The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Just found this on nbc.com :
In a shock announcement made by Microsoft representatives at a Chicago press conference this morning, it seems a consortium of computer software publishers are to pursue legal actions on mass, countering computer piracy.
The consortium, including Microsoft, Macromedia, Norton and a number of smaller companies, hopes to use ‘spyware’ reports, taken predominantly from Microsoft’s Windows and Internet Explorer and Norton’s AntiVirus software, to show infringement of copyright by the unauthorized installing of companies’ applications.
While few details of the consortium’s intent were released today, the Microsoft representative, David Pullman, acknowledged the widespread extent of software piracy and practical difficulty in taking all claims to court.
Instead, Pullman stated, the consortium plans to seek out of court settlements, billing users of pirated software an estimated $400 – 500 per application in return for non-pursuance of the previous violations of copyright law.
Following actions in the United States, the consortium plans to pursue similar actions across Europe and Asia, before looking at 'smaller scale offenders'.
Following the press conference, NBC sought the reaction of specialist IT lawyer Mary Bexley;
“Regarding breach of copyright, there is a firm and clear legal basis for the consortium’s proposed actions. Success will depend on the quality of information gathered by the implemented ‘spyware’ and on whether this evidence will be deemed admissible by the courts.
Given the widespread nature of the offence, it will also be very interesting to see what level of damages the courts will be willing to award.”
Industry estimates suggest pirated software to be present on as many as 55% of America’s PCs. Though it is unclear what proportion of users the consortium has in its sights, and success is by no means certain, America will certainly be watching with interest as details of this potentially revolutionary turn of events develop.
As you may have guessed, that's not actually true at all, just made it up, but the scenario makes you think.
Most of us are probably guilty of software piracy, and yes, the companies behind the software would be legally entitled to substantial damages.
It may be pretty unlikely, but regardless, is your conscience really clear?
In a shock announcement made by Microsoft representatives at a Chicago press conference this morning, it seems a consortium of computer software publishers are to pursue legal actions on mass, countering computer piracy.
The consortium, including Microsoft, Macromedia, Norton and a number of smaller companies, hopes to use ‘spyware’ reports, taken predominantly from Microsoft’s Windows and Internet Explorer and Norton’s AntiVirus software, to show infringement of copyright by the unauthorized installing of companies’ applications.
While few details of the consortium’s intent were released today, the Microsoft representative, David Pullman, acknowledged the widespread extent of software piracy and practical difficulty in taking all claims to court.
Instead, Pullman stated, the consortium plans to seek out of court settlements, billing users of pirated software an estimated $400 – 500 per application in return for non-pursuance of the previous violations of copyright law.
Following actions in the United States, the consortium plans to pursue similar actions across Europe and Asia, before looking at 'smaller scale offenders'.
Following the press conference, NBC sought the reaction of specialist IT lawyer Mary Bexley;
“Regarding breach of copyright, there is a firm and clear legal basis for the consortium’s proposed actions. Success will depend on the quality of information gathered by the implemented ‘spyware’ and on whether this evidence will be deemed admissible by the courts.
Given the widespread nature of the offence, it will also be very interesting to see what level of damages the courts will be willing to award.”
Industry estimates suggest pirated software to be present on as many as 55% of America’s PCs. Though it is unclear what proportion of users the consortium has in its sights, and success is by no means certain, America will certainly be watching with interest as details of this potentially revolutionary turn of events develop.
As you may have guessed, that's not actually true at all, just made it up, but the scenario makes you think.
Most of us are probably guilty of software piracy, and yes, the companies behind the software would be legally entitled to substantial damages.
It may be pretty unlikely, but regardless, is your conscience really clear?
If, however, programs such as winzip were available with windows, then I would pay a bit more for windows.
However, Im not ever going to buy windows again until I don't have to buy three bloodi copies to install on my PC's...
However, Im not ever going to buy windows again until I don't have to buy three bloodi copies to install on my PC's...
Thinking about it, while I.. knowsomeonewho's.. used 4 different windows disks to install various versions on.. his computer, only one of which was.. his.
Hey, I never said I.. knew someone who's.. perfect ;^)
But on the other hand, I downloaded an animated gif construction package from alchemy mindworks, where you were supposed to use it as a fully working free trial until you wanted to actually publish the images on a site or something, then pay them some money for the licence to use it, but the only way they could enforce it would be to find a gif made on an unlicenced version, then go into legal action.
But I did pay up and get a licence.
While the fact that I wrote this probably shows I have a bit of a soft spot for non-piracy, I think it does back up the argument that the moral position of the company has bearing on what you're willing to rip off from them...
Hey, I never said I.. knew someone who's.. perfect ;^)
But on the other hand, I downloaded an animated gif construction package from alchemy mindworks, where you were supposed to use it as a fully working free trial until you wanted to actually publish the images on a site or something, then pay them some money for the licence to use it, but the only way they could enforce it would be to find a gif made on an unlicenced version, then go into legal action.
But I did pay up and get a licence.
While the fact that I wrote this probably shows I have a bit of a soft spot for non-piracy, I think it does back up the argument that the moral position of the company has bearing on what you're willing to rip off from them...
cookie monster wrote:
> My conscience is clear. There is no pirated software on my PC, never
> has, never will be.
>
> Unless broadband comes to my area.
>
> :¬)
- Hoe about unregistered software.
Surely eveyone who has the internet owns a copy of winzip, and how many on personal pc's are actually registered?
I've been running my 21 day trail version for 3 years, and it just keeps going, so why should I bother actually buyiny it for a ridiculus amount considering what a small part Winzip has on my PC.
Anyway, my comapny has bought a licence.
> My conscience is clear. There is no pirated software on my PC, never
> has, never will be.
>
> Unless broadband comes to my area.
>
> :¬)
- Hoe about unregistered software.
Surely eveyone who has the internet owns a copy of winzip, and how many on personal pc's are actually registered?
I've been running my 21 day trail version for 3 years, and it just keeps going, so why should I bother actually buyiny it for a ridiculus amount considering what a small part Winzip has on my PC.
Anyway, my comapny has bought a licence.
My conscience is clear. There is no pirated software on my PC, never has, never will be.
Unless broadband comes to my area.
:¬)
Unless broadband comes to my area.
:¬)
===SONICRAV---> wrote:
> The point of the topic doesn't actually seem to have anything to do
> with MS actually doing what is said... rather to make people think
> about the morallity of piracy. Would you still do it if MS were able
> to track you down and prosecute? (And win in most cases).
Probably. They've stolen so much stuff over the years that I think I'd feel morally justified. And they're trying to force small companies out of the market, and make their products unable to interact with anyone elses which they can do without fear as so many people depend on them.
So yes. I'd just wait for the phreakers to come up with a way to be untracable.
> The point of the topic doesn't actually seem to have anything to do
> with MS actually doing what is said... rather to make people think
> about the morallity of piracy. Would you still do it if MS were able
> to track you down and prosecute? (And win in most cases).
Probably. They've stolen so much stuff over the years that I think I'd feel morally justified. And they're trying to force small companies out of the market, and make their products unable to interact with anyone elses which they can do without fear as so many people depend on them.
So yes. I'd just wait for the phreakers to come up with a way to be untracable.
BEARDS. wrote:
> It would never get through privacy legislation.
The point of the topic doesn't actually seem to have anything to do with MS actually doing what is said... rather to make people think about the morallity of piracy. Would you still do it if MS were able to track you down and prosecute? (And win in most cases).
Sonic
> It would never get through privacy legislation.
The point of the topic doesn't actually seem to have anything to do with MS actually doing what is said... rather to make people think about the morallity of piracy. Would you still do it if MS were able to track you down and prosecute? (And win in most cases).
Sonic
The cost of targeting individuals and claiming from them each would invariably outweigh the damages received. If someone refused to settle out of court then the companies would have to issue a writ and go to court to get the money, a process which they would have to repeat many, many times over and in doing so they would accumulate astronomical legal fees.
They won't tackle software piracy on an individual level because it's too expensive. The key is to stop individuals from getting to pirate software. So they would probably target the following:
1) Illegal cd-copying factories
2) Crackers
3) File-sharing services
4) web storage providers (getting them to take offline sites carrying warez)
The other thing they will probably do is improve the security of their programs. Microsoft's activation system represents a landmark in unpiratable software, though it's not been properly implemented. If their call-centre staff gave a monkeys why you needed an activation code then it would be a ruhlessly effective method of software control. Unfortunately I think the daily grind of listening to people reading out numbers, typing them into your computer, and reading out an activation number gets to you in the end and so it is in fact possible to install MS products on multiple PCs. Another tried and tested method of control is the dongle - it's something that plugs into your parallel port and the program won't work if it's not there - which can only be beaten if some cyber-geek works out a way to crack the program to stop it trying to detect the dongle.
Of course, Microsoft aside, you have to ask if many companies take too much notice of software piracy. Most of their money is made by the bulk buying of software licenses by businesses and professionals. If you want professionals of the future to use your products then you've either got to cut the prices so that young people can afford the programs, or you have to accept the inevitable presence of warez.
They won't tackle software piracy on an individual level because it's too expensive. The key is to stop individuals from getting to pirate software. So they would probably target the following:
1) Illegal cd-copying factories
2) Crackers
3) File-sharing services
4) web storage providers (getting them to take offline sites carrying warez)
The other thing they will probably do is improve the security of their programs. Microsoft's activation system represents a landmark in unpiratable software, though it's not been properly implemented. If their call-centre staff gave a monkeys why you needed an activation code then it would be a ruhlessly effective method of software control. Unfortunately I think the daily grind of listening to people reading out numbers, typing them into your computer, and reading out an activation number gets to you in the end and so it is in fact possible to install MS products on multiple PCs. Another tried and tested method of control is the dongle - it's something that plugs into your parallel port and the program won't work if it's not there - which can only be beaten if some cyber-geek works out a way to crack the program to stop it trying to detect the dongle.
Of course, Microsoft aside, you have to ask if many companies take too much notice of software piracy. Most of their money is made by the bulk buying of software licenses by businesses and professionals. If you want professionals of the future to use your products then you've either got to cut the prices so that young people can afford the programs, or you have to accept the inevitable presence of warez.
It would never get through privacy legislation.
Just found this on nbc.com :
In a shock announcement made by Microsoft representatives at a Chicago press conference this morning, it seems a consortium of computer software publishers are to pursue legal actions on mass, countering computer piracy.
The consortium, including Microsoft, Macromedia, Norton and a number of smaller companies, hopes to use ‘spyware’ reports, taken predominantly from Microsoft’s Windows and Internet Explorer and Norton’s AntiVirus software, to show infringement of copyright by the unauthorized installing of companies’ applications.
While few details of the consortium’s intent were released today, the Microsoft representative, David Pullman, acknowledged the widespread extent of software piracy and practical difficulty in taking all claims to court.
Instead, Pullman stated, the consortium plans to seek out of court settlements, billing users of pirated software an estimated $400 – 500 per application in return for non-pursuance of the previous violations of copyright law.
Following actions in the United States, the consortium plans to pursue similar actions across Europe and Asia, before looking at 'smaller scale offenders'.
Following the press conference, NBC sought the reaction of specialist IT lawyer Mary Bexley;
“Regarding breach of copyright, there is a firm and clear legal basis for the consortium’s proposed actions. Success will depend on the quality of information gathered by the implemented ‘spyware’ and on whether this evidence will be deemed admissible by the courts.
Given the widespread nature of the offence, it will also be very interesting to see what level of damages the courts will be willing to award.”
Industry estimates suggest pirated software to be present on as many as 55% of America’s PCs. Though it is unclear what proportion of users the consortium has in its sights, and success is by no means certain, America will certainly be watching with interest as details of this potentially revolutionary turn of events develop.
As you may have guessed, that's not actually true at all, just made it up, but the scenario makes you think.
Most of us are probably guilty of software piracy, and yes, the companies behind the software would be legally entitled to substantial damages.
It may be pretty unlikely, but regardless, is your conscience really clear?
In a shock announcement made by Microsoft representatives at a Chicago press conference this morning, it seems a consortium of computer software publishers are to pursue legal actions on mass, countering computer piracy.
The consortium, including Microsoft, Macromedia, Norton and a number of smaller companies, hopes to use ‘spyware’ reports, taken predominantly from Microsoft’s Windows and Internet Explorer and Norton’s AntiVirus software, to show infringement of copyright by the unauthorized installing of companies’ applications.
While few details of the consortium’s intent were released today, the Microsoft representative, David Pullman, acknowledged the widespread extent of software piracy and practical difficulty in taking all claims to court.
Instead, Pullman stated, the consortium plans to seek out of court settlements, billing users of pirated software an estimated $400 – 500 per application in return for non-pursuance of the previous violations of copyright law.
Following actions in the United States, the consortium plans to pursue similar actions across Europe and Asia, before looking at 'smaller scale offenders'.
Following the press conference, NBC sought the reaction of specialist IT lawyer Mary Bexley;
“Regarding breach of copyright, there is a firm and clear legal basis for the consortium’s proposed actions. Success will depend on the quality of information gathered by the implemented ‘spyware’ and on whether this evidence will be deemed admissible by the courts.
Given the widespread nature of the offence, it will also be very interesting to see what level of damages the courts will be willing to award.”
Industry estimates suggest pirated software to be present on as many as 55% of America’s PCs. Though it is unclear what proportion of users the consortium has in its sights, and success is by no means certain, America will certainly be watching with interest as details of this potentially revolutionary turn of events develop.
As you may have guessed, that's not actually true at all, just made it up, but the scenario makes you think.
Most of us are probably guilty of software piracy, and yes, the companies behind the software would be legally entitled to substantial damages.
It may be pretty unlikely, but regardless, is your conscience really clear?