14 Nov 2004
I’m gratified to see an internationalisation work in progress for Creative Commons licensing schemes, specifically, the production of a document for here, in Australia (for obvious reasons, I have something of a vested interest in the integrity of this licence in my place of residence!). If only for reasons of correct domestic spelling, it’s enjoyable to read the Australian version over foreign (typically, United States) versions of the document!
Call me a language bigot if you will, but first consider the amount of Internet content which exists in Americani[s/z]ed form, then get back to me! Apologies if anyone takes offense at this, but I much prefer familiar, established, and generally accepted as correct (outside of the United States) spelling (and, to a lesser extent, grammar) over that offered by “globally accessible” content which is, in fact, geared towards one market only — the “global” thing being a pretense at best.
No, I haven’t completely missed the significance of this licence port. I understand that there are perfectly valid legal reasons which necessitate the development of this — I just lack an adequate understanding of the nuances of language which, apparently, may constitute loop-holes in the ludicrous thing which is our legal system. Want to accuse the US of being worse? Okay, that’s true — but don’t forget the fact that we’re the second most lawsuit-happy country on the planet.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this licence (to a completely uninformed, un-lawyer (which, incidentally, replaces “attorney” in this draft) person, at least) is the change in terminology with regard to copyright law. A standing sore-point between myself and Australian copyright law is the lack of “Fair Use” clause — if I buy a record, it’s illegal for me to duplicate that, even for personal use. Foreign software licences often make provision for backup, but unless that is explicit, I don’t believe Australian copyright law offers such a provision. As always, it’s more than probable that I’m wrong.
But yes. This is interesting, because, being a copy-left licence, it completely flaunts any understated “rights” of fair use in Australian copyright law. I love it!
Just for the record, this website is licenced under a Creative Commons Deed Attribution-Non-Commercial 2.0 licence. At this stage, that is obviously based upon the US (International?) version, however the Australian version is in progress, and I look forward to being able to replace (or at least augment) the existing licence with one more applicable to the majority of my audience (as I write this, well over 70%).
Please please please let me know if I’m amazingly wrong in any of this. Even if I’m just a little bit wrong. Copyright law is one of the few aspects of the same that actually interests me, or that I care to educate myself about. I believe in the (somewhat unfortunate) necessity of law in our society; further, I believe in the need for people to be informed for this to be effective to any degree. Corporate police (chances are the link will be down, depending on the day of the week, and how much of the Internet community is enraged at that point in time) should not exist, nor should they need to exist. Copyright and Intellectual Property law, if implemented effectively, should negate the need not only for enforcement, but for the existence of such bodies altogether!
13 Nov 2004
Sydney’s CBD can get as windy as any other city, and tonight, I had a random urge to fly a kite in between office buildings. Unfortunately, Ben’s car didn’t have a kite in the back of it. We instead saw a movie, in which Tori managed to preemptively respond with the same lines as a key character (not cliches, either). From this, it is ascertained she must be pregnant. After a brief stint of terrorism in the McDonald’s on George Street (who, incidentally, now operate what is perhaps the 700th Internet cafe in that part of the world), we dispersed, which involved the denting of a bull bar, a twenty-minute wait for a train, and Hooberstank sounding suspiciously like Simple Plan.
If this post didn’t really make sense, don’t worry. I’m still trying to work it out myself.
13 Nov 2004
If I moved to somewhere in Asia, I think I could become vegetarian.
11 Nov 2004
An email sent to Microsoft, regarding an advertisement they placed on the Sydney Morning Herald website.
Updated: Microsoft responds, 12 November. ACCC makes contact, 16 November
Your advertisement on the Sydney Morning Herald website, inviting people to check their new computer in order to determine whether it is “genuine” or not, is poorly represented at best, and outright anti-competitive, ill-founded and deceptive at worst.
The advertisement (a Flash animation) begins with text stating “Buying a new PC?”, and then progresses to inform the user they should “Insist on secure and reliable software.” It then itemises an edge-to-edge hologram CD and Certificate of Authenticity as “must haves” for legitimate software. That extends beyond the protection of Microsoft Intellectual Property. That becomes protection of markets.
Under the guidelines established there, white-box computer systems sold without Windows on them (I dare not go so far as to propose that an open-source product be shipped instead, for that is utterly irrelevant to the thrust of my argument) are inherently illegitimate. This advertisement disseminates false information, with the ultimate effect of discouraging consumers from purchasing non-Microsoft products.
There ARE alternatives, which I do not feel the need to detail here, and Microsoft HAS actively discouraged people from pursuing the application of these, based on lies regarding the necessity of licensing Microsoft products. For the record, the term “PC” is not synonymous with “Microsoft Windows system”, and should not be considered such.
If this matter requires clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me via any method. A copy of this email has been posted on my personal website, and is publicly viewable to all. In the event that this advertisement is retracted or modified, I will add note to the posting of this message that the matter has been resolved, if Microsoft so desires it. The full address to this posting is http://www.joahua.com/blog/2004/11/11/dear-microsoft
Regards,
Joshua Street
This response came from Microsoft today:
Dear Joshua,
Thank you for your comments on the advertisements, however we
respectfully disagree with your assertions. The advertisements are
related to purchasing genuine Microsoft software.
Further we request that if you are posting communications on your web
site that Microsoft’s response is also posted.
Regards,
Colleen Baguley
License Compliance Manager
The advertisements are related to purchasing a PC, not to purchasing Microsoft products. Regardless as to the intended effect of this wording, to an uninformed reader, the outcome of this advertisement is a fear and distrust of non-Microsoft products. A response to Microsoft will be posted here at a later time, and a complaint with the ACCC shall be filed.
Message to the ACCC reads as follows:
Microsoft have produced an advertisement which I believe to be misleading, in the form of a Flash web ad displayed on the SMH website ( http://www.smh.com.au/ ). A complaint, sent to them on Thursday, November 11, is reproduced on my website at http://www.joahua.com/blog/2004/11/11/dear-microsoft – their response is also posted there, at their request.
My reasons for this are outlined in that posting. Essentially, they confuse, either deliberately or incidentally, the notion of “legitimate” software with “Microsoft” software. This disinformation leads consumers to perceive Microsoft offerings as the only legitmate option, when this is in fact not the case.
A copy of this message is also being sent to Microsoft piracy, and posted on the same web address given above. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries regarding this matter.
Microsoft was forwarded a copy of the same, with the full message reading as follows:
As requested, your response has been posted at the address previously provided. Additionally, the following complaint has been sent to the ACCC and posted to my website.
Microsoft have produced an advertisement which I believe to be misleading, in the form of a Flash web ad displayed on the SMH website ( http://www.smh.com.au/ ). A complaint, sent to them on Thursday, November 11, is reproduced on my website at http://www.joahua.com/blog/2004/11/11/dear-microsoft – their response is also posted there, at their request.
My reasons for this are outlined in that posting. Essentially, they confuse, either deliberately or incidentally, the notion of “legitimate” software with “Microsoft” software. This disinformation leads consumers to perceive Microsoft offerings as the only legitmate option, when this is in fact not the case.
A copy of this message is also being sent to Microsoft piracy, and posted on the same web address given above. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further queries regarding this matter.
Any response Microsoft may have to this shall be posted on my website, as has occurred previously. I shall contact you if or when further correspondence with the ACCC occurs, and the matter shall continue to be detailed on the website.
Update, 16th November: Today, I received a phone call from the ACCC (to voicemail), which requested I call them back on a 1300 number which I did not note at the time (I was out, and negotiating phone systems on a mobile, especially of government agencies, can get expensive). I hope that attempts shall be made to contact me via email; failing that, I’ll follow it up with a phone call in a few days.