Microsoft announced Licensing V7.0 today, and although it looks like V6.0, there are a few changes. One of the most shocking ones was the addition of the clause: "83) It is unlawful for anyone who lives in, works in, ever visits, or has any family in the State of Massachussetts to use this Software Product."
A Microsoft spokesman downplayed suggestions that this was in retaliation for the States' refusal to let the antitrust suit die. Instead he commented that "We feel that we can better serve our core customer base at this point by adding these changes. It will be better in the long run for our youngest users. We're doing it for the children. Don't you care about the children."
A spokesman from the state of Massachussetts could not be contacted, since all of the communications and utilities ran on versions of Microsoft software, and have since been shut down.
First it was shared source. Now it's open value? Is it me or does it look like Microsoft is trying to co-opt the words "open" and "source" to confuse people? I'll bet this is what's happening.
WTF does "open value" mean anyway? The word open doesn't belong there at all. I wonder if we'll ever see the internal memos where they admit that since they can't win on the issues, they'll just muddy the waters by slinging the "open" "source" words around in different ways to see what sticks.
Coming soon: Microsoft: We're the trustworthy always open source for your business!
Yeah, I thought of this a long time ago, also. I'm sure lots of people did. This is one of those areas that makes me wish I could stomach software patents. Just patent all of these really bad ideas "Adverts/virtual buildings tied to real corporations within a virtual environment" and then sue the fuck out of the wankers who try to make advertising so prevalent. Come to think of it, maybe I should think about all of those places that DON'T have advertising now, and then patent the idea of putting an ad into any one of those places. Then sue the fuck out of those lusers who are trying to fill up every iota of space in the world with adverts.
The "piracy" problem must be even worse than they're admitting....
It's even worse than that. They always said that they had no profits on their movies and that's why suckas who got contracts that gave them a percentage of the profits got screwed. Now with Internet piracy, they're claiming that they're losing BILLIONS in profits due to stealing.
So, you see, the real problem is just as the movie industry was finally learning how to turn a profit after a hundred years of the lean times merely living hand-to-mouth, those damn P2P pirates and hackers came along and mucked it up again, so they're STILL not making a profit. Oh the humanity...
But it would forbid people from looking at some data, figuring things out in their head and on paper, and then writing down an answer that uses the patented method. It's still an abstract thought patent.:)
Software is also the electronic equivalent of books and movies and pictures and sounds and music. If you allow any types of instructions to be patented, then you let all of them be patented. If they actually allowed patents on these other things, including abstract mathematical thought, I wouldn't mind. The price you pay is that you then allow anything in the world to be patented.
And while we're at it, since minds are machines that run on patterns of electricity, I will expect them to make it illegal to even think thoughts that are patented because otherwise you are carrying out a method with your apparatus (your mind) without my consent. If they allow these other things to pass, I will support software patents. Until they are consistent and act like they know what they're talking about, I can't support them.
Do you think there should be patents on books and movies and music? After all, they're just strings of bits that tell machines how to operate. Code = Data. The "difference" between code and data is the kind of environment it's living in. Applications live inside of OSes, word processor documents live inside of word processor apps, songs on a CD live inside of a DA converter. Your thoughts live inside of your mind. They're all EM instructions that tell the machine they live in how to function. I will listen to you if you advocate patents on all strings of bits and patents that prevent people from thinking thoughts. Then you'll be consistent and I will support software patents. How about it? Do you support patents on all strings of bits and on all thoughts in peoples' heads?
Abstract mathematical thought isn't patentable and all software is abstract mathematical thought. Just because people who are "mathematically challenged" think that taking a math problem and giving the numbers in it real-world meaning as in a word problem changes something and magically turns abstract thought into a "new machine" doesn't make it so.
Don't get suckered in by people who want to see MS suffer. Just remember that the only reason company X with abstract thought patent Y doesn't go after your little OS/FS project Z (or just take away your right to use a computer at all since you violate TONS of abstract thought patents every time you turn on your computer) is that you aren't worth it. Support MS on this one all the way.
I haven't given the music or movie industry any money for months. It becomes easier after a while.
If you're worried about them coming down on people for not buying their products there are two things to consider.
They can't force you or intimidate you into buying music, nor can they threaten you. If they do, it's extortion. If you ever tell a copyright industry worker that you refuse to buy their stuff and they threaten you or try to intimidate you in any way, I suggest going to your attorney general and trying to get charges filed against them. It probably won't go anywhere, but at least you tried.
Take all the money you're not spending on the copyright industry materials and buy guns. We aren't there yet, but you never know.
Yup. I'm guessing taht he didn't read the text of the Dependent Musician Control Act. You're only allowed to distribute bits if you're a big huge corporation. Otherwise you have to get their permission to distribute your own bits. On a serious note, that IS the wave of the future. The days of being able to distribute your own stuff will come to an end simply because if the media companies don't control that, then people will be able to compete with the big media companies. This is their great fear. Not piracy, but competition that they can only control through suppression of speech. Remember that and stop giving the copyright industry any money forever.
100 bucks says that PanIP sues the "You may be next" website for taking donations since they're engaging in some kind of commerce or financial transaction over a network. It will be pretty fucking scary if they get away with that.
When any company and institution that ever received any kind of government loans or grants is not allowed to turn around and patent/copyright/lock up the things that were produced in any way downstream as a result of that government money.
But seriously, if the government wants to write software that's useful for everybody, it should be put into a BSD/MIT license instead of a GPLed license, or else it is worthless to a lot of the industry.
As much as I hate to admit it, this does make sense to me in terms of freedom. The GPL isn't really about freedom. It's about control over your users. It's a different kind of control than you find in regular software, but it's still control. I happen to prefer that control greatly to the kinds of controls that other pieces of software put on me and it has its places such as when you're trying to fend of giant corporations and their lock-ins, but the government shouldn't try to control how the fruits of its research are used. Again, I know this is naive in the face of how corps get grants and loans and then create stuff and lock it up, but it is the way it SHOULD work.
I think the plan was in 1999: "Holy shit! Money's falling from the trees! Let's pick some up now and we'll just get more later."
Then there wasn't more later. Most tech startups were like this. They get some money at first, then they expect to get more as they go along. It's just that more isn't always to be had these days.
No it means that they're engaged in contributory infringement by existing. And, they'll need a license for each one of th 10,000 human body patents to reproduce.
You need to stop giving money to the copyright industry forever.
It isn't about copying or piracy, it's about competition.
The tools you use to steal their content are the same tools you can use to COMPETE with their content.
They are lying when they talk about piracy. Don't talk about piracy, because if you do, then you're being reeled in by their lies. Make sure that you tell people that it's about competition, not stealing.
It's about using copyrights to hinder the progress of the sciences and useful arts by trying to take away the machines that people could use to promote the progress of the sciences and the useful arts. They can't allow these machines to exist or else they'll make less money as people become able to compete with them on an even playing field, but with much less money.
It's about giant corporations using lies to subvert the Constitution to destroy freedom because they think that they'll make more money.
So, please don't give money to the copyright industry ever again. They won't ever stop, and they will wait as long as needed between laws, and they're willing to take steps as small as needed to get toward their goal of preventing the existence of machines that will let people compete with them.
I expect the mean/median ratios to be about the same for most countries. What I want to avoid is a company or companies pumping a ton of money into a country to a single individual then declaring that the country has enough money that they can join the big boys.
For example, you have a country of 10 million. The companies of the industrialized world give one person in that country (the leader) a salary of 300 billion for a year. They have some contracts that state that this person will buy something for an exhorbitant amount of money and at the end of the year. This contract is backed up by the military. At the end of the year, that person buys this overpriced thing and gives most of the money back, but in the mean time, the country has gone over the limits and has been put back into the companies' coffers.
Perhaps you're right about the min/max aspect. I could settle for a weighted average of the mean/median just so that it's harder to game the system. But the point is still to encourage rich nations to do other things than screwing over poor nations for a quick buck today. I'm also assuming that over the long term, there will be larger markets filled with people with more money which means that companies can make more in the long run. Silly me. I had assumed that it was good to think long-term. Sometimes not treating people like shit for a quick buck today can be a good long-term corporate policy.
Take the lowest bulk licensing rate in the G8 (if they don't license, then the lowest rate per pill or copy of the software or whatever minus the expected costs of producing each copy).
Multiply this by the ratio of country Foo's MIN(mean, median) income over the G8's MAX(mean, median) income.
Then the industrialized nations have a reason to increase their income equality and they have a reason to make poorer nations less poor. And, poorer nations have the chance to make things without being overburdoned by the IP laws of the rich nations.
And for those of you keeping score at home, YES this is effectively giving away IP to poorer nations, but so what? The richer nations should be paying for their own IP within their own economies and they should look at any money gotten from poorer nations only as gravy.
Wow, that's quite an innovation. I wonder how they thought of that. I get a little tired of having to use this "root" account that came with my Linux package. It's kind of a stupid name and I wish I could change it to my name. Maybe someday Linux will have separate accounts for each user.
/. needs a better topic icon for stories like this. I suggested this one a long time ago, but apparently they didn't listen to me or didn't care.
The picture should have a fat white man's legs and ass with his pants down around his ankles. His pockets are stuffed with money and congressmen and he's taking a shit right on top of a copy of the Constitution. That would be a better icon than a hand with a microphone.:P Maybe I'll try to make it.:P
They aren't losing any money from these switches. They simply get less money in the future.
I think that it's worse than that. I think MS makes money when it gives away these gifts. The reality is that it costs them say 100k to send Bill and Co to some country to convince them to stop going over to FS/OSS. They then "give away" 1 billion dollars worth of software to that country that actually costs them say a few million dollars to actually produce the packaging and do the copying.
Therefore, their real cost is about a few million dollars, but they can write off a billion dollars in losses for advertising or marketing or whatever they want to call it, and they get to keep hundreds of millions from the billions of dollars in actual profits that they get from the people who really do buy the software. They can do this because this billion can then get counted against their expenses so their taxes are lower. It's kind of like printing money.
So, in effect, as long as people keep buying MS software in the US, whenever these other governments try to go over to OSS/FS, they actually make money for MS if they take the MS bribe.
Would it sit well with you as a kernel developer if, for instance, microsoft was using linux as their development platform for their next OS?
Reducto Ad-Absurdum - If people had acted like this, then there wouldn't be ANY free or open source software, because RMS (or anyone else for that matter) would never have been able to write a compiler using an editor compiled by a commercial compiler that wouldn't allow you to use that compiler to make things that could be used to make other compilers. This IS fucked up regardless of how you see it. You do have the right to use software under copyright law, and this little EULA bullshit dance got plopped on top of it and nobody's wanted to go to court to stop it.
Copyright law is supposed to be limited. It's supposed to cover copying and public performance. You sitting in your house using software you've paid for shouldn't be controlled. The whole idea that you license the software and you can't use it until you agree to the license is bullshit. It may be the law, but it's still bullshit. Otherwise you have nothing except a worthless shiny disk. And once you've paid for that disk you ought to be allowed to use it and you are allowed to use it under copyright law, but somehow they've managed to get this legal fiction scaffolded into place that says you need more permission to use the software after you have the bits.
It's like books with shrinkwrap licenses. I know they've been mentioned here before, but again. Bullshit. Someday books will come with locks and you'll get thrown in jail if you buy the book and then don't pony up to give up your rights to get the key.
Yet another reason to never give money to the copyright industry forever.
You really don't believe this, huh. Wanna bet money? What do you think the odds are that they'll try to take away computers? This means they will try to make it illegal for any old person to have a machine capable of sending, receiving, copying and altering arbitrary data. This is roughly what the SSSCA or CBPDTA was going to do. I'm not saying that they will succeed, but they are trying and if they can get away with it, they will. You're helping them if you're giving them money.
This is also what I want to know. How can you just shut down one single file on a single service on my computer?
What if I have a legitimate download business using the same P2P network where I distribute shareware? How could they possibly restrict access to the songs that I'm supposedly downloading while not restricting access to the shareware. What if everyone on P2P networks become authorized shareware or legit music distributors and therefore shutting down the network impedes someone elses' business? Look, I don't like piracy, but I don't see how this can work. They would have to leave the P2P network service open to distribute other legit files while only stopping one particular file from being shared??:P
Please:P This is a baby step. Next time they will let the copyright owners do more. If you're still buying or renting movies or music, please stop. Since their partial measures will never stop piracy, they won't stop getting more and more onerous laws until they have total control. Just stop giving them money forever.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft announced Licensing V7.0 today, and although it looks like V6.0, there are a few changes. One of the most shocking ones was the addition of the clause: "83) It is unlawful for anyone who lives in, works in, ever visits, or has any family in the State of Massachussetts to use this Software Product."
A Microsoft spokesman downplayed suggestions that this was in retaliation for the States' refusal to let the antitrust suit die. Instead he commented that "We feel that we can better serve our core customer base at this point by adding these changes. It will be better in the long run for our youngest users. We're doing it for the children. Don't you care about the children."
A spokesman from the state of Massachussetts could not be contacted, since all of the communications and utilities ran on versions of Microsoft software, and have since been shut down.
First it was shared source. Now it's open value? Is it me or does it look like Microsoft is trying to co-opt the words "open" and "source" to confuse people? I'll bet this is what's happening.
WTF does "open value" mean anyway? The word open doesn't belong there at all. I wonder if we'll ever see the internal memos where they admit that since they can't win on the issues, they'll just muddy the waters by slinging the "open" "source" words around in different ways to see what sticks.
Coming soon: Microsoft: We're the trustworthy always open source for your business!
Yeah, I thought of this a long time ago, also. I'm sure lots of people did. This is one of those areas that makes me wish I could stomach software patents. Just patent all of these really bad ideas "Adverts/virtual buildings tied to real corporations within a virtual environment" and then sue the fuck out of the wankers who try to make advertising so prevalent. Come to think of it, maybe I should think about all of those places that DON'T have advertising now, and then patent the idea of putting an ad into any one of those places. Then sue the fuck out of those lusers who are trying to fill up every iota of space in the world with adverts.
The "piracy" problem must be even worse than they're admitting....
It's even worse than that. They always said that they had no profits on their movies and that's why suckas who got contracts that gave them a percentage of the profits got screwed. Now with Internet piracy, they're claiming that they're losing BILLIONS in profits due to stealing.
So, you see, the real problem is just as the movie industry was finally learning how to turn a profit after a hundred years of the lean times merely living hand-to-mouth, those damn P2P pirates and hackers came along and mucked it up again, so they're STILL not making a profit. Oh the humanity...
But it would forbid people from looking at some data, figuring things out in their head and on paper, and then writing down an answer that uses the patented method. It's still an abstract thought patent. :)
Even better...get a patent saying that only you can make compasses that point that way. :P
Software is also the electronic equivalent of books and movies and pictures and sounds and music. If you allow any types of instructions to be patented, then you let all of them be patented. If they actually allowed patents on these other things, including abstract mathematical thought, I wouldn't mind. The price you pay is that you then allow anything in the world to be patented.
And while we're at it, since minds are machines that run on patterns of electricity, I will expect them to make it illegal to even think thoughts that are patented because otherwise you are carrying out a method with your apparatus (your mind) without my consent. If they allow these other things to pass, I will support software patents. Until they are consistent and act like they know what they're talking about, I can't support them.
Do you think there should be patents on books and movies and music? After all, they're just strings of bits that tell machines how to operate. Code = Data. The "difference" between code and data is the kind of environment it's living in. Applications live inside of OSes, word processor documents live inside of word processor apps, songs on a CD live inside of a DA converter. Your thoughts live inside of your mind. They're all EM instructions that tell the machine they live in how to function. I will listen to you if you advocate patents on all strings of bits and patents that prevent people from thinking thoughts. Then you'll be consistent and I will support software patents. How about it? Do you support patents on all strings of bits and on all thoughts in peoples' heads?
Abstract mathematical thought isn't patentable and all software is abstract mathematical thought. Just because people who are "mathematically challenged" think that taking a math problem and giving the numbers in it real-world meaning as in a word problem changes something and magically turns abstract thought into a "new machine" doesn't make it so.
Don't get suckered in by people who want to see MS suffer. Just remember that the only reason company X with abstract thought patent Y doesn't go after your little OS/FS project Z (or just take away your right to use a computer at all since you violate TONS of abstract thought patents every time you turn on your computer) is that you aren't worth it. Support MS on this one all the way.
If you're worried about them coming down on people for not buying their products there are two things to consider.
Yup. I'm guessing taht he didn't read the text of the Dependent Musician Control Act. You're only allowed to distribute bits if you're a big huge corporation. Otherwise you have to get their permission to distribute your own bits. On a serious note, that IS the wave of the future. The days of being able to distribute your own stuff will come to an end simply because if the media companies don't control that, then people will be able to compete with the big media companies. This is their great fear. Not piracy, but competition that they can only control through suppression of speech. Remember that and stop giving the copyright industry any money forever.
100 bucks says that PanIP sues the "You may be next" website for taking donations since they're engaging in some kind of commerce or financial transaction over a network. It will be pretty fucking scary if they get away with that.
When any company and institution that ever received any kind of government loans or grants is not allowed to turn around and patent/copyright/lock up the things that were produced in any way downstream as a result of that government money.
But seriously, if the government wants to write software that's useful for everybody, it should be put into a BSD/MIT license instead of a GPLed license, or else it is worthless to a lot of the industry.
As much as I hate to admit it, this does make sense to me in terms of freedom. The GPL isn't really about freedom. It's about control over your users. It's a different kind of control than you find in regular software, but it's still control. I happen to prefer that control greatly to the kinds of controls that other pieces of software put on me and it has its places such as when you're trying to fend of giant corporations and their lock-ins, but the government shouldn't try to control how the fruits of its research are used. Again, I know this is naive in the face of how corps get grants and loans and then create stuff and lock it up, but it is the way it SHOULD work.
I think the plan was in 1999: "Holy shit! Money's falling from the trees! Let's pick some up now and we'll just get more later."
Then there wasn't more later. Most tech startups were like this. They get some money at first, then they expect to get more as they go along. It's just that more isn't always to be had these days.
No it means that they're engaged in contributory infringement by existing. And, they'll need a license for each one of th 10,000 human body patents to reproduce.
I've been saying this for months.
You need to stop giving money to the copyright industry forever.
It isn't about copying or piracy, it's about competition.
The tools you use to steal their content are the same tools you can use to COMPETE with their content.
They are lying when they talk about piracy. Don't talk about piracy, because if you do, then you're being reeled in by their lies. Make sure that you tell people that it's about competition, not stealing.
It's about using copyrights to hinder the progress of the sciences and useful arts by trying to take away the machines that people could use to promote the progress of the sciences and the useful arts. They can't allow these machines to exist or else they'll make less money as people become able to compete with them on an even playing field, but with much less money.
It's about giant corporations using lies to subvert the Constitution to destroy freedom because they think that they'll make more money.
So, please don't give money to the copyright industry ever again. They won't ever stop, and they will wait as long as needed between laws, and they're willing to take steps as small as needed to get toward their goal of preventing the existence of machines that will let people compete with them.
I expect the mean/median ratios to be about the same for most countries. What I want to avoid is a company or companies pumping a ton of money into a country to a single individual then declaring that the country has enough money that they can join the big boys.
For example, you have a country of 10 million. The companies of the industrialized world give one person in that country (the leader) a salary of 300 billion for a year. They have some contracts that state that this person will buy something for an exhorbitant amount of money and at the end of the year. This contract is backed up by the military. At the end of the year, that person buys this overpriced thing and gives most of the money back, but in the mean time, the country has gone over the limits and has been put back into the companies' coffers.
Perhaps you're right about the min/max aspect. I could settle for a weighted average of the mean/median just so that it's harder to game the system. But the point is still to encourage rich nations to do other things than screwing over poor nations for a quick buck today. I'm also assuming that over the long term, there will be larger markets filled with people with more money which means that companies can make more in the long run. Silly me. I had assumed that it was good to think long-term. Sometimes not treating people like shit for a quick buck today can be a good long-term corporate policy.
Compulsory licensing of IP at a rate like this:
Take the lowest bulk licensing rate in the G8 (if they don't license, then the lowest rate per pill or copy of the software or whatever minus the expected costs of producing each copy).
Multiply this by the ratio of country Foo's MIN(mean, median) income over the G8's MAX(mean, median) income.
Then the industrialized nations have a reason to increase their income equality and they have a reason to make poorer nations less poor. And, poorer nations have the chance to make things without being overburdoned by the IP laws of the rich nations.
And for those of you keeping score at home, YES this is effectively giving away IP to poorer nations, but so what? The richer nations should be paying for their own IP within their own economies and they should look at any money gotten from poorer nations only as gravy.
Wow, that's quite an innovation. I wonder how they thought of that. I get a little tired of having to use this "root" account that came with my Linux package. It's kind of a stupid name and I wish I could change it to my name. Maybe someday Linux will have separate accounts for each user.
/. needs a better topic icon for stories like this. I suggested this one a long time ago, but apparently they didn't listen to me or didn't care.
:P Maybe I'll try to make it. :P
The picture should have a fat white man's legs and ass with his pants down around his ankles. His pockets are stuffed with money and congressmen and he's taking a shit right on top of a copy of the Constitution. That would be a better icon than a hand with a microphone.
Why not just patent a new method of keeping time that always makes it 12:00? :P
They aren't losing any money from these switches. They simply get less money in the future.
I think that it's worse than that. I think MS makes money when it gives away these gifts. The reality is that it costs them say 100k to send Bill and Co to some country to convince them to stop going over to FS/OSS. They then "give away" 1 billion dollars worth of software to that country that actually costs them say a few million dollars to actually produce the packaging and do the copying.
Therefore, their real cost is about a few million dollars, but they can write off a billion dollars in losses for advertising or marketing or whatever they want to call it, and they get to keep hundreds of millions from the billions of dollars in actual profits that they get from the people who really do buy the software. They can do this because this billion can then get counted against their expenses so their taxes are lower. It's kind of like printing money.
So, in effect, as long as people keep buying MS software in the US, whenever these other governments try to go over to OSS/FS, they actually make money for MS if they take the MS bribe.
Would it sit well with you as a kernel developer if, for instance, microsoft was using linux as their development platform for their next OS?
Reducto Ad-Absurdum - If people had acted like this, then there wouldn't be ANY free or open source software, because RMS (or anyone else for that matter) would never have been able to write a compiler using an editor compiled by a commercial compiler that wouldn't allow you to use that compiler to make things that could be used to make other compilers. This IS fucked up regardless of how you see it. You do have the right to use software under copyright law, and this little EULA bullshit dance got plopped on top of it and nobody's wanted to go to court to stop it.
Copyright law is supposed to be limited. It's supposed to cover copying and public performance. You sitting in your house using software you've paid for shouldn't be controlled. The whole idea that you license the software and you can't use it until you agree to the license is bullshit. It may be the law, but it's still bullshit. Otherwise you have nothing except a worthless shiny disk. And once you've paid for that disk you ought to be allowed to use it and you are allowed to use it under copyright law, but somehow they've managed to get this legal fiction scaffolded into place that says you need more permission to use the software after you have the bits.
It's like books with shrinkwrap licenses. I know they've been mentioned here before, but again. Bullshit. Someday books will come with locks and you'll get thrown in jail if you buy the book and then don't pony up to give up your rights to get the key.
Yet another reason to never give money to the copyright industry forever.
You really don't believe this, huh. Wanna bet money? What do you think the odds are that they'll try to take away computers? This means they will try to make it illegal for any old person to have a machine capable of sending, receiving, copying and altering arbitrary data. This is roughly what the SSSCA or CBPDTA was going to do. I'm not saying that they will succeed, but they are trying and if they can get away with it, they will. You're helping them if you're giving them money.
This is also what I want to know. How can you just shut down one single file on a single service on my computer?
:P
:P This is a baby step. Next time they will let the copyright owners do more. If you're still buying or renting movies or music, please stop. Since their partial measures will never stop piracy, they won't stop getting more and more onerous laws until they have total control. Just stop giving them money forever.
What if I have a legitimate download business using the same P2P network where I distribute shareware? How could they possibly restrict access to the songs that I'm supposedly downloading while not restricting access to the shareware. What if everyone on P2P networks become authorized shareware or legit music distributors and therefore shutting down the network impedes someone elses' business? Look, I don't like piracy, but I don't see how this can work. They would have to leave the P2P network service open to distribute other legit files while only stopping one particular file from being shared??
Please
They'll just use the money you spend on this movie to try to take away computers. Have a little self-respect for goodness' sake.