If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#271
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume LicenseEdition
I ahve not absolved sellers. I haven't even turned to the dark side of what Microsoft does. In regard to this thread, it is not relevant. You seem to think that because they do it, you can, too. If someone is wealthy because of criminal activity and you take something of theirs, you have still committed theft, no matter how much of a scum bag the other guy is. Which is true that two wrongs do not make it right. But at the same time the courts state that a EULA that cannot be read before being paid for cannot be held as binding if it tries to counter act a legal right. So if that is the case the court stipulates that you may not be unethical or wrong. |
Ads |
#272
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume LicenseEdition
Gregg Hill wrote: "caver1" wrote in message . .. Gregg Hill wrote: My point was not that the two scenarios were exactly equal. My point was that it can be "financial gain" without actual money being placed into one's bank account. Once one realizes that, then the simple math in my example of what one has in the bank after buying and installing four licenses vs. buying one license and installing it four times, shows quite clearly that the pirate has realized a "financial gain" (the extra money in the bank vs. what would be there if he bought all four licenses). I couldn't care less if it is Microsoft or someone getting started in his bedroom developing a game. If one sees value in using the application, which even Nina admitted she did (Linux won't run some of her stuff), then that one should pay the developer for each instance used. However, I think the supporters of piracy feel that it is OK because they hate Microsoft so much, they fail to look at the whole issue objectively. I think my Dad said it best regarding my parents' sometimes-rocky marriage, when he said, "Your mother and I have agreed to disagree." I think that is the only agreement that either side is going to have in this thread. Gregg Hill I agree with you that there is alot of feeling on both sides and this discussion will not change anyones minds. Bad analogies were used on both sides or just misunderstood. Some of this has spilled over from copywrites/fair use in the music world and cannot apply here. At the same time now that MS has their monopoly they are trying to make thieves out of some that are not. I agree with you up to the part of Microsoft "trying to make thieves" comment. Microsoft does not make one a thief. Microsoft OFFERS a product that is to be installed on one computer per purchase. If one CHOOSES to install it on many, one CHOOSES to become a thief at that point. Gregg Well that is where we part company. If you buy the software (and I don't care if you call it a license) your original computer is gone for whatever reason, you delete the OS from the original, put it on a new one of your own, you are not stealing. There is no financial gain here. MS is wrong for not letting you do this once they had a monopoly. And yes you used to be able to do this. MS wants it both ways when they believe it benefits them. Have you looked at their defense in the AT&T case yet? |
#273
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume LicenseEdition
caver1 wrote:
I ahve not absolved sellers. I haven't even turned to the dark side of what Microsoft does. In regard to this thread, it is not relevant. You seem to think that because they do it, you can, too. If someone is wealthy because of criminal activity and you take something of theirs, you have still committed theft, no matter how much of a scum bag the other guy is. Which is true that two wrongs do not make it right. But at the same time the courts state that a EULA that cannot be read before being paid for cannot be held as binding if it tries to counter act a legal right. So if that is the case the court stipulates that you may not be unethical or wrong. The EULAs are on the outside of the package now. Alias |
#274
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional VolumeLicenseEdition
Alias wrote: The EULAs are on the outside of the package now. I have yet to see this in the UK. However, what is the position with regard to online shopping? Is one required to ask specifically what the EULA entails and is the retailer required to employ a staff specifically to answer such queries? Does this not defeat the purpose of trading online i.e. reduce cost but if one has to employ extra staff to do this then we might as well start living in the caves!! |
#275
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume LicenseEdition
Alias wrote: caver1 wrote: I ahve not absolved sellers. I haven't even turned to the dark side of what Microsoft does. In regard to this thread, it is not relevant. You seem to think that because they do it, you can, too. If someone is wealthy because of criminal activity and you take something of theirs, you have still committed theft, no matter how much of a scum bag the other guy is. Which is true that two wrongs do not make it right. But at the same time the courts state that a EULA that cannot be read before being paid for cannot be held as binding if it tries to counter act a legal right. So if that is the case the court stipulates that you may not be unethical or wrong. The EULAs are on the outside of the package now. Alias Sorry but the last computer I bought ,Dell, was 2 years ago and the EULA wasn't on the outside. THis was also the only one that I didn't build myself. |
#276
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
I just couldn't resist. I was foolish to think that I could convince someone
to have ethics. And you? Gregg "Nina DiBoy" wrote in message ... Gregg Hill wrote: My point was not that the two scenarios were exactly equal. My point was that it can be "financial gain" without actual money being placed into one's bank account. Once one realizes that, then the simple math in my example of what one has in the bank after buying and installing four licenses vs. buying one license and installing it four times, shows quite clearly that the pirate has realized a "financial gain" (the extra money in the bank vs. what would be there if he bought all four licenses). I couldn't care less if it is Microsoft or someone getting started in his bedroom developing a game. If one sees value in using the application, which even Nina admitted she did (Linux won't run some of her stuff), then that one should pay the developer for each instance used. However, I think the supporters of piracy feel that it is OK because they hate Microsoft so much, they fail to look at the whole issue objectively. I think my Dad said it best regarding my parents' sometimes-rocky marriage, when he said, "Your mother and I have agreed to disagree." I think that is the only agreement that either side is going to have in this thread. Gregg Hill Earlier your point was that you were done waisting your time on this thread and you would do so no more. So why are you still here? snip Sorry I forgot to answer your last question. I am trying to point out that there is some middle ground here. Where exactly I'm not sure. I don't totally agree with with either of you. But I do believe that MS, the RIAA, amongst others are taking unfair advantage of the general consumer. |
#277
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
"caver1" wrote in message
. .. Gregg Hill wrote: "caver1" wrote in message . .. Gregg Hill wrote: My point was not that the two scenarios were exactly equal. My point was that it can be "financial gain" without actual money being placed into one's bank account. Once one realizes that, then the simple math in my example of what one has in the bank after buying and installing four licenses vs. buying one license and installing it four times, shows quite clearly that the pirate has realized a "financial gain" (the extra money in the bank vs. what would be there if he bought all four licenses). I couldn't care less if it is Microsoft or someone getting started in his bedroom developing a game. If one sees value in using the application, which even Nina admitted she did (Linux won't run some of her stuff), then that one should pay the developer for each instance used. However, I think the supporters of piracy feel that it is OK because they hate Microsoft so much, they fail to look at the whole issue objectively. I think my Dad said it best regarding my parents' sometimes-rocky marriage, when he said, "Your mother and I have agreed to disagree." I think that is the only agreement that either side is going to have in this thread. Gregg Hill I agree with you that there is alot of feeling on both sides and this discussion will not change anyones minds. Bad analogies were used on both sides or just misunderstood. Some of this has spilled over from copywrites/fair use in the music world and cannot apply here. At the same time now that MS has their monopoly they are trying to make thieves out of some that are not. I agree with you up to the part of Microsoft "trying to make thieves" comment. Microsoft does not make one a thief. Microsoft OFFERS a product that is to be installed on one computer per purchase. If one CHOOSES to install it on many, one CHOOSES to become a thief at that point. Gregg Well that is where we part company. If you buy the software (and I don't care if you call it a license) your original computer is gone for whatever reason, you delete the OS from the original, put it on a new one of your own, you are not stealing. There is no financial gain here. MS is wrong for not letting you do this once they had a monopoly. And yes you used to be able to do this. If you have a retail license, you already have the right to do that, per the EULA. And, yes, you still can do this, legally and ethically, with a retail license, which costs only slightly more than an OEM license. If you bought an OEM license, then it dies with the original system with which it was sold, because of the price break given (a small one, in reality) on the OEM price vs. retail price of the software. That is why I never sell a server with OEM software. What is being discussed in these threads, and what started it all, was a discussion of installing ONE license on multiple computers, and although not specifically stated, it meant **simultaneously** running ONE license on multiple systems. MS wants it both ways when they believe it benefits them. Have you looked at their defense in the AT&T case yet? No, I have not, but that still does not excuse taking from them, no matter how bad they are. Again, it is a voluntary purchase. |
#278
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
Oh my GOD !!!! This thread have over 200 posts (According to Web Interface).
-- Ayush [ Be ''?'' Happy ] Search - www.Google.com | Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org Snip your long urls - http://snipurl.com/ Replied to ]'s message : ----------------------------------------------------------- These keys are from Chinese forums.. According to the forum members, they are still valid. Although these keys have been published on the Internet many times since March 2006, for unknown reasons, Microsoft didn't stop these keys. If you own a copy of Volume License Windows XP Pro SP2, and your current key is no longer valid, try the keys below. One of the key that I just double confirmed that 100% function, can pass WGA and get IE7 installed, on 8th Nov, 2006, is the last one on the list HCQ9D-TVCWX-X9QRG-J4B2Y-GR2TT *************** These keys are for Windows XP Professional SP2 Volume License Edition MRX3F-47B9T-2487J-KWKMF-RPWBY QC986-27D34-6M3TY-JJXP9-TBGMD CM3HY-26VYW-6JRYC-X66GX-JVY2D DP7CM-PD6MC-6BKXT-M8JJ6-RPXGJ F4297-RCWJP-P482C-YY23Y-XH8W3 HH7VV-6P3G9-82TWK-QKJJ3-MXR96 HCQ9D-TVCWX-X9QRG-J4B2Y-GR2TT |
#279
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume LicenseEdition
Ayush wrote:
Oh my GOD !!!! This thread have over 200 posts (According to Web Interface). MS' scammy licensing program is a popular subject. Alias |
#280
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume LicenseEdition
Gregg Hill wrote: "caver1" wrote in message . .. Gregg Hill wrote: "caver1" wrote in message . .. Gregg Hill wrote: My point was not that the two scenarios were exactly equal. My point was that it can be "financial gain" without actual money being placed into one's bank account. Once one realizes that, then the simple math in my example of what one has in the bank after buying and installing four licenses vs. buying one license and installing it four times, shows quite clearly that the pirate has realized a "financial gain" (the extra money in the bank vs. what would be there if he bought all four licenses). I couldn't care less if it is Microsoft or someone getting started in his bedroom developing a game. If one sees value in using the application, which even Nina admitted she did (Linux won't run some of her stuff), then that one should pay the developer for each instance used. However, I think the supporters of piracy feel that it is OK because they hate Microsoft so much, they fail to look at the whole issue objectively. I think my Dad said it best regarding my parents' sometimes-rocky marriage, when he said, "Your mother and I have agreed to disagree." I think that is the only agreement that either side is going to have in this thread. Gregg Hill I agree with you that there is alot of feeling on both sides and this discussion will not change anyones minds. Bad analogies were used on both sides or just misunderstood. Some of this has spilled over from copywrites/fair use in the music world and cannot apply here. At the same time now that MS has their monopoly they are trying to make thieves out of some that are not. I agree with you up to the part of Microsoft "trying to make thieves" comment. Microsoft does not make one a thief. Microsoft OFFERS a product that is to be installed on one computer per purchase. If one CHOOSES to install it on many, one CHOOSES to become a thief at that point. Gregg Well that is where we part company. If you buy the software (and I don't care if you call it a license) your original computer is gone for whatever reason, you delete the OS from the original, put it on a new one of your own, you are not stealing. There is no financial gain here. MS is wrong for not letting you do this once they had a monopoly. And yes you used to be able to do this. If you have a retail license, you already have the right to do that, per the EULA. And, yes, you still can do this, legally and ethically, with a retail license, which costs only slightly more than an OEM license. If you bought an OEM license, then it dies with the original system with which it was sold, because of the price break given (a small one, in reality) on the OEM price vs. retail price of the software. That is why I never sell a server with OEM software. What is being discussed in these threads, and what started it all, was a discussion of installing ONE license on multiple computers, and although not specifically stated, it meant **simultaneously** running ONE license on multiple systems. MS wants it both ways when they believe it benefits them. Have you looked at their defense in the AT&T case yet? No, I have not, but that still does not excuse taking from them, no matter how bad they are. Again, it is a voluntary purchase. MS is the one taking these rights away. They are slowing eroding them by each time a new release of their OS is released you can do less and less with it. You could at one time buy the software. Then it turns into a license. They will one day go to subscription only. This slow erosion puts some people to sleep and they think they never had these rights so everyone else must be wrong. You had better do your research. MS wants to put everyones else's software into the copywrite realm the state that everyone else's software copywrites have no legal footing. By this statement they put theirs in the same position. You cannot have one playing field for one and another for everyone else. Copywrite protection has gone way to far in the US. Even patents connot last as long legally. And an individuals patent is not his/her intellectual property? You can only put windows or any of their software on more than one machine if MS decides to let you out of the kindness of their heart. If they decide if you are a thief you cannot whether you are or not. No recourse. Yes you can go to other software. But at the same time through MS unethical\illegal conduct they have forced competitors out of the market place so to do business\make a living you have to use their products. And yes this has been proven in court more than once. Remember with Vista they want to limit that to one change. Then it will be zero. Most people do not have the same moral\ethical beliefs that you or I have but what they do have is still legal so we have no right to tell them that they are wrong. You just don't go against your own conscience. And according to US antitrust laws many of MS business practices are wrong. These were put into place to stop one from becoming a monopoly then turning the screws so the consumer has to start paying more for less and less. This includes less options in competition. But as I have stated earlier. If you want one set of playing rules you cannot complain if others want to use the same rules. It cannot be right on your part and wrong for everyone else. |
#281
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume LicenseEdition
Alias wrote: Ayush wrote: Oh my GOD !!!! This thread have over 200 posts (According to Web Interface). MS' scammy licensing program is a popular subject. Alias "We'll continue to try to grow Windows share at the expense of Linux. That's kind of our job. But to the degree that people are going to deploy Linux, we want SUSE Linux to have the highest percent share of that, because only a customer who has SUSE Linux actually has paid properly for the use of intellectual property from Microsoft." Steve Ballmer So I guess now we are thieves if we use Linux. |
#282
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume LicenseEdition
Gregg Hill wrote:
I just couldn't resist. I was foolish to think that I could convince someone to have ethics. And you? Gregg I never said anything to the effect that I would stop posting in this thread. "Nina DiBoy" wrote in message ... Gregg Hill wrote: My point was not that the two scenarios were exactly equal. My point was that it can be "financial gain" without actual money being placed into one's bank account. Once one realizes that, then the simple math in my example of what one has in the bank after buying and installing four licenses vs. buying one license and installing it four times, shows quite clearly that the pirate has realized a "financial gain" (the extra money in the bank vs. what would be there if he bought all four licenses). I couldn't care less if it is Microsoft or someone getting started in his bedroom developing a game. If one sees value in using the application, which even Nina admitted she did (Linux won't run some of her stuff), then that one should pay the developer for each instance used. However, I think the supporters of piracy feel that it is OK because they hate Microsoft so much, they fail to look at the whole issue objectively. I think my Dad said it best regarding my parents' sometimes-rocky marriage, when he said, "Your mother and I have agreed to disagree." I think that is the only agreement that either side is going to have in this thread. Gregg Hill Earlier your point was that you were done waisting your time on this thread and you would do so no more. So why are you still here? snip Sorry I forgot to answer your last question. I am trying to point out that there is some middle ground here. Where exactly I'm not sure. I don't totally agree with with either of you. But I do believe that MS, the RIAA, amongst others are taking unfair advantage of the general consumer. |
#283
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume LicenseEdition
Alias wrote:
caver1 wrote: I ahve not absolved sellers. I haven't even turned to the dark side of what Microsoft does. In regard to this thread, it is not relevant. You seem to think that because they do it, you can, too. If someone is wealthy because of criminal activity and you take something of theirs, you have still committed theft, no matter how much of a scum bag the other guy is. Which is true that two wrongs do not make it right. But at the same time the courts state that a EULA that cannot be read before being paid for cannot be held as binding if it tries to counter act a legal right. So if that is the case the court stipulates that you may not be unethical or wrong. The EULAs are on the outside of the package now. Alias For OEMs or retail or both? |
#284
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume LicenseEdition
Nina DiBoy wrote:
Alias wrote: caver1 wrote: I ahve not absolved sellers. I haven't even turned to the dark side of what Microsoft does. In regard to this thread, it is not relevant. You seem to think that because they do it, you can, too. If someone is wealthy because of criminal activity and you take something of theirs, you have still committed theft, no matter how much of a scum bag the other guy is. Which is true that two wrongs do not make it right. But at the same time the courts state that a EULA that cannot be read before being paid for cannot be held as binding if it tries to counter act a legal right. So if that is the case the court stipulates that you may not be unethical or wrong. The EULAs are on the outside of the package now. Alias For OEMs or retail or both? Don't know about Retail but the generic OEMs have them on the outside now. Alias |
#285
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume LicenseEdition
Alias wrote:
Nina DiBoy wrote: Alias wrote: The EULAs are on the outside of the package now. Alias For OEMs or retail or both? Don't know about Retail but the generic OEMs have them on the outside now. Alias Good to know. Thanks for the information! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|