A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #271  
Old November 17th 06, 11:34 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
caver1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default 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  
Old November 17th 06, 11:49 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
caver1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default 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  
Old November 18th 06, 12:03 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Alias
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 80
Default 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  
Old November 18th 06, 12:33 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
ANONYMOUS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 205
Default 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  
Old November 18th 06, 01:57 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
caver1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default 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  
Old November 18th 06, 08:44 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Gregg Hill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default 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  
Old November 18th 06, 08:54 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Gregg Hill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 110
Default 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  
Old November 18th 06, 11:09 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Ayush
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,114
Default 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  
Old November 18th 06, 12:08 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Alias
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 80
Default 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  
Old November 18th 06, 03:31 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
caver1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default 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  
Old November 18th 06, 10:08 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
caver1
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 115
Default 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  
Old November 19th 06, 07:28 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Nina DiBoy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default 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  
Old November 19th 06, 07:32 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Nina DiBoy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default 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  
Old November 19th 06, 08:18 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Alias
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 80
Default 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  
Old November 20th 06, 11:15 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Nina DiBoy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 122
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.