I can’t believe I didn’t think of this early, but in certain Asian countries where IP does not exist, Microsoft does in fact change their business model. It has been obvious for a long time, and MS executives have even admitted to it, that pirate their own software and release on the streets and on the websites of these countries, for free?
Why? Because in these countries where software is free, MS doesn’t want everyone passing around other software for free why they ignore MS software. Instead MS releases it for free there, to build up a user base, to build up their market share, and to earn potential customers down the road.
What is your point? Being given a choice of going with the legal system or going out of your way to hand your source code to everyone is not a free market or a good market.
Completely false. Source code protection beings and ends within the company that developed it. Once your source code is released and spreads like wildfire on the internet getting a cash prize from the legal system as compensation cannot begin to un-do the damage that was done. They already defend their code and they already self-produce their security. Once again you are showing how ignorant you are of the software industry, they do not look to the government to protect their code. They use all sorts of encryption, locked down end users, etc. to protect it within their own private network. They only thing they are using the government for is to keep people from physically breaking in and stealing it - but even in that case companies like MS always have private security monitoring their campuses 24/7.
haha
No it’s actually what has happened to you if you are one of the suckers who paid for one of thousands of non-functional software products in the past 10-20 years. Voiding your warranty isn’t required. Do you even have any idea how many software products have been released only to have the publisher fire the dev team the day after, and zero support is provided for a non-functional product? You are trying to prove yourself to be correct when you really should try to learn more about how the software industry actually functions.
Now your are bringing up “intellectual communists” which at the core is a philosophical argument for IP, this thread was created for practical arguments.
Your practical arguments don’t hold water which is probably why you are now trying to switch gears to the philosophical argument.
I can destroy both, but it would probably be better if you made a different thread to discuss the non-practical aspects of the morality of IP laws.
So you agree that software is intellectual property. Now why would Microsoft not have the right to contract with a security provider for them to protect this property, in other words engage in a division of labor instead of self-producing their security? This is what the anti-IP argument claims, that there is no right to have your intellectual property protected by another authority.
Capitalism never implied that business failures were impossible.
That is going way into the philosophical side and quite far from the practical side. Make another thread if you want me to explain why you are wrong, I don’t think you have a good understanding of the anti-IP ideas, or even IP itself. In a nutshell: If I write source code, keep in on my private hardrive, keep that hardrive locked up at my private residence, obviously that is property. Not intellectual property, physical property.
If I take that code, compile it to an exe, sell a copy of that exe to you via CD, and then work with the government to tell you what you can and can’t do with that CD (without ever arranging an agreement of use with you) - that is intellectual property. Supposedly you paid for it, but I still own it intellectually.
Does the entire anti-IP argument reside on the fact that the consumers disagree with the producers on what they paid to receive? Even when license agreements and copyrights are clearly and explicitly inscribed on the product they purchased? Even when all precedents indicate that this is what they are purchasing, limited media?
It’s totally absurd to claim that people could be so stupid.
Of course the government will protect the producers. They have a monopoly on the protection of property! Limited, restricted media are all that the information producers are offering you. Take it, or leave it. Your sense of personal entitlement is not a foundation for law and economy.
The point is that successful businesses will not stiff consumers. Failed businesses might have to, and of course you will blame this failure on capitalism instead, as any good communist.
Are you kidding me? Clearly and explicitly? Start off with buying the box at the store, almost no legal requirements are on the outside of the box, what is there is in tiny print and is hard to understand. Much more explanation is given in the EULA, which is shown to you after you have already purchased and opened a product that cannot be returned opened. Then even more explanation is given in the actual law books, considered to be explained “clearly and explicitly” simply by a tiny C with a circle around it somewhere on the box, which is simply a reference to the government’s laws.
If you went to Best Buy to purchase Windows, and had to sign a contract that explained the terms of use of the software you are leasing and with no explanation defaulted back towards laws that you cannot read at the time of purchase, only then would the argument you are trying to make be valid.
The government ultimately will protect the government, not the producers or anyone else. My sense of entitlement for owning a product I have paid for and using it as I see fit, yes I have that sense of entitlement.
The reality is that successful businesses have and will continue to stiff consumers, no I do not blame that on capitalism. That is a very strange accusation/assumption.
So are you saying that it is okay to have legalized scams such as your typical software sell simply because people should learn from the first time getting scammed?
Case closed indeed, you have written me off as stupid and no longer feel obligated to deal with my arguments - all based on the “fact” that I was stupid enough to repurchase software when you really have no idea how much I have purchased, if any. Such a pointless and empty argument. I hope for you sake you are at least still fairly young.
Obviously, people continue to purchase software, movies, music and books, hence they in no way feel “scammed”, they understand that they are getting a good value for their money.
You are the only one who feels “scammed” due to your communist sense of entitlement.
They don’t feel scammed because they usually get away with it. Someone who was actually fined or jailed for copying a CD and giving it to a friend could certainly be more inclined towards feeling like they were scammed.
lol, I’m the only anti-IP advocate now? I’m pretty sure I remember learning this from someone else…
There are lots of us here. We’ve just mostly all been through this with Stranger and don’t have the energy to do it again. He’s made his position known and does not have any desire to to have an honest debate. He’s pretty set in stone on IP. Arguing with him on this matter is like arguing with a brick wall. You can search through the forums and see 15 page posts of things going back and forth. Mostly just Argumentum ad nauseum. Repetitive arguments.
In an attempt to end this silly argument that is getting you guys nowhere and in an attempt to get you guys to understand each other’s positions, I call for Stranger to define IP, copyright, and patents, because the IP rights Stranger supports are not the traditional statist IP rights, hence the confusion that abounds whenever he uses that misleading term.
Sorry still new here, can’t recognize names or reputations. It’s fun to debate with people like him, it sharpens my communications skills, and might help out someone who is reading quietly. Usually I know when to call it quits, but ‘internet argument’ jokes/pics/etc. are always welcome as a good dose of funny reality. [:D]