OT: The Intellectual Property Farce

[John Doe]

Every one else in the world, outside of America, gets all the free
Microsoft software, Hollywood movies, and Recording Industry Association of
America (RIAA) music they can grab. Free for the taking.

Citizens in Asia buy Microsoft's Windows and Office software for a total of
$45 now from Microsoft. Governments around the world are allowed to view
Microsoft's source code.

Reading about the European Union antitrust case against Microsoft. They
want Microsoft to disclose more of its source code to its application
producing rivals. Naturally they do, just like other countries. Now imagine
Microsoft selling open source Windows outside of America with this End User
License Agreement.

"You may not sell, transfer, or in any way disclose Windows source code to
anyone in America ..."

That's where we are heading. Either that, or we conquer the world, Eh?

 

[kurttrail]

Every one else in the world, outside of America, gets all the free
Microsoft software, Hollywood movies, and Recording Industry
Association of America (RIAA) music they can grab. Free for the
taking.

Citizens in Asia buy Microsoft's Windows and Office software for a
total of $45 now from Microsoft. Governments around the world are
allowed to view Microsoft's source code.

Reading about the European Union antitrust case against Microsoft.
They want Microsoft to disclose more of its source code to its
application producing rivals. Naturally they do, just like other
countries. Now imagine Microsoft selling open source Windows outside
of America with this End User License Agreement.

"You may not sell, transfer, or in any way disclose Windows source
code to anyone in America ..."

That's where we are heading. Either that, or we conquer the world, Eh?

Since, according to MS, you can't even share the effin' software with
yourself, what's the big deal?

The real farce is calling "Copyrighted Material" "Intellectual
Property." US Copyright Law goes out of it's way to say that Copyright
is NOT property!

"Section 202. - Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of
material object - Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive
rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material
object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any
material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is
first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted
work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does
transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a
copyright convey property rights in any material object." -
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/202.html

The farce is thinking that the realm of ideas is real property to be
bought and sold for the sole purpose of enriching the Copyright holder.

"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

--
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!"

 

[Sugapablo]

Sugapablo: Buys organic produce, cloth diapers, and uses Linux!

Anyone who spends a dime on MS must never bitch about corporate greed,
inequality, or injustice. For those who purchase MS products contribute
to all that is wrong in the world today (from a business standpoint).

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

[snip]

"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

But what we have is the 'Mickey Mouse' extension to the terms of
copyright.
The Disney corporation fights to keep Mickey out of the public domain by
continually lobbying for the extension of its copyright. In effect, they
are achieving ownership in perpetuity, one step at a time. This is
contrary to the intent of the original law. No matter how many
extensions are granted, its highly unlikely that Walt will be encouraged
to climb out of his grave and create any new materiel. If we want to
create an incentive for creation, it should be by insisting on a firm
sunset date to these property rights. In this way Disney Inc. will
either have to create new materiel or go out of business.

Same thing holds true for Microsoft. If there was no threat to their
product line by Apple and various versions of unix, we'd all still be
staring at a C:\> prompt from command.com a hundred years from now. A
Mickey Mouse o/s.

 

[John Doe]

John Doe wrote:

The real farce is calling "Copyrighted Material" "Intellectual
Property." US Copyright Law goes out of it's way to say that Copyright
is NOT property!

That's not what it says. It is talking about the record/CD/whatever, a
physical object, and the music/whatever which is on that record. Selling
the physical record does not transfer the copyright. Naturally.

"Section 202. - Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of
material object - Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive
rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material
object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any
material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is
first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted
work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does
transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a
copyright convey property rights in any material object." -
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/202.html

The farce is thinking that the realm of ideas is real property to be
bought and sold for the sole purpose of enriching the Copyright holder.

The general idea behind copyright law is pretty easy for me to understand.
The main thrust is to prevent piracy. Piracy being obvious when you take a
copyrighted CD, make a bunch of copies, and distribute them (or when you
distribute the same copyrighted electronic file).

My point which you totally avoided is that everyone else in the world is
splashing around the broken off fire hydrant while those of us in
"civilized" countries are prohibited from taking a sip. I don't see any
solution.

<snip>

 

[Mike Brearley]

Same thing holds true for Microsoft. If there was no threat to their
product line by Apple and various versions of unix, we'd all still be
staring at a C:\> prompt from command.com a hundred years from now. A
Mickey Mouse o/s.

<snip>

I disagree with this. Mircosoft would have developed the same line of OS's
even if they had no competition. Unix and Apple didn't drive them to get
away from DOS, the limitations of DOS drove them away from it. I would
agree that MS might not have moved as quickly as they had, but they would
have moved none-the-less. What's driven the new line of Operating Systems
is newer technology, faster processors, better video cards, etc... not
competition.

--
Posted 'as is'. If there are any spelling and/or grammar mistakes, they
were a direct result of my fingers and brain not being synchronized or my
lack of caffeine.

Mike Brearley

 

[Ian Merrithew]

The real farce is calling "Copyrighted Material" "Intellectual
Property." US Copyright Law goes out of it's way to say that Copyright
is NOT property!

Exactly. The growing use of the term "Intellectual Property" is nothing
more than a FUD-creator by big-money copyright holders to try & exert
more control over their works then they're otherwise entitled to. Sadly,
too many governments (in particular the one down south of the 49th) seem
too beholden to their corporate masters too often to call them on it.

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

<snip>

I disagree with this. Mircosoft would have developed the same line of OS's
even if they had no competition. Unix and Apple didn't drive them to get
away from DOS, the limitations of DOS drove them away from it.

Then explain why the limitations of their current offerings aren't
driving them to create replacements? Microsoft had an opportunity to
choose between a stable O/S core and a GUI slapped on top of a piece of
crap back when they dropped OS2 and went with their Windows offering.

I would
agree that MS might not have moved as quickly as they had, but they would
have moved none-the-less. What's driven the new line of Operating Systems
is newer technology, faster processors, better video cards, etc... not
competition.

Its the other way around. What drove better hardware was bloated
software. I know a few people who still run their business applications
on 386 hardware and DOS. It works fine, and pretty fast too. Nobody buys
more hardware than what their applications demand.

 

[John Doe]

Then explain why the limitations of their current offerings aren't
driving them to create replacements? Microsoft had an opportunity to
choose between a stable O/S core and a GUI slapped on top of a piece
of crap back when they dropped OS2 and went with their Windows
offering.

Compatibility? They wanted to obtain/maintain a monopoly (that applies at
least when they were moving from 3.1 to 95).

Its the other way around. What drove better hardware was bloated
software. I know a few people who still run their business
applications on 386 hardware and DOS. It works fine, and pretty fast
too. Nobody buys more hardware than what their applications demand.

I think it's both ways. In my ideal vision of computing, there should be no
pause between when I press the "do it" button and when it gets done. I
didn't tell it to take any time, I told it to do it. Even state of the art
hardware doesn't meet that demand using a typical application, definitely
not using Computer Aided Design or any other complex application.

Another motive I consider from time to time is that Microsoft
management/employees actually use Windows, so they make this stuff for
themselves. That motive should help me understand what they are up to. If
they (and their children gamers) weren't personally unhappy with 9x, we
might have gotten XP later. Pleasing them and theirs is also a motive for
the multimedia stuff in Windows. Oddly, Microsoft has stopped making
gamepads and joysticks.

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Compatibility? They wanted to obtain/maintain a monopoly (that applies at
least when they were moving from 3.1 to 95).

DOS compatibility wasn't much different between OS2 and Windows.

They reacted to the market (rather than innovating). The problem with
reacting is that the first product to market stands a chance of choosing
an optimal solution. Those following must either copy or select
something that might be suboptimal, particularly if your marketing
department insists on locking customers in with incompatibility.
Analogy: The first wheel was round. If it was invented today, by Apple,
Microsoft would be selling square wheels.

So maybe 'compatibility' is their motivation. They want to eliminate
it.

I think it's both ways. In my ideal vision of computing, there should be no
pause between when I press the "do it" button and when it gets done. I
didn't tell it to take any time, I told it to do it. Even state of the art
hardware doesn't meet that demand using a typical application, definitely
not using Computer Aided Design or any other complex application.

But a 25Mhz 386 running a simple DOS spreadsheet, or a 266 Mhz system
running that spreadsheet in dosemu on Linux blows a 1 GHz system running
Windows/Office 2000 right out of the water. We've been trading down in
speed for the basic applications.

Even with the processing intensive multimedia apps we have today, lower
hardware speeds would suffice if the O/S didn't have to carry around all
the extra baggage.
And run hackers' trojan programs in the background as well.

Another motive I consider from time to time is that Microsoft
management/employees actually use Windows, so they make this stuff for
themselves. That motive should help me understand what they are up to. If
they (and their children gamers) weren't personally unhappy with 9x, we
might have gotten XP later. Pleasing them and theirs is also a motive for
the multimedia stuff in Windows. Oddly, Microsoft has stopped making
gamepads and joysticks.

Maybe. This is another reason I don't like Microsoft products. I use
mainly engineering and business applications. From a business
standpoint, I don't like to upgrade systems just because someone else
wants support for the latest video games. Granted, faster hardware helps
quite a bit with engineering apps. But not if a proprietary API was
optimized for the entertainment market. I don't expect a mass market
producer to satisfy such specialized applications. I just don't want
them to drive everyone else out of business who might otherwise satisfy
niche markets.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto[email protected]
note to spammers: a Washington State resident
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Big business never pays a nickel in taxes, according to Ralph Nader,
who
represents a big consumer organization that never pays a nickel in
taxes."
-- Dave Barry

 

[Mike Brearley]

But a 25Mhz 386 running a simple DOS spreadsheet, or a 266 Mhz system
running that spreadsheet in dosemu on Linux blows a 1 GHz system running
Windows/Office 2000 right out of the water. We've been trading down in
speed for the basic applications.

Even with the processing intensive multimedia apps we have today, lower
hardware speeds would suffice if the O/S didn't have to carry around all
the extra baggage.
And run hackers' trojan programs in the background as well.

Hmm... let's compare the capabilities of the spreadsheet program you're
running on that 25MHz system compared to Microsoft Excel. I think that
Excel is just a wee bit more advanced. Oh, and just because you don't use a
feature that's in Excel, doesn't mean that no one does. Now we'll probably
hear that it should be an option, not built into it. In that case there
would be over 1000 add in products that would cost $25 each. Yeah, that's
good for business and the end users, NOT!!

Maybe. This is another reason I don't like Microsoft products. I use
mainly engineering and business applications. From a business
standpoint, I don't like to upgrade systems just because someone else
wants support for the latest video games. Granted, faster hardware helps
quite a bit with engineering apps.

So now your engineering apps are being isolated away from Microsoft Apps.
Just because they are made by someone else you think that it's ok that more
muscle behind the machine to run them is ok. What a hipocrite.

But not if a proprietary API was
optimized for the entertainment market. I don't expect a mass market
producer to satisfy such specialized applications. I just don't want
them to drive everyone else out of business who might otherwise satisfy
niche markets.

--

<snip>

Microsoft makes their applications based on what we, the consumers, want.
Face the facts, you're in the minority here. If you voiced the opinions of
the majority, then Microsoft wouldn't be putting so much into their
applications. You had also stated that the newer apps are driving the
hardware companies to make faster hardware. So, AMD isn't driving Intel to
make faster processors; GeForce isn't driving ATI to make faster video
cards? It's the competition between hardware manufacturers that's driving
the creation of faster machines.

--
Posted 'as is'. If there are any spelling and/or grammar mistakes, they
were a direct result of my fingers and brain not being synchronized or my
lack of caffeine.

Mike Brearley

 

[John Doe]

"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <[email protected]> wrote in message

Oh, and just because you don't use a
feature that's in Excel, doesn't mean that no one does. Now we'll
probably hear that it should be an option, not built into it. In that
case there would be over 1000 add in products that would cost $25
each.

The usual argument is that Windows shouldn't contian applications which do
in fact bloat the operating system.

More likely the additional applications would be innexpensive and much
higher quality since vendors would compete against each other. That
includes office applications which aren't bundled but are slipstreamed into
Windows. Microsoft uses both its monopolies, Windows and Office to maintain
each other.

So now your engineering apps are being isolated away from Microsoft
Apps. Just because they are made by someone else you think that it's
ok that more muscle behind the machine to run them is ok. What a
hipocrite.

I think the point remains the same. The muscle shouldn't be required unless
the user wants to use which require it.

Most Microsoft management/employees use state of the art hardware, and they
don't notice the drag Windows puts on a typical or low end system.

Microsoft makes their applications based on what we, the consumers, want.

More likely what Microsoft management/employees want, since Microsoft has a
strangle hold on the desktop operating system and office
applications market.

Face the facts,

Facts from the federal district court of the United States.

"Microsoft possesses monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible
PC operating systems."

Facts from the federal appeals court of the United States.

"... we uphold the District Court's finding of monopoly power in its
entirety."

If you voiced the opinions of the majority, then Microsoft wouldn't be
putting so much into their applications.

If you had much under the hood experience with Windows, you might realize
how sloppy it really is. But I think the big antitrust case helped inject
some life into Microsoft.

You had also stated that the newer apps are driving the
hardware companies to make faster hardware. So, AMD isn't driving
Intel to make faster processors; GeForce isn't driving ATI to make
faster video cards? It's the competition between hardware
manufacturers that's driving the creation of faster machines.

Currently, we are talking about what drives the monopoly holder to
modernize its products. Microsoft prevents competition thru an applications
barrier to entry, as the courts have made perfectly clear. That's why they
use the term "monopoly power."

Here is what the positive feedback loop is about.

.... Software developers write for (Windows) the most popular platform
because they want to make money.
.... Consumers buy (Intel based) personal computers which offer the most
applications because they want to do things.
.... The loop keeps Windows' popularity at the upper limit.
.... Microsoft begins sitting on its monopoly and software developers
realize they're in a Microsoft maelstrom, but the loop maintains Windows
market share through lack of popular coordination and prohibitive costs
to replace entire software systems.

That's why Windows is popular, not by choice.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

WHAT "monopolies?" There are several alternative operating
systems available for people to choose from, just as there are many
productivity applications and suites available.


Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH




Snipped....

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Hmm... let's compare the capabilities of the spreadsheet program you're
running on that 25MHz system compared to Microsoft Excel. I think that
Excel is just a wee bit more advanced.

Not noticably. In fact, if you look at Excel, you'll find that most of
its 'capabilities' come bundled as components of the O/S, not native to
the application. By the time you have a workable app. you've loaded
dozens of system libraries, together with their resource overheads.

Lets see, what can't I do with my DOS spreadsheet. Receive embedded
scripts that can wreak havoc with my system (I can still attach scripts,
just not viral ones) and click on File | Send and e-mail a couple of
megabytes of crap to my company's global distribution list.

Oh, and just because you don't use a
feature that's in Excel, doesn't mean that no one does. Now we'll probably
hear that it should be an option, not built into it. In that case there
would be over 1000 add in products that would cost $25 each. Yeah, that's
good for business and the end users, NOT!!


So now your engineering apps are being isolated away from Microsoft Apps.
Just because they are made by someone else you think that it's ok that more
muscle behind the machine to run them is ok. What a hipocrite.

Getting back to my original argument: I don't need to upgrade my system
unless my application demands it. And it takes more system resources to
run the same app in Windows at the same level of performance it does on
a DOS or Linux system. If I do decide to pay for more hardware, I want
it running my application, not dragging around a lot of exteraneous
crap. No chance of my rebuilding the Windows kernel with all the extras
turned off, is there?

<snip>

Microsoft makes their applications based on what we, the consumers, want.
Face the facts, you're in the minority here. If you voiced the opinions of
the majority, then Microsoft wouldn't be putting so much into their
applications. You had also stated that the newer apps are driving the
hardware companies to make faster hardware. So, AMD isn't driving Intel to
make faster processors; GeForce isn't driving ATI to make faster video
cards? It's the competition between hardware manufacturers that's driving
the creation of faster machines.

It sure would be nice if we could get the full use of all that
performance out of the hardware we just paid for. Instead of having to
upgrade just to accomodate a resource hog.

 

[T. Max Devlin]

In alt.destroy.microsoft, I heard Sugapablo say:

Sugapablo: Buys organic produce, cloth diapers, and uses Linux!

Anyone who spends a dime on MS must never bitch about corporate greed,
inequality, or injustice. For those who purchase MS products contribute
to all that is wrong in the world today (from a business standpoint).

I can't understand how blaming the victim helps. I haven't purchased any MS
products in about eight years. If I spent a thousand bucks a month on MS
software, though, it sure as hell wouldn't mean I "must never bitch about
corporate greed, inequality, or injustice". The more I think about it, the
more stupid that sounds.

 

[T. Max Devlin]

In alt.destroy.microsoft, I heard John Doe say:

That's not what it says. It is talking about the record/CD/whatever, a
physical object, and the music/whatever which is on that record. Selling
the physical record does not transfer the copyright. Naturally.


The general idea behind copyright law is pretty easy for me to understand.
The main thrust is to prevent piracy. Piracy being obvious when you take a
copyrighted CD, make a bunch of copies, and distribute them (or when you
distribute the same copyrighted electronic file).

My point which you totally avoided is that everyone else in the world is
splashing around the broken off fire hydrant while those of us in
"civilized" countries are prohibited from taking a sip. I don't see any
solution.

I thought you made a pretty good point.

As for the solution, I see it this way: record companies just want to keep
their prices high even though the cost of distribution has disappeared
completely. 'Amateur' piracy a la filesharing may be actionable because it is
infringement, (this hasn't actually been tested yet, but may be soon) but it
isn't stealing. Did you know that most record companies don't even pay the
artists for all the copies they make and sell? A typical artist contract only
pays out when the record has sold far more than even the popular ones do.
Musicians make money performing and on merchandise, usually.

How could it be infringement to share a song file over the Internet if the
song has already been used in a TV commercial?

 

[Danny Mingledorff]

In alt.destroy.microsoft, I heard John Doe say:

I thought you made a pretty good point.

As for the solution, I see it this way: record companies just want to keep
their prices high even though the cost of distribution has disappeared
completely. 'Amateur' piracy a la filesharing may be actionable because it is
infringement, (this hasn't actually been tested yet, but may be soon) but it
isn't stealing. Did you know that most record companies don't even pay the
artists for all the copies they make and sell? A typical artist contract only
pays out when the record has sold far more than even the popular ones do.
Musicians make money performing and on merchandise, usually.

How could it be infringement to share a song file over the Internet if the
song has already been used in a TV commercial?



--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***

In the case of a song being used in a TV commercial, fees have been paid for
the right to use the song in that commercial.

 

[T. Max Devlin]

In alt.destroy.microsoft, I heard Danny Mingledorff say:

In the case of a song being used in a TV commercial, fees have been paid for
the right to use the song in that commercial.

Well, duh. And the crass commercialization has already removed any artistic
claims of value to it.

 

[Phil Da Lick!]

artists for all the copies they make and sell? A typical artist contract only
pays out when the record has sold far more than even the popular ones do.
Musicians make money performing and on merchandise, usually.

and to cap it all off the recording company passes the costs of producing
the music video onto the artists themselves, thus guaranteeing themselves a
sizeable chunk of the revenue from the first tour at least.

How could it be infringement to share a song file over the Internet if the
song has already been used in a TV commercial?

using a song in a tv commercial is usually done by paying royalties - no
ownership is transferred they have paid for the right to use the song. in
the eyes of the record companies anyone else who wants to listen to the song
must also pay.

copyright law basically sucks. although it does offer a measure of
protection to the original artists the big companies are exploiting the crap
out of it.

 

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

[snip]

using a song in a tv commercial is usually done by paying royalties - no
ownership is transferred they have paid for the right to use the song. in
the eyes of the record companies anyone else who wants to listen to the song
must also pay.

copyright law basically sucks. although it does offer a measure of
protection to the original artists the big companies are exploiting the crap
out of it.

Copyright law isn't so bad. Its the contracts that the record companies
insist on that screw over the artists. What do you suppose would happen
if the artists asked for the same terms for their work that the record
companies turn around and request from advertisers? In other words, if
the artists maintained control of their copyrights, only granting
exclusive license to the record companies to market their product for
some fixed period of time. Say, for 1 or 5 years?