Not necessarily pirated (although, possibly if the price was too good to be true).
My mother purchased a PC from a major retailer and she got the same thing as you, but without any CDs (burnt or otherwise). It is common now for the bundled copy of Windows (and Norton, etc) to be on a hidden partition on the CD. The software lets you make a CD backup, but only if you are willing to destroy the hidden partition. I went through the process on my Mother's PC, and she now has a (legitimate) burnt CD, made according to the instruction manual provided by Dell.
Most people aren't going to go through this process, and the resulting CD will presumably only ever work on that PC. Whether or not it's legal to place a "non-transferrability" condition on bundled software, it is effectively non-transferrable for most non-techies.
The Razr is not Motorola's best phone. I think the phone manufacturer's market research must have told them that noone was using their technology. My *old* phone (purchased more than 2 years ago) has 64Mb built in.
Exactly what does XP SP2 come with that I don't already have? My LAN has a mix of windows versions from Win 95 thru Win 2003. None of them have anti-virus software installed, and for all the versions that have an "Automatic Updates" service, I have switched that service OFF to prevent automatic downloading of unnecessary patches. If it weren't for Ziff Davis and Slashdot, I would not even know that Windows computers could get viruses.
Um, didn't Sony promise to replace all our damaged CDs as part of their case against a Playstation modder in Europe.
Part of their argument as to why there is no legitimate reason to play burnt CDs, was that the publisher will replace any CDs that get damaged, so there is no need to keep a back-up, (and therefore, no need to mod one's playstation to enable the use of such back-ups).
I don't recall seeing anything in TFA that says this applies to reselling OEM licenses without also transferring the hardware with which the software was bundled.
TFA is about volume licenses, and although I've never owned one, all the single-user retail MS EULAs that I have read have been quite explicit about allowing transfer of ownership (provided certain conditions are met, such as transferring all manuals, COAs, etc, at same time as transferring media).
Microsoft aren't crying about this. It's not a loophole. They spell out in the EULA that you can do this.
Software has been (legitimately and legally) bought and sold on e-bay for some time now. Does anyone think that a few more Windows 2000 users is bad news for Microsoft or its resellers? It's just another way of increasing the potential market for the next version (not counting those of us that know that newer!=better).
The dangerous precedent that this case sets, is that typing a URL into the address bar is an attempt to gain unlawful access, rather than (as I think it *should* be interpreted) a polite request as to whether a particular page is available to the public.
Since I have automatic redirects disabled on my browser, in order to use some sites (including bt's), I need to type in the full path to the home page, and my usual method involves trial and error.
Woah. I just made 3 unsuccessful attempts to "access" bt's site. They'll be coming to get me now.
Well, if they do, I think I have a perfectly legit counterclaim - they tried to hijack my computer by redirecting my browser to a URL that I did not type in directly.
Apple stands to benefit as much or more than Creative, as smaller players who can't afford Creative's licensing fees are squeezed out.
Just a guess, but those in government, and the people that voted for them, probably have more shares in Creative or Apple than in any of the smaller companies that might stand to lose.
Now if Creative were to take a leaf out of SCO's book, and start sueing ipod owners for using an infringing product, THEN people might pay attention.
Slashdot Mirror
No it stops recognizing DVD discs. Yeah, I thought it was just the label, at first.
Since installing SP1 for Windows 2003, my DVD drive shows up in Windows explorer as a CD drive. Sure glad I bought MSDN on CD and not DVD.
Is you sig *intentionally* incorrect? My head hurts.
is a term devised to deflect attention from the real problem: the scope of what can be patented.
would be so cool on this unit.
Not necessarily pirated (although, possibly if the price was too good to be true).
My mother purchased a PC from a major retailer and she got the same thing as you, but without any CDs (burnt or otherwise). It is common now for the bundled copy of Windows (and Norton, etc) to be on a hidden partition on the CD. The software lets you make a CD backup, but only if you are willing to destroy the hidden partition. I went through the process on my Mother's PC, and she now has a (legitimate) burnt CD, made according to the instruction manual provided by Dell.
Most people aren't going to go through this process, and the resulting CD will presumably only ever work on that PC. Whether or not it's legal to place a "non-transferrability" condition on bundled software, it is effectively non-transferrable for most non-techies.
do as we say, not as we do.
It is an illegal trade barrier. The WTO should go after them.
The Razr is not Motorola's best phone. I think the phone manufacturer's market research must have told them that noone was using their technology. My *old* phone (purchased more than 2 years ago) has 64Mb built in.
I'd be filing a patent on "a technique for patching security vulnerabilities relating to images"...
Old News Baby http://www.oldnewsbaby.com/url/ef3a3f1c625f96914d0 42a876e3e85eb
Exactly what does XP SP2 come with that I don't already have? My LAN has a mix of windows versions from Win 95 thru Win 2003. None of them have anti-virus software installed, and for all the versions that have an "Automatic Updates" service, I have switched that service OFF to prevent automatic downloading of unnecessary patches. If it weren't for Ziff Davis and Slashdot, I would not even know that Windows computers could get viruses.
USB Sushi is Old News http://www.oldnewsbaby.com/url/22b621f2fb44d168d34 f9064bc3358d4
How about chess? Or thermonuclear war?
Um, didn't Sony promise to replace all our damaged CDs as part of their case against a Playstation modder in Europe.
Part of their argument as to why there is no legitimate reason to play burnt CDs, was that the publisher will replace any CDs that get damaged, so there is no need to keep a back-up, (and therefore, no need to mod one's playstation to enable the use of such back-ups).
I don't recall seeing anything in TFA that says this applies to reselling OEM licenses without also transferring the hardware with which the software was bundled.
TFA is about volume licenses, and although I've never owned one, all the single-user retail MS EULAs that I have read have been quite explicit about allowing transfer of ownership (provided certain conditions are met, such as transferring all manuals, COAs, etc, at same time as transferring media).
Microsoft aren't crying about this. It's not a loophole. They spell out in the EULA that you can do this.
Windows 95 is no longer sufficiently popular to attract the virus writers.
Software has been (legitimately and legally) bought and sold on e-bay for some time now. Does anyone think that a few more Windows 2000 users is bad news for Microsoft or its resellers? It's just another way of increasing the potential market for the next version (not counting those of us that know that newer!=better).
Now all I need is a scanner, and I'll have an American Tourist Detector.
Adding /../ to a URL is not an attack. It is legitimate URL syntax.
http://example.com/ => default page of example.com
http://example.com/SomeFolder/../ => display folder contents of example.com so that user can peruse list of available pages.
The dangerous precedent that this case sets, is that typing a URL into the address bar is an attempt to gain unlawful access, rather than (as I think it *should* be interpreted) a polite request as to whether a particular page is available to the public.
Since I have automatic redirects disabled on my browser, in order to use some sites (including bt's), I need to type in the full path to the home page, and my usual method involves trial and error.
So far I have tried
http://www.bt.co.uk/
http://www.bt.co.uk/index.html
http://www.bt.co.uk/index.htm
Woah. I just made 3 unsuccessful attempts to "access" bt's site. They'll be coming to get me now.
Well, if they do, I think I have a perfectly legit counterclaim - they tried to hijack my computer by redirecting my browser to a URL that I did not type in directly.
Adelle.
Apple stands to benefit as much or more than Creative, as smaller players who can't afford Creative's licensing fees are squeezed out.
Just a guess, but those in government, and the people that voted for them, probably have more shares in Creative or Apple than in any of the smaller companies that might stand to lose.
Now if Creative were to take a leaf out of SCO's book, and start sueing ipod owners for using an infringing product, THEN people might pay attention.
I guess it's also illegal to modify your DVD player to skip the previews.
How long before it's illegal to switch off your television or mute it during commercial breaks (anyone remember Max Headroom?)