Text 1748, 140 rader
Skriven 2006-06-15 15:00:22 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
   Kommentar till text 1738 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: CopyRight Ownership Arguement
=====================================
15 Jun 06 09:09, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:

 >>>>>> RW> They'll even go after unlicensed Windows 95/98 users,
 >>>>>> RW> even though they don't support that OS anymore.

 MvdV>>> Which is ridiculous.

 RW>> It's still their property, even if it's on your computer.

 MvdV> My computer resides on Dutch soil. I am a Dutch citizen, Dutch law
 MvdV> applies. Here posession is 90% of the ownership as they say.
 MvdV> Micirosoft will have to show a pretty good case to turn that 10%
 MvdV> into a 100%. Here one can not own what one can not control. Since
 MvdV> they dropped all support, they don't have much of a case I'd say.

I'd say that if MS pushed the matter, you would be running and ducking to
avoid the supeonas being served on you.

 RW>> As for 98, MS stopped supporting it today and there will be no help
 RW>> from them with updates and patches that used to keep the hackers
 RW>> from exploiting all of the flaws in its code. More later.

 MvdV> I am aware of that. I also have a good idea of how to keep hackers
 MvdV> out.

What about when you're browsing the internet? You can't keep everyone out,
as the announcement points out.

"Announced as part of April's security bulletins, a remote execution
vulnerability exists in Windows Explorer because of the way that it
handles COM objects. A malicious Web site could force a connection to a
remote file server, which in turn causes Explorer to fail and potentially
execute arbitrary code.

Microsoft says an attacker could take complete control of affected
operating systems in this manner. Patches correcting the flaw were issued
for Windows 2000, XP and Windows Server 2003, but the vulnerability
remains unpatched on Windows 9x based systems."

 MvdV>>> If *they* want the cooperation of local authorities in
 MvdV>>> prosecuting anyone, *they* would have to prove that the
 MvdV>>> information was gathered in a legal way...

 RW>> It's a very easy thing to do. As you know, there are people out
 RW>> there scanning domains all the time...

 MvdV> I am aware of that. The log of my web server shows dozens of such
 MvdV> attempts at intrusion every day. So?

Apparently this isn't the case as quoted above. It's much worse.

 RW>> all MS has to do is scan yours and then through any open port you
 RW>> may have (21, 110, 24554), they can write their own utility to make
 RW>> your system ID itself to them (that includes the registration
 RW>> number).

 MvdV> If they did that they would open themselves to some time in a Dutch
 MvdV> "guest house". It is "computervredebreuk", a criminal offence.

It's very doubtful that they'd be reprimanded for it.

 RW>> All they need to do is look at their registered user database and if
 RW>> that registration number is registered to you, you're off the hook.
 RW>> Otherwise, you're in the same boat with Felten.

 MvdV> I have not returned the registration card for my legally obtained
 MvdV> copy of Win98. I have not used the on-line registration either.
 MvdV> There is no need for me to do that, I enjoy all the benefits anyway
 MvdV> by Dutch law. Me not being in the Redmond data base, is not proof I
 MvdV> use an illegally obtained copy.

True to a point. OTH, not being in their database makes your motives
suspect.

 RW>> Microsoft gives away free patches and updates to their OS software
 RW>> all the time. You (not literally) only have to pay for it once and
 RW>> then they support it for many years thereafter.

 MvdV> They have little choice. If they had not provided free patches to
 MvdV> fix the mess thay made, they would have to face consumer
 MvdV> organisations all over the world suing for damages for selling a
 MvdV> product with design flaws.

All software has design flaws.

 RW>>  Win98 has been around for 9 years now.

 MvdV> Then they may still be in trouble. Dutch law requires support for a
 MvdV> minumum of ten years on sold goods. Availability of spare parts,
 MvdV> etc, etc. Though of course it does not have to be for free if the
 MvdV> defects are a result of normal waer and tare.

Well then, you should get on the band wagon and report them for abandoning
your unregistered, perhaps pirated software.

 MvdV> Now what is wear and tare on a coputer programme> An interesting
 MvdV> question..

Its your law...

 RW>> So, if you've got a pirated copy of a MS OS on your PC, what has MS
 RW>> lost by prosecuting you?

 MvdV> Goodwill for one.

So goodwill is something they're required to give to people who've stolen
their software?

 MvdV> The little that is left. Their offensive marketing strategies have
 MvdV> already lost them a great deal of goodwill.

Hmmm, maybe that's why uropeon products don't sell very well in this
country. Especially French wine.

 RW>> You weren't supporting them by buying their products anyway.

 MvdV> Someone using a copy of their abandonware is a potential customer
 MvdV> for their new products.

And they'd be happy to accomodate you, when you register your old
software.

 MvdV>  Antagonising potential customers by dragging them into court is
 MvdV> not a good marketing strategy.

Like I said, you weren't supporting them anyway. No reason to give you
amnesty when you've ripped them off.

 MvdV> A better, more customer friendly - and probably also more
 MvdV> profitable - approach would be to offer them a discount on an
 MvdV> upgrade Turn in your copy of Win85 or Win98 - no questions asked -
 MvdV> and get two copies of XP home for the price of one.

LOL! That's like giving amnesty and citizenship to illegal immigrants. Why
reward somebody for committing crimes?


Roy
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: Hacienda de Rio de Guadalupe * South * Texas, USA * (1:1/22)