Text 1758, 178 rader
Skriven 2006-06-16 12:28:03 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
   Kommentar till text 1748 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
Ärende: CopyRight Ownership Arguement
=====================================
Hello Roy.

15 Jun 06 15:00, you wrote to me:

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

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

They'd first have to figure out what the Dutch equivalent of a supeona is.
<BEG>

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

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

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

Well, I could dump windows explorer and use something else...

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

Has is not occurred to you that Microsoft has an interest in overplaying the
danger?

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

They have a vested interest in evryone upgrading....

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

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

Or so they say.

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

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

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

famous last words... No doubt ant case based on evidence gathered this way
would be dismissed out of hand in a Dutch court.

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

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

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

<shrug> "Nobody" here returns registration cards. It just generates unwanted
mail. My rights as a consumer do not depend on a registration. No judge here
will issue a search warrant becuase of a missing registration.

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

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

 RW> All software has design flaws.

And all software makers have an obligation to fix design flaws when they
emerge. For free during the epxected life time of the product.

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

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

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

I have no dealings with microsoft. I have dealings with the vendor that sold it
to me. I take it up with the vendor. he can take it up with Microsoft or find
another way to solve my problem.

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

 RW> Its your law...

True...

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

 MvdV>> Goodwill for one.

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

Goodwill is something they will need to survive in the long run.

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

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

I suspect the high cost of transport is the main deterrent.

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

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

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

Anyione registering his copy of Win98 *now* would be a fool. It is abandonware!

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

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

Throwing people in jail, eliminates them from the pool of potential customers.
Not a good marketing strategy...

 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
 MvdV>> asked - and get two copies of XP home for the price of one.

 RW> LOL! That's like giving amnesty and citizenship to illegal immigrants.

Which could be a better strategy in the long run then risking a revolt.

 RW> Why reward somebody for committing crimes?

To make some money of him of course.

Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)