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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate XP and SP2
If one has any moral fiber at all the analysis would lead one to realize
theft is theft. Testy "Shane" wrote in message ... You need to analyse this stuff unemotionally. Rationally. Shane "Testy" wrote in message ... That is the greatest piece of rationalization I have ever read! I guess it makes you sleep better at night believing you are not a thief. Testy "Al Smith" wrote in message ... In the case you describe, theft is from Microsoft. The business may also have a problem with Microsoft because they are not adequately controlling the licenses. So in fact the company stands to lose as well. The company very well may lose something, especially if Microsoft determines they are not protecting the licenses adequately. In that very real possible situation, the company may lose "the ability to use it." The theft isn't from Microsoft, because Microsoft hasn't lost anything. Therefore no theft has occurred. There is no particular reason to suppose that a person using a pirated version of the OS would have gone out and bought the OS, had the pirate edition not been available. This might be the case, but it also might *not* be the case. And there is no way to demonstrate that it is the case. Besides, theft is taking something real that already exists, not potentially depriving someone of possible, speculative, additional future earnings. When a pirated edition of Windows is used, it is copied. Nothing happens to the original edition. It does not cease to be. Microsoft does not lose the money it made by selling the original edition. Copying is not theft. It may involve an infringement of the Microsoft license agreement, but that is not theft. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 8/11/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 8/11/2004 |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate XP and SP2
Like I said, *unemotionally*. This is about Law and Ethics. Get emotional
and you lose the plot. Shane "Testy" wrote in message ... If one has any moral fiber at all the analysis would lead one to realize theft is theft. Testy "Shane" wrote in message ... You need to analyse this stuff unemotionally. Rationally. Shane "Testy" wrote in message ... That is the greatest piece of rationalization I have ever read! I guess it makes you sleep better at night believing you are not a thief. Testy "Al Smith" wrote in message ... In the case you describe, theft is from Microsoft. The business may also have a problem with Microsoft because they are not adequately controlling the licenses. So in fact the company stands to lose as well. The company very well may lose something, especially if Microsoft determines they are not protecting the licenses adequately. In that very real possible situation, the company may lose "the ability to use it." The theft isn't from Microsoft, because Microsoft hasn't lost anything. Therefore no theft has occurred. There is no particular reason to suppose that a person using a pirated version of the OS would have gone out and bought the OS, had the pirate edition not been available. This might be the case, but it also might *not* be the case. And there is no way to demonstrate that it is the case. Besides, theft is taking something real that already exists, not potentially depriving someone of possible, speculative, additional future earnings. When a pirated edition of Windows is used, it is copied. Nothing happens to the original edition. It does not cease to be. Microsoft does not lose the money it made by selling the original edition. Copying is not theft. It may involve an infringement of the Microsoft license agreement, but that is not theft. --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 8/11/2004 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.737 / Virus Database: 491 - Release Date: 8/11/2004 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate XP and SP2
Shane wrote:
"Rock" wrote in message ... Al Smith wrote: There is no such thing as "Corporate edition" Although the pirates have used that term describing their stolen licenses. There is no such thing as a "stolen" license. You either have a license or you don't. If you don't purchase a license, but are using somebody else's then by definition you have "stolen" it. Stealing is taking something that belongs to somebody else. Stealing requires that something be removed from one possessor illegally and against his will, and given over to the use of another possessor. When someone uses a corporate license, the company that has purchased that license hasn't lost it, or the ability to use it. Nothing has been taken from them. Hence, no theft has occurred. Theft consists of many things, not just what you mention --- Theft by fraud, deception or false pretenses, theft of intellectual property, ideas, etc, etc. It doesn't hinge on whether one party looses the ability to use something. That is an element of certain types of theft, but not all. There should be more awareness of the dividing line between theft/crime as defined by an agreed system of ethics and that as defined by corporate and political lobbyists. The two rarely converge but a depressingly large no. of people let professional liars define it for them. Shane I was talking about criminal theft, as defined by various statutes and prosecuted as such. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate XP and SP2
I was talking about criminal theft, as defined by various statutes and
prosecuted as such. Right. Made by politicians and their contributors. Noticed how politicians aree almost all lawyers these days? Professional liars. Right and wrong is something you decide for yourself in the absense of statutes. If you're not talking about right and wrong you're talking about doing as you're told and confusing the two. Shane |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate XP and SP2
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
The Volume License (corporate) is not "crippled" at all. Volume License is identical to Windows XP Pro that is available through retail channels without activation. Whatever your source, it is incorrect. Correct me if I'm wrong about what you said, Frank. Jupiter, Frank seems to have stated his opinion. How can his opinion about the setup of Windows XP be wrong. Opinions are not wrong or right, this is why they are opinions. -- hermes DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties! http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/index.html http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html http://anti-dmca.org/ http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php Windows XP crashed. I am the Blue Screen of Death. No one hears your screams |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate XP and SP2
Rock wrote:
I was talking about criminal theft, as defined by various statutes and prosecuted as such. Shane wrote: Right. Made by politicians and their contributors. Noticed how politicians aree almost all lawyers these days? Professional liars. Right and wrong is something you decide for yourself in the absense of statutes. If you're not talking about right and wrong you're talking about doing as you're told and confusing the two. Shane, If I copy your identification, modify them in such a way so I pass as you and start doing so - was anything stolen? -- - Shenan - -- The information is provided "as is", with no guarantees of completeness, accuracy or timeliness, and without warranties of any kind, express or implied. In other words, read up before you take any advice - you are the one ultimately responsible for your actions. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate XP and SP2
The fact there is a violation of the license is a loss even if you do
not see the loss. If you can not see the potential loss for either party in this instance you are to far gone and what you need is far outside the scope of this newsgroup. A "potential" loss is a hypothetical event. I may potentially lose an excellent business deal if somebody stops me in the street and talks to me for fifteen minutes, delaying me. You don't see anyone compensating me for this potential loss, do you? Potentially, I could lose a million dollars by not buying a lottery ticket this week. I repeat what I said: Microsoft loses nothing when somebody copies a piece of their software. Most often, those who pirate software would not pay full price for it in any case. Using an unpurchased copy of MS software is a violation of Microsoft's EULA, but it is not theft. There's a difference. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate XP and SP2
MS does lose something when you steal a volume license key - they lose
the revenue that is do them when that installation of that Volume License is not paid for. Microsoft would only lose future revenue under a very specific circumstance -- if the person using a free copy of the OS would definitely have purchased the OS, had he not been able to get the free copy. This is usually not the case. And Microsoft would never lose existing monies or goods (ie, real money), because the copying of software does not in any way diminish or hinder the software that already exists. Nobody is deprived of anything when a copy is made. On the contrary, somebody is enriched by the act. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate XP and SP2
This does not sound like opinion:
"The installation is crippled anyway, almost unusable." If I misread as Shenan suspects it is "crippled" in that respect. But other than that it is the same. I do not see much room for opinion assuming a successful installation with a valid Product Key. Frank can clarify exactly what was meant. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ "hermes" wrote in message ... Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote: The Volume License (corporate) is not "crippled" at all. Volume License is identical to Windows XP Pro that is available through retail channels without activation. Whatever your source, it is incorrect. Correct me if I'm wrong about what you said, Frank. Jupiter, Frank seems to have stated his opinion. How can his opinion about the setup of Windows XP be wrong. Opinions are not wrong or right, this is why they are opinions. -- hermes DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties! http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/index.html http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html http://anti-dmca.org/ http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php Windows XP crashed. I am the Blue Screen of Death. No one hears your screams |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate XP and SP2
You say "Most often, those who pirate software would not pay full
price for it in any case." I would say they would steal at any price because they are thieves and stealing is in the nature of thieves. Again you use an old excuse the thieves lamely use to justify their wrong behaviour. You example of the lottery ticket is not even close to relevant. You do not own the lottery ticket but Microsoft owns Windows. However people do sue and collect for being unduly delayed, but you need to prove loss. Again you have no loss so your example fall apart even as you make it. You quibble with words as if you have no ethics, do you? Using something without the owners permission is wrong. If the owner requires you to pay to use and you don't, I would call you a thief. "Microsoft loses nothing when somebody copies a piece of their software." Exactly what do you mean by that? Does "somebody" copy them and then do nothing with them? I guess you may be correct there since the person is really demonstrating stupidity. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ "Al Smith" wrote in message news:XJWTc.95734$Np3.4611048@ursa- A "potential" loss is a hypothetical event. I may potentially lose an excellent business deal if somebody stops me in the street and talks to me for fifteen minutes, delaying me. You don't see anyone compensating me for this potential loss, do you? Potentially, I could lose a million dollars by not buying a lottery ticket this week. I repeat what I said: Microsoft loses nothing when somebody copies a piece of their software. Most often, those who pirate software would not pay full price for it in any case. Using an unpurchased copy of MS software is a violation of Microsoft's EULA, but it is not theft. There's a difference. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate XP and SP2
Al;
Your use of the word free is incorrect. Free suggests it was given to you. In the case you are speaking something is being taken without the owners consent. Nothing is given. As long as you insist in misusing basic English to justify unethical behaviour, is understandable why you lack basic understanding of honesty. You also say "This is usually not the case." "usually"? So now it appears you believe some of those involved are unethical. Please give DETAILS how EXACTLY the difference is determined by someone other than the dishonest person? Easy...was it acquired with the owners consent? However I am sure you will twist reality here also/ -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ "Al Smith" wrote in message news:_PWTc.95736$Np3.4611187@ursa- Microsoft would only lose future revenue under a very specific circumstance -- if the person using a free copy of the OS would definitely have purchased the OS, had he not been able to get the free copy. This is usually not the case. And Microsoft would never lose existing monies or goods (ie, real money), because the copying of software does not in any way diminish or hinder the software that already exists. Nobody is deprived of anything when a copy is made. On the contrary, somebody is enriched by the act. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate XP and SP2
You quibble with words as if you have no ethics, do you?
Using something without the owners permission is wrong. If the owner requires you to pay to use and you don't, I would call you a thief. Well, JJ, what I don't do is insult people when I carry on a discussion on Usenet. I express my opinions. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate XP and SP2
Shane wrote:
I was talking about criminal theft, as defined by various statutes and prosecuted as such. Right. Made by politicians and their contributors. Noticed how politicians aree almost all lawyers these days? Professional liars. Right and wrong is something you decide for yourself in the absense of statutes. If you're not talking about right and wrong you're talking about doing as you're told and confusing the two. Shane Yes right and wrong have a place along with legal and not legal, ethics and morals. What is not right isn't always in violation of a criminal statute, and some things which are right are still somehow illegal in some places. It's the blending of right/ethical/moral and legal that makes a framework to guide behavior. One of the great supreme court justices said we are a country of laws, not of men. My reply was strictly to correct the definition of theft presented. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate XP and SP2
"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message ... Rock wrote: I was talking about criminal theft, as defined by various statutes and prosecuted as such. Shane wrote: Right. Made by politicians and their contributors. Noticed how politicians aree almost all lawyers these days? Professional liars. Right and wrong is something you decide for yourself in the absense of statutes. If you're not talking about right and wrong you're talking about doing as you're told and confusing the two. Shane, If I copy your identification, modify them in such a way so I pass as you and start doing so - was anything stolen? Doesn't sound like it. That would be an impersonation, wouldn't it? Not that I'd be best pleased. But the point I would make is that it is for sober debate to determine just what that is. Objectivity not subjectivity. Shane |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Corporate XP and SP2
I asked a question and I guess I have your answer..
-- Jupiter Jones [MVP] http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/ "Al Smith" wrote in message ... You quibble with words as if you have no ethics, do you? Using something without the owners permission is wrong. If the owner requires you to pay to use and you don't, I would call you a thief. Well, JJ, what I don't do is insult people when I carry on a discussion on Usenet. I express my opinions. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|