OT: Trial software / expiration (was Re: OT: Edge on Linux - Issue.)

[Fairlight]

On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 09:22:57PM -0400, Rkreiss at verizon.net] may or may
not have proven themselves an utter git by pronouncing:
> Top post:
>
> As far as I know, data, be it from a database program or a file with
> text, belong to the person creating it.  It doesn't belong to the company
> which created the software to create it.

Quite correct.  Which numerous people seem to forget when they attempt to
create extortion mechanisms to get paid for their software.

> I came across this problem years ago when working for a softwsre company
> dealing with the apparel company.  They leased the hardware and were
> financing through the company I was working for.  We were advised that we
> could repossess our software but not the data.

Also quite correct.

> So, MS can not stop someone from seeing the files created with their
> pre-loaded unlicensed software.

Not necessarily.  I'll preface this with IANAL, but...

I've heard stories of being able to skirt this issue.  Some people have
snatched back their software and actually stooped so low as to provide
their customers with only hardcopy printouts of reams of data, which
required re-entry.  It seems that as long as you don't destroy the data or
prevent access to the data, you -may- somehow be covered.  I'm not sure how
much of this is legitimate, how much is illegitimate, and how much is urban
legend.

What would lend me to believe that MS -could- render the files unreadable
without a licensed copy of the software is that the data still exists.
It's not destroyed.

So I already hear the argument firing up that that's not the actual data,
if it can't be read plainly.  I have a little food for thought:

Consider the people being sued for downloading movies, music, etc., off of
peer to peer networks.  People (namely The Pirate Bay, if you follow the
news) have been accused of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement
simply for hosting .torrent metafiles, which are files that actually only
tell the client how to go about downloading the files.  If the people going
after infringers are being that stringent and getting away with judgements
in high courts, it seems that you'd be in a lot more trouble for
downloading/uploading just partial files, even if you didn't convey an
entire work in one direction or another.  It's supposedly part of a work,
and therefore infringing, even though a chunk of data in the middle of a
file is useless by itself.

If that much could be claimed, then it could be argued in this case that the
data is still there, even if it's useless without the proprietary software.

All it takes is a few lawyers to bring ruin to everything.  Some dangerous
precedents have already been set.

mark->