Making copyright owners apply for renewal every 10 years, and pay a fee at that time is one of the better ideas for copyright reform.
Maybe if the fee is a (non-trivial) percentage of the revenue derived thus far from the work. Otherwise it's even worse than the existing system because it really does allow for never-ending copyright (unless copyright automatically expires on the death of the holder - which it should).
The problem then is that this could lead to contract killings.
Fortunately, murder is already illegal.
(I really don't get how anyone can consider that an argument. Seriously, how many people do you think are out there prepared to commit murder, but *not* prepared to break copyright law ?)
Well, what about you? Let's say that you put your savings into a bank in 1955. Should "society" have free rights to that money after 50 years?
No.
Not that this strawman example has any resemblance to copyright. Money you might earn != money you have earned.
Trust me, I'm not fan of ridiculously long copyright periods, [...]
I'd have to say you are, to come up with such a ridiculous analogy to try and justify them.
[...] but saying that you have the right to take my property just because I was unwilling or unable to duplicate my previous success doesn't sound fair to me.
They're not taking your property. All that's happening is the completely arbitrary and artificial legal restriction on copying information is removed.
"Intellectual property", despite the term and the wet dreams of people who use it, does not in any meaningful way resemble actual, physical property.
IMHO, any system which has arbitrary set limits is vulnerable to (relatively) easily-acquired extensions to those limits, eventually leading to the ridiculous situation we have now.
My idea. (I posted a more detailed version ages ago to Slashdot, but I can't find the post now).
Considering that you can build equivalent-functionality systems of all their different versions at no cost, [...]
This is completely and utterly irrelevant.
[...] that is empathically not the exact same thing.
I think you mean 'emphatically' and, no, you're wrong. It's all just market pricing. Same way Oracle charges you per CPU, or software often has "standard" and "enterprise" versions.
I also noticed you didn't deign to address my challenge to show that Red Hat tries to forbid using their software in certain ways using their license. Why would that be?
Because it's irrelevant. The issue is free market pricing, not what features the different price brackets happen to include.
See the above poster is involved with Microsoft or Vista product.
False.
[...] add all this artificial constrains to make more money off this "niche" market.
Because that's how the "free market" works.
If you are arguing the users who are affected by this are insignificant, and no one should complain, then why is Microsoft making such a big deal to get $100 more out of this insignificant number of users.
I am - quite specifically - stating that _home users_ who want to virtualise those versions of Vista are a tiny minority. By far the largest proportion of them is going to be Mac users wanting to run Windows in some sort of VM - and, well, Mac users tend towards the upper end of the income curve, so it's clearly good business.
*Business customers* are a different matter altogether.
Also there is NO precedent for this type of action.
Rubbish. This sort of artificial market segmentation is rife throughout the IT industry, and business in general. For an example, see pretty much any product that is "free for personal use".
Running Vista in a VM is NOT a feature they should charge more moeny for. The do not have to add .
anything.
Completely and utterly irrelevant. As I said earlier, Apple charge US$150ish to people who want a black MacBook instead of a white one, for just one example of other companies doing similar things.
This restriction is similar to what brands of computers that I am allowed to run my software on. You cannot run SQL server on a HP achine. You need to buy a Dell machine for that.
No, it's not. Although, again, that's another example of something Apple does.
Wow. You really don't understand the market, do you?
I'm pretty sure I do.
Apparently YOU are the one who way is out of touch. Virtualization is ABSOLUTELY making inroads into the home market.
Virtualisation, whose utility applies only to a tiny minority of customers, is indeed making "inroads" into the home market. It's not hard to, when its previous market presence was statistically nonexistant.
That doesn't mean it is - or is ever going to be - anything more than a niche market.
As you point out, about the only people who have an interest, are non-Windows users who have some Windows software they need to run.
My father (for example) is one of the users I'm talking about. He tried using boot camp, but rebooting every time turned out to be a hassle. I used VM-ware converter to convert his existing windows parition into a virtual machine. He set up VMWare Player on OSx and now he uses the Windows machine virtually when he needs to use his Windows-only B2B software. It runs GREAT! There is little to no performace impact on his Powerbook Pro using a VMWare product.
An anecdotal example does not change the point of my argument.
The market interest in virtualisation is about as big as the market interest in US$700 video cards.
If you have a modern (IE: made in the last 2-3 years) Laptop or desktop with a good amount of RAM (1GB or more, very common on any machine built recently) you will be able to run virtual machines with no problem at all. Yes, MICROSOFT'S V-machine product runs atrociously. Guess what? NOBODY ELSE'S DOES! Which is exactly my point. Of course, if you had RTFA, you would see the rest of the article supports my point even further:
I use VMWare both personally and professionally reasonably frequently, and have done since the first version of it hit the market. I've got a rough idea of how it performs well, and how it performs badly.
Obviously, Microsoft is doing the same thing it has always done. Enter a market and attempt to dominate it via legalistic maneuvers rather than competing on the merits of it's products.
Again, this argument falls apart because versions of Vista are indiscriminately licensed for virtualisation (or not).
Of course, this is NOT what consumers want, but then, when has Microsoft EVER cared about what consumers want?
All the time. However, like every other business, they are only interested in the things _meaningful_ numbers of consumers want and, especially, *are prepared to pay for*.
People do not want lock-in. They want CHOICE.
People want stuff to work. How that is achieved is, largely, utterly irrelevant to them.
History has demonstrated people are more than happy to trade "lock-in" and "less choice" for real-life functionality.
This latest move isn't about price discrimination it's about limiting consumer choice in an attempt to strongarm a market it can't compete in on the merits of it's offerings.
Consumer choice isn't limited. Your argument explodes on the runway, before even getting off the ground.
Sadly, you obviously aren't getting it, as you are too busy defending Microsoft's RIDICULOUS assertions.
Where have I defended them ? Pointing out specious arguments and highlighting fundamental business practices is not synonymous with "support", as least not in any dictionary I've ever seen.
How about you do some real-world testing with different products and stop shilling for Microsoft? Then maybe you will understand the absurdity of your position.
I've got more than enough "real-world" experience with virtualisation.
Feel free to reply if you insist on getting the "last word". But it won't make you correct. You are simply flat-out wrong on this one, and absolutely on the wrong side of the argument. (Judging by the mod points I've seen so far, Slashdot agrees with me.)
You call me wrong, using Slashdot's moderation system as evidence (in a discussion about Microsoft, no less) ? Now *that* is comedy.
how surpising - you sir seem to only ever stick up for microsoft without caring about what they happen to be doing, or trying to do at the time.
Do not mistake pointing out bad arguments and hypocrisy, with "support".
I don't _support_ the licensing restrictions on Vista, but I can certainly understand why they have been put in place, why it is good business and why it will only affect a tiny, tiny minority of customers - which is something the average Slashdot reader appears to have significant trouble doing, without resorting to conspiracy theories and the like. So much for Occam's Razor.
I cant quite decide if you are a Fanboy or a paid spin doctor. I would presume the former. How you can think this is a normal business practice to restrict the ability to allow it to exist as a VM is tragic. $200 for very little added functionality (EXCLUDING VM) is rediculous and basically M$ abusing their monopoly as per usual.
Apple charge US$150ish just to paint a MacBook black, which doesn't even _add_ functionality.
Price discrimination is a fundamental part of business. Microsoft are running a business, not a charity. Of the tiny, tiny minority of customers this licensing change actually impacts, most are in a position to pay the extra $$$$ - and will.
The problem is not the cost of the license, it is the fact that it is different software, with potentially different bugs and definitely different configurations. You can't qualify software for the home version if you've only tested it on the pro version. Doing so would be bad for a business - what happens if there is a bug that causes home directory deletion in 10% of Home users?
Fortunately, there's a solution to that "problem":
Microsoft said developers who obtain Windows Vista Home Basic or Windows Vista Home Premium through their MSDN (Microsoft Developer Network) subscription may use those programs within a virtual machine to assist them in designing, developing, testing and demonstrating their programs.
You must have missed the part where I said "home market".
You must have missed the part where "home users" can still purchase a version of Vista that is licensed for virtualised use. If your "hobby" extends to buying VMWare Workstation, it can extend to paying a bit more for Vista.
You see, like many computing trends, virtualization is beginning to make inroads in the home market from the Enterprise market.
No, it's not.
It started among IT types wanting to run several OSes but not wanting the complication of a dual-boot setup. Apple has greatly helped it along with it's "Parallels" software, and VMWare has a version of it's free VMWare Player for OSX.
If you think people doing this are even remotely representative of the "home market", you are _way_ out of touch.
Out of the ~20 people in our IT department, I can count the number of people who use products like VMWare at home on one hand. Even fewer actually *use* it, rather than installing $SOME_OS, going "that's cool" and then promptly forgetting it exists. Prior experience indicates to me this is not unusual and, if anything, is a touch on the high side.
My point was not regarding price discrimination, but the absurd manner in which Microsoft has chosen to explain away the price discrimination, by saying that virtualization is somehow not ready for broad adoption.
It's not. Atrocious performance, if nothing else, rules it out for most tasks home users consider useful. The lack of any real utility for the vast, vast bulk of home users is another reason it's a miniscule niche in that market space.
Heck, I'd be willing to bet virtualisation is something even the typical Slashdot reader doesn't use in any meaningful sense.
This is patently absurd just on the face of it. Virtualization, while difficult to understand in concept, is laughably easy to use and implement. Unless you are using Microsoft's virtual PC product, which is difficult to use, ugly, and slow.
If you don't understand the concept, there's little point in implementing the practice.
Their EULA bans using VMWare to run Windows Vista Home Edition. Come on... this is clearly a bid to force us into the more expensive version, a way to ask for more money, and nothing else.
Exactly. Price discrimination. Welcome to business 101. Companies like Red Hat do exactly the same thing, because it's a fundamental part of the free market.
They give away virtualization technology for free, but force you to fork over $400 to use it. By forcing everyone to pay for their OS, and giving away everything else, they force out potential innovators... this time targeting VMWare.
Translation: "We are getting SPANKED by VMWare in the virtualization market, and our PC virtualization sucks. So since we are unable to win against VMWare in the home market, we are taking our ball and going home."
Your argument is flawed, as some versions of Vista can still be run in virtualisation.
This is nothing more than price discrimination. A completely normal - indeed, fundamental - business practice.
Business customers are paying the $400 to get Outlook not Word. Outlook's calendar is used to schedule most activities in large organizations. So really it is the integration provided by Exchange that people are paying for. If you don't use/need that integration then you are wasting $400.
If you have Exchange you don't need to buy Outlook - every Exchange CAL includes an Outlook license.
I tend to agree with you on both points. Changing UIs like that is a gutsy move. Even the switch to the windows 95 OS interface didn't change much about the overall window UI from 3.x.
Yeah, it did. In particular, three massive changes were the Desktop, Start Menu and Taskbar. These are _significantly_ different UI elements to the old Program Manager and Task Manager (the Desktop has no equivalent in Windows <95).
Now THAT is a blast from the past. Check out the the drive drop down, and the "Newtork..." button. Must be from Windows 95 at best - maybe even Windows 3.1?
Definitely Windows 3.1, possibly even Windows 3.0.
The reason it's still there is explained here. Basically, because "no-one" ever uses it and the "proper" method for adding fonts is drag & drop into the Fonts folder.
Windows 9x did it. I once compared progman.exe (or maybe it was calc.exe; I can't remember.) from Windows 3.1 and Windows 9x, and they had the same MD5 hash. Yes, it's messy, but it's not inconceivable that Microsoft would extend this practice to individual modules in Windows Vista.
64 bit Vista doesn't run Win16 stuff. I'd say it's a safe bet that anything present in both 64 and 32 bit Vista is not Win16.
I dont see how that applies here. The ability to use the "look and feel" in a competing product is not the recipe, the blue prints or the engineering drawings.
Uh, yes it is. UI is probably one of the most important features of most software.
Slashdot Mirror
Making copyright owners apply for renewal every 10 years, and pay a fee at that time is one of the better ideas for copyright reform.
Maybe if the fee is a (non-trivial) percentage of the revenue derived thus far from the work. Otherwise it's even worse than the existing system because it really does allow for never-ending copyright (unless copyright automatically expires on the death of the holder - which it should).
The problem then is that this could lead to contract killings.
Fortunately, murder is already illegal.
(I really don't get how anyone can consider that an argument. Seriously, how many people do you think are out there prepared to commit murder, but *not* prepared to break copyright law ?)
Well, what about you? Let's say that you put your savings into a bank in 1955. Should "society" have free rights to that money after 50 years?
No.
Not that this strawman example has any resemblance to copyright. Money you might earn != money you have earned.
Trust me, I'm not fan of ridiculously long copyright periods, [...]
I'd have to say you are, to come up with such a ridiculous analogy to try and justify them.
[...] but saying that you have the right to take my property just because I was unwilling or unable to duplicate my previous success doesn't sound fair to me.
They're not taking your property. All that's happening is the completely arbitrary and artificial legal restriction on copying information is removed.
"Intellectual property", despite the term and the wet dreams of people who use it, does not in any meaningful way resemble actual, physical property.
How about a system like this?
IMHO, any system which has arbitrary set limits is vulnerable to (relatively) easily-acquired extensions to those limits, eventually leading to the ridiculous situation we have now.
My idea. (I posted a more detailed version ages ago to Slashdot, but I can't find the post now).
This is another reason that Macs suck much less - Apple don't assume they own your machine.
Because it *is* normal for software.
Actually I use a Mac, [...]
But you don't complain about the stuff Apple "foists" on you, right ? Because Apple's stuff is cool...
They could get away for a decade worth of half-assed technical side and marketing because of their monopoly.
What alternatives and timeframe are you comparing to such that Microsoft's "technical side" was "half assed" ?
Considering that you can build equivalent-functionality systems of all their different versions at no cost, [...]
This is completely and utterly irrelevant.
[...] that is empathically not the exact same thing.
I think you mean 'emphatically' and, no, you're wrong. It's all just market pricing. Same way Oracle charges you per CPU, or software often has "standard" and "enterprise" versions.
I also noticed you didn't deign to address my challenge to show that Red Hat tries to forbid using their software in certain ways using their license. Why would that be?
Because it's irrelevant. The issue is free market pricing, not what features the different price brackets happen to include.
See the above poster is involved with Microsoft or Vista product.
False.
[...] add all this artificial constrains to make more money off this "niche" market.
Because that's how the "free market" works.
If you are arguing the users who are affected by this are insignificant, and no one should complain, then why is Microsoft making such a big deal to get $100 more out of this insignificant number of users.
I am - quite specifically - stating that _home users_ who want to virtualise those versions of Vista are a tiny minority. By far the largest proportion of them is going to be Mac users wanting to run Windows in some sort of VM - and, well, Mac users tend towards the upper end of the income curve, so it's clearly good business.
*Business customers* are a different matter altogether.
Also there is NO precedent for this type of action.
Rubbish. This sort of artificial market segmentation is rife throughout the IT industry, and business in general. For an example, see pretty much any product that is "free for personal use".
Running Vista in a VM is NOT a feature they should charge more moeny for. The do not have to add . anything.
Completely and utterly irrelevant. As I said earlier, Apple charge US$150ish to people who want a black MacBook instead of a white one, for just one example of other companies doing similar things.
This restriction is similar to what brands of computers that I am allowed to run my software on. You cannot run SQL server on a HP achine. You need to buy a Dell machine for that.
No, it's not. Although, again, that's another example of something Apple does.
Care to quote the relevant bits of a Red Hat EULA? What do you say? Red Hat has no EULA? Well then it is not exactly the same thing, is it?
Red Hat charge more for different versions of their product, because of different features. It's *exactly* the same principle.
Wow. You really don't understand the market, do you?
I'm pretty sure I do.
Apparently YOU are the one who way is out of touch. Virtualization is ABSOLUTELY making inroads into the home market.
Virtualisation, whose utility applies only to a tiny minority of customers, is indeed making "inroads" into the home market. It's not hard to, when its previous market presence was statistically nonexistant.
That doesn't mean it is - or is ever going to be - anything more than a niche market.
As you point out, about the only people who have an interest, are non-Windows users who have some Windows software they need to run.
My father (for example) is one of the users I'm talking about. He tried using boot camp, but rebooting every time turned out to be a hassle. I used VM-ware converter to convert his existing windows parition into a virtual machine. He set up VMWare Player on OSx and now he uses the Windows machine virtually when he needs to use his Windows-only B2B software. It runs GREAT! There is little to no performace impact on his Powerbook Pro using a VMWare product.
An anecdotal example does not change the point of my argument.
The market interest in virtualisation is about as big as the market interest in US$700 video cards.
If you have a modern (IE: made in the last 2-3 years) Laptop or desktop with a good amount of RAM (1GB or more, very common on any machine built recently) you will be able to run virtual machines with no problem at all. Yes, MICROSOFT'S V-machine product runs atrociously. Guess what? NOBODY ELSE'S DOES! Which is exactly my point. Of course, if you had RTFA, you would see the rest of the article supports my point even further:
I use VMWare both personally and professionally reasonably frequently, and have done since the first version of it hit the market. I've got a rough idea of how it performs well, and how it performs badly.
Obviously, Microsoft is doing the same thing it has always done. Enter a market and attempt to dominate it via legalistic maneuvers rather than competing on the merits of it's products.
Again, this argument falls apart because versions of Vista are indiscriminately licensed for virtualisation (or not).
Of course, this is NOT what consumers want, but then, when has Microsoft EVER cared about what consumers want?
All the time. However, like every other business, they are only interested in the things _meaningful_ numbers of consumers want and, especially, *are prepared to pay for*.
People do not want lock-in. They want CHOICE.
People want stuff to work. How that is achieved is, largely, utterly irrelevant to them.
History has demonstrated people are more than happy to trade "lock-in" and "less choice" for real-life functionality.
This latest move isn't about price discrimination it's about limiting consumer choice in an attempt to strongarm a market it can't compete in on the merits of it's offerings.
Consumer choice isn't limited. Your argument explodes on the runway, before even getting off the ground.
Sadly, you obviously aren't getting it, as you are too busy defending Microsoft's RIDICULOUS assertions.
Where have I defended them ? Pointing out specious arguments and highlighting fundamental business practices is not synonymous with "support", as least not in any dictionary I've ever seen.
How about you do some real-world testing with different products and stop shilling for Microsoft? Then maybe you will understand the absurdity of your position.
I've got more than enough "real-world" experience with virtualisation.
Feel free to reply if you insist on getting the "last word". But it won't make you correct. You are simply flat-out wrong on this one, and absolutely on the wrong side of the argument. (Judging by the mod points I've seen so far, Slashdot agrees with me.)
You call me wrong, using Slashdot's moderation system as evidence (in a discussion about Microsoft, no less) ? Now *that* is comedy.
msdn subscriptions are damn expensive.
It's not a lot to a business requiring virtualisation to do platform testing.
how surpising - you sir seem to only ever stick up for microsoft without caring about what they happen to be doing, or trying to do at the time.
Do not mistake pointing out bad arguments and hypocrisy, with "support".
I don't _support_ the licensing restrictions on Vista, but I can certainly understand why they have been put in place, why it is good business and why it will only affect a tiny, tiny minority of customers - which is something the average Slashdot reader appears to have significant trouble doing, without resorting to conspiracy theories and the like. So much for Occam's Razor.
I cant quite decide if you are a Fanboy or a paid spin doctor. I would presume the former. How you can think this is a normal business practice to restrict the ability to allow it to exist as a VM is tragic. $200 for very little added functionality (EXCLUDING VM) is rediculous and basically M$ abusing their monopoly as per usual.
Apple charge US$150ish just to paint a MacBook black, which doesn't even _add_ functionality.
Price discrimination is a fundamental part of business. Microsoft are running a business, not a charity. Of the tiny, tiny minority of customers this licensing change actually impacts, most are in a position to pay the extra $$$$ - and will.
The problem is not the cost of the license, it is the fact that it is different software, with potentially different bugs and definitely different configurations. You can't qualify software for the home version if you've only tested it on the pro version. Doing so would be bad for a business - what happens if there is a bug that causes home directory deletion in 10% of Home users?
Fortunately, there's a solution to that "problem":
You must have missed the part where I said "home market".
You must have missed the part where "home users" can still purchase a version of Vista that is licensed for virtualised use. If your "hobby" extends to buying VMWare Workstation, it can extend to paying a bit more for Vista.
You see, like many computing trends, virtualization is beginning to make inroads in the home market from the Enterprise market.
No, it's not.
It started among IT types wanting to run several OSes but not wanting the complication of a dual-boot setup. Apple has greatly helped it along with it's "Parallels" software, and VMWare has a version of it's free VMWare Player for OSX.
If you think people doing this are even remotely representative of the "home market", you are _way_ out of touch.
Out of the ~20 people in our IT department, I can count the number of people who use products like VMWare at home on one hand. Even fewer actually *use* it, rather than installing $SOME_OS, going "that's cool" and then promptly forgetting it exists. Prior experience indicates to me this is not unusual and, if anything, is a touch on the high side.
My point was not regarding price discrimination, but the absurd manner in which Microsoft has chosen to explain away the price discrimination, by saying that virtualization is somehow not ready for broad adoption.
It's not. Atrocious performance, if nothing else, rules it out for most tasks home users consider useful. The lack of any real utility for the vast, vast bulk of home users is another reason it's a miniscule niche in that market space.
Heck, I'd be willing to bet virtualisation is something even the typical Slashdot reader doesn't use in any meaningful sense.
This is patently absurd just on the face of it. Virtualization, while difficult to understand in concept, is laughably easy to use and implement. Unless you are using Microsoft's virtual PC product, which is difficult to use, ugly, and slow.
If you don't understand the concept, there's little point in implementing the practice.
What risks? How is running 4 VM's on one big machine more risky than running 4 real machines?
One machine failure can take down four servers.
Not that I think that's what they're referring to, but it _is_ one of the additional risks with virtualisation.
To see Microsoft being demonised on Slashdot for engaging in a perfectly normal - nay, fundamental - part of running a business.
Strange how similar antics from, well, pretty much every company on Earth don't attract the same attention.
Their EULA bans using VMWare to run Windows Vista Home Edition. Come on... this is clearly a bid to force us into the more expensive version, a way to ask for more money, and nothing else.
Exactly. Price discrimination. Welcome to business 101. Companies like Red Hat do exactly the same thing, because it's a fundamental part of the free market.
They give away virtualization technology for free, but force you to fork over $400 to use it. By forcing everyone to pay for their OS, and giving away everything else, they force out potential innovators... this time targeting VMWare.
VMWare also give away their product for free.
Translation: "We are getting SPANKED by VMWare in the virtualization market, and our PC virtualization sucks. So since we are unable to win against VMWare in the home market, we are taking our ball and going home."
Your argument is flawed, as some versions of Vista can still be run in virtualisation.
This is nothing more than price discrimination. A completely normal - indeed, fundamental - business practice.
This overlooks that plenty of companies need to _test_ on home edition as that may be (one) target environment.
For any company that _needs_ virtualisation for that purpose, the additional cost of an appropriate Vista licence is like pissing in the ocean.
Business customers are paying the $400 to get Outlook not Word. Outlook's calendar is used to schedule most activities in large organizations. So really it is the integration provided by Exchange that people are paying for. If you don't use/need that integration then you are wasting $400.
If you have Exchange you don't need to buy Outlook - every Exchange CAL includes an Outlook license.
I tend to agree with you on both points. Changing UIs like that is a gutsy move. Even the switch to the windows 95 OS interface didn't change much about the overall window UI from 3.x.
Yeah, it did. In particular, three massive changes were the Desktop, Start Menu and Taskbar. These are _significantly_ different UI elements to the old Program Manager and Task Manager (the Desktop has no equivalent in Windows <95).
Now THAT is a blast from the past. Check out the the drive drop down, and the "Newtork..." button. Must be from Windows 95 at best - maybe even Windows 3.1?
Definitely Windows 3.1, possibly even Windows 3.0.
The reason it's still there is explained here. Basically, because "no-one" ever uses it and the "proper" method for adding fonts is drag & drop into the Fonts folder.
Windows 9x did it. I once compared progman.exe (or maybe it was calc.exe; I can't remember.) from Windows 3.1 and Windows 9x, and they had the same MD5 hash. Yes, it's messy, but it's not inconceivable that Microsoft would extend this practice to individual modules in Windows Vista.
64 bit Vista doesn't run Win16 stuff. I'd say it's a safe bet that anything present in both 64 and 32 bit Vista is not Win16.
I dont see how that applies here. The ability to use the "look and feel" in a competing product is not the recipe, the blue prints or the engineering drawings.
Uh, yes it is. UI is probably one of the most important features of most software.