Ernie Ball Strings hates Microsoft (Go Team!)

Discussion in 'rec.music.guitar' started by 'nuther Bob, Aug 22, 2003.

  1. Richard

    Richard Guest

    norealaddy@somephonydomain.com wrote...

    > ...and that's really the key point. Most of the pirating is
    > phony CD's from Asia. But since they can't do much about that,
    > they choose instead to try to terrorize US companies.


    That's a switch: That a company would target its operations for the
    US because US laws are profit-favorable. Usually it's the other way
    around. ;)

    --
    "Leave the donkeys to their thistles." -- old Persian saying
  2. 'nuther Bob

    'nuther Bob Guest

    On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:40:19 -0600, "ryanm"
    <ryanm@fatchicksinpartyhats.com> wrote:

    > Nah, it's true. One license is one license. You can install it wherever
    >you want, but only once. Some licenses are machine specific and once they
    >are installed on that box, that's where they stay until you contact the
    >developer and get a new registration code for install on a different
    >machine.


    That's not always true. MS has had EULA that allow installation on
    an "office" machine and a "home" machine from time to time. The theory
    is that the same user can use the software at the office or at home
    without buying another liscense.

    >Software like Office is more
    >complicated, because many companies run it from a network location and buy
    >batches of licenses at a discount. They get in trouble when they have 500
    >employees using Word but only 300 licenses, but there's no way for MS to
    >find out about it unless an agency like the BSA goes in and actually looks.


    Which is why they should go to a liscense server implementation for
    their site licenses. Then there would not be an issue with max #
    of licenses in use. But, they know that forcing everyone to buy
    a per machine liscense results in more sales (you need a liscense
    if you ever expect to use that software, whether you actually use it
    or not), so the try to force that. They end up treating the symptom
    of their worthless licensing scheme, not the problem.

    In other words, they take the cheap way out for them in development
    and just try to maximize profits by paying for enforcement rather
    than prevention. It's the same as insurance companies that just hike
    their rates for autos rather than chase auto thieves because it works
    out better for them.

    Bob
  3. rknrne

    rknrne Active Member

    Messages:
    2,371
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Wait until the language police get a hold in the door like in Quebec...........talk about gestapo tactics .................When is enough money enough ????
  4. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "'nuther Bob" <norealaddy@somephonydomain.com> wrote in message
    news:4fdpkvc3g9kdiccap4v7eavfpigeo07efo@4ax.com...
    >
    > ...and that's really the key point. Most of the pirating is
    > phony CD's from Asia. But since they can't do much about that,
    > they choose instead to try to terrorize US companies.
    >

    Now, you turned it around and made it mean something that it does not. I
    didn't say the SE Asia piracy was the *majority* of MS's piracy problem, I
    just said it was part. MS still loses more money every year to companies
    using more licenses than they've purchased than any other company in the US.
    In fact, I would be willing to bet that MS loses more money in a single year
    from this kind of piracy alone, than the entire music industry has lost to
    file sharing since it began back in the mid 1980's in the alt.binaries
    newsgroups. Of course, there's no way to show that conclusively, because
    there is no way to calculate how many people *would've* bought tapes/cds
    since then who didn't because they downloaded them instead, as opposed to
    people who downloaded music they never would've bought. But just quickly
    imagining the numbers, consider that MS deals with hundreds of thousands of
    infractions per year at the cost of $500-$5000 each compared to possibly
    tens of millions of lost tape/cd sales at $10-$20 each, the numbers are way
    higher for MS in a single year than all labels combined since people began
    pirating music online. Just to put realistic numbers on it, if MS suffers
    250,000 lost licenses per year (which is pretty conservative) at a low
    average of $2000 per infraction, that's $500,000,000 per year, as opposed to
    10,000,000 pirated cds at $20 each, which is only $200,000,000. And that's
    with the music industry getting high averages and MS getting low averages,
    MS still loses twice as much money every year than the music industry has
    lost in total.

    If you have documentation to show my numbers to be wrong I'll happily
    concede, but regardless I think you'll find that MS loses so much money
    every year to this kind of piracy as to dwarf the *possible* loss that the
    music industry has been crying about.

    ryanm
  5. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "'nuther Bob" <norealaddy@somephonydomain.com> wrote in message
    news:eek:bepkvg5p9kv8gggi4u78smurnqgkor10a@4ax.com...
    >
    > That's not always true. MS has had EULA that allow installation on
    > an "office" machine and a "home" machine from time to time. The theory
    > is that the same user can use the software at the office or at home
    > without buying another liscense.
    >

    That's true also, Macromedia has a similar policy allowing two installs
    on one license, even going so far as to allow two developers to work from
    the same license, written into their EULAs for Flash, DreamWeaver,
    FireWorks, etc. But in general, one license is one license, unless otherwise
    specified in the EULA. But that's not what I would call a restriction.

    > Which is why they should go to a liscense server implementation for
    > their site licenses. Then there would not be an issue with max #
    > of licenses in use. But, they know that forcing everyone to buy
    > a per machine liscense results in more sales (you need a liscense
    > if you ever expect to use that software, whether you actually use it
    > or not), so the try to force that. They end up treating the symptom
    > of their worthless licensing scheme, not the problem.
    >

    So how do you propose to charge for a server license, do companies with
    1000 employees pay the same fee as companies with 10,000 employees?

    ryanm
  6. ryanm

    ryanm Guest

    "Stephan Neuhaus" <neuhaus@cs.uni-sb.de> wrote in message
    news:bihrgu$1rc26$1@hades.rz.uni-saarland.de...
    >
    > What I read from this is that they bought a PC, bought the software
    > (i.e., a license), installed the license and then gave that PC to
    > someone else while buying a new PC. So, for every piece of software,
    > there was a license (because the new PC also had licensed software
    > installed on it), but apparently the BSA thinks that you have to buy new
    > licenses in order to be able to pass the computer down to someone else.
    >

    No, they got into trouble because they passed the machine down without
    uninstalling, and then installed the software on the new machine as well,
    resulting in two installations of software for which they only had one
    license.

    > Or maybe it even went as you suggested: They buy a PC with a license,
    > say, for Visual Studio C++. Then they pass the computer down to someone
    > doing clerical work and don't deinstall the C++ compiler, because the
    > secretary isn't going to develop any C++ programs anyway. Those people
    > working with C++ have all their licenses paid, right? Well, according to
    > the BSA, that's not enough. For them, there are two copies of Visual
    > Studio C++ installed, while only one license was paid for. While this
    > may be a violation of the letter of the EULA, you could still argue that
    > only one license was *in use* and that therefore the spirit of the EULA
    > had not been touched. I still stand by my point that this is easily
    > missed and does not call for the kind of heavy-handedness that Ball
    > complains about.
    >

    It doesn't matter. If I make a million copies of a CD and hand them out
    to my friends, but I can show that they weren't "in use" at the time I was
    sued for it, am I still liable for piracy? Unless otherwise specified by the
    EULA, one license == one install. If you hand down a machine with all the
    software on it, then yes, you need a new license to install the software on
    a new machine. "In-use" is meaningless in this context.

    > Obviously, EB violated the letter of the EULA. Otherwise, the BSA
    > wouldn't have had a case, and even Ball seems to agree that the EULA was
    > somehow violated. You could then argue that EB only got what they
    > deserved, but Ball seems to think (and I agree with him) that this is no
    > way to treat a customer for an honest mistake (and I agree again).
    > Therefore, Ball took his business elsewhere, and Microsoft (and probably
    > other BSA members, too) lost a customer.
    >

    I *honestly* didn't know that someone in my brokerage firm was comitting
    securities violations (even though my companies profits increased because of
    those violations), am I still liable? Of course I am. The board of directors
    is ultimately responsible for the actions of any employee taken on behalf of
    the company, legal or illegal. Not to mention that an ex-employee turned
    them in, so obviously *someone* knew what was going on.

    > You will probably argue that the BSA is not Microsoft, but the BSA is
    > not exactly an independent organization either. They are paid by their
    > members and do what they are told. For example, according to
    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/6408.html, the BSA stopped
    > harrassing Antel after Antel agreed to use Microsoft software
    > exclusively. So you could make a case for the BSA being just a front for
    > their members' financial interests, and not a body that prosecutes
    > copyright violations.
    >

    Hhhmmm.. sounds familiar... RIAA, anyone?

    ryanm
  7. salvarsan

    salvarsan Guest

    'nuther Bob wrote:

    > That's not always true. MS has had EULA that allow installation on
    > an "office" machine and a "home" machine from time to time. The theory
    > is that the same user can use the software at the office or at home
    > without buying another liscense.



    Funny how BSA enforces a more draconian interpretation, isn't it?

    Is it any wonder that entire countries are going non-Microsoft?

    MS lost not only Brazil but the China market despite its
    most-favored-nation status. I suggest that mere spiteful
    anti-American sentiment is insufficient motivation.

    -drh
    --
  8. "ryanm" wrote:

    >"'nuther Bob" <norealaddy@somephonydomain.com> wrote in message
    >news:eek:bepkvg5p9kv8gggi4u78smurnqgkor10a@4ax.com...
    >>
    >> That's not always true. MS has had EULA that allow installation on
    >> an "office" machine and a "home" machine from time to time. The theory
    >> is that the same user can use the software at the office or at home
    >> without buying another liscense.


    This is not strictly correct. MS Licensing Program members can
    purchase some WAH (Work At Home) licenses so users can have the latest
    Office they use at work legally installed on their personal home
    machines (around $160 for the version with Access). Enterprise program
    members pay a fee per desktop and can install what they like without
    tracking exactly what it is - anything in the list is legal. Under the
    latest Enterprise agreements, this can also apply to a "secondary CPU"
    like a laptop or home PC.

    If you purchase a Windows consumer license and install it on
    your office PC and a home PC you are improperly installing the home
    license. Perhaps the latest consumer XP EULA allows this - I haven't
    bothered to check - we can't use the home XP anyway because of the
    drive mapping issue over VPN.


    > That's true also, Macromedia has a similar policy allowing two installs
    >on one license, even going so far as to allow two developers to work from
    >the same license, written into their EULAs for Flash, DreamWeaver,
    >FireWorks, etc. But in general, one license is one license, unless otherwise
    >specified in the EULA. But that's not what I would call a restriction.


    While expensive as h*** for the bundle packs, Macromedia has
    about the most generous "let's make this easy to live with" licensing
    policy I've seen.


    >> Which is why they should go to a liscense server implementation for
    >> their site licenses. Then there would not be an issue with max #
    >> of licenses in use.


    Not all software can be licensed via server, or per server CPU
    ( a new wrinkle that makes users buy more licenses for their multi-CPU
    rack servers). The MS Office desktop products, for example do not
    license this way. The closest thing is the Enterprise agreement, which
    is a yearly fee per desktop (this fee grows at a fixed rate).


    > But, they know that forcing everyone to buy
    >> a per machine liscense results in more sales (you need a liscense
    >> if you ever expect to use that software, whether you actually use it
    >> or not), so the try to force that.


    Licensing per server or per user usually has a breakeven
    point. SQL Server licensing via CALs (per user connecting to server)
    breaks even at around 28 CALs, above which it's cheaper to license as
    a "server", one license per CPU. Dual CPUs make the breakeven 56 CALs.


    > They end up treating the symptom
    >> of their worthless licensing scheme, not the problem.


    Don't get me started on the clarity of their schemes...

    > So how do you propose to charge for a server license, do companies with
    >1000 employees pay the same fee as companies with 10,000 employees?


    10K employees means you'll be running more servers in a pool
    in order to handle the traffic. They'll sell more CPU licenses for
    your multiCPU servers. Doesn't matter if this is Exchange/Outlook
    (email), SQL (big databases), 3270 sessions, huge websites (Content
    Manager), it's all pretty much equivalent in that regard.

    It is remarkable the cost-leveling that MS has engineered into
    its prices for licensing. There are no secret deals hidden anywhere,
    no scheme (fee, individual license, upgrade subscriptions,
    server/user) that is a significantly better deal than any other. That
    being said, the contract prices are usually far below retail - 40-50%.

    MS has proven that their licensing enforcement can be a
    significant increase in revenues during even the toughest economic
    times. They have made a bunch of licensing revenue from exactly this
    in the past two years. SAS, Oracle and others have been stricter about
    this all along, MS is actually kind of late to the game, and has done
    so in a heavyhanded, oafish manner that brought them little goodwill.
    I think only SCO has been more cloddish in it's licensing play.



    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  9. salvarsan wrote:

    >Funny how BSA enforces a more draconian interpretation, isn't it?


    Funny as in vomiting and convulsions funny.


    >Is it any wonder that entire countries are going non-Microsoft?
    >MS lost not only Brazil but the China market despite its
    >most-favored-nation status.


    The German federal government as well. All Tux now.
    The Penguin Is Coming. I wish he'd hurry the hell up. He's going to
    have to slay the Evil SCO dragon first. It's gonna be ugly.


    > I suggest that mere spiteful
    >anti-American sentiment is insufficient motivation.


    I wonder if some of the anti-MS feeling doesn't get turned
    into generalized anti-Americanism.



    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  10. salvarsan

    salvarsan Guest

    John S. Shinal wrote:
    > salvarsan wrote:


    >>Is it any wonder that entire countries are going non-Microsoft?
    >>MS lost not only Brazil but the China market despite its
    >>most-favored-nation status.

    >
    >
    > The German federal government as well. All Tux now.
    > The Penguin Is Coming. I wish he'd hurry the hell up. He's going to
    > have to slay the Evil SCO dragon first. It's gonna be ugly.



    Heh. I be watchin' real close.
    That dragon is made of paper.

    SCO is doing a classic stock pump and dump.

    If they had a fragment of a case, they could
    have got an immediate injunction against IBM.
    However, SCO didn't and couldn't.

    -drh
    --
  11. salvarsan wrote:

    >Heh. I be watchin' real close.
    >That dragon is made of paper.


    I'm really surprised that nobody has simply clubbed them over
    the head with a lot of cash and a hostile tender offer.

    <WC Fields voice>

    "Go away pesky little company, ya bother me !"


    >SCO is doing a classic stock pump and dump.


    DO tell. Recent sales by boardmembers and such ?

    >If they had a fragment of a case, they could
    >have got an immediate injunction against IBM.
    >However, SCO didn't and couldn't.


    The big issue I see is that IBM has deep enough pockets to
    bury SCO in court.



    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
  12. Richard

    Richard Guest

    jshinal_REMOVE_THIS_PART@mindspring.com wrote...

    > The big issue I see is that IBM has deep enough pockets to
    > bury SCO in court.


    SCO's lawyers are working on contingency in the suit against IBM.
    That's one of the reasons Red Hat sued SCO--to get SCO burning money
    on lawyers.

    Always hated SCO Unix. At its very best, it was Unix in a suit and
    wingtips. Kinda like AIX that way.

    --
    Gonna miss seeing you play, Pete Sampras.
  13. salvarsan

    salvarsan Guest

    John S. Shinal wrote:
    > salvarsan wrote:


    >>SCO is doing a classic stock pump and dump.

    >
    >
    > DO tell. Recent sales by boardmembers and such ?


    <http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0001102542&owner=include>

    The SEC's EDGAR link documents insider transactions by SCO Group
    officers and board members. Form 4 describes stock sales.
    I counted $700,000 in post-lawsuit stock sales before I got
    bored. More diligent news sources have cited $1.2Meg.

    I sorta don't blame them. If your stock was circling the drain
    at $3 then it suddenly climbed above $10, wouldn't you sell?


    >>If they had a fragment of a case, they could
    >>have got an immediate injunction against IBM.
    >>However, SCO didn't and couldn't.

    >
    >
    > The big issue I see is that IBM has deep enough pockets to
    > bury SCO in court.



    They got the bux. The issue is whether they have the will to refuse
    a settlement and bury SCO for being blatant frauds.

    My hope is that the case is tried on merit instead of
    "proof by loud assertion."

    There is a good rebuttal of SCO claims by Eric Raymond at
    <http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween9.html>


    -drh
    --

Share This Page