There can be no ambiguity on the point that piracy of software and other intellectual property is bad for everyone concerned. It’s bad for the companies,as they have invested money and time on it.It’s bad for the artist/engineers as they dont get any return on what is the fruit of there labour.It’s bad for the consumer as companies and artists loose all the motivation for further innovation which ultimately harms consumers.
Companies go to great length to protect there intellectual property.This includes technical innovation ,like DRM,which makes it tough,if not impossible , to make pirated copies and legal , to prosecute the offenders. But all too often one comes across a case where one feels that the companies have gone too far, for there is a thin line between companies rights and consumer rights. Sony’s DRM fiasco is a case in point. In it’s attempt to protect its IP Sony ended up installing a software on the users system which made it vulnerable to attacks. And what’s more it was nearly impossible for user to uninstall it without making the system unstable. Due to huge outcry on the internet,which was later picked up by mainsteam media, Sony was forced to withdraw it.
Recently I came across an article which if true would lead to similar reaction on the internet. This article (New Microsoft License Ties Vista To Hardware)deals with the Windows Vista licensing. I completely agree with Microsoft that it is well within its right to protect its intellectual property. For the same reason I think its okey if it locks the PC’s running pirated copies of Vista. The WGA program running on Vista would flag it as a pirated or genuine copy. Though its still to be seen if this system gives any false alarms and if it does,then how it would be handled. But on principal I think that a consumer ,like me, would be okey with this strategy. But what I dont agree with is tieing the licensing of Vista with the hardware. What it means that if you say good bye to your old workhorse runing your licensed copy of Vista, and get a brand new machine then you cant install yout old copy of Vista on it. This distiction between old a new machine is a bit tricky , if you upgrade the memory then it’s a minor change;if you change the hard drive or mother board then it’s a major change. I am curious to know who exactly came up with this idea? For this is neither good for the consumer nor for Microsoft.It’s not good for consumer as the licensing is tied up with hardware.As a consumer I have bought my software and I think I am well within my right to install it on whatever hardware I choose.It’s bad for Microsoft as it’s going to give it a lot of bad PR.The reason for this is that early adapters , more fondly known as Geeks..:-), are the one who are going to try Vista first and this is the population which upgrades it’s PC at the drop of a hat, with the latest and greatest. And like it or not this group can raise a lot of stink on what they surely are going to percieve as infringment on there right, this is RIGHT TO UPGRADE MY PC, with whatever they want (mother board or Hard disk). And surely they dont want to buy a copy of Vista after every couple of major upgrades.
This brings me to the heading of this post.Licensing and DRM-How far is too far? What are your views?
Leave a comment