How Microsoft using gays and lesbians can get back at Microsoft

[dsc]

1) Call the company which manufactured your computer and tell them in no uncertain terms that it is the last computer you will buy from them unless and until:

A) Microsoft publicly apologizes for pulling support from the Washington State gay rights bill at the last minute

and

B) Microsoft makes amends by providing a job to any gay or lesbian who loses his or her job and housing to any gay or lesbian who loses his or her housing during the time it takes to get that bill passed in Washington State.

2) CC to Microsoft

We need to let them know that we mean business.

[arwalden]

1. Or... Just Continue To Pirate Their Software

[Melodybe]

2. Or start buying apple, Jobbs likes gay people.

[dsc]

7. If Microsoft doesn't do the above

I will buy an Apple. I like them better anyway.

[Dr.Phool]

3. Why just gays and lesbians?

Let's all screw them. Everybody switch to Linux or Apple.

[Tux]

9. Not everyone can handle Linux

However, under this crap, we could set up a Linux forum here and let people help each other with it. Maybe the programmers could make a DU distro.....?

At any rate, I'd ban them if I didn't already. If anyone works in IT, try to switch some things to Linux. For everyone else, check out http://distrowatch.com for distros that suit you.

[smoogatz]

4. Buy a Mac.

They rock.

[wuushew]

6. idea that one should pay premium for what should otherwise be a commodity

is not cool. I know they make Mac clones but I sure don't see a lot of them. Apple loves to retain control over their property.

The future I long for is dirt cheap hardware and free software unencumbered by the bothersome ideas of intellectual property laws.

[smoogatz]

8. I disagree.

If you want good stuff, you ought to expect to pay a premium. Intellectual property rights may be "bothersome" to consumers who are to cheap to pay for recorded music and such, but I support such rights to the extent that they protect people who do creative work.

[RoyGBiv]

10. Problem is ...

Our current laws regarding intellectual property do not protect those who do creative work. They protect corporations who patent or copyright the creative work of others to the extent that those creative people aren't allow to use it themselves independent of the corporation.

This hurts all of us.

The current trend is leading us into an era in which those of us who do play by the rules and pay their premiums are simply paying for the temporary ability to use the product of a creative person for a specific task or limited amount of time.

As for expecting to pay a premium, this logic suggests that those too poor to pay the arbitrary premiums intellectual property holders set are simply out of luck. That sort of thinking, extended to its logical limits, justifies the corporatist mentality that we peons have no rights but those set by those with wealth and power.

Think of it this way. William Shakespeare invented a good portion of the modern English language. Had Shakespeare been an employee of some company like Microsoft operating under our current system of laws, those words would have been patented, and before anyone else could use them in a piece of writing, they'd have to pay a licensing fee, not to Shakespeare, but to the company that owned the patent. This is precisely what software companies, etc. do when they patent or copyright "ideas."

[smoogatz]

11. Think of it this way.

I'm a writer. That's mostly what I do for a living. Without copyright protection, anyone who wanted to could publish my work and sell it and keep all the money, and I'd get squat. What I said was that I support intellectual property rights law to the extent that it protects creative people. I wish it protected us more, frankly. I should be getting a bigger cut. But without copyright protection, I'd be doing it for the love and only the love--and love, as my grandpa used to say, don't feed the bulldog.

[RoyGBiv]

13. Question ...

As a writer, do you believe it would hurt your interests for your work to be available in a public library? Should no one be able to quote you without paying you, or should you be able to arbitrarily determine who is allowed to quote you?

Aside from that, what Microsoft and similar corporations do is akin to claiming ownership of a prepositional phrase, not just any specific phrase, the very idea of the phrase. As a writer, you should understand that this would hurt you personally and everyone else who might benefit from your work.

As for you getting a bigger cut, yes, you should, but the copyright laws in this country are a huge part of the reason you don't.

[smoogatz]

16. My cut's got nothing to do with copyright law

and everything to do with the the bargaining power of publishing companies, who set the writer's royalty pretty much wherever they like--take it or leave it. I'm not going to defend Microsoft, obviously--I dislike them, but mostly because I beleive they make a shoddy product that's a third rate rip-off of OS9. Their situation and the situations of individual writers and musicians and other creative artists are miles apart. But, if you invent something, or write a song or a poem or a novel, you ought to be protected from those who want to profit from your work without paying you or distribute your work free without your permission. Obviously I have no objection to libraries lending my books. I would object, though, if you or anyone else scanned one of my books and put it up on your website without my permission.

[RoyGBiv]

20. Your cut ...

Your cut has everything to do with copyright law.

You write something, and then what? You sell it. Actually, you sell a copyright, most likely First Rights or All Rights unless you've developed some professional collateral that allows you to negotiate better terms.

When you sell those rights, you agree to compensation. Your cut is based on that agreement. Because copyright law protects the copyright holder, not necessarily the creator, you no longer have any standing once you have agreed to sell your rights. Publishing houses use this to their advantage, of fact of which you are obviously aware. How you can then claim that copyright law has nothing to do with your cut is, I admit, beyond my ability to understand.

[smoogatz]

12. Oh, and you're wrong about Shakespeare.

He didn't "invent" any portion of the modern English language. He invented a great many poems and plays in which he made brilliant use of the existing language, which was Elizabethan English.

[RoyGBiv]

14. Actually, I'm not ...

Not in the same sense that corporations use the term "inventing." That is, the first written use of those words was in his writing. And, he did simply make up many of his words or developed new meanings for words.

"If ... Then" constructions in computer programs were "invented" by those who developed the programming languages, but the idea, the logic, was pre-existing. Regardless, the "If ... Then" construction has been patented.

[smoogatz]

17. Really?

"the first written use of those words was in his writing. And, he did simply make up many of his words or developed new meanings for words."

Got a footnote for this? If he was making up words, how did he expect his largely uneducated audiences to understand what the hell he was talking about? You're talking to an English major here, you know.

[thebigidea]

18. you've got to be kidding!

Of course he did... hundreds of 'em!

try books like "Brush Up Your Shakespeare," and "Coined by Shakespeare: Words and Meanings First Penned by the Bard"

An English Major isn't aware of this? Pardon me while I have a strange interlude.

[RoyGBiv]

19. Footnotes ...

Harry Levin refers to Shakespeare as "a most audacious inventor of words" and provides as examples the words 'auspicious,' 'assassination,' 'disgraceful,' 'dwindle,' and 'savagery' as likely originating with Shakespeare, at least in English form.

The literature on this point is vast. I can put together a bibliography for you if you'd like.

If he was making up words, how did he expect his largely uneducated audiences to understand what the hell he was talking about?

As an English major, you're surely familiar with Russ McDonald.

Recall that Shakespeare largely intended his work to be presented in a theatrical format, not simply read. "In the theater the speaking actor frequently relies on tone, semantic drive, narrative context, and body language to communicate the sense of utterly unfamiliar terms and phrases. . . ." The Bedford Companion to Shakespeare: An Introduction with Documents. McDonald spends some time discussing the difficulty of determining Shakespeare's meaning. The need for this discussion is, guess what, based on the fact Shakespeare invented words and meanings.

Since you are an English major, I am quite frankly taken aback at the very idea that you would claim Shakespeare did not invent words. Assuming you are familiar with the history of the English language, you should know that from the period between about 1200 and 1600, the English language changed dramatically, particularly with regard to the introduction of new words and concepts and the appropriation of words from other languages that were put to specific and distinct uses in the English language. Chaucer and Shakespeare played a heavy role in this process, introducing their own vocabularies and popularizing much of what had been taking place with the language among individuals.

You're talking to an English/History major, you know.

[begin_within]

15. The Mac isn't really a commodity computer, it's a luxury computer, but

with the $499 Mac Mini, it is moving into the commodity range. The system software and applications that come with the Mac are far superior to anything that Microsoft has ever put out. The Mac OSX is more sophisticated, elegant and stable than Windows has ever been. Programs like iDVD, iTunes and Garage Band that come with every new Mac are better than the capabilities that Microsoft even has for writing software. And the pro-level applications like Photoshop, QuarkXpress, inDesign, Final Cut Express, DVD studio pro, etc. make Windows PCs look like toys.

[thebigidea]

21. but you can get most of those pro-level apps for PC, right?

Never understood format wars - whatever tool works best for the job, or whatever you can afford. Computer partisans always struck me as a bit silly - the sheer spleen expended over what kind of hammer has the better comfort grip seems way out of perspective.

[begin_within]

25. Yes you can, but they work best on the platform they were originally

developed for, not on any other plaform they are ported to... for example, I have read people complain about the performance of Adobe Photoshop on Windows, while on Mac OS it is flawless.

[wuushew]

23. Computer power far exceeds many people's need

this is not the 1980s when word processing or balancing a checkbook were novel. Most mainstream computers can easily manipulate high resolution pictures or produce music/sounds above the sampling distinction of the human ear.

In many ways the evolution of both the PC and the Mac are being driven by marketing forces. At least with PC's the maker of the hardware is largely divorced from that of software. With Macintosh you pay for the box and the OS. Proprietary ownership increases the market cost to the consumer. With open source you can advance the frontier of software through the work of people who often only have a cursory interest in profit motive.

[begin_within]

24. well it depends on your needs

"With Macintosh you pay for the box and the OS." .... also built-in networking, FireWire, DVD burner, AppleWorks, iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD, iTunes, Garage Band, Safari, and whatever software they also include with the particular model (mine came with WorldBook and 2 video games). No matter what computer you buy, you pay for the OS one way or another. If I have to pay for an OS, I would rather it be Mac OSX than any version of Windows.

[Quetzal]

5. I wrote to them earlier

for succumbing to bigotry.

I hope GLBT Microsoft employees speak up.

[fortyfeetunder]

22. Don' t go after MSFT, go after that fundie Christian bully!

Going after MSFT and punishing them will only vindicate Rev. Hutcherson's terror spree. Who is he going after next?

Maybe some protests in front of his church about spreading hatred and discontent will be more effective. Every Sunday, period, let the crowd grow until he realizes he can't pull that crap anymore.