This may all be very true for consumers. They need protection when agreeing to contracts.
However businesses are expected to be more knowledgeable when agreeing (explicitly or implicitly) to a contract. Adding to this is the fact that businesses usually buy more than 1 software from a vendor, so they are supposed to know what they are signing (or agreeing to).
I don't think Microsoft ever claimed their software to be flawless (usually they cover their ass very well when it comes to legalese. And so they have every right to put a clause like "Microsoft does not accept responsability for losses arising from the use of this software." And this is especially true for flaws for which they provided a patch.
If you buy (download) software and expect that there are no flaws in there you might as wel think that fairy tales are true.
Microsoft did not cause any damage (except for their hotmail servers and other MS owned servers that got infected).
The people who control unpatched servers do cause damage and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law (civil or criminal) for gross negligence.
To me there seems to be one important precondition for "fair use" that you claim exists. This precondition is that the user actively builds the annotations he or she wants to use. So he or she has to actively build a list of smart tags to apply. For example: every time a website displays IBM I want my program to insert a link to http://www.ibm.com.
If the list of smart tags is provided by a third party with commercial interests (i.e. advertising or providing unwanted information), I think this could be qualified as republishing. My copyrighted material is treated and altered by a third party and delivered to the user. The only thing that happens when the user turns on smart tags is that the user asks the third party to treat your copyrighted material.
You have got a succesfull site with lots of page hits. You supply your visitors with a lot of material that is copyrighted (copyright owned by you, otherwise you have to make arrangments.). You supply webpages and Microsoft Office documents.
You don't oppose innovation (and you don't feel like changing your server settings for every possible internet product that gets released), so you will not be turning of smart tags in your webserver.
Get a copy of IE6 that has smarttags active and send it to the independent party mentioned in the terms of use. Get a copy of office software using smarttags and send them to the independent party for checking how it works with your copyrighted material.
You add a new part to the terms of use of your website:
The reuse of copyrighted material available on this website is prohibited without the written consent of the copyright holder (this info should be there now).
If you wish to change the representation of the copyrighted material you find on this website, a fee has to be payed by the organistion or company that gets a benefit out of the alterations. The intended representation is as seen in IE5,Netscape Navigator 4.72 or Opera5 (the code the copyright holde delivered and nothing else). This means there is to be no advertising linked to the content of the page as provided by the copyright holder. The use of easily identifiable advertising that is not linked to the content of the page shown (as currently in Opera5 add sponsored mode) is allowed.
***Fees for Non Commercial change in representation.***
The insertion of a non-commercial (informative) link to a company or organisation that doesn't sell (or which parent company or parent organisation does'nt sell) any product costs $ 10.000 per 3 months. The price for a click through is $ 0.1. To use this tarrif ($ 0.1 per click through) you have to provide the owner of this site every 3 months (before april 15, juli 15, oktober 15 of each year) a list of click through received from changed representations of copyrighted material. If no such information is provided to the owner of the copyrighted materials a fixed amount of $ 10.000 per 3 months has to be payed to the owner of the copyrighted material provided here. THe total maximum cost of this arrangement will thus be $ 20.000 per 3 months.
***Fees for Commercial change in representation.***
The insertion of a commercial link to a company or organisation that does sell (or which parent company or parent organisation does sell) any product costs $ 20.000 per month. The price for a click through is $ 1. To use this tarrif (1 per click through) you have to provide the owner of this site every month (before the 15th of the next month) a list of click through received from changed representations of copyrighted material. If no such information is provided to the owner of the copyrighted materials a fixed amount of 20.000 per month has to be payed to the owner of the copyrighted material provided here.
The use of changed representations by commercial and non-commercial companies and organisations will be checked by an independent party. Every month this party will check whether changed representations of the copyrighted material are still being used for commercial or non commercial reasons. This independent party wil search for this use and will click on links to establish an unidentified number of click throughs to make sure the information sent to the copyright holder, by the organisations making use of changed representations, contains the right information. These click throughs will not be charged.
Failure to meet these terms of use will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
P.S. These terms of use should get you some distance. But to get it realy going, you have to check with a lawyer to make sure this works as intended and secondly, you need an independent party to check your website/material with IE6 or office XP. Then wait for the checks to arrive.
P.P.S. This system can be used in every country of the world. So if its one down, 240 left to go.
P.P.S. You didn't ask for them to change your copyrighted material did you?
Microsoft tries to use it's desktop platform to lay it's hands on every other profitable aspect of the software market. If you are competing in the market and Microsoft thinks it can make a profit in your part of the market the scenario is simple:
step 1: they buy a competitor/sign an agreement with a competitor to use their technology. Usally a crappy product.
step 2: they incorporate their product in their fantastic multilevel marketing schema (they install it on every computer, they put advertising on every computer, claims that if you use winxxxxx their software works better on it, Bill talks about it to politicians, they pressure clients to push their product,...).
step 3: failure (the product is lousy)
step 4: they improve their product, it now is up to par with your's.
step 5: same as step 2.
step 6: world domination for MS in your software area.
step 7: look for a different part of the market to get employment. Or start maintaining/installing MS products.
That's why a lot of people think MS is evil. Not because they sell a OS that's most people nowadays think is sufficient.
I can understand the free software developpers better than the free windows beta testers. They both work for free. But the first ones improve the overall productivity to the world, the second ones improve the productivity of the MS product and lower the cost for MS to develop products.
I think you just have to get over the fact that some people like to work for free with only a moral, social or psychological benefit in mind. I guess for most people it's just a hobby;)
A couple of years ago a Dutch computing magazine organized a contest to find the most bugs in Microsoft winxx rcx. You had to pay to buy the beta software (which would work for a limited time). Prizes were minimal: something like being mentioned in the magazine and somewhere on a website and some cheap electronics (Possibly you could even win some licences for the real thing, I don't remember).
Hundreds of people joined the contest. How is that for cheap labor;)
So you worked for Microsoft for 5 years. I hope you made a lot of money. You certainly made them a lot of money.
Did you know that some beta testers even pay to test for Microsoft (as in: I bought winxx rc2 and sent in bugs)?
Has anyone a decent explanation for this behaviour? And is there a way I can make a profit from letting other people do the same for me? Please let me know.
Science is not the absolute truth some people think it is. If you ask a scientist what the truth about a subject is, you get his or her opinion. Good scientists acknowlegde this. The bad ones are even unawere of the fact that they are giving their own opinion.
I think we will see more of this in the future. Although this may be very impractical to implement, the laws of any country will be upheld on the internet.
Or are we going to stick to the only law that's applicable now, i.e. the law of the United States?
I guess there will be some international treaty covering these kinds of situations in a couple of years.
The consequences of this situation may be enormous for the internet. And as for your anonimity, it will at least decrease again.
It seems to me that company's are tightening their grip on the advertising income. More and more I'm being forced to go through some advertising to reach the information I want because of the demise of really free information on the internet. AOL seems to be making it extremely hard for their customers to reach the information they want without add's (a portal usually is a big ad page).
Slashdot Mirror
This may all be very true for consumers. They need protection when agreeing to contracts.
However businesses are expected to be more knowledgeable when agreeing (explicitly or implicitly) to a contract. Adding to this is the fact that businesses usually buy more than 1 software from a vendor, so they are supposed to know what they are signing (or agreeing to).
I don't think Microsoft ever claimed their software to be flawless (usually they cover their ass very well when it comes to legalese. And so they have every right to put a clause like "Microsoft does not accept responsability for losses arising from the use of this software." And this is especially true for flaws for which they provided a patch.
If you buy (download) software and expect that there are no flaws in there you might as wel think that fairy tales are true.
Microsoft did not cause any damage (except for their hotmail servers and other MS owned servers that got infected).
The people who control unpatched servers do cause damage and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law (civil or criminal) for gross negligence.
Who has losses that arise from code red?
ISP's and individuals/companies paying for bandwith used.
Who causes this mess?
People who haven't patched their software (gross negligence).
Who can sue who?
People who have losses because of gross negligence.
Micorosoft is shielded by a EULA that limits (or denies)liability (although this EULA might not be fully apllicable worldwide).
To me there seems to be one important precondition for "fair use" that you claim exists. This precondition is that the user actively builds the annotations he or she wants to use. So he or she has to actively build a list of smart tags to apply. For example: every time a website displays IBM I want my program to insert a link to http://www.ibm.com.
If the list of smart tags is provided by a third party with commercial interests (i.e. advertising or providing unwanted information), I think this could be qualified as republishing. My copyrighted material is treated and altered by a third party and delivered to the user. The only thing that happens when the user turns on smart tags is that the user asks the third party to treat your copyrighted material.
So it is OK for someone (the companies/organisations advertising) to make commercial use of my copyrighted material?
The company that currently inserts smarttags (Microsoft) does so for commercial reasons (lure people to their website(s).
Someone has control over how they change the representation of my copyrighted material? Or does ik happen by accident?
How to live with smart tags?
,Netscape Navigator 4.72 or Opera5 (the code the copyright holde delivered and nothing else). This means there is to be no advertising linked to the content of the page as provided by the copyright holder. The use of easily identifiable advertising that is not linked to the content of the page shown (as currently in Opera5 add sponsored mode) is allowed.
You have got a succesfull site with lots of page hits. You supply your visitors with a lot of material that is copyrighted (copyright owned by you, otherwise you have to make arrangments.). You supply webpages and Microsoft Office documents.
You don't oppose innovation (and you don't feel like changing your server settings for every possible internet product that gets released), so you will not be turning of smart tags in your webserver.
Get a copy of IE6 that has smarttags active and send it to the independent party mentioned in the terms of use. Get a copy of office software using smarttags and send them to the independent party for checking how it works with your copyrighted material.
You add a new part to the terms of use of your website:
The reuse of copyrighted material available on this website is prohibited without the written consent of the copyright holder (this info should be there now).
If you wish to change the representation of the copyrighted material you find on this website, a fee has to be payed by the organistion or company that gets a benefit out of the alterations. The intended representation is as seen in IE5
***Fees for Non Commercial change in representation.***
The insertion of a non-commercial (informative) link to a company or organisation that doesn't sell (or which parent company or parent organisation does'nt sell) any product costs $ 10.000 per 3 months. The price for a click through is $ 0.1. To use this tarrif ($ 0.1 per click through) you have to provide the owner of this site every 3 months (before april 15, juli 15, oktober 15 of each year) a list of click through received from changed representations of copyrighted material. If no such information is provided to the owner of the copyrighted materials a fixed amount of $ 10.000 per 3 months has to be payed to the owner of the copyrighted material provided here. THe total maximum cost of this arrangement will thus be $ 20.000 per 3 months.
***Fees for Commercial change in representation.***
The insertion of a commercial link to a company or organisation that does sell (or which parent company or parent organisation does sell) any product costs $ 20.000 per month. The price for a click through is $ 1. To use this tarrif (1 per click through) you have to provide the owner of this site every month (before the 15th of the next month) a list of click through received from changed representations of copyrighted material. If no such information is provided to the owner of the copyrighted materials a fixed amount of 20.000 per month has to be payed to the owner of the copyrighted material provided here.
The use of changed representations by commercial and non-commercial companies and organisations will be checked by an independent party. Every month this party will check whether changed representations of the copyrighted material are still being used for commercial or non commercial reasons. This independent party wil search for this use and will click on links to establish an unidentified number of click throughs to make sure the information sent to the copyright holder, by the organisations making use of changed representations, contains the right information. These click throughs will not be charged.
Failure to meet these terms of use will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
P.S. These terms of use should get you some distance. But to get it realy going, you have to check with a lawyer to make sure this works as intended and secondly, you need an independent party to check your website/material with IE6 or office XP. Then wait for the checks to arrive.
P.P.S. This system can be used in every country of the world. So if its one down, 240 left to go.
P.P.S. You didn't ask for them to change your copyrighted material did you?
Microsoft tries to use it's desktop platform to lay it's hands on every other profitable aspect of the software market. If you are competing in the market and Microsoft thinks it can make a profit in your part of the market the scenario is simple: ...).
step 1: they buy a competitor/sign an agreement with a competitor to use their technology. Usally a crappy product.
step 2: they incorporate their product in their fantastic multilevel marketing schema (they install it on every computer, they put advertising on every computer, claims that if you use winxxxxx their software works better on it, Bill talks about it to politicians, they pressure clients to push their product,
step 3: failure (the product is lousy)
step 4: they improve their product, it now is up to par with your's.
step 5: same as step 2.
step 6: world domination for MS in your software area.
step 7: look for a different part of the market to get employment. Or start maintaining/installing MS products.
That's why a lot of people think MS is evil. Not because they sell a OS that's most people nowadays think is sufficient.
I can understand the free software developpers better than the free windows beta testers. They both work for free. But the first ones improve the overall productivity to the world, the second ones improve the productivity of the MS product and lower the cost for MS to develop products.
;)
I think you just have to get over the fact that some people like to work for free with only a moral, social or psychological benefit in mind. I guess for most people it's just a hobby
I find the behaviour of some people interesting but completely unlogical (to me). So I've got two ways of proceeding:
-assuming they are dumb and I am right
-asking for help to understand why people behave unlogical (to me).
The second option is much more fun and instructive. So the question I asked was not a rhetorical one, but a real one.
As for the hostility: I assume the way of thinking of the others is dumb, but I am open to different opinions to enlighten me.
A couple of years ago a Dutch computing magazine organized a contest to find the most bugs in Microsoft winxx rcx. You had to pay to buy the beta software (which would work for a limited time). Prizes were minimal: something like being mentioned in the magazine and somewhere on a website and some cheap electronics (Possibly you could even win some licences for the real thing, I don't remember).
;)
Hundreds of people joined the contest. How is that for cheap labor
So you worked for Microsoft for 5 years. I hope you made a lot of money. You certainly made them a lot of money.
Did you know that some beta testers even pay to test for Microsoft (as in: I bought winxx rc2 and sent in bugs)?
Has anyone a decent explanation for this behaviour? And is there a way I can make a profit from letting other people do the same for me? Please let me know.
Thanks.
Flash as a replacement for powerpoint. You're defenitely not an office worker. It probably has been 20 years since you last saw one :-)
I've got the choice between 3 totally independent ways of getting broadband.
I've got two! cable companies who want to provide me broadband access (two different cables). (33 or 40 U.S. dollar per month, cable modem included).
I can have broadband via the copper telephone line. Several providers available (33 - 40 U.S. dollars a month).
And I live in Europe, of course.
Sad thing is that my computer is not up to date to play all those games.
Science is not the absolute truth some people think it is. If you ask a scientist what the truth about a subject is, you get his or her opinion. Good scientists acknowlegde this. The bad ones are even unawere of the fact that they are giving their own opinion.
I think we will see more of this in the future. Although this may be very impractical to implement, the laws of any country will be upheld on the internet.
Or are we going to stick to the only law that's applicable now, i.e. the law of the United States?
I guess there will be some international treaty covering these kinds of situations in a couple of years.
The consequences of this situation may be enormous for the internet. And as for your anonimity, it will at least decrease again.
It seems to me that company's are tightening their grip on the advertising income. More and more I'm being forced to go through some advertising to reach the information I want because of the demise of really free information on the internet. AOL seems to be making it extremely hard for their customers to reach the information they want without add's (a portal usually is a big ad page).