Even if such a case were brought (and I'd be interested to see it), they'd just argue that there are plenty of non-infringing uses, and that they cannot possibly be held responsible for what their customers choose to do with their products.
It's really no different to the usual software-based arguments here - if a writer of a tool that has both infringing and non-infringing uses should not be held responsible for its users' actions, then the same must aplly to Sony. Unless they're actively promoting copyright infringement, which as far as I know, they are not doing.
Anyway, at the very most they'd be forced to print disclaimers in their manuals and everything would continue as usual.
I live in the US, so this law does not directly affect me
You do realise that it's just our version of your DMCA, don't you? It doesn't affect you because it doesn't need to affect you - we're playing catch-up on this one.
but it's still a global chilling effect on all the common people
Well, at least you got that bit right. Unfortunately.
But all of those electronic devices that you list have legitimate, non-infringing uses too, at least as far as the law goes.
Time-shifting a broadcast is explicitly allowed, so there's the video capture cards, VCRs, radio-cassette recorders, etc, exempted. The rest are all fine, as long as you use them with copyrighted works that you have the copyright holder's permission to copy.
Just because you can't use a product for what you bought it for, doesn't mean that you're entitled to a refund, if the reason you can't use it is because your use of it is illegal.
Now, boycotting similar products might work, but even then, they'd have to know why you're boycotting them. Simply not buying them isn't enough.
There is no provision in the law that prohibits you from making copies for personal use.
There doesn't need to be, at least not here in the UK - we've never had that right, unless it was explicitly granted by the copyright holder. Technically, it's always been illegal here for me to rip my CDs to mp3s/oggs, or to MDs when I had an MD player.
The making in domestic premises for private and domestic use of a recording of a broadcast solely for the purpose of enabling it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time does not infringe any right conferred by Part 2 in relation to a performance or recording included in the broadcast.
[emphasis mine]
As I read it, that section relates specifically and only to time-shifting broadcasts, not to "media-shifting" CDs, etc. Which, frankly, sucks. I run a (private) streaming mp3/ogg server at home, so I can listen to my music at work without lugging CDs around or leaving them in the office, or ripping them all to my work machine's rather small hard drive (hah - which I suppose is illegal anyway...). I guess that's now illegal; thanks guys. And this is meant to make me buy *more* CDs?
As I read it, the time-shifting provisions relate specifically to broadcasts, so it's hard to see how it could be used to justify making backups, unfortunately.
I seem to remember reading in a copyright law FAQ a couple of years ago, though, that under UK law, we have no right to make backups of copyrighted works, without the copyright holder's express permission. Which sucks, frankly.
one, you have to make it executable (beyond most users)
Not once a significant number of people are using it, and being sent cool stuff by their friends that they have to chmod +x to run.
to make it work on system file
99% of users don't care about system files (we're talking about single-user desktops here, remember, not servers) - they're backed up on the nice shiny install media. A destructive virus might not be able to hose them, but it'll have free run of the user's own files, which are all that matter on a desktop. Sure, they should be backed up - but losing even a day's work could be painful.
Also, there's nothing preventing a Windows user from running with a normal account, rather than an admin one. As software developers finally get used to developing stuff for NT-based versions, the need to run as admin will gradually go away. The only reason I have to now is because some of my games want to write stuff (saved games, etc) to their install folder, and I could fix that if I could be bothered (by allowing my user write permissions as required).
there is one email client for 99% of windows users. for linux, there are hundreds.
And once Linux becomes a standard corporate desktop, the number actually being used will drop dramatically. They'll standardise on something like Evolution, because of its similarity to Outlook, and the users that then install Linux on their home machines will use it there, too. Most of the lesser clients (and I can't think of hundreds, but I'll take your word for it) will wither away.
there won't be viruses once linux gains share. that's pure FUD
Well, I don't mean to spread fud, I mean to make people realise that Linux is not immune, and that, imho of course, when/if it gains significant market share, we are going to see it targeted by the various malcontents. It makes viruses harder to write, that's true - but trojans are just as easy. Just create some nice little p2p app or something and quietly include a backdoor - things like Kazaa spring to mind. Sure, that's a Windows app, but there's nothing stopping the same thing from being done on Linux.
apache ownz the web server space, and they are nowhere near IIS in hacks.
Apache has roughly two thirds, IIS the majority of the rest. That still leaves hundreds of thousands of IIS installs (if not millions) that are seen to be much softer targets than the apache ones; plenty of targets for the clueless script kiddies that just download the latest exploit kit and set it running on their cable-connected machine.
Maybe you're right, and time will prove me wrong. I hope it does - I'd love to see viruses, trojans, etc die out, but I don't think it's going to happen. I've had a computer since 1982, and apart from the first few years, I don't remember a time when there weren't viruses, and that includes the times when there were half a dozen or more cometing systems. Windows may make it easier, but I stand by my statement that Linux does not make it impossible. I guess that's just something we're going to have to agree to disagree on, though.
Oh, I'm not outraged - I just think that a bug like that should never have made it into a version of a product available for use, even if it's not finished. It's not a code bug, it's a usability issue, and creates a poor first impression for new users. They've not even made it through the install, and already things are messed up, through no fault of their own. If that breaks, what else is broken, that'll cause trouble in the future? Anyway, as you say, I'm sure it'll have been removed by the time it's finished.
For what it's worth (ie very little) that's not the reason I'm not using debian. I'm not using debian because it's not aimed at my type of Linux user. I want something that's more-or-less good to go straight off the CDs, with up to date versions of packages I want and minimal faffing about. I used to enjoy tweaking and configuring my system, but these days, I just want to use it - I have little enough spare time as it is, with work and a family. I don't want to be wasting what I have fighting with an OS.
Not necessarily true. I know it's an old retort, but trust me - once Linux gains appreciable market share on the desktop, the virus and trojan writers and script kiddies will descend, and the exploits - and they're sure to exist - will be found.
Sure, it'll be harder for them than it is with Windows, but not impossible.
far easier maintanance
Rubbish. Far easier for you to maintain, perhaps, and I'd even be willing to agree that proportionally, there are more clueless Windows "pretend-admins" than there are Linux ones, but a properly skilled Windows admin is as effective at their job as a properly skilled Linux one is at theirs.
If you're talking about patches and updates, well, a few months ago I ran Windows Update and Mandrake's update application one after the other, both on more-or-less unpatched installs. The Mandrake one had about 10 times the amount (by byte count) of updates that I selected (let alone available) than XP did.
Of course, you get far more applications with a Linux distro than you do with Windows - but that hardly matters. It all still has to be maintained, and we're talking about desktops here, not servers; desktop installs tend to be rather less selective as to what gets installed. Even if the number of critical/security updates is lower for Linux, it takes someone time to read through the list and work out what needs to be applied and what can wait.
why are we letting Microsoft get away with.NET widgets that don't look like MFC widgets
Perhaps because Windows Forms are intended to be a replacement for MFC, rather than a complement to them? On the other hand, no-one (well, nearly no-one) is suggesting that GTK+ is a replacement for Qt...
That kind of worries me, because we seem to have a pretty light colored earth. Doesn't that mean something is push it away as well?
Yes, there are a few things pushing on the Earth too - the radiation pressure of the sunlight falling on it and the solar wind, to name two off the top of my head. Also, our centripetal acceleration acts so as to try to make the Earth fly off away from the Sun (on a tangent, of course). Gravity counteracts them all.
Don't worry though - our little planet has been here for a few billion years, and trust me, short of something cataclysmic happening, it'll still be here in a few billion more. All the forces on it are in balance, or so nearly so as to make no practical difference.
What's the problem with saying "x begs the question..." when x is a scenario, and does indeed make you think of a certain question?
The problem is that it's not what the phrase means. I agree that it sounds like it means "makes you think of the question", but that's not what it means. Like a lot of things (incorrect usage of the apostrophe, poor spelling, etc) in English, it doesn't really matter - but it's wrong, and that irks some of us. Everyone has one or more pet hates; incorrect language usage is one of mine.
Look at it this way - lots of people here get their knickers in a twist over the whole hacker/cracker thing. This is just the same thing.
How is "x raises the question..." any better
Because it's the correct phrase, and you're actually saying what you mean.
If you choose to use the correct version, and somebody asks why you're such a pompous git
But they wouldn't, would they? They wouldn't know that you were correctly not saying "begs the question", unless they think that that's the only way of saying that. Otherwise, you're just using one of a number of phrases that mean (or sound like they mean) the same thing.
Personally, I don't see what the problem is. It's wrong, because it means something else. It's not like there isn't a perfectly good alternative, that's only a single sylable longer. Besides, from this definiton of beg, you can see that the phrase "begs the question" is consistent with definition 3b.
For the rest of us, that's not a "minor glitch", that's a complete show-stopper.
I've never even seen a Dvorak keyboard - if I installed an OS, chose English (UK) and got my keyboard set as Dvorak, I'd have a pretty frustrating time of getting it fixed. As a programmer, I'd also be cursing the utter stupidity of whoever made the decision to make it work like that...
Windows 2000 & XP have a two-stage installation process. The initial stage, which sets up the disk(s) and copies various required driver files, etc is text mode. Once that has finished (after a minute or two plus disk formatting time), you're prompted to reboot. The machine then boots into a GUI installer, which takes you through the vast bulk of the installation and configuration.
From memory, Windows XP installations are about 90-95% GUI-mode, although admittedly, it's been about 10 months since I installed my copy.
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with text-mode installs - although I recently gave up on Gentoo because of its installation process. Something went wrong, and I couldn't be bothered to read through all 49 pages of instructions to work out what. (My first Linux install was Slackware 3.something in '97 off a bunch of floppies, so I'm no newbie - I just can't be doing with that sort of hassle these days is all)
So, let me get this straight - I buy one of those things for myself, set up a fence at some appropriate distance from my house, and it'll automatically notify my house when I'm at a certain distance away on my way home?
So, for example, a PC at home could switch on lights/heating/whatever, or my gf would know I'm nearly home (so she can start dinner, or knows that I'll be there soon to take our daughter off her hands and/or will be able to go out soon, whatever).
Excellent - thank you! I'm currently doing my bit - download speed is about half my upload, which is maxed out (on a 512/256Kbps ADSL line).
This'll be the third distro I've tried in almost as many days. Despite being a long-time 'drake user, when I heard about the problem, I thought it perhaps best to try another distro (I have an LG drive myself).
Gentoo came with 49 pages of installation instructions. 49. Now, I'm no newbie - my first Linux install was Slackware 3.something back in '97. I downloaded it at college and took it home on floppies - lots of floppies. But Gentoo I simply couldn't be bothered with - I got it installed, rebooted, saw a ton of module loading errors and booted back to Windows to download something else.
That something was Fedora Core 1. Installed fine, booted, everything working - except, it didn't recognise my ADSL modem (Speedtouch USB Home, the frog one). Okay, fine - back to Windows, downloaded some stuff, back to Fedora. What do you mean, "fs type ntfs isn't supported by this kernel"?! Apparently RedHat (and so Fedora) is the only distro that doesn't include the ntfs module. Thanks for that, guys.
Well, I can't be bothered, frankly. I'm going back to Mandrake, which I know supports my ntfs partition and ADSL modem out of the box (as it were). These days, while I'll happily make the effort to get stuff configured just the way I want it, I will *not* waste that much time just getting something installed, and with Mandrake, I don't have to.
RTFA. The problem affected a few specific revisions of the firmware that shipped with a few, specific CD-ROM drives only - CD-R/RW and DVD-* drives were apparently not affected.
When was the last time you bought a Dell (or any other name-brand PC) that shipped with a plain CD-ROM drive?
Do you have any sources for that? I'm not disputing that the profit margin on Windows is high, but with the size of team I imagine works on it, I do not believe that it's that high. Unless you're only counting duplication, packaging and transportation costs - but that's not the whole source of costs...
enough money in their coffers to end world hunger if they ever felt like it
Not true. A lot of problems are created, or at least exacerbated, by the action (or inaction) of local governments and warring factions. A sizeable amount of foreign aid never makes it to the intended recipients, instead being creamed off by corrupt, greedy officials. In other areas, small-scale local wars hamper or prevent its distribution. These are problems that MS could do nothing about, short of raising an army and invading - and I can imagine the uproar here (and rightly so) should that ever happen:-)
In Microsoft's case, even commoners know it's less secure
Less secure than what? The "commoners" you're referring to most likely haven't heard of an alternative - oh, possibly they've heard of Macs, but all they know is that their PC software won't work on them.
There's absolutely no need to sell new fingernail sized cards that replace CDs, when they can just distribute over the internet.
Not everyone who listens to music has an internet connection (or even a PC). Of those that do, a significant proportion pay per-minute connection fees (eg for dialup), and so aren't going to want to pay to buy the songs, and to download them.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if such a case were brought (and I'd be interested to see it), they'd just argue that there are plenty of non-infringing uses, and that they cannot possibly be held responsible for what their customers choose to do with their products.
It's really no different to the usual software-based arguments here - if a writer of a tool that has both infringing and non-infringing uses should not be held responsible for its users' actions, then the same must aplly to Sony. Unless they're actively promoting copyright infringement, which as far as I know, they are not doing.
Anyway, at the very most they'd be forced to print disclaimers in their manuals and everything would continue as usual.
I live in the US, so this law does not directly affect me
You do realise that it's just our version of your DMCA, don't you? It doesn't affect you because it doesn't need to affect you - we're playing catch-up on this one.
but it's still a global chilling effect on all the common people
Well, at least you got that bit right. Unfortunately.
But all of those electronic devices that you list have legitimate, non-infringing uses too, at least as far as the law goes.
Time-shifting a broadcast is explicitly allowed, so there's the video capture cards, VCRs, radio-cassette recorders, etc, exempted. The rest are all fine, as long as you use them with copyrighted works that you have the copyright holder's permission to copy.
Just because you can't use a product for what you bought it for, doesn't mean that you're entitled to a refund, if the reason you can't use it is because your use of it is illegal.
Now, boycotting similar products might work, but even then, they'd have to know why you're boycotting them. Simply not buying them isn't enough.
There is no provision in the law that prohibits you from making copies for personal use.
There doesn't need to be, at least not here in the UK - we've never had that right, unless it was explicitly granted by the copyright holder. Technically, it's always been illegal here for me to rip my CDs to mp3s/oggs, or to MDs when I had an MD player.
It really does look like making a copy for backup is legal.
But how is a backup temporary? That's the key word here, I think - I view backups of bought media as permanent, and I think most people do.
I'm afraid not.
The making in domestic premises for private and domestic use of a recording of a broadcast solely for the purpose of enabling it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time does not infringe any right conferred by Part 2 in relation to a performance or recording included in the broadcast.
[emphasis mine]
As I read it, that section relates specifically and only to time-shifting broadcasts, not to "media-shifting" CDs, etc. Which, frankly, sucks. I run a (private) streaming mp3/ogg server at home, so I can listen to my music at work without lugging CDs around or leaving them in the office, or ripping them all to my work machine's rather small hard drive (hah - which I suppose is illegal anyway...). I guess that's now illegal; thanks guys. And this is meant to make me buy *more* CDs?
As I read it, the time-shifting provisions relate specifically to broadcasts, so it's hard to see how it could be used to justify making backups, unfortunately.
I seem to remember reading in a copyright law FAQ a couple of years ago, though, that under UK law, we have no right to make backups of copyrighted works, without the copyright holder's express permission. Which sucks, frankly.
No restraint needed - once goatsed, twice shy...
one, you have to make it executable (beyond most users)
Not once a significant number of people are using it, and being sent cool stuff by their friends that they have to chmod +x to run.
to make it work on system file
99% of users don't care about system files (we're talking about single-user desktops here, remember, not servers) - they're backed up on the nice shiny install media. A destructive virus might not be able to hose them, but it'll have free run of the user's own files, which are all that matter on a desktop. Sure, they should be backed up - but losing even a day's work could be painful.
Also, there's nothing preventing a Windows user from running with a normal account, rather than an admin one. As software developers finally get used to developing stuff for NT-based versions, the need to run as admin will gradually go away. The only reason I have to now is because some of my games want to write stuff (saved games, etc) to their install folder, and I could fix that if I could be bothered (by allowing my user write permissions as required).
there is one email client for 99% of windows users. for linux, there are hundreds.
And once Linux becomes a standard corporate desktop, the number actually being used will drop dramatically. They'll standardise on something like Evolution, because of its similarity to Outlook, and the users that then install Linux on their home machines will use it there, too. Most of the lesser clients (and I can't think of hundreds, but I'll take your word for it) will wither away.
there won't be viruses once linux gains share. that's pure FUD
Well, I don't mean to spread fud, I mean to make people realise that Linux is not immune, and that, imho of course, when/if it gains significant market share, we are going to see it targeted by the various malcontents. It makes viruses harder to write, that's true - but trojans are just as easy. Just create some nice little p2p app or something and quietly include a backdoor - things like Kazaa spring to mind. Sure, that's a Windows app, but there's nothing stopping the same thing from being done on Linux.
apache ownz the web server space, and they are nowhere near IIS in hacks.
Apache has roughly two thirds, IIS the majority of the rest. That still leaves hundreds of thousands of IIS installs (if not millions) that are seen to be much softer targets than the apache ones; plenty of targets for the clueless script kiddies that just download the latest exploit kit and set it running on their cable-connected machine.
Maybe you're right, and time will prove me wrong. I hope it does - I'd love to see viruses, trojans, etc die out, but I don't think it's going to happen. I've had a computer since 1982, and apart from the first few years, I don't remember a time when there weren't viruses, and that includes the times when there were half a dozen or more cometing systems. Windows may make it easier, but I stand by my statement that Linux does not make it impossible. I guess that's just something we're going to have to agree to disagree on, though.
Oh, I'm not outraged - I just think that a bug like that should never have made it into a version of a product available for use, even if it's not finished. It's not a code bug, it's a usability issue, and creates a poor first impression for new users. They've not even made it through the install, and already things are messed up, through no fault of their own. If that breaks, what else is broken, that'll cause trouble in the future? Anyway, as you say, I'm sure it'll have been removed by the time it's finished.
For what it's worth (ie very little) that's not the reason I'm not using debian. I'm not using debian because it's not aimed at my type of Linux user. I want something that's more-or-less good to go straight off the CDs, with up to date versions of packages I want and minimal faffing about. I used to enjoy tweaking and configuring my system, but these days, I just want to use it - I have little enough spare time as it is, with work and a family. I don't want to be wasting what I have fighting with an OS.
far better security
Not necessarily true. I know it's an old retort, but trust me - once Linux gains appreciable market share on the desktop, the virus and trojan writers and script kiddies will descend, and the exploits - and they're sure to exist - will be found.
Sure, it'll be harder for them than it is with Windows, but not impossible.
far easier maintanance
Rubbish. Far easier for you to maintain, perhaps, and I'd even be willing to agree that proportionally, there are more clueless Windows "pretend-admins" than there are Linux ones, but a properly skilled Windows admin is as effective at their job as a properly skilled Linux one is at theirs.
If you're talking about patches and updates, well, a few months ago I ran Windows Update and Mandrake's update application one after the other, both on more-or-less unpatched installs. The Mandrake one had about 10 times the amount (by byte count) of updates that I selected (let alone available) than XP did.
Of course, you get far more applications with a Linux distro than you do with Windows - but that hardly matters. It all still has to be maintained, and we're talking about desktops here, not servers; desktop installs tend to be rather less selective as to what gets installed. Even if the number of critical/security updates is lower for Linux, it takes someone time to read through the list and work out what needs to be applied and what can wait.
why are we letting Microsoft get away with .NET widgets that don't look like MFC widgets
Perhaps because Windows Forms are intended to be a replacement for MFC, rather than a complement to them? On the other hand, no-one (well, nearly no-one) is suggesting that GTK+ is a replacement for Qt...
That kind of worries me, because we seem to have a pretty light colored earth. Doesn't that mean something is push it away as well?
Yes, there are a few things pushing on the Earth too - the radiation pressure of the sunlight falling on it and the solar wind, to name two off the top of my head. Also, our centripetal acceleration acts so as to try to make the Earth fly off away from the Sun (on a tangent, of course). Gravity counteracts them all.
Don't worry though - our little planet has been here for a few billion years, and trust me, short of something cataclysmic happening, it'll still be here in a few billion more. All the forces on it are in balance, or so nearly so as to make no practical difference.
What's the problem with saying "x begs the question..." when x is a scenario, and does indeed make you think of a certain question?
The problem is that it's not what the phrase means. I agree that it sounds like it means "makes you think of the question", but that's not what it means. Like a lot of things (incorrect usage of the apostrophe, poor spelling, etc) in English, it doesn't really matter - but it's wrong, and that irks some of us. Everyone has one or more pet hates; incorrect language usage is one of mine.
Look at it this way - lots of people here get their knickers in a twist over the whole hacker/cracker thing. This is just the same thing.
How is "x raises the question..." any better
Because it's the correct phrase, and you're actually saying what you mean.
If you choose to use the correct version, and somebody asks why you're such a pompous git
But they wouldn't, would they? They wouldn't know that you were correctly not saying "begs the question", unless they think that that's the only way of saying that. Otherwise, you're just using one of a number of phrases that mean (or sound like they mean) the same thing.
Personally, I don't see what the problem is. It's wrong, because it means something else. It's not like there isn't a perfectly good alternative, that's only a single sylable longer. Besides, from this definiton of beg, you can see that the phrase "begs the question" is consistent with definition 3b.
For the rest of us, that's not a "minor glitch", that's a complete show-stopper.
I've never even seen a Dvorak keyboard - if I installed an OS, chose English (UK) and got my keyboard set as Dvorak, I'd have a pretty frustrating time of getting it fixed. As a programmer, I'd also be cursing the utter stupidity of whoever made the decision to make it work like that...
Windows 2000 & XP have a two-stage installation process. The initial stage, which sets up the disk(s) and copies various required driver files, etc is text mode. Once that has finished (after a minute or two plus disk formatting time), you're prompted to reboot. The machine then boots into a GUI installer, which takes you through the vast bulk of the installation and configuration.
From memory, Windows XP installations are about 90-95% GUI-mode, although admittedly, it's been about 10 months since I installed my copy.
Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with text-mode installs - although I recently gave up on Gentoo because of its installation process. Something went wrong, and I couldn't be bothered to read through all 49 pages of instructions to work out what. (My first Linux install was Slackware 3.something in '97 off a bunch of floppies, so I'm no newbie - I just can't be doing with that sort of hassle these days is all)
So, let me get this straight - I buy one of those things for myself, set up a fence at some appropriate distance from my house, and it'll automatically notify my house when I'm at a certain distance away on my way home?
So, for example, a PC at home could switch on lights/heating/whatever, or my gf would know I'm nearly home (so she can start dinner, or knows that I'll be there soon to take our daughter off her hands and/or will be able to go out soon, whatever).
Excellent - thank you! I'm currently doing my bit - download speed is about half my upload, which is maxed out (on a 512/256Kbps ADSL line).
This'll be the third distro I've tried in almost as many days. Despite being a long-time 'drake user, when I heard about the problem, I thought it perhaps best to try another distro (I have an LG drive myself).
Gentoo came with 49 pages of installation instructions. 49. Now, I'm no newbie - my first Linux install was Slackware 3.something back in '97. I downloaded it at college and took it home on floppies - lots of floppies. But Gentoo I simply couldn't be bothered with - I got it installed, rebooted, saw a ton of module loading errors and booted back to Windows to download something else.
That something was Fedora Core 1. Installed fine, booted, everything working - except, it didn't recognise my ADSL modem (Speedtouch USB Home, the frog one). Okay, fine - back to Windows, downloaded some stuff, back to Fedora. What do you mean, "fs type ntfs isn't supported by this kernel"?! Apparently RedHat (and so Fedora) is the only distro that doesn't include the ntfs module. Thanks for that, guys.
Well, I can't be bothered, frankly. I'm going back to Mandrake, which I know supports my ntfs partition and ADSL modem out of the box (as it were). These days, while I'll happily make the effort to get stuff configured just the way I want it, I will *not* waste that much time just getting something installed, and with Mandrake, I don't have to.
RTFA. The problem affected a few specific revisions of the firmware that shipped with a few, specific CD-ROM drives only - CD-R/RW and DVD-* drives were apparently not affected.
When was the last time you bought a Dell (or any other name-brand PC) that shipped with a plain CD-ROM drive?
It may also destroy the mass, if you manage to create a nuclear reaction and convert some of it to energy.
Unlikely with a virus, I know...
With a near 100% profit margin on Windows
:-)
Do you have any sources for that? I'm not disputing that the profit margin on Windows is high, but with the size of team I imagine works on it, I do not believe that it's that high. Unless you're only counting duplication, packaging and transportation costs - but that's not the whole source of costs...
enough money in their coffers to end world hunger if they ever felt like it
Not true. A lot of problems are created, or at least exacerbated, by the action (or inaction) of local governments and warring factions. A sizeable amount of foreign aid never makes it to the intended recipients, instead being creamed off by corrupt, greedy officials. In other areas, small-scale local wars hamper or prevent its distribution. These are problems that MS could do nothing about, short of raising an army and invading - and I can imagine the uproar here (and rightly so) should that ever happen
they didn't write the code that formed NT...
They developed... NONE of it.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. So, do you have any proof at all of this?
In Microsoft's case, even commoners know it's less secure
Less secure than what? The "commoners" you're referring to most likely haven't heard of an alternative - oh, possibly they've heard of Macs, but all they know is that their PC software won't work on them.
If you leave your car unlocked and I steal it, you are not responsible if I smuggle drugs in your stolen vehicle.
No, but in the case of running an open wifi network or unsecure computer, the prosecution may well try to hit you with a claim of negligence.
There's absolutely no need to sell new fingernail sized cards that replace CDs, when they can just distribute over the internet.
Not everyone who listens to music has an internet connection (or even a PC). Of those that do, a significant proportion pay per-minute connection fees (eg for dialup), and so aren't going to want to pay to buy the songs, and to download them.