| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Rasco
Advanced Member
Germany
3192 Posts |
 Posted - 18 October 2002 : 11:58:36
|
Unbelievable. Will talk with some politician friends here about it.
Is it true, that Peru tried to dictate by law the use of open source software and Microsoft intervened about it?
|
German Snitz Forum
|
 |
|
|
Deleted
deleted
4116 Posts |
|
|
work mule
Senior Member
USA
1358 Posts |
Posted - 18 October 2002 : 14:01:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by davemaxwell
(I'm not sure if it's this law or another one, but there is one that will allow media agencies to break into your home PC to remove items they feel are kept illegally).
I haven't read actually read the details, but my first question is how do they have the right to break into your home PC because they "think" you have illegal items. Yet law enforcement has to go in front of a judge with evidence in order to get a warrant to do the same.
My impression is that they're giving the media/software companies more authority than law enforcement. Who's going to regulate or watch over the media companies? It all stinks in my opinion.
Then there's that new chip that Intel and Microsoft are pushing - Palladium.
Who appointed Microsoft to be the software police? |
|
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20584 Posts |
Posted - 18 October 2002 : 14:12:15
|
quote:
Then there's that new chip that Intel and Microsoft are pushing - Palladium.
This is the same thing. |
|
|
|
davemaxwell
Access 2000 Support Moderator
USA
3020 Posts |
Posted - 18 October 2002 : 16:05:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by work mule
quote:
Originally posted by davemaxwell
(I'm not sure if it's this law or another one, but there is one that will allow media agencies to break into your home PC to remove items they feel are kept illegally).
I haven't read actually read the details, but my first question is how do they have the right to break into your home PC because they "think" you have illegal items. Yet law enforcement has to go in front of a judge with evidence in order to get a warrant to do the same.
My impression is that they're giving the media/software companies more authority than law enforcement. Who's going to regulate or watch over the media companies? It all stinks in my opinion.
Essentially, you've got the gyst of it. They will basically be allowing media companies to do what they have been arresting hackers for all these years....
It does stink. Stinks of high money being passed around by the big corporations. Plus the ridiculousness of copyright law nowadays. Giving rights for 150 years AFTER someone dies? Come on.... |
Dave Maxwell
Barbershop Harmony Freak |
|
|
|
Deleted
deleted
4116 Posts |
Posted - 18 October 2002 : 19:25:02
|
There is an international free market at least. These stuff will make a new marked to be born. This is the algorithm:
while people don't say a real NO do
Other/new companies will start to produce non-signed hardware;
there is GPL software (everything you can think of, they even need much less resources),
people will start to buy these,
big companies will be more angry,
they'll force the governments for new laws stating that
everyone must eat one McDonalds,
drink one Coke,
but Intel only,
etc;
force these companies, buy them as a whole,
send people to jail, even torture
if done then exit loop
loop
This will happen until we say a real NO.
|
 Stop the WAR! |
|
|
|
work mule
Senior Member
USA
1358 Posts |
Posted - 18 October 2002 : 19:42:02
|
quote:
I haven't read actually read the details, but my first question is how do they have the right to break into your home PC because they "think" you have illegal items. Yet law enforcement has to go in front of a judge with evidence in order to get a warrant to do the same.
You clicked through the EULA that lets them
I'm not sure how to say this right, but those EULA are crap. It gives Microsoft tons of rights and none to the user. EULA's basically say, if you misuse our software we can come back and get you and screw you over for everything your worth and then some. But, if our software doesn't work or screws up your system, we are free from all blame.
If money wasn't an issue, I think a truly unbiased court would rule that as being illegal. I either accept the EULA in order to use my computer or not accept it and have a giant paperweight (Yeah, I know there's Linux and all...). Just because you sign or agree to something, doesn't mean that it's legally binding if it's in violation of a consumer's rights.
I don't have anything against the products that Microsoft puts out. I think they're great. It's their policies and their licensing agreements that I don't like. |
|
|
|
Doug G
Support Moderator
USA
6493 Posts |
Posted - 18 October 2002 : 20:27:07
|
quote:
I'm not sure how to say this right, but those EULA are crap.
Microsoft has their license, the make you read it to install their software, so if you don't like the license don't agree to it and don't use their software. If you agree to something but you feel that you don't have to abide by your agreement, what kind of agreement is that?
You're rights are only violated if you accept things you shouldn't accept (one of my favorite sayings "You get what you accept"). If you purchase software and install it, and accept the license while disagreeing with it's provisions, you are not helping to get the license changed, in fact you are actively helping to perpetuate the terms of the existing license.
$0000000000000000000.02
|
======
Doug G
======
Computer history and help at www.dougscode.com |
|
|
|
Reinsnitz
Snitz Forums Admin
USA
3545 Posts |
Posted - 19 October 2002 : 00:42:00
|
hehe... the US is different from the UK and any other country when it comes to the free market guys...
Microsoft is a good thing... realy... sometimes they get a little slap happy, but all in all the are a good solid american born business... they are working to be the best company that they can be... and money helps.
The government of the United States can't dictate that one company be any sole manufacturer or supplier... it's against our laws in the US for a real monopoly to exist... in the free market anyhow... and the whole Microsoft thing is an issue being worked on... that is one reason why Linux is flying higher every day... etc etc...
but just caus MS is big doesn't mean it is bad... I mean... look at these forums... the bigger we get here... the more hackers that are trying to get into it... same thing with MS... just a million times bigger... every hacker in the world is bashing into them... not just a couple like here. Linux is safer becaus most of the hackers are on geting into Microsoft... not into Linux... if they were... Linux would not last very long :) Especialy considering the opensource nature of the product :) |
Reinsnitz (Mike) |
|
|
|
sy
Average Member
United Kingdom
638 Posts |
Posted - 19 October 2002 : 07:32:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by work mule
quote:
I haven't read actually read the details, but my first question is how do they have the right to break into your home PC because they "think" you have illegal items. Yet law enforcement has to go in front of a judge with evidence in order to get a warrant to do the same.
You clicked through the EULA that lets them
I'm not sure how to say this right, but those EULA are crap. It gives Microsoft tons of rights and none to the user. EULA's basically say, if you misuse our software we can come back and get you and screw you over for everything your worth and then some. But, if our software doesn't work or screws up your system, we are free from all blame.
If money wasn't an issue, I think a truly unbiased court would rule that as being illegal. I either accept the EULA in order to use my computer or not accept it and have a giant paperweight (Yeah, I know there's Linux and all...). Just because you sign or agree to something, doesn't mean that it's legally binding if it's in violation of a consumer's rights.
I don't have anything against the products that Microsoft puts out. I think they're great. It's their policies and their licensing agreements that I don't like.
Sorry all, I removed the post mentioned in WorkMules reply because I thought it was a bit too critical of Microsoft and that isn't really what the topic is about (although they are part of it).
As others have said, the EULA is pretty much bunk IMHO, there are lots of things that prevent click through licences being held in high regard, they don't apply to some countries, they can't be entered into by a minor, you can't access the software until you break the seal on the jewel case e.t.c, e.t.c.
I agree that it prolly wouldn't hold up in a court, but am also unaware of it ever being put to the test.
|
The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails
|
|
|
|
work mule
Senior Member
USA
1358 Posts |
Posted - 19 October 2002 : 12:22:20
|
National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG)
http://www.naag.org/
NAAG Projects: Consumer Protection
http://www.naag.org/issues/issue-consumer.php
NAAG Projects: Antitrust
http://www.naag.org/issues/issue-antitrust.php
The Task Force has coordinated a number of multistate antitrust actions, including actions against the pharmaceutical manufacturers of Buspar,® Cardizem®, Hytrin® and Taxol.®; Microsoft Corporation; and major recorded music distributors for alleged price-fixing of CDs.
Microsoft Antitrust Case Documents
http://www.naag.org/issues/microsoft/index.php
FTC: Consumer Protection: Products & Services
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/menu-prod.htm
Give it time, they'll get them. 
A lot of other industries are regulated. If it weren't for regulation of the long distance carriers, the consumer would be getting screwed. Same applies to oil, banking, cable, etc. There's only a handful of companies which provide services which we all rely upon. Without regulation, companies could set whatever terms they wanted to and the consumer would have no choice in the matter because they need to use the services/products of these companies. I think software falls into that category. Quite a lot of businesses need software products to compete.
Should the software industry be regulated? Maybe. It's not really a discussion I want to get into. However, if a company like Microsoft starts controlling what I can install on my computer, tracks and records what I'm using, what I'm listening to - basically monitors and has access to everything I'm doing - then someone needs to start regulating Microsoft. That is just way to much control or information on a consumer for a single company to have. Look at all the regulations the government has to comply with in regards to handling personal information.
The World's Billionaires
http://www.forbes.com/2002/02/28/billionaires.html
1. Gates, William H III -- Net Worth: $52.8 bil
4. Allen, Paul G -- Net Worth: $25.2 bil (Microsoft co-founder and Vulcan Ventures founder)
5. Ellison, Lawrence J -- Net Worth: $23.5 bil (Founder of Oracle Corp)
Three of the people listed in the Top 5 are in the software industry. Good for them. The fact that all three were "self-made" billionaires are examples of how people who started with nothing were able to work hard and be successful. But this makes you wonder, where did all that money come from? 
|
|
|
|
Reinsnitz
Snitz Forums Admin
USA
3545 Posts |
Posted - 19 October 2002 : 19:47:41
|
I wouldn't say that...
If the market was not regulated, we would have a lot more options :)
For instance... our cable company here offers Phone service over the cable line... options like this would help to drive prices down... The industry would be forced to figure out how to offer the same services for less money (Modernization and improving on old technology) rather than stagnating on 50 year old ideas and technology that are regulated by the Federal Government.
Think about it... it's true. |
Reinsnitz (Mike) |
|
|
|
James
Average Member
USA
539 Posts |
Posted - 20 October 2002 : 00:11:06
|
Regulation can be a good or a bad thing. Look at the natural gas situation to see where it was a good thing. Deregulation was suppose to allow for competition and bring prices down. Instead, the first couple years prices jumped between 300% and 1000% more depending on which market you live in (in the U.S.). Now as for software, I think regulation would be a bad thing. There are already laws on the books which cover almost any instance of legal problems with software (piracy, monopolies, etc.). The last thing we need is the government to get involved with regulation and decide what paths futher software may follow.
As for software and hardware companies inserting codes or hardware to track or identify your machine/software/hardware, I think that we need to apply some privacy laws and other everday laws to the digital world. Just as it is unlawful for a company to walk into my house without my permission to check what I'm doing with their product, the same should apply to my computer. It's hard to enforce though as loop-holes are everywhere. Look at Cable TV. It's against the law in the US for cable companies to monitor what you are watching. However, they get around this because the law allows them to search for those stealing services, etc. through their network. |
*Interested in Radio Control*
*The RC Web Board - http://www.rcwebboard.com/* |
|
|
|
MichaelA
Junior Member
USA
222 Posts |
Posted - 22 October 2002 : 07:59:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by HuwR
Microsofts sole purpose of existance is to accomplish world domination of the computer market, it does this using aggressive marketting and buyouts, ...
I'm getting old and may have missed a change in our country's way of doing things, but isn't that capitalism? I used to be a full fledged MS fan but I have changed along the way. MS has been too brazed lately. BUT, as long as it is NOT ILLEGAL, it is fair. Would you start a business and just let your competition run all over you? Why doesn't the competition make better products? I'm willing to bet the competition does the same things (Oracle in Calif).
I fully agree that MS should be challenged in the courts to be sure they stay in line. In recent years they have purposefully walked on the line instead of next to it. But when your competition uses the courts to hurt a company (as Oracle, Novell, and SUN have done, and they COULD stand up to MS if they wished to!), that is also wrong.
I could go on and on about how the big guys are taking their eyes off of MS and looking at Bill Gates and his money. Look at the old Borland. It continously gave MS a trouncing when it came to computer languages. It was the best - until Phillipe lost sight of MS itself. He started competing with Bill. He built big buildings and used Borland money to promote things other than Borland. Look at Novell. What a nerve to complain about MS being a monopoly! They owned about 70% of the network market! MS couldn't do network if its life depended upon it. Same for database. They had to buy companies to learn what to do. Nothing wrong with that. Other companies have bought out competition or companies with greater knowledge in certain areas. I'll stopo on this line now as hopefully you will understand my feelings by now.
quote:
... it is not the best thing for you the user
FULLY AGREE! The user is getting pinched in these games ALL the companies are playing. We aren't paying for software anymore; we are paying for legal and lobbying fees.
And here is where the consumer fails because we go with the flow. Speak with your money. No court rulings, no fighting, NOTHING will speak louder to companies than speaking with your dollars. Because that hurts their bottom line. MS is killing themselves right now. More on this at the (soon to be) end.
quote:
because it is virtually impossible for anyone to compete with them
Pretty much (but not fully) disagree.
quote:
so you get a computer world which is dictated by microsofts vision, and not based on diversity and freedom of choice.
FULLY AGREE! Again, speak with your money. There are many things that I like about MS. Currently, I do buy their products. Not as much as before, but I do buy them. And this is NOT ONLY MS.
quote:
Is this the vison of the future that we want ?
FULLY AGREE! It is not. This is where MS walks on the line. By using our government (like Oracle, Novell, and SUN) to resolve problems and kill the competition is not my version of the future.
Like I started to say above, MS is killing themselves. Other companies just need to stand on the sidelines and watch MS lose its monopoly due to its own doings. (Other companies are doing it also.) MS is going to pay dearly with this new subscription payment plan. It is the stupedist thing I have ever heard of. It will kill schools, charities, and small businesses. They have a hard choice to make on which way they want to lose money to MS. Linux will not have to say a word; just be resady to fill in the void that MS leaves with this dopey idea.
I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for my thoughts, but they are my honest thoughts. I'm telling you like it is on how I feel. MANY COMPANIES are doing the same things. We are living in a new world. I'd love to see products based on and run by technoloy, not by marketing and finance. Stop the hurried upgrades and get the current version stable.
OKAY, I've said enough. I'll get off of my soap box and sit in the audience and listen to others. I'm not for a "Mine is bigger than yours" contest. I use the best software for the job that needs to be done, regardless of who makes it.
Let me know view other posts and hopefully I will be more enlightened.
Thank you.
Mike
|
|
|
|
MichaelA
Junior Member
USA
222 Posts |
Posted - 22 October 2002 : 08:04:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by bozden
There is an international free market at least. These stuff will make a new marked to be born. This is the algorithm:
while people don't say a real NO do
Other/new companies will start to produce non-signed hardware;
there is GPL software (everything you can think of, they even need much less resources),
people will start to buy these,
big companies will be more angry,
they'll force the governments for new laws stating that
everyone must eat one McDonalds,
drink one Coke,
but Intel only,
etc;
force these companies, buy them as a whole,
send people to jail, even torture
if done then exit loop
loop
This will happen until we say a real NO.
You need to write it like this.
This will happen until we say a real NO. |
Edited by - MichaelA on 22 October 2002 08:11:38 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
