On May 15, 3:32 pm, Geico Caveman <spammers-go-h...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> I am afraid that the RIAA-Microsoft analogy does not hold without
> qualifications.
>
> RIAA's products are actually stolen by people who do not own them. One may
> find their tactics distasteful (like suing grandmothers etc.), but they
> have an actual right to be paid for the music that is stolen.
RIAA is used as a 'front' for this as its members do not want to cop
the flak of suing customers. The problem for RIAA and its members are
that its member recording companies are now being imputed with RIAA's
actions.
>
> Microsoft, on the other hand, is here asking to be paid by people who are
> NOT its customers, who use code that Microsoft did not write, and who, if
> their choices are any indication, wish to have nothing to do with Microsoft
> or its products, as much as possible.
>
> There would be a parallel if Microsoft were (quite justifiably) suing people
> who use say Microsoft Office, without purchasing a license. What Microsoft
> is attempting here is to sue people who use OpenOffice.org, hoping to force
> them to pay Microsoft for the privilege of using programs not produced by
> Microsoft.
>
> Please do not edify Microsoft's actions by comparing them to a comparatively
> far more ethical organization such as RIAA.
Microsoft has usually operated via BSA (similar to RIAA) but BSA's
acts are often being imputed back to Microsoft (eg Ernie Ball case).
Trouble now is that Microsoft are having to do its protection
racketeering on its own. It presumably thinks it can get away with
suing and extorting its own customers because of its vice-grip hold on
the market, its political influence and its pseudo-sovereign
attitude. Goodness knows when Uncle Sam willwake up to the fact that
it is the 'seven sisters' (oil companies) all over again, except that
it is now one 'big ugly sister'.
|
|
