Text 1786, 143 rader
Skriven 2006-06-16 22:14:01 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
   Kommentar till text 1779 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
Ärende: CopyRight Ownership Arguement
=====================================
Hello Roy.

16 Jun 06 13:08, you wrote to me:

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

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

 RW> I'm not sure which program they're talking about, Internet Explorer or
 RW> Windows Explorer. In one breath they say that the problem exists while
 RW> browsing the internet (with IE, I assume) and then talk about Windows
 RW> Explorer, which isn't a browser.

Looks like they either do not know what they are talking about themselves or
that they are just putting up a smoke screen.

 RW>>> force a connection to a remote file server, which in turn causes
 RW>>> Explorer to fail and potentially execute arbitrary code.

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

 RW> Better safe than sorry.

That of course iw what they hope people will think and then upgrade.

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

 MvdV>> They have a vested interest in everyone upgrading....

 RW> I had the chance to use a friend's an old laptop the other day that
 RW> had Win3.1 on it. I was certainly glad that mine came with W2k
 RW> installed on it.

Of course. I sure would prefer a laptop that came with win2k preinstalled.

But upgrading to win2k may not be an option. If that laptop has win 3.1 on it,
it is probably very old and will not run win2k.

My laptop has 50Mb of memory and a 1.5 Gig hard drive. It won't run win2k. And
I don't use it enough to make a new laptop a responsible investment. So I will
just see how far I get.

My main system will be upgraded soon.

 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.

 MvdV>> Or so they say.

 RW> Always the skeptic.

I am always skeptic when people who I know to have a vested interest give an
advice that seems to be to their advantage as well.

 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.

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

 RW> When you buy a new car, they automatically give you a warranty that
 RW> lasts a certain amount of time or mileage. When you buy it, you're
 RW> automatically entered into a database of customers.

Only if I want to and only for as far as I want.

 RW> When you finance  that car, your name is automatically entered into
 RW> yet another database for biling & collection purposes.

I have never financed a car. I always paid in full.

 RW> Should you renige on your financial agreement, they find your car by
 RW> using their database and come to your house to reposses it. I suppose
 RW> they'd be prosecuted and you'd get your car back, in a Dutch court.

Reposession by finance agants is illegal here. You need a court order for that.

 RW> Doubtful, since that is how many company's do business worldwide.

It is not all that difficult to collect on an unpaid debt here. Perhaps easier
than in the US because we have a mandated registration of residence. One can
not just pack up and disapear here. And of course if there is a provible debt,
the court will cooperate.

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

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

 RW> Giving up your warranty and any support you could get is stupid.

I am not giving up on warranty and support. The law has taken care of that. It
is the vendor that must take care of that and all I need is the receipt that
proves I bought the goods from him.

 RW>>> All software has design flaws.

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

 RW> But they will only do so for their registered customers.

Over here the law says different. They have to fix the design flaws for every
one who can show the product was legally bought. A receipt will do.

 RW> Everyone else is out in the cold, unless they feel like giving it
 RW> away.

Not here. Our consumer protection laws are quit good.

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

 RW> Yeah, he'll be happy to help you; where's your registration card?

All that is needed is the receipt that proves the product was sold by that
vendor.

Here the vendor - not the manufacturer - is responsable towards the client.


Michiel

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