump through additional hoops to watch it, and I can only watch it the way the creator wants me to. If I pay for something, I expect to be able to use it. As I please. Not as its creator pleases.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Creators have some natural control over their creations, which they could theoretically maintain indefinitely by keeping whatever they had created to themselves, and never allowing anyone else to see it in the first place. Barring independent invention, it's a fairly natural exclusivity that copyright is simply an extension of, and which coincidentally encourages a creator to publish, as long as society abides by the social contract that they will respect the creator's intentions.

      Care to take a guess how many people would willfully publish their stuff if everything that they published had to become public domain? Sure, there'd be some... but anything of quality would certainly get lost in an endless ocean of tripe that nobody cared enough about to ever want to have a copyright in the first place.

    14. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Holding up "I thought of it first" as a paper wall to command the universe, indefinitely, strikes me as futile if not naive.

      This is the ridiculous level you people have sunk to, the perception that Microsoft is trying to indefinitely command the universe! If you dont want to use it on their terms then dont use it, use something else. People on here are always crowing about how Windows sucks anyway so it shouldn't be a problem for you.

    15. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      The "suspicious pattern" is back-to-back activation of Windows 7 and Office 2010 from one ip, then the machines being dispersed to other ips as the customers take them whereever. Not all legit customers are going to buy/activate Office, whereas any place that sells only machines with copies of both win7 and office2010 pre-activated is suspicious.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    16. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, let's: "That was MY idea!" is playground rhetoric. Copy right is designed to provide temporary incentive, not to assign a moral right to "control" as if an idea/expression were like phsical property.

    17. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mi · · Score: 1

      Holding up "I thought of it first" as a paper wall to command the universe. Shout morals if you like, but reality listens closer to logistics.

      The paper wall of the property deed works just fine — in a reasonably law-obedient society — to hold squatters outside of one's house. I don't see, why you'd dismiss the "I thought of it first" paper wall as any less practical.

      I tend to put more priority on people who lose

      "Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser."

      -- Vince Lombardi

      Also:

      "Show me a good and gracious loser and I'll show you a failure."

      -- Knute Rockne

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    18. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      Actually, there' something called "moral rights" in copyright law that allows the copyright holder to prevent you from, for example, buying an art book with a bunch of nice pictures in it, cutting out and framing all the pictures, and reselling the framed pictures.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    19. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Yup. I've seen more than my fair share of people with computers stuffed to the socks. "So you say this laptop loaded with Windows 7 Ultimate, MS-Office Pro and Photoshop only cost you $300. Hmmm..."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    20. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Devising a counterexample is so utterly trivial that I leave it as an exercise for the reader.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    21. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      I think the breakdown between reasonable parties on difference sides of the discussion is about what "buying a movie" means.

      Many of us would prefer to own, perpetually, a copy of the movie which we could use freely in any non-public performance forever without additional necessary license. Some of us, OTOH, are happy to rent a movie, like we do with a lot of digital downloads.

    22. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Let's have some outrage over creators seeking to, gasp, control their creations — and be paid for their use.

      More like... creators getting angry that the business model they've created is basically impossible to control, yet they expect the judicial system do it for them.
      Google, Apple and just about every other OS in the world has already realized trying to charge for an OS is impossible and have moved on... This is just Microsoft providing more evidence that they're a dinosaur left over from the 80s. What are they going to do next? Try and ban Color copiers because they can be used to circumvent their copyright protection of printing my serial in black in on red paper?

    23. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I've never run up against it. I activated about two dozen copies of education-licensed versions of Office 2007 a few years ago, and the auto-activation failed after the first install. After that, I had to call a 1-800 number, give an automated service the installation key and it barfed out an activation key... over and over again.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    24. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      It's one thing to pay for a movie if I want to watch it. That's pretty much the way it should be, you create something, you get compensated for me using it.

      It's another thing if I pay for the movie and then have to jump through additional hoops to watch it, and I can only watch it the way the creator wants me to. If I pay for something, I expect to be able to use it. As I please. Not as its creator pleases.

      Simple solution - don't use it. Problem solved.

      Your movie analogy - sitting in a theatre watching ads before the movie is part of the "experience"; you don't get to watch it your way.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    25. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      We had one guy like that around the turn of the century. He'd "custom-build" computers loaded to the gills. The problem was he knew nothing about computers. All of a sudden he's complaining because "AMD CPUs are crap. None of them boot into Windows." He was booting the computer to test it before adding the CPU fan, and those Thunderbirds ran hot.

      Someone told him to ask me what was wrong, and what he could do to fix it, and I said "Concrats, you now own a very very fast 16-bit DOS machine. Enjoy DOOM".

      Kind of cheesed me off since I had heard he was pirating some custom software I had written, but whatever.

      In the end it wasn't Microsoft who did him in, but the tax man. They wanted the sales tax on everything he had sold. He went personally bankrupt.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    26. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by xevioso · · Score: 1

      I can choose to enter the movie theater just as the ads are over...

    27. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by msauve · · Score: 1

      "The paper wall of the property deed works just fine â" in a reasonably law-obedient society â" to hold squatters outside of one's house. I don't see, why you'd dismiss the "I thought of it first" paper wall as any less practical."

      Physical property is naturally constrained. There's only one person who can occupy a given space, or own a particular thing. If someone else occupies that space, or steals the thing, then the original owner no longer has it.

      "Intellectual property" is completely different. If I make a copy of a work, I have taken nothing from the creator.

      What's this "paper wall" BS? Are you arguing that any law, simply because it is a law, is proper and just?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    28. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mi · · Score: 1

      If I pay for something, I expect to be able to use it. As I please. Not as its creator pleases.

      Why not? Why should the creator not be able to impose any restrictions they damn please? As long as they aren't in a position to prevent you from rejecting their entire creation, they ought to be able to attach whatever strings they want. If you don't like the software/movie/song enough to accept the terms, you remain free to act as if it was never written...

      I, for example, strongly dislike Microsoft software — and I don't use it. I know a multitude of people, who don't give a damn — and that's fine too. What I don't understand are people like yourself — who "hate on" the creators for this or that, while still using the creations.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    29. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As the cost of mass producing physical goods trends towards zero, the only thing that will be of value will be unique or creative ideas.

      The future is intellectual property protection, forever.

    30. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mi · · Score: 1

      Devising a counterexample is so utterly trivial that I leave it as an exercise for the reader.

      You are not writing a textbook (which your students will be compelled to buy) here, professor.

      Do put your arguments forth yourself, or get out. Put up or shut up, so to speak.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    31. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you lied to him instead of fixing it? Wow, you're a bitch.

    32. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      I can choose to enter the movie theater just as the ads are over...

      And getting a crappy seat. Is that how you want to watch a movie?

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    33. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Dunbal · · Score: 0

      I bought a computer that comes with shitty Windows 8 installed. I paid the "Microsoft Tax" at the OEM level. Fucking excuse me if I prefer Win 7 - which I also paid an OEM license for 5 years ago. Wait you want me to pay a THIRD time?

      No - Microsoft are greedy fucks, just like the *IAA are greedy fucks.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    34. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "I have taken nothing from the creator." Incorrect, you have taken their right to decide distribution. That's what copyright is about.

    35. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting way of saying you can't think of one.

    36. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is why you are not buying the software. You are buying a usage license for a copy of the software. UNLESS the license specifies that you are allowed to modify or use the source of that software.

      You are limited to what the license allows you to. You are not buying the product. You are acquiring a license to use the product. You are not the owner of the intellectual property, you are an individual user/licensee of it.

    37. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by i.kazmi · · Score: 1

      If the copyright terms enforced the copyrights for a reasonable period of time (for instance 5-10 years maximum) and it was a level playing field, a lot of the objections would go away. As it is, copyright terms are not granted for reasonable periods of time (for all intents and purposes, we have perpetual copyrights) and the behemoths making the most noise about copyright infringement don't care about smaller parties' copyrights (violating copyrights, issuing blanket DMCA takedowns). It is not surprising that most people don't care about what the behemoths have to say and what their position on copyright related issues happens to be.

    38. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by RingDev · · Score: 1

      Negative, the originator still has the right to decide to distribute, or not.

      What you have taken from them is a governmentally enforced monopoly of a thought.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    39. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there' something called "moral rights" in copyright law that allows the copyright holder to prevent you from, for example, buying an art book with a bunch of nice pictures in it, cutting out and framing all the pictures, and reselling the framed pictures.

      I doubt that very much. Show me a case which broadly prohibits that - not some narrower interpretation tenuously connected. I don't care if the book publisher gets in trouble if I cut up the book, I signed no such agreement when I bought it off the discount rack at B&N.

    40. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mi · · Score: 1

      No - Microsoft are greedy fucks

      Well, if that's how you feel, why didn't you buy a "barebone" computer to use with free software? If you hate (on) Microsoft so much, why do you use their software at all? I don't...

      just like the *IAA are greedy fucks.

      Are they? Well, why do you listen/watch their wares then? Just pretend, they do not exist — go to a theater, read a book...

      No, you don't want that — you want to keep enjoying other people's works, while badmouthing them for being "greedy".

      For the rest of the audience, ladies and gentlemen, the above post provides exactly the "outrage" I was talking about. Thanks for your time.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    41. Re: Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are of course factually correct in how software licensing works legally.

      The unfathomable part is why we as a society continue to allow it to work like that.

      Now, this case doesn't sound like somebody doing anything remotely morally right by almost anybody's book. Most people who lack sympathy for Microsoft here are simply (and rightly, to me) venting frustrations at their regular annoying policies and restrictive licenses.

      I just wish half the outrage directed at them were instead directed twoards changing the legal system to make those practices not legal.

    42. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by NJRoadfan · · Score: 2

      OEM copies of Windows (pre-Windows 8) generally aren't activated online, they use OEM SLP or SLIC keys paired with an installed certificate and OEM BIOS marker. Unless you install with System Builder or retail media, the restore discs/recovery partition image that come with OEM machines generally come SLIC activated. That being said, the Windows 7 keys on the side of countless OEM machines have never been activated against Microsoft's systems. It could even be the source of this person's keys.

      This all changed with Windows 8 though, now OEMs have to embed a unique product key in each machine's UEFI BIOS and activate it online.

    43. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by xaxa · · Score: 1

      Why not? Why should the creator not be able to impose any restrictions they damn please? As long as they aren't in a position to prevent you from rejecting their entire creation, they ought to be able to attach whatever strings they want.

      Many countries have laws preventing unreasonable contracts, and judges that will often side with the consumer when a contract is intentionally misleading etc. These terms would need to be made very clear, and the price reduced too.

    44. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      He had burned out most of the CPU. Only the 16-bit portion still worked. That's why they said in the instructions not to run it without the cooling fan; the cpu self-destructs in 15 seconds. But of course he'd run it "to do a burn-in test" and wonder why it wouldn't get past the startup screen. This is the type of guy who thinks that if a thin film of thermal gel is good, lots must be better.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    45. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The $NZ price for retail Windows is slightly under $296. That's the cheapest, in a country where the average wage is lower than the Greek.

    46. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by msauve · · Score: 1

      "Right to decide?" Well, from the same vacuum you pulled that "right" from, I'll claim a "right to copy."

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    47. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Actually that would probably go under derivative works since you could sell those rights. The key thing about moral rights is that in most jurisdictions you can't sign them away. For example say that you sell the rights to a film based on your book, but they totally change the story to the point it violates your artistic integrity then in Europe you have a good chance of getting it stopped. Or someone buys the rights to a song from you and use it in nazi propaganda or rape porn or whatever, basically it's an escape hatch to say I sold it, but not for that.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    48. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS, you could probably fit 6,7 more people in your house. Especially when you are not home.
      So why can't they use it? You haven't lost anything since you are not there.

      If you buy a big house with a room you never use, by your argument anyone should be able to squat it in.
      since it doesn't take anything away from you.

      I could just use your house when your at work just to get out of the cold and not touch anything.
      Don't worry, I won't turn on the lights or run the water. I'll just hang about in the house while you are out.
      Since I've not taken anything physical from you you should be perfectly fine with that.
      What have you lost? Is it an actual thing or a 'conceptual right'?

    49. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Why not? Why should the creator not be able to impose any restrictions they damn please?

      If that those restrictions are clear before I buy, they should be able to impose them. But if I don't find out about the 20 minutes of unskippable commercials, until after I insert by purchased DVD, then I have the moral justification to watch a few pirated movies from the same studio to get even.

    50. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      $130? I've been getting legit OEM copies from Newegg for $99 with purchase of a mouse or keyboard. Paying $130 is insane and dumb for anyone that does not need the ability to join a domain.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    51. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      If you hate (on) Microsoft so much, why do you use their software at all? I don't...

      Because their OS software is pretty much the industry standard. I don't have time to tool around 30 hours just to maybe get my OS working with my hard/software. How's your systemd btw?

      No, you don't want that — you want to keep enjoying other people's works, while badmouthing them for being "greedy".

      Who says that? I go to the movies once in a while and I pay. I don't download movies to avoid going to the cinema. I've paid for music CD's. I don't think I should pay AGAIN for an MP3 of a song I already own on CD just because I'm too lazy to look for it through my CD's and rip it myself, and I really don't think I should pay for watching the movie I missed on my cable TV last night because I was too tired to watch. You realize the cable company has no trouble charging me whether my TV is on or off, or whether I actually watch a show or not, right? The "creator" is certainly getting his cut regardless. If anyone should bitch, it's the ad companies - but no one watches those anyway.

      It's not my fault if you can't see exactly where you are being manipulated into feeling sorry for the middle-men who add nothing except their expensive bills. That kind of thing results in economic inefficiency, and there is absolutely no reason to support it.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    52. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Yet I don't. Nobody makes me pay for the FM radios stations, and I change to another when the commercials come on. Same goes to TV when they play movies. I don't pay a dime and I leave for the kitchen or use the computer when ad's come on.

      Therefore I meet the requirements of "dirty rotten pirate"

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    53. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      crappy seat? we have reserved seats here. I get to eject the fool that is sitting in my seat.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    54. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      And the price needs reduced? Wha?

      I agree, completely, that a content producer should disclose the full terms of the sale, or license, or viewing/screening/performance.

      ...but if I say the Aerosmith tickets are $500, and disclose exactly what seats those entail, what you're allowed to carry into the venue, and what time you can arrive and how long you can stay -- who are you to say that I can't charge $500 as long as people are willing to pay the price.

    55. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      You have the moral justification to return the film unwatched.

    56. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if that's how you feel, why didn't you buy a "barebone" computer to use with free software?

      Don't barebones computers have the Microsoft tax on them, too?

      If you hate (on) Microsoft so much, why do you use their software at all? I don't...

      He didn't say he hates them, he said he hates having to pay them again and again for something he's already paid for. Reading comprehension, learn it.

      Well, why do you listen/watch their (*AA) wares then? Just pretend, they do not exist — go to a theater, read a book...

      Or learn to play guitar, then play in public and get sued ("All it takes are four chords...").

      Commas. Learn how to use them.

      No, you don't want that — you want to keep enjoying other people's works, while badmouthing them for being "greedy".

      Even a child could see that you're twisting this to make your argument. His primary issue is that he keeps paying for new versions of software through the Microsoft tax, even though he's fine with his previous one.

      For the rest of the audience, ladies and gentlemen, the above post provides exactly the "outrage" I was talking about. Thanks for your time.

      It's a shame you've drawn this conclusion, when the rational conclusion is that the GP is forced to pay for software to support a business when his existing software adequately fulfills his needs.

      You've imposed your own opinions about others, in this case you've created a quest against Microsoft in your mind while imagining that the GP is using - for free - software that he's actually paid for.

      That, and you can't use a comma correctly to save your life.

    57. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by msauve · · Score: 1

      That's an odd example, since many of the art books I've seen are full of reproductions made without the permission of the original artist. Why should the compiler of that book have more rights than the descendants of Van Gogh, Rembrandt, etc.?

      Similarly, I find the continual extension of copyright terms pushed by Disney, et al, exceedingly hypocritical - Disney built its business from freely copying the works of others - the Bros. Grimm, Hans Christian Anderson, Mark Twain, etc. Now, they want to hold our culture hostage to their own profits.

      (Are you claiming that the first sale doctrine doesn't cover the case of reselling individual pages from a book? Cite, please.)

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    58. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because their OS software is pretty much the industry standard.

      so? that doesnt mean you suddenly get it free of charge. buy a commercial perpetual license for the version you like and build your own pcs with no OS or get a refund for the OEM copy. though since OEMs only pay a few dollars for the license (or in the case of Windows with Bing, nothing) you probably wont get much, but then that's because you didnt pay much, if any in the "microsoft tax". Tell me, how much exactly *is* this microsoft tax you are complaining about?

      if you dont want it, dont use it. if you want it just pay for it, it isnt prohibitively expensive.

      I don't have time to tool around 30 hours just to maybe get my OS working with my hard/software. How's your systemd btw?

      right, the free stuff sucks which is why the paid stuff is worth the cost. seriously the microsoft tax is a few tens of dollars at the most given the huge OEM discounts, its not that bad.

    59. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why not? Why should the creator not be able to impose any restrictions they damn please?

      Largely because of the first-sale doctrine, which codifies property rights sanity: if you sell me something, it is now mine, not yours. I can do whatever I want with it. Use my spatula as a screwdriver? Use a thermos bottle for a hammer? Watch scenes in a movie out of order? It's none of your business. I bought it. It is now my property, and I'm free to do with it as I please.

      (Averting pedantry: of course that doesn't involve violating copyright. Straw men will be ignored.)

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    60. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      I bought a computer that comes with shitty Windows 8 installed. I paid the "Microsoft Tax" at the OEM level.

      If you don't want it then get a refund for it, there is lots of documentation on the net about how to go about this.

      Fucking excuse me if I prefer Win 7 - which I also paid an OEM license for 5 years ago.

      So now you're discovering the difference between and OEM license and a retail license.

      Wait you want me to pay a THIRD time?

      Well you can get a refund on the first OEM charge so that brings it to 2 times. And if you had the forethought to buy a retail copy instead of an OEM you could still use that license, though maybe 2 OEM copies is cheaper than a retail? If so then the fact that you pay twice is irrelevant.

    61. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      These days, we have high quality software already made, And the open source revolution has shown us that it is poppycock, the claim that you need the proceeds of extortionate licensing fees in order to build high quality software.

    62. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by msauve · · Score: 1

      Sure, as long as he receives adequate compensation for the time, effort, and resources he went through for that return. For me, the value of the time, effort, and mileage needed to return a DVD would be far greater than the selling price of most DVDs.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    63. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, as long as you do it without opening the package... They are disclosed before you open the package, right?

    64. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be happy to do both, nowadays. The ideal situation for me would be that I could legally purchase a DRM-free movie in a file format usable on a wide variety of platforms/applications (so nothing fixed to a crappy Internet-authenticated, Windows-only player). But of course it seems this audience I'm a part of is either too niche for Hollywood to provide a service for, or more likely they prefer having control over their content greater than giving this particular audience what they'd want (which given the movies get pirated to 1080p MKVs anyway, doesn't make much sense not to provide said DRM-free copies legally anyway).

      But as I get older and care less about watching movies again except for certain classics, most movies would be OK if they game in the form of rented/streamed versions. But Netflix still hasn't appeared here in Australia yet and the legally available alternatives are outrageously priced, so it's again not really possible. Seems to be hard to give people what they want apparently.

    65. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Van Gogo, Rembrandt, and their contemporaries have been dead for quite a while, and copyright was much more limited (or non-existent) then.

      Here's another limitation of fair use - you can't resell anything covered by copyright that you've imported from elsewhere..

      here you go

      The court in this case held that it was against the law to strip the individual pictures from a book and, in effect, create derivative works.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    66. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft OEM licenses used to allow you to run previous versions. Has that changed with Windows 8?

    67. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And the open source revolution has shown us that it is poppycock

      Then where is the open source engineering, architectural, image editing, visualization, simulation, product design, raytracer, non-linear video editor, audio production software, etc that is at least as good as the proprietary software?

      the claim that you need the proceeds of extortionate licensing fees in order to build high quality software.

      If the free software is so good then you dont need to pay license fees or pirate proprietary software anyway.

    68. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by msauve · · Score: 1

      Walt Disney has been dead for quite a while, too. Shouldn't Mickey Mouse, then, be in the public domain?

      The cited case is nuanced - it hinges on derivative works - "As we have previously concluded that appellant's tile-preparing process results in derivative works and as the exclusive right to prepare derivative works belongs to the copyright holder, the "first sale" doctrine does not bar the appellees' copyright infringement claims."

      The defendant was placing the original printed images on ceramic tiles, which was decided to be derivative. It's undecided by this case whether simply selling individual pages would be derivative (and doubtful, IMO), and simply framing the pages would be a gray area, as they would still be a print medium.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    69. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? In most theaters I've been to, seat reservations expire once the lights turn off.

    70. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mrbcs · · Score: 1
      I have hundreds of dvd's in my house. Each one is either ripped or a torrent downloaded from Piratebay before I watch it.

      The Canadian laws say that a content provider (copyright holder) is only allowed to sue me for the value of the lost products (lost sales).

      Since I can show a legally purchased dvd, there is no loss. No charges will ever stand up in court. We also have the right to own dvd copyright protection removal software.

      This is my way of using what I bought the way I want to. I totally agree with the parent, if i BUY something, I have every right to use it as I see fit. Remember when these assholes wanted you to buy a song for your stereo, then another copy for your computer, then another one for your car? Sony rootkit? This industry seriously needs an enema.

      Netflix and Spotify will be the norm soon. No-one will buy anything.

      --
      I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
    71. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, despite the name, copyright isn't about *copies*, it's about *first distribution*. Virtually nothing in copyright law triggers on the *creation* of a copy. Rather, virtually everything triggers on *first distribution* of said copy.

      If I have legally obtained a copy of a work, I can dispose of said copy in any fashion I please.
      I can sell it.
      I can rent it.
      I can give it away.
      I can burn it.
      I can shred it and line a bird cage with it.
      I can create copies for personal use, including translations and archival copies.
      I *cannot* (legally) create additional copies for distribution to others.

    72. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      You want to "control your creation — and be paid for it's use"

      Nope, no outrage here

      You want to create something that has no function that is not available in something else which is available for free AND you want to get paid a whole bunch of money for it...

      Still no outrage. Not my problem, I'll just use the free thing and ignore you.

      You somehow manage to get most of the world using your expensive thing, I now need to use that expensive thing myself because everyone else is and I can't read their stuff and they can't read mine until we are on the same system. You want me to give you a ton of money for some "home" edition that is really sucky or several tons of money for the good version even though there are STILL perfectly good quality free options available if only people would stop using your crap and instead use something that is compatible with said free stuff...

      And... you manage to get most hardware manufacturers locked into contracts where to buy their hardware I have to pay for your software wether I want to use it or not...

      Ahh! There's the outrage! You should be perfectly free to charge for the use of your creation but I should never be forced to use it!

    73. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      I haven't set foot in a movie theater in 15 years. They want to do it their way, then they obviously don't want my money.

      The local theater closed here about a year ago. Guess there wasn't enough folks like you to keep it afloat.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    74. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Why should the creator not be able to impose any restrictions they damn please?

      Why should the rest of us aid them in doing so? E.g. by conferring upon them some sort of legal rights that pertain to how the work is used by others.

      While I think it could potentially be beneficial for the public to grant rights to authors, it's surely not always beneficial under every circumstance, and every permutation of works and rights.

      And if the author doesn't like the terms under which the public might deign to give them rights, they're free to not create the work.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    75. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're confusing "pay for" with "buy". Nobody reading this thread owns or has ever owned a copy of Microsoft Windows. You may be licensed to use it, but you don't own it, and you can't use it or distribute it in ways that violate the license agreement. If you lease a car, do you think you have the right to drive it into a brick wall or sell it on ebay just because you made your monthly payment? Your problem is you want to own something that (a) isn't for sale and (b) you probably couldn't afford if it actually was.

    76. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Care to take a guess how many people would willfully publish their stuff if everything that they published had to become public domain?

      Well, that's how it operated in the US from 1790 through to the end of 1977. Turns out that relatively few published works were copyrighted. Further, since there was a renewal term (that is, the copyright would be good for an additional number of years if you re-upped in a timely fashion) we also know that most authors of copyrighted works didn't bother to get a renewal, and let their works enter the public domain sooner than they had to.

      It worked fine. We got great literature and the golden age of Hollywood on both film and tv, as well as tons of great music.

      And frankly, a system of strict formalities to get copyrights is a more important thing to change in the law than shortening the term length.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    77. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Walt Disney has been dead for quite a while, too. Shouldn't Mickey Mouse, then, be in the public domain?

      The Constitution says that copyrights, if granted, must expire after "limited Times". The first Congress established the length of copyright at 14 years, plus one 14-year renewal. If we were still going by those terms (and just applying them to more types of works), every work released before December 8, 1986 - including, but not limited to, old Mickey Mouse cartoons - would now have returned to the public domain.

    78. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by ewibble · · Score: 1

      If you think that allowing an entity control an idea just simply because they "though of it first" is practical solution simply imagine a world where this is the case for everything. The wheel, fire screws, language ... we would go crazy trying to attribute value to people. In fact since every idea is based on others, giving the person who thought of it first indefinite control means you will stifle new ideas. Ok patents have a limited life, but as the pace of technology increases, the length of a patients should decrease, as soon as everybody in the world can improve on an idea, not just the inventor the better. I think 20 years is far too long. I don't think there is evidence that patients increase innovation.(http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFIQtwIwCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dq1Pi4w8ddA8&ei=ilOGVKnhDsLs8AWtr4K4Ag&usg=AFQjCNHKvJQ8POQ4jnw6Jlda2o31NmIIYw) or http://www.nber.org/papers/w99...

      Knowledge is not like physical things its replication comes without cost and the more people that can use that knowledge the better off everyone will be. That is why we teach our children isn't it? So that they can learn the ideas of the past, in order that they can build on them in the future.

      The internet's, power lies in people sharing ideas (not porn, cat movies, or what I had for breakfast) it seems ironic that we have invented a mechanism which drastically increases our ability to share knowledge and people are jumping up and downs saying don't share its evil, its just like stealing.

      Don't get me wrong we should compensate the entity that came up with an idea fairly, but I don't think the entity getting the money is the right person to come up with what is fair, they will always want as much as possible. (Neither is the person spending the money)

    79. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand my point... I was not talking about indefinite copyright terms, I was talking about copyright itself as a concept. How many people would publish if no option to have a copyright existed at all? And what is the point of having a copyright in the first place if the creator isn't supposed to be permitted to try and exercise control over who may copy their works?

    80. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by radish · · Score: 2

      And I honestly don't think Microsoft are trying to control what you do with their software. At least, I've never seen anything like that. All the licensing stuff is about proving you actually did buy it, and thus proving that the first sale doctrine even applies. It's a nuisance for sure, but I'm not sure what the alternative is. That said, as a 20+ year user of their products I've had to call for a license activation precisely once and it took maybe 60 seconds. I can live with that.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    81. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's no different than companies who try to charge for their video games, which is kinda a fundamental requirement for them to stay sustainable business-wise. It's extremely hard to argue the justification for Windows or any other software being free if no sales model exists that allows the same amount of profit.

    82. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..., I had to call a 1-800 number, give an automated service the installation key and it barfed out an activation key... over and over again.

      Thousands of times THIS, punishing the small shops with manual activation or endless install nightmares from MServer push setups. We needed a full time admin for the install process. I used to say "I'd like to punch Bill Gates in the nose for the wasting everyone's time", now I think I'd aim a little lower.

    83. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      How many people would publish if no option to have a copyright existed at all?

      Well, all the people who published works before 1710 had no copyrights. All the people who published after that, but not in England had no copyrights until various countries slowly adopted copyright (the US picked it up in 1790, the French after that, and most of Europe in the 19th century -- and they only exported it to the rest of the world by means of colonialism, not on its own actual merits).

      Plus there were various limits, e.g. the US only granted copyrights to Americans until almost the end of the 19th century; British authors had no option to get an American copyright at all... unless they became American citizens.

      More recently, various classes of work were ineligible. For example, architectural works (in practice, buildings) were uncopyrightable in the US until 1990. Were no buildings designed and built in this country until architects were given copyrights?

      What I think you're missing here is that there are a plethora of incentives for an author to create and publish a work. Money gained by exploiting a copyright on the work is but one of those incentives, and often is not the most important one, and also often is not an essential one.

      I certainly agree that it can be useful, but that doesn't mean that we ought to go hog wild with it; as with many other things, a little might be beneficial, but too much can be harmful.

      And what is the point of having a copyright in the first place if the creator isn't supposed to be permitted to try and exercise control over who may copy their works?

      The point is to grant authors copyrights as an additional incentive in order to entice them into creating and publishing works which they would not have created and published, but for copyright. If they would've done it anyway, the copyright is superfluous, and granting it would be wasteful. If they require more copyright than is healthy for society, all things considered, we're literally better off not granting it even though it means we'll be bereft of the work in question.

      It's not intended to give authors control over works for their own sake. That's just the means by which it functions. It's intended to produce a public benefit. And while the public does benefit from having works created and published, it also benefits from not having anyone controlling works.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    84. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reasonable restriction the author can impose is that I not make copies for other people. Dissassemble, reverse-engineer, modify, use while smearing peanut butter on my naked body and listening to Q Lazarus' Goodbye Horses, that shit's all fair game.

    85. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Someone told him to ask me what was wrong, and what he could do to fix it, and I said "Concrats, you now own a very very fast 16-bit DOS machine. Enjoy DOOM".

      It booted? Wow. The one time I accidentally did that to that class of processor, it blew apart -- very quickly.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    86. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Well, all the people who published works before 1710 had no copyrights

      In general, they had no printing press either... Copying was a difficult and expensive enough proposition that a natural exclusivity existed even without copyright. Once copying technologies started becoming affordable, an alternative mechanism was required to allow creators to publish their works, and retain their otherwise natural exclusivity rights that they would only have had by not publishing at all in an age where copying was becoming increasingly affordable.

    87. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      that doesnt mean you suddenly get it free of charge

      You missed the bit where I already paid licensing fees right? Twice. You are just arguing with the voices in your head.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    88. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by russotto · · Score: 1

      And that is why you are not buying the software. You are buying a usage license for a copy of the software.

      No, I'm not. I'm buying a copy of the software. I need no license to use my copy of the software.

    89. Re: Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      image editing - gimp
      raytracer - povray
      non-linear video editor - cinellera
      audio production software - ubuntu studio had lots of great tools

      "If the free software is so good then you dont need to pay license fees or pirate proprietary software anyway."

      That's a very good and important point. No need to steal other people's stuff. I've been moving more of my digital media creation for my company to Linux-based applications. We've already gone totally Linux with our Web servers and office machines. All our office work is done in Libre Office on Linux. No need to steal from other people.

      Many companies by proprietary for the tech sort.

    90. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Falos · · Score: 1

      If you can prove an absence of any physical result, then the situation is indistinguishable from an empty house by the currently-understood metrics of reality.

      I have no problem with such a scenario. I couldn't; I'd have no way to know. You might have to bend the laws of physics to achieve it, though. Best get started.

      The owners of imaginary property can't even tell if they're being violated. Their metric is conceptual, cultural even: Failure to oblige an entitlement they gave themselves in the first place.

      For all I know, a ghost does inhabit my house. Or several. The fuck do I care?

    91. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      I can choose to enter the movie theater just as the ads are over...

      Or just close your eyes for a 10 minute pseudonap while the ads play.

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    92. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet the GIMP is still ever so far behind compared to Photoshop, and Libreoffice still is too buggy and incomplete to be a viable competitor to Office.

    93. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      While Disney is somewhat of a big monster company, I kind of understand them retaining full rights to Mickey Mouse and the character's legacy. I say this because the company (Disney) is still alive and they even still use Mickey Mouse in their works. It just makes sense.

    94. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      "Right to decide?"

      Yes, as in the right to decide who gets copies. Also known as "copyright." Not pulled from vacuum, but written down in laws, some of which are admittedly ridiculous.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    95. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In China, all seats are reserved when the tickets are purchased. Typical troll, behind the times, desperately clutching onto outdated information.

    96. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's odd, the license used to say that OEM copies could only be sold with storage devices. Maybe they changed it to be any hardware.

      In Japan when you buy an OEM copy of Windows in a shop you get a "free" floppy drive with it to meet the "must be sold with a storage device" requirement. Well, it used to be floppy drives, I think once they ran out some shops switched to 8MB flash drives.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    97. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by msauve · · Score: 1

      Look up misnomer. Copyright is not in any way a right, it is a privilege.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    98. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Why not? Why should the creator not be able to impose any restrictions they damn please?

      Because the entire purpose of copyright is to enrich the commons, and compensating the creator is merely means to that end, that's why!

      Expressions of ideas are not and fundamentally cannot be "owned." The nature of an idea is that it has no value until it is shared -- the value comes from the sharing. Therefore, to maximize the value of an idea, it should be shared as widely as possible. Allowing creators to control their ideas "for limited times" is nothing more or less than an attempt to optimize the balance between idea creation and sharing.

      If copyright law restricts sharing too much (e.g. by allowing creators to "impose any restrictions they damn please") then it has failed in its purpose.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    99. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Holi · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the install DVD meet that requirement, I mean a dvd is a storage device.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    100. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      You're thinking about that backwards: actual property rights exist not because it's impossible for other people to come in, but because it's possible to force them to stay out. Legal enforcement of property rights does not establish rights that did not exist before; it merely acts as a convenience so that people don't have to stand guard 24/7/365.

      In contrast, it is fundamentally impossible to share an idea and prevent it from being shared at the same time. By establishing a mechanism to limit sharing, copyright creates a new concept out of thin air.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    101. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      NZ and Australia are ripped off harder than everyone else in the world, expect maybe people living in Marlyand.

    102. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Examples where creators have attempted to exert control without copying having occurred, where it is unreasonable to give creators said control:

      1. Modification of the user's particular copy
      2. Lending or borrowing
      3. Use by an entity the creator doesn't like
      4. Use for a purpose the creator doesn't like
      5. Parody
      6. Exhibition for the purpose of education
      7. Analysis and review (i.e., studying a work in order to publish an opinion about it)
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    103. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by gnupun · · Score: 1

      If you lease a car, do you think you have the right to drive it into a brick wall or sell it on ebay just because you made your monthly payment?

      If you owned the car instead, would 10 or 100 other people also be individual owners of that car? Of course not, there is only one car and a 100 people can't all own that one car. You can sell your car only to one other person.

      Yet for software, you can "resell/pirate" the software to hundreds or thousands of people. It's like cloning a car a thousand times with your 3d printer and then selling it to a thousand people, thereby screwing the car manufacturer of his potential sales. You don't have the right to do that because you only paid less than a millionth the car R&D and manufacturing cost when you bought your copy of the car.

    104. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Here's another limitation of fair use - you can't resell anything covered by copyright that you've imported from elsewhere..

      WRONG!

      As long as you're not creating copies or derivative works, the Doctrine of First Sale applies.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    105. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Actually, there' something called "moral rights" in copyright law

      Not in US copyright law, there isn't! You're thinking of European (French) copyright, which has a completely different origin and philosophical basis than American (English) copyright.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    106. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by qpqp · · Score: 1

      It's a storage medium, not a device.

    107. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mi · · Score: 1

      Examples where creators have attempted to exert control without copying having occurred, where it is unreasonable to give creators said control

      It may seem unreasonable to you, but you aren't the creator — and so your opinion does not matter. You can take the offered conditions or reject them — along with the creation itself. The only legitimate recourse for you is to pretend the creation was never created — if the strings attached by the creator to its use really are "unreasonable", they will not sell too many and either go bust or change their conditions. A self-regulating problem...

      Distinguishing the limits on copying and other limits makes no difference. Just as I said...

      Parody

      Yes, some uses are allowed by our very liberal reading of the First Amendment (I wish, we read the Second just as liberally, but I digress). Limiting everything else is fine — as long as I am not legally bound to pay for/use the creation, of course...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    108. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mi · · Score: 1

      Physical property is naturally constrained.

      Distinction without difference. Falos attempted to ridicule all attempts to use "paper walls" as futile attempts against "the universe"...

      If I make a copy of a work, I have taken nothing from the creator.

      You have reduced the amount of control, the creator had over the creation. This is why it is commonly called "theft" — even if nothing tangible changes hand.

      Yours is a common fallacy, unfortunately, but a fallacy it is.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    109. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mi · · Score: 1

      What you have taken from them

      Thank you for admitting, the "taking away" has indeed taken place.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    110. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by xaxa · · Score: 1

      And the price needs reduced? Wha?

      Using your example:
      1. "Aerosmith, standing ticket, $400"

      2. "Aerosmith, with backstage pass*, $xxx" (*backstage only for first 10 people to arrive)

      3. "Aerosmith, with backstage pass, $600"

      The second ticket could be considered misleading, even with the small print, and especially if the price is close to $600 rather than $400.

      (IANAL, this is vaguely remembered from a basic law course at university several years ago.)

    111. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      It may seem unreasonable to you, but you aren't the creator â" and so your opinion does not matter.

      Of course my opinion (along with everybody else's) matters; it is only due to our collective consent that copyright law exists in the first place! Copyright law is a social contract whereby, in return for having the work eventually enter the Public Domain, the public grants special privileges to the creators. Creators only get the protection of copyright law because the public deigns them to have it.

      The only legitimate recourse for you is to pretend the creation was never created

      On the contrary, the legitimate recourse to a creator breaking the social contract is simply to revoke his privilege!

      Yes, some uses are allowed by our very liberal reading of the First Amendment (I wish, we read the Second just as liberally, but I digress). Limiting everything else is fine â" as long as I am not legally bound to pay for/use the creation, of course...

      You don't get to pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to agree with; all of it is the law of the land. It also must be understood in context, which is readily available from the writings of the Founding Fathers themselves (e.g. the Federalist Papers). In particular (relevant to this discussion):

      • The express purpose of copyright is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts," not to bestow any sort of moral right or obligation to creators.
      • The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is clearly and obviously to affirm the right of the People to (violently) oppose tyanny (including that imposed by their own government), because that's what the Founding Fathers themselves had just finished doing! As such, it is wholly inappropriate for the People to require any sort of permission from the State to keep and bear arms.
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    112. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      China != the whole world.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    113. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mi · · Score: 1

      Copyright law is a social contract

      So are all other laws. You are not beaten up on the way home, nor is your daughter raped, because our morals consider such actions evil, and our laws ban them. You are free to not associate with someone, who you consider an asshole, but you don't get to beat them up (or, as you'd put it, "revoke their privilege to live").

      in return for having the work eventually enter the Public Domain

      Which contract are you referring to? Who signed it and when?

      the legitimate recourse to a creator breaking the social contract is simply to revoke his privilege!

      So, Windows is not entering Public Domain as fast as you'd like — and you wish to confiscate it from Microsoft? Or is it the Justin Bieber's music?

      The express purpose of copyright is "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts

      Whatever. You didn't create it, whatever it is, somebody else did. If you don't like the terms, under which he is willing to let you use it, then don't use it. Imposing your own terms instead is evil and tyrannical — it is not even the "slippery slope", it is the actual falling off the cliff.

      The Jefferson's letter you linked to talks about inventions, and his opinion, that there is no "natural right" to them. I am not sure I agree, but software is not an "invention" (and music even less so) anyway, so that's not the topic here.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    114. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      So are all other laws. You are not beaten up on the way home, nor is your daughter raped, because our morals consider such actions evil, and our laws ban them.

      No. The reason those things don't happen is because people defend themselves by force. Paying guards to defend you is merely an abstraction of defending yourself, and having everyone pay police to defend each other is merely an abstraction of paying guards. Self-defense is a natural right; the moral justification came after-the-fact.

      Which contract are you referring to? Who signed it and when?

      I am referring to the contract that states "The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

      Thomas Jefferson wrote it (and expounded upon its rationale and purpose in the letter previously linked, just in case "to promote the progress of science and the useful arts" wasn't clear enough), and these people signed it.

      The Jefferson's letter you linked to talks about inventions, and his opinion, that there is no "natural right" to them. I am not sure I agree, but software is not an "invention" (and music even less so) anyway, so that's not the topic here.

      It is, as you said earlier, a "distinction without difference."

      More to the point, the Constitution as quoted above makes no mention that Writings and Discoveries should be treated differently from each other. If it is invalid to consider Jefferson's letter to apply to copyright then it's equally invalid to consider it to apply to patents, since he wrote the letter to explain the exact same damn clause!

      Furthermore, it is abundantly clear -- to anyone who is intellectually honest, anyway -- that Jefferson was speaking generally of "ideas" and his arguments apply equally to copyrights and patents. In his usage, a work of art or literature could be "invented" just as well as a machine -- the word denotes the uniqueness of creation, not the category of it.

      So, [works are] not entering Public Domain as fast as you'd like â" and you wish to confiscate [them]? [Ad-hominem omitted]

      "Confiscate" is a disingenuous and loaded term, because it implies that the creators are being divested of their property, which is incorrect. On the contrary, ideas are inherently property of the Public Domain; they are merely "lended" to their creators and when copyright (or patent) expires they revert to the Public Domain (i.e., their natural state).

      Imposing your own terms instead is evil and tyrannical â" it is not even the "slippery slope", it is the actual falling off the cliff.

      On the contrary, stealing from the Public Domain is evil and tyrannical!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    115. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've obviously never watched anything by George Lucas.

    116. Re: Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America works the same fucking way Barbara. I showed up 10 minutes into the movie because I was late and still got my reserve seat. you must be really unhappy with yourself. always talking down to people and spewing false info.

    117. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by rpstrong · · Score: 1

      $130? I've been getting legit OEM copies from Newegg for $99 with purchase of a mouse or keyboard. Paying $130 is insane and dumb for anyone that does not need the ability to join a domain.

      To clarify, the $100 (yeah, $99.99) price is for Home Premium, which lacks the domain features. Win 7 Pro is $140, Ultimate is $190. But no hardware purchase requirements at all.

    118. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If I make an illegal copy of something for my own use, how is the creator going to know?* As far as reducing the amount of control goes, suppose my city passes an ordinance saying I can't use a power lawn mower after 8 PM. That reduces my control over my lawn mower, but I don't think anybody would call it theft (maybe unwarranted government interference by nanny-state morons, but not theft). In fact, "theft" is a completely wrong legal term to apply.

      *There may be no actual harm. If I weren't going to buy the thing anyway, there is none. If I were, then it's the same harm as when I give it a bad review that talks a friend of mine out of buying it, and nobody considers that theft or illicit.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    119. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I understand that they want to keep Mickey Mouse indefinitely. I question the legal basis for allowing them to do that.

      The legal purpose of copyright in the US is to encourage people to do creative things and publish them in some form. Under what circumstances will somebody decide whether to undertake a project on the basis of what it would earn after 28 years?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    120. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      He burned it in real good...

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    121. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by phorm · · Score: 1

      For this, what I usually do is get the base machine setup (windows, drivers, common software, maybe antivirus, and activation), then boot from a linux stuck and back it all up using "NTFSclone" (usually piped through gzip/bzip). If windows takes a dive, then I just restore the image so I don't have to play phone-tag with the activation system.
      I did that when I was building a new system and at some point become unbootable after certain software/updates were installed. After many restores I was finally able to find what was breaking the system (a combination of a driver update and AVG, it seems) and made it work.

    122. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should you have to pay for software ? Use Linux ; it is free and above all gives you eternal freedom + ultimate reliability.

    123. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by RingDev · · Score: 1

      Something has been taken from them in the same way that I have taken your ability to appear intelligent.

      The only thing lost is theoretical profits. For which you can take someone to civil court over, prove damages, and get your money back.

      I'm not opposed to the existence of IP in general. I am opposed to grossly vague patents, and copyrights that extend for more than 7-20 years. The point of IP is to drive the creation of inventions and art to further society. Not to create model within which people defend an idea from use for decades or prevent media from ever entering the public domain.

      -Rick

      --
      "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    124. Re: Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No, no, no. I put it in there very explicitly and even bolded part of it so you wouldn't miss it yet you did: "that is at least as good as the proprietary software?" Because none of the ones you listed are anywhere near as good as the proprietary incumbents.

      image editing - gimp

      You have got to be kidding! No! Absolutely not comparable to Photoshop.

      raytracer - povray

      Again, extremely lacking when compared to Renderman. That is why the industry pays tens of thousands for Renderman licenses and even runs it on Linux.

      non-linear video editor - cinellera

      Cinelerra even struggles with changing clip speed and supports very few formats in comparison, and is also very buggy. Not even close to Premiere or Final Cut.

      audio production software - ubuntu studio had lots of great tools

      Except they dont come close to proprietary products like Logic.

      Now im not saying there arent some good open source products that are actually up there with the proprietary competition, LibreOffice for example (though it has no web-based offering so again open source is looking to be a slow follower) and Blender but the list is extremely short.

      No matter how "innovative" open source is supposed to be it still ends up being a slow follower. It still lags in offerings for almost every single category of end user application and in the places that it doesn't it has taken many, many years of copying proprietary software to get it up to standard.

    125. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Sure, as long as he receives adequate compensation for the time, effort, and resources he went through for that return.

      When do you ever get that when you return anything?

    126. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the bit where I already paid licensing fees right? Twice. You are just arguing with the voices in your head.

      You missed the part where you paid for an OEM license rather than a commercial off-the-shelf one right? No? Don't understand the meaning of OEM or the difference between that and the retail package? Well maybe you should get educated on that topic because your complaint revolves around your ignorance.

      As for the second time you can get a refund of the few dollars the OEM pays for the volume license from the manufacturer. How much did you pay the second time by the way? Do you even know?

      So there, if you took the time to get some knowledge on the subject you only have to pay once.

    127. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Meski · · Score: 1

      Which is why I fake my address as coming from Florida.

    128. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Blah blah blah blah blah. All I hear is greed. I paid for my OS. Your original argument was I'm a cheap skinflint who wants stuff for free, and poor starving content creators etc etc etc. Well your argument is BS because I did pay. You're now switching your argument to something else entirely, but don't worry it's also incorrect.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    129. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your movie analogy - sitting in a theatre watching ads before the movie is part of the "experience"; you don't get to watch it your way.

      Incorrect. Part of the typical movie "experience" is playing the audio at levels that will likely cause permanent hearing damage, particularly during the ads. This is a violation of fundamental rights, and hence illegal conduct, it's not something people should have to put up with as part of the "experience". You DO get to watch it "your way", if we define that to include having fundamental rights respected (such the right to not have one's hearing destroyed).

      Issues of hearing damage aside, there are more fundamental legal issues here. If the movie was available without the advertisements, perhaps for a higher price, then those persons who wished to not see the advertisements could do so. Failing to provide this option means the business is necessarily violating fundamental rights, as the right to not be forced to be part of an audience (arising under the 9th Amendment) is every bit as fundamental as right to freedom of speech, and can not be taken away by contract law. Congress does not have the legal authority to write copyright law that grants a monopoly over works in violation of this right.

      Going back to the hearing issue, there are electronic devices for measuring sound amplitude levels, which can be used to set appropriate limits for the operation of amplifiers. Perhaps someday somebody will do an open-source app that does this measurement using a cell phone and still gives a good measurement ... Playing audio at loud levels is a typically a violation of state civil law, and/or state criminal law, may violate local law as well, and violates federal law regarding safety in the workplace. No theater operator, restaurant manager, club manager, band, or DJ should be without such a tool, since many such people are too deaf to know what a reasonable sound level is, and every such person should know their legal responsibilities in this matter.

    130. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by mike4ty4 · · Score: 1

      Why? Although I'm sure a lot of those on this site are partial to Free/Open Source software, that doesn't mean they advocate breaking the law and infringing on other people's legally-granted rights. They just advocate that there should be more software which is Free of such restrictions, through legitimate means.

    131. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Nobody is forcing you to be part of the audience. You can just not watch the movie, ads and all.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    132. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      And I honestly don't think Microsoft are trying to control what you do with their software... All the licensing stuff is about proving you actually did buy it...That said, as a 20+ year user of their products I've had to call for a license activation precisely once and it took maybe 60 seconds. I can live with that.

      Then it's fairly safe to assume that you have been using Microsoft software the way they want you to: only reinstalling a couple times (at most) per device, or purchasing systems that include Microsoft's software.

      You are almost certainly not doing any of the following:
      - reinstalling Windows daily for fun
      - regularly moving Windows installs between machines
      - renting workstations that include Windows, but must be wiped and reimaged every every rental
      - deploying and destroying large quantities of 2012 R2 servers in dev environments

      I am not a Windows admin, so I could be ignorant on some solutions to the above, but MS makes all of these scenarios very difficult for paying customers.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    133. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Copying was a difficult and expensive enough proposition that a natural exclusivity existed even without copyright.

      No it didn't. Pirates have never had a technological edge over legitimate publishers. At best there's parity, but usually publishers have an edge over pirates.

      If you wanted to pirate a book before the invention of movable type, you could copy it longhand -- just like you'd have to do if you wanted to make an authorized copy.

      And people did this all the time. In fact, the only reason that any books (other than those written on clay, stone, or metal) survive from antiquity is because they were copied, the copies were copied, and the copies spread far and wide. Often only one copy survived long enough for more to be made. Paper of various kinds has been in use for a long time, but the oldest paper book is only about 1700 years old.

      There was no exclusivity. Some places, like the city of Alexandria, in Egypt, had an official policy that all books that entered the city had to be made available for copying.

      The very idea that authors should have exclusive rights in their works is only a few centuries old.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    134. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who routinely seeks cracks for software I've purchased, I don't see a reason to complain here.

      This is pure greed. The person(s) being sued according to the summary were likely making money off of the work(s) by intentionally not compensating the creator(s). Granted the intent of copyright was to promote the creation of works, and money is not the only way to do so, but that was the agreement made for the work's distribution.

      It's one thing to control distribution of a work (within reason), it's another thing entirely to attempt to control a work COMPLETELY.

      Some creators attempt this and for them I have no sympathy, but in this case the creator (Microsoft) is a victim and should be compensated for their efforts.

    135. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blah blah blah blah blah. All I hear is greed.

      That is because you are not understanding, if you sit around in your ignorance and stupidity and refuse to be educated on the matter then yes I expect that *is* what you would interpret this to be, but that is your fault.

      I paid for my OS.

      Wrong, you paid for an OEM license. You need to use google to find out what that means.

      Your original argument was I'm a cheap skinflint who wants stuff for free, and poor starving content creators etc etc etc.

      No my original argument was that just because Windows is the industry standard does not mean you can buy an OEM license and then get retail commercial licenses for free in perpetuity or forgo the license restrictions of an OEM license so as to avoid paying for a retail one.

      Well your argument is BS because I did pay.

      For the wrong version, but you did not bother to even know what you were paying for.

      You're now switching your argument to something else entirely, but don't worry it's also incorrect.

      Your lack of ability to understand the meaning of OEM license is your problem and your failing, nobody elses. Blame yourself.

      If you were not so ignorant you would have bought a retail copy in the first place, refunded the OEM Windows 8 license cost and then you would have exactly what you were after, a single payment for a license of the OS that is not tied to one system. But you are stupid and bought an OEM license instead, then ignorant of the fact that you can get a refund for the unused OEM license and now you are so angry at yourself that you are trying to somebody else instead. Accept responsibility for your own actions and learn from your mistakes.

    136. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody is forcing you to be part of the audience. You can just not watch the movie, ads and all.

      You might as well say that people can simply choose not to use highways when billboards (which also infringe audience rights) are placed along them. The nature and scope of advertising is necessarily subject to government regulation, as a matter of fundamental rights, and therefore must be minimal as a matter of strict scrutiny. A simple sign to identify a business is reasonable (and not really advertising) if it is of reasonable size, a billboard is not.

      There is little to choose from between stealing lots of little bits of people's lives, or in kidnapping them at gunpoint. Human lifespan is finite, and nobody ever achieves their full potential: stealing a portion of a life, whether that theft occurs in the form of advertising associated with monopoly, or other means, is generally wrongful conduct (except in defense of self or others).

      Government does not have the authority to both grant a monopoly and allow that monopoly to be abused in ways harmful to the public, even to the extent of wasting people's time. Bundling of advertisements with products protected by monopoly granted by government is an abuse of that monopoly. The appropriate penalty is to lose the monopoly.

    137. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      That's basically what I expect to get. If the other side is unwilling to sell that, no sale will happen.

      We can live without the movie. Can they live without our money?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    138. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You don't have a phone with some games?

      And I am fairly sure that nobody cares if you use it BEFORE the actual movie. Who gives a shit about the ads?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    139. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      It is of course the prerogative of the creator to set the hoops I have to jump through to use his product.

      It's mine, though, to refuse using it and hence paying him.

      I can do without his movie. If he can do without my money, I guess we're both fine.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    140. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      May I be there when you try to return a movie you took out of the shrink-wrap?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    141. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Here's another headache: VMs with changing hardware setups and/or lots of snapshots/restore (as, say, in malware analysis).

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    142. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Bad example. The billboards along the highway are paid and the money goes into government revenue, which, among other things, helps to pay for the maintenance of those roads.

      Also, the billboards are not stealing any of your time - it doesn't take you longer to get to your destination when there are billboards as compared to when there are not. Ditto when someone says "turn off at the exit with the foobar billboard".

      Plus, you'll be darn happy to see a billboard advertising a place to sleep, grab a shower, and have breakfast on a long trip.

      If you don't like them, don't read them. Then nobody is "stealing little bits of your life". Problem solved once again. If you have so little self-control that you have to read everything that is in front of you, the problem isn't the billboards - it's you. If you're so easily distracted, you shouldn't be driving in the first place.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    143. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The billboards along the highway are paid and the money goes into government revenue, which, among other things, helps to pay for the maintenance of those roads.

      This kind of argument is always invalid as a justification for anything. That a little bit of good is done in return for a little bit of evil does not justify the good, when it can be done without the evil.

      The maintenance of the roads, as with ANY service provided by government, can be paid for by taxes: there is no need (or justification) for a competent government to infringe fundamental rights to provide this service. The government should never be using illegal means to supplement its budget, and getting money from the infringement of fundamental rights (whether the infringement is carried out by the government directly, or by third parties) is illegal. Over-development will cause future generations to curse the present, as it violates their rights as well as the rights of those alive today, and billboards are a form of development that doesn't need to be there (and that has a purely negative environmental impact).

      Recognizing this, four states have banned billboards entirely. This ensures that thousands of people won't be affected when one teenager sees a scantily-clad woman on a billboard, and gets distracted for the brief moment needed to have an accident.

      A list of available services at an exit, of course, is not necessarily an advertisement (any more than the sign in front of a business is necessarily an advertisement), nor does it require the type of large sign typically known as a billboard. Traveler's needs can still be met without billboards.

    144. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      You''re clearly either trolling or nuts. I'm not interested in finding out which.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    145. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Great point! Can't believe I forgot that one.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
    146. Re:Creators wishing to control their creations... by msauve · · Score: 1

      Also, under what circumstances does extending the copyright of an existing work encourage the creation of new works? It's exactly the opposite - if they can live off income created from old works, there's less incentive to create new ones.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  2. good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this is someone who is proxing activation for after selling non legitimate versions of windows/office they should be hit hard.

  3. Chinese computers come this way by magarity · · Score: 4, Informative

    At any house brand computer store in China the computers come windows installed and activated but no disks. If you insist on an install disk the price for it is, amazingly, the same as buying windows retail. The whole activation system is fundamentally flawed, but the question is, how to make it 1) less of a pain for legit users and 2) harder for pirates? These two goals seem exclusive, alas.

    1. Re:Chinese computers come this way by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only sensible way I can think of is adding some value to legit copies that is unavailable with the illegal ones. Which is admittedly hard for something like an OS where, say, free lessons or a printed manual aren't such great deal makers and breakers.

      Everything else we've seen in the area of copy protection usually does more to piss off the legit customer than to thwart the illegal copier.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Chinese computers come this way by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      You might not have noticed but China got extremely angry when Microsoft discontinued support for XP. I believe one of the reasons for this was how easy it was to pirate XP versus newer versions. The XP activation system had been thoruoughly cracked making it trivial to sell computers with XP but no license. Newer versions do not suffer this issue and as a result China's upper brass realized they might have to start paying for windows.

    3. Re:Chinese computers come this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what, I bet constant updates would be a value added to it after you purchase it. Man I wish they did that, if they updated it for like 10 years after I bought it, I'd get 10 years worth of service.

    4. Re:Chinese computers come this way by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      windows 7 is dramatically easier to pirate than XP. SLIC activation is trivial to fake.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:Chinese computers come this way by Jahoda · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Microsoft would sell more copies of their software if they weren't charging for them like it is still 1997.

    6. Re:Chinese computers come this way by steelfood · · Score: 1

      adding some physical value to legit copies

      FTFY.

      Physical resources are scarce. Virtual resources are infinite. People selling virtual goods have all been obsoleted since personal computers became ubiquitous. You see it everywhere, from software to entertainment to information. It's a matter of waiting for society to catch up.

      There is still value in some of these things, just not directly via sales.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    7. Re:Chinese computers come this way by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      At any house brand computer store in China the computers come windows installed and activated but no disks. If you insist on an install disk the price for it is, amazingly, the same as buying windows retail. The whole activation system is fundamentally flawed, but the question is, how to make it 1) less of a pain for legit users and 2) harder for pirates? These two goals seem exclusive, alas.

      You missed an important criteria - the ability to be pirated in certain locales.

      You think Microsoft isn't intentionally turning a blind eye to Chinese pirates? I can tell you the main reason is that if people are getting free Windows, they're not using Linux or any other OS. And using free Office means they're not using OpenOffice or LibreOffice or whatever. Ditto Photoshop and any other market standard products.

      Microsoft knows if they hook users, they're unlikely to switch. Why use Linux when they can use Windows and do all the stuff there? Same "price" and in the end, locks one more user to Windows. Ditto a program like Photoshop - ok, so maybe they use pirated photoshop all their life and need to edit a photo on a new machine. They try GIMP and get hopelessly confused, lost and "it sucks". Another winner for Adobe who continues their Photoshop dominance and holds down GIMP.

      Sure, there's no revenue from pirates, but there is lock in and if you get people stuck on using Office, Windows, Photoshop, etc., they're likely o find the alternatives unappealing, stupid, or "it sucks". And nothing is better for any of them to say "I tried Linux, it sucks - it doesn't work like Windows and blah blah blah".

    8. Re:Chinese computers come this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      adding some physical value to legit copies

      Ah, like a blender or a toaster. Or maybe, say, a genuine Microsoft mouse pad.

    9. Re:Chinese computers come this way by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      At any house brand computer store in China the computers come windows installed and activated but no disks.

      When was the last time you bought a PC with Windows in the USA? Install disks have not been included for several years.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    10. Re:Chinese computers come this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, boy another fallacious post by a digital communist who falsely infers that since the distribution cost of digital media is zero, the sale price should be zero. There is such thing as the production cost and it is most definitely not zero. I'm still waiting for the day that open source, pro piracy advocates are going to drop 100 million on a movie to get the production values they expect out of a film, and give it away for free. But the best you'll get out of them are let's play videos on youtube and webcam videos of them whining about copyright.

    11. Re:Chinese computers come this way by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      so, like video games do with multiplayer?

    12. Re:Chinese computers come this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure what you mean by "house brand", but I bought my TongTang PC at Da Zhong Dian Qi in Beijing back in 2010. It came with a legitimate copy of Windows 7 with License Key sticker and a reinstall DVD that installs a vanilla copy of Windows 7 without any crapware. Included at no extra charge. Used it once when I switched to a SSD drive. Now, at the mega flea markets in Beijing (Hai Dian) and Shenzhen (Hua Qiang Bei), you're likely to get the type of computer you described.

    13. Re:Chinese computers come this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GIMP sucks on it's own right. I've used many graphics programs on the Amiga (Brilliance, ImageFX, DCTV, and more) and many on the PC (Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, Corel Draw, and more). GIMP is just shit. Terrible name aside, the interface is hands down the worst I've ever seen for any program. My favorite: If you resize the brush options area too narrow the text is obscured. FUCKING STUPID! It's also slow at everything from starting up to applying filters, often taking twice as long to complete the same operation in competing programs. Not to mention a cumbersome automation system that requires scripting and a complete lack of adjustment and style layers. So, your false narrative that says, "Well, people didn't get a chance to use GIMP first, so that's why they don't like it", is Grade A bullshit.

    14. Re:Chinese computers come this way by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's what Windows Genuine Advantage was supposed to be. Unfortunately they didn't want to cut off security updates for pirate copies, so all you lose out on was new versions of Internet Explorer and Windows Movie Maker. That and the fun of activating and then re-confirming the genuine nature of your OS every time you wanted to update it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Chinese computers come this way by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Physical resources are scarce. Virtual resources are infinite.

      And yet the price of physical products is more than just the physical resources to produce them, all the development costs are amortized in price of the product as well. The cost of the physical component of virtual goods does not need to be included in the price but that doesn't mean all the development costs are free.

      People selling virtual goods have all been obsoleted since personal computers became ubiquitous.

      Yes totally, Microsoft isn't posting record profits, Oracle, VMWare, Symantec, Adobe, Autodesk totally dont make any money selling software and iTunes isn't making any money. Seriously you couldn't be more out of touch with reality.

    16. Re:Chinese computers come this way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reproducing virtual good might be free, but producing them isn't. Virtual resources are not infinite.

  4. Thanks for the TorrentFreak link... by mythosaz · · Score: 2

    ...that should be easy to view at work.

    1. Re:Thanks for the TorrentFreak link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      TorrentFreak is a news site, and one of the few that actually does journalism on copyright issues without a blatant bias. It is not a pro-piracy site, it does not host any pirated content. I'm not sure what the problem is, other than the word 'torrent' in the url?

    2. Re:Thanks for the TorrentFreak link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >TorrentFreak is a news site, and one of the few that actually does journalism on copyright issues without a blatant bias.

      Lolno. TF has such a ridiculous anti-paying-for-shit bias it's hilarious.

    3. Re:Thanks for the TorrentFreak link... by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Oh god. For a minute I thought you were serious.

      ...even if that WERE true, it's pretty much blocked everywhere with an out-of-the-box web filtering solution.

    4. Re:Thanks for the TorrentFreak link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least you can browse non-work related content at all. Some of us have to work at work :(

    5. Re:Thanks for the TorrentFreak link... by JThundley · · Score: 1

      Yes, because it has torrent at work. My work wouldn't let me download a Kubuntu torrent even after I offered to choke the upload.

    6. Re:Thanks for the TorrentFreak link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like you need to figure out how to read TF because he is 100% serious and so is TF.
      You on the other hand seem like one of those dumbasses who thinks he's a smartass.

    7. Re:Thanks for the TorrentFreak link... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure what part of my comment you saw as sarcasm.

      As for being blocked, well - that isn't a fact about the news site, it is a fact about your blocking software.

  5. Used or New? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I worked at a small computer repair shop that did this many years ago. I was young and didn't know any better, and the anti-piracy measures weren't all that hard to get around yet. Everything was pirated, but about 80% of those system re-installs and used computer sales could have been reactivated legitimately by just using the license sticker on the case.

    I hope that isn't the case here. "Oh, I could have done this legitimately for $0? God dammit!"

  6. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Are you high?

    What do you think will happen if everyone that makes software requires you to plug in some stupid dongle to make it work? Let's even assume they don't have any nasty quirks where they try to kick each other off or where the software identifies the wrong dongle as "its" and, due to the dongle of course giving the wrong answer, locking up. But where the hell do you think I should plug in a few dozen dongles?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by n6kuy · · Score: 2

    Yeah, We all need dozens of security dongles for all the various copyrighted software we use. And then you're outta luck when the new puppy gets ahold of one of your dongles and chews it up because it can't be bothered to play with the chew toy you spent good money on....

    --
    If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
  8. The old idea fallacy by mi · · Score: 1

    That's so 1976-ish.

    Any attempt to oppose an idea on the grounds, that it is "too old", must demonstrate, how the time has changed the argument. See also, the "Appeal to novelty" fallacy.

    The possible exceptions are arguments over things, which are illogical by their very nature — such as clothing- or hair-styles — the domain, where, I believe, the very notion of "this so yesterdayish" originated.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:The old idea fallacy by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

      Humor - def. Laugh, it's funny. Ha, ha, ha.

    2. Re:The old idea fallacy by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Awesome Captain Kirk impression.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:The old idea fallacy by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Bill Gates 1976 letter was more of a scold than a crackdown.

    4. Re:The old idea fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read what you've written out loud, but this time allow a half second pause between each sentence and see how well it fails to flow.

      It's quite painful to read.

  9. Is this a mistake? by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    It sounds like a shop that might not be installing windows the right way (sysprep), and instead is using a single product key to activate multiple systems. Either way, if Microsoft didn't like it, then they shouldn't have allowed the activation.

    1. Re:Is this a mistake? by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

      I'm sure this has been fixed - or I hope it has, but when I was imaging a lab at a university they had a license server. The admin had just been clicking next on all the automated activtions the available license count went into negative numbers without any sort of alert or warning. I guess maybe it's not a bug, but perhaps a way for MS to come in a few months later and charge a bunch of money because the admin forgot to de-activate the licenses before re-imaging.

    2. Re:Is this a mistake? by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      The key management server that dishes out the activations should have caught that and prevented new installs from activating against it. Although that would be too logical if that was the case.

    3. Re:Is this a mistake? by Kagetsuki · · Score: 1

      Even at the time I thought it was on purpose to calculate new charges for volume licensing. If I remember correctly they had different plans like where you would buy lots of say 100 licenses. I think you could also add individual licenses to the pool but I never really investigated it. The thing was this was all on a private intranet so it's not like MS would be notified to send a bill as soon as the licenses went into the negatives.

      To be honest I really don't care about how the system works as I'm an all OSS shop now and don't deal with MS past a Windows 8 VM we use for testing cross-compilation.

  10. They used the wrong windows by johanw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The windows 7 I installed was pre-activated when I downloaded it from the Pirate Bay. Much easier. I don't know if I could legally downgrade from the windows 8 the system had preinstalled but piracy was so easy that I didn't bother to find out.

    1. Re:They used the wrong windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This just demonstrates how shit Linux (on the desktop, not the server or embedded) is and how much people do not want it, you cant even give it away! Even those who want a free (of charge) operating system wont touch it, they would rather pirate Windows because Windows is a better desktop computer operating system. Now when I say "better" I mean in terms of what users want to do which is run their applications and get things done, Linux may be great for system admins and may be technically superior under the covers (though of course the latest kernel is still shipping with a lockup bug) but no user cares about that.

      Funnily enough Windows on the phone is like Linux on the desktop, nobody wants it because it cant run their applications. Instead most choose Linux to run on their phones (or iOS of course).

    2. Re:They used the wrong windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funnier because I like my Windows Phone far more than my Android. I won a Windows Phone at a hackathon. I prefer its tile layout over the Android icon grid. Scrolling in Windows feels so much better. I greatly prefer Window's 'rubber band' end-of-content animations to Android's tilting animations. The default GUI controls are better too. It's way easier to finger-flick scroll up/down through numbers in Windows than it is to click the up/down arrows in Android.

      Sadly I trust Windows Phone OS less than the Android mods and the Windows Phone doesn't work with my cell service. I used the Windows one internationally and my Android locally so I've had a decent amount of time on both.

      I use the phones for phone calls and taking pictures. I don't care about any of the apps. Data plans are way too expensive. I'm not giving them any money on that front.

    3. Re:They used the wrong windows by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Even those who want a free (of charge) operating system wont touch it, they would rather pirate Windows because Windows is a better desktop computer operating system.

      Now that games are starting to actually come out for Linux on somewhat frequent occasion, at least in part thanks to Valve's influence, I only need to run some automotive stuff that I can run on old windows in a virtual machine. So, thanks to vmware player, I can run Linux on the metal. I've even got an OEM XP sticker on my PC case, just barely legible, so I don't have to use it without paying.

      What you say was highly accurate until recently, however. Some people are just still suffering from severe lock-in.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:They used the wrong windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funnier because I like my Windows Phone far more than my Android.

      Oh dont get me wrong, the parallels to linux on the desktop are uncanny. Windows on the phone is far more responsive than linux on the phone, just like linux on the desktop is compared to windows on the desktop. Im sure that windows phone would be far more popular if it had the same app catalog as linux just like linux on the desktop would be if it could run all the applications that windows can.

      Linux desktop and windows phone are actually very good from a technical and even often a usability standpoint but those are not the qualities most desirable to people. Firstly it is "cant this do what I need it to do", then comes the question of how well it can do it which is often why people use osx because sometimes what you want to do can be done on both windows and osx but osx might do it better. Rarely in the desktop world can linux do what people want do to.

    5. Re:They used the wrong windows by johanw · · Score: 1

      Not quite true, I do run Linux servers on that windows 7 machine with VirtualBox.

    6. Re:They used the wrong windows by Teckla · · Score: 1

      The windows 7 I installed was pre-activated when I downloaded it from the Pirate Bay.

      And the deeply embedded malware included in just about everything from The Pirate Bay is just icing on the cake.

    7. Re:They used the wrong windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      troll

    8. Re:They used the wrong windows by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      I've even got an OEM XP sticker on my PC case, just barely legible, so I don't have to use it without paying.

      If I'm not mistaken, one cannot legally virtualise an OEM edition of Windows. That's just not cricket. One is instead required to purchase a full retail version of the software to gain this right.

      Assuming my facts are still accurate, that makes Microsoft exactly the sort of greedy fucks Dunbal calls them out to be.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    9. Re:They used the wrong windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      troll

      moderation fail. just because you dont like the truth and know you cant refute it doesnt make it a troll, it just makes you ignorant.

    10. Re:They used the wrong windows by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If I'm not mistaken, one cannot legally virtualise an OEM edition of Windows.

      Realistically, I am just not at risk due to this behavior.

      Assuming my facts are still accurate, that makes Microsoft exactly the sort of greedy fucks Dunbal calls them out to be.

      Well, don't give them money.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:They used the wrong windows by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      Realistically, I am just not at risk due to this behavior.

      Well, don't give them money.

      Sure, I agree. MS do indeed have a product that people want, however this doesn't invalidate the argument that MS are greedy. This is the original point I was trying to make, not that there weren't alternatives.

      Like yourself, I *will* buy Windows OEM with a machine (ex-lease works for me) and again, like yourself, I'd violate the OEM licencing terms by running the copy as a VM if it suited me to do so.

      My point is that whilst I'd happily pay another $50 for the right to do so legally, I'm damned if I'm going to shell out over $500* for an OS I've already paid for. Ergo, Microsoft are a bunch of greedy fucks.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    12. Re:They used the wrong windows by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      fsck it, fsck it, fsck it, I promised myself I wouldn't forget the asterisk explanation:

      * in NZ dollars and relating to retail Win 7 Pro or Ultimate; Windows 8 Pro is less than half this price.

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
    13. Re:They used the wrong windows by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      im sorry so you are so poor.
      no im not.

    14. Re:They used the wrong windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I'm not mistaken, one cannot legally virtualise an OEM edition of Windows. That's just not cricket. One is instead required to purchase a full retail version of the software to gain this right.

      Right. Because it is an *OEM* version.

      Assuming my facts are still accurate, that makes Microsoft exactly the sort of greedy fucks Dunbal calls them out to be.

      Because you cant afford the retail version and think you have some right to get it at the OEM price this makes them greedy? Fuck you and your entitlist mentality! They give you a discount for its use in a particular scenario and then you just expect to be able to get that discount in all situations, so it is *you* who is the greedy fuck in this case!

    15. Re:They used the wrong windows by Sardaukar86 · · Score: 1

      Because you cant afford the retail version and think you have some right to get it at the OEM price this makes them greedy?

      That's not what I said at all and you know it. You are purposefully mis-characterising the intent of my post so you can get yourself all pissed off and behave like a Microsoft apologist for great social justice. My issue is with Microsoft's price-gouging, I even offered a suggestion as to how much I feel the 'right to virtualise' is worth to me. Not $500, right? But feel free to ignore that if it gets in the way of your screeching.

      ...

      Fuck you and your entitlist mentality! They give you a discount for its use in a particular scenario and then you just expect to be able to get that discount in all situations, so it is *you* who is the greedy fuck in this case!

      Yeah, you can call me names if you like. Your unnecessary ad-hominen rubbish aside, I'll point out that Microsoft offer a discount because - and only because - it suits Microsoft to do so. They are not depriving themselves of revenue out of the goodness of their hearts.

      As for my 'entitlist(sic) mentality', I'll also point out that I have already paid for the operating system, so what matter is it whether it runs on a piece of metal and silicon or on a virtual piece of metal and silicon itself on a piece of metal and silicon? As long as I'm not still running the original machine, why should I be in violation of the licensing agreement? What business is it of Microsoft what I do with my computers?

      Besides, what heinous crime is this that it demands such an outraged response in Microsoft's defence? Should we simply accept the will of our corporate masters and their convoluted demands without fuss like good little drones?

      --
      ..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
  11. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    But where the hell do you think I should plug in a few dozen dongles?

    Don't throw me straight lines...you know where to plug the dongles.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  12. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by rogoshen1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's what you get for adopting a subversive open source zealot dog. I bet you named him "stallman".

  13. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by DRJlaw · · Score: 1

    Courts should punish intentional facilitation.
    If you can't be bothered to sell a $1 security dongle with the software as other software companies do, then you must be intentionally facilitating piracy.
    The courts are not there to be abused in the face of intentional facilitation, especially as best practice is already known.

    Or you could use software activation, as other software companies do? As Microsoft does? Because Windows 7 and Office 2010 activation were certainly put there to intentionally facilitate copying.

    As for your comment that hardware dongles are a "best practice," pull the other one, mate. Nevermind that the $1 dongles don't work.

  14. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by Pikoro · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think there's a 25 or 30 port USB hub up in the new Slashdot Deals section

    --
    "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
  15. It's perfectly clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on, now... What else could that possibly mean?

    1. Re:It's perfectly clear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Behind an AT&T subscription"? Really? Have you met anyone who speaks or writes like that? What was his native language?

    2. Re:It's perfectly clear by avgjoe62 · · Score: 1

      Obviously the summary was written by an employee of a Microsoft affiliated call center in Mumbai...

      "Sir, I am calling about your AT&T subscription. Your computer has been identified as homing a virus. For a small fee we can remove these virus."

      --

      How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?

  16. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

    CAD tool vendors liked dongles back in the days that PCs has parallel ports. OrCad for instance.

    It didn't take long before customers started telling them to quit with the dongles or they would shop elsewhere. And so the rise of FlexLM and spoofed MAC addresses.
     

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  17. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Ummmm... why'd you want straight lines, with these you wouldn't know what to do with the dongle again...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  18. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by Pikoro · · Score: 1

    Slashcode dropped my sarcasm tags.....

    There is an implied eye rolling in the above post.

    --
    "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
  19. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Oh great. Just to use software I should buy something that's expensive as fuck and uses more power than the rest of the rig?

    Seriously, if that became the norm, I'd break out the disasm again. Not to spread the software, just to use what I fucking PAID FOR! Don't piss off your paying customer, go after the illegal copier instead, dammit!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  20. They say it is "completely anonymous" by Quick+Reply · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When you activate by phone the IVR states:

    "Note: Microsoft Product Activation is completely anonymous; therefore, no personal information is collected. The entire activation process will take about 5 minutes."

    1. Re:They say it is "completely anonymous" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's anonymous in the same way that people who pirate stuff say you'll have to prove it was them andnot somebody else in the household, somebody hacking into their wifi, a mix-up at the ISP, etc.

      After all, they're not going after Ryan Specificname, they're going after "person(s) behind an AT&T subscription", and hoping to learn the identify of said person(s).

    2. Re:They say it is "completely anonymous" by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      So who ever the victim on the other side can file a counter-suit against Microsoft for breaching the EULA, harassment/threats, and more.

    3. Re:They say it is "completely anonymous" by st3v · · Score: 1

      Yes, no personal information such as names and addresses are collected. However, in ANY client/server interaction, an IP address is logged. A particular IP address was found to be registering numerous bogus copies of Windows. Now they are attempting to prosecute that person who is committing that illegal action. Since they don't have any personal information, they have to use the courts to find out who it was.

    4. Re:They say it is "completely anonymous" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, it depends. I've never seen them collecting your name, company, ... - but the phone number they obviously have (if not suppressed).

      Do you see "phone number" as personal information? On the one hand, phones were traditionally whole-family or even whole-house identification, not a specific person, but with cellular phones you likely get a 1:1 assignment (or even a n:1 instead of the traditional 1:n).

      In europe some privacy groups see "IP address" as personal information, with the same logic as phone number. No high court decision yet (as far as I know), so it's still undecided.

    5. Re:They say it is "completely anonymous" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you believed it?

    6. Re:They say it is "completely anonymous" by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If you are paranoid you can use Skype to call. Yeah, okay... But I have seen torrents with instructions to do just that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:They say it is "completely anonymous" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's completely anonymous -- until they get a subpoena.

    8. Re:They say it is "completely anonymous" by ImprovOmega · · Score: 1

      Doesn't Microsoft own Skype now anyway? Seems like that would just make it easier to find you.

  21. Not just Individual. by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    They do not just mostly ignore individual pirites, they do the same for groups and put 0 effort into locking down their software. Since the very beginning attracting pirates to windows and office has been a major unspoken marketing ploy. No idea if it changed recently, but for many versions the method to crack office was to change a registry key from false to true. And windows hardly even punishes users of unregistered versions of windows.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Not just Individual. by Cramer · · Score: 1

      Actually, they put a great deal of effort into protecting their software. However, with decades of experience, they know there's nothing they can do that cannot ultimately be broken / defeated. Windows 7 was supposed to be the greatest unhackable system ever, but OEMs demanded a simpler (more automatic) method which led to SLIC that hackers have been cheating (cloing the SLIC + vendor certificates) from day zero. The XP era "genuine advantage" crap has been hacked for almost as long as it's existed.

      (I refuse to allow windows 8 within 50ft of me, so I have no clue how they've jacked up the anti-piracy BS there.)

    2. Re:Not just Individual. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just vendors. Governments and large corporations have needs for non-internet connected networks running Microsoft products. One solution is an actual MS activation server that you may run on your network to activate your own licenses, but often even that is not acceptable (I.E. places where Size Weight and Power are strictly regulated).

  22. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I remember those dongles. Easy to break, messed with the printers far too many times, easy to crack... in general it proved to be more a nuisance to the legit customer than anyone trying to rip the software for free.

    And hence again my plea: Do NOT piss off your paying customer in your quest to stop copying. If anything, it makes people pissed enough to make them stop buying and start copying. Because it usually means that it's EASIER to use the copied and cracked software.

    It really boggles the mind.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  23. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    But where the hell do you think I should plug in a few dozen dongles?

    Joystick port on a Commodore 64. I had a piece of software from -- OMG! 30 years ago! -- that required a dongle to be plugged into the 9-pin joystick port. The modern day version would be a special USB stick. You can get a USB hub if you need more places to stick your dongles in.

  24. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashcode isn't at fault this time. However, you evidently failed to use the HTML entities for angle brackets.

  25. recycled keys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "These keys were likely stolen from Microsoft’s supply chain, used without permission from the refurbisher channel, and used more often than the license permits"

    Sounds like techs recycling OEM Win7 Pro keys from systems that are imaged with Win7 Enterprise as soon as they clear the door. If this is the case I'd call it some productive use of the Microsoft tax vs piracy.

  26. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    No need for a USB port. I have a wife for that sort of thing.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  27. Microsoft’s cyberforensics .. by lippydude · · Score: 1

    As part of its cyberforensic methods, Microsoft analyzes product key activation data voluntarily provided by users when they activate Microsoft software, including the IP address from which a given product key is activated

    In other words, Microsoft Windows is bugged and phones home ...

    1. Re:Microsoft’s cyberforensics .. by exomondo · · Score: 2

      As part of its cyberforensic methods, Microsoft analyzes product key activation data voluntarily provided by users when they activate Microsoft software, including the IP address from which a given product key is activated

      In other words, Microsoft Windows is bugged and phones home ...

      And how do you suppose they are going to activate the product over the internet if you don't provide them a product key and an IP address with which to communicate with you?

    2. Re:Microsoft’s cyberforensics .. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      "Windows 8 Tells Microsoft About Everything You Install, Not Very Securely"

      Well that's completely unrelated to your first comment, not sure if you understand that or just want to now discuss something else.

      Assuming you read the article, you'll see it is SmartScreen, which you can turn off.

  28. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    But where the hell do you think I should plug in a few dozen dongles?

    If they're built right, you daisy chain them. Back in the Good Old Days before USB, dongles were plugged into the printer port and each one had another parallel port on the back. That way, you could have as many dongles as you needed plugged in, and still use your printer. No reason you couldn't do that today, including having the last item in the chain being your USB printer.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  29. They sued schools over unlicensed copies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Through the Business Software Alliance (BSA) Microsoft has sued many schools for having "unlicensed" copies. Most of the time the schools are forced to settle and that comes with a gag-order, so there are far fewer reported cases (and the reason I'm posting AC right now) than there actually are. Most of the time this is for software that was installed on computers that were donated to schools or just bulk licenses where someone didn't keep track of the install base and ghosted a few new machines.

    Two cases I know of:
    1. A charter school that had to pay $20k+. One of the school board parents was a lawyer and he straight up said to go for the settlement.
    2. A private high school I personally work with that had to pay over $80k for installing a new computer lab and using an existing image with a bulk license on all the machines + "expired" database license.

    So yeah. Microsoft sues schools. Somehow that makes Bill Gates's drive to eliminate Malaria seem like a PR diversion tactic to me.

    1. Re:They sued schools over unlicensed copies by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Cites would have been nice to verify your stories.

    2. Re:They sued schools over unlicensed copies by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      The BSA does not deny this sort of activity, they brag about it.

      At least that was true the last time I visited their website.

  30. Microsoft said to AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You we using govment names now? Aight I see how it is. Here we come muthaf*ckas."

  31. Violations of their own privacy policies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is straight off the Privacy Statement for the Microsoft® Customer Experience Improvement Program (http://www.microsoft.com/products/ceip/en-US/privacypolicy.mspx)...

    Internet-enabled features in software will send information about your computer (standard computer information) to the websites you visit and web services you use. This information is generally not personally identifiable. Standard computer information typically includes certain information about your computer software and hardware, such as your IP address, operating system version, web browser version, your hardware ID (which indicates the device manufacturer, device name, and version), and your regional and language settings. Although when each CEIP report is sent to Microsoft, standard computer information is sent as well, Microsoft does not store your IP address with your CEIP reports.

    This is right of of the Microsoft Customer Experience Improvement Program page (http://www.microsoft.com/products/ceip/en-US/default.mspx)...

    How does Microsoft protect my privacy if I choose to participate?
    CEIP reports do not contain contact information, such as your name, address, or phone number. CEIP generates a globally unique identifier (GUID) that is stored on your computer to uniquely identify it. The GUID is a randomly generated number; it does not contain any personal information and is not used to identify you. CEIP uses the GUID to distinguish how widespread the feedback we receive is and how to prioritize it. For example, the GUID allows Microsoft to distinguish between one customer experiencing a problem one hundred times and other customers experiencing the same problem once. The GUID is stored on your computer and sent with every CEIP report. Some reports might unintentionally contain individual identifiers, such as a serial number for a device that is connected to your computer. Microsoft filters the information contained in CEIP reports to try to remove any individual identifiers that they might contain. To the extent that individual identifiers are received, Microsoft does not use them to identify you or contact you. More details are provided in the Customer Experience Improvement Program Privacy Statement.

    I do believe that a law suit counts as contact. It's interesting that in one block they say they don't store your IP and on another page they say that the CEIP info will not be used to identify or contact you... "Microsoft does not use them to identify you or contact you".

    I don't support piracy for profit but I do understand that it is a part of any economic system and in many ways is free advertising for the company. Unless this company or person pirated their products tens of thousands of times, this seems like a wasted effort, especially considering their own privacy statements.

    Regardless, I'm glad I turn off CEIP on all the machines I build. I personally just don't like being spied on. What a person does in the privacy of of their own home or business should remain private unless they want to share. No one should be spied on for purposes or improving a product. In fact, if you want to spy on people, you should compensate them for violating their right to privacy. Make no mistake, most of my customer's don't even know this feature exists nor that it is active by default. I guess in many ways Microsoft benefited from the very acts of piracy they are now pursuing since the pirates didn't turn disable the CEIP program, so was anyone really deprived of payment here?

    ---Privacy is a right, not a privilege.---

    1. Re:Violations of their own privacy policies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed.

  32. Re:They say it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1 This. And also let's not forget to RTFA.

    "According to the complaint, the defendant(s) in this case have activated numerous copies of Windows 7 and Office 2010 with suspicious keys. These keys were likely stolen from MicrosoftÃ(TM)s supply chain, used without permission from the refurbisher channel, and used more often than the license permits."
    Runs much deeper than a Daz Loader.

  33. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    As my father used to tell me: "A wife is an attachment you screw on the bed to get the housework done."

  34. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  35. Such lawsuits are not rare - usually done by BSA by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    As I understand it, the BSA is largely owned, and controlled by MS.

    In deference to the article's claim that "Despite being one of the most pirated software vendors in the world, Microsoft doesn't have a long track record of cracking down on individual pirates."

    MS has a very long record of such lawsuits, MS just does not file the lawsuits directly.

  36. Law by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    Actually, there' something called "moral rights" in copyright law that allows the copyright holder to prevent you from, for example, buying an art book with a bunch of nice pictures in it, cutting out and framing all the pictures, and reselling the framed pictures.

    I doubt that very much. Show me a case which broadly prohibits that - not some narrower interpretation tenuously connected. I don't care if the book publisher gets in trouble if I cut up the book, I signed no such agreement when I bought it off the discount rack at B&N.

    No, you probably didn't, but it's a copyright law, not a contract. You are obligated to obey the law even if you didn't agree to it.

    As to show you a case, the Ninth Circuit has held for Parent in a related fact-pattern, while the seventh circuit has sided more with you, so it depends where in the United States you are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

    In addition, the parent was talking about moral rights, which are more of a European thing. So you'd have to check their law.

    1. Re:Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1 book, 1 page, 1 frame. 0 copies.

      Why would copyright apply to something that isn't copying?

    2. Re:Law by 3.5+stripes · · Score: 1

      Sale.. are you really that dumb?

      --


      He tried to kill me with a forklift!
    3. Re:Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there' something called "moral rights" in copyright law that allows the copyright holder to prevent you from, for example, buying an art book with a bunch of nice pictures in it, cutting out and framing all the pictures, and reselling the framed pictures.

      I doubt that very much. Show me a case which broadly prohibits that - not some narrower interpretation tenuously connected. I don't care if the book publisher gets in trouble if I cut up the book, I signed no such agreement when I bought it off the discount rack at B&N.

      No, you probably didn't, but it's a copyright law, not a contract. You are obligated to obey the law even if you didn't agree to it.

      As to show you a case, the Ninth Circuit has held for Parent in a related fact-pattern, while the seventh circuit has sided more with you, so it depends where in the United States you are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

      In addition, the parent was talking about moral rights, which are more of a European thing. So you'd have to check their law.

      Patents are not copyrights, so, no you can't show a case that broadly reflects your copyright = control of sold work. If you sell me a book, I can burn that book. There is no law prohibiting that. Feel free to revise your original position.

    4. Re:Law by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Copyright doesn't forbid sale. It forbids unauthorized copying of the work and derivative works. Once I have a physical book, I can disregard copyright as long as I don't actually copy it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  37. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

    until one gets fidgity and you are plugging in and removing dongles all day, or just downloading a patch from cracks.am

    --
    Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  38. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

    I remember ads for dongle emulators in the seedy advertising market place in the back of the magazine. Whats funny is how lazy software developers are when it comes to implementing the protection....

  39. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    USB dongles are a lot more transparent and can be chained all over the machine using hubs.

  40. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by Lumpy · · Score: 1

    We also had 4 AVID workstation running off of one dongle at Comcast back then. a printer switch was all we needed. going to load or render? flip the switch to your machine as that is the only times it checked for the dongle.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  41. Pirated Windows O/S's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows O/S's at least always phone home first (use TCPview to watch http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897437 )
    I've been well aware my pirated windows were being detected. Win7 was my first valid O/S and I've run em all but ME and up to W2K in the server line.

    Thought it rather nice of em in a way, never crippled an O/S in any way, no nastygrams, or complaints.

    Now with Win7 it might take me 30 mins to validate the damn thing, the code is too bloody small (with bad eye sight it requires me a magnifying glass or two) "Code no good", and try again with changes like a o for Q, a X for a K; I've installed it many times and always the same thing, and yes I have it written on the case three different ways.

    Pirated is instant :} - So much easier and temper free.

  42. What idiot pirate uses MS servers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, the Microsoft Toolkit KMS Server Service activator has been around for at least 5 years now, and activates windows locally with no issues, and more importantly, no connection to the outside world.

    What moron uses Microsoft's servers to activate pirated copies of Windows?

  43. Use of the word Pirate! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What pisses me of is the use of the word "pirate" to describe someone who is infringing copyright. Piracy involves robbery, kidnapping, and murder on the high seas!

    Stop letting Microsoft frame the debate!

    1. Re:Use of the word Pirate! by Le+Marteau · · Score: 1

      The use of the word "pirate" to denote a copyright infringer is not a Microsoft invention.

      Check out this advertisement from 1906:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
  44. Re:Such lawsuits are not rare - usually done by BS by wolrahnaes · · Score: 1

    Individual is the key word there. The BSA (and thus I agree by extension Microsoft) has a well documented track record of suing companies using pirated software. If you take them at their word that there were a large number of different devices activating those products from that IP address it seems reasonable that the same is exactly what's happening here. Individual pirates would be like the RIAA and MPAA going after actual people and families.

    Or that IP is an exit point for Tor or a VPN or whatever and whoever's actually doing it is somewhere else, who can say.

    --
    I used to get high on life, but I developed a tolerance. Now I need something stronger.
  45. They can now go after my parents by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    My parents bought a branded machine at a big box store and within weeks it popped up and said that the software wasn't genuine. So I ran the software to make it appear genuine and moved on. There was a zero percent chance that I was going to deal with either the branded company's or the big box company's tech support. Zero.

    And these companies wonder why we are switching so much of our buying to online. When their tech support people begin by doing a market survey and end with a sales pitch or a bill then nope.

  46. Re:Such lawsuits are not rare - usually done by BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do not know any cases (not saying they don't exist) where BSA would have targeted individuals. In every instance the targeted entity was a business.

  47. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We had a device that went in the back of the C64, and had a new connector at the other end. So multiple cartridges (or dongles) could be installed.

  48. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    It's okay, MS software is so bloated you couldn't possible run dozens of apps at once.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  49. Probably running a fake KMS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Key management for windows (ie: The server software that large corporations run to hand out licenses to their windows desktops and servers--also hands out licenses for other MS products) was cracked a while ago. There's implementations written in several portable languages floating about that can be run on just about any OS. When these servers are run, they'll activate most any volume license products (not all, because not every single key was cracked) for 6 months.

    I expect the dumbass at that IP decided it would be fun to run a public cracked KMS and then proceeded to tell the world about it. Lazy/dumb pirates decided "Hey, why bother running my own, let's just use that one!" and thousands of activations ensued. At some point MS realizes it's getting a little too easy to pirate their product and it might just be harming sales. Shut down a few of those dumb-asses and they'll be back down to the only pirates being those that would never have purchased in the first place (that's the "sweet spot" for piracy--doesn't negatively affect sales, but provides a hidden boost to popularity).

  50. Rant-O-Rama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're scum Microsoft, you are big dumb greedy bully that craps on users. Take your precious UEFI and please store it where the sun does not shine. When your insultingly pathetic excuse for an OS can read EXT drives then I might speak your name in polite company. I will go to prison before I will allow your crappy software on my computer. You are a dinosaur, a relic. Lilnux is kicking your ass and all you can do is cry for the fascist piggies to protect you. Move to Venezuela you asshats. We don't want you here!!!

  51. Re:Courts should punish intentional facilitation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    6.40 ports ought to be enough for anybody (TM)

    Seriously, how many people use 25 paid for applications all in one PC?

  52. The year Microsoft finally cracks down on piracy by vandamme · · Score: 1

    ...worldwide, will just precede the Year of the Linux desktop.