Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition

"arachnid" wrote in message
newsan.2006.11.12.22.19.48.692502@goawayspammers .com...
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:33:54 -0800, Gregg Hill wrote:

Each time you advocate that "fair use" laws allow you to go against the
EULA and then install ONE license on multiple computers, you are
advocating stealing.

So you keep saying, but then when someone refutes your arguments you
run away without even trying to defend yourself. These are not the
actions of someone who believes what they say.


That is correct. They are the actions of someone who left the house to go
get lunch.

Gregg



--
"The public's "right" to "fair use" should not outweigh the manufacturer's
right to get paid." -- Gregg Hill

Gregg Hill wrote:
I agree with you. But what is a "total wiping out" of one side?

I pay gobs of money for gasoline, but I know it is only fair that I pay for
each tank. I do not expect the oil companies to give me two tanks of gas for
every one that I buy, in spite of the fact that they are rolling in the
dough as much as Bill is. The point is not how much money they make, it is
that **I choose to use** their product because I don't want to ride my
bicycle everywhere I go. It is a necessary "evil" in my life. If one chooses
to use Bill's product, one should pay for each use, or find an alternative.

Currently, there is no meeting point in the middle. Remember how this thread
got started? Someone posted leaked volume license keys, which would allow
anyone to install an unlimited number of XP products without a penny of
compensation to Microsoft.

Several people have complained about the DRM and other restrictions in XP
and above. Why are those restrictions in existence? Because unethical people
pirated millions of copies of previous versions, cutting into the company's
profits. Regardless of how you feel about how much Microsoft makes, it is
still wrong to do what so many people did.

We have the pirates to thank for the restrictions in place today. They
brought the restrictions upon all of us, much the way a drill sergeant
punishes the whole platoon for one soldier's mistake.

If the world were filled with ethical people, Microsoft would never have had
any need to add the restrictions.

Gregg Hill

Basically I agree with you. The only thing that I try to point out is
that you must have a level playing field. When you have the rule of law
both sides must abide by it. Not just the side with no power or money.
And the history (precedent) of law dictates to both parties where that
middle ground may lie. You must have these discussions without calling
names or being accusatory.

Alias wrote:
Gregg Hill wrote:

If the world were filled with ethical people, Microsoft would never
have had any need to add the restrictions.

Gregg Hill

THAT is funny!

Alias

Which is true, but at the same time the corporations are these same
unethical people.

Gregg Hill wrote:
If someone takes a TV and never gets caught, was it still theft?

Gregg Hill



Yes but it is the courts that do the sentencing. Also you don't accuse
everyone of being the thief just because they walked into your store.

Gregg Hill wrote:
Because they created the software that you are CHOOSING to use in your home.
They are not telling you **how** you can use the software, i.e., the purpose
for which you bought it (gaming, work, etc). They are telling you *how many
times* that you have bought a license to install it.


But at the same time the court has stated that EULA's that you cannot
review before you purchase it cannot overide users rights(not the right
word but I had a brainfart). This is not the a right to distribute it.

Gregg Hill wrote:
"Alias" wrote in message
...
Gregg Hill wrote:
Because they created the software that you are CHOOSING to use in your
home. They are not telling you **how** you can use the software, i.e.,
the purpose for which you bought it (gaming, work, etc). They are telling
you *how many times* that you have bought a license to install it.
Everyone knows that, Gregg. We know all about the slight of hand that MS
uses to milk their customers for all they're worth. You don't get
obscenely rich by being a honest nice guy.


There is no sleight of hand. You (meaning a user of XP) can fully understand
the EULA but may or may not choose to ignore it, regardless of local law. My
problem is with those who choose to buy one and install many, or in the case
of what started this thread, not even buying one, but using leaked volume
license keys.

Whether Bill has 100 billion in the bank or three dollars, it does not
change the fact that each product should be paid for before one uses it. Buy
one, install one, plain and simple. Can't afford it, use Linux.


Like Nina, I too have one XP license per computer in two different
languages. This doesn't mean I like they idea. It only means that, like
you, we don't steal.



So you and Nina do not personally steal, but you have been saying all along
that there is nothing wrong with buying one and installing many.




Alias


"Nina DiBoy" wrote in message
...
Gregg Hill wrote:
I am not aware of the lawsuit between the two.

However, even if MS is 100% guilty of it, the people who do it to MS
are still stealing, which is what this whole thread is about.

Gregg

Why should a company that is guilty of anti-trust violations and IP
theft tell me what I am and am not allowed to do in the privacy of my
own home?



"caver1" wrote in message
news Once again, yes, you DO advocate taking something that does not
belong to you, by advocating that it is OK to install licenses
which you do not "have." What you "have" is a single license to use
the software on ONE computer. ANY use beyond that is taking
"something that belongs to someone else."

Gregg
So MS in arguing against AT&T says they should only be sued for the
one copy they made not all they copies made from the copy. Beside the
point that the coping was their intention. They also argue that the
patent/copywrite cannot have been broken because they are US and this
was done outside the US. Which point they lost in US courts on that
point in a past and fairly recent case. So lets call the kettle black.



A better anology here is the history of users rights and music. I buy a
cd. I want to use it through my cd player/stereo. I also put it on my
computer and my mp3 player but I am not giving it to anyone else. The
recording industry doesn't want me to have this capability. That is what
Fair use is(I finally thought of the right term) It is only because of
greed that they don't want you doing this. Yes there are pirates of
music but not me. No I don't share mine over the internet.
Also please don't take this so personally. I do not think ill of you
because of your stance.

Gregg Hill wrote:
"arachnid" wrote in message
newsan.2006.11.12.22.19.48.692502@goawayspammers .com...
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:33:54 -0800, Gregg Hill wrote:

Each time you advocate that "fair use" laws allow you to go against the
EULA and then install ONE license on multiple computers, you are
advocating stealing.
So you keep saying, but then when someone refutes your arguments you
run away without even trying to defend yourself. These are not the
actions of someone who believes what they say.


That is correct. They are the actions of someone who left the house to go
get lunch.

Gregg

I hope it was a good and relaxing lunch.

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 01:32:52 +0000, caver1 wrote:

Gregg Hill wrote:
"arachnid" wrote in message
newsan.2006.11.12.22.19.48.692502@goawayspammers .com...
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 13:33:54 -0800, Gregg Hill wrote:

Each time you advocate that "fair use" laws allow you to go against
the EULA and then install ONE license on multiple computers, you are
advocating stealing.
So you keep saying, but then when someone refutes your arguments you
run away without even trying to defend yourself. These are not the
actions of someone who believes what they say.


That is correct. They are the actions of someone who left the house to
go get lunch.

Gregg

I hope it was a good and relaxing lunch.

"Lunch" must have been a bottle of booze, 'cuz Gregg totally forgot
about all the ongoing threads, especially the ones where he was getting
his tail kicked.



--
"The public's "right" to "fair use" should not outweigh the manufacturer's
right to get paid." -- Gregg Hill

On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 01:35:13 +0000, Leythos wrote:

In article ,
says...
A better anology here is the history of users rights and music. I buy a
cd. I want to use it through my cd player/stereo. I also put it on my
computer and my mp3 player but I am not giving it to anyone else. The
recording industry doesn't want me to have this capability. That is what
Fair use is(I finally thought of the right term) It is only because of
greed that they don't want you doing this. Yes there are pirates of
music but not me. No I don't share mine over the internet. Also please
don't take this so personally. I do not think ill of you because of your
stance.

Actually, if you read the fair-use legal mumbo-jumbo, you can not copy the
media contents for anything other than a backup, and you may not use the
backup while the source is viable - what it means is you can not copy the
music to your computer to play it, but you may put the CD into your
computer and play it directly from the CD.

In Europe the right to make extra copies for one's own use is usually
lumped under under "Fair Use". In the USA, Fair Use is about
the rules governing usage of quotes from copyrighted works, and the rights
of libraries to loan out copyrighted works. Making extra copies of
purchased media for personal use is covered under the Audio Home Recording
Act:

: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act
:
: The act failed to define "noncommercial use by a consumer" however "In
: short, the reported legislation [Section 1008] would clearly establish
: that consumers cannot be sued for making analog or digital audio copies
: for private noncommercial use." (House Report No. 102-780(I), August 4,
: 1992)
:
: SNIP
:

A later update, the NET ("No Electronic Theft") act, was pushed through by
the RIAA:

: The [NET] act also makes it criminal to;
:
: * Make 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value
: of more than $1,000
:
: * In any 180-day period, at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or
: more copyrighted works, with a which have a total retail value of
: more than $2,500

Then along came the DMCA, which took away any right to copy if the media
is copy protected. Otherwise the above limits still apply.

(To read the above webpage is to appreciate the extent to which Big
Business has taken over the US government)

Gregg Hill wrote:
I agree with you. But what is a "total wiping out" of one side?

I pay gobs of money for gasoline, but I know it is only fair that I pay for
each tank. I do not expect the oil companies to give me two tanks of gas for
every one that I buy, in spite of the fact that they are rolling in the
dough as much as Bill is. The point is not how much money they make, it is
that **I choose to use** their product because I don't want to ride my
bicycle everywhere I go. It is a necessary "evil" in my life. If one chooses
to use Bill's product, one should pay for each use, or find an alternative.

Currently, there is no meeting point in the middle. Remember how this thread
got started? Someone posted leaked volume license keys, which would allow
anyone to install an unlimited number of XP products without a penny of
compensation to Microsoft.

Several people have complained about the DRM and other restrictions in XP
and above. Why are those restrictions in existence? Because unethical people
pirated millions of copies of previous versions, cutting into the company's
profits. Regardless of how you feel about how much Microsoft makes, it is
still wrong to do what so many people did.

MS allowed that to happen, they wanted it to happen so they could build
their virtual monopoly. That was just another one of their "genius"
marketing plans.


We have the pirates to thank for the restrictions in place today. They
brought the restrictions upon all of us, much the way a drill sergeant
punishes the whole platoon for one soldier's mistake.

No, we have MS to thank. The pirates did not write the code for the
products with DRM in it. MS did that.


If the world were filled with ethical people, Microsoft would never have had
any need to add the restrictions.

Gregg Hill

If the world was filled with "ethical" people as you put it, then MS
would not be nearly as big now as they are. Mac didn't have people
copying their software on this scale, IBM did not have people doing this
with OSWarp on this scale either.






"caver1" wrote in message
.. .

Nina DiBoy wrote:
arachnid wrote:
Thanks for the new sig!



--
The public's "right" to "fair use" should not outweigh the
manufacturer's right to get paid. -- Gregg Hill


LOL!
But to have a fair system there has to be balanced. So the above sig is
true but at the same time the manufacturer's right to be paid should not
outweigh the public's right to fair use. So being that both are true there
has to be a meeting point in the middle not a total wiping out of one
side.

Gregg Hill wrote:
Nina,

My problem with you started where you said, "What is wrong with installing
*licensed* software on more than one machine?" in your first post.

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by that. I took it to mean, in light of
the entire thread, that you meant, "What is wrong with installing ONE
*licensed* software product on more than one machine?" which is what this
thread is all about.

It seems our views differ quite a bit here, IOW we may not even be on
the same page. When I said that, I was responding to a post from
Leythos. I was repeating something he said in an earlier post because
what he said made no sense.

I have not ever directly advocated in this thread for installing one
licensed piece of software on multiple machines, because that was not my
original point.

That being said, I don't think that it is the wrong thing to do in all
circumstances.


If that is not what you meant, then you have my sincere apologies for my
mistaken assumption.

Gregg Hill

Well, I appreciate that, but you also called me a liar, and I did no
such thing. While I not only enjoy, but also learn things with
constructive discussion on topics such as the MS EULA, I never want it
to degenerate into a shouting match or name calling, etc.

Alias wrote:
Gregg Hill wrote:

If the world were filled with ethical people, Microsoft would never
have had any need to add the restrictions.

Gregg Hill

THAT is funny!

Alias

LOL! I thought so too.

Gregg Hill wrote:
If someone takes a TV and never gets caught, was it still theft?

Gregg Hill


Sure it was. Stealing a TV is against the law. Fair use however, is
NOT against the law.



"caver1" wrote in message
.. .

Gregg Hill wrote:
The public's "right" to "fair use" should not outweigh the manufacturer's
right to get paid.

The public has the CHOICE not to use the software. Microsoft is not
forcing anyone to use their software. An ethical person would abide by
the EULA or use some free software that has no EULA.

An unethical person keeps making excuses to steal.

Gregg






Someone is caught stealing tv's the company that they stole them from can
have them arrested and tried in court. If found guilty then they can be
fined, put in jail or both. But the company cannot accuse everyone who
comes in their store of being a thief or enforcing the law against those
who are. Only public law enforcement and the courts can do that.

Gregg Hill wrote:
snip

But that in no way justifies doing back to them. Two wrongs do not make a
right.


So consumers should just let MS keep bending them over the table and
take it, right?


"Stealing money is against the law." Duh, but what you fail to
comprehaend is that the effect on the manufacturer of someone buying one
license and installing it ten times
Who says I've done that?


I said "someone" does that. I did not say that YOU do that.


Below in this post, where you apologized, you said you thought I did it.

snip
Noone is going to look out for me except me. Having the care to stand up
for my fair use rights is not unethical.


Why is it "fair" for you or anyone else not to pay for each installation of
a product used, if you do in fact do use one license on more than one
computer?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
"United States v. Microsoft 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000) was a court
case filed against Microsoft Corporation on May 18, 1998 by the United
States Department of Justice (DOJ) and twenty U.S. states. Joel I. Klein
was the lead prosecutor. The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused
monopoly power in its handling of operating system sales and web browser
sales."

Here is the pertinent part:
"The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power in its
handling of operating system sales"

Microsoft took away consumer choice by mishandling the "handling of OS
sales" by forcing OEMs to sell only Windows on their machines. IF this
had not happened, other OSes would be out there and available as an
equal consumer choice because they would do everything that windows
does. They would have full driver support, they would have a ton of
games that run on them etc.

IF MS thinks they can do all of this and still bend consumers over the
table with the overinflated pricing and buggy DRM, they are sorely mistaken.

That is what I call fair use.


snip
Theft is theft. If you use something without the right to do so and
against the agreement which you acknowledged, it is an accurate
comparison.
I "acknowledged" the EULA, but did not agree to it. I wish MS would
acknowledge fair use rights and not infringe on them.

And Microsoft wishes pirates would acknowledge that MS has the right to
be compensated for each license in use.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.


I laughed out loud, thank you!


Glad you had a chuckle. You are laughing at the process of a big.
greedy, convicted corporation consistently stripping away the civil
rights of consumers all over the world, yourself included.


snip
The point was not to compare murder to what you claim to be "fair use"
rights. The point was that there does not have to be a law against
something to make it unethical, immoral, or stealing.

But it's still not a realistic comparison.

It was not a comparison. It was an example to show you that something can
still be unethical and wrong without a law stating it is so.

This is not a discussion on ethics. This is a discussion on the EULA


Oh, but it absolutely IS a discussion of ethics. You yourself claimed that
the EULA is unconscionable. All the anti-MS folks have said there is nothing
wrong with installing one license on multiple computers. Paying for one
product license and usin git multiple times is a matter of ethics, or more
correctly, a lack thereof.

So then you admit that the EULA is unconscionable.



snip

Nope. You AGREED to the EULA. HONOR IT or sotop using the product. Stop
being a liar.

If one agrees to something, then reneges on that agreement, in my book,
that makes one a liar.


So how does that make me a liar?


If you do it, it does, if you don't it does not. I thought you did. Sorry.

Gregg Hill wrote:
Because they created the software that you are CHOOSING to use in your home.
They are not telling you **how** you can use the software, i.e., the purpose
for which you bought it (gaming, work, etc). They are telling you *how many
times* that you have bought a license to install it.


See the reply about the antitrust suit I gave in an earlier post.