posted on June 18, 2001 11:10:19 PM
I recently purchased Corel Wordperfect on Ebay. It is the OEM CD. On Corel's website it says this version should not be sold alone and constitute piracy if it is. These versions are commonly sold on Ebay. I thought Ebay recently outlawed questionable software sales. Whats the scoop?
posted on June 18, 2001 11:15:49 PM
The fact that something is 'outlawed' does not mean it doesn't show up on eBay. They can't monitor every auction -- if you report the seller to eBay, there may be repercussions. Otherwise, the violator will go unnoticed more than likely.
posted on June 19, 2001 07:24:30 AM
There is piracy of ALL SORTS of things going on at eBay. I am contantly coming upon CDs of old radio shows that were obviously made on home CD burners and videos of things not released to video yet (or ever). Someone just mentioned receiving a xerox-copy of a cookbook here a couple of days ago.
posted on June 19, 2001 07:25:00 AM
While I certainly don't condone true software piracy (such as the chinese cd copy mills turning out new release software for $1 per copy...), on other other hand I get very irritated at some of the rediculous statements made by software companies. They claim losses of huge amounts by assuming that every non-authorized copy sold (including oem copies on ebay) represent lost revenue of a new, full retail version (at big $ per).
Many of the people I know who have bought software such as the type you describe (oem copies on ebay) would never buy a new, full, retail version. They would do without, using different/older software if need be. And there is even some benefit to the companies by having people using their software, building "mindshare" in more people, even if the copy didn't come from a retail store.
Legally and financially, the whole software industry is ripe for a revolution. Not that anyone really knows what that is going to be yet.
posted on June 19, 2001 08:30:24 AM
bunnicula: Most old radio shows don't hold a current copyright and have fallen into public domain. In most cases nobody involved with the shows actually did anything to preserve the copyright in their original airing periods. In 1972 or 1974 (I can't remember which it was at the moment) the congressional oversight committee opened a period for these works to be filed for copyright or lost to public domain. Most were lost.
Some estates and corporations did actively pursue the copyright though. The Edgar Rice Burroughs Foundation pursued Tarzan. DC Comics has always held Superman closely. The Green Hornet and Lone Ranger have always been maintained. Some of the shows have no one left, personal or corporate, to care whether the copyright was ever preserved.
The largest commercial producer of radio show releases is RadioSpirits. They do their homework and if you go to a store such a Borders and look at their offerings you will see two things. 1) If something has a copyright there will be a copyright notice on the binder indicating who the copyright holder is. For instance, their release of Tarzan shows indicates Copyright 2000, Edgar Rice Burroughs Foundation on the lower back of the binder. 2) The public domain works will have absolutely no information whatsoever on the binder about copyright.
posted on June 19, 2001 09:57:05 AMWhile I certainly don't condone true software piracy (such as the chinese cd copy mills turning out new release software for $1 per copy...),
What is the difference between a $1 copy of an application and a $15 copy of an application?
Piracy is Piracy!
I get very irritated at some of the rediculous statements made by software companies. They claim losses of huge amounts by assuming that every non-authorized copy sold (including oem copies on ebay) represent lost revenue of a new, full retail version (at big $ per).
Software manufacturers have the right to write the liscences governing their product as they wish. Most people don't even realise that the company owns the CD and customers buy the liscence to use the product.
most software companies allow re-selling of software and re-registration in a new name. The terms of the liscence must be met though, which includes the original purchaser deleting everything off of their machine... Which is probably the opposite of what is happening on EBay sales. Liscences are legal contracts, trying to sell your liscence out of the scope of the agreement with the software company is illegal.
Ever wonder why QuarkXPress is $800+ or PhotoShop is $700? It's sort of like the advice given here to put your added expenses in an opening bid for an auction. The cat can never be put back in the bag -- there will always be someone loaning their friend an installation CD. That does not mean it is acceptable,
if you do not want to pay the legitimate price, don't use the software
Legally and financially, the whole software industry is ripe for a revolution. Not that anyone really knows what that is going to be yet.
I do ... it's called GNU/Linux. It will not happen tommorrow but in the near future it will be easy enough for mere mortals to install and use and there is more than enough software for the average computer user.
Anything Microsoft claims is "un-american" is a beautiful thing. There is an army of dedicated people furthuring this revolution.
Bringing this nearer to the reason for this message board...I don't believe GNU/Linux has auction software but there are more than enough browsers to reach
http://www.auctionwatch.com/
Also, anyone that claims a contradiction in my aversion to software piracy and advocacy of the GNU/Linux, "open source" software revolution needs to do some reading.
I know people who make their living writing software for a living. They are not rich.
arttsupplies (webmaster)
Oh yeah,
Corel Word Perfect for FREE...
http://linux.corel.com
[ edited by arttsupplies on Jun 19, 2001 10:02 AM ]
[ edited by arttsupplies on Jun 19, 2001 10:02 AM ]
posted on June 19, 2001 10:39:34 AM
"What is the difference between a $1 copy of an application and a $15 copy of an application?
Piracy is Piracy! "
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, but the whole issue of "what is piracy" is, in fact, a very vague subject in MANY cases. As I agreed above, making cheap cdr knockoffs of current, expensive software is clearly piracy, no if, ands, or buts.
However, there are literally millions of non-cdr software floating around the universe. Some have no licenses, some have vague licenses, some are from companies that no longer exist, etc., etc. Are you sure that you can cheerfully declare what is, and is not, piracy in every one of these cases? Good luck!
In any case, my point really was just that the large software companies tend to overstate the impact of software "piracy" by looking at someone who pays $1 for a used, scratched copy of office95 on ebay and declares a $499 "loss" because "obviously" they would have bought a $500 copy of Office2000. (ha!).
I fully support the rights of software authors to make their authorized profits, but am just making the observation that the world of software legality is often murky.
"includes the original purchaser deleting everything off of their machine... Which is probably the opposite of what is happening on EBay sales"
Actually, I think the good news for software companies is that most software won't run without the cd these days (and most people aren't making a cd-r and selling the original, and/or copying the entire cdrom to their harddrive), so I actually believe most of the software sold on ebay meets the spirit of the license, which is that they can no longer run it after they dispose of the cd. Even for software that does load completely on the harddrive as part of the normal install process, most people I know that intend to keep using the software still won't dispose of the cd, in case they need to reload the program (harddrive crash, etc).
Ironically, one of the funny things is that I fervently wish that software WOULD "delete everything off my computer" when I un-install it! I'm sooo tired of software that leaves behind all kinds of useless, orphan files, hidden in various directories scattered throughout my harddrive.
[ edited by captainkirk on Jun 19, 2001 10:58 AM ]
posted on June 19, 2001 11:29:31 AMPerhaps I didn't make myself clear, but the whole issue of "what is piracy" is, in fact, a very vague subject in MANY cases.
Most software these days is issued with a liscence to use said software. Even crap "freeware" and "shareware" software usually contain a README file stating some sort of obligation on the part of the user. I consider piracy when someone goes against the liscence they agreed to when initially provided the software.
However, there are literally millions of non-cdr software floating around the universe. Some have
no licenses,
No license, no problem.
some have vague licenses,
<chuckle> Show me a vague liscense</chuckle>
some are from companies that no longer exist,
If the company was bought out then the liscences are still in force. If the company is defunkt, I would think the user could do what they wished with the liscence. But all of the added bonuses of the liscence would be gone, tech support, etc.
etc.,
yes?
etc.
go on...
I fully support the rights of software authors to make their authorized profits, but am just making the observation that the world of software legality is often murky.
Liscences are not murky only some peoples' interpretation of them.
Actually, I think the good news for software companies is that most software won't run without the cd these days...
We must be running different software. I don't have to load a CD to run any applications on my machines. I've seen this with games and such but are any productivity applications released this way? Office suites or image editing apps? Do you have any examples?
Ironically, one of the funny things is that I fervently wish that software WOULD "delete everything off my computer" when I un-install it! I'm sooo tired of software that leaves behind all kinds of useless, orphan files, hidden in various directories scattered throughout my harddrive.
we're in complete agreement on this one.
I dont' want to further this thread so my main points are,
Software liscences are not murky.
People abuse software liscences without even reading them or even caring about them.
You cannot argue that point because we would be going from the legal contract of a software liscence into the murky realm of "ethics".
and I will not go there.
back to work for me...
arttsupplies (webmaster)
[ edited by arttsupplies on Jun 19, 2001 11:29 AM ]
[ edited by arttsupplies on Jun 19, 2001 11:30 AM ]
posted on June 19, 2001 11:40:43 AM
There are legitimates ways to sell OEM software. Whether the sellers on eBay are doing so, I have no idea.
Most, but not all, OEM software can be sold if it has been purchased from manufacturers that never sold the systems that it was meant for. Often these systems are sold to wholesalers who dismantle them and sell the components for more then the system as a whole can be sold for. The OEM software that goes with these systems can often be legally sold, depending on the agreement that the manufacturer has with the software company.
How you would find this out from an eBay seller is beyond me.
posted on June 19, 2001 11:43:24 AM
"No license, no problem"
Not true, in the case where the license is missing or deliberately disposed of.
"some have vague licenses,
<chuckle> Show me a vague liscense</chuckle"
Look at academic licenses, that require you to be a "current student". What does THAT mean? If you are taking a semester off are you still a student..how about taking night courses...and so on and so on. Surely you aren't saying that ALL the licenses are completely clear? now THAT would be a chuckle!
"Liscences are not murky only some peoples' interpretation of them"
Uh, that is EXACTLY the point..licenses are legal agreements, and are ALWAYS subject to interpretation. That's why we have courts, judges, etc.
"We must be running different software. I don't have to load a CD to run any applications on my machines. I've seen this with games and such but are any productivity applications released this way? Office suites or image editing apps? Do you have any examples?"
All I can say is to go into any computer superstore and compare the shelfspace of software. Games, education, and other "cd required" seem to dominate productivity suites.
"If the company is defunkt, I would think the user could do what they wished with the liscence"
Hmmm...are you sure? Actually, I doubt you are..and this is just yet another example of my contention about "murky" licenses..given the number of software companies that have gone out of business in the past year.
I am more than willing to bet that if someone with a lot of money wanted to hire a bunch of lawyers, they could tie the legal system in knots on the whole subject of software licenses...which is the opposite of your belief of how "unmurky" the situation is.
In any case, my point is still that companies like microsoft that claim "big losses" from piracy seem to suffer from the sin of exaggeration (naturally, since it helps make their case).
posted on June 19, 2001 12:54:47 PMNot true, in the case where the license is missing or deliberately disposed of.
I better tell a friend of mine to dispose of the contracts he signed for his house and consider the few months payments he's made as payment in full...
Look at academic licenses, that require you to be a "current student". What does THAT mean?
I've bought software with academic liscences while I was in school. There are more hoops than ever to jump through to get the software. It involves transcripts and/or full or part time status and/or whether you're even enrolled in a class that uses the software. I've also seen it sold off-campus with no checking of the legitimacy of the user to be eligible for the reduced price, which is wrong.
You can even use the software on the weekends and during evening hours!
The only restriction is that it is not used for professional purposes.
Uh, that is EXACTLY the point..licenses are legal agreements, and are ALWAYS subject to interpretation. That's why we have courts, judges, etc.
No the interpretation is unfortunately the byproduct of having lawyers and human nature. Being individuals no two people will ever completely agree on something. I certainly don't think you advocate software piracy but this is not where things get murky, it is where things become unethical and corrupt.
"If the company is defunkt, I would think the user could do what they wished with the liscence"
Hmmm...are you sure? Actually, I doubt you are..and this is just yet another example of my contention about "murky" licenses..
I used the phrase "I would think...". This isn't an example of murkiness only my lack of interest in researching the answer for you.
I am more than willing to bet that if someone with a lot of money wanted to hire a bunch of lawyers, they could tie the legal system in knots on the whole subject of software licenses...which is the opposite of your belief of how "unmurky" the situation is.
No need to, the downfall of legacy software liscences will be brought on by the "open source" revolution. Microsoft is more scared of the GPL and GNU/Linux than software pirates. Why do you think they've introduced web based applications with subscriptions as the future. They want to continue their stranglehold on 95% of computer users with a touch Big Brother to boot!
In any case, my point is still that companies like microsoft that claim "big losses" from piracy seem to suffer from the sin of exaggeration (naturally, since it helps make their case)
Of course there is exaggeration. But that's got nothing to do with piracy being legitimate in ANY way and I'm sorry I've steered this thread in that direction. I've wasted too much of my employer's time ranting about my beliefs when it comes to software piracy.
Oh yeah, With a GNU/Linux machine...
http://www.auctionwatch.com/
works...
Over and out...
arttsupplies (webmaster)
[ edited by arttsupplies on Jun 19, 2001 12:57 PM ]
posted on June 19, 2001 01:14:37 PM
well, all I can say, in summary, is that if YOU think that the combination of ever-changing technology and the "law of licensing" is straightforward, you are in the wrong business, and should IMMEDIATELY start a legal practice and bail us all out.
The rest of the world is certainly struggling with this MURKY subject.
After all, I could give a LOT Of examples that seem murky to me..but I'm sure they aren't to you. Like, for example, if I get bundled software with my PC and I don't install it..and I bound by the license agreement (that I never agreed to!)? Or if I take parts of my PC and use them to build two different machines..can I use the software on both of them? Or if I later sell one of the PCs, how does that work? Or the academic software that requires you to be a "current college student"..and you are a high school student (whatever that means!) who is taking college courses. Or if I install the software on a removable media device like an external zip drive...can I use it on any computer that I then attach the zip drive to? Hmmmm...like I said, I sincerely doubt there is any written legal license agreement that is both clear enough, complete enough, and has anticipated every possible technological innovation such that it is NOT murky to us.
posted on June 19, 2001 02:09:02 PMAfter all, I could give a LOT Of examples that seem murky to me..but I'm sure they aren't to you. Like, for example,
if I get bundled software with my PC and I don't install it..and I bound by the license agreement (that I never agreed to!)?
Or if I take parts of my PC and use them to build two different machines..can I use the software on both of them?
Or if I later sell one of the PCs, how does that work?
Or the academic software that requires you to be a "current college student"..and you are a high school student (whatever that means!) who is taking college courses.
Or if I install the software on a removable media device like an external zip drive...can I use it on any computer that I then attach the zip drive to?
I guess the best way to get this thread over with is for you to post a liscensing agreement from a named commercial application and for you to point out what is murky in the wording of it regarding your situations above.
If you take the time to post such an agreement I'll take the time to respond.
I'm also interested in what anyone else reading this thread would think about your interpretation and mine regarding the situations posted above and a posted liscensing agreement.
But not until tommorrow, I really do have work to do...
arttsupplies (webmaster)
Maybe this should switch to the "roundtable" or whatever they call it because it has no longer anything to do with EBay?
adding... I just realised you'de have to post two (2) liscensing agreements. Commercial and Academic. Up for the typing, or cut'n'paste if you can find them online?
arttsupplies (webmaster)
[ edited by arttsupplies on Jun 19, 2001 02:17 PM ]
posted on June 19, 2001 07:20:13 PM
I would like to see specific license agreements too, but I'll address these in generalities.
if I get bundled software with my PC and I don't install it..and I bound by the license agreement (that I never agreed to!)?
Did you open the package? Then you did agree to the license. OEM software also is attached to the machine with which it is sold. In other words, if you sell the software, you must sell the computer too.
Or if I take parts of my PC and use them to build two different machines..can I use the software on both of them?
Come on now. That's not murky. Take a wild guess. If you're serious, you can install the software on the hard drive that is in the new machine that was from the old machine.
Or if I later sell one of the PCs, how does that work?
See above.
Or the academic software that requires you to be a "current college student"..and you are a high school student (whatever that means!) who is taking college courses.
What does the license agreement say? In general, if the course is at an accredited university, yes, the purchase is acceptable if the student is enrolled at that school. "Accelerated" classes (theres a formal term for it) taught at high schools would not apply.
Or if I install the software on a removable media device like an external zip drive...can I use it on any computer that I then attach the zip drive to?
No. Also, please show me a Windows program that can be run off external media without being "installed", that is, without files and registry entries being added to the o/s. If either of those two occur, it is an installation, and in your scenario would be against the license agreement.
I agree with artsupplies. Most license agreements are not at all murky. Common sense and the spirit of the license 99.9% of the time solves all queries. Piraters obviously want to see the license in a different way.
posted on June 19, 2001 08:35:10 PMsome have vague licenses,
<chuckle> Show me a vague liscense</chuckle>
Nothing Microsoft has sold in the past 20 years has a vague liscense.
If you wanted to see vague liscenses, look at some of the "Freeware" and "Shareware" from the 80's. I've seen stuff on the BBS's that said:
-------
I'm a starving programmer, so if you you send me $25.00 I'll send you the latest version without the nag screen, an instruction book, and the next 2 upgrades.
You're free to use the trial version for 30 days, or as long as your consience doesn't double you up in pain
-------
posted on June 19, 2001 08:55:10 PM
Most of the software manufacturer bellyaching about OEM or academic software sold under terms other than what they specify is, frankly, a lot of hooey. Think about it. They make money on all of it--if they didn't they would not be in business. If they can sell something profitably at 25-50% of retail to a student what does that mean to everyone else?
What they are really after is maximum profits from the majority of people who are dumb enough to cough it up.
Now when you buy a Windows computer, you no longer get a copy of the operating system--in case you need to reinstall something you are toast. You paid for it, you didn't get it. This is to prevent OEM discs being circulated without official packaging and added profits, you know...to prevent piracy. Who's the pirate? Microsoft who refuses to give you what you paid for and the wimps at the computer company who play to these crooks.
posted on June 20, 2001 12:22:38 AM
Just remember that you may advocate for the companies now, but you'll be protesting them when you can't even sell your Old CD's because your "Fair Use" and Consumer Rights were "written off" by YOUR Elected Officials.
So, don't defend them too easily now...
:\\\\\\\"Crystalline Sliver cannot be the target of spells or abilities.
posted on June 20, 2001 03:36:58 AM
Okay, I'll tell you my perspective. Last weekend I went to the flea market. I found a copy of MS FrontPage 98 there for $2. Plain old CD in a jewel case, nothing else.
Took it home, looked up the serial number on a CRACKZ site and installed the disc. (I have since uninstalled it.)
Now you guys can all start thumping on your U.S. Constitutions about this, that and the other thing, and Microsoft is doing such a big favor selling that disc for $600. What-EVER! And I am the first to admit it.
But what's ironic is the eBay buyer who bids on a new copy of Microsoft Office 2000 for $25 bucks, knowing full well that it sells for $1000 at Microsoft.com, and then has a conniption fit when Microsoft tells him it's "counterfeit." Puh-leeze.
posted on June 20, 2001 04:09:02 AM
After some thought, I wanted to followup to my comments above on two points.
Since Microsoft is insisting upon no longer packaging operating system CDs with Windows computers, they are creating a secondary market ripe for those they consider pirates. Millions of consumers are going to need those CDs and aren't going to happily shell out for them at retail. Nobody in their right mind will want to do so.
The only difference between an academic/OEM or distribution CD and the retail one is the packaging or lack thereof. What makes Microsoft think you or I are so stupid to pay two or more times for something based on a box that has no value in computing?
FWIW a German court told Microsoft recently to stick their unlawful restriction on reselling OEM CDs where the sun doesn't shine.
posted on June 20, 2001 05:18:38 AM
mballai: Most of the software manufacturer bellyaching about OEM or academic software sold under terms other than what they specify is, frankly, a lot of hooey. Think about it. They make money on all of it--if they didn't they would not be in business.
It's called a write-off. It's also exposing people to the software at the most impressionable time- more trained people, more incentive for business to use the software where there is a labor market to support it.
mballai:What they are really after is maximum profits from the majority of people who are dumb enough to cough it up.
No, they are after legitimate profits from people who don't steal things they can't (or won't) afford. And since they are a business, they will use the applicable laws to make the maximum amount possible.
Now when you buy a Windows computer, you no longer get a copy of the operating system--in case you need to reinstall something you are toast. You paid for it, you didn't get it.
mballai: Wrong. You paid for a software license, you did get it. The CD is being made available to you as a convenience. If I remember correctly, you still have the right to make ONE backup copy for personal use.
When I bought my Windows 3.11 computer, it didn't come with floppy disks. It came with a utility to make them, but I had to provide the floppys myself. With CD burners being so prevalent, manufacturers are doing the same thing. Any manufacturer that wishes to package an OEM CD with their product is within their rights to do it.
mballai: This is to prevent OEM discs being circulated without official packaging and added profits, you know...to prevent piracy.Who's the pirate? Microsoft who refuses to give you what you paid for and the wimps at the computer company who play to these crooks.
Well then, instead of stealing software, maybe people should lobby their elected officials and ask for legislation that would require certain concessions from software developers. But for most people, it's so much easier to steal, isn't it?
posted on June 20, 2001 06:04:58 AM
yankee98champs:
You don't get the OS CD anymore. Read what I wrote please. You have a license and whatever "recovery" CD the manufacturer decides to give you. Anyone who knows anything about computers knows that sooner or later (most likely sooner if you use the machine a lot especially with WIN or MAC) the OS on a computer goes bad and needs to be reinstalled. That Microsoft is pulling this shell game with consumers is an outrage.
FWIW software companies are making windfall profits on everything given that their market has grown astronomically to where most households in America have a computer (or computer access).
In case anyone has not paid attention, M$ is now strong arming major businesses into a forced upgrade. This will cost billions (in new computers and software) and will inevitably result in higher prices for everyone on items that have nothing to do with computers.
posted on July 3, 2001 10:59:42 AM
I see this thread resurfaced.
I still contend that it is very hard for a buyer of used/old/whatever software on ebay to tell if they have a "legal" copy or not.
As I said, licenses may have been lost, or poorly written, or technologically obsolete. Not to mention that many of the buyers on ebay are, at best, computer users, let alone experienced arbitators of computer/licensing law.
I would love to have everyone who thinks this is such an easy, black-and-white issue to randomly buy 100 software programs on ebay and determine with 100% accuracy if the person had the legal right to sell them (without, of course, spending thousands of dollars in research, legal fees, court costs, etc).
when you combine the fact that ebay is generally a "secondary" sales market, populated by individuals, and throw in the intricacies of licensiing law (versus standard "real" property law), you get a situation ripe for confusion.
I, in no way, support piracy, but on the other hand, I do not support the bombastic claims and heavy-handedness of some of the software companies who squash "piracy" with an iron fist (shooting first and never asking questions!).
posted on July 3, 2001 11:24:38 AMI still contend that it is very hard for a buyer of used/old/whatever software on ebay to tell if they have a "legal" copy or not.
As I said, licenses may have been lost, or poorly written, or technologically obsolete. Not to mention that many of the buyers on ebay are, at best, computer users, let alone experienced arbitators of computer/licensing law.
I would love to have everyone who thinks this is such an easy, black-and-white issue to randomly buy 100 software programs on ebay and determine with 100% accuracy if the person had the legal right to sell them (without, of course, spending thousands of dollars in research, legal fees, court costs, etc).
when you combine the fact that ebay is generally a "secondary" sales market, populated by individuals, and throw in the intricacies of licensiing law (versus standard "real" property law), you get a situation ripe for confusion.
I, in no way, support piracy, but on the other hand, I do not support the bombastic claims and heavy-handedness of some of the software companies who squash "piracy" with an iron fist (shooting first and never asking questions!).
>>you are 5 for 5 on irrelevant
I asked you to post a liscence from a commercial application that is verifiably correct that you felt was murky.
attsupplies (webmaster)
[ edited by arttsupplies on Jul 3, 2001 11:25 AM ]
posted on July 3, 2001 11:56:09 AM
Regarding the old radio shows being in "public domain".
Thus far I have found no old radio shows that haven't maintained copyright. These "defunct" corps are GE, Westinghouse, RCA, etc.. Assets of a corp, including copyrights do not disappear, the assets may change hands, but never just disappear. IMHO these old radio shows were under the old 28/47 year rules. If the show was from 1930, the first copyright was good until 1958, then a re-newal period was given for another 47 years. A conversion occurred in 1976 with a new copyright law, and it was changed again with MDCA in the 90's. Unless the show was before 1925, without regards to any subsequent changes in the law which may have even extended the copyright, these old radio shows are unlikely in the "public domain". Regarding a copyright notice on the product- it isn't necessary anymore to maintain copyright.
You can buy Green Hornet, Ozzie and Harriet, old baseball games and fights, etc., right now on eBay in MP3 format on burned CDs. The seller claims the titles are "public domain" because he recorded them himself !
The reason you see this stuff for sale on eBay is because the onus is on the owner to enforce the copyright, and only the owner. eBay will not remove the item unless the owner files the complaint - unless as eBay states- the infringement is blatant and plain.
The software licenses are becomming a problem. Fair Use and Right of First Sale doctrines are disappearing in the digital world. This is to squeeze even ounce of revenue from information technology. These actions by MS and others are creating a huge pirate market out of what was otherwise a legal market.
[ edited by reamond on Jul 3, 2001 12:00 PM ]
posted on July 3, 2001 01:18:35 PM
The current state of M$ is that they are essentially trying to make the user beholden to the software company in perpetuity. This is, of course, nonsense. M$ doesn't even have the power to enforce their licenses but it is currently getting corporations to shell out some very big bucks to audit their own software usage as a free service to M$.
Is this enforcement? No. It's actually a marketing gimmick to sell upgrades. And it's being done at their (and your) expense.
My suggestion for those who do not have the time for this baloney is to buy decent software and use it for as many years as possible and tell these bozos with their endless mostly useless and buggy upgrades to take a hike. Virtually all the software most folks need, save the operating system, can be had for free by download. If you pay for something, you own the rights to use it as long as you like without some idiot who can't remember to take a shower on a regular basis telling you it belongs to him.
