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 |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
David wrote:
"kurttrail" wrote in : David wrote: snip For example, the copyright in a computer program is separate from the physical copy of the program. [ In other words, You own the media. Not the Software. Gee, Maybe we should have told you that. Wait!!! We did!! Numerous times ] ''Copies'' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ''copies'' includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed." - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/101.html ''Copies'' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed In other words. The copy is the Music or Data on the materiel media ROFL! "'Copies' are material objects . . . . in which a word is fixed!" In other words, you can not understand English! LOL! fixed by any method now known or ***later developed*** This would include Magnetic media such as Taps, Floppy Disk, and Hard Disk, and Optical Media such as Compact Disk. "TITLE 17, CHAPTER 1, Sec. 117 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 . . . . 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 . . . ." It is essential to copy the software fromt he CD to the computer that it is being install upon.. But, It is NOT essential to install the software onmore then one computer. You can copy the software to "A computer" "A computer" being singular. Just one. no more then one. Not two or three. But, one. ". . . . 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 . . . ." In other words, you can not understand English! LOL! - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html This is why I always say I own my *copy* of software. LOL! You are not the owner of Copy. But of a copy. The capitalization is distinctive. You can Wallpaper you home with copies of the CD if you wish "it is not an infringement for the *owner* *of* *a* *copy* *of* *a* *computer* *program*" In other words, you can not understand English! LOL! snip Copyright protects "original works of authorship" [ this would be Microsoft in our discussions ] No, it would be Windows XP. MS isn't an original work of authorship, they are the Copyright Owner or Holder. OK. I misspoke myslef here. I'll grant you that. against unauthorized copying. [ Umm, Did Microsoft authorize you to install a copy on more then one machine? I don't think so. ] No, Congress did by placing limitations on the rights of copyright owners! Only if you meet the criteria set forth in Sec. 117. Whcih you haven't Only if you don't understand the English language! See all the limitations Copyright Law puts on copyright owners *rights*! LOL! You haven't meet the criteria required to enforce these limitations Only if you don't understand the English language! ROFL! snip It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the Act to the owner of copyright. [ It's illegal??? Wow, That must mean there is a LAW. ] It's illegal to violate a copyright owners right, unless there is a limitation placed on their rights. "These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 119 of the Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the Act." Wow! That must mean there are LIMITATIONS! These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 119 of the Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of "fair use," which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the Act. Missed this, huh?! Do you think that Section 117 is somewhere between Sections 107 and 119?! ROFL! You do remember Section 117, don't you?! LOL! No. Didn't miss it. You haven't shown "Fair Use". you merrely think you have. Fair Use is Section 107, not 117! LOL! In other words, you can not understand English! ROFL! 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 Again. I ask you to show how installing the software on MORE THEN ONE COMPUTER is essential to installing the software. The following is a translation of Section 117 (a) from the legalese using MS's own definitions: 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 aCopy 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 . . . . Installation - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...rch=adaptation made -http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResult s.aspx?search=created necessary - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...arch=essential making use - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...search=utilize together with - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...ch=conjunction a previously unknown - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...fid=1861582871 or - http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...aspx?search=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 computerprogram should cease to be rightful. For Archival Purpose ONLY. An archive being a backup in case the original is damaged. Remember what "or" means?! No, I don't believe you do! ROFL! snip In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a "compulsory license" [ This must mean that if you don't agree with the license, You can't use the software. Sounds a lot like the MS EULA. You know, The End User LICENSE Agreement. ] Totally & Absolutely Wrong! "Sec. 115. - Scope of exclusive rights in nondramatic musical works: Compulsory license for making and distributing phonorecords - In the case of nondramatic musical works, the exclusive rights provided by *clauses* *(1)* *and* *(3)* *of* *section* *106*, to make and to distribute phonorecords of such works, are subject to compulsory licensing under the conditions specified by this section." - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/115.html Since you love looking up definitions so much. Look up "Musical works" No thanks! I'll just ask you what it has to do with a post-sale shrinkwrap license?! "*Sec. 106*. - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works - Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: *(1)* to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords . . . . *(3)* to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending . . . ." - http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/106.html under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. [ Wow! Didn't we pay for windows? ] I didn't know that Windows is a phonorecord! Does it play at 33, 45, or 78?! snip Fair Use Defense "Infringement' consists of violating the author's exclusive rights. 17 U.S.C. section 501. Although the author has the exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, and display a copyrighted work under section 106, these rights are limited by the defense [12] of "fair use"" Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106A, the *fair use of a copyrighted work,* including such use by reproduction in copies . . . or by any other means specified in that section, *for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, *is not an infringement* of copyright. [ How is installing a second copy of Windows on the wife's or juniors computer full any of these criteria? ] The wife is a co-owner of the copy of software. And the children are legal dependents! No judge in his right mind would rule that one could not share with one's wife, and dependent children! What country do you live in?! I'll grant you this. I agree. We should be permitte to install on any machine we own. Now, You just need to get a Judge to agree with you and make it legal. It's not illegal now! Show me a law or court precedent that backs up your assertion of illegality! 17 U.S.C. section 107 (emphasis added). The defense "permits and requires courts to avoid rigid application of the copyright statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity which that law is designed to foster." Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 114 S.Ct. 1164, 1170 (1994) (citation omitted). Congress has set out four nonexclusive factors to be considered in determining the availability of the fair use defense: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; [ Well, Doubt being too cheap to buy a second licenses qualifies. ] "whether such a use is of a commercial nature" NO! (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and { Copy the WHOLE thing??? I doubt it. ] When the use is private & non-commercial and within the bounds of one's home, your doubt isn't likely to be the determining factor for a judge! Neither are *your* interpretations of Copyright law. Well at least I have my own interpretation that might sway a judge! Your unexplained doubt surely would have absolutely no merit! (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. [ Microsoft claims it cost them revenue and is driving up market prices. Microsoft doesn't need to prove this until someone challenges them in court. ] Wrong Again! "Fair Use" is a defense, only if you are being sued by the copyright owner. You don't sue the copyright owner in order to establish your use as a fair use. So MS doesn't have to demonstrate #4 until MS challenges someone else in court, and they use Section 107 as a defense! In other words. "It ain't illegal until you get cought"?? It's a defense that will probably fail. When MS gets the balls to sue someone over it, call me! Didn't you see the Section Heading for this article? "Fair Use Defense" - http://www.eff.org/IP//fair_use_and_copyright.excerpt 17 U.S.C. section 107. The fair use doctrine calls for a case-by-case analysis. Campbell, 114 S.Ct. at 1170. All of the factors "are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright." Id. at 1170-71. Up to a judge to decide, not the copyright owner! Nor you or me. Then who are you gonna let make your own personal decision about this, until MS or any other software copyright owner brings this before a real judge to decide? If your not gonna make your own decision, then who is the master of your home?! Hell, MS hasn't had the balls to do it in over a decade, so who is the Judge in you home, until MS grow a set of balls, Microsoft?! Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote, "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 Thanks for helping me prove my point! Hope you learn something! This is a specific case involving Copyrighted works being brodcast over a radio and whether or not playing that radio in public is considered a performance. It has nothingk to do with making copies of software or Softeare license agreements. It explains the legal reasoning of what Copyright is for in the US, and how the Supreme Court goes about deciding matters of copyright. I knew you'd miss the point! And, Yes. I did learn something. That you have absolutely no idea how our legal system works. And you have absolutely no idea how to understand English. Not that that is any surprise to me! Please try again when you have the reading comprehension level of an eighth grader! That should be in about a decade or so! ROFL! -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
Ads |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
kurttrail wrote:
Michael Stevens wrote: kurttrail wrote: Michael Stevens wrote: No need to quote the entire thread, I did say "ruling"[my mistake], but I was expressing I didn't agree to your assessment of Title 17, Chapter 117 of the quoted copyright law. I have not seen a ruling that supports your definition of the preceding, and I don't see how you come to your conclusion. Have you seen a court ruling that is contrary to my opinion? If you have, let me know! Same here, have you seen one that is contrary to my opinion? How a copy created for archive purposes can be used for multiple installs; Where does Section 117 mention archival, Mike? Absolutely I see where archival is mentioned, and I don't agree with the part before the "or" either. You always ignore this part. "or other transfer of all rights in the program. Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner." It does not define "utilization of the computer program" as a license to install on as many computers as you like. Just don't see the need to answer any more of your details. I can't see how you get the "CORE MEANING" out of what I read from the same source. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1...html?DB=uscode -- Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP http://michaelstevenstech.com For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader. http://michaelstevenstech.com/outloo...snewreader.htm |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
kurttrail wrote:
Michael Stevens wrote: Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote, "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 I have yet to find a clearer or more beautiful explanation of purpose of Copyright in the US! If you say so. LOL. Sounded a little tentative to me. It also seemed to be slanted toward the arts. What case was this missive quoted from? It's hard to comprehend how you think Microsoft should not have the right to charge for technology they developed in house or find and acquire to interrogate into the OS. If you look at the pricing of Windows, it has not increased in price on scale with the worth of the dollar. It is still a bargain, and MS is a business that shareholders expect a return on their investment. -- Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP http://michaelstevenstech.com For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader. http://michaelstevenstech.com/outloo...snewreader.htm |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
What does it exactly say on the box? Stand at the check out counter at your WalMart and ask every person if they think they own what they just bought! MS's retail software is "shrinkwrap licensed, never been legally proven to be a software license on private individuals! It says " The product uses technolological measures for copy protection-you will not be able to use the product if you do not fully comply with the product activation procedures. Product activation procedures and Microsoft's privacy statements will be described during the launch of the product. For installation and use on one computer (see License Agreement for license terms). You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use this product. If you do not accept the terms of the License Agreement, you should promptly return the product for a refund." Are the people at the check out stand stupid, uninformed or misled by what they read or what they were told was accepatable if they think they have the right to install on multilpe computers? It has to be one of the preceding, because it is clearly defined on the outside of the box it is for use on one computer per license -- Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP http://michaelstevenstech.com For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader. http://michaelstevenstech.com/outloo...newreader.htm. |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Of course it was integrate instead of interrograte.
find and acquire to integrate into the OS. -- Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP http://michaelstevenstech.com For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader. http://michaelstevenstech.com/outloo...snewreader.htm |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Michael Stevens wrote:
kurttrail wrote: Michael Stevens wrote: Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote, "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 I have yet to find a clearer or more beautiful explanation of purpose of Copyright in the US! If you say so. LOL. Sounded a little tentative to me. It also seemed to be slanted toward the arts. What case was this missive quoted from? It's hard to comprehend how you think Microsoft should not have the right to charge for technology they developed in house or find and acquire to integrate into the OS. If you look at the pricing of Windows, it has not increased in price on scale with the worth of the dollar. It is still a bargain, and MS is a business that shareholders expect a return on their investment. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Michael Stevens wrote:
kurttrail wrote: Michael Stevens wrote: Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote, "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 I have yet to find a clearer or more beautiful explanation of purpose of Copyright in the US! If you say so. LOL. Sounded a little tentative to me. It also seemed to be slanted toward the arts. What case was this missive quoted from? It's hard to comprehend how you think Microsoft should not have the right to charge for technology they developed in house or find and acquire to interrogate into the OS. If you look at the pricing of Windows, it has not increased in price on scale with the worth of the dollar. It is still a bargain, and MS is a business that shareholders expect a return on their investment. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Michael Stevens wrote:
What does it exactly say on the box? Stand at the check out counter at your WalMart and ask every person if they think they own what they just bought! MS's retail software is "shrinkwrap licensed, never been legally proven to be a software license on private individuals! It says " The product uses technolological measures for copy protection-you will not be able to use the product if you do not fully comply with the product activation procedures. Product activation procedures and Microsoft's privacy statements will be described during the launch of the product. For installation and use on one computer (see License Agreement for license terms). You must accept the enclosed License Agreement before you can use this product. If you do not accept the terms of the License Agreement, you should promptly return the product for a refund." Does give a proper warning to the indivdual that MS is claiming that the product is being sold! Just hides MS's lie till the box is open, and the End User can no longer get a full refund, since the retailer won't accept an open box, and the person must send it back to MS at the End Users expense! Are the people at the check out stand stupid, uninformed or misled by what they read or what they were told was accepatable if they think they have the right to install on multilpe computers? No they been duped by the legal & marketing staffs of MS! It has to be one of the preceding, because it is clearly defined on the outside of the box it is for use on one computer per license Clearly defines nothing expect that it will be explained later! Obviously MS never clearly defines PA even during the install process! Look at all the people asking question about PA after they bought it, and installed it! People should need a lawyer to use a retail product in their homes, and this goes totally against the purpose of Copyright in the US! -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Michael Stevens wrote:
kurttrail wrote: Michael Stevens wrote: Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote, "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 I have yet to find a clearer or more beautiful explanation of purpose of Copyright in the US! If you say so. LOL. And I did say so! Sounded a little tentative to me. How? It also seemed to be slanted toward the arts. Creative Works. Don't think software is creative? Do think that people author software? What case was this missive quoted from? All you had to do was scroll up the page on the link I provided! But that wouldn't be the only case it's been quoted in. It's hard to comprehend how you think Microsoft should not have the right to charge for technology they developed in house or find and acquire to interrogate into the OS. One copy per individual, not per some machine with no rights that doesn't even enter into the calculus of what copyright is meant for! If you look at the pricing of Windows, it has not increased in price on scale with the worth of the dollar. It is still a bargain, and MS is a business that shareholders expect a return on their investment. That's right MS's only motivation is greed, and MS will do anything it thinks it can get away to feed it's greed! -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Tell me, Kurt. You claim you bought XP. Can you create copes of XP
and sell them for profit? David |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
David wrote:
Tell me, Kurt. You claim you bought XP. Can you create copes of XP and sell them for profit? David No. That wouldn't wouldn't be a fair use, and I've never advocated the distribution of copyright material to others outside of the privacy of the home. And I've never bought Windows XP, nor do I use Windows XP in my home. Any future Microsoft products are dead to me! -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
kurt;
Interesting as you are currently using Microsoft products. Patches are products as well as the relatively new Outlook Express you are using. Only when convenient I guess, as with your interpretation of law and EULA...only when convenient. Knowing you would always use what is the best you can get, I find it interesting you use what you despise. I guess "Any future Microsoft products are dead to me" must mean after today since you are using Microsoft products newer than Windows XP. Very interesting! -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] An easier way to read newsgroup messages: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...oups/setup.asp http://dts-l.org/index.html "kurttrail" wrote in message ... No. That wouldn't wouldn't be a fair use, and I've never advocated the distribution of copyright material to others outside of the privacy of the home. And I've never bought Windows XP, nor do I use Windows XP in my home. Any future Microsoft products are dead to me! -- Peace! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
kurt; Interesting as you are currently using Microsoft products. Patches are products as well as the relatively new Outlook Express you are using. Patches are to fix problems in already existing but flawed products! Only when convenient I guess, as with your interpretation of law and EULA...only when convenient. How convenient that MS won't be getting my hard earned money for their PA-disabled products! LOL! Knowing you would always use what is the best you can get, I find it interesting you use what you despise. Win2K is MS's most stable OS! I paid for it, and I'll use it, as I see fit in my home, and their ain't a damn thing you or MS can do about it! Hell, I even used FrontPage to create my Microscum parody sub-domain just to spite MS! I used their product to cum over their name! What is see as hypocritical, I'm doing for spite! I guess "Any future Microsoft products are dead to me" must mean after today since you are using Microsoft products newer than Windows XP. Very interesting! Not as interesting as you obsessing over me! You really do love me! I should warn you that I'm a Top, but that should be a problem for you, seeing how far you've bent over for MS! ;-) -- Kisses! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
If I had a customer like you, I would be glad to point you to any of
my competition. "hypocritical" Your word not mine, now we know how you really feel about yourself! Your website? Waste of bandwidth. However it is your money and there is free speech. So go back and look at it and then check the hit counter. Then you are sure it has incremented by at least one. What I think about you is not relevant. However your unethical twisting of the law and EULA should be detested by all that respect any kind of law and order. Your precise thinking, attitude and actions was a partial cause for this WPA that most everyone hates. So to elaborate, without people like you, there may not be WPA. Proud of yourself aren't you! Your threat noted. -- Jupiter Jones [MVP] An easier way to read newsgroup messages: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/p...oups/setup.asp http://dts-l.org/index.html "kurttrail" wrote in message ... Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote: kurt; Interesting as you are currently using Microsoft products. Patches are products as well as the relatively new Outlook Express you are using. Patches are to fix problems in already existing but flawed products! Only when convenient I guess, as with your interpretation of law and EULA...only when convenient. How convenient that MS won't be getting my hard earned money for their PA-disabled products! LOL! Knowing you would always use what is the best you can get, I find it interesting you use what you despise. Win2K is MS's most stable OS! I paid for it, and I'll use it, as I see fit in my home, and their ain't a damn thing you or MS can do about it! Hell, I even used FrontPage to create my Microscum parody sub-domain just to spite MS! I used their product to cum over their name! What is see as hypocritical, I'm doing for spite! I guess "Any future Microsoft products are dead to me" must mean after today since you are using Microsoft products newer than Windows XP. Very interesting! Not as interesting as you obsessing over me! You really do love me! I should warn you that I'm a Top, but that should be a problem for you, seeing how far you've bent over for MS! ;-) -- Kisses! Kurt |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
using windows on two computers
Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote:
If I had a customer like you, I would be glad to point you to any of my competition. "hypocritical" Your word not mine, now we know how you really feel about yourself! I was summing up what you saying, Lover. Email me, and we'll get together, I let you experience how I feel . . . . inside of you! ;-) Your website? Waste of bandwidth. However it is your money and there is free speech. So go back and look at it and then check the hit counter. Then you are sure it has incremented by at least one. What hit counter? You must be seeing things, silly boy! Pre-occupied day-dreaming of me! How sweet! What I think about you is not relevant. Finally, a bit of truth! However your unethical twisting of the law and EULA should be detested by all that respect any kind of law and order. Since you have yet to demonstrate how my interpretation is unethical twisting, why should anyone, who believes in the rule of law, do anything *you* suggest? Your precise thinking, attitude and actions was a partial cause for this WPA that most everyone hates. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart wrote, "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 So to elaborate, without people like you, there may not be WPA. Proud of yourself aren't you! Not proud. More like enlightened, secure in my beliefs, and at peace with the universe. Your threat noted. A warning, Sweetie! And you really got nothing to worry about, darling, as loose as you are, you'll hardly feel little Kurt! -- Kisses! Kurt Self-anointed Moderator microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea http://microscum.kurttrail.com "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron! "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|