US Department of Justice forces people to buy Microsoft Windows

[AzDesertRat]

If they follow up, they take you to court and make you pay $$$ per violation, however they never pay legal fees even if they are wrong (the figure is 30% or more are wrong).

Random Related Article

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Err, excuse me, I wasn't calling pvn stupid, or even the thread stupid. I meant the topic - er what I really meant was the "subject" line, I was in a rush. Let me rephrase my statement, in all seriousness because I mis-spoke,

"The thread subjet is extremly misleading." There, that's what I really meant. The thread itself provides for discussion of theft and copyright infringment, which is important.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was intentionally misleading. I often post stories like this with a topic line that is intentionally twisted to highlight a strange angle of an interesting story. In this case, the fact that the DOJ is *mandating* that someone use a product that they have prosecuted as an illegal monopoly was too ironic to pass up.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
US Department of Justice

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who, then? This prosecution was a result of an FBI investigation. He wasn't in the county pokey.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
forces

[/ QUOTE ]
no.

[ QUOTE ]
people

[/ QUOTE ]
no.

[ QUOTE ]
to buy

[/ QUOTE ]
no.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder how you would characterize it.

From the article:

[ QUOTE ]
According to the Web site TorrentFreak, McCausland and his attorney will fight the situation. "It isn't the fact that I have to be monitored that bothers me, it is the fact that I have (to) restructure my life (different OS, different software on that OS) and that they would require (force) me to purchase software while I am currently unemployed and relatively unemployable with the two felonies that they gave me," McCausland said. "It is just a ridiculous situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Microsoft Windows

[/ QUOTE ]
1 out 5 ain't bad!

So we have an article about one particular person. I guess you got me there, but the policy of requiring microsoft's "illegal monopoly" operating system is not particuarly aimed at this one guy. We'll give you half a point for that. So 0.5 out of four for you, significantly worse than the 1 out of 5 you (incorrectly) claimed I hit.

Good show.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
So we have an article about one particular person. I guess you got me there, but the policy of requiring microsoft's "illegal monopoly" operating system is not particuarly aimed at this one guy. We'll give you half a point for that. So 0.5 out of four for you, significantly worse than the 1 out of 5 you (incorrectly) claimed I hit.

Good show.

[/ QUOTE ]
The judge made the ruling, not the justice department, if I'm not mistaken.

The guy is not in any way forced, no matter how much he whines. It is a simply a condition of his using a computer that he must have tracking software installed on it. That the tracking software only works on 95% of computers is a symptom of government efficiency. I'm sure they could have developed a Linux version for the benefit of hacker-crims everywhere. Then you'd be whining about government inefficiency....catch 22, no?

And yes, person, convicted felon person seeking freedom, in fact, is very different to "people". I could make a new post now: GOVERNMENT FORCES PEOPLE TO WEAR TRACKING DEVICES!. Well, yes, they do. Convicted felons. Who are given an option between this and jail.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on those of us who have to read these posts.

[Leaky Eye]

Internet propagandist makes absurdly misleading thread title.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
may God have mercy on those of us who have to read these posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely have pity on your pour soul, I wouldn't want someone pointing a gun at me, making me read a website either.

[Kimbell175113]

[ QUOTE ]
It's theft.

You wouldn't steal a VCR. You wouldn't steal a Car....

^Kidding, but isn't that how the commercials for this stuff go?

Why shouldn't theft be jailable?

[/ QUOTE ]
"But if my friend bought a new car and said 'hey, would you like me to burn you a copy?'..." -some comedian

[Josem]

in an information-based world, why shouldn't people have the same regard for intellectual property rights as physical property rights?

is anyone able to provide a convincing reason that the government should not protect property rights?

[Misfire]

There are good arguments for not protecting intellectual property because there is no scarcity. Not sure I agree with them, but it's an interesting point that shows the difference between intellectual property and tangible property.

Copying a movie is not actually taking revenue away from the film company because it is not certain the person receiving the pirated copy would have paid said film company to let him watch it otherwise.

[Josem]

well, it is still stealing Sklansky dollars.