GFWL shutdown so nice Microsoft did it twice: MS e-book DRM servers to go offline, refunds will be offered

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

I wasn't actually talking about hardware support in Linux but end user support from help lines and back to base.

On many distributions you can optionally pay for that if you choose, as you said yourself. Windows never gives you a choice and monetizes you in a bunch of different ways. Realistically the vast majority of users will never use Microsoft support. If they sold their support service separately and Windows were free I would have no problems with it (save for the fact that since the OS isn't open source no other company can provide that service).

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Value is still user specific. If you live in India and only earn 50c a day then trying to charge them $120 for windows is unfair and I would not argue that opinion has anything to do with entitlement.

But given I am specifically talking about people in first world countries with disposable incomes and access to all these products, paying 10% of your PC cost for an up to date OS that works with everything, then complaining it is too much is  an entitlement issue.

By that logic 400$ would be just as reasonable a price since we live in first world countries with disposable incomes and can probably afford it.

 

So now what, complaining about a product because I feel it's trash and costs too much for what it is is a matter of entitlement? Seriously? I should just sit there and praise Microsoft for having graced us with an operating system that doesn't instantly kill your cat upon installation? Of course not, and it's not like they're doing any of this out of the goodness of their hearts - they are a business that wants to sell us something and we have every right to criticize every aspect of it if we think it's deserved. ESPECIALLY since they used every shady tactic in the book to gain a monopoly on the market so that competitors are severely disadvantaged.

 

If your friend gives you a birthday present and you complain it wasn't expensive enough, that's entitlement. If a company sells you a product for 100$ and you don't think that product is worth the money, that's just being a discerning customer.

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What right do we have to demand a company charge less for a product they have to maintain and are legally responsible for?

Obviously you can't force them to make it cheaper, but you can say you think it should be. Doesn't seem to me like I'm being unreasonable here. You're talking of Microsoft as if it were a charity or something and we should just take their best effort without complaining. You could maybe make that argument if Windows were free and people were relentlessly complaining that sometimes an update breaks something; but as it stands that argument makes no sense.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

On many distributions you can optionally pay for that if you choose, as you said yourself. Windows never gives you a choice and monetizes you in a bunch of different ways. Realistically the vast majority of users will never use Microsoft support. If they sold their support service separately and Windows were free I would have no problems with it (save for the fact that since the OS isn't open source no other company can provide that service).

But you are not a general consumer, you are an enthusiast who knows a little bit more and likely will never call the hotline.  Telephone support numbers are used by an average of 70% of customers either in isolation or as well as trying to find the support online or through social media.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&ved=2ahUKEwicrZrK2JTjAhUOfH0KHUuVDD0QFjALegQICBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Finfo.microsoft.com%2Frs%2F157-GQE-382%2Fimages%2FEN-CNTNT-Report-DynService-2017-global-state-customer-service.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2dUxXciYB0CrMwCoBbZJXl

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

By that logic 400$ would be just as reasonable a price since we live in first world countries with disposable incomes and can probably afford it.

Most users do only spend around $400 on a PC/laptop that comes with windows and 24/7 support.

 

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

So now what, complaining about a product because I feel it's trash and costs too much for what it is is a matter of entitlement? Seriously? I should just sit there and praise Microsoft for having graced us with an operating system that doesn't instantly kill your cat upon installation? Of course not, and it's not like they're doing any of this out of the goodness of their hearts - they are a business that wants to sell us something and we have every right to criticize every aspect of it if we think it's deserved. ESPECIALLY since they used every shady tactic in the book to gain a monopoly on the market so that competitors are severely disadvantaged.

I don't think you read my post. I was very careful to qualify.

 

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

If your friend gives you a birthday present and you complain it wasn't expensive enough, that's entitlement. If a company sells you a product for 100$ and you don't think that product is worth the money, that's just being a discerning customer.

Obviously you can't force them to make it cheaper, but you can say you think it should be. Doesn't seem to me like I'm being unreasonable here. You're talking of Microsoft as if it were a charity or something and we should just take their best effort without complaining. You could maybe make that argument if Windows were free and people were relentlessly complaining that sometimes an update breaks something; but as it stands that argument makes no sense.

 

We are not talking sheep stations,  I would say if you want to pirate windows because you think it cost 10% too much, then yes you are entitled.

[Sauron]

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

But you are not a general consumer, you are an enthusiast who knows a little bit more and likely will never call the hotline.  Telephone support numbers are used by an average of 70% of customers either in isolation or as well as trying to find the support online or through social media.

Most likely for things any of us could answer. The level of technical training required for the first level of hotline support is minimal. Regardless, why not give the customer the choice? If the price is for a service don't attach it to a product. It's not your average grandma who goes out and buys a Windows 10 box.

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Most users do only spend around $400 on a PC/laptop that comes with windows and 24/7 support.

You missed the point - I was saying that the fact that most people can afford it isn't a sufficient justification for a product's price.

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I don't think you read my post. I was very careful to qualify.

I read it, I disagree with your qualifications. Especially since 1) I didn't say that you should pirate it over this, 2) I'm talking about the box price and I said so clearly and 3) you pretty much included everyone in first world nations who can ostensibly afford a Windows license without starving, which is quite a broad demographic.

17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

We are not talking sheep stations,  I would say if you want to pirate windows because you think it cost 10% too much, then yes you are entitled.

From literally my first post in this conversation:

10 hours ago, Sauron said:

I'm not saying it justifies piracy but asserting that Windows is overpriced is perfectly reasonable.

In response to

Quote

if you live in nth America with decent internet and you think windows is over priced then you have entitlement issues. 

If you want to rephrase that as "if you think pirating Windows is justifies just because of its price and you could easily afford it you have entitlement issues" that's fine with me, but it's not what you originally said and it's not what I was contesting.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Most likely for things any of us could answer. The level of technical training required for the first level of hotline support is minimal. Regardless, why not give the customer the choice? If the price is for a service don't attach it to a product. It's not your average grandma who goes out and buys a Windows 10 box.

The point is the majority of customers need it, like all products, the more options you give consumers the more they mess up and the more they blame you.  We are just going to have to live with that, we pay for 24/7 on most products we buy even if we don't use it. Still not a reason to pirate windows.

 

5 minutes ago, Sauron said:

You missed the point - I was saying that the fact that most people can afford it isn't a sufficient justification for a product's price.

No one is saying that, I am saying if you can afford a product then using the excuse of distribution or cost in order to justify piracy is just entitlement.  Remember this discussion started when I said using the distribution argument for piracy when you don't have a distribution problem is entitlement.

 

5 minutes ago, Sauron said:

I read it, I disagree with your qualifications. Especially since 1) I didn't say that you should pirate it over this, 2) I'm talking about the box price and I said so clearly and 3) you pretty much included everyone in first world nations who can ostensibly afford a Windows license without starving, which is quite a broad demographic.

I'm sorry, but I think those qualifications are apt.  Remember my initial claims weren't even about OS's but about optional entertainment. So even thought he discussion moved to OS's where there is quite a bit of overlap, My main point still remains.

 

5 minutes ago, Sauron said:

From literally my first post in this conversation:

In response to

If you want to rephrase that as "if you think pirating Windows is justifies just because of its price and you could easily afford it you have entitlement issues" that's fine with me, but it's not what you originally said and it's not what I was contesting.

 

Your first post in this discussion was in response to me saying cost is not an excuse for piracy when you can both afford it and have no trouble getting it.   If you wish to contest a different issue then by all means,  but for me the reality holds that piracy due to personal opinion on what costs too much is an entitlement issue only.   Everything else becomes a consumer law issue, and if it isn't a consumer law issue then it is only a consumer issue or an issue law won;t deal with.   But when we are talking less than 10% the

 

 

[Sauron]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Your first post in this discussion was in response to me saying cost is not an excuse for piracy when you can both afford it and have no trouble getting it.

That's not quite what you said, but if it is what you meant then I have no issues with it.

[imreloadin]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Several people read that out of your post, when that happens that the inference is there intentional or not.

Or people could just learn to read what is actually typed and leave their bullshit inferences out of it...just saying

[mr moose]

18 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

Or people could just learn to read what is actually typed and leave their bullshit inferences out of it...just saying

If only one person misreads what you say then maybe they are the problem, if 3 people misread what you say then you are the issue. That's how it works.

[Eaglerino]

I just hope games in the current windows store don't get removed so easily. I'll be sad if I can't play Halo Infinite 10 years from now, assuming it's the kind of game I want to even play 10 years from now

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, Eaglerino said:

I just hope games in the current windows store don't get removed so easily. I'll be sad if I can't play Halo Infinite 10 years from now, assuming it's the kind of game I want to even play 10 years from now

Microsoft recently said they're going to launch their new titles on multiple stores, including Steam.

 

https://news.xbox.com/en-us/2019/05/30/microsoft-approach-to-pc-gaming/

Quote

With that in mind, our intent is to make our Xbox Game Studios PC games available in multiple stores, including our own Microsoft Store on Windows, at their launch. We believe you should have choice in where you buy your PC games.

 

In March, we announced that Halo: The Master Chief Collection will come to PC later this year, launching on Steam in addition to the Microsoft Store on Windows. We will continue to add to the more than 20 Xbox Game Studios titles on Steam, starting with Gears 5 and all Age of Empires I, II & III: Definitive Editions. We know millions of PC gamers trust Steam as a great source to buy PC games and we’ve heard the feedback that PC gamers would like choice. We also know that there are other stores on PC, and we are working to enable more choice in which store you can find our Xbox Game Studios titles in the future.

 

So, you might be able to get it from Steam on release. If not, my guess is it will appear on Steam sometime after its initial release.

[TechyBen]

13 hours ago, mr moose said:

I am familiar with CR law and it's history,  the other link just says I have reached a limit for that book.  I am not too sure that means what you think it does.

 

Prior to copyright law being anything, there were still books/scrolls.  The concept that stage performers argued against books (especially as a new development) on grounds of content consumption is very slim.

 

Yep. That was hyperbole. My fault there. Sorry. I knew there was some resistance against the printing press, just had not exactly whom and when. There always is resistance against change for new industries/technologies. They are also not always helpful (or as most tools, can be used for good or bad).

 

The state very much felt the books were replacing/risking their own control and distribution ability (so no, not stage performers, but the church and state were the previous ones in "control" of the information/media). 

 

But the assumption is "authors should be paid for copies." Or "copies are stealing". For example, I do not know of an author being paid if a copyist made a copy by hand, without asking. I would like to see if that was so. Or such copies were sold, did they pay the author? I do though, know of the printing press being regulated for such. Thus rights to payment seems to be a social agreement, one that can change. If we agree "anyone can write, anyone can read, we all contribute to media *equally now* then the requirement to payment vanishes (we all have what we need, equally value the content, it trades back and forth at equal value. We already have this in some areas of free mods/github/etc, where a community equally provides for each part, there is still trade/value, but the monetary part or one sided profit part vanishes).

 

We are not there for all types of media. Information can be more like plants or animals. We can ask for people "never let this plant grow, I own oats now!!!", but in reality, they will, they will grow their own food, no matter how much we might demand it our right they pay us for that privilege.

 

(Copy of the example you said failed to load for you):

Spoiler

 

[imreloadin]

16 hours ago, mr moose said:

If only one person misreads what you say then maybe they are the problem, if 3 people misread what you say then you are the issue. That's how it works.

I added a disclaimer to my statement just for you...

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, TechyBen said:

 

Yep. That was hyperbole. My fault there. Sorry. I knew there was some resistance against the printing press, just had not exactly whom and when. There always is resistance against change for new industries/technologies. They are also not always helpful (or as most tools, can be used for good or bad).

 

The state very much felt the books were replacing/risking their own control and distribution ability (so no, not stage performers, but the church and state were the previous ones in "control" of the information/media). 

 

But the assumption is "authors should be paid for copies." Or "copies are stealing". For example, I do not know of an author being paid if a copyist made a copy by hand, without asking. I would like to see if that was so. Or such copies were sold, did they pay the author? I do though, know of the printing press being regulated for such. Thus rights to payment seems to be a social agreement, one that can change. If we agree "anyone can write, anyone can read, we all contribute to media *equally now* then the requirement to payment vanishes (we all have what we need, equally value the content, it trades back and forth at equal value. We already have this in some areas of free mods/github/etc, where a community equally provides for each part, there is still trade/value, but the monetary part or one sided profit part vanishes).

 

We are not there for all types of media. Information can be more like plants or animals. We can ask for people "never let this plant grow, I own oats now!!!", but in reality, they will, they will grow their own food, no matter how much we might demand it our right they pay us for that privilege.

 

(Copy of the example you said failed to load for you):

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Before print presses became a thing books were very valuable because they were hand written.  There have been recorded issues in deep history regarding interpretations of the bible (psalms more precisely), but this is a vague memory from past research. 

 

EDIT: forgot to say, the bit about early censorship in England and Germany was about political dissonance and religious control than about copyright. 

[TechyBen]

39 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Before print presses became a thing books were very valuable because they were hand written.  There have been recorded issues in deep history regarding interpretations of the bible (psalms more precisely), but this is a vague memory from past research. 

 

EDIT: forgot to say, the bit about early censorship in England and Germany was about political dissonance and religious control than about copyright. 

Yes. But it still shows, there was a different value to an original vs a copy. The limits on copying were not applied due to the authors. The payment would be to the copyist, not to the family of the distant owner (Disney ). Was there a loss of income for the theaters? Should the writers pay the theater staff for the media?

 

A provided license to copy and the charge for the intellectual property are very much things rooted in either a social law, or a governmental one. The rain can be free, or it can be taxed (literally, here we have a water basin tax added to the water utility charge ).

 

The same applies to things like the books here. Is it wrong or illegal for those purchasing to keep a DRM free copy? Is it wrong or illegal to keep it after MS revokes the "license"?

It's certainly economical for them to do this, as they have the cash to do it.

[mr moose]

36 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Yes. But it still shows, there was a different value to an original vs a copy. The limits on copying were not applied due to the authors. The payment would be to the copyist, not to the family of the distant owner (Disney ). Was there a loss of income for the theaters? Should the writers pay the theater staff for the media?

Many copyright laws have been demanded by more than Disney like companies.  It's just they have the money and power to do something about it.  Outside of that,  I am not too sure what the link is to Disney,  suffice to say they can only be paid for content they own the rights to.

 

Quote

A provided license to copy and the charge for the intellectual property are very much things rooted in either a social law, or a governmental one. The rain can be free, or it can be taxed (literally, here we have a water basin tax added to the water utility charge ).

If you want to use town water that has been collected and processed then you have to pay for that service.  Again, not sure how that relates to copyright or pirates/corporations getting paid for another persons work.

 

Quote

The same applies to things like the books here. Is it wrong or illegal for those purchasing to keep a DRM free copy?

Nope, but it is still  illegal to break DRM under certain conditions.

Quote

Is it wrong or illegal to keep it after MS revokes the "license"?

If they have offered a refund and it was in the terms of service that such an outcome was possible, then likely it would be.  However that would have to be tried in courts.  Neither you nor i could predict the outcome of that as it hasn't really been a thing before.

 

Quote

It's certainly economical for them to do this, as they have the cash to do it.

There is no doubt about that.  I only dispute the abstraction of causality behind it all. 

 

[TechyBen]

9 hours ago, mr moose said:

Many copyright laws have been demanded by more than Disney like companies.  It's just they have the money and power to do something about it.  Outside of that,  I am not too sure what the link is to Disney,  suffice to say they can only be paid for content they own the rights to.

 

Hahahahaha. I love how we still get words put in our mouths. Like, I use Disney as an example of extended long term (over and past the lifespan of the author) payment for media. That's all. There are many other examples, but the most known is Disney. 

 

They "own the rights", how? Who does and why? That is the question. Here we have MS taking back books. Think about that. Think about a company coming into your house and taking a book/product/etc. Or likewise, someone saying an "intellectual property" is no longer yours. How about a recipe? "You are no longer allowed to make cookies, I own them". So this leaves media in a strange position. We know the author is deserving of a wage, and we want to pay them. But how we facilitate that, and how we receive the service/goods as a customer is complex.

 

My solution is to buy DRM when I can afford/don't care of the loss (watch it once on Netflix), but get physical when I want long term (bluray/dvd/DRM free download). Others may just not care (but thankfully the Netflix model is being more consumer balanced, so they are scammed/left out/exploited less).

 

Quote

If you want to use town water that has been collected and processed then you have to pay for that service.  Again, not sure how that relates to copyright or pirates/corporations getting paid for another persons work.

You never read the point.

 

I said " The rain can be free, or it can be taxed (literally, here we have a water basin tax added to the water utility charge  )."

Here, *the rain is taxed*. I am charged for having land that can collect rain, irrespective of treatment or processing. I have to give that rainwater to the encatchment area, else get a fine (storing it can get me into trouble). Someone else owns the rain, other than the citizens. Yes, it's a service charge, a "right". But it's one arbitrarily granted by those in charge. Similar with authors, they could be granted more or less control, more or less value.

 

Quote

Nope, but it is still  illegal to break DRM under certain conditions.

If they have offered a refund and it was in the terms of service that such an outcome was possible, then likely it would be.  However that would have to be tried in courts.  Neither you nor i could predict the outcome of that as it hasn't really been a thing before.

 

There is no doubt about that.  I only dispute the abstraction of causality behind it all. 

 

No problem with abstractions or checking causality. The LHC exists and was successful for a reason.

[mr moose]

17 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

Hahahahaha. I love how we still get words put in our mouths. Like, I use Disney as an example of extended long term (over and past the lifespan of the author) payment for media. That's all. There are many other examples, but the most known is Disney. 

 

They "own the rights", how? Who does and why? That is the question. Here we have MS taking back books. Think about that. Think about a company coming into your house and taking a book/product/etc. Or likewise, someone saying an "intellectual property" is no longer yours. How about a recipe? "You are no longer allowed to make cookies, I own them". So this leaves media in a strange position. We know the author is deserving of a wage, and we want to pay them. But how we facilitate that, and how we receive the service/goods as a customer is complex.

 

My solution is to buy DRM when I can afford/don't care of the loss (watch it once on Netflix), but get physical when I want long term (bluray/dvd/DRM free download). Others may just not care (but thankfully the Netflix model is being more consumer balanced, so they are scammed/left out/exploited less).

 

You never read the point.

 

I said " The rain can be free, or it can be taxed (literally, here we have a water basin tax added to the water utility charge  )."

Here, *the rain is taxed*. I am charged for having land that can collect rain, irrespective of treatment or processing. I have to give that rainwater to the encatchment area, else get a fine (storing it can get me into trouble). Someone else owns the rain, other than the citizens. Yes, it's a service charge, a "right". But it's one arbitrarily granted by those in charge. Similar with authors, they could be granted more or less control, more or less value.

 

 

No problem with abstractions or checking causality. The LHC exists and was successful for a reason.

yes that is true.

[TechyBen]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Except when you already have 3 or 4 highly probable causes and there is no way to falsify further slightly less probably ones.

No one was stating an absolute fact, but asking what the possibilities were. And even then, there is to some extent some known information (like if new information came out through statements, accounts reports, if MS were know for certain pump and dump mechanics etc, though hypothetical in this example).

 

At times it does not matter "house is on fire, lets spend a hour figuring out why" when you just need to get out there. But after the fact "house burnt down, let's find out why" is a *legitimate* enquiry.

 

Why shoot people down when they do??? Are there not legitimate questions to ask about MS, how the book sales/service started, why it failed, and how to gracefully close it (as they seem to have done), plus the consumer impact?

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, TechyBen said:

No one was stating an absolute fact, but asking what the possibilities were. And even then, there is to some extent some known information (like if new information came out through statements, accounts reports, if MS were know for certain pump and dump mechanics etc, though hypothetical in this example).

 

At times it does not matter "house is on fire, lets spend a hour figuring out why" when you just need to get out there. But after the fact "house burnt down, let's find out why" is a *legitimate* enquiry.

 

Why shoot people down when they do??? Are there not legitimate questions to ask about MS, how the book sales/service started, why it failed, and how to gracefully close it (as they seem to have done), plus the consumer impact?

I edited my post to avoid further derailing.

 

EDIT: For reference,  none of that was a concern in any of my posts.

[raven_rampkin]

Gotta love how this whole thread nearly turned into alleged piracy supporter bash festival. Not the first time, not the last time.

I digress.

[TechyBen]

16 hours ago, raven_rampkin said:

Gotta love how this whole thread nearly turned into alleged piracy supporter bash festival. Not the first time, not the last time.

I digress.

Well, it does stand. Those who had the books taken back... do they have a right to keep them? If they did are they "pirates"? It's the problem when the status quo (they had books) changes (they were taken back).

 

So it's a legit question.

[raven_rampkin]

3 hours ago, TechyBen said:

Well, it does stand. Those who had the books taken back... do they have a right to keep them? If they did are they "pirates"? It's the problem when the status quo (they had books) changes (they were taken back).

 

So it's a legit question.

That's the thing though: I agree with your idea. However, I can't agree with those who jumped to conclusions too soon (and that's what I meant by "alleged" pirates).

[mr moose]

8 hours ago, raven_rampkin said:

That's the thing though: I agree with your idea. However, I can't agree with those who jumped to conclusions too soon (and that's what I meant by "alleged" pirates).

I think you might have misunderstood what they meant.  The only argument regarding piracy was that this case does not form a reasonable argument to endorse piracy (as some posts initially read).