[X4U] Boot Camp [B]

[Stroller]

[CONTINUED]


On 8 Aug 2006, at 20:34, Ted Burton wrote:
> ...
> As for the morality of the matter, I agree that the end user of OEM  
> software, who is neither the OEM nor a buyer of a computer from the  
> OEM, has participated in something wrongful, and shouldn't be doing  
> it. Let's say it's sinful, but not criminal. There's a difference.

...
Here's another silly analogy.
Apple's Aperture is a photo-editing program for the Macintosh. That's  
what it says on the front of the box, yet it won't run on my 1995  
Motorola 6800 Macintosh. So if I came around here complaining about  
that I'd get kicked on the ass because I didn't read the print on the  
side of the box which said "only for G3 Macs and later".

So here's a case where some very expensive lawyers have sat down &  
worked out how to explain in small print exactly on what terms  
Microsoft want to offer this software, and they've put it on the side  
of the box. And I've read that and interpreted it and I'm following  
it to the letter (buying my OEM copy and a USB cable), and yet you're  
pointing me to the headline on the front of the box which says "bird  
seed"?

I'm really open to debate on the ethics of this and conjecture on  
what the "intent" of the license is. I'll get all incensed when  
someone calls me a liar, or tries to pass off blatant lies as gospel,  
but I think this instead is interesting debate, and I'm really open  
to being knocked down on it. We've all heard or read these arguments  
that "it's ok to pirate software because it's too expensive", "if  
they sold it cheaper I'd buy it" or "I only copy movies that aren't  
any good" and I'd be the first to agree that specious is a flattering  
adjective for such statements.

But it seems to me that Microsoft have had five years (??) in which  
to refine the OEM license for XP, they've known that end-users have  
been buying OEM copies all that time, and they haven't tried to stop  
it. I mean, surely they could if they wanted to! Even if they  
tightened up on their partner channels - made even small system- 
builders like Dave's Computers physically sign a contract agreeing to  
only bundle XP with a complete system - it wouldn't be that hard.  
Instead the license, drawn up by The Worlds Most Expensive Lawyers  
(tm) says "well, it's ok, end-users can buy this as long as they buy  
a USB cable to go with it".

I'd say it's reasonable for those highly-paid guys to define the  
expectation of usage of the software, and I'm not convicted that it's  
sinful, unscrupulous, dishonest or immoral for an end user to buy an  
OEM copy of Windows.

Stroller.