On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 11:20, Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Thursday 29 Mar 2012, Vickram Crishna wrote: > > I think we are losing sight of what constitutes a service, and the > > relationship between supplier and consumer. It is entirely true that > > the service is free, but its users are still consumers. Do you think > > that someone who serves free food at a public school is not liable > > for the quality? > > > > I am frankly puzzled by the analogy (while I am not an apologist for > > Google): somebody advising me about possible danger is a different > > kettle of fish from somebody who blocks everyone from using a public > > mountain road because rocks sometimes fall. > > > > As the article points out, Pirate Bay's service is also used by > > perfectly honest individuals to publicize and offer their legal > > artistic creations. Wherever there is free speech, there will be > > people who abuse it, like the apocryphal Mexican discovered in > > Jallandhar. That does not mean that free speech itself should be > > ended. > > At one end I agree with Sanjeev -- MS is providing a free service with > clearly defined terms, and if you don't like the service or the terms > you are welcome to choose another one. > The issue of price has nothing to do with this. An illegal act would still be illegal, even if I paid for it. The ToS is the operative instrument here. > There are also some (either explicit or implicit) expectations that > consumers have from the service. These expectations have been met by > the service over many years, and consumers have come to depend on the > service to achieve specific ends. In another email on this thread, I cite my GApps experience. Google has continued to drop its free service limits (down to 10 accounts), and people are offended! Everyday, I see a dozen posts by people who use abusive language because they were told 3 years ago that Google offered 200 accounts per domain, so they registered and forgot, did not activate, and now they are re-registering, they want the old number back (because I told you I would come back later). > Belying those expectations without > notice is at the very least unethical, Exactly. It is unethical, immoral, and MSN (and BillyG) will rot in hell! > and may actually be grounds for a > case in more lawyer-happy nations. > Grounds for a case are easy, I still think you defamed me 10 years ago when you said you were better than me at perl. I can get a lawyer to send you a letter. But realistically, what would a judge say? > Finally, if I were MS, Raj, Raj, Raj. And if I was a woman, I would have been your Mausi. > I would show cases of malware being distributed > over P2P links from pirate bay, and claim that I acted in good faith to > protect my customers. > > Very knotty problem. Fortunately I don't use MS products or services, > so I don't need to worry about their vagaries. And to tell the truth, I > don't have much sympathy for people who do, either! > EXACTLY! We should be happy that they (MS) are stupid, offensive, and unreasonable. Why should we wish our enemies had brains? -- Sanjeev Gupta +65 98551208 http://www.linkedin.com/in/ghane
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
