[News] [Rival] Microsoft Spanked for Brainwashing Schoolchildren
Roy Schestowitz
,----[ Quote ]
| The basis of Redmond's pitch was a small survey they sponsored where nearly
| half of the kids polled said they were unfamiliar with the rules and
| guidelines of using copyrighted media. Microsoft figured tots would be less
| inclined to steal someone's IP if they knew about the alleged consequences.
|
| A lot of digital ink was used to slam Microsoft's scheme. People need Redmond
| telling them about IP rules like they need Pavorotti schooling them about a
| well-balanced diet.
`----
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/27/microsoft_ip_curriculum_look/
Watch the Ballmer photo. Priceless. Shirley Ballmer...
Related:
Threat Of Jail Time Increases Respect For Copyright, Microsoft Says
,----[ Quote ]
| It's not clear whether Microsoft's statement to teen respondents -- "When you
| do not follow these rules you are open to significant fines and possibly jail
| time" -- is entirely accurate, particularly when teens under the age of 18
| are involved. Emily Berger, an intellectual property fellow at the Electronic
| Frontier Foundation, is skeptical. "I think it's being used as a scare
| tactic," she said. "It's a real stretch of the law to say it's theoretically
| possible."
`----
http://informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=206503467
Microsoft training youth to love intellectual property
,----[ Quote ]
| Take, for example, its commitment to help teenagers understand the importance
| of respecting intellectual property (read: giving Microsoft more money). It
| just put out a survey showing that when kids understand the rules of
| copyright, they're "less likely to download illegally."
|
| [...]
|
| The one thing it didn't explain to teens is why they should retrofit
| 20th-century copyright laws onto 21st-century realities. Digitization is a
| fact. The web is a fact. Intellectual property is not the same as real,
| tangible property, and should be treated and monetized differently.
`----
http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9871636-16.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=TheOpenRoad
More Choice
,----[ Quote ]
| On the other hand it is notable that the choice propaganda is just
| unilateral. Microsoft does not offer customers of their products to choose
| between ODF and OOXML.
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-41210/more-choice
The list of Microsoft's US software patents covering OOXML
,----[ Quote ]
| US20060271574A1 Exposing embedded data in a computer-generated document
| US20060259854A1 Structuring an electronic document for efficient
| identification and use of document parts
| US20060206794A1 Method and apparatus for maintaining relationships between
| parts in a package
| US20060190815A1 Structuring data for word processing documents
| US20060149785A1 Method and Apparatus for Maintaining Relationships Between
| Parts in a Package
|
| [...]
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-39421/the-list-of-microsoft-s-us-software-patents-covering-ooxml
Torvalds: Microsoft is bluffing on patents
,----[ Quote ]
| "...They have been sued for patents by other people, but I don't think
| they've -- not that I've gone through any huge amount of law cases -- but I
| don't think they've generally used patents as a weapon," Torvalds said. "But
| they're perfectly happy to use anything at all as fear, uncertainty and doubt
| in the marketplace, and patents is just one thing where they say, 'Hey, isn't
| this convenient? We can use this as a PR force.'"
|
| [...]
|
| Microsoft's recent work around improving its platform's interoperability with
| Linux left Torvalds largely unmoved.
|
| "I think there are people inside Microsoft who really want to improve
| interoperability and I also think there are people inside Microsoft who would
| much rather just try to stab their competition in the back," he said. "I
| think the latter class of people have usually been the one[s] who won out in
| the end, but -- so I wouldn't exactly trust them."
`----
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/020408-torvalds-microsoft-is-bluffing-on.html
Microsoft patents by Brian Jones
,----[ Quote ]
| For fun we just did a quick search of published US patent applications
| with "Brian Jones" as an author, and "Microsoft" as the assignee.
|
| [...]
|
| Some of these, like the packing ones, seem to apply directly to OOXML. What
| isn't clear to us is why Microsoft would pursue patent protection for patents
| rights that their are promising that they won't assert over users of OOXML.
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-35323/microsoft-patents-by-brian-jones
Digging in the Comments: Patents
,----[ Quote ]
| Patent licensing is probably the most important aspect for all third parties
| that want to implement or use the Open XML specification. Unfortunately the
| Ballot Resolution Meeting cannot discuss these aspects because only technical
| and editorial issues would get resolved.
|
| [...]
|
| When you have a patent which covers Open XML and you refuse to license it,
| the standard process gets stalled. Large companies in the standardization
| process are reluctant to use that nuke option. Given the ambush that the
| software patent practice means today it is quite possible that Open XML
| infringes a patent and all parties eventually have an obligation to license
| it.
`----
http://www.noooxml.org/forum/t-31491/digging-in-the-comments:patents
Patent threat looms large over OOXML
,----[ Quote ]
| "If OOXML goes through as an ISO standard, the IT industry, government and
| business will encumbered with a 6000-page specification peppered with
| potential patent liabilities" said NZOSS President Don Christie.
|
| "Patent threats have already been used to spread doubt amongst organisations
| keen to take advantage of the benefits of open source. No one knows whether
| such claims have any merit, but it is calculated to deter the development and
| use of open and alternative toolsets."
`----
Cyberlaw OOXML Seminar 14 December
,----[ Quote ]
| However, this raises the issue - what assurance does a developer have that
| such a large specification is not the subject of third party patent claims?
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| The pedigree of the specification is certainly no reason for hope, Microsoft
| has been the target of third party patent claims for some time now including
| some high profile losses in patent suits. The fact that the specification has
| been developed behind closed doors and on a fast track means that there has
| been no adequate opportunity to evaluate the likelihood of third party patent
| claims against the specifications. The sheer size of the document suggests
| there will be at least a couple hiding in there somewhere.
`----
http://brendanscott.wordpress.com/2007/12/13/cyberlaw-ooxml-seminar-14-december/
ISO warned about possible patent violations of DIS29500 (aka OOXML)
,----[ Quote ]
| I have just send the following email to ISO members (you can find some of
| their email addresses on the INCTIS website) to warn them about the possible
| patent ambush...
`----
http://jeremywang67.blogspot.com/2008/01/iso-warned-about-possible-patent.html
![[H]omer's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWMQWyYwHeIwxhG3nGUeGWmLQD0R8TeZrvdWDiv5-2S_z3rHg=s40-c)
[H]omer
> Can Microsoft teach tots digital-age virtue?
Someone needs to take out a restraining order to keep these thugs away
from children, before they become corrupted by the Vole's corporate
fascist ideals.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
13:42:03 up 69 days, 11:17, 5 users, load average: 1.03, 0.89, 0.42
chrisv
news:paqi95-...@sky.matrix...
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Can Microsoft .....
*PLONK*
Mark Kent
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Can Microsoft teach tots digital-age virtue?
>
> Someone needs to take out a restraining order to keep these thugs away
> from children, before they become corrupted by the Vole's corporate
> fascist ideals.
>
Take a look at this:
|Pop quiz
|
| A question from the IPR curriculum:
|
| What effect does illegal music downloading have on the songwriter?
| a) None, if he or she does not find out about it.
| b) None. Only the record companies lose money.
| c) The songwriter can suffer monetary losses.
| d) I am not sure.
|
| Supplied answer: c
|
Is it me, or is that amazingly misleading? Shouldn't it say something
like "might, if you were going to buy it on a CD but chose not to" or
something like that?
Answer b) is equally misleading, as it also assumes that the downloader
would've bought the song instead. The assumptions really do need to
be stated.
Answer a) is utterly and completely misleading, since in fact, the
songwriter (if there is a traceable songwriter anyway) will be getting
some publicity. All the indications I've seen suggest that exposure
is good, and results in more income for the songwriter, rather than
the other way around.
Answer d) needs to be "I'm not sure that any of the above answers
are reasonable", and then the supplied answer should be d).
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |
Roy Schestowitz
It ought to be added that the RIAA and Microsoft do hold secret meetings. I
have record of this and yes... they are secret meetings. The same goes for the
government, the context being security, which hardly makes back doors and
zombies a surprise.
--
~~ Best of wishes
"If you can’t make it good, at least make it look good."
--Bill Gates, Microsoft
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
17:20:01 up 35 days, 3:14, 3 users, load average: 1.20, 1.46, 1.49
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
[H]omer
>>> Can Microsoft teach tots digital-age virtue?
>>
>> Someone needs to take out a restraining order to keep these thugs
>> away from children, before they become corrupted by the Vole's
>> corporate fascist ideals.
>
> Take a look at this:
>
>
> |Pop quiz
> |
> | A question from the IPR curriculum:
> |
> | What effect does illegal music downloading have on the songwriter?
> | a) None, if he or she does not find out about it.
> | c) The songwriter can suffer monetary losses.
> | d) I am not sure.
> |
> | Supplied answer: c
> |
>
> Is it me, or is that amazingly misleading?
Rather more than that ... it's a lie. The injured party is the publisher
... /not/ the songwriter who probably gets paid bugger-all for digital
media "residuals" anyway. Typical sleight of hand tactic from the Vole.
It's propaganda via emotional blackmail ("aw, think of the songwriter
living in abject poverty, because /you/ stole his diner money", ad
nauseam). The reality is somewhat different ("aw, think of the
songwriters living in abject poverty, because the fat-bastard media
moguls won't pay them a decent percentage").
It's like I said before, no wonder so many people download copyrighted
media with wild abandon ... it's tough convincing people that it's wrong
to steal from thieves.
> Shouldn't it say something like "might, if you were going to buy it
> on a CD but chose not to" or something like that?
Yes, there's also the question of defining what is "property". If you
have a car, and I steal that car from you, then I've deprived you of
something tangible that requires replacement at cost. But if I merely
take a /photograph/ of your car, then what exactly has been stolen?
Nothing. You have "lost" nothing. It costs you nothing to replace it,
since there is nothing to replace.
So-called "IP" is nothing more than a license to print money, and the
worst part is, it isn't even those who /create/ that "art" who benefit
... it's some cigar-smoking suit in an office, who harvests souls for
profit.
> Answer b) is equally misleading, as it also assumes that the
> downloader would've bought the song instead. The assumptions really
> do need to be stated.
Those who can't pay are zero-losses anyway, but the main issue is
whether or not anyone should be expected to pay more than material
costs, for something that is nothing more than a facsimile.
> Answer a) is utterly and completely misleading, since in fact, the
> songwriter (if there is a traceable songwriter anyway) will be
> getting some publicity. All the indications I've seen suggest that
> exposure is good, and results in more income for the songwriter,
> rather than the other way around.
The answer is as loaded as the question ("illegal", "find out").
Is it "illegal" to listen to music on the radio? Is it "illegal" to play
your car radio with the windows down, thereby "broadcasting" it to
passers-by? Is it "illegal" to sing a pop song in the bath? Is even
/thinking/ about a song "illegal"?
This is the problem with "Intellectual Property". It is, like it says on
the tin, "intellectual". It is "property" of the mind. Once art, in its
many forms, has been witnessed, than that art has escaped the private
domain of the creator, and entered the public domain. It can't
thereafter be "taken back". Trying to control who is "allowed" to see;
hear; speak; sing; write; or even think about that art, once it is
released, is puerile bullshit, and given that the motivation for this
control is invariably greed, it is profoundly immoral puerile bullshit
at that.
> Answer d) needs to be "I'm not sure that any of the above answers are
> reasonable", and then the supplied answer should be d).
e) Intellectual Property is a copyrighted work of pure fiction
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| "[Microsoft] are willing to lose money for years and years just to
| make sure that you don't make any money, either." - Bob Cringely.
| - http://blog.businessofsoftware.org/2007/07/cringely-the-un.html
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
18:07:14 up 69 days, 15:43, 4 users, load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.00
Hadron
> Mark Kent wrote:
>> [H]omer <sp...@uce.gov> espoused:
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>>>> Can Microsoft teach tots digital-age virtue?
>>>
>>> Someone needs to take out a restraining order to keep these thugs
>>> away from children, before they become corrupted by the Vole's
>>> corporate fascist ideals.
>>
>> Take a look at this:
>>
>>
>> |Pop quiz
>> |
>> | A question from the IPR curriculum:
>> |
>> | What effect does illegal music downloading have on the songwriter?
>> | a) None, if he or she does not find out about it.
>> | c) The songwriter can suffer monetary losses.
>> | d) I am not sure.
>> |
>> | Supplied answer: c
>> |
>>
>> Is it me, or is that amazingly misleading?
>
> Rather more than that ... it's a lie. The injured party is the publisher
> ... /not/ the songwriter who probably gets paid bugger-all for digital
> media "residuals" anyway. Typical sleight of hand tactic from the
> Vole.
You are so wrong it's not funny. Same for video games being downloaded
is it?
>
> It's propaganda via emotional blackmail ("aw, think of the songwriter
> living in abject poverty, because /you/ stole his diner money", ad
> nauseam). The reality is somewhat different
You are advocating theft again I see. You do realise that not all
singers or songwriters live in gold houses with diamond encrusted teeth?
You're a filthy, two faced cheapskate with the morals of a hyena.
Moshe Goldfarb
> It ought to be added that the RIAA and Microsoft do hold secret meetings. I
> have record of this and yes... they are secret meetings. The same goes for the
> government, the context being security, which hardly makes back doors and
> zombies a surprise.
Sure you have a record of it Schestowitz.
How about some proof of yet another of your wild and crazy claims.
BTW Microsoft, the BSA and the RIAA also have a record of you.
I hope that SPAM machine of yours is devoid of copyrighted multimedia.
Seeing as you and Mark Kent share an Internet connection, you might want to
pass this along to him as well.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Troy Kirkland
"Roy Schestowitz" <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote in message
news:2612789.4...@schestowitz.com...
> It ought to be added that the RIAA and Microsoft do hold secret meetings.
Proof?
> I have record of this and yes... they are secret meetings.
Proof? What record. Where did you get this record from. You are a college
puke who spews spam from his dorm room not some self-imagined secret agent.
You don't have diddly-squat.
> The same goes for the government, the context being security,
What. Do you have proof of government secret meetings too?
> which hardly makes back doors and zombies a surprise.
What back doors? (cue Marti). I'm sure you have proof of this too?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Moshe Goldfarb
> "[H]omer" <sp...@uce.gov> writes:
>> It's propaganda via emotional blackmail ("aw, think of the songwriter
>> living in abject poverty, because /you/ stole his diner money", ad
>> nauseam). The reality is somewhat different
>
> You are advocating theft again I see. You do realise that not all
> singers or songwriters live in gold houses with diamond encrusted teeth?
>
> You're a filthy, two faced cheapskate with the morals of a hyena.
That's the typical Linux community for you.
They expect to get everything for free and if they can't, they simply take
it anyway.
See Mark Kent for details.
Troy Kirkland
"Hadron" <hadro...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:fq6u73$tuf$8...@registered.motzarella.org...
[H]omer is just another low life scumbag thief. He justifies his theft by
claiming that it's a victimless crime. 'It only hurts the record companies
and they're rich anyway.'
[S]cum like [H]omer is why normal law abiding citizens distance themselves
from linux and their zealots.
Moshe Goldfarb
How the people in COLA can take Roy Schestowitz seriously is beyond reason.
He is rapidly turning into a USENET Kook of the highest order.
Tim Smith
Mark Kent <mark...@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> |Pop quiz
> |
> | A question from the IPR curriculum:
> |
> | What effect does illegal music downloading have on the songwriter?
> | a) None, if he or she does not find out about it.
> | b) None. Only the record companies lose money.
> | c) The songwriter can suffer monetary losses.
> | d) I am not sure.
> |
> | Supplied answer: c
> |
>
> Is it me, or is that amazingly misleading? Shouldn't it say something
> like "might, if you were going to buy it on a CD but chose not to" or
> something like that?
In other words, you've just said that the songwriter *might* lose money,
which was answer (c).
...
> Answer a) is utterly and completely misleading, since in fact, the
> songwriter (if there is a traceable songwriter anyway) will be getting
> some publicity. All the indications I've seen suggest that exposure
> is good, and results in more income for the songwriter, rather than
> the other way around.
Tivo gives Linux exposure, and makes it more likely that others will
choose to use Linux for their embedded projects, and even for their
desktop and server projects. So when are you going to drop your
complaints about Tivo?
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
> Rather more than that ... it's a lie. The injured party is the publisher
> ... /not/ the songwriter who probably gets paid bugger-all for digital
> media "residuals" anyway. Typical sleight of hand tactic from the Vole.
So you think songwriters don't have anything tied to CD sales?
...
> Yes, there's also the question of defining what is "property". If you
> have a car, and I steal that car from you, then I've deprived you of
> something tangible that requires replacement at cost. But if I merely
> take a /photograph/ of your car, then what exactly has been stolen?
> Nothing. You have "lost" nothing. It costs you nothing to replace it,
> since there is nothing to replace.
The person has lost the right to be the first to take a photograph of
their car.
--
--Tim Smith
Moshe Goldfarb
As a songwriter, performer, producer, and musician, I get royalties from
all kinds of performances I have done.
The bottom line is that it depends upon the contract.
You can't assume that because " You Light Up My Life" sold 8 gazillion
copies (God only knows why?) that the writer made a fortune on it.
It depends.....
Berry Gordy (Motown) was/is a very shrewd businessman.
He would change a couple of lines in a tune and get writing credits.
For the 'record' , pun intended, TYPICALLY, the largest amount of profit
goes to the middle man. IOW the distributor.
Sad but true.
Again this is typical, exceptions exist.
A big name like Madonna is probably getting the lion share of profits.
A new group is not.
I did a commercial for Haynes Undies (Leggs i think?), you might remember
the slogan "Gentleman Prefer Haynes" where I played keyboards.
I'm still getting checks for that one.
My attorney negotiated a global contract so that when the spot is played in
Iran, I get money.
As for Linux exposure, who cares?
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:14:14 -0800,
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <ns9j95-...@sky.matrix>, "[H]omer" <sp...@uce.gov> wrote:
>> Rather more than that ... it's a lie. The injured party is the publisher
>> ... /not/ the songwriter who probably gets paid bugger-all for digital
>> media "residuals" anyway. Typical sleight of hand tactic from the Vole.
>
> So you think songwriters don't have anything tied to CD sales?
often, they don't. But that doesn't matter. Copyright is the law,
however fucked up it is. You either accept that, and abide by it, or you
oppose it, and do so clearly, and honestly. Anything else, is waffling.
>
> ...
>> Yes, there's also the question of defining what is "property". If you
>> have a car, and I steal that car from you, then I've deprived you of
>> something tangible that requires replacement at cost. But if I merely
>> take a /photograph/ of your car, then what exactly has been stolen?
>> Nothing. You have "lost" nothing. It costs you nothing to replace it,
>> since there is nothing to replace.
>
> The person has lost the right to be the first to take a photograph of
> their car.
>
how is that a right?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHx4Uwd90bcYOAWPYRAie+AKCoIhfQr4JYCD6X+goukRcGrIDi6ACffiDu
E5xbWNrSkOoRLirw6gY4A2s=
=xzVv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
It is recommended that you keep your head attached to your spine at all times.
Tim Smith
Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> >> Yes, there's also the question of defining what is "property". If you
> >> have a car, and I steal that car from you, then I've deprived you of
> >> something tangible that requires replacement at cost. But if I merely
> >> take a /photograph/ of your car, then what exactly has been stolen?
> >> Nothing. You have "lost" nothing. It costs you nothing to replace it,
> >> since there is nothing to replace.
> >
> > The person has lost the right to be the first to take a photograph of
> > their car.
> >
>
> how is that a right?
His hypothetical is hypothesizing a copyright-like legal right over
taking pictures of one's car (assuming that the hypothetical was meant
to make sense), and using that in an analogy to copyright law.
He's overlooked a couple of things.
(1) Intangible things can be valuable. People will often willingly pay
a premium in order to do something or have access to something before it
becomes widespread.
(2) It can be shown mathematically that a free market leads to an
optimal allocation of resources (if you make some certain assumptions
about things like transaction costs), but only for goods that have
certain properties. Artistic works do not have those properties.
Intellectual Property law gives them the necessary properties to allow
for a free market to optimally allocate resources toward production.
People who ignore that mess up the market. That's not necessarily bad,
*if* we switch to a different way of addressing the inability of a free
market to deal with artistic works. But the anti-IP people are usually
against *all* of the methods that can correct the market failure.
--
--Tim Smith