BSA offers £20k piracy bounty to rat on your boss

sbergman27:

> I've been telling them they need a full WinXP Home license for each machine that uses it. In other words, not just the upgrade. (And it hurts every time I say it.)

Unfortunately, the only people who can really answer your question are lawyers and Microsoft. And, as noted in other threads, you really can't trust what Microsoft tells you, so....

Actually, I expect that they would say that you're running the XP install as a server, and that you would need a server license and the proper client and connection licenses. I have no idea how that works. Maybe someone else can provide that information.

However, if you do only need the client licenses on the respective machines, then they already have them. They came with the machine. Wiping the software should not remove the purchased license right.

My understanding is that, dirty as it is, the license is only good on the machine XP came preinstalled on. The argument being that Dell did not pay full price for the license and it is only good for that machine. If that machine dies and you throw it in the dumpster, get a new machine without an OS, and put the same version of Windows on it, or even reinstall from the old recovery CD (if that's possible on the new machine) you are in violation of the license. The license goes in the dumpster with the machine.

I'm thinking that for at least some of these things that they are "needing" Windows for, I could write something myself to replace it. They wouldn't approve paying for this exercise so it would be on my own time, but it would make my life a bit easier and might be worth it. Unfortunately, there are some uses for which I simply could not write a replacement. :-(

You may be right about the server license thing, but that seems a bit of a reach even for them.

The really irritating thing about it all is that any way you cut it, MS gets *more* money (a lot more) if I go with Linux clients than if I go with Windows clients and that makes Linux a much harder sell.

I've been working as a consultant for the last ten years. Most of the desktops have Windows XP nowadays.

They come with a version installed. The company pays for that license in their purchase or lease.

The drive gets wiped clean. The tech support department has a ghosted image that they install on all workstations. Each of those is licensed as well. Its a multi-user license, but payed for none the less.

Three or four banks, Insurance companies, a utility company, and a telecom they all pay twice for one thing. I'm sure this pattern is repeated all over the industrialized world.

Why don't any of them think to ask for their money back on that first license? or think to ask for a box with a clean hard drive and no OS?

The stockholders should be outraged at the waste, and there should be a class action suit against the industry. Wall Street needs to get its head out of its butt, so some one can whack that head with a clue by four.

jdixon -

> This is a side track to the primary discussion in any case, and having made my point as well as I can, I should probably drop the matter. :)

And making it well, I might add. Kudos and brownie points for operating many levels above the "information is free and I can take whatever I want" stratum.

To add another pat on the back and encourage to fearlessly jump into further frays, you should know that you are arguing in an area that is very much open to question on many fronts. For example, is there such a thing as natural law? We can "hold these truths to be self-evident", but does that make them law? Is natural law for a European the same as it is for the Chinese or Indians or Osama bin Laden?

Etc.

And, I might add, you did a great job of staking out and sticking with a position that can be honorably argued without resorting to knee-jerks. All too uncommon these days.

Also note that "We hold these truths to be self-evident" is a phrase from the Declaration of Independence, which was almost immediately deemed to be a 'Historical Document'... Go figure. I guess the founding fathers didn't want us to assert our rights via another revolution? What the People giveth, the Government taketh away...

jinf -

The Declaration of Independence is a great document. Part of what makes it great is that it's authors were free to think and express truths so great as to justify radical action.

The Constitution is another great document, but it's authors had to get down to the brass tacks of working out a framework (not to mention many compromises -- can you say 3/5 Compromise?) to make those lofty principles work in practice.

As to asserting our rights via another revolution...there is that little 2nd Amendment thingie. Somebody didn't want the government owning all the guns. (Yeah, yeah, militia. Look it up!! A militia is specifically NOT the army of the state!)

"Somebody didn't want the government owning all the guns"

So I guess the interpretation is selective... ya think?

jimf -

?

Let's just say that I don't believe that all of the founders believed that the new nation should be immune to revolution should the need arise.

I'm not faulting the founders ;-).

> To add another pat on the back and encourage to fearlessly jump into further frays, you should know that you are arguing in an area that is very much open to question on many fronts. For example, is there such a thing as natural law? We can "hold these truths to be self-evident", but does that make them law? Is natural law for a European the same as it is for the Chinese or Indians or Osama bin Laden?

Yes, but then we're delving into matters specificly outside the TOS of LX'er. :(

My Constitutional background is fairly solid (though as you noted, the points can be argued), but my understanding of Napoleonic law is poor and my understanding of British law is limited. Outside of those, my knowledge is effectively non-existant.

dinotrac:

I've thought about what you said (hey, sometimes it takes me a while) and have to agree that your "comments are fair", as far as they go. However (you knew that was coming), when you introduced penalties as a way to show that copyright infringement is "not THAT different an animal, legally, at least", compared to theft, it invites comparison of the triggers for those penalties and the hurdles a plaintiff must clear. It makes the fair use exceptions fair game.

There are rights withheld from copyright owners which are not withheld from physical object property owners. Reusing my hypothetical situation from before, if I break into your house and steal your monitor, you only have to show that you own it, I took it without your consent, you no longer have it. It's much simpler than determining a copyright infringement claim, due, in part, to the difference in the property involved and, in part, due to the difference in property rights involved.

You have exclusive right to that monitor. You have exceptions to exclusive rights to a copyright protected work. A successful claim of copyright infringement must show that the exceptions do not apply in that particular case. Those exceptions have been codified and are in place because of the purpose of the granted rights. They are what make the animals different, legally.

Based on that, I contend that my remarks were also fair.

grouch :

Hate to break it to you, but there are exceptions for other types of property, too.

For example, boats can tie up to private piers in a storm, people can trespass on private property to take refuge from a tornado, etc.

dinotrac:

Those are not exceptions to burglary and robbery.

I'm sorry, you're right. They are exceptions to trespass, but they are similar to fair use: limits on your right to exclude others from the use of your property.

I would not wish to claim that different rights are identical, merely that they are similar.

Wait a minute. What's going on in this thread? Guys admitting that they make mistakes? That someone else is right about something? Tuxchick, you started this. ;-)

Rev -

Don't blame tuxchick.

Even though she is to blame.

Oh yeah.

It's tuxchick, all right.

Exactly. tuxchick is the culprit. There are witnesses.

I have the feathers. Anyone have some tar?

dinotrac:

I had never considered comparing copyright infringement to trespass before. It makes sense. Trespass doesn't (normally) involve depriving someone of their property and it has exceptions like you pointed out that are created for the good of society.

It sure fits a lot better than the "piracy" propaganda of the MAFIAA.

grouch :

For what it's worth, neither had I.

The truth is, that trespass DOES deprive you of the incidents of ownership -- the right to claim exclusive possession, to peaceful enjoyment, etc, things that are worth money, but doesn't, ultimately, deprive you of the property itself. I will have to chew on that one for a while.

Grouch,

cpio is better. :-)

"Webmasters! Support reducing software piracy worldwide! Together we can help reduce software piracy and promote free choice in software. Please copy/paste the code below into your website or blog and display the "Get legal. Get OpenOffice.org" campaign button." http://why.openoffice.org/