By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord &
Saviour. Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for
ever and ever! Amen!"
Gary said:
They aren't greedy, they are protecting their interests. People like
are the greedy ones, tying to get something for more than you put in.
"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like
the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a
balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is
to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately
serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature,
music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is
to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the
ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for
the general public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and
the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said,
'lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
authors' . . . . When technological change has rendered its literal
terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this
basic purpose." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html
MS has nearly $52 Billion in cash reserves. In spite of fact that
almost all of their non-software businesses are losing money. On top of
all the legal settlements for Anti-trust abuse, and copyright & patent
infringement! Not to mention the losses due to the organized crime
software piracy rings operating in many Asian countries that have weak
or nearly non-existent copyright laws and/or enforcement. Can anyone
one argue, with a straight face, that MS hasn't gotten a "fair return"
for the creative labor of it's employees? So is there any reasonable
argument that MS's One Computer EULA term in keeping with the 'primary
object" of Copyright which lies "in the general benefits derived by the
public from the labors of authors?"
Now, not one indivdual has ever been sued in the US, let alone lost a
suit, for installing a legally purchased retail copy of software on more
than one computer! So, on the available evidence & taking account of
"ultimate aim" of copyright, who really looks like they are getting more
than they put in, MS or MS's paying customers?
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"
