posted on July 16, 2001 10:37:21 PM
So you think Microsoft has been heavy handed with VERO on eBay- check out the article and see what they did to a CHARITY !!!
posted on July 17, 2001 06:13:34 AM
Reminds me of the time a local daycare center had to paint over the disney charectors they had painted on there walls after disney threatned to sue for copyright violation.
Compasinite conservitism in action....Sue Ya
spock here......
posted on July 17, 2001 07:56:08 AM
Why does this not surprise me? Microsoft would take the food out of the mouths of these kids if it could claim that eating was proprietary to them.
The charity could probably get cheap secondhand software to stay legal (a great argument for Linux and complete freeware) , but trying to comply with Microsoft's licensing mindset is hard enough for corporations much less a non-profit organization.
posted on July 17, 2001 08:02:17 AM
Microsoft is right in this regard. The charity freely admits to breaking the law by installing illegal copies of software on the machines. MS should NOT waive licensing issues in this matter. That would be foolish and would open up a big can of worms.
However, I would like to see Microsoft, in this case, donate to them copies of software needed, licensing and all. However, if MS doesn't choose to support this charity (and they DO support others), that is MS' call alone.
Should they come to the rescue everytime some charity starts acting illegally?
As for compassionate conservatism, it does not apply here. No one NEEDS a computer. It's a nice-to-have. Compassionate conservatism is doing what is TRULY best for a person -- not what makes you "feel good". Helping a homeless person get back on their feet and find a job is CC. Giving the homeless person food day in and day out with nothing geared to truly helping their situation is unloving liberalism.
posted on July 17, 2001 08:20:03 AM
The fact of the matter is we will have to "give" food and shelter to a great number of people "day in and day out". There are many folks who just do not have a place in our economy, and never will.
I don't like supporting Microsoft with my tax dollars, but I have too, no choice involved. There is no natural law that states that MS and many others are entitled to exclusive monopolies for rediculous periods of time. Yet my tax dollars not only support this, but are used to enforce this monopoly. To top it off, MS and other corps control the legislative bodies that make these decissions.
If you think the licensing situation has been bad- you will howl as the new licensing begins to be foisted upon us all.
It appears we all all renters on this planet except for the corporations. Corporations not only out live all of us and control our government, but will end up owning everything.
I also find that those who support a "survival of the fittest" society, generally are the first to scream "it's not fair" when they are found "unfit".
posted on July 17, 2001 08:28:40 AM
However, giving food is the responsibility of YOU and ME. Not the government. And everyone can be productive in some way, shape, or form. Many CHOOSE not to be -- and why should they? There are so many handouts to keep them afloat.
Not sure what you mean about your tax dollars supporting Microsoft -- could you elaborate? They (and all corporations) PAY huge amounts in tax.
MS is not a monopoly -- there are other choices in operating systems and the other packages that they produce. You can run a computer without any MS products QUITE easily. The business world has settled on MS platforms -- and it works to have all business running the same thing -- so most business OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING go with MS as well.
As for their new licensing scheme -- YES IT SUCKS. It's one of the first things they've done that in my opinion is a bad decision. It harkens back to the old days with everything was copy protected, etc.
Sorry to see your negative and unrealistic view of big business. I know you views are sadly prevalent in the world today, but they are based on fear and not fact. Big business is NOT the enemy. The enemy is those who would take, BY FORCE, money from one group to give to another group. That explains the basic problem with our society today -- government dependence. And if, as you wrongly state, corporations ran government, then we wouldn't have the taxpayers money wasted in vote-buying schemes like welfare and social security.
posted on July 17, 2001 08:48:53 AM
Many of the largest corps pay little or no income taxes, and many more pay marginal rates below what you and I pay as individuals.
"The nominal tax rate on corporations is 35 percent, but the effective tax
rate on big corporations is approximately 21 percent, according to the
Washington, D.C.-based Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ).
A 2000 CTJ study of the 1998 income tax payments of 250 of the largest
corporations determined that two dozen had negative federal income tax
payments --meaning they received rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury.
Led by General Electric, which finagled just under $7 billion in tax
breaks in 1998, at least 25 corporations, including Ford, First Union,
AT&T, Bell Atlantic, Merck, Microsoft, Bristol Myers-Squibb and Exxon --
exploited tax loopholes to gain at least $1 billion in tax breaks,
according to CTJ. (Someone should ask Paul O'Neill: Did these corporations
offer lower prices to consumers?)"
By the way if you think a PC is not a "necessity" see the link below - some make a valid argument high speed internet access is a necessity to be a part of the "new" economy.
posted on July 17, 2001 08:53:58 AM
Making an argument does not make it valid.
Many make a "valid" arguments that social programs are good, that reparations should be made for slaves when there aren't any slaves alive, and that abortion is not murder. Doesn't make those "valid" arguments truthful.
posted on July 17, 2001 09:44:27 AM
If the premises are true and the argument valid, the conclusion must be accepted, if you're rational.
We've already shown that corps aren't paying taxes like you thought they were.
I think it has been shown time and again that groups that are deprived the basic tools of an economy, do not get to participate in that economy. While you may think we can just let market forces take its toll, people are not commodities. While the US has been able to forestall the realities of disporprtionate wealth, our borders are being crossed by thousands each day by people that want their share. There are so many illegal aliens (estimated at over 3 million) here now that Bush is considering making them all citizens. The Roman Emoire thought like you do and it collasped under the weight of that view.
Following you logic on reparations, if a loved one gets killed in a car crash and the other driver was negligent, no money damages should follow because the person damaged is dead ? That's a whole new twist to damages.
Social programs are a cost of "doing business" in the manner we do. For those of us that value people over property, it is also a social good. Money is like manure, piled up in one place it just stinks, but spread it around and the smell ceases and wonderful things begin to grow.
The abortion issue is justified for the privacy value in that if it is within the power of the government to say that you can not have an abortion, then it is within the power of that governmant to also say that you must have an abortion. The Supreme Court wisely ruled that it is basically none of the government's business - not that it is a morally right or wrong act. If you want a government with its nose in personal reproduction rights, try China. China is a prime example why the Court ruled abortion out of bounds for intrusive government control. By the way, even when abortion was illegal, it was never considered murder or carried the criminal penalties of murder.
posted on July 17, 2001 12:43:44 PM
Well, I find Microsoft a bloodthirsty monopoly, but in this case I can't fault them. Just because a group is a bona fide charity does not give them the right to load up their computers with illegal software. And excuse me, but $600 for an operating system? That's bunk. You can go to eBay and buy a new boxed retail version of Windows 95 for less than $20 bucks.
The computers came from businesses with site licenses. The software is not licensed to be given away to individuals. Can we make exceptions to copyright law simply because the party is a charity? I know that sounds cruel but that is they way copyright laws are set up and Microsoft deserves the same protections that any other individual receives. The donors should have known better and should have removed the OS first.
The charity group has several options. They can ask donors to provide a legit operating system, or they can provide the computers without an OS and let the end users deal with it. Or they can install a free system like Linux (hardly a good option). At any rate, a charity has no right to bulk up computers with illegal software any more than you or I.
posted on July 17, 2001 01:11:06 PMpeiklk, and twinsoft saved me a lot of typing. Basically said what I was thinking except for that corp tax thing. I worked for a larger Corporation and while percentage wise I can not say we paid as much as others I know we paid plenty. As far as the study mentioned above so what if they made 12 billion or what ever in profits, if they had the exemptions allowed like for new buildings, new jobs etc then they have done there fair share.
Oh the $600.00 is an actual figure when you include Windows 9X, Office 9X or 2000, Money, all the Mocrosoft games, etc. Retail that is.
Jim
You know, you guys really did not save me that much tying after I got started.
posted on July 17, 2001 01:20:07 PM
Yes... it would be the downfall of Western Civilization if MS donated software to this charity.
No one said they must donate or have to "give" anything to anybody. Charity is what OSU's Woody Hayes called "paying forward". This would be a sorry world if more people thought like you folks.
posted on July 17, 2001 01:30:41 PM
Well, an OS is all that is "NEEDED".
Win 95 comes with Wordpad for creating/reading documents. Spreadsheets are not "necessary" and when and if these kids go to college, they get student discounts galore on the latest and greatest software packages.
Without corporations, we'd have nothing. Without the risk takers who invest large sums of capital to create jobs for everyone from themselves down, we'd have no economy.
posted on July 17, 2001 01:31:34 PM
Of course Msoft is legally right in this case.
And, IMO, shortsighted. and probably came out behind by doing this.
First, the negative publicity is bad news.
Second, there is no chance of their getting more profit by doing this, since no one is going to go out and buy retail microsoft products to install on these machines.
Given the encroaching of Linux, one might think they would be happy to help raise a new generation of windows users, by donating a copy of win95 etc to these machines.
The one reason I could think of microsoft's position, besides just plain truculance, is that if these machines somehow were ending up in, say, middle class homes, and displacing the purchase of a new machine (revenue to microsoft), then they'd be reluctant to help the charity.
But otherwise, its in everyone's best interest to help people become integrated into the new economy. Kids who are excluded from decent jobs due to a lack of digital skills will be a problem for us all, individuals and corporations alike.
posted on July 17, 2001 01:42:05 PMFirst, the negative publicity is bad news
That's quite true & probably something the "charity" counted on to get MS to back off. But then it almost becomes a point of blackmail. "Give me this software for free or I go to the press."
Both MS AND the Gates Foundation give millions to charity each year. But no corporation can give to each & every charity out there.
Just because you manage to get charity status doesn't entitle you to freebies from everything in the world...free phones from the phone company, free electricity from the power company, free software from MS.
I would have liked to see MS offer them the software at a discount but don't think they were any obligation to do so anymore than any other company was under an obligation to give the charity either a discount or give their service for free.
posted on July 17, 2001 01:49:23 PM
"probably something the "charity" counted on to get MS to back off. But then it almost becomes a point of blackmail. "Give me this software for free or I go to the press."
Uh, maybe you know more about this than I do, but it isn't clear to me that the charity did anything of the sort. Maybe they did, maybe they didnt, but I personally wouldn't impugn the charity without further knowledge.
"But no corporation can give to each & every charity out there. "
Absolutely ZERO contribution was required of MSoft in this case.
"Just because you manage to get charity status doesn't entitle you to freebies from everything in the world...free phones from the phone company, free electricity from the power company, free software from MS"
Again, phones, electricity, etc., cost the those companies something, but letting a charity use an existing win95 CD doesn't cost msoft a dime.
I'm not making a generic argument for forced donation to every charity, just making the observation that microsoft probably blew this one, turning a possible PR coup (and helping train future microsoft buyers) into a PR black eye.
Of course, with most of these stories, there is probably more than meets the eye. It may well be that the charity was, in fact, obnoxious and ticked off microsoft, but we'll probably never know.
posted on July 17, 2001 01:54:53 PMI'm not making a generic argument for forced donation to every charity, just making the observation that microsoft probably blew this one, turning a possible PR coup (and helping train future microsoft buyers) into a PR black eye
And the point I'm making is that EVERY charity could use "give me this software or press conference at 10 to talk about how the mean big MS refused to give the software to the itty bitty charity" scenario to try to pressure companies like MS into giving them what they want.
And what WAS the point of going public with this if not to "punish" MS for not giving the charity the software?
posted on July 17, 2001 01:56:54 PM
how, exactly, did this news get to the paper? Do you KNOW that the charity instigated it? How about, just for an example to prove you wrong, someone connected with the paper was part of the charity and decided ON THEIR OWN to get the story going? As I said, unless you KNOW that the charity did this on purpose, I think it best not to malign them.
Since it costs microsoft NOTHING in these kinds of cases, they can cheerfully afford it, and your analogies to electricity, etc., are pretty weak.
They blew it, in my opinion.
And being time for me to call it a day, I leave you to have "the last word".
[ edited by captainkirk on Jul 17, 2001 01:59 PM ]
posted on July 17, 2001 01:59:12 PM
There was no Win95 CD. It was already installed on the computers -- purchased as a site license by the donating companies. They have no rights to transfer this software to the charity and by rights have probably UPGRADED their site license to Windows 98 or Windows NT by now and as such cannot give away the Windows 95 site license either. The Win95 still belongs to the donating company as part of their upgrade path.
As such, it would still be MS giving something to a charity who, for whatever reason, tried to get in through the backdoor to MS's Foundation.
You do NOT just turn your back on piracy violations (which this in a sense is) without leaving yourself open to a reduced ability to prosecute the real offenders down the road.
The CD or the software on the HD means nothing. It's the LICENSE TO USE that software that makes it legal. The donating companies transferred the software but NOT the license, therefore the charity was at fault (and they admit this in the article). Also, the donating company should have been smart enough to wipe the harddrives before donating.
posted on July 17, 2001 02:02:48 PM
Anyone who thinks that the copyright laws now in existence are anything like what the "founding fathers" had structured has read neither the laws from then or the present DMCA.
I don't agree with what some of my tax money goes to either, our tax money shouldn't to corporate welfare.
Again, to the point, no one asked MS to turn a blind eye to piracy, but a donation would be in order.
[ edited by reamond on Jul 17, 2001 02:05 PM ]
posted on July 17, 2001 02:09:57 PM
Who equated Piracy Laws with the founding fathers? You need to read what I said again.
The government was not formed to be a charity provider. It was to protect the rights of citizens and promote the GENERAL welfare -- not case by case specific welfare.
A donation by MS is NOT in order. Not at present. Anyone can see that.
If the charity appeals through proper channels to MS charitable giving programs and that charity is selected to received cash or in-kind services, then fine. But just because they steal from MS and get told not to, does not then mean that MS must give them what they want.
posted on July 17, 2001 02:20:19 PM
Well, eventer anticipated my comment. How did this story get to press? I'd guess that either the charity was pissed off and leaked the story out of spite, or might have been an actual threat as suggested above.
Yes, by all means Microsoft should allow the software to be used by the charity, and perhaps should even donate some old boxes of Windows 95/98. But that's not the issue. Neither is the issue how much MS pays in taxes. This comes down to a matter of copyright law and MS deserves the same protection as anyone else. When you start interpreting law based on who has more money (or less) you're creating anarchy.
This charity knew they were doing something illegal and they got caught. It's just sour grapes to turn this around and blame Microsoft.
. Internet Pioneers
posted on July 17, 2001 02:42:19 PM
Laws have always been created by and for the benefit of those who have the money ! What planet have you been on !!!
Do you think your Congressman will even answer a telephone call or letter from you - or give you the time of day for that matter ?
Your Congressman would go on a retreat with Gates or any other millionaire/billionaire and give them as much ear time as there are hours in a day.
Lobbyists have more to do with legislation than any of us do.
posted on July 17, 2001 02:47:35 PM
Nope. I'm a realist.
Yes, lobbyists work hard to get bills favorable to their business passed. And yes, they are heard by congressmen. However, it is up to us, the voters to hold them accountable and run them out of office if they vote against the will of the people.
But we couldn't even get a lying, perjury, adulterer out of office -- why would we care about people caving to the demands of lobbyists?
But again, with vote-buying welfare programs, it's hard to get any liberal crook voted out of office.
But regardless, it is the votes of Congress that pass the bills. Not lobbyists or corporations or unions (goonions).
posted on July 17, 2001 03:25:33 PM
when you think about it the hard drives and computers in question are probably slated for the dump. the software was purchased from mirosoft and licencesing fees were paid at the time. the peaple who are attempting to use it now would not be likely to be purchasing currrent microsoft products
so tell me how is microsft being hurt?
What is being stolen?
posted on July 17, 2001 03:46:16 PM
Ah - these guys are blowing this situation off now as some sort of piracy/private property deal.
They'll be singing another tune when they find out they have to "rent" MS's OS system in the near future, and Fair use and right of first sale doctrine are history.
posted on July 17, 2001 05:12:15 PM
Spock: Very simple. They do not own a license to use that software. The donator does. Since it was a SITE license, it is NOT transferrable to a third part (off SITE). Thus, they are using software without a license, thus STEALING. They admit this, so why are you denying it?
reamond: Two different issues. Legal licensing schemes don't play in this matter. They need to get a license. period. MS changes, then we will make decisions (most of us legal) based on that.
posted on July 17, 2001 06:43:41 PM
peiklk
Yes microsoft is within their legal
rights in shutting down the charity.
Is it moral ?I don't think so
does it make any sense ?..Not to me
I still don't see microsoft suffering any damage by what the charity is doing.
