Turn 'em in!!
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac May 02, 2006 9:23 AM EDT |
Businesses should not be using Microsoft, Oracle and other software without paying appropriate licensing fees. There really is a difference between capitalism and thievery. The solution is not to steal -- the solution is to use free software. |
| salparadise May 02, 2006 9:38 AM EDT |
Yup.
You have it right. What a world we live in. Greater reward for grassing up someone using pirated software than for just about any other crime you care to mention, including all the nasty ones. (Not that I'm suggesting we should move to a "cash in on your neighbours sin" way of solving crime). The whole thing is just dirty and unpleasant. |
| jimf May 02, 2006 1:54 PM EDT |
>"cash in on your neighbours sin" It makes me very uncomfortable to see people responding to outfits like the BSA,RIAA, or MPAA. Not that piracy is acceptable behavior, but, giving people financial incentive to turn in their neighbor or their boss is equally repugnant to me. Next we have children turning in their parents, and we all know where that ends up. With MS we also have to consider that up until recently, they actually encouraged, or at least winked at individual piracy. As dino said, "The solution is not to steal -- the solution is to use free software", but, I'm not sure I'm going around turning people in to accomplish that goal. |
| dinotrac May 02, 2006 1:58 PM EDT |
jimf - I'm all for it, and for a good reason: While people get away with it, they are unaware of and don't care about the degree to which these vermin are stomping all over their rights. Real consequences stir the pot. People need to see who they are up against, and to realize that these guys view EVERYONE, not some evil "pirates", ie -- other guys, but not me -- as the enemy. |
| jimf May 02, 2006 2:14 PM EDT |
I get your point. Perhaps if I were more convinced of the advantages of current capitalism, I'd be in agreement. For now, I have to agree with sal that "The whole thing is just dirty and unpleasant." |
| sbergman27 May 02, 2006 2:23 PM EDT |
I suppose this doesn't add anything really new to the conversation, but I'd like to add my voice: BSA cracking down on "Piracy" == "Good" Rat on your neighbor hotlines == "Bad" |
| dcparris May 02, 2006 4:32 PM EDT |
And all this time, I thought piracy was a raid on someone's ship. :-) Copyright infringement is such a dirty word, though, isn't it? Sounds *real* mean and ugly. Of course, the police don't come quite as quickly when you call them for copyright infringers as they do when you hollar "pirate!". |
| sbergman27 May 02, 2006 4:49 PM EDT |
> Of course, the police don't come quite as quickly when you call them for copyright infringers as they do when you hollar "pirate!". Yeah. Too bad they couldn't come up with a way to associate copyright infringement with rape. I'll bet they tried, but it was rejected by the PR department as too dangerous. When I think about it though, I can see why some would associate copyright infringement with stealing. It's not. But I can see the association that people might have. But piracy? Nothing is being done at knife point or gun point. There's little or no Harr-Harr'ing, and for the most part not a drop of rum is involved. And isn't that the essential difference between piracy and run of the mill stealing? P.S. Yes, I know that some people who infringe upon copyrights have parrots. But statistically, just as many non-infringers own them so that doesn't count. |
| dinotrac May 02, 2006 4:56 PM EDT |
Steve - > It's not. It is. Copyright holders have a legally created and granted property interest. Hmmm. Come to think of it, that's the only kind of property interest, as there is no such thing as "natural" property. The land my house stands on is my property only because the government grants me the right -- backed by the ability to call in the government's use of force -- to keep others off of it and to exercise the assorted rights of ownership. Intellectual property seems different because there is no tangible thing you can point at, but, truth be told, property is not a thing. It is a bundle of legal rights. What you actually steal by infringing a copyright is the copyright holders' monetary interest. If the law gives him or her a right to charge you money for certain uses of the copyrighted material, you effectively steal that right -- and its monetary value -- by infringing. I presume most people who come to this site wish the law were not as it is, but wishing don't make it so. |
| grouch May 02, 2006 5:08 PM EDT |
dcparris: I'm guessing by your comment that the MAFIAA's propaganda irritates you as much as me. Reference - http://www.asil.org/ilib/2005/05/ilib050509.htm "Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (April 28, 2005)" "Article I employs the UNCLOS Article 101 definition of piracy as constituting any of the following acts: (a) any illegal act of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed: (i) on the high seas, against another ship, or against persons or property on board such ship; (ii) against a ship, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State; (b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft; (c) any act of inciting or intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b)." Hmmm. No ship, no aircraft, no piracy. Copyright infringement always seems to involve acts of violence, detention and depradation, don't they? BTW, that article references United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention... |
| sbergman27 May 02, 2006 5:14 PM EDT |
Yes, I noticed your use of the word "thievery" in your original post, and I know you usually say what you mean with precision. IANAL, but it is my understanding that copyright infringement is a slightly different animal than theft when considered legally. By that, I don't mean that copyright is considered OK either legally or morally (by me, anyway). But the fact that there is nothing tangible "stolen", only a copy made with expected license fee not received, makes it a different situation with different considerations than theft. At least it should be. (And I think it is.) Basically, stealing a purse and stealing a dvd player fall into the same class. But making a copy of a DVD without sending a license fee is a little different and should be treated that way. *edit* I should say that I place this in the same class as I do RMS's objection to the term "Intellectual Property". It can be misleading. Better to stick to "Copyrights", "Patents", and "Trademarks". *edit* |
| dinotrac May 02, 2006 7:06 PM EDT |
Steve - You are *sort of* right, in that all statutory crimes are slightly different animals from each other. So, burglary is different from robbery, but both are theft. Incidentally, copyright provides for both civil and criminal remedies. it ain't THAT different an animal, legally, at least. And, I'm sorry, the right to rumuneration is something tangible. Kind of like thedifference between a $100 bill and a small sheet of plain paper. |
| jdixon May 02, 2006 8:00 PM EDT |
dinotrac: > The land my house stands on is my property only because the government grants me the right -- backed by the ability to call in the government's use of force -- to keep others off of it and to exercise the assorted rights of ownership. No. The government recognizes that the land is yours, and protects your rights to it. It does NOT grant them. Land ownership existed before any government officially recognized it. Admittedly, it existed only in so far as the owner was able to enforce it himself; but that's still true today (even with the goverment's supposed recognition). Just ask the good folks of New London. It is important to recognize that governments do not grant rights; that they in fact existed before any government. A legal and properly functioning government only acts to protect them. A government which thinks it has the power to grant rights also will think it has the power to take them away. |
| sbergman27 May 02, 2006 8:08 PM EDT |
Dean, Hmmm... I think we are miscommunicating. The main reason for my post (mostly intended humorously) was to agree with dcparris' assertion that muddying the waters by popularizing terms which are not really accurate, but get a better emotional response, is what the BSA, et. al. has done. If I stole your $100 bill would that be piracy? (Assuming, of course, that I did it without rum or a parrot.) |
| dtfinch May 02, 2006 10:17 PM EDT |
According to the US Code of Laws, title 18, chapter 81, section 1651, the only punishment for piracy is life imprisonment. :) |
| dcparris May 02, 2006 10:45 PM EDT |
Grouch: > I'm guessing by your comment that the MAFIAA's propaganda irritates you as much as me. Bingo! And the term "Business Software" Alliance is simply a polite euphemism for what it really is. Well, let's just say I think it really stinks. ;-) |
| grouch May 02, 2006 10:52 PM EDT |
dino: You sly old devil. You omit the relevant fact that copyright is a government grant of a limited monopoly on the expression of an idea for the purpose of encouraging public benefit from those who receive the grant. That makes a big difference, legally. Those infringement penalties may only come under strict conditions and with quite a few exceptions. If I break into your lair and steal that circa 1976 green-screen monitor you cherish, the judge is not going to listen to any plea from me about non-commercial usage or fair use for educational purposes. He's going to see that you had it, I took it without your knowledge or consent, you no longer have it, and he's going to be irritated with me. On the other hand, if you took a copy of some comment I made on a non-commercial website and held it up for ridicule on some non-commercial website and I started screaming "Pirate! Pirate!" before a judge, I'm pretty sure I would receive a lesson about the limitations of copyright. Just because both theft and infringement may carry penalties does not make them the same species of animal. Elephants and flies will both dump in your living room, but only one is likely to cause your neighbors to call the cops. only one is likely to |
| dinotrac May 03, 2006 3:39 AM EDT |
>No. The government recognizes that the land is yours, and protects your rights to it. It does NOT grant them. Land ownership existed before any government officially recognized it. Admittedly, it existed only in so far as the owner was able to enforce it himself; Sorry, but no. The government grants your right to the land. Land has not been universally recognized as ownable by individuals. "Ownership" that exists only because you are strong enough to keep others off isn't true ownership at all. When somebody bigger comes along, your "ownership" evaporates and you are out the door. You are absolutely right that a government that can grant rights can take them away. That's why we have a constitution to limit the powers of Congress, and that that's why it was so egregious when the Supreme Court (in a vote led by the liberals -- what the heck are labels coming to?) recognized the "right" of governments to steal individual land for private development. |
| dinotrac May 03, 2006 3:42 AM EDT |
Steve - Go back to my second comment. You'll note I put pirates in quotes. Hollywood calls it piracy. I don't. Theft, however, is word that has common meaning and covers a number of specific crimes ranging from burglary to armed robbery to Enron. |
| dinotrac May 03, 2006 3:45 AM EDT |
grouch - I omitted nothing. My discussion was limited to the rights granted within that monopoly. Fair use was not a part of the discussion because fair use does not infringe anybody's rights. Fair use is an exception to the legally granted monopoly. That is one of the problems with DMCA -- the anti-circumvention provision can be seen as an anti fair use provision. That's just plain wrong. It provides a technical means for copyright holders to take more than they are supposed to have. As to the rights copyright holders are legally entitled to have, I believe my comments are fair. |
| jdixon May 03, 2006 4:27 AM EDT |
dinotrac: > Sorry, but no. The government grants your right to the land. Land has not been universally recognized as ownable by individuals. Within the Unites States of America, it has. With all due respect, when it comes to the theory of law as laid down in our Constitution, you are completely wrong. The rights listed in the Constitution were recognized as pre-existing rights. The government was designed, not to grant those rights, but to recognize and maintain them. > "Ownership" that exists only because you are strong enough to keep others off isn't true ownership at all. But in reality, it's the only kind of ownership which actually exists, and probably the only kind which ever will. Just ask the residents of Palestine, the American Indians, or as both of us noted, the residents of New London. |
| dinotrac May 03, 2006 5:02 AM EDT |
jdixon - Our Constitution is a remarkable document. It is also a revolutionary document. Not all governments of that time - or even today - recognize those rights. You might, for instance, be a little frustrated sticking up for your property rights in North Korea. |
| sbergman27 May 03, 2006 6:40 AM EDT |
> Go back to my second comment. You'll note I put pirates in quotes. Hollywood calls it piracy. I don't. Yes, I know. But what I'm referring to is the BSA's use of the term piracy. That was the point of my original post and the only part I really care about defending. |
| sbergman27 May 03, 2006 6:55 AM EDT |
OK, so since this is kinda sorta on-topic here I figured I'd ask. I have a client that runs Linux terminals from a central Linux server. The stations are minimal Linux installs that just boot into an XDMCP login screen from the server. Each one of the machines came with XP home, but that was completely wiped during the Linux installation. A few of the users (a growing number, unfortunately) need to run XP home under VMWare. (The VMWare/XP is installed on the server and the remote users run it just like any other remote X app.) To be safe, and because I don't want MS coming in, threatening them with legal action and then "letting them off the hook" by cutting a multiyear Software Assurance deal with them and thereby wiping Linux off the face of their IT infrastructure, 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.) Is that overkill? Morally, I'd be fine with just one full license for the server; They've bought more machines with XP preinstalled that we immediately wiped than they have machines that we actually used as Windows boxes (and even those are running XDMCP ala Cygwin/X). But I'm unclear on what the minimum legal requirements actually are. |
| jdixon May 03, 2006 8:33 AM EDT |
Dinotrac: > Not all governments of that time - or even today - recognize those rights. Undeniably true. However, with respect to the United States, your earlier comments are still wrong. :) It, in theory at least, it does. You can either argue from a theoretical base, in which case the Constitution only codifies existing rights, or you can argue from a pragmatic base, in which case the only effective rights are those you can enforce yourself. Arguing that the government grants rights is a lost cause. The fact that the government cannot be trusted to grant right, or even to enforce them properly, is one of the reasons the second amendment is in the Constitution. However, (perhaps ironicly) with respect to copyright and patents, your argument that the government grants rights is correct. Copyrights and patents are a created right; they do not exist in nature. They are granted by the United States government "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". This only goes to show how different they are in nature from the natural rights our Constitution enshirnes, and how difficult comparisons of copyright infringment to theft and piracy actually are. While such comparisons can be valid, they are very much like comparing apples and oranges. Both are fruits, but they differ in many important areas. This is, of course, and as you pointed out, only true for the Unites States and it's Constitution. Other governments have different roots, and work completely differently, and a generalized discussion of those differences would be outside the scope of LX'er (not to mention that I have limited knowledge of other governments, nor the fact that it would probably bore the other participants in the conversation to tears). 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. :) |
| jdixon May 03, 2006 8:39 AM EDT |
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. |
| sbergman27 May 03, 2006 9:03 AM EDT |
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. |
| number6x May 03, 2006 9:10 AM EDT |
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. |
| dinotrac May 03, 2006 9:13 AM EDT |
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. |
| jimf May 03, 2006 9:30 AM EDT |
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... |
| dinotrac May 03, 2006 9:54 AM EDT |
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!) |
| jimf May 03, 2006 10:30 AM EDT |
"Somebody didn't want the government owning all the guns" So I guess the interpretation is selective... ya think? |
| dinotrac May 03, 2006 10:40 AM EDT |
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. |
| jimf May 03, 2006 10:52 AM EDT |
I'm not faulting the founders ;-). |
| jdixon May 03, 2006 11:55 AM EDT |
> 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. |
| grouch May 04, 2006 7:33 AM EDT |
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. |
| dinotrac May 04, 2006 8:20 AM EDT |
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. |
| grouch May 04, 2006 11:34 AM EDT |
dinotrac: Those are not exceptions to burglary and robbery. |
| dinotrac May 04, 2006 12:44 PM EDT |
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. |
| dcparris May 04, 2006 2:47 PM EDT |
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. ;-) |
| dinotrac May 04, 2006 3:33 PM EDT |
Rev - Don't blame tuxchick. Even though she is to blame. Oh yeah. It's tuxchick, all right. |
| grouch May 04, 2006 4:02 PM EDT |
Exactly. tuxchick is the culprit. There are witnesses. I have the feathers. Anyone have some tar? |
| grouch May 04, 2006 4:09 PM EDT |
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. |
| dinotrac May 04, 2006 5:56 PM EDT |
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. |
| sbergman27 May 04, 2006 6:00 PM EDT |
Grouch, cpio is better. :-) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!