Rules about copies of XP?

hey , things get kinda heated and personal around here . they're only that
way if you take them as such .

while the "drones " , and they know who they are , will continue to spew the
MS rule of law as written by bill , there are the "trolls" . ya know i used
to take that personally because i used to stay away from the fray and just
help people .

this IS the MS XP "General" discussion newsgroup . NOT help and support .
and the way "I" figure it any and all opinions are/or should be welcome here
..

so let the games begin ;-)

Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:

"kurttrail" wrote in
message
You mean like MS trying to rewrite an individuals "fair use" rights
to the copy of copyrighted software that was legally sold to them in
a POST-SALE Shrink-wrap License?
--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

No Kurt, you should read for a change.
Microsoft may have written the agreement, but it is a choice the user
makes to accept the agreement.
If the terms are unacceptable, do not agree.
Make your choice Agree or not and then act accordingly.
If you agree and then violate an agreement, that makes a person a
liar.
No rights are lost, in fact just the opposite.
Until it is agreed to, there are no rights to use it.
Once it is agreed, then there are rights to use.
Rights that did not exist prior to the agreement.
I guess you consider the ability to legally use something more
restrictive than no use at all.

But this goes against the idea you have that companies such as
Microsoft should work and give to you on your terms while you are
unwilling to do the same with whatever you produce.
Nice one way street you have made.


http://www.microscum.com/censored/200503031935/

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Woody wrote:
hey , things get kinda heated and personal around here . they're
only that way if you take them as such .

while the "drones " , and they know who they are , will continue to
spew the MS rule of law as written by bill , there are the "trolls" .
ya know i used to take that personally because i used to stay away
from the fray and just help people .

this IS the MS XP "General" discussion newsgroup . NOT help and
support . and the way "I" figure it any and all opinions are/or
should be welcome here .

so let the games begin ;-)

They already are. The server drones seem to be pulling some posts in
this thread.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

yea , been happening alot lately . lol , do you think they're actually
listening ?

Woody wrote:
yea , been happening alot lately . lol , do you think they're actually
listening ?

Yeah, they even pulled one of Juppy's posts in reply to you! ;-)

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

dang , talk about censorship . i was thinking that several of my posts just
got lost in cyberspace .

hey its late , and i'm outa here . it wouldn't be any fun if there wasn't
anyone to argue with . ;-)

there are two sides here . if people asking questions here got only one side
of the story ?............

Leythos wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 19:43:10 -0500, Woody wrote:

yea know , i actually like you . you post here on a linux box , and
give people a clue that there really is an alternative to windows .
all your other posts are informative . i just can't understand this
blind loyalty you have in telling people things that aren't based on
fact or law .

You're OK to Woody. I try and help, and since it's a PITA to use two
different Usenet apps on different boxes I've settled for PAN on this
FC3 box, it's still not quite what Gravity was, but I'm learning and
living with it. I actually try and provide technical support in my
off-times because Usenet gave me so much assistance when I needed it,
and still does from time to time.

I have to blind loyalty to any Company, not even MS. As a business
owner I look at licensing a little differently than if I were a home
user. In the early days I used shareware without paying for it,
downloaded as much as I could to learn, even use to run a
questionable copy of Borlands C and then C++ product, but, after I
started working with the local law enforcement people I looked at how
I was doing things and decided to buy licenses for everything I used,
including shareware. As it turns out, I spent about $35K that year.
According to some, I should have only needed one licensed copy of
each type of product as I was running the biz out of my home, but
when I called to determine licensing according to the vendors I
decided for myself that I would purchase the number of licenses they
told me I should have - this was Adobe, Microsoft, Borland,
MacroMedia, and others, it's not just limited to Microsoft. As the
business grew I bought more servers/workstations, upgraded all, and
bought the licenses I needed according to the licensing information I
could find and from the vendors and from the vendors agents like CDW,
Insight, etc... I also spent several days with MS in order to be
taught how to properly license their products so that it would pass
any audit. I don't personally care if I've been conned into
purchasing to many licenses as I see nothing that indicates I've done
that, but I'm not about to risk having to few Adobe Acrobat licenses,
to few Photoshop/PageMaker, Windows 2003 Std Server, Exchange 2003
CAL's, etc... When I get a quote from Dell to furnish 25 6600 series
servers with Windows 2003 Server and 2 Exchange 2003 server and 100
workstations with XP Prof, and Office 2003 SBE, I'm going to have
them provide the licensing information, get a second quote from
CDW/Insight, and go with the best vendor for the software and
licenses - same is true with Symantec Corporate AV and SMS. This
means that the customer is covered and it's on paper as being
covered, and when we've had customers volunteer for an audit it's
always passed perfectly - never had a comment of "Oh, you've got too
many licenses".

The fact that there is NO court case concerning home user rights does
not mean it's legal, and it doesn't mean it's illegal, but it also
doesn't mean I need to have my a$$ chewed out for following what I
think is the right direction regarding licensing and the qty I
believe I need.

There are two sides to this issue, and since there is no legal case
proven, I'm going to stick with the side that errs on caution vs
recklessness.

Just don't call those of us on the side of individual consumers pirates
and thieves, and we would have no problem. We are not pirates and
thieves, and not one individual have ever been sued let alone found
guilty of theft or piracy for "fairly using" the copyrighted material,
that was legally sold to us, and there is no law that says we are
pirates and thieves.

It is a fact that the EULA is a legally valid commercial use license,
but it is not a fact that it is also a legally valid personal use
license. Until it is a fact, individual consumers have every right to
"fair use" their copies of copyrighted material any way they want in the
privacy of their own home, according to their own interpretation of what
"fair use" means.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 21:28:16 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

Just don't call those of us on the side of individual consumers
pirates and thieves, and we would have no problem.

How about this - if I comment on it, I'll state what MS's position on
it is and add that this is MY Opinion of it. Then, if you comment
about it, how about you state that your part is YOUR Opinion on what
you say. Then when we're done, they have Opinions and can make up
their own minds - ok?

"It is a fact that the EULA is a legally valid commercial use license,
but it is not a fact that it is also a legally valid personal use
license. Until it is a fact, individual consumers have every right to
'fair use' their copies of copyrighted material any way they want in the
privacy of their own home, according to their own interpretation of what
fair use' means."

Unless a software copyright owner legally challenges and disputes a
private individual's interpretation of "fair use" in a court of law and
WINS, it is a fact that an individual has the every right to to "fairly
use" their copy of copyrighted material, that was legally sold to them,
according to their own interpretation of what "fair use" is.

That is not my opinion, it is a fact.

MS, or any software copyright owner, has the right to sue, as anyone can
sue over just about anything, but after over a dozen and more years of
selling retail software to private non-commercial individuals, it is not
very likely that ANY software company, especially MS, will challenge
"fair use" in a court of law after all this time has passed. That's
what PA is really all about. It is a marketing/propaganda scheme to
convince people that the EULA can strip them of their "fair use,"
without having to legally prove it in a real court of law. MS uses the
FUD surrounding PA to condition individuals into believing what they
don't have the balls to legally prove. That is my opinion, anyway,
though this use of PA/copy-protection as behavior modification makes the
most sense, because we all know that PA, or any copy-protection, does
even put a dent into REAL software piracy.

The software piracy rate had been dropping since 1994 through the advent
of the PC boom, and the explosion of file-sharing, until MS introduced
PA/copy-protection into mainstream consumer software, and since then,
the piracy rate has leveled off and remained static. And that is
according to the obviously biased statistics of the BSA, that gets their
piracy data from their members, like MS, Symantec, Adobe . . . .

If anything copy-protection tends to have the opposite effect than
intended, because all it does is **** consumers off, when they are still
paying for real piracy, which is included in the price of every product,
and then also having to go out of their way to prove that they aren't
the pirates and thieves. The behavior modification of copy-protection
will only tend to back fire in the long run, because it's a well known
psychological theory that if you treat a person like a criminal long
enough, that is what they are likely to become. Again, my opinion, but
it is serious food for thought.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

In ,
Laurel respectfully replied ;-)
Thanks for the very helpful link. It did, however, leave me with a
couple of remaining questions. This article assumes that I have a
"startup disk." I have nothing. The PC was given to my
granddaughter, but no disks of any sort for the old operating system
(XP home). The hard drive is partitioned (C and D). XP/ME is
installed on the C partition, and XP/Pro is installed on the D
partition. Since I don't want to revert to 95 or 98 (another
assumption the article seems to make), can I just right mouse on the
C drive (containing XP/ME) and click format? While logged onto
XP/Pro, which lives on the D drive, of course.

XP/ME is flakey, which is one reason for installing the new OS. I
don't know if there's an upgrade option from ME to Pro, but it didn't
seem advisable. For "flakiness" symptoms, see my other posting,
"Content Advisor is broken."


There is a link to specialized boot disks on the removal link. it is right
at the top of the page.

--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/ou...snewreader.htm



"Michael Stevens" wrote in message
...
In ,
Laurel respectfully replied ;-)
How do I remove the OS from the first computer?


Format it.
Click on the link below, or copy and paste the link into the address
box if using the web based newsgroup.
How do I deactivate, move to another computer or sell a previously
activated XP?
#06 on the FAQ list
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/xpfaq.html
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP

http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/ou...snewreader.htm




"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" wrote in message
...
Laurel;
1. You can install your retail Windows XP on the new computer as
long as you remove it from the first.
Activation should not be a problem.

2. You have been told wrong.
Some versions of Microsoft Office allow multiple installations but
no versions of retail Windows allow more than one installation at a
time.

Read your specific EULA for details:
Start/Run
Type "winver" ENTER
Click "End-User..." to access the EULA.


--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/


"Laurel" wrote in message
...
What are the rules for installing XP Pro on multiple PCs?
1 - If you get a new PC, obviously you have to re-install. Do you
get into
difficulties by "activating your system" more than once?
2 - I've been told that it's perfectly OK to install Windows on
your home PC
and your laptop. Actually, I've been told that 3 installations is
the legal
limit. Is this true?

"kurttrail"
wrote in message
...
Leythos wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 18:44:57 -0500, Woody wrote:

maybe MS should contact Webster and ask that the
definition of
consumer activist be changed to troll .

There is a difference between being a consumer advocate
and what is
sometimes posted by some in this group.

A troll is one that disrupts a group.

LOL! That's what the Brits said about Ben Franklin and
the rest of our
founding fathers.


And one day we will come and bring you rebellious colonials
back into line.

Laurel wrote:
What are the rules for installing XP Pro on multiple PCs?


You need to purchase a separate WinXP Pro license for each computer on
which you install it.

As it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems,
it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and U.S.
copyright law http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html), if not
technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each computer on which it
is installed. (Consult an attorney versed in copyright law to determine
final applicability in your specific locale.) The only way in which
WinXP licensing differs from that of earlier versions of Windows is that
Microsoft has finally added a copy protection and anti-theft mechanism,
Product Activation, to prevent (or at least make more difficult)
multiple installations using a single license.


1 - If you get a new PC, obviously you have to re-install. Do you get into
difficulties by "activating your system" more than once?


Assuming a retail license (OEM licenses are not transferable under
any circumstances), simply remove WinXP from the computer it is
currently on, and install it onto the new one. If it's been more than
120 days since you last activated that specific Product Key, you'll
most likely be able to activate via the Internet without problem. If
it's been less, you might have to make a 5 minute phone call.

Here are the facts pertaining to activation:

Piracy Basics - Microsoft Product Activation
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/

Windows Product Activation (WPA)
http://www.aumha.org/a/wpa.htm


2 - I've been told that it's perfectly OK to install Windows on your home PC
and your laptop. Actually, I've been told that 3 installations is the legal
limit. Is this true?


No, it's not at all true. Retail licenses of Office (and many other
Microsoft products) permit the installation of the software onto one
desktop computer and one portable computer, provided that the license
owner is the primary user of both machines, but this has never been the
case with Microsoft operating systems.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

Leythos wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 23:07:43 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

Unless a software copyright owner legally challenges and disputes a
private individual's interpretation of "fair use" in a court of law
and WINS, it is a fact that an individual has the every right to to
"fairly use" their copy of copyrighted material, that was legally
sold to them, according to their own interpretation of what "fair
use" is.

I've read your "Fair Use" posts, and I don't interpret the
information the same way you do. I see that it's clear that it's for
backup purposes only, that it does not allow more than one active
installation against any licensing rules by the vendor.

Actually, it sounds like you are confusing "fair use" with Section
117(a), as you always make the mistake that Parts (1) & (2) have the
conjunction "and" between them, meaning that the conditions of both
Parts must be met, instead of the reality that they are actually
combined by "or," meaning that you only have to fulfill the conditions
of either Part (1) OR Part (2).

Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 117. - Limitations on exclusive rights:
Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement
for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the
making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step
in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine
and that it is used in no other manner, OR
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese:

Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 117. - Limitations on the exclusive rights of
Copyright Owners: Computer programs
(a) Making of Additional Installation by the Owner of a Copy of
Software. - It is not infringement for the owner of a copy of software
to make another installation provided:
(1) that such a new installation is made as a necessary step in making
use of the software together with a previously unknown computer and that
it is used in no other manner, OR
"(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and
that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued
possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful"

That is a separate & distinct argument from that of "fair use." In the
Betamax case, the Supreme Court defined what "fair use" means when it
come to individuals.

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html

They didn't just limit individual "fair use" to that of a specific type
of copyrighted material in that case, but they left the definition broad
because individuals have to "fair use" of any type of copyrighted
material they have access to. It was one of the main rationales why
that the video recorder wasn't an infringement, because its main use
wasn't an infringement, that of individuals reproducing and using those
copies of copyrighted material.

"Fair Use" as written in copyright law, is mainly the talking about the
Public and/or commercial "fair uses" of copyrighted material, so in the
Betamax case the Supreme Court defined what "fair use" is for us
individuals in the privacy of our own homes. No copyright owner has the
right to KNOW what we do in our homes with our copies of our copyrighted
material. They do not possess that exclusive right. Remember we are
supposedly a gov't of the people, by the people, for the people. We are
not the gov't for the corporate copyright elite.

Later in the Betamax decision, the Supreme Court makes reference to
another Supreme Court decision of the meaning of copyright, and for who
it is that is suppose to benefit the most from it.

"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like
the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a
balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is
to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately
serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature,
music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is
to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the
ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for
the general public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and
the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said,
'lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
authors' . . . . When technological change has rendered its literal
terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this
basic purpose." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html

Being paid by an individual for a copyrighted work once, is a "fair
return," and being paid more than once for the same copyrighted material
by an individual is more than a "fair return" and isn't in the general
public good.

Now Bruce likes to bring up what is written at the Stanford U. site,
which is stating the public and/or commercial aspects of "fair use," but
one place where private non-commercial "fair use" and public and/or
commercial "fair use" are similar is when the copyright owner disagrees
with the interpretation of "fair use" being used.

"Unfortunately, if the copyright owner disagrees with your fair use
interpretation, the dispute will have to be resolved by courts or
arbitration. If it's not a fair use, then you are infringing upon the
rights of the copyright owner and may be liable for damages." -
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyrigh...er9/index.html

So in a situation like copyrighted software, where a company like MS has
known that its copyrighted material has been "fairly used" for more than
a dozen years, and has yet to legally disagree with any definition of
"fair use" of their software in a court of law, after all this time it
is highly unlikely that MS would now challenge this in court, because:
1.) the length of time that they didn't challenge this would be held
against them, and, 2.) they don't possess the exclusive right to such
a use, and it would be highly unlikely that a court would rule in favor
of a corporation to have rights in someone's home to tell them how an
individual can use copyrighted material in the privacy of that home, and
that being in the general public good.

MS has always known that they really don't stand a snowballs chance in
hell of winning such a case, and that is the main reason for the
behavior modification aspects of PA. To win through marketing and
propaganda, what it knows it cannot win under the law and under existing
legal precedent. So MS, like any of us, has the right to sue for just
about anything, but that doesn't mean that they would win. If they
thought they could, then they would have done as the Music Industry has
done over file-sharing. And if you look at those suits closely, the
Music Industry is only going after those that make their music
collections available for upload to other, in other words, distributing
music to others, and the Music Industry hasn't gone after anyone that
has just downloaded music, because individuals have the right to "fairly
use" the copyrighted material that is available to them for their own
private use, but not the right to redistribute it to others.

This is how copyright and "fair use" works today. One day the corporate
copyright lobby may get Congress to change Copyright Law and remove some
of the limitations placed on Copyright Owners under Copyright Law, but
until then, we, as private non-commercial individuals have the right to
"fairly use" the copyrighted material we have access to. No copyright
owner possess the right to say otherwise. That is a fact jack, until
proven otherwise, or Copyright Law is rewritten by Congress, not by a
corporate copyright owner in a post-sale shrink-wrap license.


With that said, just because it's not been "Challenged" in court, that
does not make the action legal.

What would make it "illegal," is if a court ruled that it is an
infringement, which no court has, or Congress rewrites Copyright Law.
Until either happens, it is NOT an infringement and therefore perfectly
legal.

What happens if the courts rule in
MS's favor over it - what happens to all of those inproper installs
and the people running them?

When that fairy tale happens, give me a call. That is a what if, that
is highly unlikely to ever happen, after all this time has passed. What
is more likely is for the corporate copyright lobby buying off Congress
to change Copyright Law as it exists today.

Oh, and there you go again, not acknowledging that you are snipping up
my post, and taking my words out of the whole context that they were
written.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Bruce Chambers wrote:
Laurel wrote:
What are the rules for installing XP Pro on multiple PCs?


You need to purchase a separate WinXP Pro license for each computer on
which you install it.

As it has *always* been with *all* Microsoft operating systems,
it's necessary (to be in compliance with both the EULA and U.S.
copyright law http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html), if not
technically) to purchase one WinXP license for each computer on which
it is installed.

snip

LOL! Section 117 is a limitation of the rights of the Copyright Owners,
not a limitation on the rights of the owner of a copy!

But Bruce is in love with the the delusions to the contrary! As a
MicroNazi, he knows the power of repeating the same nonsense over and
over again!

http://tinyurl.com/hhjj - 314 times with his previous incarnation, "to
be in compliance with both the EULA and copyright laws."
http://snipurl.com/d81h - 125 times with his latest incarnation, "to be
in compliance with both the EULA and U.S. copyright."

Bruce is a MicroNazi propagandist, plain and simple. Goes by the
Goebels theory that if you repeat something long enough, people will
start believing it, no matter that it is a total fabrication of reality.

http://microscum.com/bruce/

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

what is FUD?

"kurttrail" wrote in message
...
Leythos wrote:
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 21:28:16 -0500, kurttrail wrote:

Just don't call those of us on the side of individual consumers
pirates and thieves, and we would have no problem.

How about this - if I comment on it, I'll state what MS's position on
it is and add that this is MY Opinion of it. Then, if you comment
about it, how about you state that your part is YOUR Opinion on what
you say. Then when we're done, they have Opinions and can make up
their own minds - ok?

"It is a fact that the EULA is a legally valid commercial use license,
but it is not a fact that it is also a legally valid personal use
license. Until it is a fact, individual consumers have every right to
'fair use' their copies of copyrighted material any way they want in the
privacy of their own home, according to their own interpretation of what
fair use' means."

Unless a software copyright owner legally challenges and disputes a
private individual's interpretation of "fair use" in a court of law and
WINS, it is a fact that an individual has the every right to to "fairly
use" their copy of copyrighted material, that was legally sold to them,
according to their own interpretation of what "fair use" is.

That is not my opinion, it is a fact.

MS, or any software copyright owner, has the right to sue, as anyone can
sue over just about anything, but after over a dozen and more years of
selling retail software to private non-commercial individuals, it is not
very likely that ANY software company, especially MS, will challenge
"fair use" in a court of law after all this time has passed. That's
what PA is really all about. It is a marketing/propaganda scheme to
convince people that the EULA can strip them of their "fair use,"
without having to legally prove it in a real court of law. MS uses the
FUD surrounding PA to condition individuals into believing what they
don't have the balls to legally prove. That is my opinion, anyway,
though this use of PA/copy-protection as behavior modification makes the
most sense, because we all know that PA, or any copy-protection, does
even put a dent into REAL software piracy.

The software piracy rate had been dropping since 1994 through the advent
of the PC boom, and the explosion of file-sharing, until MS introduced
PA/copy-protection into mainstream consumer software, and since then,
the piracy rate has leveled off and remained static. And that is
according to the obviously biased statistics of the BSA, that gets their
piracy data from their members, like MS, Symantec, Adobe . . . .

If anything copy-protection tends to have the opposite effect than
intended, because all it does is **** consumers off, when they are still
paying for real piracy, which is included in the price of every product,
and then also having to go out of their way to prove that they aren't
the pirates and thieves. The behavior modification of copy-protection
will only tend to back fire in the long run, because it's a well known
psychological theory that if you treat a person like a criminal long
enough, that is what they are likely to become. Again, my opinion, but
it is serious food for thought.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"