"Peter Duniho" wrote
"Roger Halstead" wrote in message

And fair use says you may make a backup copy of your software, yet MS
sets up FS to prevent this. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I
have no sympathy for MS in this case either.

Two wrongs don't make a right, but IMHO using a "no CD crack" for the
furtherance of legitimate use (i.e. archival copy) isn't a wrong at
all. Just because something's illegal, that doesn't necessarily make
it wrong (and vice a versa).

Especially if you live in a country where it isn't illegal.

By the way, Microsoft was one of the last companies on the
copy-protection bandwagon, other than a brief flirtation with it in
the 80's.

Pirates helped Microsoft gain a strangle hold on the desktop PC,
entrenching Windows. At first, distribution was crucial. Now, in order to
maintain network effects, Microsoft is beginning to offer its Windows and
Office software combination for $40 in Malaysia and to drop the price in
other countries. The fact folks in China get it for free is not a bad thing
while we in "civilized" nations are paying the PC user dues which make
Microsoft billions per year in profits and add to Microsoft's current
$50,000,000,000 USD surplus of cash. Microsoft must maintain network
effects, if necessary by further dropping its prices for Windows/Office in
countries which are threatening to use Linux.

It's been standard practice in the games market, by ALL
companies, for over a decade.

Could be. But when I have a choice, a software publisher can do as it
pleases.

Not sure if you're singling out Microsoft or not,

Most software makers have to compete for a living. Microsoft has 80% profit
margins on its monopoly software. Microsoft has a $50,000,000,000
(that's 50 billion) USD surplus of cash. Microsoft doesn't have an excuse
for making crapware or restricting the use of its game software in
civilised countries.

When it comes to Windows/Office, we in the United States must accept the
restrictions and pay.

From the federal district court of the United States.

"Microsoft possesses monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible
PC operating systems."

From the federal appeals court of the United States.

"... we uphold the District Court's finding of monopoly power in its
entirety."







but if you are, they don't deserve it. All of the
software publishers are equally guilty of putting their own interests
ahead of their *legitimate* users.

The perversion of the DMCA is one aspect as to removing users rights.

Exactly. One of the most ridiculous provisions of the DMCA is to
prohibit ANY circumvention of copy protection, regardless of intent.
I've yet to read about a serious attempt to contest this in the
courts, but IMHO if such a case does come up and the DMCA isn't found
to be unconstitutional at least in that area, we can pretty much give
up on our country ever being again what the founders intended.

Pete