Actually the Courts have ruled that since we pay a levy to cover the alleged losses suffered by the behaviour (downloading) we are legally allowed to continue with the behaviour. This ruling has held despite the sniveling coming from the "music industry" about their alleged rights.
How exactly is this pandering to the Anti-Microsoft element on slashdot?
It is a story about a company that when faced with legal action regarding their behavior deliberately destroyed/hid evidence that showed they as corporate entity were perfectly aware that their behavior was wrong in the legal sense.
The fact that corporations routinely do this is completely irrelevant. All this story is exposing is a pattern of behavior on the part of Microsoft with regards to compliance with the law, or in this case a complete disregard for the law. While it may be redundant as the case against Microsoft has been made time and time again it isn't pandering to the anti-Microsoft zealots. It may be embarrassing to the pro-Microsoft evangelists, but we all know they are nuts;-).
If Apple, Red Hat or Novell had done something similar they would be called on it. However, none of those corporate entities have done anything like that to my knowledge. But Microsoft has. And considering that Microsoft products are on ~85% of the PCs out there makes it relevant to the slashdot community.
Not only is Apple's DRM less intrusive but Apple, sadly, doesn't have Microsoft's financial clout to withstand an assault from the RIAA and the like.
Apple could have made a stand, but it would have hurt them too much financially to make that stand. So they designed a DRM scheme that is at least somewhat palatable. Meanwhile, Microsoft has enough money and enough power over the computer industry to at the very least keep the DRM pushers at bay, if not break them entirely.
Microsoft does have it's own reasons for wanting some sort of DRM scheme, most of which seem to mainly boil down to them trying to force people to buy their operating system and applications. They did not need to agree to a scheme as draconian as the one they have implemented in Vista.
Microsoft is getting sued not because they make a good product and money but because they use their market position to ensure that competitors cannot compete with them in the marketplace.
Go to your average brick and mortar store to buy a x86 based computer and you must buy the bundled Operating System, even if you want to use an alternative. In most cases they will not even let you choose which version of Windows you get. This isn't because Windows makes the product everyone wants, this is because of OEM contracts with the manufacturer of PCs. If the market was truly competitive then all computers would be sold without a pre-installed Operating System or at the very least available without one installed. As it stands now if I go and buy a pre built system I am buy a Windows license weather I use it or not. While I personally just build my own systems and make my decision on licensing on my own most people do not have that choice.
Look at IE or Outlook Express both of these are tools that are bundled with the operating system. While I have no problem with them bundling this software with their OS you should be able to remove it and never have to deal with it again.
If you choose to use other tools that do the same job you still need to keep IE installed on the system because Microsoft refuses to allow their competitors browsers to download Windows Updates. If you are in a corporate environment and are using Active Directory you cannot remove Outlook Express from your domain controllers as doing so will break AD. That is Microsoft using their operating system to force people to use their software, either through incompetence or malfeasance they are still forcing people to at the very least keep their bundled software installed. They have integrated these tools into their operating system in such a manner that you cannot remove them in many cases. T
This is why they are getting sued, not because people are jealous that Bill Gates is making too much money.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually the Courts have ruled that since we pay a levy to cover the alleged losses suffered by the behaviour (downloading) we are legally allowed to continue with the behaviour. This ruling has held despite the sniveling coming from the "music industry" about their alleged rights.
Shouldn't that be "you're's" ?
You are sort of overestimating the power the US supreme court has over the rest of the world.
She hasn't got to D yet.
How exactly is this pandering to the Anti-Microsoft element on slashdot?
It is a story about a company that when faced with legal action regarding their behavior deliberately destroyed/hid evidence that showed they as corporate entity were perfectly aware that their behavior was wrong in the legal sense.
The fact that corporations routinely do this is completely irrelevant. All this story is exposing is a pattern of behavior on the part of Microsoft with regards to compliance with the law, or in this case a complete disregard for the law. While it may be redundant as the case against Microsoft has been made time and time again it isn't pandering to the anti-Microsoft zealots. It may be embarrassing to the pro-Microsoft evangelists, but we all know they are nuts ;-).
If Apple, Red Hat or Novell had done something similar they would be called on it. However, none of those corporate entities have done anything like that to my knowledge. But Microsoft has. And considering that Microsoft products are on ~85% of the PCs out there makes it relevant to the slashdot community.
Not only is Apple's DRM less intrusive but Apple, sadly, doesn't have Microsoft's financial clout to withstand an assault from the RIAA and the like.
Apple could have made a stand, but it would have hurt them too much financially to make that stand. So they designed a DRM scheme that is at least somewhat palatable. Meanwhile, Microsoft has enough money and enough power over the computer industry to at the very least keep the DRM pushers at bay, if not break them entirely.
Microsoft does have it's own reasons for wanting some sort of DRM scheme, most of which seem to mainly boil down to them trying to force people to buy their operating system and applications. They did not need to agree to a scheme as draconian as the one they have implemented in Vista.
But why wouldn't I want to fuck with MySpace? Where else on the net could I find a bigger group of clueless individuals to mess with?
Microsoft is getting sued not because they make a good product and money but because they use their market position to ensure that competitors cannot compete with them in the marketplace.
Go to your average brick and mortar store to buy a x86 based computer and you must buy the bundled Operating System, even if you want to use an alternative. In most cases they will not even let you choose which version of Windows you get. This isn't because Windows makes the product everyone wants, this is because of OEM contracts with the manufacturer of PCs. If the market was truly competitive then all computers would be sold without a pre-installed Operating System or at the very least available without one installed. As it stands now if I go and buy a pre built system I am buy a Windows license weather I use it or not. While I personally just build my own systems and make my decision on licensing on my own most people do not have that choice.
Look at IE or Outlook Express both of these are tools that are bundled with the operating system. While I have no problem with them bundling this software with their OS you should be able to remove it and never have to deal with it again.
If you choose to use other tools that do the same job you still need to keep IE installed on the system because Microsoft refuses to allow their competitors browsers to download Windows Updates. If you are in a corporate environment and are using Active Directory you cannot remove Outlook Express from your domain controllers as doing so will break AD. That is Microsoft using their operating system to force people to use their software, either through incompetence or malfeasance they are still forcing people to at the very least keep their bundled software installed. They have integrated these tools into their operating system in such a manner that you cannot remove them in many cases. T
This is why they are getting sued, not because people are jealous that Bill Gates is making too much money.
On the new image I am building, 63 critical updates as of this morning.
I take it you haven't meet any teenagers lately? Because they almost all seem to be incapable of figuring out that fire burns.