Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 28th Nov 2012 15:17 UTC
Windows "As we pass the one month anniversary of the general availability of Windows 8, we are pleased to announce that to-date Microsoft has sold 40 million Windows 8 licenses. Tami Reller shared this news with industry and financial analysts, investors and media today at the Credit Suisse 2012 Annual Technology Conference. Windows 8 is outpacing Windows 7 in terms of upgrades." Not bad, but there are the usual asterisks, as Ars notes.
Thread beginning with comment 543519
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

Copyright is bloody important ... stop talking rubbish.

Software Patents which are bullshit are the problem.

Reply Parent Score: 3

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Copyright is bloody important ... stop talking rubbish.

Software Patents which are bullshit are the problem.


Hmm. Personally, I believe copyrights are also a problem. You know how nowadays things can have copyright on them for hundreds of years, long after the original creator has deceased, and how fair use - rights are being stomped on ever harder and so on? Copyright should really be reworked to much, much shorter copyright terms and to distinguish between completed works and ongoing works like e.g. Linux is an ongoing work, whereas Elvis Presley's albums are completed works.

That said, copyright is not the issue on this particular topic and on that I agree with you.

Reply Parent Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

While there are some shitty things about Copyright, it is pretty important to protect the author of the work from being ripped off.

Idiotic responses like the OP saying it needs to be abolished is just nonsense.

Reply Parent Score: 3

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Copyright should really be reworked to much, much shorter copyright terms and to distinguish between completed works and ongoing works

Perhaps giving copyright protection should also require placing the source code to works in some kind of escrow.

We have the "source code" to books - because, luckily, the "source code" to a book is the text, the consumed work itself.

Not so with films, music, or closed-source software - even when it's out of copyright, they can't be mashed up as easily as a book. But if, after copyright lapses, we'd get pre-mixed tracks of audiovisual media, or the code to formerly closed source software...

Reply Parent Score: 2

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

For a completely different view on copyright, you should also have a look at other industries:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0

Anyway it depends on how copyrights are used.

How copyright is used for the Linux kernel or for books is usually fine.

How proprietary software vendors only sell you a license to use their software with lots and lots of exception and a right to retract that permission, I don't like so much.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Lennie,

"How proprietary software vendors only sell you a license to use their software with lots and lots of exception and a right to retract that permission, I don't like so much."

Actually that's an excellent point. My knee jerk reaction was that the OP was ignorant of how copyright laws are important for the software industry. However in a very real sense corporations including microsoft have overstepped the boundaries of what copyrights are for. A prime example is not being able to take a windows license from one computer and install it on a new computer when the first is damaged or decommissioned. Copyright law is not supposed to enable Microsoft to force customers to buy the same thing over and over again, but that's essentially microsoft's core windows business model. A significant number of windows copies are being "oversold" this way: a new computer has the same OS as the old computer which is broken down, and yet the owner is required to buy windows again. Other commercial software vendors don't get that benefit. Take, for example halflife 3, photoshop, winzip, etc, your expectation is that you can continue to use them on brand new hardware when the old hardware dies. The software only needs to be replaced if you want to upgrade it. It's very reasonable for consumers to reuse the software license for an OS as well. Bundled software should not be an exceptional case for copy rights.


I would support an amendment to copyright law to explicitly give consumers the right to continue using old software licenses on new machines.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Her argument is flawed.

She even alludes to it, there is a shoe that has a patented heel technology or making things too complicated to copy.

Edited 2012-11-30 02:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3